Vent - the Greens are Vegetables

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

They are accepting the decision of a two third majority of their party ? Would pulling the plug on NAMA and government in line with the view of less than one third of their membership be more justifiable, more democratic ?

Interesting point, actually; you've just highlighted the fact that ONE of the votes required a two-thirds majority IN FAVOUR, while the OTHER required a two-thirds majority AGAINST.

Why is that, I wonder ?

turgon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Is this a joke or am I missing your point. They are accepting the decision of a two third majority of their party?

Im no longer talking about just the party leadership. Im am saying how can both the leadership and the grassroots accept a proposal that is designed to favour developers over regular taxpayers by giving them billions of euro they neednt?

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Interesting point, actually; you've just highlighted the fact that ONE of the votes required a two-thirds majority IN FAVOUR, while the OTHER required a two-thirds majority AGAINST.

Why is that, I wonder ?

Not true at all. . Both motions required a two third majority in favour to pass. It just happened that as they were phrased . . one was a motion to ACCEPT the PfG, the other was a motion to REJECT NAMA. .

hallelujajordan

turgon wrote: »

Im no longer talking about just the party leadership. Im am saying how can both the leadership and the grassroots accept a proposal that is designed to favour developers over regular taxpayers by giving them billions of euro they neednt?

Sure, and how can the Labour party believe that there should be no cuts in public service pay . . We all question the ideals and policies of opposition parties but when we start to question their right to have different ideals and policies we are on dangerous ground.

Riskymove

hallelujajordan wrote: »

the other was a motion to REJECT NAMA. .

indeed, but why was it phrased that way?

in effect only one third in favour of NAMA would have ensured Green support, i.e. if there were 65% in favour of the motion (i.e. against NAMA), it still would get Green support

"the essence of democracy"???

turgon

But Im not giving out about the fact their stance is different. Im trying to ask how can they justify their stance?

EDIT: As regards the Green motions they were democratic. Asfaik when you table a motion it needs 2/3rds support. The leadership didnt need to get support for NAMA. I assume as a part of the first PfG the Green TD's have independent voting rights. It would be ridiculous if they had to revert back to an EGM for every decision they took. Someone else tabled the motion against NAMA.

hallelujajordan

Riskymove wrote: »

indeed, but why was it phrased that way?

in effect only one third in favour of NAMA would have ensured Green support, i.e. if there were 65% in favour of the motion (i.e. against NAMA), it still would get Green support

"the essence of democracy"???

Because it is their prerogative to phrase motions at their party meetings in whatever way they want ! Besides, its a moot point because the motion got 69% support and NAMA would have been accepted either way around.

Riskymove

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Because it is their prerogative to phrase motions at their party meetings in whatever way they want !

of course it is...but that doesnt mean I can't question their motives

Besides, its a moot point because the motion got 69% support .

oh that's alright then, you got what you wanted so overlook the methods?

and NAMA would have been accepted either way around

er...what?

hallelujajordan

Riskymove wrote: »

of course it is...but that doesnt mean I can't question their motives



oh that's alright then, you got what you wanted so overlook the methods?




er...what?

Had the motion been to accept NAMA as opposed to reject it, they would still have got 69% support and NAMA would have passed. What happened at the GP conference on Saturday was normal democratic process. . . there was nothing in the least bit dodgy about their methods.

Riskymove

hallelujajordan wrote: »

What happened at the GP conference on Saturday was normal democratic process. . . there was nothing in the least bit dodgy about their methods.

so let me ask you then...hypotetically....if the motion had recieved 65% support...would you have been happy for the Greens to support NAMA?

hallelujajordan

Riskymove wrote: »

so let me ask you then...hypotetically....if the motion had recieved 65% support...would you have been happy for the Greens to support NAMA?

I'm not a Green member or supporter so your question is wasted on me . . If you are asking me should they have supported NAMA with 65% of their party against it I would probably say NO, but its up to them to make their own rules and follow their own constitution.

turgon

In this debate about the Greens democracy, everyone misses the major point. That is, the Greens actually had a vote on it whereas FF did. Accosting the Greens for having a lack of democracy is a bit silly in this regard I think.

Riskymove

turgon wrote: »

In this debate about the Greens democracy, everyone misses the major point. That is, the Greens actually had a vote on it whereas FF did. Accosting the Greens for having a lack of democracy is a bit silly in this regard I think.

i think you are missing the point; I am not accosting the greens for having a vote on the matter

I am accosting them for holding themselves up as paragons of virtue while basically pimping support for NAMA

DubTony

Personally I think Saturdays conference results show just how inept the greens really are.

Firstly, does Gormley really believe that by staying in with FF they'll actually save their own skins?
Water charges are on the way (unfair unmetered charges to begin with).
Carbon Taxes are on the way (most likely unfair carbon taxes that will probably not be levied on the largest polluters?.
No "new" university fees. But the colleges will simply have to increase registration fees to get the funding they aren't getting from government.
So who'll get the blame for all these extra costs when we get the knock on the door in 3 years? Well you can be damned sure it won't be FF. And if we try to blame them, their arrogant supporters will be only too quick to remind us that these were "green" charges and, "well they'd really nothing to do with us". Whether they believe that or not is irrelevant. It's all about the game. And FF are the best at it.

The Greens have two ministers. Environment and Energy. The minister for Health has no party. These are three areas that are absolute minefields and it suits FF, quite nicely thank you, to be seen to be "hands-off". They can, and will, point the finger at "those three" when the time comes. The Greens would have been better off dragging this one down, and taking their chances. At least they could have gone to the doorsteps, and blamed everything on the other shower. Next time out, there is no doubt that they'll be right where the fingers are pointing. The game is being played perfectly, but not by the greens.

LostinBlanch

freyners wrote: »

While i would love to see fianna failure dumped out of power i do actually admire the greens for what they've done. They secured a guarantee against the re-introduction of college fees, making batty o'keefe looking like an idiot.

• Conscious of the economic pressures on parents today, this Government will not proceed with any new scheme of student contribution for Third Level education.

Well you and 33% God have a lot to learn. First of all self interest at the expense of everyone else is the kind of sh*t worthy of the thankfully dwindling FF core vote*. Biggins picture shows the perfect riposte. You'll still have to pay as the colleges will just up registration fees. They will just use the back door instead of the front door.

The same will happen with the ban on corporate donations. FF will work their way around this - it's in their dna to accept cash in brown envelopes no matter what the price to everyone else later.

Also, anyone that thinks all the coreographed cr*p we've had over the last couple of weeks was about renegotiating a programme for government is deluded. All it was about was getting a form of words onto paper purely to appease enough of those don't knows among the 600 Green members and get them to vote for NAMA, the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the Irish people. Gormley, Ryan, the unelected Boyle and De Burca et al couldn't give a fiddlers about the Irish people. They are safe and secure with their platinum pensions, €100k+ wages not to mention expenses and ministerial limos trundling along behind them when they cycle in to Leinster house for a photo op.

I didn't vote for the greens to act as FFs mudguard. I voted for them because I believed that they were the closest thing Ireland had to a "clean hands" party. After all, it was one of their founding principles, cleaning up politics. More fool me. So of course I've felt disappointed and more that they have effectively endorsed the blatant corruption and shenanigans that have gone on under FF rule, especially under Ahern. But I could have lived with that if they had voted against NAMA** especially at overpaying billions on already inflated notional values which will never be attained.

Billions which could be put to better uses such as proper infrastructure nationally be it broadband not the fraudband we currently have or high speed rail lines or the like***. Or even going towards decreasing the 5,000 deaths a year due to inequality. This isn't my figure, it's from the Institute of Public Health publication "Inequalities in Mortality" as referenced in this article.

Speaking as someone whose vote was one they could have counted on without question in too many elections, and as someone who has even campaigned for them in the past, I tell you this, I will never vote for them ever again.

Finally, one word of advice. Never ever believe a word that Gormley et al tell you. They will say anything just to stay in their ministries anything.

Anyway, apologies for the long post but once I started writing more things came to mind. Enjoy your time in college - God knows you'll be paying for it long enough.

* Not that I'm accusing you of being a part of FF core vote, I don't know how you vote, but I picked a glaring self interested example.

** Despite the spin, NAMA is purely a vehicle to bail out the bankers and their developer friends. To all those who endlessly trout out the mantra it doesn't bail out developers, read section 148 of the legislation which allows Brian Lenihan to employ the same developers who half developed shoebox apartments that no one wants or can afford. So we overpay the banks for worthless assets and then pay the developer to develop them? Sounds like a bail out to me.

*** Please don't c & p some guff from pre election promises about the greens actually going to do that. I gaurantee the same promises will be printed in the same pre election literature 20 years from now.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Not true at all. . Both motions required a two third majority in favour to pass. It just happened that as they were phrased . . one was a motion to ACCEPT the PfG, the other was a motion to REJECT NAMA. .

My point EXACTLY!!!!

One required two-thirds explicitly in favour; the other required two-thirds explicitly against.

Example : let's say I'm not "in favour" of euthanasia, but I can see certain exceptions, etc.

So I wouldn't vote FOR it, but I mightn't vote AGAINST it.

In that context, the 2 questions :

"Do you want euthanasia brought into Ireland ?" and
"Do you object to euthanasia being introduced in Ireland ?"

...are two completely different voting mechanisms.

I would say "No" to the first, but I'd have a hard time voting "Yes" for the second.

(And yes, I know the above - as an example - might have a ****load of holes that someone can shoot through, but anyone objective and neutral will know EXACTLY what I mean)

I'll try again......

I might not vote FOR Enda Kenny to be Taoiseach, but I wouldn't object to / vote AGAINST it.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

My point EXACTLY!!!!

One required two-thirds explicitly in favour; the other required two-thirds explicitly against.

Example : let's say I'm not "in favour" of euthanasia, but I can see certain exceptions, etc.

So I wouldn't vote FOR it, but I mightn't vote AGAINST it.

In that context, the 2 questions :

"Do you want euthanasia brought into Ireland ?" and
"Do you object to euthanasia being introduced in Ireland ?"

...are two completely different voting mechanisms.

I would say "No" to the first, but I'd have a hard time voting "Yes" for the second.

(And yes, I know the above - as an example - might have a ****load of holes that someone can shoot through, but anyone objective and neutral will know EXACTLY what I mean)

I'll try again......

I might not vote FOR Enda Kenny to be Taoiseach, but I wouldn't object to / vote AGAINST it.

I understand your analogies (although I think they are a bit silly tbh) but what is your point. The Green Party are entitled to propose whatever motions they want to at their conference. . . . ? ? Unless we are members of the Green party it is neither yours or my business ??

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I understand your analogies (although I think they are a bit silly tbh)

:rolleyes: And the point of throwing that in was.....? To maybe put an unwarranted doubt in readers' minds, maybe ? I said myself that they weren't 100%.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The Green Party are entitled to propose whatever motions they want to at their conference. . . . ? ? Unless we are members of the Green party it is neither yours or my business ??

It affects the whole f**king country; including you, in case you hadn't noticed. And me. So yes, it IS my business.

Jesus - are you SERIOUSLY saying that if The Greens worded a vote so that you and I got lumbered with a 100% tax, that it somehow "wouldn't be our business", because we weren't members ? You're unbelieveable!

Putting that spin / bias on the vote it means they don't even want their own members to have a 100% fair vote, which means they imposed an unnecessary weighting on the outcome.

They've been shown up by the fact that they DELIBERATELY had opposite wordings on the two votes that they took the same day.

Saying "it's up to them" doesn't wash; they are meant to be governing the country, not playing politics with wording in order to ensure we get shafted by NAMA.

DeVore

What IS our business is how the Greens vote in the Dail.

Whats NOT our business is how they decide, internally as a party, how to vote in the dail. Unless you are a Green Party Member of course.... are you a Green Party Member?

DeV.

peasant

DeVore wrote: »

What IS our business is how the Greens vote in the Dail.

Whats NOT our business is how they decide, internally as a party, how to vote in the dail.

emmm ...once the one decides how the other goes, it's kinda ...like... all the same?

Liam Byrne

DeVore wrote: »

What IS our business is how the Greens vote in the Dail.

Indirectly, Saturday's votes were more significant than just internal votes, because - at the very least - the NAMA vote pre-empted how they WOULD vote in the Dail.

And, of course, if they'd put the country first then they wouldn't be in Government, so that's relevant too.

DeVore wrote: »

Unless you are a Green Party Member of course.... are you a Green Party Member?

No. And if I were I'd have handed membership back on Friday or Saturday evening.

DeVore

I too would have handed in my membership of the Greens on Saturday. I too wont be voting for them next election, if I'm still in this country.

My point is merely a logical one:

The vote that you, as a member of the public, can concern yourself with is the one in the Dail. You cant deride the Greens for how they conduct themselves internally if you arent a Green Party Member.

So, given your outburst above... no, its not your business, not yet. If you want to have a legitmate voice in their decision, join their party.

DeV.

Liam Byrne

DeVore wrote: »

The vote that you, as a member of the public, can concern yourself with is the one in the Dail. You cant deride the Greens for how they conduct themselves internally if you arent a Green Party Member.

So, given your outburst above... no, its not your business, not yet. If you want to have a legitmate voice in their decision, join their party.

I can see where you're coming from, but it wasn't an "outburst" - it was a statement of fact.

The giveaway is in the fact that you yourself said "not yet"; they twisted the wording so that the next Dail vote WILL shaft us, so knowing a few days in advance is the only issue.

As for "joining their party" :rolleyes: tbh I'd have resigned immediately after their u-turn on not going into Government with FF and the fiascos with the M3/Tara and America using Shannon.

And they won't have a party after the next election.

Sir Oxman

On Sargeant - I see he's manoeuvering to sponge on the same seat O'Donoghue will be vacating tomorrow - good man Trevor, that's your seat guaranteed if you get it (And a near 100k payrise)

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from, but it wasn't an "outburst" - it was a statement of fact.

The giveaway is in the fact that you yourself said "not yet"; they twisted the wording so that the next Dail vote WILL shaft us, so knowing a few days in advance is the only issue.

As for "joining their party" :rolleyes: tbh I'd have resigned immediately after their u-turn on not going into Government with FF and the fiascos with the M3/Tara and America using Shannon.

And they won't have a party after the next election.

First up, they didn't 'twist' any wording. A motion was proposed and voted on in the normal way according to their constitution.

Second, it's a moot point because even if the vote had been the other way around it would have passed with a vote of 69%

Finally, as I and others have mentioned it is none of our business. Yes it might affect us, Yes it might stink if we don't like their decisions. But you cannot deprive a political party of the right to make its own decisions in a democratic society . . unless you join said party and try to infuence their decisions from within.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

First up, they didn't 'twist' any wording. A motion was proposed and voted on in the normal way according to their constitution.

Nicely done. The second sentence (while attempting to make the issue seem normal) is a moot point, because a decision on the angle from which to word it came BEFORE that. THAT is the issue - who decided on THAT wording ? And what vested interests were they possibly representing to say that they didn't word it the other way around ?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Second, it's a moot point because even if the vote had been the other way around it would have passed with a vote of 69%

You already said that you understood my analogies, so the above is NOT an acceptable conclusion. There is absolutely no guarantee that people "not opposed to" would have voted "in explicit favour of".

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Finally, as I and others have mentioned it is none of our business. Yes it might affect us, Yes it might stink if we don't like their decisions. But you cannot deprive a political party of the right to make its own decisions in a democratic society . . unless you join said party and try to infuence their decisions from within.

It is our business. It might not be within our control, but since it affects us, we are entitled to comment on it.

Are you saying - for example - that the local council debating running a road through your front garden is "none of your business" ? I mean, you're not a member, are you ?

The fact is that it affects you, so it WOULD be your business.

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

In this debate about the Greens democracy, everyone misses the major point. That is, the Greens actually had a vote on it whereas FF did. Accosting the Greens for having a lack of democracy is a bit silly in this regard I think.

Just because a vote was held does not mean it was democratic, that seems so painfully clear but still has to be said. There was a vote held in Iran recently but few here could claim it was democratic.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You already said that you understood my analogies, so the above is NOT an acceptable conclusion. There is absolutely no guarantee that people "not opposed to" would have voted "in explicit favour of".

Of course there is no absolute guarantee but i think it is a fairly safe assumption that the 69% of people who voted NOT to reject NAMA would also have voted to accept it. We will never know because the Green Party (as is their right) did not phrase the vote in that way.

It is our business. It might not be within our control, but since it affects us, we are entitled to comment on it.

Are you saying - for example - that the local council debating running a road through your front garden is "none of your business" ? I mean, you're not a member, are you ?

The fact is that it affects you, so it WOULD be your business.

Your analogies have gone from creative to ridiculous !! The local council is an elected body that represents all of us. If they decided to run a road through my garden i would pay a visit to the councillor who I had voted for, and who is there to represent me. I would also speak with my local FF cumann as I am a member of that party and I expect them to represent me !

Ultimately a council, a government or any elected body is answerable to the electorate. A private political party is answerable only to its membership. . You have right to comment on how the Green Party TD's vote in Dail Eireann. You have no right to have any say over how they vote in their private conference (unless you join . . )

hallelujajordan

brianthebard wrote: »

Just because a vote was held does not mean it was democratic, that seems so painfully clear but still has to be said. There was a vote held in Iran recently but few here could claim it was democratic.

In the context of this debate, your comment seems to imply there was something about the green party vote that was not democratic .. Can you expand on this because I think it was an excellent example of democracy in action ?

brianthebard

hallelujajordan wrote: »

In the context of this debate, your comment seems to imply there was something about the green party vote that was not democratic .. Can you expand on this because I think it was an excellent example of democracy in action ?

I expanded on it several times on another thread you were posting on I don't feel there's any need to explain it again.