Brian Lenihan RIP

[artaneboy]

If Brian Lenihan was a genuine patriot he would have served all of Ireland's people, not the cabal of developers, businessmen and bankers that FF cowtowed to.

The death of any man at such a young age is tragic and I've held back until after he was buried but the sentimental bullsh*t being spouted about him has gotten out of hand. Some gimp on the news yesterday actually called him "the uncrowned king of Ireland" FFS.

When you strip away all the platitudes he was the politician who signed this country's death warrant when he agreed to an unlimited bank guarantee. He was also a fully paid up member of Fianna Fail who fully supported Bertie's corrupt, self-serving regime and took various posts in his government.

Admittedly he talked a good game and came across as a reasonable human being, but actions speak louder than words.

Good piece by Vincent Browne today in the IT, hopefully it might bring an end to the Princess Di-like love-in and allow a genuine debate on the man's contribution to the state, without emotional histronics.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 36309.html

I was going to tackle your points one by one, until I realised you have advanced no real arguments in your piece here that back up why you claim Lenihan is not a patriot or was at fault for the calamity that has descended upon us. Just the usual populist guff that we get used to reading from people on politicians and guilt by association. It's apparently always cool to cynical!

One more thing Donny - don't ever quote Vincent Browne as an authority, if you want an argument to be taken seriously.

you're funny

Are you still here? I took you the best part of a week to come back with that pathetic retort? Jesus wept!

[Leinsterman]

But the point I am making is that the regulator doesn't require the minister to do anything. It has the power to act on its own. If they had a real concern about something, they could have acted by themselves. In stead it was in fact Neary et al who had a cosy cabal with bankers.

There is also quite a difference between commissioning a sub committee of the regulator to investigate and compile a report and riding in on his high horse and riding roughshod over the regulator (which is seemingly what some people want him to be doing)

Eh no. A Regulator is there to enforce existing policy. The Regulator can't act like a policeman and act by themselves. That's not their role.
They simply must ensure that the players are playing by current market rules.

EDIT: I have dealings with one of the regulatory bodies in the State on a reasonably regular basis and that is how it operates. It drives me fupping mad because they claim to independent but the majority of their decisions leave a lot of question marks. It's a highly political role.

[berniemac67]

Are you still here? I took you the best part of a week to come back with that pathetic retort? Jesus wept!

my views are being quite well articulated by others on here, i don't feel the need to resay the same thing.

my comment relates to your criticism of Donny in which you are guilty of exactly what you accuse him of. i think it's funny, and i'm particularly tickled that you actually think your position merits a retort.

you crack me up. keep up the good work.

[Donny B.]

Well, it's good enough for your supposed 'argument' Donny. You may sneer, but as I’ve written earlier, he is the nearest thing to a hero that I have in Irish politics- now that Garret and Declan Costello are gone, there aren't many left who I'd bother defending, even from the type of know-all sh*te that is emerging here. So I don't intend to spend days on here defending a decent man's reputation from people who indulge in the scattergun type of arguments we see here. Take a fact, add a bit of comment, twist that, cook at rumour factory temperature for a week and - hey presto!! Another half-baked 'bow-wow-wow' opinion to add to vitriol.

You know a bit about Rugby, Donny -and I respect your views there. But not on this. I'm leaving now, I don't mind shooting the breeze on rugby or any sport all day. But my heart isn't in this stuff.

Fair enough.

[Darce]

But the point I am making is that the regulator doesn't require the minister to do anything. It has the power to act on its own. If they had a real concern about something, they could have acted by themselves. In stead it was in fact Neary et al who had a cosy cabal with bankers.

There is also quite a difference between commissioning a sub committee of the regulator to investigate and compile a report and riding in on his high horse and riding roughshod over the regulator (which is seemingly what some people want him to be doing)

Eh no. A Regulator is there to enforce existing policy. The Regulator can't act like a policeman and act by themselves. That's not their role.
They simply must ensure that the players are playing by current market rules.

EDIT: I have dealings with one of the regulatory bodies in the State on a reasonably regular basis and that is how it operates. It drives me fupping mad because they claim to independent but the majority of their decisions leave a lot of question marks. It's a highly political role.

But that's what I'm saying. Why wasn't the regulator enforcing existing policy? Surely there was policy at the time around liquidity of banks. Why couldn't the regulatory roll up and say "hey, get out the loan book and the balance sheet and lets have a look because we think there is something a miss here". Surely they didn't require the ministers instruction to do it.

Or maybe thats just common sense thinking on how it should work....

[Leinsterman]

Unfortunately "common sense" and "regulation" do not go hand in hand in this country.
Most regulatory heads are political appointees and have been high-graded civil servants in their previous roles. It's a shocking state of affairs but they'll unofficially do/not do what their minister tells them to do.

[CRAZYDAVE]

Unfortunately "common sense" and "regulation" do not go hand in hand in this country.
Most regulatory heads are political appointees and have been high-graded civil servants in their previous roles. It's a shocking state of affairs but they'll unofficially do/not do what their minister tells them to do.

Regulation in this country is organised in two ways.

1. The "Regulator" is given few resources, but sweeping powers. They can never realstically exercise those powers due to the lack of adequate resources.
2. The "Regulator" is given limited powers (i.e. can be ignored by the public/private/semi-state sector) they are charged with regulating, but plenty of resources.

Ultimately, both are like a yapping chihuauha. They are an ineffective guarddog for the citizens of the State.

Who creates the conditions in which regulators operate, both legislatively and resource wise ?

[Leinsterman]

Unfortunately "common sense" and "regulation" do not go hand in hand in this country.
Most regulatory heads are political appointees and have been high-graded civil servants in their previous roles. It's a shocking state of affairs but they'll unofficially do/not do what their minister tells them to do.

Regulation in this country is organised in two ways.

1. The "Regulator" is given few resources, but sweeping powers. They can never realstically exercise those powers due to the lack of adequate resources.
2. The "Regulator" is given limited powers (i.e. can be ignored by the public/private/semi-state sector) they are charged with regulating, but plenty of resources.

Ultimately, both are like a yapping chihuauha. They are an ineffective guarddog for the citizens of the State.

Who creates the conditions in which regulators operate, both legislatively and resource wise ?

Or:

3. The "regulator" is given plenty of resources and makes key decisions that can be interpreted as favouring semi-states.