"Oireachtas Finance Committee hearings deeply depressing"

[Brendan Burgess]

Colm McCarthy sums it up well in an article in today's Sindo

Last week's collective performance by the committee members was deeply depressing, if hardly a surprise. The intention of the bankers to collect as much as they can from their debtors was repeatedly portrayed as uncaring, unjustified or somehow contemptible.
...
A distinct lack of seriousness was vividly on display last week as the representatives of the people, in the personages of the Oireachtas Finance Committee, vied with one another in demonstrating greater compassion than the CEOs of the surviving banks. The deputies appeared to regard it as their central mission to display greater concern for struggling mortgage defaulters than the despised bankers, who have yet to face a serious inquiry into what actually caused the first Irish banking collapse, due to the indulgence of the same politicians. Elected representatives are content, it would appear, to strike poses, display concern and hopefully get re-elected, having won the compassion [broken link removed] with the bankers. They would borrow yet more money, at the expense of the generality of taxpayers, to hand out to distressed mortgage borrowers if they could. Happily they cannot, since the national credit card has already been maxed out.

...
Repossession is an unavoidable solution mechanism when borrowers default. The fact that banks have finally begun to issue legal proceedings, including moves which could lead to re-possession, seemed to come as a surprise to members of the Oireachtas committee, who pronounced themselves "shocked". Bank mortgage lending is secured on the collateral of residential property, which does not belong to the borrower until the full loan amount has been paid. So the lenders must proceed to repossession unless some other arrangement, financially viable for the lender as well as the borrower, can be agreed.

...

 

[bugler]

The agency dilemma is prevalent in politics. Instead of having politicians acting in the best interests of the country, or even in according with conscience, instead we have a lot of playing to the electorate, primarily aimed at ensuring the politician remains in favour with the electorate. Even those not directly elected suffer from this vicariously (a Senator from a political party will suffer from the hopes and expectations of their directly elected brethren).

What matters to them is remaining in their job. Their own beliefs, actions and attitudes are warped by this consideration.

If they do break from these constraints it is likely to be for religious reasons (see the recent abortion-led dissension within FF/FG). And no one is religious about the economy.

To consistently and wholeheartedly "take the side" of those who can't, or won't, pay their debts makes perfect sense for them. Unfortunately it does not make sense for the economy.

I don't think anyone ever got elected by talking sense.