Daniel Sullivan - he’s a little political

Are political donations attempts to curry favour or merely to avoid persecution?

// July 22nd, 2010 // 4 Comments » // Uncategorized

The commonly held belief is that donations by corporation or any sort of company (sole trader or partnership) are all about currying favour with the powers that be so that they can get the inside track on some decision that might affect them specifically or their business generally or help them in the awarding of some contract paid for by the public purse. In other words it is about getting one up on your competitors.

Yet what if the main reason is more of a preventative nature than that of a cure. What if companies give money to parties either in or likely to be in government in order to avoid being singled out for exclusion or persecution by the powers that be? What it is less about a culture of avarice and more a culture of fear. Might it be more about damage avoidance than it is about actual gain? Have we not had governments in the past populated by people that might be vindictive enough to target some companies or individuals for not donating to them or their party, of failing to tow the line? And that the lesson learned was one taking preventable action to ensure that they did not fall foul of the whims of minister X.

So it is just possible that such donations are less about securing a leg up and more about not being left behind if everyone else is doing it.

Does Ivor Callely own any property at all?

// July 14th, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

Yesterday Sen Callely said in respect of the property in West Cork that he was claiming allowances and mileage from that “I have a right to reside in west Cork but it’s not in my ownership.” This was in response to questioning from Sen. Joe O’Toole who asked if he owned the property in west Cork. So he has the right to live there but he does not own it. Ivor Callely has also repeatedly alluded to personal family conditions that make his being totally transparent about his living situation more difficult.

So it is beginning to look like Ivor, at some point in the recent past, might have been too clever by half and that all “his” property is not in his name at all but rather it is in his wife’s or other family members names and that this might be the cause of some difficulty for him in establishing what is and is not his principal residence. Cos he might well own nothing and have no rental agreement with anyone and thus not be able to prove that he in fact lives or has a principal residence anywhere. Just why, you might ask, would someone transfer ownership of their assets to others? Well, one situation in which it would make sense was if you were a public representative and wanted to avoid declaring these interests in the declaration of members interests. Did Ivor Callely do this? I don’t know and I’m not going to say he did this.

It is also worth noting that “Mr Callely told the committee the house in west Cork had been for sale since “04/05-ish”. He said he had never denied it was for sale and insisted he would not benefit, in terms of capital gains tax liability, if it was sold.” So he won’t benefit from it at all, again seeming to mean he does not own it or have a financial interest in it. But this begs the questions did he ever own it and if he did when and why did he transfer the ownership.

Now let’s review someone else whose family situation meant they couldn’t be 100% clear with the public about their finances, former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. Bertie had a legal separation agreement with his wife and the terms and details of this could not be made public. This meant we, the taxpayers and as voters his employers,  couldn’t find out exactly what he owned and when he got it or what he transferred to her and his children once the separation was agreed. All very inconvenient the Taoiseach told us as it might he couldn’t be completely transparent with us the voters though he really really wanted to be.

One other thing which is probably entirely unrelated, as we were assured that the former Taoiseach was a God fearing man and didn’t hold with this sort of thing, is the provisions of divorce law in Ireland. These say you might, in order to file for divorce, need to show that you had been legally separated from your spouse for or living apart for a number of years before a divorce might be granted. I’m not sure if this legal agreement needs to actually be publicly available or acknowledged once it is drawn up all proper and legal like and is agreeable to both parties. So such an agreement might exist and we the public would be none the wiser.

One can imagine the situation and in truth rather untenable legal position that a person might hypothetically find themselves in if say they had transferred all their property to their spouse for some reason or other and were years later to find themselves because of changed personal circumstances agreeing a separation agreement with their spouse. After all, once their spouse’s name was on the property they couldn’t legally argue that it was meant to be still their property really. It’s like something out of a badly plotted rom-com.

But back to Ivor, and away from these hypothetical and entirely unconnected people, he continues to defend himself before the Seanad committee who are it seems are bullying him, just like some other people were bullying Sen. Mullen last week. To add insult to injury it turns out the state is fronting Ivor €50 to turn up to an investigation into his circumstances. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

I’ll be on Newstalk’s Saturday Edition in the morning

// June 18th, 2010 // 1 Comment » // Uncategorized

I will be taking part in a discussion re: the week’s events in Fine Gael tomorrow morning between 8.30am and 9.30am. I’m not a main player as it were, merely a phone contributor.  Senator Alex White, Senator Frances Fitzgerald and Padraig Duffy former press for Bertie are the main attraction but I’m aiming to be one of those memorable character actors who runs off with the show. I mean I presume it’s solely going to be about matters Fine Gael cos if we stray into talking about the Lakers win over the Celtics I’m in trouble.

The dangers of implicit coalitions

// April 30th, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

In all the talk about minority administrations and hung parliaments in the UK general election it would appear people are missing or glossing over the reality that all political parties are coalitions of sorts. In a tight voting set up, those smaller elements within parties can suddenly find themselves elevated to a position of influence they never had before. Such a position can lead to the indulgence of the temptation to overreach their influence and have the result of collapsing the government.

In 1992 John Major won the UK general election and was returned with a majority of 20 odd. It ended up being one of the more fractious governments in modern times with the PM held to ransom by his ‘bastards’ in cabinet and dogged at ever turn by a rump opposed to further integration with the EU. He even ended up being stifled in his ability to make progress on northern Ireland because of his dependency on unionist votes.

Does anyone think that David Cameron and his Conservative party would be immune from those some pressures, perhaps not on the EU but on some other issues? People for whom topic X is more important that the government or the management of the economy. The upside of explicit coalitions as we’ve seen in Ireland is that it suppresses the internal fracture lines within parties by diverting all media attention to the gap between the parties themselves.

So a small majority government would be even more precarious poised for collapse than a coalition with an explicit agreed program for government. Who knows what prices behind the doors that a rump of homophobic or xenophobic MPs might exact from David Cameron as PM?

Might the Queen call on Nick Clegg to be PM?

// April 28th, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

There is a presumption that the leader of the largest party should be PM but there is nothing requiring it. True the outgoing PM gets first dibs on forming a government and the outgoing government stays in place until another one is formed. If the outgoing PM can’t form one then the leader of the opposition has the next go, however if they can’t then it is possible especially if the LibDems had won the largest number of votes (which I doubt at the moment will be the case) that the Queen might ask Nick Clegg to try and form a government. Labour might be very tempted into agreeing to this, and if they were willing to jump in that direction then so too might the Tories. Fact is that the Conservatives served under a Labour PM in the 30s, of course that was the Great Depression.

To get Nick Clegg as PM does not require the LibDems be the largest party, it merely requires that he could assemble a majority in parliament. It could even be an agreed short term government of 2 years with a platform of reform of the electoral system while cutting public spending, rising some taxes while reducing others that might get the UK economy moving again.

William Hague as PM

// April 28th, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

Based on the noises from Clegg over last weekend, it sounds like he might not wish his party to serve with either Cameron or Brown as PM. So borrowing from the northern Ireland model where party leaders don’t necessarily go for the top gig, could we see Cable as Chancellor with Hague as PM?

Why would Clegg want Hague as PM? Clegg might prefer Hague because he would be electorally less popular than Cameron. Having him as PM would reduce the inclination of the Tories to cut and run too quickly from a Con-Lib agreement before the various pieces of electoral reform and items precious to the Lib-Dems have been legislated for. Cameron, under these circumstances, might well stay as party leader under what might be a time defined administration for say 2/3 years. Having Hague as PM minimises the chances of the Tories cutting and running for an overall majority before the key elements of the Lib-Dem program are passed. This merely adds to the reasons for his neither ‘Cameron nor Brown’ remarks to Marr last Sunday.

Where did the money go? The hidden secret of NAMA

// March 31st, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

With all the talk of toxic loans and excessive prices being paid in land and property deals up and down the country it appears to be forgotten for the most part that someone, somewhere at the end of the chain got paid those vast sums. And no one appears to want to ask about them. The road from bad decisions at Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide to approve loans on dubious grounds to friends and follow traveller on the road to eternal wealth, paved by magicking up money from nowhere ends with those who made vast profits selling assets. They were the last ones to get paid and hence see the money in real life. Yet we’re not going to talk about that, cos that moves the discussion away from the losers (who we’re expected to bailout) to the winners who appear to have gone to ground.

Take the Irish Glass bottle site, as covered on Finfacts, theyt noted that “the DDDA an Irish State agency was among the purchasers while the owner was the Dublin Port Company, a private limited company owned by the State.” So the Dublin Port Company and a company called South Wharf ended up splitting a price of €412 million, what did they do with it? Where did it go? And there are any number of similar cases across the country. How come it’s not in circulation for re-investment, is it buried under the tallest mattresses in Christendom somewhere?

We are all aware of illustrative examples where land (like that parcel in Athlone) that might now be valued at rock bottom prices of say 600K for which a price of €30 plus million was needed to purchase will end up going into NAMA but what about the person who pocketed the €30 million? What did they do with it? Loans weren’t simply given out and then the cash created burnt (unless the KLF at back in action), the fact is that most of the money so loaned was spent within Ireland buying property here and much of that cash should still be in the hands of Irish citizens. Indeed a good portion of it is probably lying about in the bank accounts of the same banks we are bailing out or invested elsewhere. Some might have been used to buy shares in the banks, if so the money moved on to those who sold the shares.

Windfall and more particularly wealth taxes have an awful reputation and rightly so but at a time when the citizens are on the hook for perhaps an additional €70 billion in national debt it is worth considering whether or not we can claw back at least some of the money paid over. It is ironic that the capital gains tax on these excessive profits were at a rate lower than the average PAYE schmuck pays. I can understand the idea that some element of capital gains should be lower than the marginal income tax as there is a risk involved in capital investment but to apply the same rate to all levels of capital reward irrespective of the amount is nuts. A Progressive tax system should be progressive across the board not just on earned salary income. But is anyone going unmask the winners from the property boom or will a myth that we’re all losers continue to gain traction.

Congratulations to Slugger O’Toole

// March 29th, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

A well deserved win for the Slugger team, the range of debate and the quality of the contributions in the past year was of a consistently high standard and all that takes a fair effort on the part of the various posters* and those commenting too. The culture of the site has evolved to be one that is about letting everyone have their ’spake’ provided they respect the rights of others to do so to. And that’s down to the higher ups that set the tone. So a great big ‘nice one’ to everyone on-board the good ship Slugger O’Toole. The term ‘a talking shop’ is often times thrown about a term of abuse but talking is good as Mr Hoskins used to say and Jaw-jaw is better than War-War.

* I’ve contributed a few pieces for slugger over the last 12 months mostly from a southern political interest.

An less than Occasional Guide to Irish Politics: The Political Blogger

// March 26th, 2010 // 4 Comments » // Uncategorized

He (and it’s almost certainly a he) is the self styled outsider on Irish politics, more often than not left leaning though with the odd libertarian fly in the ointment. Occasionally might work in PR or could have had a proper job in industry. Has an opinion on just about everything in sight and if presented with an issue he has never encountered before (what health coverage are Aliens - the real 10ft tall slimy green kind- entitled to, at the taxpayer’s expense, while visiting Ireland as part of a fact finding mission) is prepared to make one up on the spot just to ensure that his views fill the air. Has read a few books on politics and is inclined to refer to them repeatedly, PJ O’Rourke’s Parliament of Whores is often a touchstone though largely because he likes to say Whores in a genteel company without mentioning Tiger Woods. Will link to people who once nodded to him that time he was in on the RTe or TV3 campus, though he was merely an audience member and didn’t succeed in getting to ask a question but the woman next to him did.

He has even run himself or managed the campaign of someone in the occasional election outing but was never in any danger of coming within an arse’s roar of holding public office. Might even still be a member of a political organisation but is almost certainly on the outer fringes of influence, or as he might term it ‘working away in the background’. Likes to pretend he enjoys having the access for ‘a quiet word’ with real political people of significance and can be found in pubs on the night of an Ard Fheis or public debates pointing out those parts of his leaders speech which he effectively wrote, or directly influenced or at least suggested something along similar lines to. “Look how he focused on saying we’re a team, great!” But brushes off the fact that practically the entire party had been saying much the same for years up to that point.

Takes to running offside or what he terms ahead of the pack on issues of public concern. Indeed, he will frequently make a lot of sense but for some reason the public just don’t get it. Or don’t read it or even know he exists. And somehow they manage to contentedly go about their lives!

Desperately wants someone to develop a speech plug-in to add to his blog which will read his words back to him, and perhaps others if they stumble across his writing, in his own voice. Usually sufficiently self deprecating not to take himself or his views too serious. After all, politics isn’t about anything important like how we get to live out our lives or indeed how we face death. Nothing major really.

*Done in honour of the weekend that is in it and in homage to the excellent series that Jason O’Mahony has been running for a while now, I offer one that he is probably too shy or polite to add himself and which was prompted in part by the most recent one. Any resemblance to anyone alive or indeed writing here is entirely coincidental.

Neil Kinnock’s ‘grotesque chaos’

// March 25th, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

I was reminded of this recently and then Derek Hatton turned up on This Week, last week. So I thought I’d include it here as we’ve become so wary of passion in public speaking that people are almost blown away when they see even a hint of it.