Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What chance of a General Election in 2010 ?
Options
Comments
-
hallelujajordan wrote: »How, in all seriousness can misrepresenting Bertie Aherne be irrelevant. . sure if that's the case the gloves are off. . lets just make up words or facts to support our argument. . .
Oh, the irony!!!
I think it's hilarious that hallelujajordan views all of the things that this government spectacularly screwed up on (leaving us with debts of billions) as mere "mistakes" or "could have been done differently", and then lists the tiny achievements as if they were worthy of giving someone a vote and enough to overlook the serious incompetence and the black hole that FF have landed us in.
I mean, where was the "collective responsibility" back when those with tax exemptions and cushy appointed-by-Bertie jobs-for-the-boys were making millions ?
No, FF only trot this out (along with their tactic of socialising the losses incurred by the gamblers) when things go one way.......
But when inflation is running riot and the average Joe is getting by in reasonable comfort, we're all lumped in with those who are greedy - despite the fact that all some of us ever wanted was to live without money worries and with a roof over our heads.
Sickening!0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »How, in all seriousness can misrepresenting Bertie Aherne be irrelevant. . sure if that's the case the gloves are off. . lets just make up words or facts to support our argument. . .
Yes, McWilliams got it right and yes, the government failed to listen to him . . Who cares ? McWilliams is a journalist; he is not an elected politician and he is not the sole authority on Irish economic matters. . . How often do you find two economists who fail to agree on predictions for the future. Its hardly a black and white science. The job of the government is to weigh up the evidence using the experts that they pay and to make what they believe to be the right decisions. Of course they will not always be the right decisions ! but the same is true in any business.
When did I advocate labour party policies . . I merely pointed to US house repossessions to counter your ridiculous argument that the property crash is a uniquely Irish phenomenon.
This argument is just getting silly. Are you seriously suggesting that the government should have gone back to the electorate each time for a mandate to 1) put NAMA in place 2) recapitalise the banks 3) nationalise Anglo 4) Indemnify the Catholic church - actually, scratch 4 since that was already in place before this (and the previous) government were elected. I agree with your assertion by the way that manifesto's are pre-electoral statements but again, if you don't read the manifesto, don't argue when the party you vote for do what they said they were going to do ! Actually, the true manifesto is recent performance and the continued reelection of this government is the strongest "Yes, we like what you are doing and want you to continue" signal there is.
The rainbow government is hardly a good example given that it lasted only 2.5 years and that its effect will have kept FG out of government for the next 15 years. . In fact, doesn't that rather prove my point about a government needing to respect the will of the people.
Social Partnership was committed to on Page 41 of the 2007 manifesto and benchmarking (specifically for nurses) was committed to on page 119. It was clear in 2007 that the government and its social partners were committed to benchmarking and anyone who doesn't accept that had their eyes closed. I agree with your comment that the unions should not have 'got it' simply because they wanted it, and I've never argued differently but don't you think that once they did "get-it" they then share in the collective responsibility for the effects of "it"
On the contrary, you have continuously attacked my beliefs and each time I try to respond with facts or data. Then you ignore what I have to say and try to attack me from a different angle. And if you want to debate fossil fuel, open another thread and lets go . . no point dragging this even further off topic.
McWilliams was right. The Irish population should care. He wasnt the only person who was suggesting that the property bubble could never have a soft landing In fact the Irish Government should have got a clue from what occurred in Japan in the early 1990s. While somewhat different the fundamenatals remain the same, and it created the so called "lost generation". The Government should ahve been prudent, and when they discovered the banks were engaging in a form of sub prime mortgaging it was up to them to step in. They didnt. The reason they didnt was due to the fact that it was more lucrative in the short term to keep their mouths shut. Why should "collecitve responsibility" be shared by those who should never have been given mortagages in the first place. The Government had the procedures and the ability to step in, they didnt. They got that one monumentally wrong.
Manifestos are painted in a light which will be beneficial to the party. Do you remember the manifesto of the Progressive Democrats in 1997 which advocated radical downsizining in the public sector, the removal of the lone parent allowance, and multiple privatisations of public services ? The party got crippled, and were damn lucky to get a second chance in 2002. Since then manifestos have been an exercise in pseudo socialism, and auction politics. The first realistic Irish manifesto was deemed unpalatable. On the other hand the FF manifesto in 1997 was a sustained attack on the Labour/Fine Gael/Democratic Left Government for a reticence to spend. Pat Carey even published a leaflet with the words "Shame on Them" in front of a rainbow.
Today we have learnt that unemployment has NOT stabilised. http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0108/liveregister.html. The register has increased by 3,000, and as nothing has been done to mould an environment of competitiveness and job creation, that situation is likely to get worse. As I told you before, stabilisation will take far longer then one quarter.
The committal to social partnership and Benchmarking in the 2007 highlights how irresponsible FF were. They were happy to continue spending in a pragmatic fashion, which didnt take into accout the reality that the defecit was growing. Bertie should have been looking to wind down social partnership when it was no longer viable. Of course that would never be mentioned in a manifesto. That is due to the fact that the public sector is a huge vote machine. Furthermore, the appalling performance of FG in 2002 virtually ensured the return of FF to power in 2007. It was impossible to redress the huge defecit in seat numbers in one election in 2007. If the election was held tomorrow, I could guarantee you that FG would redress the balance, and it would be at Fianna Fail's expense.
Your only responses are based on perosnal beliefs, and your appalling adherence to "Collective Responsibility", which you have sought to negate FF responsibility as must as possible. Your Data on unemployment stabilisation has proven to be incorrect. You tried to suggest that the 12 Days policy was a masterstroke in deception, which was founded on a conspiracy between Cowen and Lenihan. Beyond that you have just exposed FF's wanton waste through benchmarking and and social partnership,a nd offered perosnal convictions of Green Shoots,a nd recovery. As I have stated, until we know the cost of further recapitalisation of our banks, then we have no idea as to how useful the savings our. While I may have tried to bluff you a bit on the international property market, it doesnt negate the reality that Ireland has been bitten very hard as a result, and it was a government sponsored effort which created this domestic crisis, and an economy like ours will be hit harder. The salient facts in this are the ones which will impact Ireland far more.
The Governement had the chance to set money aside, they didnt. The Government had the chance to step in and prevent the banks from spending themselves into oblivion, they didnt. The Government have had 14 years to get the Public Sector streamined and effective, they didnt.0 -
Het-field wrote:While I may have tried to bluff you a bit on the international property market,
Wow - Here's me thinking this was an interesting intellectual debate when really all it is is a childish game of one-upmanship.Het-field wrote:Your only responses are based on perosnal beliefs, and your appalling adherence to "Collective Responsibility", which you have sought to negate FF responsibility as must as possible. Your Data on unemployment stabilisation has proven to be incorrect. You tried to suggest that the 12 Days policy was a masterstroke in deception, which was founded on a conspiracy between Cowen and Lenihan. Beyond that you have just exposed FF's wanton waste through benchmarking and and social partnership,a nd offered perosnal convictions of Green Shoots,a nd recovery. As I have stated, until we know the cost of further recapitalisation of our banks, then we have no idea as to how useful the savings our. While I may have tried to bluff you a bit on the international property market, it doesnt negate the reality that Ireland has been bitten very hard as a result, and it was a government sponsored effort which created this domestic crisis, and an economy like ours will be hit harder. The salient facts in this are the ones which will impact Ireland far more.
The problem with the one-upmanship game is that it's a complete waste of time!! You ignore most of my arguments and regardless what I say, all you hear is the extreme view lodged in the prejudiced anti-FF side of your brain . .
I didn't try to absolve FF of responsibility for the situation we are in. I simply pointed out that when the greed of a nation runs out of control the effects are inevitable regardless of who is in government. I'm ready to take responsibility for any part I had, through my support of FF for the situation we find ourselves in. In my mind taking responsibility is about putting your shoulder to the wheel and trying to work on solutions for the future rather than getting absorbed by hatred over things that happened in the past. Who can argue that Brian Lenihan isn't doing exactly that. Shoulder to the wheel and genuinely and honestly trying to drive Ireland forward. My data on unemployment has not been proven to be incorrect. OK, the numbers increased in todays report but if we remain below the peak levels of 2009 we will have stabilised. I never argued that there won't be more troubles and job losses but I do believe that the worst is over.Liam Byrne wrote:Oh, the irony!!!
I think it's hilarious that hallelujajordan views all of the things that this government spectacularly screwed up on (leaving us with debts of billions) as mere "mistakes" or "could have been done differently", and then lists the tiny achievements as if they were worthy of giving someone a vote and enough to overlook the serious incompetence and the black hole that FF have landed us in.
I mean, where was the "collective responsibility" back when those with tax exemptions and cushy appointed-by-Bertie jobs-for-the-boys were making millions ?
No, FF only trot this out (along with their tactic of socialising the losses incurred by the gamblers) when things go one way.......
But when inflation is running riot and the average Joe is getting by in reasonable comfort, we're all lumped in with those who are greedy - despite the fact that all some of us ever wanted was to live without money worries and with a roof over our heads.
Sickening!
At least you know where you stand with Liam Byrne's personal brand of bilious hatred . . ! No bluff games there !0 -
Believe me i have no intention of putting my 'shoulder to the wheel' to bail this shower of gangsters out of trouble..this is turning into another half assed 'shopping in the north' patriotism debate or a deliberate attempt by FF to side-track people from the real issues.I personally find it laughable that we are supposed to row-in behind you lot for 'the good of the country' If i believed what they say for 1 second then maybe i might..trouble is i don't as their previous record speaks for itself..their self-serving policies and outright lies have led us to where we are today and despite what you say the situation is almost entirely the fault of sucessive FF governments.hallelujajordan wrote: »Wow - Here's me thinking this was an interesting intellectual debate when really all it is is a childish game of one-upmanship.
The problem with the one-upmanship game is that it's a complete waste of time!! You ignore most of my arguments and regardless what I say, all you hear is the extreme view lodged in the prejudiced anti-FF side of your brain . .
I didn't try to absolve FF of responsibility for the situation we are in. I simply pointed out that when the greed of a nation runs out of control the effects are inevitable regardless of who is in government. I'm ready to take responsibility for any part I had, through my support of FF for the situation we find ourselves in. In my mind taking responsibility is about putting your shoulder to the wheel and trying to work on solutions for the future rather than getting absorbed by hatred over things that happened in the past. Who can argue that Brian Lenihan isn't doing exactly that. Shoulder to the wheel and genuinely and honestly trying to drive Ireland forward. My data on unemployment has not been proven to be incorrect. OK, the numbers increased in todays report but if we remain below the peak levels of 2009 we will have stabilised. I never argued that there won't be more troubles and job losses but I do believe that the worst is over.
At least you know where you stand with Liam Byrne's personal brand of bilious hatred . . ! No bluff games there !0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »Wow - Here's me thinking this was an interesting intellectual debate when really all it is is a childish game of one-upmanship.
The problem with the one-upmanship game is that it's a complete waste of time!! You ignore most of my arguments and regardless what I say, all you hear is the extreme view lodged in the prejudiced anti-FF side of your brain . .
I didn't try to absolve FF of responsibility for the situation we are in. I simply pointed out that when the greed of a nation runs out of control the effects are inevitable regardless of who is in government. I'm ready to take responsibility for any part I had, through my support of FF for the situation we find ourselves in. In my mind taking responsibility is about putting your shoulder to the wheel and trying to work on solutions for the future rather than getting absorbed by hatred over things that happened in the past. Who can argue that Brian Lenihan isn't doing exactly that. Shoulder to the wheel and genuinely and honestly trying to drive Ireland forward. My data on unemployment has not been proven to be incorrect. OK, the numbers increased in todays report but if we remain below the peak levels of 2009 we will have stabilised. I never argued that there won't be more troubles and job losses but I do believe that the worst is over.
At least you know where you stand with Liam Byrne's personal brand of bilious hatred . . ! No bluff games there !
I knew that you would pull that line out. It is the only one that is to your advantage. In fact you then use it as a stick to beat me with when the vast majority of my argument has been reasoned and reflected in report after report, national defecit after national defecit figure, and various other figures.
Brian Lenihan has created ONE decent budget. The 2008 version was an embarressinmg climbdown as FF bowed to public pressure and rolled back on several cuts. A strong governmentwould have stood over the removal of the medical card. The 2009 ajustments were taxation based, and in an environment of weak employment were useless. This was articulated in the summer.
NAMA, the recapitalisations, and the nationalisations of the banks are what is going to cost us, and put recovery on the backburned. Why not establish two "good banks" ? Why not buy the assets in "bond" form as per the UK ? The UK model ensured that the banks maintained liabilityWhy not run the bad debt through Anglo Irish Bank ? As opposed to these options the use the model which had Swedish success, in a very different situation, and handed the banks up to 54 Billion for their fcukups. Once the mortgage moritorium is lifted for many in the first quarter of the year, another flood of bad-debts will have to be considered, and NAMA is the likely option. As long as Ireland inc is recpaitalising, nationalising, and NAMAIsing the taxpayer will remain liable for an enormous debt, which will never pay for itself. Ask the people of Longford and Leitrim who are surrounded by white elephant properties.
As Don Meredith of the Dallas Cowboys once said "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas". "If unemployment remains below peak levels", it doesnt look good, and for the first part of the year, including the Christmas rush, another 3,000 people ended up on the live register. Thus your contention of stabilisation is incorrect, as it is closer to peak levels, then it was to October levels (which I have mentioned were buffered by several things).
We will only know about the worst of the banking crisis when we see how many people lose the protection of the moritorium this year.
Will will only know about the worst of the competitive crisis when something tangable is done to deal with it. This directly feeds into the jobs crisis as it is the fulcrum for private enterprise.
Equally, we will know how robust the Government's desire to close the debt is when we hear of the next banking recapitalisation occurs.0 -
Advertisement
-
In relation to whether FF should have sought a fresh mandate for the recapitalisation, NAMA, and the Nationalisation of Anglo Irish, I firmly believe a new mandate should have been sought. The cost of these three decisions, not fully liquidated yet, could cost upwards of 80 + Billion Euros. Using your logic, these decisions are so far outside of the remit of the FF manifesto, that they should look for a new mandate on the manifesto containing these things. Without using you logic, the three decisions are SO big and so expensive, that the people should have been given the opportunity to consider other alternatives as proposed by other parties.
As far as I am concerned governmental mandates have a constitutional expiration date, and a moral expiration date. By your logic, or indeed the alternative I put to you, the moral date has expired. A firm policy on banking and savings should have been put out there by all parties and voted on last february. With the mandate of the poeple, whoever was elected, should have been allowed put their policy into practice with the backing of the people.
As I have stated before, the FF route may have been the one most attractive, and I could well have voted for it. However, it cannot sustain itself that the mandate given to Bertie and Co in 2007 is the same. We live in EXCEPTIONAL circumstances, and they fall outside of the remit of the 2007 mandate. An election should have been called last February, and Irish people should have been given the opportunity to vote for the best platform, rather then having it rammed down our throats.
Finally I resent your suggestion of my "Anti FF side of my brain" contention. I
dont have a deep rooted hatred of the party at all. I have supported them in elections in the past, and I may well do in the future. However, I have an anti incompetency penchant, and what FF's current front bench has displayed is downright incompetence. I wont absolve BIFFO and Coughlan etc because "the blame game is useless". If Cowen etc had been more economically prudent, then all we would need to be doing is shielding ourselves from the effects of the International downturn. We wouldnt need "ough measures", "patriotic duty" etc.
The fact that FF has sought to shirk blame for the past year has contributed to public ire. That was a crucial reason why FF lost 20% of their vote share between 2007 and 2009. The constantly refuted ANY blame. If they werent blaming international factors (refuted by the IMF and OECD), or RABO and Lehmann Brothers (refuted by our half baked knowledge of Irish banking Practices, and the fact that Ned O Keefe is an idiot), they were trotting out the collective responsibility stuff like yourself. In Iceland the Government were ousted within days, and Ireland is far closer to the Icelandic situation then to most others. Irish people marched, voiced their dissatisfaction, even went to the polls and massacred FF by taking another 80 + seats off them at the locals, and 1 seat off them in Europe. Irish people are fed up at this stage.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »At least you know where you stand with Liam Byrne's personal brand of bilious hatred . . ! No bluff games there !
I'll assume that that post of yours can see the "personal brand of bilious hatred" for what it is - i.e. the result of being conned and shafted repeatedly by FF.
And I'll make no bones about it; I don't bull**** or bluff, which is probably all the more reason why I have grown to detest FF and all their lies and empty promises and their tactics of pass-the-buck/deny all responsibility.
I'm sick to death of FF apologists trotting out "Anti-FF" as the answer to everything; we didn't hate FF until after they shafted and conned us.....admittedly, given that party's condoning of corruption and con-artists - right back to Haughey in my personal memory (I can't speak for before that, because I don't have a default anti-FF position and didn't suffer any of their agendas prior to that).
So the "anti-FF" stance as you see it is because of their actions and monumental cockups; hell, we'd even forgive those if they weeded out and made examples of the scum in their midst, but they don't.
Until FF realise that THEY contribute to people's opinions of them - be it by screwing up, wasting money, helping out their buddies, downright corruption, and absolutely zero interest in the long-term good of the country - then they'll never be able to get around the defensive "but WHYYYYY do they hate us" siege mentality.
My "bilious hatred" is not a "personal brand"; it's the brand shared with anyone who detests lies, strokes, self-interest and shafting normal people while being paid a fortune by those same people.
And hopefully people have copped on to what FF stand for.
If ninty9er and hallelujahjordan are part of a new generation of FF, aiming to change it from within, then I genuinely wish them good luck. I've actually read comments by ninty9er on other threads where they acknowledged that the rot has to be stopped before people will trust FF again, and I acknowledge that not everyone in the FF organisation as a whole is corrupt and self-serving.
But either they need to start telling it like it is and stop trotting out the party line, and weed out scum like Ahern and stop lining the pockets of the bankers and quangos and appointees, or else they need to break away and form a new party.
Feeding the same bull**** over and over again doesn't make it true.
FF have landed us in FAR deeper water than we would otherwise have been in; and while SOME people need to examine why they voted for them and why SOME people got so greedy, the fact is that not ALL of us bought in, and not all of us said OK to 100% mortgages and the blatant conflict-of-interest with banks loaning millions to developers while the same banks gave mortgages to ensure that the developments were sold.
I've had an opinion on this since about 2002, and it has unfortunately come true......and I'm not an economist.
Even if enough of the citizens of this country wanted more and more, there was no onus on FF to give in; that's the whole idea of leadership - keep an eye on the long-term goals.
But even now, FF only have their eye on the next election and their own seats/power; paying back for NAMA and Anglo can wait (in their eyes)......0 -
-
If you keep predicting anything longe enough it'll happen.
Ahern didn't seem to think so. He dismissed it off-hand.
Ahern was 100% wrong.
Mind you, if that's what you really think, then your comment about everyone getting something right eventually takes from FF's occasional minor success......sure they were "bound" to get something right!
P.S. I'm still predicting that I'm going to win the lotto, so thanks for the cause for optimism! It's the first time the opinion of an FF member has given me that, or the possibility that I'll have enough money to survive in this country!0 -
If the thread continues on its merry way towards silliness, closing it will be my best option.
Regardless, some of you are personally attacking your fellow posters. Knock that off please. Now. If that continues, flicking red cards and bans around like cotton candy will be my best option. I'm not reluctant to do either where necessary.
Comments to me by PM if desirable.
/mod0 -
Advertisement
-
If you keep predicting anything longe enough it'll happen. I predict an Ice-Age is looming is about as relevant as McWilliams claims for the most of the noughties.
What nonsense. McWilliams began talking about it in late 2005 at the heigh of Governmental reliance on windfall taxes. "In Search of the Popes Children" was aired a mere 20 months prior to us entering recession, and the guarantee. McWilliams sentiments were also based on the japanese model which went bust in the early 1990s. Similar international cases gave McWiliams a solid insigt into priming the property pump.0 -
Paddy Power is offering roughly equal odds for an election in 2010, 2011 or 2012. The main threat would be a few by-elections as a result of retirements or deaths.mikedublin wrote: »Any realistic chance of a General Election in 2010 ? What kind of things are on the agenda / horizon that might trigger one ? Any by-elections that would have to be held that might swing the majority against the Govt in the Dail.
Anyone got any thoughts or are we facing into another 12 months of Cowen in charge?0 -
freewheeler wrote: »Believe me i have no intention of putting my 'shoulder to the wheel' to bail this shower of gangsters out of trouble..this is turning into another half assed 'shopping in the north' patriotism debate or a deliberate attempt by FF to side-track people from the real issues.I personally find it laughable that we are supposed to row-in behind you lot for 'the good of the country' If i believed what they say for 1 second then maybe i might..trouble is i don't as their previous record speaks for itself..their self-serving policies and outright lies have led us to where we are today and despite what you say the situation is almost entirely the fault of sucessive FF governments.
I'm not asking you to put your shoulder to the wheel to "bail this shower of gangsters out of trouble". I'm suggesting that Lenihan, Cowen and their colleagues in the FF parliamentary party have spent the last 18 months with their shoulder to the wheel trying to navigate a resolution to our economic difficulties. I support them in many (not all) of the decisions they have taken and I believe that on the whole our economic situation has improved versus this time last year. I'm not (as others here misquote me) suggesting that our troubles are over or that members of the current administration don't bear a level of responsibility for the situation we ended up in. I personally would have loved to see Cowen address the nation during 2009 and I would have loved to have seen him take a level of personal responsibility for some of the decisions that the Aherne government made during the noughties but he didn't and I still support. I'm far more interested in what our leaders do (in politics and business) behind the scenes than what they do in front of the cameras. And I am far more interested in the future than the past.0 -
I think that if anyone needs to resort to bluff and bluster to help prove their position it shows a weakness in their argument. And the point was not an unimportant one. We are suffering from a global economic downturn that has affected almost all global economies . . You argue that Ireland is worse due to our property situation and you made a ridiculous assertion that we are the only country with a property crisis . . thereby attaching a greater burden of responsibility to the Irish government than you do to foreign governments for their situation. I travel a lot and I can tell you that almost every country I have travel to believes that their situation is worse than anywhere else in the world. .I knew that you would pull that line out. It is the only one that is to your advantage. In fact you then use it as a stick to beat me with when the vast majority of my argument has been reasoned and reflected in report after report, national defecit after national defecit figure, and various other figures.
Other than the above, your argument is reasoned and I have enjoyed debating with you but you haven't supported your argument with a huge amount of data. There are really only two data points that are important here and on which we both agree. The size of the deficit and the need to reduce it quickly and the levels on the live register. Where we differ is on how the future picture looks. I believe that the government have done everything they could possibly do over the last 18 months to reduce the deficit and I think that is well recognised abroad. I believe (and I know you disagree) that unemployment levels have peaked. Our employment levels are very dependent on external economies and as global recovery kicks in and exports improve we will see a benefit. I guess all we can do is pick this argument up again in 6 months time when we have some more data to debate and we will be able to make a stronger assessment for the future.
[/quote]
I'm glad you recognise the most recent budget as a decent one. Brian Lenihan has clearly stated that he has a long term strategy that would be rolled out across successive budgets. If you look at the three budgets together I think this strategy is shown to have been a successful balance of increased taxes and reduced expenditure. The one significant mistake I think he made was when he increased the rate of VAT when actually reducing it may have had a better effect at increasing the tax take. . (but, he was ready to recognise and correct this mistake in his most recent budget)Het-field wrote:Brian Lenihan has created ONE decent budget. The 2008 version was an embarressinmg climbdown as FF bowed to public pressure and rolled back on several cuts. A strong governmentwould have stood over the removal of the medical card. The 2009 ajustments were taxation based, and in an environment of weak employment were useless. This was articulated in the summer.
I'm not an economist so I'm not going to have this debate with you, but I do know (as I have said before) economists the world over have different opinions on how to navigate out of this situation. If economics were an exact science we wouldn't be in this mess. I'm aware that there were other options open to him, each with their relative merits and weaknesses but Lenihan made a decision about what he felt was the most appropriate solution based on all of the advice and information available. That's his job!Het-field wrote:NAMA, the recapitalisations, and the nationalisations of the banks are what is going to cost us, and put recovery on the backburned. Why not establish two "good banks" ? Why not buy the assets in "bond" form as per the UK ? The UK model ensured that the banks maintained liabilityWhy not run the bad debt through Anglo Irish Bank ? As opposed to these options the use the model which had Swedish success, in a very different situation, and handed the banks up to 54 Billion for their fcukups. Once the mortgage moritorium is lifted for many in the first quarter of the year, another flood of bad-debts will have to be considered, and NAMA is the likely option. As long as Ireland inc is recpaitalising, nationalising, and NAMAIsing the taxpayer will remain liable for an enormous debt, which will never pay for itself. Ask the people of Longford and Leitrim who are surrounded by white elephant properties.0 -
In relation to whether FF should have sought a fresh mandate for the recapitalisation, NAMA, and the Nationalisation of Anglo Irish, I firmly believe a new mandate should have been sought. The cost of these three decisions, not fully liquidated yet, could cost upwards of 80 + Billion Euros. Using your logic, these decisions are so far outside of the remit of the FF manifesto, that they should look for a new mandate on the manifesto containing these things. Without using you logic, the three decisions are SO big and so expensive, that the people should have been given the opportunity to consider other alternatives as proposed by other parties.
As far as I am concerned governmental mandates have a constitutional expiration date, and a moral expiration date. By your logic, or indeed the alternative I put to you, the moral date has expired. A firm policy on banking and savings should have been put out there by all parties and voted on last february. With the mandate of the poeple, whoever was elected, should have been allowed put their policy into practice with the backing of the people.
I don't agree with this and I don't believe that a democracy could operate in an environment where the government had to refresh their mandate (or hold a referendum) every time a decision of national importance were required. .
If you just look at how the last 18 months have panned out. . . .
Ireland went into recession in September 08 and the budget for that year was brought forward. FF had no mandate to govern in a recession so, lets call a General Election. Things continue to get worse, because of the GE the budget gets delayed until December 08 and then new Finance minister (Bruton) implements his first budget. By April 09 it is clear that the banking situation and the recession are getting worse. There is a need for an emergency budget and Bruton decides he needs to implement new legislation to manage the banks toxic debt problems (lets call it NAMA) . . . Event of National Importance = General Election. This time, a new FF/Lab coalition is formed and Martin Cullen:D is elected Taoiseach. . . . you get where I am going to here. .
And yes, I am being facetious but to illustrate a point. We elect a government to govern and as long as they can maintain majority support in Dail Eireann they have to be allowed to govern for the full term. If we expect the government to refresh its mandate after each event of national importance, who decides what is a nationally important event ? I know 400,000-odd public servants who will argue that the pay cuts implemented in December were of national importance.Het-field wrote:Finally I resent your suggestion of my "Anti FF side of my brain" contention. I
dont have a deep rooted hatred of the party at all. I have supported them in elections in the past, and I may well do in the future. However, I have an anti incompetency penchant, and what FF's current front bench has displayed is downright incompetence. I wont absolve BIFFO and Coughlan etc because "the blame game is useless". If Cowen etc had been more economically prudent, then all we would need to be doing is shielding ourselves from the effects of the International downturn. We wouldnt need "ough measures", "patriotic duty" etc.
The fact that FF has sought to shirk blame for the past year has contributed to public ire.
The only reason I mention the anti-FF side of your brain is because regardless of what I say, I am quoted as if I am blindly in support of a party who have done (and can do) no wrong. This isn't true. I'm a member of FF but I don't represent them on here. I have said pretty clearly that they should stand up and take responsibility for things that happened in the past and I'm not trying to shirk any blame on their behalf. . However, as I've also said i do believe the current administration are moving forward in the right direction and are capable of effecting the change that is needed. Far more capable than the only credible alternative - Let me ask a question : How can we expect two parties who are poles apart and who continue to fail to provide strong and credible opposition, to form a stable coalition partnership that will navigate through these difficult times. Would critical reductions to the public sector pay bill have happened with the Labour party in government (as would be inevitable if FF had gone to the country for a fresh mandate in 2009) ?0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »I think that if anyone needs to resort to bluff and bluster to help prove their position it shows a weakness in their argument. And the point was not an unimportant one. We are suffering from a global economic downturn that has affected almost all global economies . . You argue that Ireland is worse due to our property situation and you made a ridiculous assertion that we are the only country with a property crisis . . thereby attaching a greater burden of responsibility to the Irish government than you do to foreign governments for their situation. I travel a lot and I can tell you that almost every country I have travel to believes that their situation is worse than anywhere else in the world. .
Other than the above, your argument is reasoned and I have enjoyed debating with you but you haven't supported your argument with a huge amount of data. There are really only two data points that are important here and on which we both agree. The size of the deficit and the need to reduce it quickly and the levels on the live register. Where we differ is on how the future picture looks. I believe that the government have done everything they could possibly do over the last 18 months to reduce the deficit and I think that is well recognised abroad. I believe (and I know you disagree) that unemployment levels have peaked. Our employment levels are very dependent on external economies and as global recovery kicks in and exports improve we will see a benefit. I guess all we can do is pick this argument up again in 6 months time when we have some more data to debate and we will be able to make a stronger assessment for the future.
I'm glad you recognise the most recent budget as a decent one. Brian Lenihan has clearly stated that he has a long term strategy that would be rolled out across successive budgets. If you look at the three budgets together I think this strategy is shown to have been a successful balance of increased taxes and reduced expenditure. The one significant mistake I think he made was when he increased the rate of VAT when actually reducing it may have had a better effect at increasing the tax take. . (but, he was ready to recognise and correct this mistake in his most recent budget)
I'm not an economist so I'm not going to have this debate with you, but I do know (as I have said before) economists the world over have different opinions on how to navigate out of this situation. If economics were an exact science we wouldn't be in this mess. I'm aware that there were other options open to him, each with their relative merits and weaknesses but Lenihan made a decision about what he felt was the most appropriate solution based on all of the advice and information available. That's his job![/QUOTE]
With all due respect, all the data in the world wont negate the fact that we sit with a 24 Billion Euro National Defecit, an unemployment rate of 12.5%, in the middle of a credit and competitive crisis, and have virtually closed off one sector, which if managed properly, can be highly lucrative, and can bistow a long term benefit ont he economy. Furthermore, our banking situation leaves us, a small island economy, open to a debt of up to 80 Billion. I agree that we are going around in circles, and are coming to our separate conclusions. Thus the debate has stagnated and become somewhat moot. However, there are certain matters I would like to flag.
i would point out that "international commendations" have been selectively quoted. I also feel it is relevant to point out that the IMF and European Commission have simply stated that what Ireland is doing is within the framework of what can be done to seek recovery, it doesnt articulate a confidence in recovery, nor has it taken into account the combination of the 6 crisis we find ourselves in.
"If economic was an exact science, then we wouldnt be in this mess". I dont think this flippant attitude to "boom and bust" is reflective of the policies which were engaged in between 2004-2007. In fact, the Government had the Japenese Property Crash of 1995, and the exploits of the FF 1977-1982 government to warn itself as to the dangers of over reliance on the property market, and high levels of public spending. In the former case Japan is still paicking up the pieces, while in the latter, it took almost 20 years to properly recover, only to see it blown to bits by the committal of the same mistakes.
Budget 2009 was a complete farce, and with the exception of some moves, the vast majority of it was a fudge or a roll back. The April 2009 ajustment was a taxation based thing, and with levels of unemployment high, and fluxuating tax reciepts, it is impossible to guage whether it was of any use. Our separate contentions regarding unemployment will give rise to an answer as the year progresses. Budget 2010 is contingent on the banks,a nd what sort of re-capitalisation is necessary. If re-capitalisation is at an end, then we can see to continue a move towards greater fiscal rectitude. If re-capitalisation is not at an end, then the savings made in December could be blown to bit. However, I stand by my conviction that one decent budget doesnt wipe away the reticence to take the bull by the horns earlier. That logic also applies to the small decrease in VAT, which cshould have never been required. In fact the decision to increase it by 0.5% highlighted that Cowen and Coughlan didnt have a clue about basic economics. Optics can play a huge role in consumer confidence. A reduction in VAT to UK levels from October 2008 would have incentivised. Insted the Government pissed away millions, and basically plundered shops in the border regions as shoppers went North. As opposed to doing something, the government turned around and called these shoppers "Unpatriotic".0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Ahern didn't seem to think so. He dismissed it off-hand.
Ahern was 100% wrong.
Mind you, if that's what you really think, then your comment about everyone getting something right eventually takes from FF's occasional minor success......sure they were "bound" to get something right!
P.S. I'm still predicting that I'm going to win the lotto, so thanks for the cause for optimism! It's the first time the opinion of an FF member has given me that, or the possibility that I'll have enough money to survive in this country!
Yes, Ahern was wrong . . . Big Deal ! Every political leader, every business leader have to make difficult decisions every day based on limited information and predictions about the future . . there are usually a couple of I-told-you-so's with a conflicting opinion who are ready to jump all over you if it turns out you got it wrong. But leadership is about standing strong, making those decisions and, if you're wrong, dealing with the consequences even while the I-told-you-so's continue to moan and bitch ! Leaders focus on the future. Moaners bitch about the past.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »I don't agree with this and I don't believe that a democracy could operate in an environment where the government had to refresh their mandate (or hold a referendum) every time a decision of national importance were required. .
If you just look at how the last 18 months have panned out. . . .
Ireland went into recession in September 08 and the budget for that year was brought forward. FF had no mandate to govern in a recession so, lets call a General Election. Things continue to get worse, because of the GE the budget gets delayed until December 08 and then new Finance minister (Bruton) implements his first budget. By April 09 it is clear that the banking situation and the recession are getting worse. There is a need for an emergency budget and Bruton decides he needs to implement new legislation to manage the banks toxic debt problems (lets call it NAMA) . . . Event of National Importance = General Election. This time, a new FF/Lab coalition is formed and Martin Cullen:D is elected Taoiseach. . . . you get where I am going to here. .
And yes, I am being facetious but to illustrate a point. We elect a government to govern and as long as they can maintain majority support in Dail Eireann they have to be allowed to govern for the full term. If we expect the government to refresh its mandate after each event of national importance, who decides what is a nationally important event ? I know 400,000-odd public servants who will argue that the pay cuts implemented in December were of national importance.
The only reason I mention the anti-FF side of your brain is because regardless of what I say, I am quoted as if I am blindly in support of a party who have done (and can do) no wrong. This isn't true. I'm a member of FF but I don't represent them on here. I have said pretty clearly that they should stand up and take responsibility for things that happened in the past and I'm not trying to shirk any blame on their behalf. . However, as I've also said i do believe the current administration are moving forward in the right direction and are capable of effecting the change that is needed. Far more capable than the only credible alternative - Let me ask a question : How can we expect two parties who are poles apart and who continue to fail to provide strong and credible opposition, to form a stable coalition partnership that will navigate through these difficult times. Would critical reductions to the public sector pay bill have happened with the Labour party in government (as would be inevitable if FF had gone to the country for a fresh mandate in 2009) ?
A decions of "National Importance" and "Exception Circumstances" are highly different. NAMA, Banking recapitalisations, and the Nationalisation of an zombie bank, without making it clear why it's existence is being maintained, fall into the latter catagory. As I have mentioned, these decisions alone could cost the taxpayer up to 80 Billion Euro. This is unparalled, and FF have been at pains to tell us of these unchartered water. The people have given them NO mandate to proceed with these huge decisions, nor was such a mandate given to them in 2007. We are entitled to hear of alternatives when such a decision is taken,. This is due to the fact that NAMA will be a millstone around people's next for many years to come, and Frank Fahy's assertion of "NAMA's likelyhood of a 5 Billion profit" is so wide of the mark it isnt funny. We have never seen anything like the Government's policies on the banking sector in Ireland before. We were entiled to see alternatives as they had a major bearing on how Irish lives were to be led in the long term.
Government stability wouldnt be under threat if we were to take such a stance. This is due to the fact that exceptional circumstances are only likely to occur once over a very long period of time. Even in the 1970s-2002 there were no such decisions which are comparable to NAMA, in spite of similarities. As such, I would not have sought for an election as swiftly.
One you analysis.
1.Some mention had been made that times were likely to be tough after the 2007 General election. Recessions can be transient and short term, and dont fall within the remit of "exceptional circumstances". Some recessions fall into all out depression, others revert to growth in a fairly rapid time. FF were given a mandate to govern in such times.Nothing wron with that
2.Post the commencement of the recession it became clear that the banking system was up to it's neck in toxic debt. They were exposed for reckless dealings, and writing cheques their accounts couldnt cash. In fact they were likely to go under. The state wrote a carte blanche guarantee and bailed them out. Said state then tried to tell the public this wasnt a "bailout". As the dust settled on the guarantee the reality of the exceptional circumstances became clear. Post Christmas the first talk of recpatiliations ocurred, the Anglo Irish issue Came to ahead, and the state began to discuss what should be done with the Billion od Euros in toxic debt. Thusly, it became celar that billions were to be pumped into banks "to get credit flowing", Anglo was going to become part of the state apparatus, and the toxic loans were going to have to be dealt with. At this point circumstances became so exceptional, given the magnitude of the cost of said operations, that the state became entitled to listen to alternatives. The will of the people was well and truly articulated in June 2009, when FF took a pasting at the Locals and the Euros.
Again, you have articulated nothing more than a "belief" in the cureent administration. Im not saying FG/Lab would do much better, however, I dont buy into this idea that due to a precieved lack of stability, that they couldnt susbsist together. Remember, the rainbow government was one for fiscal frugality, and they were kicked for that. My countering belief is that they would make the cuts, and blame FF for having to do it. They would note that the need for radical cuts became apparent once the state of the place became clear. Remember, they only get the figures that the Government provides for them.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »Yes, Ahern was wrong . . . Big Deal ! Every political leader, every business leader have to make difficult decisions every day based on limited information and predictions about the future . . there are usually a couple of I-told-you-so's with a conflicting opinion who are ready to jump all over you if it turns out you got it wrong. But leadership is about standing strong, making those decisions and, if you're wrong, dealing with the consequences even while the I-told-you-so's continue to moan and bitch ! Leaders focus on the future. Moaners bitch about the past.
When the magnitude of that incorrectness hits a nation to the tune of billions, then it is a very big deal.
Bertie has never dealt with the consequences. He took his seat in the backbenches, and then started bitching about advice, lawyer, and Lehmanns. Of all men who would NEVER take responsibility, it is Bertie.0 -
A decions of "National Importance" and "Exception Circumstances" are highly different. NAMA, Banking recapitalisations, and the Nationalisation of an zombie bank, without making it clear why it's existence is being maintained, fall into the latter catagory. As I have mentioned, these decisions alone could cost the taxpayer up to 80 Billion Euro. This is unparalled, and FF have been at pains to tell us of these unchartered water. The people have given them NO mandate to proceed with these huge decisions, nor was such a mandate given to them in 2007. We are entitled to hear of alternatives when such a decision is taken,. This is due to the fact that NAMA will be a millstone around people's next for many years to come, and Frank Fahy's assertion of "NAMA's likelyhood of a 5 Billion profit" is so wide of the mark it isnt funny. We have never seen anything like the Government's policies on the banking sector in Ireland before. We were entiled to see alternatives as they had a major bearing on how Irish lives were to be led in the long term.
Government stability wouldnt be under threat if we were to take such a stance. This is due to the fact that exceptional circumstances are only likely to occur once over a very long period of time. Even in the 1970s-2002 there were no such decisions which are comparable to NAMA, in spite of similarities. As such, I would not have sought for an election as swiftly.
One you analysis.
1.Some mention had been made that times were likely to be tough after the 2007 General election. Recessions can be transient and short term, and dont fall within the remit of "exceptional circumstances". Some recessions fall into all out depression, others revert to growth in a fairly rapid time. FF were given a mandate to govern in such times.Nothing wron with that
2.Post the commencement of the recession it became clear that the banking system was up to it's neck in toxic debt. They were exposed for reckless dealings, and writing cheques their accounts couldnt cash. In fact they were likely to go under. The state wrote a carte blanche guarantee and bailed them out. Said state then tried to tell the public this wasnt a "bailout". As the dust settled on the guarantee the reality of the exceptional circumstances became clear. Post Christmas the first talk of recpatiliations ocurred, the Anglo Irish issue Came to ahead, and the state began to discuss what should be done with the Billion od Euros in toxic debt. Thusly, it became celar that billions were to be pumped into banks "to get credit flowing", Anglo was going to become part of the state apparatus, and the toxic loans were going to have to be dealt with. At this point circumstances became so exceptional, given the magnitude of the cost of said operations, that the state became entitled to listen to alternatives. The will of the people was well and truly articulated in June 2009, when FF took a pasting at the Locals and the Euros.
Again, you have articulated nothing more than a "belief" in the cureent administration. Im not saying FG/Lab would do much better, however, I dont buy into this idea that due to a precieved lack of stability, that they couldnt susbsist together. Remember, the rainbow government was one for fiscal frugality, and they were kicked for that. My countering belief is that they would make the cuts, and blame FF for having to do it. They would note that the need for radical cuts became apparent once the state of the place became clear. Remember, they only get the figures that the Government provides for them.
So, who gets to decide whether events are of 'national importance' or 'exceptional circumstances' . . . You have decided that NAMA is the only issue over the last 20-odd years that falls into this category but there are those that believe that NAMA will turn a profit and I am sure there are those that believe other events during the period would be classed as 'exceptional circumstances' . . .
I get your idea, and I could probably live with your model in theory but who can decide on such matters and how can you make the decision appropriately independent . . Do we give the president the right to call a GE - hardly an independent position given that they are usually nominated by a political party. Should we give that power to the council of state - again, hardly independent and they don't have any power other than to advise the president. .
I don't see how such a model can work . . .0 -
Advertisement
-
hallelujajordan wrote: »....there are those that believe that NAMA will turn a profit
I don't think anyone actually believes that NAMA will return a profit.
There's lots of hoping, praying, fingers-crossed, etc, but no "belief".
I mean, they haven't even finalised the overpayment (sorry, "discount" :rolleyes: ) yet.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »I don't think anyone actually believes that NAMA will return a profit.
There's lots of hoping, praying, fingers-crossed, etc, but no "belief".
I mean, they haven't even finalised the overpayment (sorry, "discount" :rolleyes: ) yet.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1015/1224256691300.html
I think the government 'believe' that NAMA will be a success and will turn out to be profitable over its lifetime . . otherwise, they would have followed an alternative strategy. .0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1015/1224256691300.html
I think the government 'believe' that NAMA will be a success and will turn out to be profitable over its lifetime . . otherwise, they would have followed an alternative strategy. .
You do realise that that completely contradicts what the Government went on and on about ? That NAMA was "the only option" ?
Even if they did weigh up alternatives (which I personally doubt, but that's another story) they decided that NAMA was the only option (and I've discussed this with you elsewhere).
That decision DOES NOT imply that they believe that it will return a profit.
In notice that (as per usual) you threw in another red herring - the "will be a success" - in order to try and prevent a proper discussion on the subject; my comment was a reply to your observation that it is "believed" that it will "return a profit"....so stop changing the sentences each time.
How, exactly, will it "return a profit" ? Do tell us.
What will they be paying for the loans (including the overpayment) ?
How much will the directors of NAMA be paid (in total) ?
What will be the running costs, cost of the administrative overheads and possible court cases ?
What will the loans and properties eventually be worth, and at what stage will they be sold ?
EVERY SINGLE ONE of the above are required in order to determine whether it even has a CHANCE of making a profit.
And yet - despite the objectionable initial overpayment - there is no proper indication of most of the above.A crucial make-or-break detail on whether Nama will succeed is included in the plan: the Government projects that of the €77 billion face value in loans being acquired, €62 billion will be repaid and borrowers will default on the remaining loans of €15 billion.But the expectation is Nama will more than make up this shortfall through the sale of assets to investors
Strange how the second paragraph has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of the amount for which those assets will be sold or who those "investors" might be.
NAMA is a MASSIVE gamble, overpaying from day one with no tangible idea of how much those assets might be worth in the future, and is also comparing to Barclays' experience in a recession, which is worthless as a benchmark given some the cowboy / con-men tactics employed by many of the big developers and bankers (and politicians) that landed us in this mess.
P.S. I love the title of that article : "Nama profit of [SOMETHING MISSING HERE] expected by 2020"0 -
Well hallelujah (no pun intended) so we are supposed to be grateful that they are FINALLY taking the necessary steps to get the country off its knees? wasn't that what they were supposed to be doing since the start of the recession? and anyway we still have more or less the same clowns in the same positions both banking sector and government(the same thing?) just to ensure that this sort of scandal will surely be repeated..this is why I and for what i can tell most right thinking people will never trust FF..their only motive seems to be to maintain the status quo with the money-men basically running the country,They have proven time and again that they have no interest in justice or ensuring that the criminals in the banking system or their friends in government are ever brought to justice.Your continued support of that lot only encourages this sort of corruption as far as i'm concerned and unfortunately this view seems to be shared by the electorate..although how Irish people can be so blinkered is wayyyy beyond my comprehension...i can only put it down to ignorance unfortunately.hallelujajordan wrote: »I'm not asking you to put your shoulder to the wheel to "bail this shower of gangsters out of trouble". I'm suggesting that Lenihan, Cowen and their colleagues in the FF parliamentary party have spent the last 18 months with their shoulder to the wheel trying to navigate a resolution to our economic difficulties. I support them in many (not all) of the decisions they have taken and I believe that on the whole our economic situation has improved versus this time last year. I'm not (as others here misquote me) suggesting that our troubles are over or that members of the current administration don't bear a level of responsibility for the situation we ended up in. I personally would have loved to see Cowen address the nation during 2009 and I would have loved to have seen him take a level of personal responsibility for some of the decisions that the Aherne government made during the noughties but he didn't and I still support. I'm far more interested in what our leaders do (in politics and business) behind the scenes than what they do in front of the cameras. And I am far more interested in the future than the past.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »So, who gets to decide whether events are of 'national importance' or 'exceptional circumstances' . . . You have decided that NAMA is the only issue over the last 20-odd years that falls into this category but there are those that believe that NAMA will turn a profit and I am sure there are those that believe other events during the period would be classed as 'exceptional circumstances' . . .
I get your idea, and I could probably live with your model in theory but who can decide on such matters and how can you make the decision appropriately independent . . Do we give the president the right to call a GE - hardly an independent position given that they are usually nominated by a political party. Should we give that power to the council of state - again, hardly independent and they don't have any power other than to advise the president. .
I don't see how such a model can work . . .
"What consitutes "exceptional circumstances" should be clear. The use of the term "of national importance is completely irrelevant, as many issues are of national importance. Exception would be a once in a lifetime occurance, which will have far reaching effects on the present and the future. In fact "GUBU" could be used, even if you sever the "grotesque"
I dont think anybody could dispute that such a model as NAMA was worthy of listening to alternatives. The magnitude of pressure on it's success, and the price of failure is so great, that alternatives should have been put to the people.
The calibrations of such a system are not for me to decide, nor should it be enshrined in any constitution or law. A government should know when a decision is of such improtance that the people deserve to be listened to. As I have mentioned, a moral mandate can expire. This occurs once a party has to go so far outside of its original intention that it must refresh its mandate.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »You do realise that that completely contradicts what the Government went on and on about ? That NAMA was "the only option" ?
Even if they did weigh up alternatives (which I personally doubt, but that's another story) they decided that NAMA was the only option (and I've discussed this with you elsewhere).
We already dealt with the 'only option' issue earlier in this thread and I explained what I meant and what I believe the government mean. Clearly there were other options . . in my view Lenihan and his team reviewed those options and determined what they believed was the only viable option.
No, but statements from government sources more than imply that belief !Liam Byrne wrote:That decision DOES NOT imply that they believe that it will return a profit.Liam Byrne wrote:In notice that (as per usual) you threw in another red herring - the "will be a success" - in order to try and prevent a proper discussion on the subject; my comment was a reply to your observation that it is "believed" that it will "return a profit"....so stop changing the sentences each time.
This comment would be valid if i deliberately replaced "will return a profit" with "will be a success" . . but I didn't. . If you look at my post (which you quoted) you can see clearly that I said . .hallelujajordan wrote:I think the government 'believe' that NAMA will be a success and will turn out to be profitable over its lifetime .
I'm more than happy to address the fact that there are those that believe it will turn a profit and the only red herring is your response !
So, as I thought you probably would, you are attacking the principle of NAMA and whether or not it will turn a profit. To be clear, I never said that I believed it would and to be honest, (like many on here I suspect) I really have no idea whether or not it will. I am neither an economist nor do I have access to economic expertise so I'm not qualified to make this assertion, but Brian Lenihan is and I trust his judgement. I raised the fact that people believe NAMA will turn a profit to illustrate that what @Het-Field and others may consider to be 'exceptional circumstances', others may not.Liam Byrne wrote:How, exactly, will it "return a profit" ? Do tell us.
What will they be paying for the loans (including the overpayment) ?
How much will the directors of NAMA be paid (in total) ?
What will be the running costs, cost of the administrative overheads and possible court cases ?
What will the loans and properties eventually be worth, and at what stage will they be sold ?
EVERY SINGLE ONE of the above are required in order to determine whether it even has a CHANCE of making a profit.
And yet - despite the objectionable initial overpayment - there is no proper indication of most of the above.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »We already dealt with the 'only option' issue earlier in this thread and I explained what I meant and what I believe the government mean. Clearly there were other options . . in my view Lenihan and his team reviewed those options and determined what they believed was the only viable option.
No, but statements from government sources more than imply that belief !
This comment would be valid if i deliberately replaced "will return a profit" with "will be a success" . . but I didn't. . If you look at my post (which you quoted) you can see clearly that I said . .
I'm more than happy to address the fact that there are those that believe it will turn a profit and the only red herring is your response !
So, as I thought you probably would, you are attacking the principle of NAMA and whether or not it will turn a profit. To be clear, I never said that I believed it would and to be honest, (like many on here I suspect) I really have no idea whether or not it will. I am neither an economist nor do I have access to economic expertise so I'm not qualified to make this assertion, but Brian Lenihan is and I trust his judgement. I raised the fact that people believe NAMA will turn a profit to illustrate that what @Het-Field and others may consider to be 'exceptional circumstances', others may not.
Brian Lenihan is also part of a government which has used spin and misdirection to prove it's point. I recall this week last year, Willie O Dea stated how confident he was that the Social Partnership talks would be a success. The very next day they collapsed. By the end of the year, the relationship between the Govenrment and the Unions is one of distrust and dislike. He is part of the Bertie Government which claimed the "Boom would get boomier". These are just two examples of why our politicians lack veracity, and their word counts for far less then it should.The reality is, NAMA will never turn a profit, and the level of profit anticipated by the likes of Frank Fahey TD are beyond optimistic. I would point to the fact that houses are built in areas with no amenities, or in the back arse of nowhere. Those developments sold some houses, but the rest are now bad debts and are sucked into NAMA.
These bad debts are now on the shoulders of every Irish man woman and child in Ireland.; In fact these debts are stagnant debts, and will never be shifted as these houses become deralict. If people dont buy them, and developers dont have the funds to maintain them, what will happen to them ?? As I have said, many of these houses are unsellable as there is no market, and many have no attraction to the prospective buyer. As such, when 54 Billion Euro of such debt is placed on the public, it becomes exceptional. Can you mention an occasion in the past where the equivalent of the Social Welfare, and Public Sector Budget was put on the taxpayer ? To suggest that people would consider this transient, and not "exceptional" is an articulation of how much you are ignoring the crisis for what it is.0 -
"What consitutes "exceptional circumstances" should be clear. The use of the term "of national importance is completely irrelevant, as many issues are of national importance. Exception would be a once in a lifetime occurance, which will have far reaching effects on the present and the future. In fact "GUBU" could be used, even if you sever the "grotesque"
I'm not saying that I do not agree that the current economic situation merits the term "exceptional circumstances" but whether or not you and I agree doesn't change the fact that it is a subjective assessment. You are arguing that there should be provision for an emergency general election when such "exceptional circumstances" are met, but who is the judge of that. What you and I consider (subjectively) to be 'exceptional' others may not. In principle, I hear what your saying and I don't disagree but in practice there is no way it can work . .
In fact, there is a provision in the constitution whereby the president can refer a bill to a referendum if it is put to her by the majority of the senate and one third of the Dail. In theory, under the right conditions the NAMA bill could be put to a referendum. In practice this has never happened because the opposition can fulfill one criteria (one third of the Dail) but never the other (majority of the senate will be controlled by the government). I think this illustrates the need for clear and objective legislation if such an option were ever to work. The term 'exceptional circumstances' is neither clear or objective.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »I'm not saying that I do not agree that the current economic situation merits the term "exceptional circumstances" but whether or not you and I agree doesn't change the fact that it is a subjective assessment. You are arguing that there should be provision for an emergency general election when such "exceptional circumstances" are met, but who is the judge of that. What you and I consider (subjectively) to be 'exceptional' others may not. In principle, I hear what your saying and I don't disagree but in practice there is no way it can work . .
In fact, there is a provision in the constitution whereby the president can refer a bill to a referendum if it is put to her by the majority of the senate and one third of the Dail. In theory, under the right conditions the NAMA bill could be put to a referendum. In practice this has never happened because the opposition can fulfill one criteria (one third of the Dail) but never the other (majority of the senate will be controlled by the government). I think this illustrates the need for clear and objective legislation if such an option were ever to work. The term 'exceptional circumstances' is neither clear or objective.
Putting referenda on issues like NAMA would equate to passing the buck. it is more then just the implementation simpliciter. There will be an entire process, and those representatives who proffer the idea must be the ones who implement it. Otherwise, the tribalist nature of politics would jettison any chance of recovery.
I also feel you have misrepresented me when talking about a "provision". I have made it abundantly clear that I dont want this moral mandate to be in legislative, or constitutional form. It is a point at which a government feels it no longer has the backing of the people in a matter of "exceptional circumstances". The last time this government went to the people, it got well and truly pasted as FF managed to lose double the amount of seats the lost in 2004, and four more, not to mention their Dublin MEP. The same applies to the Greens, who only have a solitary local memeber more then the rump of the Workers Party. They had NO mandate to impose NAMA. It should have been put to the people, and no matter how much you seek to negate NAMA as "exceptional", by suggesting it wouldnt be top of people's agenda, I believe the facts speak for themselves.
In practice, what I suggest is is workable. The government should take a morally valid hands on approach, and accept when a policy, such as NAMA, places the citizen in a highliy invidious position. The need to call an election under the premise that a decision of "exceptional importance" needs to be made. If the opposition choose to back the government, then there is no need for an election, as only one plan is proposed. However, when decisisons which involve the virtual nationalisation of the nation's bad debts, then the public should be offered alternatives.0 -
Advertisement
-
hallelujajordan wrote: »No, but statements from government sources more than imply that belief !
:
:
I'm more than happy to address the fact that there are those that believe it will turn a profit and the only red herring is your response !
In the first of those two sentences you use the word "imply".....why ?
I would suggest that it's because even you know that government sources say and what they believe are two completely different things.
Het-Field has already outlined the spin and downright lies that this Government has engaged in for years, and how they've been found out on so many occasions.
So unless you show me someone INDEPENDENT, who DOES NOT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST in the spin, who believes that NAMA is either (a) a good idea OR (b) likely to return a profit, then you do not have proof.
Personally, from past experience, if FF told me there was snow on the ground outside I would automatically assume that the thaw in Dublin had reached here within the last hour.0
Advertisement