We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE GOVERNMENT WAS quick to spring into action yesterday, eager not to leave the seat of Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence vacant for too long.
Almost 19 hours since Alan Shatter tendered his resignation yesterday, the Taoiseach has announced that the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs Frances Fitzgerald will be taking over the vacant portfolio – at least parts of it.
Given the numerous controversies, scandals, inquiries and investigations, it’s not going to be an easy job, so what are her credentials?
Background
Her department’s website details that the 63-year-old is married and has three sons in their twenties – an actor, a trainee accountant and a student.
Prior to entering politics she trained as a social worker and family therapist, obtaining a B.Soc. Science from UCD and an M.SC. in Social Administration and Social Work from the London School of Economics.
She worked with a number of health facilities in Dublin, mainly focusing on families in inner city communities, specialising in adoption and fostering.
The public first became familiar with her during her time as Chair of the National Women’s Council of Ireland between 1988 and 1992, before she was first elected to the Dáil in 1992 as a TD for Dublin South-East, a seat vacated by former Taoiseach Garrett Fitzgerald.
She took on a role in local politics as a councillor in Rathmines in 1999 until the abolition of dual mandate. Fitzgerald lost her Dáil seat in the 2002 General Election.
Leader of the Opposition
Fitzgerald returned to Leinster House in 2007 as head the Senead’s Leader of the Opposition.
She had failed to be elected in the 2007 General Election, but was then appointed to the Upper House by way of the Labour Panel.
After this, Fitzgerald went on to people’s Ireland first Minister for Children and Youth Affairs after the 2011 General Election – a role suited to her given her background and training.
She has overseen a number of reforms, including the establishment of the new Child and Family Agency, targeting child protection services with HIQA reports, and launching an Action Plan on Bullying.
Fitzgerald also over saw the Children First Bill 2014 which aims to put child protection and welfare guidelines on a statutory footing.
She has detailed this as consisting of three main areas:
So how will she fit into her now role?
The Taoiseach announced this morning that Alan Shatter’s portfolio is to be split.
Kenny has taken on the Defence aspect, while Fitzgerald takes over Justice and Equality.
Her former ministry will be taken over by current Fine Gael chairman Charlie Flanagan.
Her experience with the Justice portfolio has been limited, having only spent a period on an an Oireacthas Justice committee.
However, she is familiar with Equality, and would have been comfortable with Defence, having both those portfolios under her belt during her time as an opposition TD.
Fitzgerald served as both Spokesperson on Defence, Social Community and Family Affairs, and also Equality and Family Affairs.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Interest rates have reached a level that makes borrowing to grow employment giving investment impossible.
@thomas molloy: Interest rates have been much higher in the past. At one point in the 90s, rates were in the mid-teens.
The low interest rates we have experienced over the past decade or so are an anomaly, in historical terms.
They will claim that they have achieved their objective in that inflation has reduced. They cannot see that their hiking of rates contributed to the inflation rate rise.
@Pato: ehhhhhhhh no.
@Pato: Explain.because everyone else will disagree with you.
@Pato: Please do explain
@Donal McCarthy: I think Pato is largely correct.
Inflation can be caused by two things:
1) A shortage of some goods, or service
2) A surfeit of money in an economy
As I understand it, the inflation we experienced – and are still experiencing – was due to (a contrived) shortage. A shortage in energy, driving up fuel and electricity prices, which then fed into everything else. This was preceded by another shortage caused by the Corona virus pandemic shutting down lots of manufacturing, particularly in China – the so-called supply chain shortages.
The way to address inflation caused by too much money in the economy is to remove some of that money. Increasing interest rates is one way to do that.
However, increasing interest rates will not bring down the cost of electricity.
Or petrol.
When the (major) cause of our inflation is the profiteering of energy companies, increasing interest rates just puts more cost onto all of us, including businesses. Which can only recoup those additional costs by increasing their prices.
Which adds to inflation.
The best way to address such profiteering by the oil (and gas, and associated energy) companies would have been a windfall tax.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: pato stated that the interest rate rises caused the inflation which was incorrect. yes energy prices and supply chain issues were minor contributory factors, but the primary factor was 10 years of free money, which was then acclerated into turbo over drive during covid when physical money supply in the US and EU increased by near 50%. There were 50% more dollars/euros in peoples back accounts after covid then before covid. I do not believe we will see near zero interest rates for some time. I believe it will remain between 2-3% for the very reason that this new money had to be extracted out of the economy and it needs to stay there otherwise it will result in another cycle of inflation.
@Niall English: No, Pato did not say that.
Pato said that raising interest rates “contributed to the inflation rate rise.”
Which is correct, in my view.
Bitcoin fixes Central Bank Ponzi Schemes
@Snacktoshi Nachomoto: how?
@Snacktoshi Nachomoto: anyone who buys crypto currency is a fool and typically didn’t study business subjects in school. The government and central banks decide what Currency we use whether that may involve digital euro. Profiting from digital euro is foolish.
@Snacktoshi Nachomoto: I’m afraid you are not as well informed as you may think. Bitcoin is the real ponzi scheme.
@Snacktoshi Nachomoto: bitcoin is the currency of crooks
@Liam Clifden: but maybe the worst performing in 2022, so what’s your point??
@Liam Clifden: Actually that’s a lie, xrp has preformed better than bitcoin and that’s with a court case hanging over it head, xrp is up over 50 percent from its bottom this year, bitcoin isn’t up over 50 percent from its bottom this year,
@Liam Clifden: bitcoin has zero intrinsic value. people like yourself are pursuant to the greater f00l theory. in order to profit, you need to find a bigger f00l to buy it at a higher price.
Control the money control the people
Great news. And well done central bankers. A solid victory over the ever populist economists.
@Itwaslikethatwhenigothere:
I don’t think you’re correct in relation to a windfall tax. Windfall taxes do nothing to protect against profiteering, they simply allow the state to increase their tax take.
Consider this. Company A usually makes profits of €100m and pays 12.5% tax on this. So they net 87.5m
Now they increase their prices and their income doubles to €200m – the government introduce a windfall tax of 20% on profits in excess of 100m so they now net 87.5m on the first 100m and 80m on the second 100m – net profits have increased to 167.5m – why would that entice them to reduce prices?
Even if the windfall tax was 50% – there is still no incentive to reduce as 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. The only winner here is the exchequer.
If you want to limit profiteering then a price cap is the only way it could work. Windfall taxes are ineffectual.
@Liam Clifden: Bernie Madoffs Ponzi scheme was running for 17 years…
Happy Christmas from the European Central Bank
have your say