Tag: banking

Lack of information on banks starving intelligent debate

21st April 2010

Given there is no public element to the inquiries into the banking system which we are told are taking place, perhaps a progress report in terms of what precisely is happening in those examinations could be made to the Houses so that we can get some sense or insight into what if anything is happening. There is a need for public information so that there can be proper public debate on these issues. We simply do not have that information. I heard last week an independent economist, Dr. Alan Barrett of the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, say, when asked his view in terms of the comparative approach of allowing Anglo Irish Bank to be wound down or for the bailout to continue, that he could not give an answer in that regard because he did not have available to him the basic information that would allow him to give an intelligent response or any response.

When I hear Members the Government parties say that this is the only way forward and is the correct thing to do, I cannot assess that. I and no other member of the public can assess whether what we are being told is simply a spin because this is what the Government is doing and is the course on which it has set itself. We should be able to assess and understand independently what precisely is going on so that we can compare the two different scenarios. It is taxpayers’ money and the public interests that are being dealt with here and as such we should be given more information, even basic information, on what is going on. We have no information in this regard.

Banking policy is now an unclear mess

23rd February 2010

Senator Joe O’Toole seems to be in a better position to explain Government policy than the Government. He said on the Order of Business today there is double speak and double think on this issue of credit.

The principal basis upon which NAMA was advocated by the Minister for Finance, put through these Houses and supported by Members on the Government side was that it would lead to the availability of credit to small businesses. Every time anybody on the Government side says anything about NAMA, they claim that it is necessary so that credit can be provided to business. It is not leading to the provision of credit to business at all.

We now have a policy that is not clear and is in a mess, and when the Labour Party was told a year ago that our position on nationalisation was ideologically based, the Minister is now doing precisely what we said he ought to have done in the first place.

More :: State forced to take 16% stake in B of I in lieu of €250m cash (Irish Times)

Govt not entitled to seek congratulations after IMF report

13th July 2009

It is true that the reports from the IMF and the OECD are neither a ringing endorsement of the Government’s stewardship nor handy crib sheets for the Opposition to attack the Government. But the problem is that when the reports were published, particularly the IMF report, they were accompanied by the sort of press releases the Government issues at such times suggesting that they constitute a ringing endorsement of Government policy.

That was exactly what we got when the IMF report was published. In the Minister of State’s speech in the Seanad, he welcomed the opportunity to have this debate because it gives an opportunity to put on record the endorsement of the Government’s policies and the endorsement it provides for the action it is taking. It includes some endorsements of what the Government is doing but the extent to which we should fall to our knees and thank the Government for taking action in this unprecedented crisis is another matter. The Government is not entitled to come into this House and seek congratulations for doing the job it is paid by the people to do, for taking steps to turn around this crisis that is partly of their making.

I am adhering to the call for restraint in this debate by saying the crisis was only partly of the Government’s making but it was of its making to a considerable extent. This was pointed out in the IMF report, which the government is so quick to characterise as an endorsement of the Government’s position. The Minister asked that while we debate the IMF report, we refer to it, and I propose to do so. I do not intend to paraphrase the report at all but will quote directly from it lest I am accused, as others have been and as some have done, of spinning it.

I will talk about the future, because that is what we are all interested in, but we cannot look to the future unless we are honest about how we got to where we are. Senator MacSharry is a good colleague in this House who often uses the phrase: “We are where we are.” That covers a multitude. It is easy for a Minister or someone else to say it, but how did we get to where we are? This is part of the analysis required to see how we get away from where we are. In addition, it is not a matter of where we are in the sense of spreading the blame; it is about where the Government has brought us. We must reword that handy little catch-all phrase which is used mainly by Government spokespersons and apologists in an effort to dissuade us from considering how we got to the state we are in.

The IMF report states:

Dazzling growth and buoyant public revenues prompted tax reductions and expansion of public expenditures that have proved unsustainable. Various commentators and the IMF in its Article IV consultations did warn that the seemingly-unstoppable growth masked serious imbalances, including the fragility of public finances.

This is a direct quote and not an attempt to paraphrase or put a spin on anything. The report states that the IMF analysis “shows that after strong growth between 1987 and 2001, which earned Ireland the moniker of the ’Celtic Tiger,’ potential growth had steadily eroded”. Here, the IMF is telling the Government that growth had started to erode from 2001. This is the report the Government is so anxious to tell us constitutes an endorsement of its policies. The report goes on to state: “Analysis by OECD staff, consistent with the results from the Kalman-filtering approach, concludes that Ireland was perhaps the most overheated of all advanced economies.” I will not burden people with the detail of the Kalman filtering approach which is an econometric model. Again, these are the words of the IMF report itself.

Read More

Labour Party alone will defeat crony capitalism

27th March 2009

You don’t need me to tell you that fear and uncertainty stalk the land.

The recession is dealing a body blow to the labour force. Jobs are being lost at the rate of a thousand per day.

Long queues have formed outside social welfare offices.

Community welfare officers struggle to cope with the needs of an ever expanding client base. A client base of people who studied hard, who trained hard, who worked hard. And who paid their taxes in a diligent and timely fashion. Yes, paid their taxes without resorting to scams or schemes like our home-grown “Masters of the Universe” whose venality, dodgy dealing, incompetence and ‘crony capitalism’ have brought us to where we are today.

And guess who has now come out against crony capitalism?

A certain “Brian Lenihan” was railing against crony capitalism in the Financial Times last week. Could this possibly be the same “Brian Lenihan” whose party has elevated cronyism to an art form? For God’s sake, Brian: Fianna Fail, invented cronyism. You know of no other way. It is your life-blood.

With Fianna Fail you are either in the tent or outside the tent. You can try and fool the FT but you can’t fool the people, Brian.

Just because the Galway tent has been given the Biffo Boot doesn’t mean you have changed your ways.

For as long as FF control the corridors of power, we can never put an end to crony capitalism.

But put an end to it we will! It is the Labour Party, and the Labour party alone that will defeat crony capitalism.

Delegates, I ask you to support this motion which outlines positive, proactive strategies for improving access to employment supports, education and further training. The Labour Party stands for equality of opportunity and not “jobs for the boys”; the Labour Party stands for equality of outcome, and not a system that confines whole groups of young people to McJobs; the Labour Party stands for programmes that work in favour of the collective good, and not a system that seeks to pit workers in the private and public sectors against each other.