Green Party to stay in Government

ShooterSF

I won't pretend to be shocked or outraged at this decision. It was well expected. I won't pretend I gave the greens a high preference last time and now won't. I have never voted for the greens.
I will admit some guilty pleasure in seeing people who did vote for them admit they'll never make the same mistake again. If they are given the same treatment as the locals in the next GE then it will be the best thing to come out of this government. Shame though FF will still get huge numbers of "better the devil you know" votes.

Macha

ShooterSF wrote: »

If they are given the same treatment as the locals in the next GE then it will be the best thing to come out of this government.

Please explain which of the Greens policies, unrelated to FF, that you have such a problem with.

And please also explain how a Labour/FG government's policy in the same area is so much better.

As for Greens going into government with FF, I'd like to remind people that Labour were in serious talks with FF after the last general election. FG? Well the only objective they would have with going into FF is that they have set themselves up as the only alternative to FF. In terms of general policies and ideologies, I see very little to choose from between them. Granted, FF is disgustingly corrupt after being in power for so long but, well, I don't consider FG immune from such behaviour.

ShooterSF

taconnol wrote: »

Please explain which of the Greens policies, unrelated to FF, that you have such a problem with.

I have an ideological problem with them. They are for want of a better word nanny-ish. I consider myself liberal. Take the light bulb situation as an example. I would prefer an effort to inform people of the differences and then let them decide, not try and outlaw the "bad" one. If I want to own an outdoor heater and am willing to pay my electricity bill I should be able to.
If you want specific policy issues you only have to look on this page. Outlaw GM foods? GM foods could help ease world hunger and reduce the cost of lower class Joe's shopping bill. That's just one mentioned on this very page.
Trust me I'm not fond of an of our political parties and to add to your statistics I have never voted FF either.
Though there is little point in us trying to argue over this because I admit I'm not one of those swing voters the green look like loosing. I wouldn't have voted for them if they brought down the government.

turgon

taconnol wrote: »

Please explain which of the Greens policies, unrelated to FF, that you have such a problem with.

NAMA

taconnol wrote: »

And please also explain how a Labour/FG government's policy in the same area is so much better.

It doesnt favour developers over the citizens of Ireland.

taconnol wrote: »

I don't consider FG immune from such behaviour.

Nor the Greens. Why is it that if they were in the opposition benches their criticism of JoD would have been so much greater?

Biggins

I have a problem with the Greens!

* We get new taxes (even after a FF promise "No Taxes!" so the Greens instigated some!)
* Increased PRSI levels!
* We get FF still in power!
* We get the country into 40+ years of debt with NAMA

...And as for daft issues, what the heck was moving the Abbey Theatre to the GPO by 2016 got to do with either economic issues or Green issues.

ANY Green self-righteous pious scumbag that comes near my door is going to be run off my property for alone, propping up this farce of a government still when they are NOT wanted.

Nobody better state the Green's are popular - popular my arse - only in their self-serving own minds!
I hope they get slaughtered at the next election - and serve ye lot right!
They are nothing but the legalised form of mob Mafia who decided to stay in power with a gang of lying, twisted two faced crooks and backstabbers.

---

Todays Sunday Times.

Macha

ShooterSF wrote: »

I have an ideological problem with them. They are for want of a better word nanny-ish. I consider myself liberal. Take the light bulb situation as an example. I would prefer an effort to inform people of the differences and then let them decide, not try and outlaw the "bad" one. If I want to own an outdoor heater and am willing to pay my electricity bill I should be able to.

Unfortunately, ShooterSF, reality and research has shown that this does not happen. Moreover, there is the fundamental principle of "polluter pays". If you're pumping out CO2 into the atmosphere with your outdoor heater, then why should my taxes go towards offsetting that carbon? At the moment the cost is externalised to society (through the impacts of climate change) and the taxpayer (through the cost of buying carbon credits).

The other problem is your assumption that all people should be able to do/have all, as long as they can afford it. The horrible mess in this country that is urban sprawl and sprawling housing estates is testament to the failure of this idea, in certain areas. Everyone in Ireland wants to live in a house? Well enjoy the 4 hours you spend in a car, huge cost of owing/running that car and social costs of reduced time spent with your family. These things are not as simple as 'If I can afford it, I should be allowed to do it'.

ShooterSF wrote: »

If you want specific policy issues you only have to look on this page. Outlaw GM foods? GM foods could help ease world hunger and reduce the cost of lower class Joe's shopping bill.

There is a lot of misinformation about GM foods and their potential for saving the world from hunger. Personally, I'm agnostic about GM foods and if they genuinely work, that's great. BUT there are issues surrounding the spread of GM once it is planted. Many plants spread their pollen through the wind and a field of GM wheat could easily spread GM pollen to fields over hundreds of kms away. It's Pandora's Box: make sure it works because it is pretty much impossible to get back in, once it's out there.

We have a tendency to want to reach for a silver bullet to solve all our problems. If GM helps with world hunger (and crops that need less water are looking v promising) there will still be many other facets of the issue that needs to be solved, including civil war, property rights, water rights, and the impact of climate change of reducing yields (we're back to the patio heater!)

ShooterSF wrote: »

Though there is little point in us trying to argue over this because I admit I'm not one of those swing voters the green look like loosing. I wouldn't have voted for them if they brought down the government.

I appreciate your honesty.

turgon wrote: »

NAMA

Look NAMA sucks. And I would really like someone here to show me a genuinely viable alternative - genuine question, I'm not an economist! Nationalisation means anyone with shares loses their shares. That is thousands of people who have lost their jobs, possibly lost their homes and now lost their savings. It is a side effect that Labour seem very happy to ignore.

The FG would not work full stop. It requires putting all the good assets into a "good bank", leaving nowhere near enough to pay off the international debitors - Ireland reneging on it's debts will push up the rate of borrowing sky high. They will also be very reticent to invest in this new bank, leaving it to citizens and the government to invest in it (back to the ECB).

turgon wrote: »

Nor the Greens. Why is it that if they were in the opposition benches their criticism of JoD would have been so much greater?

Because that's politics. Do you think Labour or FG would have acted any differently if they were in power? I don't condone it, but I don't see any other party suddenly becoming the beacon of virture they all are in opposition.

Macha

Biggins wrote: »

I have a problem with the Greens!

* We get new taxes (even after a FF promise "No Taxes!" so the Greens instigated some!)

Sorry but this is ridiculous. The clear majority of the tax intake over the last 12 years has been on cyclical taxes, on the back of the property bubble. It is very clear that the tax intake from these sources has gone down significantly and therefore new more dependable sources of tax are required - I'm not even an economist but this is basic, basic, basic.

Biggins

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but this is ridiculous. The clear majority of the tax intake over the last 12 years has been on cyclical taxes, on the back of the property bubble. It is very clear that the tax intake from these sources has gone down significantly and therefore new more dependable sources of tax are required - I'm not even an economist but this is basic, basic, basic.

WATER CHARGES = New taxes.

Regardless of the reason - water charge taxes are NEW charges!
Whats ridiculous in saying they are new!

Macha

Biggins wrote: »

WATER CHARGES = New taxes.

Regardless of the reason - water charge taxes are NEW charges!
Whats ridiculous in saying they are new!

What's ridiculous is complaining about them!

Have a look at the reduction in tax intake from the big ones during the housing boom, including stamp duty etc. These taxes were dependent on the business cycle and are now seriously reduced. You can't honestly expect all the services we had (crappy and inefficient as they were) during the Celtic Tiger with less money coming into the pot??!

Sand

@Taconnol

Look NAMA sucks. And I would really like someone here to show me a genuinely viable alternative - genuine question, I'm not an economist! Nationalisation means anyone with shares loses their shares. That is thousands of people who have lost their jobs, possibly lost their homes and now lost their savings. It is a side effect that Labour seem very happy to ignore.

Oh come on - how many times have people cited and mentioned other vialbe alternatives, and yet Fianna Fail and the Greens pretend they havent seen them?

Stiglitz is an economist - he argues that the normal rules of capitalism should apply: Wipe out the shareholders, wipe out the junior bondholders, negotiate a equity for debt deal with the senior bondholders, clear out the bank executives who have failed in their role, guarantee the deposits, relaunch the bank

At least your honest - NAMA is about shacking the public who didnt take a gamblers investment on bank shares, with the losses of those who did. The Greens are turning Ireland into the worst casino in the world, where the punter can never be allowed to lose.

The FG would not work full stop. It requires putting all the good assets into a "good bank", leaving nowhere near enough to pay off the international debitors - Ireland reneging on it's debts will push up the rate of borrowing sky high. They will also be very reticent to invest in this new bank, leaving it to citizens and the government to invest in it (back to the ECB).

Ireland wont be reneging on its debts. Bank bonds are not government bonds. They are two seperate things. Banks owe bank bond holders. Government owe government bond holders. Lenihans bone headed guarantee of bank bonds is temporary, and indeed reversable.

And international investors are sociopathic inhuman monsters - they only care about two things: risk, and return. So long as they understand the risk, they will happily invest to make the return. The whole crisis that Lehmans collapse through up was that investors suddenly realised they didnt know the risks - hence panick. So long as any government policy in relation to the banks is clear and explains the risks for investors, there will be a pool of investors happy to get the return on offer.

The Greens can twist and turn as they like and pretend theyre in government, but not really, that theyre the good guys and FF are the bad guys - but come the next election youre going to get wiped out. Wiped out. No floating vote. No transfers. Just whatever hard core Green vote exists that isnt disillusioned or broken off into some splinter group. Wiped out.

Liam Byrne

taconnol wrote: »

What's ridiculous is complaining about them!

Have a look at the reduction in tax intake from the big ones during the housing boom, including stamp duty etc. These taxes were dependent on the business cycle and are now seriously reduced. You can't honestly expect all the services we had (crappy and inefficient as they were) during the Celtic Tiger with less money coming into the pot??!

What's even more ridiculous is trying to claim that they're not "new". :rolleyes:

We paid SMALL FORTUNES during the bubble and FF pissed it away, now they come back for more, and the worst part of it is that it's not even FOR underfunded services to us, it's to bail out the bankers and developers!

Biggins

taconnol wrote: »

What's ridiculous is complaining about them!

I'm sorry, thats where we have to disagree.
Its all our right for a start to disagree, not just bend over and take every new tax just because FF and the Greens wish to go back on their word!

gdael

Oh this is good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxxHganG4Kg

population

Actually straight qs to taconnol:

Do you think the Green Party will still exist after the next election?

brianthebard

taconnol wrote: »

Look NAMA sucks. And I would really like someone here to show me a genuinely viable alternative - genuine question, I'm not an economist! Nationalisation means anyone with shares loses their shares. That is thousands of people who have lost their jobs, possibly lost their homes and now lost their savings. It is a side effect that Labour seem very happy to ignore.

I posted a link to numerous possible options before, here it is again; http://www.progressive-economy.ie/2009/09/if-you-want-to-play-solve-irish-banking.html

Every single option above NAMA is preferable to the FF/Green plan, even NAMA with some extra work done on it. But the government refuse to acknowledge a better way.
Btw these are the pros and cons of Nationalisation;

Upsides: Taxpayers pay less. If banks are judged valueless on balance, taxpayers pay nothing. Shareholders take the hit. Taxpayers get good as well as bad assets. Government can dictate that banks begin lending again.

Downsides: Bondholders now owed money by state institutions. Paying back bondholders can create substantial losses for the state. It has been argued that lenders in the future will not lend to a state bank. This is historically unsupported.

The downsides you outline seem not to bear out.


Also, I don't like to treat you as the Green spokesperson on boards but in this thread at least you seem to have taken that position, so i'll ask you again whether you think it is right that NAMA was decided by the anti fur lobby of the green party?

Lockstep

Karl Whelan's NAMA presentation to the Labour Party

Lame Lantern

I'm pleased that the Green party have put the kibosh on the reintroduction of college fees. While Labour would likely talk them down out of it, the moronic Fine Gael reaction that would "introduce college fees in a slightly different manner" worried me that there was a growing consensus among politicians that the country was heading in that direction, despite public opinion. For the Greens to spend political capital to quietly kill the policy is admirable, even if it is in the views of many a meagre silver lining.

dfbemt

Lame Lantern wrote: »

I'm pleased that the Green party have put the kibosh on the reintroduction of college fees.

Oh no they haven't !!

'Green Party leader John Gormley has said there is no intention to reintroduce third level fees but that increasing registration fees was a matter for universities to decide' taken from

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1011/politics.html

So what will happen is that each college will up their 'registration fees' which are quite simply fees. In most 3rd level institutions this is already around €1500pa. Watch it get to €2k or even €3k as the government cut funding and the colleges need to raise money.

But the greens will insist that there is no 3rd level fees. WASTERS.

thebman

brianthebard wrote: »

I posted a link to numerous possible options before, here it is again; http://www.progressive-economy.ie/2009/09/if-you-want-to-play-solve-irish-banking.html

Every single option above NAMA is preferable to the FF/Green plan, even NAMA with some extra work done on it. But the government refuse to acknowledge a better way.
Btw these are the pros and cons of Nationalisation;


The downsides you outline seem not to bear out.


Also, I don't like to treat you as the Green spokesperson on boards but in this thread at least you seem to have taken that position, so i'll ask you again whether you think it is right that NAMA was decided by the anti fur lobby of the green party?

The good bank idea seems like a no brainer to me looking at that TBH. Who in their right mind would say, actually I'd rather be 40 billion in debt rather than upset the bond holders of the banks

Macha

brianthebard wrote: »

I posted a link to numerous possible options before, here it is again; http://www.progressive-economy.ie/2009/09/if-you-want-to-play-solve-irish-banking.html

Ok thanks Didn't see it before. I'll have a read.

brianthebard wrote: »

Also, I don't like to treat you as the Green spokesperson on boards but in this thread at least you seem to have taken that position, so i'll ask you again whether you think it is right that NAMA was decided by the anti fur lobby of the green party?

No, I'm not going to speak on behalf of them. I'm just a Green member, defending them. But I will say it seems to me that we all want more democracy as long as it supports our position.

brianthebard

taconnol wrote: »

Ok thanks Didn't see it before. I'll have a read.

no problem.

No, I'm not going to speak on behalf of them. I'm just a Green member, defending them. But I will say it seems to me that we all want more democracy as long as it supports our position.

Tbh on this occasion I'd be ok with less democracy, or at least less of the wrong sort we saw yesterday.

Macha

brianthebard wrote: »

no problem.

Ok 1st question - just letting the banks go a la Stiglitz is a non-runner, right?

And nationalisation - does that not mean that the taxpayer is entirely responsible for taking the hit on any loans that aren't repaid?

brianthebard wrote: »

Tbh on this occasion I'd be ok with less democracy, or at least less of the wrong sort we saw yesterday.

That's the trouble with democracy, you have to factor in the loonies

Personally, I wish they'd all feck off to Patricia McKenna's La-La Land political party.

brianthebard

taconnol wrote: »

Ok 1st question - just letting the banks go a la Stiglitz is a non-runner, right?

And nationalisation - does that not mean that the taxpayer is entirely responsible for taking the hit on any loans that aren't repaid?

I don't think its a non-runner, they are all possibilities. As for nationalisation according to that article if a bank was valueless the taxpayer pays nothing. It does say the state would/could potentially owe bondholders a lot of money, but overall seems to cost the taxpayer much less than NAMA and means the taxpayer actually owns something afterwards which isn't the case with NAMA.

That's the trouble with democracy, you have to factor in the loonies

Personally, I wish they'd all feck off to Patricia McKenna's La-La Land political party.

I don't think we can just collectively shake our heads and say 'oh those silly loons, what'll they do next?'
I mean I don't object to the PfG, by and large its fine. But I do object to NAMA, and the greens acceptance of it was won by the fur ban-something which should have nothing to do with NAMA. You say this is democracy, but to me it just a party organisation which became an elite, that was allowed make the decision for the whole country. that shouldn't be allowed happen. Additionally it raises massive questions about what sort of party the Greens are that they would allow themselves to be infiltrated by this group. Its clear that NAMA would not have passed without the anti fur lobby, what is democratic about that?

Sand

@Taconnol

Ok 1st question - just letting the banks go a la Stiglitz is a non-runner, right?

Why is it a non runner? Do Greens have a lot of bank shares?


@Brian the Bard

means the taxpayer actually owns something afterwards which isn't the case with NAMA.

Exactly - this is perhaps the core reason why NAMA is so unjust. It takes the trash, gives cash. The banks get all the upside, the taxpayer is left holding all the losses the banks dont want to realise. Win-win?

As an alternative to NAMA you could simply have the government buy equity in the banks. At bargain basement prices, the taxpayer could recapitalise the banks and at a later point sell at profit. That would be capitalist - taxpayer takes the risk of funding the banks, taxpayer reaps the profit in the recovery. What we have now is that the taxpayer takes the risks, bankers and bank shareholders reap the profit in the recovery. I weep for Irelands edcuation system when Pro-NAMA types start hailing the private rewards reaped by bank shareholders in the leadup to NAMA as being a justification for the massive social risk being taken under NAMA. These people simply dont get it.

But NAMA has been created by FF and the Greens to ensure all the risk and losses are with the taxpayer, and all the gains go to the golden circle of bankers and FF/Green supporters. If I was delieberately trying to create a worse policy for the taxpayers interest, I really doubt I could do it within the bounds of reason. Its a disgusting morality - privatised gains, socialised loss - for the Greens to support and endorse.



The worst thing for the Greens is that they arent going to get what they want. Fianna Fail know that they have them by the balls now. Fianna Fail can simply push stuff out, delay it, promise it tommorrow, but not today. And they know the Greens dont have the balls to jump. They know theyre more scared than Fianna Fail are. Think of the hare coursing thing - the Greens said they wanted it, Fianna Fail said "Sorry Npe - not even for a joke lads". Did the Greens lay down the law? No, they blinked. Fianna Fail have them by the balls. Like I said, this PfG is the longest suicide note in Irish political history.

Macha

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't think its a non-runner, they are all possibilities. As for nationalisation according to that article if a bank was valueless the taxpayer pays nothing. It does say the state would/could potentially owe bondholders a lot of money, but overall seems to cost the taxpayer much less than NAMA and means the taxpayer actually owns something afterwards which isn't the case with NAMA.

So you think we could let the banks fall? What happens to all our deposits?

Re: nationalisation - where are you getting that it seems to cos the taxpayer much less than NAMA? Also, is it not the case that under NAMA, the government does own priority shares in the banks so it is not true that the taxpayer does not own anything, as you suggest?

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't think we can just collectively shake our heads and say 'oh those silly loons, what'll they do next?'
I mean I don't object to the PfG, by and large its fine. But I do object to NAMA, and the greens acceptance of it was won by the fur ban-something which should have nothing to do with NAMA. You say this is democracy, but to me it just a party organisation which became an elite, that was allowed make the decision for the whole country. that shouldn't be allowed happen. Additionally it raises massive questions about what sort of party the Greens are that they would allow themselves to be infiltrated by this group. Its clear that NAMA would not have passed without the anti fur lobby, what is democratic about that?

To me it sounds like you don't like the outcome and therefore object to how the decision was reached. I'm not saying I particularly like how it was reached either but I don't see what the alternative is. "Infiltrated"? That's a bit much. Animal Welfare is a part of the Green philosophy. Again, I ask - should members be forced out of the party because of their views on animal welfare?
I don't know what measures other parties have for getting rid of members with dissenting or irritating views.

brianthebard

taconnol wrote: »

So you think we could let the banks fall? What happens to all our deposits?

Re: nationalisation - where are you getting that it seems to cos the taxpayer much less than NAMA? Also, is it not the case that under NAMA, the government does own priority shares in the banks so it is not true that the taxpayer does not own anything, as you suggest?

It says in the article it would cost less, and I would believe it because nationalisation would require actually adding up the cost of all the assets, not handing the banks a sum which we already know is over valuing their assets. Also priority shares would not be the same as actual ownership of the banks and defaulted assets, which could be put to use in many different ways. To tie it into the PfG, empty houses owned by the bank could be used as part of the effort to tackle homelessness.

To me it sounds like you don't like the outcome and therefore object to how the decision was reached. I'm not saying I particularly like how it was reached either but I don't see what the alternative is. "Infiltrated"? That's a bit much. Animal Welfare is a part of the Green philosophy. Again, I ask - should members be forced out of the party because of their views on animal welfare?
I don't know what measures other parties have for getting rid of members with dissenting or irritating views.

I've made no secret that I'm sour about NAMA. But that's besides the point. I could in some way respect this vote if it had been a group within the party which specifically believed NAMA is the best option but it was not. It was a group with no mandate from the electorate who lobbied on a separate issue. The elected leaders clearly gave in to this group, which would have voted no to NAMA yesterday, making the vote less than the 66 or whatever percent needed and we would be talking about a general election today.
I don't want to force these people out of your party. But I don't want them to have a say over economic issues when they are (a) unelected and (b) voting on economic issues based on completely unrelated issues.
You've used the term democracy to describe these events at least twice on this thread, but to me it appears to go against the power of the people (demos kratos) as I understand it and as is explained in the constitution. What happened yesterday was not democracy, it was a slap in the face of the electorate.

population

Apologies for asking this again but....

straight qs to taconnol:

Do you think the Green Party will still exist after the next election?

Macha

brianthebard wrote: »

It says in the article it would cost less,

Ok but that's not exactly conclusive. That's just an article saying it would cost less. Where are they getting it from?

brianthebard wrote: »

and I would believe it because nationalisation would require actually adding up the cost of all the assets, not handing the banks a sum which we already know is over valuing their assets. Also priority shares would not be the same as actual ownership of the banks and defaulted assets, which could be put to use in many different ways. To tie it into the PfG, empty houses owned by the bank could be used as part of the effort to tackle homelessness.

Hang on - doesn't NAMA take ownership of bad assets like empty houses?
And do you accept that with NAMA the taxpayer does own something not nothing as you suggest above? And isn't the point of nationalisation to avoid putting a value on the assets? How would we be adding up the costs of the assets with nationalisation?

brianthebard wrote: »

I've made no secret that I'm sour about NAMA. But that's besides the point. I could in some way respect this vote if it had been a group within the party which specifically believed NAMA is the best option but it was not. It was a group with no mandate from the electorate who lobbied on a separate issue. The elected leaders clearly gave in to this group, which would have voted no to NAMA yesterday, making the vote less than the 66 or whatever percent needed and we would be talking about a general election today.

Sorry but actually the people who voted for NAMA strongly believe it is the best option. Some may have had animal-rights issues as a bottom-line but that doesn't mean they didn't also support NAMA. You're making assumptions.

brianthebard wrote: »

You've used the term democracy to describe these events at least twice on this thread, but to me it appears to go against the power of the people (demos kratos) as I understand it and as is explained in the constitution. What happened yesterday was not democracy, it was a slap in the face of the electorate.

It was a democratic vote and you simply describing it as a slap in the face does not make it such. As Scofflaw pointed out earlier, the Green Party has a commitment to its members and carrying out plans in government as it sees fit. Just because you don't agree with NAMA doesn't mean that the vote wasn't democratic, as you suggest.

population wrote: »

Apologies for asking this again but....

straight qs to taconnol:

Do you think the Green Party will still exist after the next election?

Sorry, didn't see you asking it the first time! Of course I see the Greens existing after the next election. I do think if people ever want there to be a viable alternative to the three main parties, they are going to have to be a bit more realistic about the nature of coalitions.

population

taconnol wrote: »

Of course I see the Greens existing after the next election. I do think if people ever want there to be a viable alternative to the three main parties, they are going to have to be a bit more realistic about the nature of coalitions.

You might be in for a shock so

Biggins

Taconnol - Fair play to you for taking the flak and still arguing your side.
That said, I honestly can't see them as anything of influence after the next election.
They are done for some time to come.