Vent - the Greens are Vegetables

hallelujajordan

brianthebard wrote: »

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.

I don't doubt you but I don't recall and I can't find it (no search fxn ) . . Besides, I think it would be useful for everyone engaged in this debate. . Can you link ?

Spiritoftheseventies

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Greens, like any elected party, only have the duty to do right by the country according to their own views of what's right. If people elect a right-wing party to government, there isn't any expectation that they'll fight for workers' rights.

Your complaint boils down to "the Greens aren't doing what I think they should do" - as do most of the complaints on this (and other) threads. Since most of the people complaining aren't either Green Party members or even core Green Party voters, there's no reason why the Green Party should have any real interest in how you think they should go about things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well according to a Green Party member on Week in Politics, NAMA legislation was barely discussed at their convention at the weekend. So who exactly are they doing right by?
It was a very cynical ploy to have a separate vote on NAMA when there was every chance of it scuppering the vote on the programme for government vote.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

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 . . )

What's a "private" political party ?

And (believe it or not!) I agree with you - if it were voting for a leader or whatever, or voting for a wish list.

But the fact is that Saturday's vote is DIRECTLY RELATED to a vote next week on screwing the country, so therefore it IS in my interest that the vote obtained 100% openly and transparently and fairly.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

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.

As you say, we will never know; I don't think it's a fair assumption (for reasons given). And we will also never know "why" the Green Party did not phrase the two motions in the same way. It's definitely odd and inconsistent, and that "might" be all, but personally, I think they phrased it to ensure that they had a better chance of squeezing it through.

And again; this would be of NO interest to me were it not for the fact that it is a direct precursor to the TD's vote next week.

Either way, they're dead and buried at the next election for landing us with NAMA when they had the chance to save the country.

Scofflaw

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well according to a Green Party member on Week in Politics, NAMA legislation was barely discussed at their convention at the weekend. So who exactly are they doing right by?
It was a very cynical ploy to have a separate vote on NAMA when there was every chance of it scuppering the vote on the programme for government vote.

I'd say that it looks from paragraph 1 of your post that the Greens don't care all that much about NAMA. That would certainly be consistent with my own views (so I may well be biased) - something like NAMA has to happen, and one way or another we'll all be paying for the bubble for a good long while, but I find it hard to get excited about the details. As such, NAMA is pretty much a separate issue for the Greens - not so much a cynical ploy as a reflection of the members' priorities.

cordially,
Scofflaw

33% God

33% God wrote: »

Before this weekend the greens would not have got a preference from me. They probably will now. While I would have liked to see the government fall I much rather the Greens removing 3rd level fees from the table. It means that me and my friends can continue our education. I really hope they do begin to grab Cowen by the balls a bit more, but that's unlikely really. They'll get a preference, but not a first or second one.

Not an economics student so

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What's a "private" political party ?

And (believe it or not!) I agree with you - if it were voting for a leader or whatever, or voting for a wish list.

But the fact is that Saturday's vote is DIRECTLY RELATED to a vote next week on screwing the country, so therefore it IS in my interest that the vote obtained 100% openly and transparently and fairly.

I use the word 'private political party' to distinguish it from a publicly elected body like the council example you gave.

And I really do understand why you would have an interest in the outcome of their vote but the reality is that as you are not a member, the mechanisms behind how they (an independent organisation) run their constitution and make their decisions is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS . . It's really that simple.

As you say, we will never know; I don't think it's a fair assumption (for reasons given). And we will also never know "why" the Green Party did not phrase the two motions in the same way. It's definitely odd and inconsistent, and that "might" be all, but personally, I think they phrased it to ensure that they had a better chance of squeezing it through.

And again; this would be of NO interest to me were it not for the fact that it is a direct precursor to the TD's vote next week.

Would you think it was odd if they didn't give their members a chance to vote at all ? Have FG / LAB openly polled their members about whether or not to reject NAMA before next weeks vote and do you think they should ?

This argument is getting ridiculous.

Either way, they're dead and buried at the next election for landing us with NAMA when they had the chance to save the country.

Ultimate performance management . . as I outlined in a previous thread.

Spiritoftheseventies

Yes I can see why they had a separate vote on NAMA but really it makes no sense. As one Green Party member said, and I wonder how divisive this issue is within the party, NAMA was central to the programme for government.
I cant work out what their economic strategy is. They want a greater teacher-pupil ratio but that immediately drives the public sector wage bill up.
And on the whole issue of third level education fees I cant understand the problem with the more well off paying for their fees.
They means tested the Medical card for the over seventies so why not means test third level students as well.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

And how exactly do you suggest the Greens find out what those voters want? Sounds like all you want is a general election.

I think at the least a referendum should be called. 54 billion is alot of money.

Spiritoftheseventies

Deleted User wrote: »

I think at the least a referendum should be called. 54 billion is alot of money.

Yes and Howlin was asking Ryan on Week in Politics about this new plan to implement water charges. Water Meters would cost a Billion to install they say.
Seems to me nothing is thought out properly. Traffic plan on Dame Street is turning shoppers away from Grafton Street with traders claiming job losses after Christmas.
The logic being that drivers are just so confused by the whole filtering system that they just go elsewhere to the likes of Dundrum and Blanchardstown.

hallelujajordan

Deleted User wrote: »

I think at the least a referendum should be called. 54 billion is alot of money.

A referendum to determine government policy and to put legislation in place ? ? ? Is that not why we have 166 elected representatives in Dail Eireann ?

Spiritoftheseventies

hallelujajordan wrote: »

A referendum to determine government policy and to put legislation in place ? ? ? Is that not why we have 166 elected representatives in Dail Eireann ?

Last thing we need is another referendum. Its simple. Banks are told that they have to lend a certain percentage of 54 billion out to small businesses. It seems as if they are sharing very little of the burden here.
Greens are hopeful of banks sharing the risk but I don't think they are being forceful enough on this issue with the government.
We still have no guarantee that banks will lend out to small businesses.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I use the word 'private political party' to distinguish it from a publicly elected body like the council example you gave.

The "publicly elected body" equates to the Dail. That "publicly elected body" (the council) is in itself made up of "private political parties".

If the person who owned the garden heard that FF had made a decision that they'd vote to support the road was going ahead, are you saying that if someone got in touch with an FF councillor in relation to said-same road through their garden, and criticising the criteria for that decision, that they should tell them it's "none of their business" because they're neither a member nor a voter of his ?

That's NOT representation.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

And I really do understand why you would have an interest in the outcome of their vote but the reality is that as you are not a member, the mechanisms behind how they (an independent organisation) run their constitution and make their decisions is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS . . It's really that simple.

If the mechanisms appear flawed or biased and they affect me, then they are. Like I said, I don't interfere with how The Greens vote for their leader, etc, but hearing that foxes are more important than families is bound to make me examine how they come to their "policies", and criticise accordingly if something looks suspect - which a reversely-worded motion does.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Would you think it was odd if they didn't give their members a chance to vote at all ? Have FG / LAB openly polled their members about whether or not to reject NAMA before next weeks vote and do you think they should ?

I don't think they have polled them....but while we're at it - have FF ? If there were a private vote, with none of this stupid whip bull****, and people just voting with their consciences, how many of FF's TDs do you think would vote against it ? Or for it ?

Do I think they should ? Absolutely. But I'm hoping that the leadship have enough cop-on to stand up and be counted and represent the majority of this country. That's their job.

And before anyone suggests that that would make the workings of the Dail cumbersome, I'm talking on this one issue; the biggest sell-out and transfer of wealth that the country has ever faced.

And yes, there should be a referendum on it.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

This argument is getting ridiculous.

On the contrary, I find it a lot more focussed than previous discussions with your good self. And I find it amazing that you're defending The Greens so much, or have so strong an opinion, considering that they've just affected you as well as the rest of us.

That said, I want to point out that the ONLY reason I'm objecting is that the wording of this motion has directly indicated what way they're going to vote next week, which means that the sneaky reversed wording has as good as become Government policy.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Ultimate performance management . . as I outlined in a previous thread.

And as I outlined in said-same thread, performance is - unfortunately - just ONE of the criteria used in deciding who to return.

Of course, it's ironic that this vote by the Greens defers the "ultimate performance management" that you claim to love so much.

nesf

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

DeV.

Shush now DeV, the mob have spoken.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

Shush now DeV, the mob have spoken.

Hurrah for pitchfork politics!

throwing hat in air,
Scofflaw

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Do I think they should ? Absolutely. But I'm hoping that the leadship have enough cop-on to stand up and be counted and represent the majority of this country. That's their job.

The only majority that counts is the majority in Dail Eireann. You are assuming that the majority of people in Ireland are against NAMA . . On what basis can you make that assumption.. ?

And yes, there should be a referendum on it.

As i said to a previous poster, the idea that we should have a referendum on a matter of government policy is quite ludicrous. There are decisions made on larger sums of money in the budget every year. Should we put each budget to a referendum. You are going to waste a lot of money driving the country backwards.

On the contrary, I find it a lot more focussed than previous discussions with your good self. And I find it amazing that you're defending The Greens so much, or have so strong an opinion, considering that they've just affected you as well as the rest of us.

When you start comparing the green party voting to support government policy with the local county council building a road in my garden, its ridiculous. The analogy doesn't work and is not worthy of debate.

And I'm not defending the Greens . . I didn't vote for them in the last GE and I don't agree with many of their policies. . I am defending democracy, their right to debate their policies however they wish and their right to try to implement those policies within a coalition government.
There is a mob mentality in Ireland now (you can see it all over these boards) that are forgetting that we have a democratically elected government. I've even seen posts demanding that people take to the streets. Its a dangerous situation

That said, I want to point out that the ONLY reason I'm objecting is that the wording of this motion has directly indicated what way they're going to vote next week, which means that the sneaky reversed wording has as good as become Government policy.

They allowed a motion to REJECT NAMA to be voted on during a special meeting of their party members. Something that NONE of the other political parties have done or will do. They did so openly and published the full results of the vote. They allowed the sam membership to vote on a revised PfG which they distributed beforehand. Something that is not standard practice for any other political party in Ireland. And you describe them as 'sneaky' ??

Spiritoftheseventies

Yes I think the Greens are being led down the wrong path to FF who really dont have that much interest in pursuing the poliicies. As Browne proved the other night not one of their pre election promises was implemented.
Im all all for green issues and increasing the Teacher/Pupil ratio is good. But a carbon tax which hurts the car industry and a scheme of water charges which would could one billion and further decrease consumer confidence at a time when money will be in short demand just makes no sense.
Why no outcry from Greens on licence fee. RTE have been paying their top stars extraordinarily high amounts in comparison to TV Three. As such we are paying for their high lifestyles.

dresden8

turgon wrote: »

John Gormleys a cartoon character? :eek:

At least if he was we could switch him off.

We're lumbered with this tosser now.

It'd be gas if FF backbenchers brought the government down over the budget and left the Greens holding the baby, as it were.

Cowen can't get that kind of loyalty out of FF ffs.

Spiritoftheseventies

dresden8 wrote: »

At least if he was we could switch him off.

We're lumbered with this tosser now.

It'd be gas if FF backbenchers brought the government down over the budget and left the Greens holding the baby, as it were.

Cowen can't get that kind of loyalty out of FF ffs.

Think the logic is that FF backbenchers will have no desire to bring government down as they will be cleaned out by electorate if they do. This is all bout buying time for Fianna Fail.
But I think the Budget will in all likelihood be one budget too far for them.

Riskymove

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The only majority that counts is the majority in Dail Eireann. You are assuming that the majority of people in Ireland are against NAMA . . On what basis can you make that assumption.. ?


As i said to a previous poster, the idea that we should have a referendum on a matter of government policy is quite ludicrous. There are decisions made on larger sums of money in the budget every year. Should we put each budget to a referendum. You are going to waste a lot of money driving the country backwards.

thats why I am for a general election as oppossed to a referendum on NAMA

there is no definitive way to know otherwise how many support NAMA

at least if there was an election based on parties plans for recovery, NAMA, cuts etc they could then state that they had a mandate for what they were doing

jmayo

nesf wrote: »

Shush now DeV, the mob have spoken.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hurrah for pitchfork politics!

throwing hat in air,
Scofflaw

Maybe if we actually had a bit of pitchfork politics and mob rule in this country we wouldn't have to put up with a government that are going to screw us for generations. :mad:
Does anyone here think that a government such as ours, with such an inept incompetent track record of dealing with our economic problems, with such exhorbitant lavish expenses, be allowed continue in office in most other countries ?

And please do not compare us to Italy.
Would such a government be tolerated in say France ?
And of course here comes the old refrain about how the French revolt and riot.
Well maybe if we did a bit of it, we wouldn't be seen as gomless muppets by our politicans.

No wonder it fooking took nearly 800 years to get the English/Brits out. :rolleyes:

We have to be one of the most subservenient nations who will take any sh**e.
About the only group that has made live awkward for politicans are the farmers and I welcome the day when certain government ministers and unelected loudmouth senators are shown a slurry pit close up.

Now that is the end of my rant for the morning, well at least until I read the next ff/green apologist or the next union leaders spout about entitlements. :mad::mad:

hallelujajordan

Riskymove wrote: »

thats why I am for a general election as oppossed to a referendum on NAMA

there is no definitive way to know otherwise how many support NAMA

at least if there was an election based on parties plans for recovery, NAMA, cuts etc they could then state that they had a mandate for what they were doing

I can understand why you would want a General Election. If the Government of the day were bringing in policies that I was opposed to I would want a GE to try to change those policies, but that's not how democracy works. We elect a government for a term, and as long as they hold a majority within the house for that entire term there is no rationale to hold a GE . .

. . and there is no need to know how many people in the country support NAMA. What is important is that a majority of our elected representatives (who we put in place to represent us) support it !

hallelujajordan

jmayo wrote: »

Maybe if we actually had a bit of pitchfork politics and mob rule in this country we wouldn't have to put up with a government that are going to screw us for generations. :mad:
Does anyone here think that a government such as ours, with such an inept incompetent track record of dealing with our economic problems, with such exhorbitant lavish expenses, be allowed continue in office in most other countries ?

And please do not compare us to Italy.
Would such a government be tolerated in say France ?
And of course here comes the old refrain about how the French revolt and riot.
Well maybe if we did a bit of it, we wouldn't be seen as gomless muppets by our politicans.

No wonder it fooking took nearly 800 years to get the English/Brits out. :rolleyes:

We have to be one of the most subservenient nations who will take any sh**e.
About the only group that has made live awkward for politicans are the farmers and I welcome the day when certain government ministers and unelected loudmouth senators are shown a slurry pit close up.

Now that is the end of my rant for the morning, well at least until I read the next ff/green apologist or the next union leaders spout about entitlements. :mad::mad:

LOL . . Mob rule only works when you are in the right mob . . otherwise it's called anarchy and its relatively counter-productive !

Riskymove

hallelujajordan wrote: »

If the Government of the day were bringing in policies that I was opposed to I would want a GE to try to change those policies, but that's not how democracy works.

did I say i was oppossed to any policies?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

As i said to a previous poster, the idea that we should have a referendum on a matter of government policy is quite ludicrous. There are decisions made on larger sums of money in the budget every year. Should we put each budget to a referendum. You are going to waste a lot of money driving the country backwards.

Huh ? When in God's name has anyone had to make a budget decision on a figure greater than €54 BILLION ??? Give me a link and I'll accept it, but you can't throw in a comment like that and make me accept it as fact.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

. . and there is no need to know how many people in the country support NAMA. What is important is that a majority of our elected representatives (who we put in place to represent us) support it !

How do you know this ? Have you asked all 166 people ? Have you even asked the 80-odd that you love and defend so much ?

Because if you're basing this on "party policy" or the pathetic "whip" then the above statement is false. I've already asked you about this earlier, btw, but you chose to ignore it.

Ask all 166 people - privately - and then come back to me.

So that's two MASSIVE statements/assumptions presented as facts, with absolutely no references to back them up.....you're getting better! :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

LOL . . Mob rule only works when you are in the right mob . . otherwise it's called anarchy and its relatively counter-productive !

And there, ladies & gentlemen, we see the true Fianna Fail mindset in black and white!

turgon

nesf wrote: »

Shush now DeV, the mob have spoken.

Well whatever about interfering in a private entities decision making, I cant fathom how the Greens can be labeled undemocratic. I dont understand how people cant see that NAMA was presumably apart of the original PfG thus the proposal had to be against it not for it.

And finally, comparing the Green Parties referenda to an election in the middle east? No comment.

Liam Byrne

turgon wrote: »

I dont understand how people cant see that NAMA was presumably apart of the original PfG thus the proposal had to be against it not for it.

Again - "huh ?"

NAMA wasn't even on the horizon during the election campaign.

turgon

Liam Byrne wrote: »

NAMA wasn't even on the horizon during the election campaign.

Presumably when the Greens voted for the first PfG it gave the TD's the necessary power to vote along Government lines. NAMA is a government policy so the first PfG would have automatically let them vote for it.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Huh ? When in God's name has anyone had to make a budget decision on a figure greater than €54 BILLION ??? Give me a link and I'll accept it, but you can't throw in a comment like that and make me accept it as fact.

Our net public expenditure per annum including public services / social welfare and debt repayments, (all of which are reviewed in the annual estimates and budget process each year) is in the order of 60Bn Euro. All decided by the government of the day without the need for referendum or general election

How do you know this ? Have you asked all 166 people ? Have you even asked the 80-odd that you love and defend so much ?

I know this because all of the members of the government parties have now declared their support and will vote in favour of NAMA next week

Because if you're basing this on "party policy" or the pathetic "whip" then the above statement is false. I've already asked you about this earlier, btw, but you chose to ignore it.

Whip politics work both ways and there is a reason why we have political parties. If we had free votes from 166 independents nothing would ever get done.

Ask all 166 people - privately - and then come back to me.

Unfortunately, like the rest of us who believe in democracy you ill have to just make do with the vote from Dail Eireann.

So that's two MASSIVE statements/assumptions presented as facts, with absolutely no references to back them up.....you're getting better! :rolleyes:

Quit the abuse, there is no need for references when I am stating something that is plain and clear, but nonetheless details now provided above.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And there, ladies & gentlemen, we see the true Fianna Fail mindset in black and white!

Rubbish . . that is just a pathetic, abusive comment. Debate the facts and your opinions but don't attack me because you don't agree with mine !