Trevor Sargent - end of the government? maybe not.....

So here we are in full flow on politics.ie......

http://www.politics.ie/green-party/124396-trevor-sargent-hot-water-over-headed-notepaper-letter-garda.html

Mixed feelings here. As a previous lifelong Green supporter I've never forgiven him for going into government with FF even if he did the 'honourable' thing in resigning as leader. You see, most of the Green candates were elected on transfers from FG, Labour, SF and independent voters, if we'd seriously thought for a minute that the Greens would support the mercenaries of corruption, none of them would have been elected.

I can't help but feel however, that Sargent's attempt to influence the prosecution of the individual involved was well intentioned, out of what he and I would perceive as being a social injustice. He can't argue that he had no choice but to resign, but I actually sympathise with his position and I'm sorry that it has come to this.

How has it come to this?

The toxic horror that is the FF party is making a mockery of the Greens and everything they have previously stood for. Any Green who honestly thinks that the leaking of the letters to The Herald (of all papers - laughable) is a pure coincidence only needs to read the history books on previous FF coalitions.

This isn't funny, it's not sad, it's not a moral history lesson, it's not a parable for our children........it's a cruel, sick parody of a party that used to have a meaning and a purpose.

Of course, the main interest in this is who leaked the letters to the Evening Herald. As usual, the knee-jerk reaction was that it sounded exactly like a FF stunt.

The individual involved in the leak knows that their career, whatever their profession, is finished if their identity becomes known. Why therefore, take such a risk, particularly as the you can be certain that senior Gardaí, stung by O'Dea's accusation, will very much want to get to the bottom of this and proceed with a prosecution if applicable.

Said individual will know that as long as his identity remains intact, the suspicion of any rational person will assume that they are connected with FF.

Releasing the letters to the Evening Herald is bizarre. This would indicate that the paper was chosen because the indvidual has an acquaintance in the paper or has had some previous dealings with individual(s) in that rag.

Conclusion therefore: individual involved, angered by what had happened to O'Dea and having access to the letters - possibly from some months ago - uses the easiest and most direct option to release them.

I believe that the individual will be connected loosely to FF, I believe their identity will be known within the week, and happily, I believe the government will fall as a consequence.

O'Dea was grotesque in his actions
It's unbelievable that Sargent was be so foolish as to write those letters
The connection with the leaker will be bizarre
And the fall out for both parties will be unprecedented

Until one of the posters, lostexpectation, came up with a very plausible explanation:

could the journalist not have gotten the letter from the guy trevor tried to help, he obviously felt hard done by and had been trying to raise the matter anywhere he could, think, "contentiousness neighbour prosecuted after suffering assault!!", "you can't reprimand kids because you're afraid of the parents" but then the journalist saw another story and waiting till the case was over last week and went with the sargeant angle 

Now this makes sense, it's also possible that someone with access to the letters (or copies of them) related to the constituent might have passed them on to the Gardaí. And the reasoning behind accepting this explanation goes as follows:

1. It ties in with the time line of the case
2. It explains why it was released to the Evening Herald
3. It gets around the issue as to why someone in FF would leak the letters cognisant of the allegations that would arise
4. It explains why Cowen would appear confident enough to deny the allegations

So at the moment, while I want it to be FF behind the leak or more likely someone loosely connected to FF, I'm afraid the probability is somewhat more mundane.

On George Lee resigning...

I'm sorry, but if you are elected to represent your constituency as best you can and you feel like you are not making the difference in your party, then the onus is either to change that, or leave the party. Lee here shows a knee-jerk reaction that is self-serving at its worst. If he really wanted to make a difference he could have resigned from FG and represented his constituency as an independent, thus having the same impact on FG as his current resignation, but with the benefits of maintaining his reputation and seat.

Next, this represents all you need to know about the current leadership in FG. Lee would have made a difference to the party is he had been given a prominent role, even if that role was token, as long as it kept him in the media spotlight. This is where his skills are, and the onus was on Kenny to provide him with this role and no one else.

Worst, this is a major boost to FF and the Greens, and will build on to their existing recovery in the opinion polls.

All-in-all, shame on Lee and Kenny for failing to do the maths and keep the pressure on the government, but above all, failing to represent the people that vote for them.

I'll remember this in the by-election.

Frank Fahy is Lost at Sea

What's it all about? Well, in the year 2000, Frank Fahy, TD, landlord and property magnet, brought about a very short term compensation vehicle known as 'The Lost at Sea Scheme'. It functioned from June 2001 to 31st December 2001. The purpose of the scheme was to offer compensation in respect to any vessels lost at sea from 1980 to 1990 before the fishing boat registry came into being.

Specifically, this compensation was to be given to fishing families unable, for financial or related reasons, to continue with their tradition.

Seems reasonable? Hmm. There were 67 applicants for compensation, and only 6 were deemed to qualify for compensation. 2 of these happened to be constituents of Mr Fahy. It then transpires that of the €2.8m compensation paid, 75% of this money went to these same two constituents. Not only that, but Mr Fahy consulted with these two individuals 4 months before the launch of the scheme, and, wrote a letter two months before the scheme ended congratulating these same two constituents about the success of their application.

All of which was unlikely to have gone noticed except that 6 parties then complained to the Ombudsman regarding their lack of success in receiving compensation. 5 of these the Ombudsman did not uphold, but in the case of the sixth, the Byrne family, who lost a father, a brother and two other crew with the loss of the Skifjord in 1981, she agreed that €250,000 worth of compensation because the scheme was fatally flawed.

The design of the scheme and the manner in which it was advertised were contrary to fair and sound administration and that these shortcomings were factors in the Byrne family not qualifying for assistance under the scheme.


Weaknesses in the design process included a lack of adequate research of files held within the department regarding vessels lost at sea during the relevant period, lack of documented analysis of the pros and cons of the Scheme’s qualifying criteria and a failure to include provision for the exercise of discretion in the vetting of applications

(Advertising of the scheme) should have been more thorough, comprehensive and targeted ...some prospective applicants were put in a more advantageous position than others as they were written to directly by the department and the minister to inform then about the Scheme when it was launched.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1214/breaking49.htm

An interesting transcript of Dáil questions here:

http://www.kildarestreet.com/debate/?id=2009-10-15.343.10



Has Tom Sheahan (FG, Kerry South) saying:

It was the way it was worked. Four months before the scheme was launched the then Minister met with the two applicants and told them to apply. The closing date for the scheme was December 2001 yet the Minister wrote to the two applicants in October 2001 and congratulated them. Thereafter, the Attorney General’s advice was that they had to receive this settlement because of the Minister’s letter. This was a con job and a set-up. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, while he is present, if he still believes this con job is worthy of a complaint to the Standards in Public Office Commission.

As the Ombudsman has been unable to reach agreement with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, she has decided to refer to the Oireachtas, for only the second time since the office was founded in the 1980's.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0204/1224263735064.html

It can be argued that the Ombudsman's findings are incorrect as the Byrne's processed their claim outside of the terms of conditions of the scheme, but what can't be refuted, is that the scheme itself was fundamentally flawed and designed in part to favour and benefit the then minister's constituents.

John Gormley and the Poolbeg Incinerator

It was interesting listening to Gormley's interview on RTE just recently. Sean O'Rourke noted that Gormley has a 'no incinerator here' sticker on his home window. 'How can you be so sure' says Gormley. 'Well, do you have one or not?' 'Yes, but interesting to know that' says Gormley obviously horrified that some media people are looking to see what's he stuck on his windows.....

Anyway, Gormley says he is not politically motivated in trying to scrap or reduce the size of the incinerator, which is totally untrue. Actually, and John, you can go after me for this, you're lying. This is completely politically motivated and anybody who thinks otherwise is using complete SPiN.

The really, really funny thing was Gormley complaining that DCC had pushed through the deal  before the election, so they could say they were following government policy. That's terrible. That's almost as bad as Dick Roche signing off the papers for the N3 bypass before Gormley could take his ministerial seat.

Also, Gormley was on about the fact that he wants to concentrate on MBT plants (Mechanical Biological Treatment) to handle certain waste materials, and indeed opened one only recently in Navan. Who operates this plant? Why Panda do. Is there a connection? No, other than the fact that Panda are one of the companies that raised the recent successful objection to try and halt the site or reduce its capacity.

This is big business talking here, We've got a battle against the existing waste management companies and a new bully on the block in the shape of Covanta. Then we have the political fallout between DCC and John Gormley. And now we have other government agencies involved like the National Development Finance Agency that agreed that the project was good value for money in 2007 and now the ESRI have made Gormley look like a complete mug.

This all stinks, and I mean that in every phrase of the word.