New Programme for Government agreed

Biggins

The_Minister wrote: »

They probably realised that it isn't happening any more (not that it probably ever did), and stopped caring.

I suspect it did happen unbeknown to us - but even so (either way) if they had insisted such actions be accountable, with wished for safeguards previously asked for, it wouldn't have done any harm to have let the request still stand.
If there was nothing to worry about, FF should have no worries in adopting such legalised safeguards and/or protocols to renditions through our country.

Strange thou...

Macha

thebman wrote: »

Condescending much? I could give about a thousand reasons why the NBS is a disaster but what would be the point? You'll still try to polish it to look like gold because you don't care if it works or not as long as you can make it look like it works and claim it as a green achievement.

I wasn't aware of the element of mobile broadband so thanks for pointing that out. If you have other reasons that Ryan isn't doing a good job at broadband I'm all ears. I'm not a blind Greens-supporter. I also think Labour would do a pretty good job, for example. If you have other reasons, then by all means post them up and we can debate.

thebman wrote: »

Only reason my arse. Cope on to yourself and stop the I'm better than you attitude. All it does is put more people off the green party TBH.

The personal digs are getting just a little too much at this stage.

Biggins wrote: »

Well sorry for having an opinion. I didn't know, again, we all have to explain ourselves in full with detail.
- BUT I apologise for any offence caused. Its clear your a decent person with good strong views.
We both want to see the current mess get better.

Thank you Biggins. I appreciate you writing this. I know it's hard to believe but seriously, people were texting, twittering etc at 4am this morning as they were still waiting for the PfG to arrive.

Biggins wrote: »

Are they a party with a majority Green issue manifest along with a decent understandable list of other concerns or are they now a mainstream political party with a majority manifesto of "other concerns" and a small minority of green issues?

Somehow I feel, the distinction has become lost.

I see what you mean. I can't really speak on behalf of the Green Party but the way I see it, the party believes that today's society is fundamentlaly unsustainable and serious changes at all levels are needed. The impacts on the environment are serious but people forget there are also economic and social costs to bad policy. For example the lax planning policy in the past:
-economic costs: well, where do I start? thousands in negative equity, the banks etc etc. But also the serious cost to government to provide services to these spread out housing estates.
-social costs: because housing, a basic need, was left up to the market, those who couldn't afford to enter the market went without. And not just in terms of having to rent - the numbers of homeless have seen significant increases. The elderly, young and infirm are socially excluded as they can't drive in places with no public transport. Families spend hours in their car commuting.
-environmental costs: low density sprawl leaving Ireland with a huge dependency on private cars.

I think most people in the Greens see things in terms of this (to use a terrible cliche) the triple bottom line.

Edit: Is it a ban on stag hunting or deer hunting? Big difference between the two.

Trotter

It seems the programme for government vote will go through.

What will happen if that goes through but the NAMA vote doesnt go through? Will they walk based on that? I doubt the country has that kind of luck.

Biggins

Trotter wrote: »

It seems the programme for government vote will go through.

What will happen if that goes through but the NAMA vote doesnt go through? Will they walk based on that? I doubt the country has that kind of luck.

The two crucial votes as far as I can tell are in the order of PFG first, then NAMA.

So even if the PFG is passed first, the vote on NAMA rejection motion still could be passed.
The heads of the Greens stated that if NAMA is rejected, they will have no choice but to pull out.

Someone will rightly correct me if I am wrong.

dan719

Trotter wrote: »

It seems the programme for government vote will go through.

What will happen if that goes through but the NAMA vote doesnt go through? Will they walk based on that? I doubt the country has that kind of luck.

Any link? Not trying to dispute your claim, just curious? If PFG goes through, then surely that implies NAMA will go through too, no? I mean, NAMA is part of PFG, not as important as perhaps eh fur-farming but important none the less?

Macha

Biggins wrote: »

Someone will rightly correct me if I am wrong.

I think you're right. Officially one vote is on staying in government and the other is on NAMA but in reality both are needed or the Greens have to pull out.

More proof found!

The meeting, attended by an estimated 600 Green members, got underway at about 11.30am and has now broken for lunch. The reason was a delay in making the document available to members.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1010/breaking2.htm


I'm getting word that PfG is getting the thumbs up but that was always going to be the easier one. Result due at 7pm, darn they miss the 6pm news. :pac:

Trotter

dan719 wrote: »

Any link? Not trying to dispute your claim, just curious? If PFG goes through, then surely that implies NAMA will go through too, no? I mean, NAMA is part of PFG, not as important as perhaps eh fur-farming but important none the less?

Just following that link for the live updates..

Gormley gets an ovation for the programme for government = likely to pass the vote

opposition to NAMA is strong and passionate

= possible voting down of NAMA.

Of course I could be basing my idea here on waffle but I'm just messing around with the possible permutations.

PFG Yes and NAMA No = Greens pull out? We'll see.

Het-Field

taconnol wrote: »

I wasn't aware of the element of mobile broadband so thanks for pointing that out. If you have other reasons that Ryan isn't doing a good job at broadband I'm all ears. I'm not a blind Greens-supporter. I also think Labour would do a pretty good job, for example. If you have other reasons, then by all means post them up and we can debate.


The personal digs are getting just a little too much at this stage.


Thank you Biggins. I appreciate you writing this. I know it's hard to believe but seriously, people were texting, twittering etc at 4am this morning as they were still waiting for the PfG to arrive.


I see what you mean. I can't really speak on behalf of the Green Party but the way I see it, the party believes that today's society is fundamentlaly unsustainable and serious changes at all levels are needed. The impacts on the environment are serious but people forget there are also economic and social costs to bad policy. For example the lax planning policy in the past:
-economic costs: well, where do I start? thousands in negative equity, the banks etc etc. But also the serious cost to government to provide services to these spread out housing estates.
-social costs: because housing, a basic need, was left up to the market, those who couldn't afford to enter the market went without. And not just in terms of having to rent - the numbers of homeless have seen significant increases. The elderly, young and infirm are socially excluded as they can't drive in places with no public transport. Families spend hours in their car commuting.
-environmental costs: low density sprawl leaving Ireland with a huge dependency on private cars.

I think most people in the Greens see things in terms of this (to use a terrible cliche) the triple bottom line.

Edit: Is it a ban on stag hunting or deer hunting? Big difference between the two.

TBH, unless you are sucked in by the amazing rhetorics of the Labour party, I cannot see anybody outside of their rank and file who would agree with you. Earlier, i mentioned the Labour party's only solid economic ajustment document was a 2.1 Billion tax and spend document. It didnt focus on the fiscal realities, and stunk of the tax and spend polices, of which the Labour Party have been staunch adherents of for years. Remember, in the 1980s, this type of attitude stagnated the economy, and it was the Labour Party who were driving this agenda. Labour would also oppose any cuts, and simply seek taxs hikes all over the place. The core public sector vote has swung from FF to Labour on the back of their performance over the past months

The nationalisation option is the only opetion which has been espoused by the Labour Party. They have never mentioned the possibility of running NAMA though Anglo Irish Bank, the establishment of a good bank, which would give the banks a chance to seek to get their houses in order, or indeed the NAMA as it is. Remember, nationalisation is the most unpalatable of all options, as it would take on the whole banking sector, and it would be in the hands of the most inept Irish Government ever.

I was equally disgusted by the attitude of their Democratic Left/Workers Party rank-n-file who used the crisis as a chance to dance on the grave of liberal economics. Jackie O Conner happily used his time at the 2008 Labou Party conference to celebrate the demise of "Reganomics". It was a dispicable act, where he used the pain and suffereing of hundered of thousands to espouse his marxist style ideology.

Finally, while I dont disagree with your analysis, i would be concerned about becoming sectoral about the crisis, and what should be looked at. Remember, our entire economy is virtually a busted flush. Competitiveness, creditworthyness, unemployment, and a massive hole in the public finances articulate how bad were are. Thus, the Greens need to take a look at the bigger picture, and not simply relate this crisis to undoubtedly bad planning policy, and the environment.

Biggins

taconnol wrote: »

I'm getting word that PfG is getting the thumbs up but that was always going to be the easier one. Result due at 7pm, darn they miss the 6pm news. :pac:

Wife says they better hurry up!
They might effect her watching the x-Factor gawd help us! :rolleyes:

:pac:

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

TBH, unless you are sucked in by the amazing rhetorics of the Labour party, I cannot see anybody outside of their rank and file who would agree with you.

Well Het-Field, I know you're into liberal economics so I wouldn't expect you to agree with Labour's economic policies. I personally don't agree with their alternative to NAMA. I suppose I was talking more generally in that I support social liberalism but a more regulated financial sector.

Het-Field wrote: »

Finally, while I dont disagree with your analysis, i would be concerned about becoming sectoral about the crisis, and what should be looked at. Remember, our entire economy is virtually a busted flush. Competitiveness, creditworthyness, unemployment, and a massive hole in the public finances articulate how bad were are. Thus, the Greens need to take a look at the bigger picture, and not simply relate this crisis to undoubtedly bad planning policy, and the environment.

No no, I didn't say they were simply relating the crisis to bad planning. That was an example I was giving of the sort of comprehensive thinking that I reckon is pretty central to Green policies.

As for unemployment, I think I've spouted on about the green economy long enough

thebman

taconnol wrote: »

I wasn't aware of the element of mobile broadband so thanks for pointing that out. If you have other reasons that Ryan isn't doing a good job at broadband I'm all ears. I'm not a blind Greens-supporter. I also think Labour would do a pretty good job, for example. If you have other reasons, then by all means post them up and we can debate.

Read this please (PDF):
http://irelandoffline.org/wp-content/2009/02/irelandoffline-nbs_briefing_document.pdf

Of particular interest in relation to NBS coverage area is cell breathing where as more users join 3's solution, the actual coverage area reduces and users at edge of coverage get disconnected as more users closer to cell join.

This means that it is easy to misrepresent coverage areas and from IO's analysis it would appear that this is exactly what 3 are doing with the number of cells they have compared to the number required to cover the areas defined in the NBS.

It seems pretty clear that the department is aware of the problems with the technology assuming they did their homework but awarded the contract to them anyway based on cost (and lack of alternatives as apparently eircom's bid was similar but with Meteor). Realistically a better solution is required though and the NBS is doomed to failure IMO even if 3 upgrade the networks as problems occur, I doubt they'll be able to upgrade fast enough to keep up with demand in many areas as they will be providing the only available service in many areas so they are doomed to fail to meet their contractual obligations IMO.

This is before you even look at the problems with a mobile solution such as not suitable for VOIP or gaming or any other services that require a stable connection or low latency (sub 100ms pings between client and server). For instance you still have to dial up on the modem for mobile BB. This may seem small but as this is to be utilised by businesses and disconnects can occur on a mobile network, your talking about having someone dial up the modem each time this occurs. A true broadband solution should be always on and available on demand.

observation:
Then you have the large number of complaints on here and to last word (coincidentally the last words coverage of these problems only stopped when 3 started sponsoring the last word not that I'm saying there is a link) and when Eamon Ryan appeared on Late Late Show with Pat Kenny, 3 sponsored the prize that night and the NBS ended up only getting a passing mention rather than being the focus of the show since it had just been signed, again just coincidence I'm sure. Although if only one had happened, I'd be a little more confident in saying it was a coincidence :-/

Anyway this is off topic really so last post on the matter.

brianthebard

Het-Field wrote: »

TBH, unless you are sucked in by the amazing rhetorics of the Labour party, I cannot see anybody outside of their rank and file who would agree with you.

Gilmore has the highest approval rating of all party leaders, and the Labour party popularity is quite high atm too afaik.

The nationalisation option is the only opetion which has been espoused by the Labour Party. They have never mentioned the possibility of running NAMA though Anglo Irish Bank, the establishment of a good bank, which would give the banks a chance to seek to get their houses in order, or indeed the NAMA as it is. Remember, nationalisation is the most unpalatable of all options, as it would take on the whole banking sector, and it would be in the hands of the most inept Irish Government ever.

Why is nationalisation the most unpalatable option, because you disagree with it? From what I've read there are several options which would be better than NAMA, and nationalisation is one of them. For a start the taxpayer would pay less and would gain good and bad assets. Here is a link to an article which breaks down the options; http://www.progressive-economy.ie/2009/09/if-you-want-to-play-solve-irish-banking.html

I was equally disgusted by the attitude of their Democratic Left/Workers Party rank-n-file who used the crisis as a chance to dance on the grave of liberal economics. Jackie O Conner happily used his time at the 2008 Labou Party conference to celebrate the demise of "Reganomics". It was a dispicable act, where he used the pain and suffereing of hundered of thousands to espouse his marxist style ideology.

People need to be reminded what got us into this mess, otherwise they are liable to do it again. It seems you disagree with labour and jack o'connor on personal grounds rather than any real issues. Would your attempts to promote the liberal group also feed into your dismissive attitude towards labour and the unions?

the groutch

tbh I think all this Green negotiation is futile, all they got was promises, and given the promises made by Fianna Fail prior to the last election, they're hardly trustworthy are they?

turgon

brianthebard wrote: »

Would your attempts to promote the liberal group also feed into your dismissive attitude towards labour and the unions?

I think reality is enough to foster a dismissive attitude to the Labour party.

The fact of the matter is is that we are dealing with a huge government deficit at the moment. Social Welfare (21 billion) and Public Sector wages (20 billion) account for up to 70% of Irish government spending. The only major way we are going to reduce spending is by cutting these two areas and that is not going to be done by the Labour party. Their policies will get this country no where.

Absurdum

brianthebard wrote: »

Presumably the fur lobby in the party will be ok with the phasing out plan? Which means they'll vote yes to NAMA. I'm amazed that this plan hinges on a small group of fur activists. Feels like a kick in the crotch.

I don't think there is a link between the two other than that dreamt up by the anti-green lobby on here. My understanding is that the NAMA thing needs two thirds to reverse their support for the deal. So your crotch should be ok for now.

ps. it's anti-fur

brianthebard

Absurdum wrote: »

I don't think there is a link between the two other than that dreamt up by the anti-green lobby on here. My understanding is that the NAMA thing needs two thirds to reverse their support for the deal. So your crotch should be ok for now.

ps. it's anti-fur

I'm not really sure what you mean, there's a really fur lobby section of the party which publicly said during the week they would vote yes or no to NAMA based on a ban on fur.

I know its anti-fur, but I like calling them the fur lobby for the lol. Mainly cause there's nothing else I can do atm about them.

Rb

Het-Field wrote: »

With due respect, it was consistent 10% + increases in public spending which landed us in this mess. It was through borrowing, and windfall taxes that we managed to live the "high life" after the small slump in 2002. Bertie pragmatism is to blame for this.

Internationally, all countries are having difficult times (we just happen to be having much worse !). However, they have all had alternative tax regimes, some high, and some low. Low taxation is not the main contributing factor to this mess, it was ludicriously wanton and lack of frugality which has driven us to this point.

Oh absolutely and we'll get our chance to voice our discontent with FF at the next GE. However, my point was more on finding the cash to run the economy right now, last I heard we're spending 55bn and taking in 30bn or so, but I'm open to correction on that. Regardless, we're borrowing at a disturbing rate and though a lot of damage has been done, regardless of what measure is taken it will be the citizens who pay for it, as opposed to those behind the wheel at the time.

At the end of the day, we've got to do what we've got to do in order to get things going again, and increased taxes to pull in revenue is one of the most basic ways to achieve this.

dan719 wrote: »

I know. Aren't they so stupid, complaining about taxes when we are broke.

I am so glad, that instead of letting students pay for their education at third level, we will continue to fund it unnecassarily.

Did you actually read your post? Because it is f*cking ret*rded.

Well, at least they'll learn how to spell unnecessarily correctly :pac:

You do realise that a highly educated, highly skilled, English speaking workforce is one of the main reasons in why we attracted so much foreign investment previously?

We need to keep investing in the education of our youth, at the end of the day it is more important than an extra few euro in the pockets of the work force.

It wasn't the students who were being grossly overpaid over the good years, you have to remember, so let's not be angry should they not lose out in the bad ones.

With regards to your last line, keep crying, it's amusing if nothing else. The word retarded isn't even censored.

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

Try telling this to the likes of John O'Donoghue, he still thinks that we are living in streets paved with gold, it makes me happy everytime I hear how he spent my hard earned taxes. :mad:

But we wouldn't bat an eyelid had it appeared during the good years?

It's a flawed system which he used to his full advantage, but I'm sure you would have done the same if you were in his position.

dan719

Rb wrote: »

Well, at least they'll learn how to spell unnecessarily correctly :pac:

You do realise that a highly educated, highly skilled, English speaking workforce is one of the main reasons in why we attracted so much foreign investment previously?

We need to keep investing in the education of our youth, at the end of the day it is more important than an extra few euro in the pockets of the work force.

It wasn't the students who were being grossly overpaid over the good years, you have to remember, so let's not be angry should they not lose out in the bad ones.

With regards to your last line, keep crying, it's amusing if nothing else. The word retarded isn't even censored.

Wow, a typo. You is so smart.

The four key reasons for investing in Ireland (FDI);

1. The low level of corporate tax rate.
2. Access to European markets.
3. Incentives offered by government such as industrial estates.
4. An English speaking, educated workforce.

Taken from 'After the Celtic Tiger'. Notice the ranking. I'm sure you learnt numbers recently.

Now let's look at some facts regarding spending on education.

We know, that investment in education has a highest return on money spent up to the age of ten. So from a CBA point of view, primary and perhaps secondary education should be funded by the state. So your claim that we need to continue investing in education is not applicable to third level students. See M Blaug 'The Economics of Education'.

In the last decade, there are plenty of people who were bypassed by the boom. Rural towns maintained unemployment rates of ~10%, and not everyone was living the high life. Unfortunately the argument that 'we didn't cause the recession' is not sufficient as a reason not to take part in the pain to get out of it.

And i I want to keep 'crying' I will. Your logic is retarded, but I'm sure you already knew that.

Rb

dan719 wrote: »

Wow, a typo. You is so smart.

The four key reasons for investing in Ireland (FDI);

1. The low level of corporate tax rate.
2. Access to European markets.
3. Incentives offered by government such as industrial estates.
4. An English speaking, educated workforce.

Taken from 'After the Celtic Tiger'. Notice the ranking. I'm sure you learnt numbers recently.

Now let's look at some facts regarding spending on education.

We know, that investment in education has a highest return on money spent up to the age of ten. So from a CBA point of view, primary and perhaps secondary education should be funded by the state. So your claim that we need to continue investing in education is not applicable to third level students. See M Blaug 'The Economics of Education'.

In the last decade, there are plenty of people who were bypassed by the boom. Rural towns maintained unemployment rates of ~10%, and not everyone was living the high life. Unfortunately the argument that 'we didn't cause the recession' is not sufficient as a reason not to take part in the pain to get out of it.

And i I want to keep 'crying' I will. Your logic is retarded, but I'm sure you already knew that.

Well, surely the statistics on unemployment in small, rural towns are skewed by the fact the majority of those who don't want to work in a shop or pub left for the cities?

Indeed, I see I was right in saying that education was one of the main reasons, thank you for confirming this for me.

I do appreciate your attempts to be condescending though, it makes me feel warm inside, however it does nothing but damage to your argument.

The_Minister

the groutch wrote: »

tbh I think all this Green negotiation is futile, all they got was promises, and given the promises made by Fianna Fail prior to the last election, they're hardly trustworthy are they?

In fairness, if you read the promises made by any party prior to the last election, all of them (or nearly all) are unachievable at this point.

The_Minister

brianthebard wrote: »

Would your attempts to promote the liberal group also feed into your dismissive attitude towards labour and the unions?

The Liberals are not a party, they are a public advocacy group.

We are not in any way in competition with the Labour party (although some in the Labour party insist that we have to be), nor have we attacked the Labour party in anything we've done.

brianthebard

The_Minister wrote: »

The Liberals are not a party, they are a public advocacy group.

We are not in any way in competition with the Labour party (although some in the Labour party insist that we have to be), nor have we attacked the Labour party in anything we've done.

I did say group, not party.

The_Minister

brianthebard wrote: »

I did say group, not party.

Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that he was trying to play down Labour to big up the Liberals, when there is no reason both cannot exist.

dresden8

Cliste wrote: »

skelliser and dresden - it really depends on who you voted for in what order on whether it'll make a difference. Yes if you voted for someone who is eliminated early your second and third preferences will count. But just because it's on the 4/5th count doesn't mean we're onto 4/5th preferences as people get elected, and their excesses redistributed.


I'd say it's civil war in the RDS today!

You're downplaying the importance of transfers to the Greens. They have a small core vote and they were transfer friendly.

They have p1ssed that away. I hope it really turns out bad for them.

Far from civil war it appears to have been a FF love in. And I hope that really really turns out bad for them.

Het-Field

brianthebard wrote: »

Gilmore has the highest approval rating of all party leaders, and the Labour party popularity is quite high atm too afaik.


Why is nationalisation the most unpalatable option, because you disagree with it? From what I've read there are several options which would be better than NAMA, and nationalisation is one of them. For a start the taxpayer would pay less and would gain good and bad assets. Here is a link to an article which breaks down the options; http://www.progressive-economy.ie/2009/09/if-you-want-to-play-solve-irish-banking.html


People need to be reminded what got us into this mess, otherwise they are liable to do it again. It seems you disagree with labour and jack o'connor on personal grounds rather than any real issues. Would your attempts to promote the liberal group also feed into your dismissive attitude towards labour and the unions?

At what point did I have a pop at the unions ? I condemned Jack O Conner for what he said. It highlighted his lack of economic nous, by confusing "reganomics", or the ideology of Milton Friedman, or the Chicago/Austrian Schools with the gobeenomics of the past five years. They are not the same. However, there is nothing to celebrate about the crisis. However, he certainly found an upside, and Im entitled to rebuke that In fact, the governmental spending increases of 10% = per annum would appear to be more in line with his ideology, then anything that a liberal/libertarin economist would espouse.

At no point did I blame the Unions for the fall of social partnership (not saying that you said anything to that effect). I realise they went into the social partnership talks with a view. The view was of a Bertie style talk, where they would be guaranteed increases. Not only did they find out that their lot wouldnt improve, in fact, it would significantly disimprove.

Nationalistion would be the death knell for creditworthyness. The name of the Irish would be dragged further through the mud. NAMA, while I dont agree with it from A-Z, gives an opportunity for recovery of the banking sector. I dont believe its a palatable option, however, I disagree with nationalisation from the persepctive of international reputation. Furthermore, Ireland would take on all assets, and liabilities. At least the banks have been clensed while a good bank would have been a conduit for lending and borrowing, and would have given the banks time to get their houses in order.

Finally, approval ratings are irrelevant. Remember, Bertie was roundly approved by the electorate in 2007. This never meant that his options, or his politics were the best, or the best thing for the country.

Lockstep

dresden8 wrote: »

You're downplaying the importance of transfers to the Greens. They have a small core vote and they were transfer friendly.

They have p1ssed that away. I hope it really turns out bad for them.

Far from civil war it appears to have been a FF love in. And I hope that really really turns out bad for them.

+1

The Greens ranked extremely highly on my transfer list, even in the locals I still gave the local Green a preference as he's a good man.
The problem is that the Greens didn't learn from the mistakes of Labour or the PDs; going in as the junior partner with FF is a poisoned chalice. Labour took a horrendous beating when they went in but managed to regain their footing, as they were large enough to weather the fall.
The PDs got a lot of support by leaving the FF morass, by going back in they did themselves no favours.

The Greens were always pretty reliant on transfers, and were good at attracting them (who doesn't agree with green issues?) and they seem to be reliant on a middle class vote (The same middle class who are being absolutely raped by the current system), they were also a small party and should have realised what happens to ones that go in with FF.

I really can't see myself supporting the Greens while the current leadership is in place, although would still transfer to them in my local area as the Greens seem to have the same problem that has been a constant pain for Irish political parties; great grassroots, ****e leadership/