Talk:Paul Gogarty

substantive intervention before the unparliamentary language

Here is what the official debates recorded of what he said before the incident:

I suppose if I am sitting here, I am a target. My name has been mentioned by a number of speakers. Yes, it is hard for me, and I would hope for any other God-respecting, humanist, republican - you name it - to support measures that hurt the vulnerable. Of course, it is hard for me. It is hard for me to gratuitously insult many of my constituents who are public sector employees and tell them: “Listen, lads. It is necessary. I feel your pain but it is necessary”. To them, it comes across as baloney, insincerity, political rant. We have had much of that in past the couple of days in this Chamber although I must acknowledge we have had much sincerity also.

I will take at face value the sincerity with which the Deputies on the opposite side of the House have expressed themselves although I know also that perhaps some of their colleagues were more interested in point-scoring and political opportunism than sincerity. If I was on the Opposition benches, not having access to the figures, not being involved in the negotiations for the programme for Government and not having been kept in the loop this year, which we certainly were not last year with the rushed budget, I would be clamouring for blood and pointing out the unfairness of this budget. It would be highly disingenuous of me and totally insincere, therefore, to say anything other than that this is a grossly unfair section and that the Bill is grossly unfair.

I have received God knows how many texts, including today, from constituents in both the public sector and those in receipt of social welfare. They say it is a shame and a disgrace, and ask “How can you hurt vulnerable people?” Unfortunately, this is what this debate is about. The Labour Party says there is a radical alternative. Those on the Government benches say there is no alternative. I believe there was an alternative in our society and there may still be an alternative. However, as far as this budget goes, there is not much room for manoeuvre. That is the problem. I stated on the record last night that approximately €3.2 billion is being paid in interest on our loans this year. If nothing is done by 2013 it will go up to €11 billion, a quarter of our tax take.

The Green Party argued for a number of things. Personally, even though I be shot by some sectors for saying so, I believe certain people over the age of 65, if social welfare is being cut, could also take a 1% or 2% cut, instead of the blind, the carers and other sectors. That did not happen, a judgment call was made. Some might say it was a cynical decision by Fianna Fáil to protect its electorate. Others might say that the pensioners were hurt last year, as the protest showed, and we should not hurt them this year. A cynic might say again that the pensioners can come out and protest whereas the more vulnerable cannot.

I am trying to look at this objectively. There are reasons for protecting our senior citizens. People got on to me before the budget saying they did not care about the pain but they did not want their mother or father to suffer a cut in their pension. There were reasons for that but the knock-on effect of not cutting pensions means the other areas of the welfare budget had to be cut instead.

We in the Green Party argued for a reduction in the overall level of cuts. I will not go into detail, I will leave that to someone else, but we succeeded in getting it reduced somewhat from what it might have been to the 4.1% it is now. That was a trade off from various sectors.

The trouble is, no matter where there is a trade-off, someone will get hurt. If a relatively low income earner in the public sector is being levied with a 5% pay cut, if social welfare is not touched when that pay cut is brought in, all of a sudden that person would probably be better off leaving his job, even with the pension security. If he has just started in the public sector and is on a low income, the pension is a long way off and he might say that this is a chance to get out if the offer comes for reductions in staff numbers.

If pay is reduced in the public sector, social welfare must also be reduced and it has been reduced by less than the lowest earners in the public sector. It hurts those on social welfare, and it certainly hurts those within the public sector, but if money is not taken out of the public sector, social welfare is increased and vice versa.

We have had a debate about the rich needing to pay more, and I agree with that. We argued in this budget and the Green Party is disappointed that a third rate of tax was not brought in this year, although we understand there is a commitment it may be brought in next year. We are disappointed the PRSI levy was not introduced this year, because we argued vehemently for that as well. We argued vehemently for many things, such as the introduction of a carbon tax and the protection of education and we got some of those things but we did not get everything. Taken as a package, however, we could not ignore the reality that we must make €4 billion plus in savings or else the interest rates we pay on our overdraft will go up.

I agree with the Minister for Finance on one point. He was overly conservative on the application of additional taxes. There is a strong case that if taxes are increased and revenue goes down and the €4 billion magic figure is not achieved, it is totally pointless. I agree, but he was a little conservative in terms of getting rid of the loopholes and areas where people make savings on their tax liabilities. More needs to be done and it needs to be done quickly. I acknowledge the levies that came into force in April affected the higher earners far more while those on social welfare were affected less.

Having said all that, I genuinely acknowledge the call to solidarity by Members on the Opposition benches and I take it as a sincere call. Like everyone in this Chamber, I am proud to call myself a republican. Far too often, however, republicanism in Ireland has been paddywhackery. I do not want to go off on a tangent but I remember sitting in a pub once and when everyone was pissed out of their brains, and the rebel band was playing the national anthem at the end of the night, as a naive 16 year old, I sat down because I thought this was an insult to our national anthem. Someone whacked me in the back of the head and asked if I was not proud to be Irish. I said I was proud to be Irish which is why I sat down.

It is like that now. I am damn proud to be Irish. I am not proud of what has happened, I am not proud of the fact the banks had to be bailed out, of the corruption and worship of mammon in this country that has brought us to this sorry state, I am not proud of that, colleagues,-- [Deputy Róisín Shortall: Deputy Gogarty should do the right thing then.]--but I am proud to be Irish. In my conscience I must look at the bigger picture rather than the small, individual pictures.

– Kaihsu (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FAO Snappy

Dear user Snappy,

In order to prevent an ongoing wiki war in relation to this article, you are requested to engage in meaningful dialogue in relation to specific edits. This piece may be one of many for you, but inaccuracies or imbalanced inclusions/omissions have a negative impact on the reputation living persons referenced such as in this instance and individuals affected by such misinformation have a right to defend themselves or their colleagues/family members.

This can be done the long way or the short way. If you want to go through what problem you have with each edit, then please by all means do so, backing it up. Saying that Paul Gogarty claims to single handedly protect education and that it was Ministers who did the work or that Paul Gogarty had nothing to do with Callely is not sufficient; if you have evidence that counteracts the genuine media references, please hand them over.

Failing this, an entry consensus might be reached through offline conversation and verification of facts.

Otherwise this time-consuming debacle will continue through all stages permitted.

Darepng (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No evidence has been provided that Gogartys publicity stunt in going to the Gardai, had any effect on the Callely investogation. The only fact we can establish is that Gogarty went to the Garda Station, after many other politicans had made public statements, but not engaged in publicity stunts like Gogarty.

Also, no evidence is produced for Gogartys single handedly bringing down the Cowen govenrment. The only fact we have is that he was on Morning Ireland and gave an interview, and what he said was in line with the Green Party ministers and parl. party. Goggarty was not a minister, either junior or senior, and was not at the famous meeting, it was Ryan and Gormley. For Darepng, to reach this conclusion is Original Research. Gogartys interview was one small part of the breaking news story, he was a bit player, minor character at best.

Please provide reliable secondary sources needed - primary sources like subjects own website/blog are not acceptable per BLP. Snappy (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not remove fact tags without providing citations. This is vandalism. You can not simply say, it does not need references. Every article needs more references! If this sort of editing happens again, I will be reporting it. Snappy (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately user:Darepng is still removing fact tags without providing citations, despite being warned about this already. Since they cannot plead ignorance on the issue, I can only conclude that is deliberate vandalism. Please abide by Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Snappy (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, user:Darepng who edits almost exclusively on this article, should read WP:OWN and also WP:COI. Before Darepng reverts again, can they spell out precisely what problems they have with the current version of the article? They are free to add any material providing it meets WP:BLP and are reliable, third-party, published sources (per WP:SOURCES). I would urge Darepng to do this rather than this constant reverting. By reverting rather than editing, they are constantly undoing minor copyedits like formatting and spelling fixes, and it is annoying to have to fix them yet again. Snappy (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In response:

1) :No evidence has been provided that Gogartys publicity stunt in going to the Gardai, had any effect on the Callely investogation. The only fact we can establish is that Gogarty went to the Garda Station, after many other politicans had made public statements, but not engaged in publicity stunts like Gogarty.

It is a fact, verifiable by Seanad, but not readily accessible in media that Gogarty first wrote to the Clerk of the Seanad requesting an investigation. The decision to go to the Garda was not a publicity stunt, but followed a request by constituents who had heard Gogarty talk about the Seanad letter on Joe Duffy ask him why was he afraid to go to the Garda station? This was stated on the airwaves on other stations at the time (unable to find now). If you request Paul Gogarty for evidence of same, no doubt it will be provided. Gogarty went to the Gardai because he was asked. The Gardai initiated an investigation on foot of requests made to them by a number of individuals, one of whom was Gogarty, presumably the only member of the Oireachtas to do so.

2) :Also, no evidence is produced for Gogartys single handedly bringing down the Cowen govenrment. The only fact we have is that he was on Morning Ireland and gave an interview, and what he said was in line with the Green Party ministers and parl. party. Goggarty was not a minister, either junior or senior, and was not at the famous meeting, it was Ryan and Gormley. For Darepng, to reach this conclusion is Original Research. Gogartys interview was one small part of the breaking news story, he was a bit player, minor character at best.

This piece was removed. However Gogarty or darepng for that matter did not claim to bring down the Government. However until his intervention there was no sign of any Green Party dissatisfaction of the FF Ministerial announcements. Ryan and Gormley and Geoghegan were at the meeting with FF but all the Green Party PP would have been informed of what went on. Presumably Gogarty wasn't happy with the Green Party softly softly approach. After the Green Party PP subsequently met, an ultimatum was put to Cowen. It is conjecture one way or another to suggest what role Gogarty played in bringing it to a head. however the previous included paragraph in the Paul Gogarty article only said that Gogarty's contribution pre-empted or preceded the Green Party decision, not claiming to brought down the Government.

3) ::Do not remove fact tags without providing citations. This is vandalism. You can not simply say, it does not need references. Every article needs more references! If this sort of editing happens again, I will be reporting it. Snappy (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This was down to my ignorance. I initially presumed that you thought I had inserted the fact tags. I have no problems with citation needed being attached to sentences where ready attributes can't be found. Apologies. The issue about the website is a strange one, however, even if it is Wiki policy. Presumably if Gogarty wrote a book, this would be a valid reference for Wikipedia, so what's the difference.

4) :::Firstly, user:Darepng who edits almost exclusively on this article, should read WP:OWN and also WP:COI. Before Darepng reverts again, can they spell out precisely what problems they have with the current version of the article? They are free to add any material providing it meets WP:BLP and are reliable, third-party, published sources (per WP:SOURCES). I would urge Darepng to do this rather than this constant reverting. By reverting rather than editing, they are constantly undoing minor copyedits like formatting and spelling fixes, and it is annoying to have to fix them yet again. Snappy (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Point taken and acted upon. In defence, when edits were made to much earlier posts, these were changed without any explanation. It was time-consuming to re-edit so reversions were made. When it turned into all-out warring this seemed the most practical thing to do. However, hopefully it appears that this matter is now coming to a reasonable conclusion. You will note that the most recent changes are edits and additions and clarifications. Other than the inclusion of the piece on expenses, which was a major issue at the time and balances the positive/negative element of the political career highlights, I have no problems with the other parts and have left out putting in a website link to the babygate story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darepng (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the section on a possible junior ministerial role, its pointless speculation about a role you might have gotten but in the end, didn't get. Snappy (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither you nor I put in the original piece stating that Gogarty was the only TD not to be appointed to a ministry, so I concur.

I do seriously question your inclusion of the rolling around the floor piece at this stage of proceedings. But rather than undo it, I have added clarification. Gogarty denies it on his website as do Labour Party posters on politics.ie and this article has been referenced on the page in question. For your own personal knowledge as it is not a verifiable encyclopedic content a phone call to Labour Party Councillor Eamon Tuffy (Joanna Tuffy TD's father) or indeed former Green Councillor Dorothy Corrigan who was sitting beside Gogarty on the night will confirm that this event absolutely did not take place as described in the article. There were 400 people at a meeting and Gogarty was not up on a stage or at a top table, but rather in the audience. There would not have been room to pull a stunt like this. It has obtained as Gogarty says a myth status, but if you want to include it, then the counterbalancing denial and independent reports should also be included. Just because something appears in the newspaper does not make it the actual truth, and in this case, Gogarty never said that he actually rolled around the floor, just responded to Miriam Lord in a way that appeared to confirm it, but which he later explained was a stupid attempt to be clever. He did acknowledge attempts were made to attract the attention of the organising committee, as apparently there was an honourable agreement made before the meeting not to try and score political points off one another, but rather outline how each politician was going to work to help prevent the incinerator. The reason Gogarty tried to attract the attention of the committee was that Fitzgerald started laying into John Gormley suggesting that he wanted the incinerator in Rathcoole, which was against the agreement made and hugely ironic considering that she was one of the original councillors to vote for incineration to be included in the Dublin Regional Waste Management plan. I don't know if you are a member of FG or indeed any other party, but surely you see the need to be fair and balanced and to include counter arguments where issues are disputed, or, in this case, if you are feeling charitable, to just delete the entire section.Darepng (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, agreed on this, the section has been removed. FYI, Gogarty's own website is a primary source and therefore not acceptable per WP:RS, politics.ie is a forum and so it unreliable, you (User:Darepng) seem to have very specific about this incident, I suspect you were at this meeting and probably on the floor at some stage. Snappy (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Shorten

I am seeking consensus to shorten this article considerably.

In my opinion, it is overly long for any backbench TD. Disputed reports, which require lengthy explanation, rebuttal or qualification do not, in my view, add significant quality. References to his limited involvement in the Ivor Callely Affair and his daughter’s presence during a press conference should be excised. I also feel that it is well spiced with irrelevant information. Examples include Gogarty’s national school, his response to a dual mandate, extensive follow-up on his swearing in the Dail, relatively detailed account of the loss of his seat and expansive passages on his 18-months after politics.

I am concerned that this article has been driven by one editor alone, and by my impression that this editor has a considerable conflict of interest. I would draw Darepng’s attention to wikipedia’s advice regarding writing articles autobiographically and about those with whom we have a close relationship, as well as their notes on self-promotion.

I suggest adopting a scaled-back version of this article under one header, in line with other articles about former backbench TDs. An introduction, tightened paragraph on his early life and naming his successful and unsuccessful elections should suffice. I would also suggest the inclusion of one achievement and one controversy, ‘for colour’. My submission below details his contribution to education policy and references his swearing in the Dail.

“Paul Nicholas Gogarty (born 20 December 1968) is a former Irish Green Party politician. He was a Teachta Dala (TD) for the Dublin Mid-West constituency from 2002 to 2011.

Gogarty lived in Palmerstown and Lucan in early life and was educated at Colasite Padraig, Lucan. He studied journalism at Dublin Institute of Technology and worked as a journalist before his election to the Dail in 2002.

Gogarty joined the Green Party in 1989. After unsuccessful runs in the 1991 local election, 1992 General Election, 1996 Dublin-West By-election and 1997 General Election, he topped the poll and was elected in the Lucan electoral area in 1999. Three years later, he was elected to the Dail for the new Dublin Mid-West constituency in the 2002 General Election, and was re-elected in 2007.

From 2002 to 2011, he served as the Green Party’s Education Spokesperson, developing the Party’s ’50 Steps to a Better Education System’. Following the Green Party’s entry into government in 2007, Gogarty was appointed Chairman of the Oireachtas Committee on Education and Science.

Gogarty is best known for swearing at Labour Party TD Emmet Stagg during a Dail debate on the 11 December 2009.

Gogarty lost his seat at the 2011 General Election.”

I look forward to reading your comments. AE787564 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be going too far. It's a lot shorter than it used to be! I don't accept your reasoning that its long for a backbench TD, there is no such criteria on Wikipedia. Snappy (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Paul Gogarty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121019021109/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1214/1224260654123.html to http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1214/1224260654123.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110227222417/http://www.rte.ie:80/news/2011/0226/election_count_live_saturday.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0226/election_count_live_saturday.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Gogarty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817000000/http://www.rte.ie/ten/2011/0715/celebritybainisteoir.html to http://www.rte.ie/ten/2011/0715/celebritybainisteoir.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Paul Gogarty official ballot paper photo 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Paul Gogarty 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)