Green Party to stay in Government

Macha

Biggins wrote: »

Taconnol - Fair play to you for taking the flak and still arguing your side.

Man, I just finished with Lisbon - I am totally used to it.

As I said, I'm not a blind Greens supporter although I do strongly support the PfG. Either we were out yesterday or we were out 2 years from now. I think in two years we can do a great deal of good.

As for NAMA, well brianthebard may well win me over

Biggins wrote: »

That said, I honestly can't see them as anything of influence after the next election.
They are done for some time to come.

We will see, won't we? As I said, without trying to sound condescending, the realities of coalition need to be realised. The Greens are always going to be the smaller group in a coalition and compromise is inevitable. At some stage you just have to bloody well suck it up and go into government when you get the chance. The alternative is joining Greenpeace where you can be holier-than-thou to your heart's smug content (no offence to Greenpeace...)

brianthebard

taconnol wrote: »

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


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?

Yes takes over bad assets above market price, which means nationalisation would cost less for the reasons I've already outlined. Under NAMA from what I understand the government would only own things which are presently worthless to the banks, or costing them money. It then gives money to the banks as a freebie to 'recapitalise', which we would not control.
The article points out that nationalisation would still involve buying the banks. All this is covered in the article

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.

No I'm not, I'm basing this on an interview on todayfm over the week with the head of the anti-fur lobby and the voting figures from yesterday. if they had not been present then NAMA would have been rejected, or if fur farming had not been banned in the PfG then it would have been rejected. This is not an assumption.

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.

No I'm saying that even if they had voted down NAMA it would not have been democratic, because it would still have involved a small group (green party members) who are unelected making decisions on the budget which they are not entitled to make imo. This issue brought into question for me the very system of 'democracy' which the Green party wishes to represent. The green party in government has a commitment to the electorate, not to its members, or at least not above the electorate. What happened yesterday was the party members concerns were put ahead of the electorate as a whole.

Biggins

taconnol wrote: »

As for NAMA, well brianthebard may well win me over

:pac:

Good man Brain!

Bandit12

Every single person i've talked to who voted green in the last election would not be doing so again...EVER. They are finished as a party after yesterday imo. Lowest of the low.

brianthebard

Biggins wrote: »

:pac:

Good man Brain!

It'll be a bit too late now though all things considered.

Macha

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes takes over bad assets above market price, which means nationalisation would cost less for the reasons I've already outlined. Under NAMA from what I understand the government would only own things which are presently worthless to the banks, or costing them money. It then gives money to the banks as a freebie to 'recapitalise', which we would not control.

Does the money given to capitalise the banks not have to be paid back? NAMA might cost more upfront but what about long term? I'm sorry but I don't understand your reasons for why nationalisation would cost less. As for the assets that are worthless to the banks, it doesn't follow that they would be worthless to the government for social purposes, does it?

brianthebard wrote: »

This issue brought into question for me the very system of 'democracy' which the Green party wishes to represent. The green party in government has a commitment to the electorate, not to its members, or at least not above the electorate. What happened yesterday was the party members concerns were put ahead of the electorate as a whole.

I'll say it again: the Green Party has a commitment to the electorate in carrying out its duties as it sees fit. And given the system of democracy that the Greens have, this correlates to what the members and voters see as fit. The members get to decide the position of the party - I don't see what your problem with that is.

What would your alternative be? Just letting the leaders carry out the talks and that's it - no consultation of any party members? The Fianna Fail procedure is better?

brianthebard

taconnol wrote: »

Does the money given to capitalise the banks not have to be paid back? NAMA might cost more upfront but what about long term? I'm sorry but I don't understand your reasons for why nationalisation would cost less. As for the assets that are worthless to the banks, it doesn't follow that they would be worthless to the government for social purposes, does it?

If, when, maybe, possibly. Afaik there's no contractual obligation to pay it back, that part of the deal is quite wishy washy. I think the government is supposed to make the money back as shareholders and off the bad assets.
No for social purposes they would not be worthless, I'm saying that nationalisation means you don't pay for them. If AIB owns buildings worth 20million because someone went bust and they are not actually worth that now, NAMA will still give them the money. Nationalisation would only give them a portion or no part of that 20 million. Hence money is saved.

I'll say it again: the Green Party has a commitment to the electorate in carrying out its duties as it sees fit. And given the system of democracy that the Greens have, this correlates to what the members and voters see as fit. The members get to decide the position of the party - I don't see what your problem with that is, other than they didn't decide the way you wanted them to.

Yes I understand all that. I know that's how the greens want to run their party, and I'm not expecting you to change your mind on that. However its disingenuous to equate this with democracy when the majority of the population was excluded from a decision while unelected party members voted on NAMA (and the PfG for that matter). I will restate my problem-a small selection of the population with no mandate have been given the opportunity to decide government policy, while the population of the country as a whole was excluded. The second problem is that this party system was then hijacked my another minority which has held the country hostage over non economic issues.

taconnol wrote: »

What would your alternative be? Just letting the leaders carry out the talks and that's it - no consultation of any party members? The Fianna Fail procedure is better?

Yes it would be better, at least they are the elected officials with a mandate to decide these things.

Sand

What would your alternative be? Just letting the leaders carry out the talks and that's it - no consultation of any party members? The Fianna Fail procedure is better?

Theres nothing wrong with the Greens decision making process. The Greens had a chance to recognise the massive loss of support for their deeply unpopular government, ignored it, and sold out the future of the Irish people to bankers and Fianna Fail for a few minks. Theres nothing wrong with the way that decision was reached.

It will perfectly demonstrate for the Irish people where the Greens priorities lie (Banks > People) and their floating voters and transfers will dissapear. Of course, the Greens will be able to rely on the 100 votes of the anti-fur farming lobby. Assuming they havent vanished off to join Greenpeace or something.

The Greens are going to get absolutely buried in the next election, and worse, any sensible policies they have are going to get discredited and dismissed by association with this PfG, Fianna Fail and NAMA. For a party who talks about long term sustainability a lot, you're amazingly short term in planning. Apparently, the Greens are going to fix everything by 2012 and seek re-election on the basis of having banned fur farming.

Good luck.

hallelujajordan

brianthebard wrote: »

. I will restate my problem-a small selection of the population with no mandate have been given the opportunity to decide government policy, while the population of the country as a whole was excluded. The second problem is that this party system was then hijacked my another minority which has held the country hostage over non economic issues.

Technically, not true. . the PfG and Govt policy in general is determined by cabinet and by the government of the day that holds a majority in Dail Eireann. It so happens, that a small number within this government allow their voters and members to have a regular say in how they implement policy. That is democracy and it is no different to every political party who debate and agree policy during their annual party conference.

Macha

brianthebard wrote: »

If, when, maybe, possibly. Afaik there's no contractual obligation to pay it back, that part of the deal is quite wishy washy. I think the government is supposed to make the money back as shareholders and off the bad assets.

Um...I thought a new condition had been added that banks would have to pay the government if NAMA makes a loss?

brianthebard wrote: »

No for social purposes they would not be worthless, I'm saying that nationalisation means you don't pay for them. If AIB owns buildings worth 20million because someone went bust and they are not actually worth that now, NAMA will still give them the money. Nationalisation would only give them a portion or no part of that 20 million. Hence money is saved.

But surely credit will have to be pumped into the banks either way to replace money from assets? Or does nationalisation involve fobbing off debtors?

brianthebard wrote: »

I will restate my problem-a small selection of the population with no mandate have been given the opportunity to decide government policy, while the population of the country as a whole was excluded. The second problem is that this party system was then hijacked my another minority which has held the country hostage over non economic issues.

OK sorry, I see your point now.

brianthebard wrote: »

Every other parties procedure you mean. And yes it would be better, at least they are the elected officials with a mandate to decide these things. To say this is the FF procedure so as to tar it with their corruption is a bit smart tbh.

No I used FF as an example as they were the other negotiating party in the case. Slightly miffed at suggestion I was trying to be smart tbh - you know me better than that.

brianthebard

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Technically, not true. . the PfG and Govt policy in general is determined by cabinet and by the government of the day that holds a majority in Dail Eireann. It so happens, that a small number within this government allow their voters and members to have a regular say in how they implement policy. That is democracy and it is no different to every political party who debate and agree policy during their annual party conference.

Ok....except it is different and you know it is. Has FF brought the budget before each Ard Fheis to find out how the party feels about it? Did they bring NAMA before the party this weekend like the Greens did? If not then its not the same.

Lame Lantern

dfbemt wrote: »

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.

€1500 is the current legal maximum that a college can charge, which most universities now do. It's still ludicrous but it's not as bad as tuition elsewhere. I'm not sure Gormley was suggesting that the Greens wouldn't oppose increasing that legal maximum, rather that he wouldn't stand in the way of other institutions also raising theirs under current law. Waiving the legal cap in order to cut the financial burden of universities on the state would be a whole othe degree assholicness which I'm not sure even the sitting government would have the gall to do.

Though I wouldn't rule it out...

brianthebard

taconnol wrote: »

Um...I thought a new condition had been added that banks would have to pay the government if NAMA makes a loss?

Pay back the government with government money? I don't see how that will substantially change the plan.

But surely credit will have to be pumped into the banks either way to replace money from assets? Or does nationalisation involve fobbing off debtors?

Not necessarily. The government can order the banks to start lending, and they would no longer be burdened with bad assets anyways so would be in a position to lend. They just aren't getting paid for being dumb enough ot get themselves in this mess. That's what NAMA boils down to, we could keep going with this but I wasn't trying to convince you that nationalisation is the best policy, I was trying to show that every other option is preferable to NAMA, even NAMA with more work done on it. For that reason alone it should have been rejected.

No I used FF as an example as they were the other negotiating party in the case. Slightly miffed at suggestion I was trying to be smart tbh - you know me better than that.

see edit.

Macha

brianthebard wrote: »

Pay back the government with government money? I don't see how that will substantially change the plan.

So you don't foresee any outside money or investment going into the banks?

brianthebard wrote: »

Not necessarily. The government can order the banks to start lending, and they would no longer be burdened with bad assets anyways so would be in a position to lend. They just aren't getting paid for being dumb enough ot get themselves in this mess. That's what NAMA boils down to, we could keep going with this but I wasn't trying to convince you that nationalisation is the best policy, I was trying to show that every other option is preferable to NAMA, even NAMA with more work done on it. For that reason alone it should have been rejected.

So what is the best policy, in your opinion?

brianthebard wrote: »

see edit.

Wow, great apology. I could argue that any vote for the Greens is a vote for the way they do business.

Trotter

Here's a couple of things I cannot get my head around.

1. We pump a load of money into the banks. Whats there to make them lend the money out to small businesses?

2. Whats to stop the banks refusing to lend low amounts for low value houses, thereby keeping the house prices inflated?

3. Why should we be content that following the pfg, ANY of these promises will come to fruition? FF are serial wafflers with guarantees, what makes this any different?

4. Can we expect a third rate of tax so that the richer in society also pay a fairer share than they do now? or are the gang in the middle going to be continually screwed by this government?

brianthebard

taconnol wrote: »

So you don't foresee any outside money or investment going into the banks?

Its possible I guess. Its hard to know how many people are going to invest in a bank which is going to be fined every time it makes a loss though. Certainly the other options appear more likely to be invested in.

So what is the best policy, in your opinion?

I favour nationalisation, but I didn't want to make this about nationalisation because the main point is anything but NAMA would be preferable.

Wow, great apology. I could argue that any vote for the Greens is a vote for the way they do business.

I wasn't apologising, I had edited before I saw your post and was pointing that out. You could argue that. I'm not denying that this is the way the Greens do business. I'm saying they shouldn't. And considering so many people have said in this and other threads that they wouldn't vote Green again, this to me is just one more policy they hold which will prevent them earning votes next time round.

Trotter

Paddy Power now giving 10-1 for a general election this year.

I dont think that reflects that the closet is clear of skeletons, more that there is nothing that FF could possibly do that would shift the Greens now they've signed a new contract as Fianna Fail's significant other.

Fianna Fáil have carte blanche to "have us tighten our belts" as the old Charvet shirt man once declared. They can do what they like, when they like because the Greens will roll over every time.

Its a sad day for Ireland that those we voted for in a display of FF distrust would snuggle up this close, and refuse to let go under any circumstances.

I know many Greens here would disagree, but having chatted with some people about this issue today, I don't think there's anything FF could do now that would trigger the Greens to pull out.

2012 here we come.. crawling.

hallelujajordan

brianthebard wrote: »

Ok....except it is different and you know it is. Has FF brought the budget before each Ard Fheis to find out how the party feels about it? Did they bring NAMA before the party this weekend like the Greens did? If not then its not the same.

Sure, they don't do that but the Green Party is an organisation in its own right and has the right to make its own rules. . . There is nothing anti-democratic about taking decisions that they believe to be of crucial importance to a membership vote and it is incorrect to assert that the membership are then responsible for the overriding decision. All the membership are doing is ratifying an agreement that has been made by the majority within Dail Eireann . . .

ninty9er

Coles wrote: »

Every single cent of that debt will be paid by working people at the expense of social services so that FF's patrons can be saved from bankrupcy.

You mean in the same way that every cent of debt of every countyr in the world will be repaid by their respective taxpayers?? I fail to see your point.

Trotter wrote: »

Here's a couple of things I cannot get my head around.

4. Can we expect a third rate of tax so that the richer in society also pay a fairer share than they do now? or are the gang in the middle going to be continually screwed by this government?

I believe the response on that was that it's an operational matter rather than a policy one...however the PRSI ceiling will be abolished.

The simple fact of the matter is that whether you earn €40k or €400k; nobody in Ireland pays enough tax.

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

The simple fact of the matter is that whether you earn €40k or €400k; nobody in Ireland pays enough tax.

What if you earn €20K (approximately our "minimum wage") ? Do you pay enough tax then ?

And shouldn't any tax be paid for "required services", instead of paying ludicrous expenses and pensions and payoffs to corrupt fat-cats, people who didn't do their jobs, up-themselves TDs and bank shareholders who didn't keep the people they employed under enough scrutiny ?

I've NO problem paying tax - even on my wages which are about 10% of John O'Donoghue's tax-free and unvouched "expenses", as long as it goes to the good of society as a whole.

What I do object to is a waste of MY hard-earned money, and the fact that the "green" taxes on stuff are imposed on people who "choose" to pollute without giving them a non-polluting option by which to help save the planet and avoid said-same taxes.

RiverWilde

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've NO problem paying tax - even on my wages which are about 10% of John O'Donoghue's tax-free and unvouched "expenses", as long as it goes to the good of society as a whole.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. When it comes to tax most people wouldn't object if the money went where it was supposed to go.
As it stands our tax money goes on junkets and hairdos! Not to mention paying off Bankers and other 'individuals.'

You get sick in France, Germany, Sweden etc etc., you get seen to quickly and there are no long waiting lists. The downside of that is that you pay more tax. So what! Public services that run properly and efficiently. Hard to imagine but it can be done. :rolleyes:


Riv