David has already correctly identified the cause of the downfall of the Fatherland in The Generation Game, it's a generation war, the Jagger generation kills off the Jugglers generation in Ireland.Originally Posted by GreenIsGood
I tell you McWilliams has his moments of genius, but unfortunately tainted by strains of pure nonsense.
Last edited by YouKnowWhatIMeanLike; 30th December 2011 at 02:47 PM.
It's funny that, experts are allowed to change their minds when the circumstances change but politicians are accused of breaking pre-election promises when they are elected to Government positions only to discover that committments they may have thought possible prior to being in Goverment are now unviable due to the reality of financial circumstances they find once they are briefed by officials.
Nothing arch about it - it's a straightforward point, and means exactly what I said. I'm not suggesting you imagined it all - I'm pointing out that your recollection of what McWilliams said is much much less relevant than what he actually said, which is - such is the wonder of technology - still available, and that your recollection is likely to contain a certain amount of interpretation on your part.
Why would I be less than objective about McWilliams, though? I'm opposed to people talking him up as an expert for precisely the reasons I give when attacking him...to put it another way, I think he's a vapid quasi-journalist because I think he's a vapid quasi-journalist, and I think his "solutions" are simplistic and populist because when I read them, they appear to be simplistic and populist.
And since I do, after all, give the link to the articles I cite, rather than simply citing "my recollection", you're at liberty to show me where I'm wrong, rather than relying on this sort of fan-boy dismissal of heresy!
Last edited by ibis; 30th December 2011 at 03:14 PM.
Slightly off topic, but I totally agree with you on that point. Voting on another EU treaty is not quite as simple as voting on the right to divorce as you point out. To make a very informed decision, one would presumably have to be well versed in all preceding treaties governing the European Union, constitutional law and much much more and it is possibly impossible to predict the consequences of ratification/or non-ratification as it is an exceedingly complex issue. So, I suppose that the potentials outcomes will be put to the people in simplistic terms such as "Vote yes for jobs/prosperity" or whatever.
Having said that, anyone who is interested in the debate can get involved it or at least lurk the debates on sites such as this one and many others. And there will be a wealth of other material on the net for anyone who's interested is making as informed decision as possible.
Finally, the requirement for a plebiscite on constitutional referenda is a very important safeguard and although it's not perfect, it is best that such decisions are left to the will of the people and not the sitting parliament. To live in a democratic society the citizens need to participate in democracy and that means becoming informed and trying to use one's vote wisely as it is not a privilege granted to everyone on the planet.
Fan boy? On this thread alone, I've joined in the criticism of how his advices for Ireland to leave the euro are shallow, lacking in detail and all a bit lazy.
I'm just a bit tired of the mendacious bollixes who would dismiss anything McWilliams says about anything on the grounds of him being wholly responsible for the bank guarantee and what followed. It's clear to me he counselled a guarantee as a mechanism to prevent sector collapse and enable a period of inspection, assessment and resolution.
(And it's important to note that some people were advocating this, lest we buy into the FF spin of nobody knowing any better.)
As for evidencing that interpretation, try this: David McWilliams » Why Bailout Bill should pick the banking team
"The guarantee — which was innovative but also risky — can only work if it is followed by two other initiatives."
And in general: David McWilliams » Don’t bank on the banks: check the balance sheets before forcing mergers
I note you've ducked my question of how McWilliams, as a long-time skeptic on bank solvency, would have advocated a guarantee for any purpose other than a prelude to restructuring.
Last edited by Libero; 30th December 2011 at 05:44 PM.
And the reason I feel that was a fanboy type dismissal is because I don't have any problem with the fact that the guarantee did what it was intended to do - stabilise the banks temporarily - and because I was quite explicit about the fact that I don't lay responsibility for the bank guarantee at McWilliams' door. He gave what turned out to be bad advice, no more, no less - Lenihan and Cowen were the people who implemented it. I have already said these things, and on this thread.
In turn, my objection is to people who want to pretend that McWilliams suggested something other than what was done, in order to absolve him of any association with the guarantee.
I haven't ducked it - I haven't addressed it because I haven't argued he wasn't looking for bank restructuring. The articles I cited say that the guarantee was to buy "breathing space" to sort out the problems in the banks, and I did read them.I note you've ducked my question of how McWilliams, as a long-time skeptic on bank solvency, would have advocated a guarantee for any purpose other than a prelude to restructuring.
Last edited by ibis; 1st January 2012 at 01:19 AM.
96Likes