With the GE of 2011 we will finally see the end of a particular plague in Irish politics. The nature of our democratic process always lends itself to a coalition government, and the 2+1 nature of previous governments has had the added affliction of having independents and pseudo-independents all extracting their pound of flesh in order to support the status quo. But it's not as simple as that. The independent gombeen princes can only garner so much in favour and kind but retain their seats on the backbenches. Their power is limited compared to the real princes, who, because of their ability to top the local polls and bring in one or more TD's based on their surplus and preferences, have sought and maintained a ministry role within government and then used their influences at national level to bring favour to their local constituency.
And so since the early 1980's we have had a cyclical scenario in Irish politics where, thanks to the withdrawal of local taxation - which reinforced the reduction in the perceived role of councillors against TD's - we had a situation where people voted on local issues rather than national ones, nothing new I understand, but now a perception grew that by voting for independents and certain politicians, the constituents would gain in terms of employment, access to services, and improvement to those services and infrastructure. And this became self-prophesying. What was the point in voting for a national candidate when a local driven candidate could offer so much more in terms of payback? Thus we have 30 years where the local and parastatal nature of Irish politics and semi-state bodies has only increased their relevence and importance.
In order to bring this to a natural conclusion, we also have to pay attention to the other topic that has ruined our political landscape and that is the nature of legacy politics.
Roughly speaking, and paying little attention to offending sensibilities, legacy politics is literally dying on its feet. The idea of voting for a political party purely for family reasons is an anachronistic trapping from the past. By and large it benefits only two parties, FF and FG. A generalisation and perhaps a truism, is that these voters are both rural and aged. We have already seen how the rural/urban divide is striking in terms of how the respective voters vote. It's FF/FG in the rural areas and Labour/FG in the urban ones. The significance however, is that as this century continues along, populations continue to cluster towards the cities and away from these legacy strongholds. Furthermore, the forthcoming decade of stagnation will further increase the legacy flight by means of emigration to urban and foreign destination.
And so in 2011, we will have a coalition government with a comparative enormous majority over the opposition. FF, Green, SF and Independent TD's will be completely irrelevant in terms of importance in local and indeed national politics, The Irish electorate are no fools in terms of electing self-serving politicians. What is the point in electing these TD's if they are in no position to action on the promises whispered in bars, funerals and houses of their constituents? We will, after a very long time, finally have a government with a full mandate to govern on national issues only, with a sufficient majority to see things through, and a genuine opportunity to bring about genuine political reform.
It is at this point that we reach the unknown. Strategists in Labour and FG will be spending quite a lot if time cogitating on their most important task, and that is, remaining in power and a further reduction in FF's power-base. And therein lies the rub. Unless the forthcoming coalition engenders genuine political reform by doing away with the local parastatal nature of Irish politics, promoting local government to its proper place and installing a list system, we risk the possibility of returning to this awful spectre within 5 years. This cannot happen again. The unbelievable circumstances that have arisen to allow this change occur - and the price we are paying for it - must not be wasted. It is imperative that Labour and FG launch their campaigns on a joint platform of wide-reaching reform. This opportunity can only come about in the best of times and the worst of times.
Showing posts with label Gombeenism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gombeenism. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Frank Fahey sees Shell to the sea shore
Well, we started off with The Atlantic Dawn controvosy where our Frank generously provided temporary licences to this http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/archive/2006/04/mauritania_ship_from_hell.html until it could swap with its sister ship the Veronica. Next we moved on to the the Lost at Sea saga, where the bold Frank patently favoured his constituents over other deserving causes, much to the annoyance of his department and the then attorney general. This process is now causing a rift between the government parties and the Ombudsman, with good old Danny Boyle sticking his moral oar into the thick of things again.
But, we're not finished yet. This new post is going to focus on yet another example of why Mr. Fahey is not fit for any office. It is my contention that our Frank is in the middle of a rehabilitation process with Brian Cowen. Regularly sent out to bat for NAMA, Frank '40 gaffs' Fahey http://www.businessandfinance.ie/blog_post.jsp?blogID=15&a=2653 is now embroiled in a stand-off between the government parties and the Ombudsman. Why on earth are FF and the Greens preventing the Ombudsman from getting a fair hearing and closing ranks around Fahey, particularly when you consider that Sargent and Fahey have had a hate/hate relationship over the years? Let's ramp up the pressure still further and examine another classic example of how we associate the word 'stroke' with Frank Fahey.
As with all stories, it's important to start at the beginning. The Corrib Gas Field was discovered in 1996, our first commercial gas discovery since the Kinsale Field in 1973. For a resource free country like ourselves, a very important find. The licence for the exploration of the field was granted in 1993, over a period of 11 years. The licence was given to Enterprise Oil and its partners. After the Shell bought out Enterprise Oil in 2002, the breakdown of the consortium is as follows; Shell (operator) (45%), Statoil (36,5%) and Marathon (now Vermilion) (18,5%).
The timing of this is important, because in 1975, Labour minister Justin Keating gave the state a 50% stake plus royalties of 6 to 7% in any commercial find. In 1985, Ray Burke, the corrupt FF minister, abandoned the stake and the royalties. In 1992, Bertie Ahern, the then finance minister, now currently under scrutiny with the Mahon Tribunal, reduced the tax rate applicable to the oil companies by 25% under intense lobbying from the oil companies. Not only that, but the companies were allowed to deduct tax against commercial costs over the previous 25 years.
In fairness to Ahern and Burke, the fact is that we are not a resource rich country, and therefore companies need to be given as many incentives as possible. Notwithstanding that, we have to deal with the facts that the Corrib Gas Field presents us with, and that is its current worth is anywhere between €9.5b and €22b, and our tax take from the profits is the lowest in any equivalent country in the world, money that we desperately require in our current extremis.
So back to 1996, and the consortium are sitting pretty with their multi-billion Euro and practically tax-free find, but with the rather major issue on how they were going to connect their find to the Bord Gáis network on the mainland. In order to connect to the network, the gas needs to be refined first. This can either be done offshore or onshore. Offshore is certainly rather expensive, millions of Euro more expensive than refining onshore.
Lucky for the consortium that they found a willing collaborator in Frank Fahey. As minster of state for the marine and natural resources, he was heavily lobbied by Enterprise Oil executive, John McGoldrick, resulting in the following concessions.
1. He introduced orders allowing acquisition of lands for the gas pipeline.
2. He granted the foreshore license allowing the consortium to land the pipeline.
3. He oversaw the sale of 400 acres of land from Coillte to the consortium to allow the construction of the refinery.
The acquisition of lands: For the first time in the history of this state, Compulsory Acquisition Orders were being used as a direct benefit to a company or conglomerate, rather than the State itself.
The foreshore license: This was granted in 2002 just before the General Election. It enabled the pipeline to be built within 70m of the inhabitants houses.
The Coillte sell-off: Here is Coillte's perspective on land sales:
Nothing there to indicate sales to international conglomerates for massive refining projects.
All of which results in the delay of the pipeline and the introduction of Corrib Gas into the Irish network. It has also resulted in the cost to the State of millions of Euro in maintaining the Gardaí presence in Bellanaboy, the jailing of local inhabitants (justified or not), and negative headlines all over the world.
The man responsible for all this is Frank Fahey. Mr Fahey could easily have insisted on Shell refining the gas at sea, an option more expensive, but without all the added controversy. Instead Mr Fahey actively went out of his way to aid and assist Shell and its other consortium partners for no discernible reason whatsoever.
Mr Fahey is not interested in local people (not unless they are his constituents of course), he is not interested in the environment (hence Trevor Sargent's previous savaging of him), he is only interested in an obscure patronage that no one can define in any reasonable terminology.
This is the land of politicians, and Frank Fahey is at the bottom of them.
But, we're not finished yet. This new post is going to focus on yet another example of why Mr. Fahey is not fit for any office. It is my contention that our Frank is in the middle of a rehabilitation process with Brian Cowen. Regularly sent out to bat for NAMA, Frank '40 gaffs' Fahey http://www.businessandfinance.ie/blog_post.jsp?blogID=15&a=2653 is now embroiled in a stand-off between the government parties and the Ombudsman. Why on earth are FF and the Greens preventing the Ombudsman from getting a fair hearing and closing ranks around Fahey, particularly when you consider that Sargent and Fahey have had a hate/hate relationship over the years? Let's ramp up the pressure still further and examine another classic example of how we associate the word 'stroke' with Frank Fahey.
As with all stories, it's important to start at the beginning. The Corrib Gas Field was discovered in 1996, our first commercial gas discovery since the Kinsale Field in 1973. For a resource free country like ourselves, a very important find. The licence for the exploration of the field was granted in 1993, over a period of 11 years. The licence was given to Enterprise Oil and its partners. After the Shell bought out Enterprise Oil in 2002, the breakdown of the consortium is as follows; Shell (operator) (45%), Statoil (36,5%) and Marathon (now Vermilion) (18,5%).
The timing of this is important, because in 1975, Labour minister Justin Keating gave the state a 50% stake plus royalties of 6 to 7% in any commercial find. In 1985, Ray Burke, the corrupt FF minister, abandoned the stake and the royalties. In 1992, Bertie Ahern, the then finance minister, now currently under scrutiny with the Mahon Tribunal, reduced the tax rate applicable to the oil companies by 25% under intense lobbying from the oil companies. Not only that, but the companies were allowed to deduct tax against commercial costs over the previous 25 years.
In fairness to Ahern and Burke, the fact is that we are not a resource rich country, and therefore companies need to be given as many incentives as possible. Notwithstanding that, we have to deal with the facts that the Corrib Gas Field presents us with, and that is its current worth is anywhere between €9.5b and €22b, and our tax take from the profits is the lowest in any equivalent country in the world, money that we desperately require in our current extremis.
So back to 1996, and the consortium are sitting pretty with their multi-billion Euro and practically tax-free find, but with the rather major issue on how they were going to connect their find to the Bord Gáis network on the mainland. In order to connect to the network, the gas needs to be refined first. This can either be done offshore or onshore. Offshore is certainly rather expensive, millions of Euro more expensive than refining onshore.
Lucky for the consortium that they found a willing collaborator in Frank Fahey. As minster of state for the marine and natural resources, he was heavily lobbied by Enterprise Oil executive, John McGoldrick, resulting in the following concessions.
1. He introduced orders allowing acquisition of lands for the gas pipeline.
2. He granted the foreshore license allowing the consortium to land the pipeline.
3. He oversaw the sale of 400 acres of land from Coillte to the consortium to allow the construction of the refinery.
The acquisition of lands: For the first time in the history of this state, Compulsory Acquisition Orders were being used as a direct benefit to a company or conglomerate, rather than the State itself.
The foreshore license: This was granted in 2002 just before the General Election. It enabled the pipeline to be built within 70m of the inhabitants houses.
The Coillte sell-off: Here is Coillte's perspective on land sales:
Coillte owns an estate of 445,421 hectares, which is distributed widely around the country. Coillte's practice is to sell, lease or develop a limited area of non-strategic land, for purposes other than forestry. Most sales are made in response to local demand and typically comprise house sites, isolated dwelling houses, sections of recently acquired farms, small outlying forest properties and gravel pits. [B]Land may also be sold to local authorities for infrastructure projects and for industrial or tourism projects[/B]. Properties sold are those considered not to be of strategic importance to the company's forest business, and properties whose sale would not adversely impact on plans for future management of forests and where value exceeds forest value. A Signing Off Committee within Coillte considers all land sales, with larger sales requiring approval from Coillte's Board of Directors.
Nothing there to indicate sales to international conglomerates for massive refining projects.
In 2009, An Bord Pleanala objected to the current location of the pipeline as reported in the Irish Times:
Bord Pleanála says that up to half of the proposed nine kilometre onshore route for the Corrib gas pipeline is "unacceptable" on safety grounds, due to proximity to housing in Rossport and Glengad.
The board has suggested that Shell E&P Ireland and its Corrib gas partners explore another route, up the Sruwaddacon estuary, and has given the company three months to come back with detailed information on the route, design and safety of the high pressure pipe.
In a four page letter issued today, the board says that the current application "does not present a complete, transparent and adequate demonstration" that the high pressure pipeline "does not pose an unacceptable risk to the public.
It also says that the impact of construction on a designated rural area in Rossport would "seriously injure residential amenities" and the development potential of lands there. It notes that part of the pipeline route onshore was omitted from the application.
Shell E&P Ireland has until February 5th, 2010 to respond to a series of points raised by the board, which represents a significant setback for the project's time schedule.
All of which results in the delay of the pipeline and the introduction of Corrib Gas into the Irish network. It has also resulted in the cost to the State of millions of Euro in maintaining the Gardaí presence in Bellanaboy, the jailing of local inhabitants (justified or not), and negative headlines all over the world.
The man responsible for all this is Frank Fahey. Mr Fahey could easily have insisted on Shell refining the gas at sea, an option more expensive, but without all the added controversy. Instead Mr Fahey actively went out of his way to aid and assist Shell and its other consortium partners for no discernible reason whatsoever.
Mr Fahey is not interested in local people (not unless they are his constituents of course), he is not interested in the environment (hence Trevor Sargent's previous savaging of him), he is only interested in an obscure patronage that no one can define in any reasonable terminology.
Mikhail Gorbachev -- "What is the difference between a statesman and a politician?... A statesman does what he believes is best for his country."
This is the land of politicians, and Frank Fahey is at the bottom of them.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
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.
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:
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.
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.http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1214/breaking49.htm
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.
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.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Martin Cullen
I have a very strong disregard of Martin Cullen, at best he a classic example of an underachieving gombeen promoted above his station purely in his ability to garner votes in his own constituency.
He is a perfect example of what is wrong with this country where ability, competence and morals come way down the list in terms of boxes governments tick when they are looking for ministers.
In addition, his comments comparing his treatment to that of a rape victim were crass. I'm not sure if the speech was impromptu or rehearsed. If the latter, then clearly this ties in with my remarks above.
However, I do find myself in agreement that certain sections of the media, in particularly the 'Irish' Mail, were obsessed in their hounding of Cullen with regard to a perceived affair and favouritism shown to Monica Leech. His statement that his children were on the receiving end of bullying and had to move schools has a ring of truth to it.
Regardless of his ineptitude, nobody deserves to have their family subjected to that abuse if the source for which is media driven. He is relatively unique as a FF minister in being the subject of intense media intrusion, resulting in what appeared to be slander and lies. Cullen deserves our ridicule and bile based on his performance as a minister, but no more than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)