The Greens - will they bolt?

skelliser

agreed

whats the use in planning if nothing is gonna be built here for 10 years. Some of the notions these guys are on about, its scary. They are so out of touch much worse then ff i fear.

MikeC101

In a strange way, I almost despise the Greens more than FF.

FF are doing pretty much what I'd expect of them to do - clinging to power in any way they can. They don't have principles.

For some reason I thought the Greens had a semblance of moral character. Now, they can go and rot on an eco friendly compost heap for all I care.

"A deal with Fianna Fáil would be a deal with the Devil. We would be spat out after 5 years, and decimated as a party". Ciaran Cuffe might be proven to have been very correct.

Macha

Does anyone here have any idea what it would do to our economy if the government were to fall right now?

Personally, I would never forgive the Greens if they let the government collapse right now at a time when we need political stability.

Ludo

But we don't have political stability right now...far from it in fact. It is all just fire fighting, damage control and covering their ass by the government. A clean slate provided by a snap general election is what will bring stability.

Macha

Ludo wrote: »

But we don't have political stability right now...far from it in fact. It is all just fire fighting, damage control and covering their ass by the government. A clean slate provided by a snap general election is what will bring stability.

I disagree. In the 2007 general election, the Dail was dissolved on the 29th of April, election took place on the 24th of May and a new government wasn't formed until the 14th of June. So we had 6 weeks of no government and every single politician putting his or her efforts into getting re-elected. Not focusing on the economy at all but falling over each other to promise the most populist policies possible - hardly what we need right now.

And what exactly will FG do differently with the economy? NAMA will still go ahead, regardless of what Enda says. His alternative does not even make sense.

Having said that, FF needs to seriously cop on and get rid of Mary Coughlan & stop covering for John O'Donoghue.

Ludo

taconnol wrote: »

I disagree. In the 2007 general election, the Dail was dissolved on the 29th of April, election took place on the 24th of May and a new government wasn't formed until the 14th of June. So we had 6 weeks of no government and every single politician putting his or her efforts into getting re-elected. Not focusing on the economy at all but falling over each other to promise the most populist policies possible - hardly what we need right now.

Well how long was the dail on holidays for in the last few months? We effectively had no government then either as far as I can see and the country didn't fall apart.
As to the 6 weeks you mention...who exactly ran the country during that period?

Macha

Ludo wrote: »

Well how long was the dail on holidays for in the last few months? We effectively had no government then either as far as I can see and the country didn't fall apart.

It was too long and even though they cut it by 3 weeks, I think the summer break was far too long. I also believe the long break did significant damage as it was during a time when important decisions needed to be taken quickly. (I didn't say they country would fall apart, did I?)

There is also a big difference in the image projected to the outside world of a summer break and a general election.

Darsad

taconnol wrote: »

Personally, I would never forgive the Greens if they let the government collapse right now at a time when we need political stability.

Thats simply because it would be the end of your green moronic pals and their idiotic policies just look at the bunch of tree hugging twits on with kenny last night good riddance and the sooner the better!

Macha

Darsad wrote: »

Thats simply because it would be the end of your green moronic pals and their idiotic policies just look at the bunch of tree hugging twits on with kenny last night good riddance and the sooner the better!

I stopped reading at 'tree hugging twits'.

God forbid you put forward a decent argument instead of throwing out names and nonsense.

maynooth_rules

taconnol wrote: »

Does anyone here have any idea what it would do to our economy if the government were to fall right now?

Personally, I would never forgive the Greens if they let the government collapse right now at a time when we need political stability.

So rather than walk out of governement and let the people have their say and give their mandate to the politicians that WE want to get us out of this complete and utter mess, they should stay in with the shower of wasters and chancers that they currently share government with, simply for political stabilitys sake. Forgive me but id rather a government that had a set plan of how to get us out of this recession, id rather a leader that has been given a mandate by the people, and id rather a Minister for Finance who has been educated in Economics. Give me that over accepting a totally incompetent, underperforming government simply because of political stabilitys sake

Ludo

taconnol wrote: »

It was too long and even though they cut it by 3 weeks, I think the summer break was far too long. I also believe the long break did significant damage as it was during a time when important decisions needed to be taken quickly. (I didn't say they country would fall apart, did I?)

There is also a big difference in the image projected to the outside world of a summer break and a general election.

That is where we disagree I guess. To me taking a summer break where out Taoiseach was invisible for a couple of months says I couldn't care less about the economy...I'm off to my villa in the sun.

An election says we are going to discuss everything, get it all out there and let the people decide who they think can help the most or who they trust the most.
That creates a better impression to me.

Macha

maynooth_rules wrote: »

So rather than walk out of governement and let the people have their say and give their mandate to the politicians that WE want to get us out of this complete and utter mess, they should stay in with the shower of wasters and chancers that they currently share government with, simply for political stabilitys sake. Forgive me but id rather a government that had a set plan of how to get us out of this recession, id rather a leader that has been given a mandate by the people, and id rather a Minister for Finance who has been educated in Economics. Give me that over accepting a totally incompetent, underperforming government simply because of political stabilitys sake

Whatever you might think, the general election of 2007 gives FF & Greens a mandate of 5 years. You can go on and on about mandates all you like but those are the facts.

You also say 'simply for political stability's sake' a few times as if this is of little importance. Let me tell you, big business, investors and those lending us money do not consider political stability of little importance. Take a look at the reduction in cost of Ireland's borrowings as a result of the YES to Lisbon - largely due to certainty in Ireland's long-term direction and place in the EU.

Regarding plans, I really don't see FG's alternative as any sort of credible plan. The reality is that if FG got into power, they would continue with NAMA. I would also, as already mentioned, be fearful of nonsensical populist policies getting a foothold as is often the case around general election times. No one wants to pay more tax and no one wants social services to suffer and no one wants NAMA but unpopular decisions are often the necessary ones.

Ludo wrote: »

That is where we disagree I guess. To me taking a summer break where out Taoiseach was invisible for a couple of months says I couldn't care less about the economy...I'm off to my villa in the sun.

Fair enough

Amhran Nua

Trotter wrote: »

Here we have a number of the greens saying the people on the doorsteps want them to stay in goverment. I seriously doubt that.

Their performance in the locals said it all really.

taconnol wrote: »

Does anyone here have any idea what it would do to our economy if the government were to fall right now?

It wouldn't be saddled with billions in useless debt?

taconnol wrote: »

And what exactly will FG do differently with the economy?

Reform the healthcare sector along the lines of the Dutch system, cutting almost half of the persistent deficit in the process, is one of their policies I believe.

taconnol wrote: »

Having said that, FF needs to seriously cop on and get rid of Mary Coughlan & stop covering for John O'Donoghue.

Yes, a nice couple of sacrificial lambs to fig leaf the real culprits.

The damage that six weeks of politicking versus the damage that these people will do if they are allowed to remain in power are in no way comparable.

Amhran Nua

taconnol wrote: »

Let me tell you, big business, investors and those lending us money do not consider political stability of little importance.

Businesses don't want to do business in a country with extremely unpopular governments, because it leads one way or the other to instability.

taconnol wrote: »

no one wants NAMA but unpopular decisions are often the necessary ones.

You're kidding with this right? NAMA is neccessary? Even if it does go ahead in all of its deformed from original purpose glory there are no guarantees the banks will start lending again. Why would they, they've just been handed years of profits. And if they do lend, what will they lend to, the property market? We don't need or want that monstrosity revived, we want real productive businesses.

Biggins

In relation to NAMA, the Greens and what its means for the state and the next generation to be saddled down with 40+ billion of debt, I suggest folk watch the discussion that took place on the 21st on RTE's Frontline: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0921/thefrontline_av.html

For last nights one, watch the recap here: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1005/thefrontline_av.html

Macha

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Reform the healthcare sector along the lines of the Dutch system, cutting almost half of the persistent deficit in the process, is one of their policies I believe.

Funnily enough, reform of the healthcare sector is on the list for Saturday's convention.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, a nice couple of sacrificial lambs to fig leaf the real culprits.

You know sometimes you just can't win. Everyone on here is baying for O'Donoghue's head and spitting feathers but then when it's suggested he's just sacrificial lambs. You think Mary Coughlan isn't a real culprit?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The damage that six weeks of politicking versus the damage that these people will do if they are allowed to remain in power are in no way comparable.

I disagree.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Businesses don't want to do business in a country with extremely unpopular governments, because it leads one way or the other to instability.

Sorry but that is totally ridiculous. You think that business doesn't like doing business in countries with unpopular governments? I think very little in history would support that thesis.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You're kidding with this right? NAMA is neccessary? Even if it does go ahead in all of its deformed from original purpose glory there are no guarantees the banks will start lending again. Why would they, they've just been handed years of profits. And if they do lend, what will they lend to, the property market? We don't need or want that monstrosity revived, we want real productive businesses.

-What's your alternative to NAMA?
-Of course the banks are going to start lending again, do you have any proof to the contrary?

Amhran Nua

taconnol wrote: »

Funnily enough, reform of the healthcare sector is on the list for Saturday's convention.

Oh its on the list, thats great.

taconnol wrote: »

You know sometimes you just can't win. Everyone on here is baying for O'Donoghue's head and spitting feathers but then when it's suggested he's just sacrificial lambs. You think Mary Coughlan isn't a real culprit?

You know what I would call firing those two? A good start.

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but that is totally ridiculous. You think that business doesn't like doing business in countries with unpopular governments? I think very little in history would support that thesis.

Yes, thats why third world countries have such thriving business environments.

taconnol wrote: »

-What's your alternative to NAMA?

Click on the sig there. Its fairly similar to David McWilliams' proposal of a few weeks ago, except we had ours up in March. Dermot Desmond also suggested an alternative.

taconnol wrote: »

-Of course the banks are going to start lending again, do you have any proof to the contrary?

Lots and lots. And thats after the stimulus programmes.

Lending at many of the nation's largest banks fell in recent months, even after they received $148 billion in taxpayer capital that was intended to help the economy by making loans more readily available.

Ten of the 13 big beneficiaries of the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, saw their outstanding loan balances decline by a total of about $46 billion, or 1.4%, between the third and fourth quarters of 2008, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of banks that recently announced their quarterly results.

Those 13 banks have collected the lion's share of the roughly $200 billion the government has doled out since TARP was launched last October to stabilize financial institutions. Banks reporting declines in outstanding loans range from giants Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc., each of which got $45 billion from the government; to smaller, regional institutions. Just three of the banks reported growth in their loan portfolios: U.S. Bancorp, SunTrust Banks Inc. and BB&T Corp.

The loan figures analyzed by the Journal exclude some big TARP recipients that haven't reported fourth-quarter results yet, such as Wells Fargo & Co.

The overall decline in loans on the 13 banks' books -- from about $3.36 trillion as of Sept. 30 to $3.31 trillion at year's end -- raises fresh questions about TARP's effectiveness at coaxing banks to reopen their lending spigots.

"It has failed," said Campbell Harvey, a finance professor at Duke University's business school. "Basically we have dropped a huge amount of money ... and we have nothing to show for what we actually wanted to happen."

Macha

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Oh its on the list, thats great.

:rolleyes:

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You know what I would call firing those two? A good start.

More populist nonsense.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, thats why third world countries have such thriving business environments.

Um..you think only 'third world countries' have unpopular governments? Dear oh dear.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Click on the sig there. Its fairly similar to David McWilliams' proposal of a few weeks ago, except we had ours up in March. Dermot Desmond also suggested an alternative.

Look, I know you're promoting your new political party but I'm afraid it doesn't make a lot of economic sense. There is also the damage to consider that dropping NAMA and starting with another programme would do.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Lots and lots. And thats after the stimulus programmes.

Please. After WSJ's input into the Lisbon debate, they have very little credibility left.

Amhran Nua

taconnol wrote: »

More populist nonsense.

More meaningless rhetoric.

taconnol wrote: »

Um..you think only 'third world countries' have unpopular governments? Dear oh dear.

They make good case studies for the direction we're going under this government.

taconnol wrote: »

Look, I know you're promoting your new political party but I'm afraid it doesn't make a lot of economic sense. There is also the damage to consider that dropping NAMA and starting with another programme would do.

So you have no objections you are able to enunciate to the policies? As for damage done by dropping NAMA, we already have one of the most unpopular governments in the history of the state, its not like there will be a crisis of confidence.

taconnol wrote: »

Please. After WSJ's input into the Lisbon debate, they have very little credibility left.

So tell us, what factual inaccuracies do you see in that article? Any? And those two took me about five seconds of googling to turn up, there are plenty more. The fact is that banks open their doors long enough to take stimulus funds, say thanks, then close up again. Saying it will be any different in Ireland is ludicrous in the extreme.

You haven't a leg to stand on here.

Biggins

To be fair, I think we have gotten off topic.
I assume on that topic, an awful lot fear the worst and see the presnt FF lot dragging us down into a bigger hole instead of filling it.

If its right or wrong (debatable) the same lot that got us to a great degree, to the present situation, is trying by their seemingly tried and tired ways, to get us out of the mess.

Myself, I think its time to seek alternative independent folk to re-access the situation, seek and provide their own independent solutions.
Ones that are devoid of mud slinging, blame escapism and ones that is not still looking after the big boys first and those in power.

Macha

Amhran Nua wrote: »

More meaningless rhetoric.

I'm afraid that doesn't actually make any sense when read in conjunction with what I wrote..

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So tell us, what factual inaccuracies do you see in that article? Any? And those two took me about five seconds of googling to turn up, there are plenty more. The fact is that banks open their doors long enough to take stimulus funds, say thanks, then close up again. Saying it will be any different in Ireland is ludicrous in the extreme.

You see, it takes a little more than 5 seconds of googling and linking to dodgy Murdoch-run publications to prove your point. It also takes a bit more than stating that saying otherwise is ludicrous.

I also find it somewhat odd that you fear that the banks will not act as money-making enterprises (ie will not lend) but advocate their nationalisation at the same time...

And as Biggins correctly states, NAMA is separate to the Greens staying in power. There are two separate motions on the issues at the Convention on Saturday.

Biggins

taconnol wrote: »

...There are two separate motions on the issues at the Convention on Saturday.

To be fair to ye both, the above is correct.

pat kenny

Biggins wrote: »

To be fair to ye both, the above is correct.

Not really. Although there are 2 motions, Green party member may use one motion to scupper the other.

For instance if I was a Green party member who was opposed to NAMA I would see the difficulty in getting 2/3 of the party to vote against it. Thus the best way to scupper NAMA would be to vote against the new program for government which would only need 1/3 to agree, collapse the government and NAMA with it.

As far as I can see the second method is the more bullet proof path to kill NAMA, it is the root I would take.

I didn't vote greens in the last election, but if they brought down the government and NAMA I would certainly give them my preference votes in any upcoming electionh.

Boskowski

taconnol wrote: »

I disagree. In the 2007 general election, the Dail was dissolved on the 29th of April, election took place on the 24th of May and a new government wasn't formed until the 14th of June. So we had 6 weeks of no government and every single politician putting his or her efforts into getting re-elected. Not focusing on the economy at all but falling over each other to promise the most populist policies possible - hardly what we need right now.

Lol. It was hardly any worse in 2007 than it was a couple of months back when they simply fecked off on their holidays...

Biggins

pat kenny wrote: »

Not really. Although there are 2 motions, Green party member may use one motion to scupper the other.

Its a process quandary really for those there on the day.
There is two motions on the agenda.
Depending on the day which one is called first, will decide how the other will fair and if it can be persuaded.

Amhran Nua

taconnol wrote: »

I'm afraid that doesn't actually make any sense when read in conjunction with what I wrote..

Only in your head, I'm afraid.

taconnol wrote: »

You see, it takes a little more than 5 seconds of googling and linking to dodgy Murdoch-run publications to prove your point. It also takes a bit more than stating that saying otherwise is ludicrous.

So you can find no factual inaccuracies with the one article of many, from a wide variety of different sources, that I bothered to post up?

taconnol wrote: »

AI also find it somewhat odd that you fear that the banks will not act as money-making enterprises (ie will not lend) but advocate their nationalisation at the same time...

They will be making money, and plenty of it. That it comes from the taxpayers rather than in the normal course of business is the point. Seriously, not a leg.

taconnol wrote: »

And as Biggins correctly states, NAMA is separate to the Greens staying in power.

Where did Biggins state that?

Biggins

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Where did Biggins state that?

Was wondering that myself!
Gee I must be so good, I fail to see it badly. :D:D:D:D

Nama will make or break the Greens - it will be a major 'straw' that will decide if they jump ship or not.

Macha

Biggins wrote: »

Was wondering that myself!
Gee I must be so good, I fail to see it badly. :D:D:D:D

Nama will make or break the Greens - it will be a major 'straw' that will decide if they jump ship or not.

Sorry I mean two separate motions. After Lisbon, I'm so tired of people trying to conflate two unrelated topics and take a very dim view of people who try to do so, as described by pat kenny (No to NAMA, No to Lisbon; No to FF, No to Lisbon...ad nauseum).

Amhran Nua, good luck with your new party but I suggest you brush up on your debating skills. If the above is the best you can do you're not going to get very far..."only in your head.."???

Amhran Nua

taconnol wrote: »

Amhran Nua, good luck with your new party but I suggest you brush up on your debating skills. If the above is the best you can do you're not going to get very far..."only in your head.."???

Sufficient unto the day, the evil thereof and all that. And in fairness it was far from the only point made, nor was it inaccurate.

Biggins

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Sufficient unto the day, the evil thereof and all that. And in fairness it was far from the only point made, nor was it inaccurate.

Thats it, I'm off to study Shakespeare! :pac: