McCreevy "The mistake is to try to spend [money] when you haven't got it."

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,798
I see that Charlie McCreevy was misquoted yet again in today's Irish Mirror.

“Just because there is a certain amount we can use, would it be prudent to do that?” the Taoiseach asked, indicating that the government is not willing to go on a “if we have it, we’ll spend it” spree.


This was the motto of former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevey, who controlled the country’s purse strings during some of the boom years.

In fact, Charlie McCreevy's full quote was made in the context of expenditure cuts in November 2001. He was responding to calls from the opposition to increase public spending.

McCreevy takes axe to public spending

In a sideswipe at some of his critics, he said: "When you have it, you spend it. The mistake is to try to spend it when you haven't got it. There are many institutions in this town that found that out recently."
 
Pointless pointing out to people anything good about FF who are blamed for all the post Celtic Tiger problems. If only the citizens of Ireland would be honest with themselves and admit that they themselves made massive mistakes, got greedy, borrowed too much, purchased houses for the fun of it and were pure and utterly stupid with money they never had and a wealth wish they could never attain. McCreevey may not have been the greatest ever Minister for Finance Ireland have had, but I for one know no one that's been as good. I know, I know, you guys will say i'm living in Cuckoo land making a statement like that, but the truth is hard to take sometimes BUT SURE THERE YOU GO.
 
well said, imagine the furore there would have been in 2005 if the government started raising property taxes and reducing spending, oh and stopping one off houses (which are still half of the houses being built today). Afterall everyone voted for bertie even after they knew about his irregulal financial situation
 

Hard to know if you are being sarcastic or not.
From where im standing, its same old, same old....take political credit for all things good, blame the opposition for all things bad.
Blame the public for catastrophes!

In hindsight, having blamed FF for all things bad, I have a more considered view now - the 2008 crash, and subsequent bankruptcy, was out of their (and every other irish politicians) control. It was an international collapse, the effects of which still reverberate around the globe.
 
The problem with blaming the public is that, a lot of the obstacles to Joe Public borrowing spending beyond their means were removed then put back in afterwards. Same with the banks.

But I assume Brendan wanted this thread to be about the miss-quoting. Which is either extremely careless or deliberate. Considering the effect of the miss-quote.

It getting very tiresome that everything you read in the media/papers has to be double checked for accuracy now.
I just always assume its wrong, or deliberately distorted now. The media has no credibility for me anymore.
Maybe its always been like that and I've only just started paying more attention in the last decade or so.
 
AlbacoreA said:
But I assume Brendan wanted this thread to be about the miss-quoting. Which is either extremely careless or deliberate. Considering the effect of the miss-quote.
Click to expand...

Yes that is it.

McCreevy's quote was always in the context of "I want to spend lots more money...". In fact, he was saying the very opposite. He was trying to cut expenditure.

Brendan
 

It has always been like that.

A cousin of mine won a sporting event many years ago. There was a quarter page article in one of the national papers the following day. He was
quoted extensively about how delighted he was, how all the hard training was worth it, how grateful he was to his coach, family, supporters etc.

All completely made up by the reporter, who never spoke to him. The quotes were all just platitudes, nothing controversial, journalist just couldn't be bothered to speak to his supposed interviewee.

the press largely trades in stereotypes, occasionally some real news emerges to change direction and off the media goes with the new stereotype. The prime example in recent years has been the treatment of the clergy. When I was young, they could do no wrong, nowadays they can do no right.

It is important to point out that there are some real journalists who report real news even when it does not conform to the expected view. Kitty Holland is my current favourite. There are even some opinion piece writers who have something original to say.
 
What Michael Gove said:
"I think that the people of this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong, because these people are the same ones who got consistently wrong."

The shortened quote "The people of this country have had enough of experts" was reported as the interviewer interrupted Gove mid-sentence...
You may agree or disagree with either statement, but one is clearly a far more qualified statement than the other, but it seems like the short form has entered public consciousness.

As for Fianna Fail, Bertie deliberately packed off McCreevy to Europe after FF took a hammering in local elections. He put Cowen in to open the purse strings that McCreevy was at least trying to keep a grip on. At the time Fianna Fail were under relentless pressure from certain sections of the media to spend spend spend. I don't exonerate them for caving in but I do extend the blame to those spending cheerleaders.
 

I think the irish political system is especially sensitive to vociferous media campaigns, the way the government caved in over the water rates is a perfect example of this. For example would such a campaign have succeeded in UK , I think not
 
We now live in a country where (1) headlines can be terribly misleading and (2) one gets an awful berating if your opinion differs from the status quo. Just wait until the abortion debate starts in earnest again. We've already seen and heard how the national papers and national tv/radio station have positioned themselves. How dare anyone disagree with THEM?
 
Last edited:

kitty holland is the female vincent browne with the same pet project
 
AlbacoreA said:
It getting very tiresome that everything you read in the media/papers has to be double checked for accuracy now.
I just always assume its wrong, or deliberately distorted now. The media has no credibility for me anymore.
Click to expand...

Hi Albacore

I share your frustration. Would you consider making complaints to the media involved or the BAI in the case of the broadcast media?

I complained the David McWilliams programme The Great Wealth Divide. It was rejected by RTE and by the BAI. It took a lot of work and it was frustrating but I thought it was the right thing to do as the programme was so misleading.

I have just had an email telling me that my complaint to the BAI about RTE's The Housing Crisis has also been rejected.

I am probably seen by them as a crank - demanding balance and fairness in statistics. But if a few more people make complaints about these issues, there would be a reasonable chance that the BAI might take notice. I gather that they get no other complaints about economic issues. The complaints are mainly "presenter X made a comment which was racist, sexist or supported gay rights during the referendum."

Brendan
 
I saw that show "The great wealth divide" and thought it blatantly wrong, using statistics misleadingly and ignoring statistis and facts that contradicted the agenda the program was trying to propagate (that ireland is a highly unequal society). For example any statistic like the very high welfare payments in ireland in comparison with other countries was simply ignored.
 
Well said. Bertie was the populist who shafted McCreevy after he tried to do the right thing. I do blame Bertie for not just caving in to the vested interest groups but effectively putting them in charge of the country through Social Partnership.

joe sod said:
I think the irish political system is especially sensitive to vociferous media campaigns, the way the government caved in over the water rates is a perfect example of this. For example would such a campaign have succeeded in UK , I think not
Click to expand...
I agree. An emotive and emotional narrative is established after which facts and opinions which question it are not tolerated.
 
That's true but because we were so heavily exposed to construction, financed by cheap money, we suffered more than most. The fact that we had seen a decade of massive increases in public spending, the vast majority of which was in wage increases, meant that the impact lasted much longer than it should have. The banking/ financial crisis gave us €40-€50 billion of debt, public sector wage costs, very high welfare rates and massive increases in health spending (with no discernible improvement in outcomes) gave us the other €150-€160 billion. Yes, the crash was beyond our control but the impact of the crash was largely our own fault.
 
odyssey06 said:
As for Fianna Fail, Bertie deliberately packed off McCreevy to Europe after FF took a hammering in local elections. He put Cowen in to open the purse strings that McCreevy was at least trying to keep a grip on.
Click to expand...
This is one of the big myths, but it's not exactly correct. Mr McCreevy was Minister for Finance from 1997 to 2004; in that period public expenditure increased by 116%. Mr Cowen was Minister for Finance from 2004 to 2008; in that period public expenditure increased by 53%. http://www.per.gov.ie/en/expenditure-trends/. Both Ministers oversaw public expenditure increase by a CAGR of 12% (McCreevy) and 11% (Cowen). So both were equally profligate spendaholics, and both increased public expenditure at about the same rate. [Then under Ministers Lenihan and than Noonan public expenditure decreased by 8% and 4% respectively.]
 
McCreevy saw where we were heading and tried to do something about it. That was why he was packed off to Europe. If he was left in place he would have reduced spending, or at least reduced the rate of increase in spending.
 

The difference being that McCreevy was spending it when "he had it" ... at the same time as increased spending, he also reduced the national debt in real and percentage terms. He was packed off to Europe because he could see the dangers of trying to spend what you don't have... but when Cowen came in he kept the giveaway budgets and increased spending going, at an unsustainable level which left Ireland exposed when boom turned to bust.
There's no other convincing explanation I have heard of for why McCreevy was sent to Europe and replaced by Cowen, other than he wanted to put a brake on the spending.
I don't think you can compare the later Lenihan and Noonan budgets... but in an alternative universe, a FG budget from 2002 where Noonan is Taoiseach would be interesting for comparison.
 
odyssey06 said:
The difference being that McCreevy was spending it when "he had it" ... at the same time as increased spending, he also reduced the national debt in real and percentage terms.
Click to expand...

Another myth. A 1% increase in national debt from 43,599 €m (1997) to 44,056 €m (2004) isn't a reduction of the national debt . While the debt to GDP ratio decreased under Mr McCreevy's stewardship, this was due to the increase of Ireland's GDP from 73,092 €m (1997) to 156,143 € m (2004), i.e. a 114% increase, not a decrease in national debt itself.

odyssey06 said:
but when Cowen came in he kept the giveaway budgets and increased spending going, at an unsustainable level which left Ireland exposed when boom turned to bust.
Click to expand...

Did Mr McCreevy 'have it'? Another myth. Ireland's Budget Deficit was 1.3% of GDP in 1997. Then he increased every year to 4.9% of GDP in 2000; to decrease to 1.3% of GDP in 2004. So he didn't 'have it'. He just spent and spent and spent, and racked up a deficit. And as I said in my previous post Mr Cowen increased public expenditure at about the same rate as Mr McCreevy had.

Purple said:
If he was left in place he would have reduced spending, or at least reduced the rate of increase in spending.
Click to expand...

Would he? That's a big 'if'. You are just supposing what he coudda/shudda/wudda done. But the fact is he didn't, and just spent public money like it was going out of fashion.
 
Last edited:

The question in the thread is about spending money when you have it, or not ... not spending per se.

How is it possible to spend money you don't have without any significant change in the national debt?

If he was spending money like it was going out of fashion, why was McCreevy packed off to Europe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register