How would Taoiseach Charlie Haughey deal with the financial crisis?

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,637
Taoiseach Haughey had vision and tough mindedness,regardless of personal faults. A banker acquaintance believes he would have issued an ultimatum if necessary to the European Central Bank and bank bondholders to negotiate interest rates on Irish government and bank debt down to a very low level,say 2%, and extend debt maturities for a decade or more (called "extend and pretend" ie pretend no losses). The Irish bargaining position would be based on an old joke: if you owe the bank a small sum,you are in trouble,but if you owe the bank millions,the bank is in trouble. That would seem very ungrateful to creditors who have helped us out. But if servicing government debt would lead serious social unrest and many years of economic stagnation,self preservation dictates a tough minded Haughey solution.
 


bagel

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
1,379
He wouldn't just burn the bond holders, he'd burn everyone.
After all, if he's capable of robbing a liver transplant fund, he's capable of anything.
 

Pauli

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
1,181
Trouser whatever he coould, appear on TV to tell everybody that they are liiving beyond their means and not give a sh1t about anyone. It worked for him once before.
 

LeDroit

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
1,768
He had one undeniable character strength that we could do with. He never fawned over foreign leaders. His absolute confidence/arrogance in himself meant that he saw himself on a par with the leaders of the G8 never mind the EU. As such, he'd role the dice, threaten to bugger the Euro, burn the b'holders and jail the bankers, all on Sept 29th 2008! In short, we'd have much more aggressive approach, indicative of the man. It's up to you to decide if that would help.
 

Tomas Mor

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
10,351
He had one undeniable character strength that we could do with. He never fawned over foreign leaders. His absolute confidence/arrogance in himself meant that he saw himself on a par with the leaders of the G8 never mind the EU. As such, he'd role the dice, threaten to bugger the Euro, burn the b'holders and jail the bankers, all on Sept 29th 2008! In short, we'd have much more aggressive approach, indicative of the man. It's up to you to decide if that would help.

I am inclined to agree with that view. And he would not be bounced into decision by bankers on night of infamy, 29th. September 2008 when a gun was put to heads of Cowen and Lenihan. CJH would operate on basis that he was in charge.
 

Bleu Poppy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,485
He had one undeniable character strength that we could do with. He never fawned over foreign leaders. His absolute confidence/arrogance in himself meant that he saw himself on a par with the leaders of the G8 never mind the EU. As such, he'd role the dice, threaten to bugger the Euro, burn the b'holders and jail the bankers, all on Sept 29th 2008! In short, we'd have much more aggressive approach, indicative of the man. It's up to you to decide if that would help.
What about turning up on the doorstep of No. 10 Downing Street with a Georgian teapot in hand? No other Irish Taoiseach ever felt before or since that he had to bring gifts of that nature, apart from the fact that it is totally against protocol in such circumstances.... it just shows the type of aaaaaarse-licker that he was.

God knows what sort of embarrassment that he would have been had he attended a G7 meeting at the time..... De Bert's efforts would have paled into total insignificance!

As to gaoling people- there's a better chance that he would have gotten Shoneen Doherty to instruct the Guards to bug them and then used the gathered material to blackmail the bhankers.

All the while, lapping up the adulation of the misguided, corruptly pocketing as much as he could, aggrandising himself at our expense- Charvet shirts is only one manifestation of his deep inner psychological faults, look at the amount of money he spent converting the old UCD buildings into his very own Elysee Palace.

Haughey would have done what he did- stick up signs stating that 'Health cuts hurt the old, the poor, the sick, the weak' and would then proceed to do precisely that.... as he did. Remember the number of hospitals that he closed down?
petunia
 

Bleu Poppy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,485
I am inclined to agree with that view. And he would not be bounced into decision by bankers on night of infamy, 29th. September 2008 when a gun was put to heads of Cowen and Lenihan. CJH would operate on basis that he was in charge.
Yeah, right!

He'd have agreed to fund the banks but on one condition only.... that a percentage of what was handed over would be sent to his own private banker.... Des Traynor.
 

Boy M5

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
21,420
Is this thread like Cael's about the glories of the Soviet Union?
Are we like a bunch of Russians, not Uzbecks, Tartars..., looking back fondly on Joe Stalin?
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
He wouldn't just burn the bond holders, he'd burn everyone.
After all, if he's capable of robbing a liver transplant fund, he's capable of anything.
This the fund he set up, collected for and was in surplus and used to extend his former Tainiste's life.

We know from the implantation of the programme for national recovery how he act (provided he had control of his party) - slash the current deficit from fitzgerald's 8% to 3% through ruthless cuts, aggressively promote new jobs and drive through reforms in the context of industrial harmony. He would not have capitulated to bankers by bailing out their Bondholders with tax payees monies.
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
Taoiseach Haughey had vision and tough mindedness,regardless of personal faults. A banker acquaintance believes he would have issued an ultimatum if necessary to the European Central Bank and bank bondholders to negotiate interest rates on Irish government and bank debt down to a very low level,say 2%, and extend debt maturities for a decade or more (called "extend and pretend" ie pretend no losses). The Irish bargaining position would be based on an old joke: if you owe the bank a small sum,you are in trouble,but if you owe the bank millions,the bank is in trouble. That would seem very ungrateful to creditors who have helped us out. But if servicing government debt would lead serious social unrest and many years of economic stagnation,self preservation dictates a tough minded Haughey solution.
Charlie sure knew how to handle Bankers all right.

He could be a formidable opponent...;)
 

cozzy121

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
5,117
er guys, it's G20 now. The west has fallen, thankfully.
 

Boy M5

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
21,420
I agree with much on this thread including his flaws (though the teapot diplomacy was err diplomacy, what did you want him to do give her a copy of Guerilla Days in Ireland & a framed copy of the Easter Proclamation?, very enjoyable perhaps but ultimately futile)

Haughey in his later incarnation wouldn't have allowed the speculative bubble to happen, for a start the architect, builder and auctioneer of the crisis McCreevy didn't get on with him. That said the populist who opened the public spending tap was his anointed successor Bartholomew Ahern.

CJH had gravitas which has sadly been missing from Irish political leaders in the past 15-20 years.
 

Bleu Poppy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,485
I agree with much on this thread including his flaws (though the teapot diplomacy was err diplomacy, what did you want him to do give her a copy of Guerilla Days in Ireland & a framed copy of the Easter Proclamation?, very enjoyable perhaps but ultimately futile).
A copy of his book of his collected speeches The Spirit of Ireland so that she could get a good night's sleep.:lol:
 

DeGaulle 2.0

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,994
Website
ga.wikipedia.org
Haughey's only concern was being in power.

What happened in the 1980s was that Labour and FF frustrated FG's attempts to fix our problems. Labour were opposed on idealogical grounds, FF were opposed because they weren't in power. After FF won the 1987 election, they implemented FG policies with FG support and the economy quickly recovered.

The lesson is this - the quickest way to fix our current problems is an FG majority government.
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
Haughey's only concern was being in power.

What happened in the 1980s was that Labour and FF frustrated FG's attempts to fix our problems. Labour were opposed on idealogical grounds, FF were opposed because they weren't in power. After FF won the 1987 election, they implemented FG policies with FG support and the economy quickly recovered.

The lesson is this - the quickest way to fix our current problems is an FG majority government.
No the lesson, there is for FF to outflank FG on the fiscal rectitude side and to implement policies which FG are not capable of implementing. ( see Bruce Arnold's biography at p. 235).
 

Jack the Scut

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
7
Taoiseach Haughey had vision and tough mindedness,regardless of personal faults. A banker acquaintance believes he would have issued an ultimatum if necessary to the European Central Bank and bank bondholders to negotiate interest rates on Irish government and bank debt down to a very low level,say 2%, and extend debt maturities for a decade or more (called "extend and pretend" ie pretend no losses). The Irish bargaining position would be based on an old joke: if you owe the bank a small sum,you are in trouble,but if you owe the bank millions,the bank is in trouble. That would seem very ungrateful to creditors who have helped us out. But if servicing government debt would lead serious social unrest and many years of economic stagnation,self preservation dictates a tough minded Haughey solution.

He would be no different to Bertie or Cowen or any other FF leader. he would have dealt with it as dishonestly and ineptly as possible.
 

Ruaidhri

Active member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
117
Haughey's only concern was being in power.

What happened in the 1980s was that Labour and FF frustrated FG's attempts to fix our problems. Labour were opposed on idealogical grounds, FF were opposed because they weren't in power. After FF won the 1987 election, they implemented FG policies with FG support and the economy quickly recovered.

The lesson is this - the quickest way to fix our current problems is an FG majority government.
Slightly biased account?
 

Boy M5

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
21,420
No the lesson, there is for FF to outflank FG on the fiscal rectitude side and to implement policies which FG are not capable of implementing. ( see Bruce Arnold's biography at p. 235).
& for FG to have a leader of substance & vision who put the national interest before political interest.
 

Lilliwhite

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
27
Since FG are the only party to have shown that they will put country before party surely they deserve the benefit of the doubt when assessing their potential in government.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top