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
-
Or . . . . . . . Its because it was a direct response to your statement . . .Liam Byrne wrote: »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.Liam Byrne wrote:That decision DOES NOT imply that they believe that it will return a profit.
You introduced the word imply, i just responded. . I think you are overanalysing my posts . . !Liam Byrne wrote: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.
I'm confused, what am I trying to prove. . ? ?0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »You introduced the word imply, i just responded. . I think you are overanalysing my posts . . !
I said that the earlier statement doesn't imply any belief.
You're the one who's trying to imply that there is a belief.
But now you're stepping back one from that and - rather than proving that they believe it - you're saying that they're "implying" that they believe it.....i.e. in order to believe your "proof" we'd have to believe the government (which we don't) and you don't even seem to believe them.hallelujajordan wrote: »I'm confused, what am I trying to prove. . ? ?
That you believe that NAMA will return a profit. That you believe that the government did consider all of the facts and figures and that it's more than just a shot in the dark, fingers-crossed approach.
Because the figures don't add up.
Well, do you believe it ? Can you stand over your praise of Lenihan ?
Or are you just an FF mouthpiece, towing the party line despite the fact that you're like the rest of us - completely sceptical and yet hoping that it will at least - somehow - come close to breaking even or making a non-crippling loss.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »I said that the earlier statement doesn't imply any belief.
You're the one who's trying to imply that there is a belief.
But now you're stepping back one from that and - rather than proving that they believe it - you're saying that they're "implying" that they believe it.....i.e. in order to believe your "proof" we'd have to believe the government (which we don't) and you don't even seem to believe them.
. . OK, let me be clear . . there is a belief, no implication. I used the words 'more than imply' to counter your use of the word imply. Foolishly apparently !
If you don't believe that there are people who believe NAMA will turn a profit, google it, you don't need me to prove it.
And before you go there, who they are and whether or not you agree with them is a totally separate issue.Liam Byrne wrote:
That you believe that NAMA will return a profit. That you believe that the government did consider all of the facts and figures and that it's more than just a shot in the dark, fingers-crossed approach.
Because the figures don't add up.
Well, do you believe it ? Can you stand over your praise of Lenihan ?
Or are you just an FF mouthpiece, towing the party line despite the fact that you're like the rest of us - completely sceptical and yet hoping that it will at least - somehow - come close to breaking even or making a non-crippling loss.
I've already answered this question and now you are just attacking me !
To restate... I'm not qualified to make an educated judgement on whether or not NAMA will turn a profit in the longer term and unlike some others I am not going to pretend to be. The truth is I don't know but I trust Brian Lenihan's judgement that under the circumstances it was our best option.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »If you don't believe that there are people who believe NAMA will turn a profit, google it, you don't need me to prove it.
And before you go there, who they are and whether or not you agree with them is a totally separate issue.
I'll go Google it, so......but if there's no-one independent (unassociated with and untainted by FF, the banks or the developers) then I'd be foolish not to be sceptical.hallelujajordan wrote: »I've already answered this question and now you are just attacking me !
I'm not attacking you. I just asked a straightforward question. I did notice that you didn't/couldn't answer the straightforward questions about the figures earlier, so I asked again in that context.hallelujajordan wrote: »To restate... I'm not qualified to make an educated judgement on whether or not NAMA will turn a profit in the longer term and unlike some others I am not going to pretend to be. The truth is I don't know but I trust Brian Lenihan's judgement that under the circumstances it was our best option.
Y'see that's where I'm confused. If I blindly trusted someone, I wouldn't be anywhere near as vocal in defending the apparently indefensible, or claiming that those behind it could be trusted.
Lenihan is the guy who invested in Anglo without checking his facts, and - whatever about his progressive improvements as indicated by going from a ****e-thought-out budget to an unfair-and-tough one to a reasonably-ok one, I cannot in all honesty trust his judgement on anything related to that bank again (and that bank and it's clientele - coincidentally many Galway Tent and FF supporters - are the main beneficiary of NAMA).
If you're genuinely so trusting despite all the facts, then I hope it stays fine for you.
All of the above means that anyone neutral who is not a beneficiary would - at best - be sceptical and untrusting.
Edit : did a quick Google as suggested and the only references to "NAMA" and "profit" - at least on the first 5 pages - are Government press releases; meanwhile, the neutral ones say stuff like this :In other words, this investment only beats investing in Irish government bonds under the assumption that NAMA has a less than seven percent chance of making a loss.
Personally, I’m going to pass on looking to participate in this wonderful investment opportunity. As, I imagine, would anyone else investing their own money in this on a stand-alone, no-strings-attached basis.Then the Minister pulls the last minute stunt last night of removing the NAMA levy from the table. This was secured by people concerned that NAMA wouldn’t wash its own face by making any profit. The banks pay the levy to cover any state losses following from toxic assets.
The value of shares in Irish banks have increased following the Government’s decision NOT to impose a levy on banks to pay for NAMA – if it makes a loss.
:
:
The Minister seems to be of a mind to run up bank shares, rather than nail on loss-proofing of NAMA in the short term.
And the most important points of all :
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/facing-a-nervous-wait-on-nama-1891627.htmlFinance Minister Brian Lenihan took one serious bet when he rolled the Nama dice last Wednesday. He has thrown €54bn of taxpayers' money onto the table in exchange for loans with a market value of €47bn. Yes, Nama -- the National Asset Management Agency more commonly known as the State's bad bank -- is getting assets in return for these loans.
But we're paying the banks €7bn more for these assets than they're currently worth. And these assets -- on which the €47bn worth of loans are secured -- have already seen their market value dive from €77bn since early 2007.
:
:
And if the property market continues in freefall, that market value could dive further -- something which would put the Irish taxpayer seriously0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »I'll go Google it, so......but if there's no-one independent (unassociated with and untainted by FF, the banks or the developers) then I'd be foolish not to be sceptical.
When did I say there were independent people who believed it. . this debate is about whether or not the need for NAMA should be considered 'exceptional' due to the amount it could cost the taxpayer. I was making the point that there are those who believe it will turn a profit hence probably do not consider that it falls into the 'exceptional therefore emergency GE category' . . . The fact that those who believe it are in government is actually relevant given that @Het-field expects that the government will recognise the 'exceptional circumstances' and actually call the emergency GE . . .Liam Byrne wrote:I'm not attacking you. I just asked a straightforward question. I did notice that you didn't/couldn't answer the straightforward questions about the figures earlier, so I asked again in that context.
Calling me an FF mouthpiece is a bit of an attack and there you go again . . I think anyone who reads this thread will accept that I have answered any straightforward questions to the best of my ability . . and if I'm not able to I will say so. .
BTW, the quotes you added in your edited response are not relevant to the point I was making. . NAMA and whether or not it will turn a profit is a topic for another thread and one that has been well debated on here. . This debate (that you are trying to distort) is about whether or not there will be or should be a General Election as a result of the circumstances we find ourselves in and about what circumstances could or should trigger the election. Its not about whether or not NAMA will work (or whether or not I believe it will work)0 -
Advertisement
-
hallelujajordan wrote: »When did I say there were independent people who believed it. . this debate is about whether or not the need for NAMA should be considered 'exceptional' due to the amount it could cost the taxpayer. I was making the point that there are those who believe it will turn a profit
There are those who "say" that it will return a profit. And that is precisely why it is independent people who need to believe it in order for it to be a viable option. Vested interests will say whatever the hell they have to in order to get their own way, or get votes, or whatever.hallelujajordan wrote: »The fact that those who believe it are in government is actually relevant given that @Het-field expects that the government will recognise the 'exceptional circumstances' and actually call the emergency GE . . .
Ain't gonna happen. Even FF people who "resign the whip in protest" when they object to stuff like NAMA or a crap budget don't even follow through to vote against it.
Yes, ideally a government would have morals, but - and we're finally on-topic again - given that FF know that they're history in the next election, the "turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas"......in an ideal world they should, and would, but they won't. In an ideal world they'd know that it would be seen that they're doing the right thing, and they'd be voted back in to continue, but since they're not, they won't chance it.hallelujajordan wrote: »Calling me an FF mouthpiece is a bit of an attack and there you go again . . I think anyone who reads this thread will accept that I have answered any straightforward questions to the best of my ability . . and if I'm not able to I will say so. .
Fair enough, and I'll concede some of that as true. But the fact is that all of your posts are based on "I believe FF"; that makes you fairly unique, I'd say, and as a result all of your posts are falling back on that, rather than your own opinion. The effect of this is that you are an FF mouthpiece, because if you back up your arguments solely on the basis that you believe FF, then everything that you say might as well have come directly from them.
If, on the other hand, you said that you didn't believe it, or were sceptical, or even said "yes, without the full figures and a crystal ball re the property market's fall or some miraculous rise", then it would be your opinion.
Feck it, I detest FF over what they've done and I've even admitted that if they get very, very, very lucky they might pull it off.......it won't be because of planning or expertise, because it's a 100% gamble, but even I can admit that it might work......I just don't think they've factored in all the safeguards to ensure that it's fair, and I honestly don't think they care as long as their buddies get bailed out, because if they did they'd have written in contractual and legal obligations in return for the bailout with OUR money.hallelujajordan wrote: »This debate (that you are trying to distort) is about whether or not there will be or should be a General Election as a result of the circumstances we find ourselves in and about what circumstances could or should trigger the election. Its not about whether or not NAMA will work (or whether or not I believe it will work)
I'm not trying to distort anything; much as I believe that it should be FF's responsibility to clean up their septic mess, I think for the good of the country there should be a General Election, solely because (a) FF are the ones who got us into this, and can't be trusted to get us out, and (b) NAMA is too much of a gamble and FF are too entrenched in bailing out the banks to ensure that the process is fair, above board, and rewards the general public proportionally for our generous contribution to the coffers of banks who will happily ride us for OUR debts.
So - given that WE (not FF) are footing the bill, and given the size of said bill - we are entitled to have a say in whether we want this transfer of wealth to proceed.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »When did I say there were independent people who believed it. . this debate is about whether or not the need for NAMA should be considered 'exceptional' due to the amount it could cost the taxpayer. I was making the point that there are those who believe it will turn a profit hence probably do not consider that it falls into the 'exceptional therefore emergency GE category' . . . The fact that those who believe it are in government is actually relevant given that @Het-field expects that the government will recognise the 'exceptional circumstances' and actually call the emergency GE . . .
Calling me an FF mouthpiece is a bit of an attack and there you go again . . I think anyone who reads this thread will accept that I have answered any straightforward questions to the best of my ability . . and if I'm not able to I will say so. .
BTW, the quotes you added in your edited response are not relevant to the point I was making. . NAMA and whether or not it will turn a profit is a topic for another thread and one that has been well debated on here. . This debate (that you are trying to distort) is about whether or not there will be or should be a General Election as a result of the circumstances we find ourselves in and about what circumstances could or should trigger the election. Its not about whether or not NAMA will work (or whether or not I believe it will work)
The fact that they believe it will work doesnt negate my fundamental point. Even those who anticipate NAMA's success will agree that it is an unprecedented step. As I have mentioned, those who agree with the plan would be entitled to vote for it. But why should their voices be represented above all others ? There was no democratic steps taken to validate three key decisions. I would also contend that the local elections would be a good baromenter as to how people felt about NAMA. I conceed that NAMA may be the best option when compared to alternative plans. Unfortuantly, we were not offered the alternatives, and had NAMA rammed down our throats. That is a 54 Billion debt rammed down our throats.0 -
The fact that they believe it will work doesnt negate my fundamental point. Even those who anticipate NAMA's success will agree that it is an unprecedented step. As I have mentioned, those who agree with the plan would be entitled to vote for it. But why should their voices be represented above all others ? There was no democratic steps taken to validate three key decisions. I would also contend that the local elections would be a good baromenter as to how people felt about NAMA. I conceed that NAMA may be the best option when compared to alternative plans. Unfortuantly, we were not offered the alternatives, and had NAMA rammed down our throats. That is a 54 Billion debt rammed down our throats.
Don't have time to compose a lengthy reply but want to observe that you have moved from 'exceptional circumstances' to 'unprecedented step' Are all 'unprecedented steps' 'exceptional' ? Would a set of circumstances have to fulfill both criteria in order to trigger an emergency GE ?. . It is all based on a subjective assessment and while I can accept the principle you still haven't proposed a mechanism that could be workable ..
And its crazy to suggest that the results of a mid-term election for a different body should be used to trigger a GE. . Its a completely different election, with completely different people for a completely different job !0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »There are those who "say" that it will return a profit. And that is precisely why it is independent people who need to believe it in order for it to be a viable option. Vested interests will say whatever the hell they have to in order to get their own way, or get votes, or whatever.
I can agree with the principle that the true barometer of whether or not it is a viable option are the opinions of independent people but thats not really the point. I'm not arguing about whether or not is is viable. I'm arguing about whether or not you can make an objective,unambiguous assessment of its un-viable-ness (new word there !) and therefore trigger a GE. Your (and everyone else's) assessment that it is not viable is subjective and we cannot put legislation in place that is based on a subjective assessment. (well, we can, but the supreme court will toss it in the bin)Liam Byrne wrote:Fair enough, and I'll concede some of that as true. But the fact is that all of your posts are based on "I believe FF"; that makes you fairly unique, I'd say, and as a result all of your posts are falling back on that, rather than your own opinion. The effect of this is that you are an FF mouthpiece, because if you back up your arguments solely on the basis that you believe FF, then everything that you say might as well have come directly from them.
If, on the other hand, you said that you didn't believe it, or were sceptical, or even said "yes, without the full figures and a crystal ball re the property market's fall or some miraculous rise", then it would be your opinion.
I think that is unfair. There is a huge amount of my own opinion within this thread but yes, there are areas where I don't have the expertise to have an informed opinion and unlike some others on here I'm not going to go on as if I am an expert. And there are cases where I do accept and trust the judgement of Brian Lenihan or Brian Cowen and in those cases, I'll stand up and admit it. . but there are also cases where I don't agree and I have been happy to make that clear too.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »I can agree with the principle that the true barometer of whether or not it is a viable option are the opinions of independent people but thats not really the point.
It is PRECISELY the point, because...hallelujajordan wrote: »I'm arguing about whether or not you can make an objective,unambiguous assessment of its un-viable-ness (new word there !) and therefore trigger a GE. Your (and everyone else's) assessment that it is not viable is subjective
I'd argue that it is FAR less subjective than those who have a vested interest. Yes, it's true that I don't want a financial noose around my head because of inept and incompetent and greedy people, but it's ALSO true that I'm merely voicing my opinion; I'm not forcing anyone else to pick up my tab, so therefore I have less to gain, in real terms.
If I buy 100 flatscreen TVs for a discount off their old price of €800, and pay €600 for them despite the fact that they're now valued at around €400, I won't make a profit.....fact.
As I said, not ONE neutral commentary that I could find reckons NAMA will make a profit in reality. And given the starting point of paying too much, that's not surprising.
I've said it before - show me a neutral commentary that reckons NAMA will make a profit, and I'll understand your trust of Lenihan & Cowen.
But at the moment there is no evidence to back up their hopes; key figures are missing or are notional, hopeful values, and there are no safeguards, and no legal obligations on the banks in return for OUR money.
So no, these two are NOT fit to run the country.hallelujajordan wrote: »I think that is unfair. There is a huge amount of my own opinion within this thread but yes, there are areas where I don't have the expertise to have an informed opinion and unlike some others on here I'm not going to go on as if I am an expert.
You don't need to be an expert to realise that the figures (and most notably the absent figures) for NAMA cause it to stink.hallelujajordan wrote: »And there are cases where I do accept and trust the judgement of Brian Lenihan or Brian Cowen and in those cases, I'll stand up and admit it.
That's where I am - quite honestly and no pisstake intended - stunned at your blind faith. Cowen & Lenihan have shown no proper innovation and leadership, have gotten a budget half-right at their 3rd attempt, have squandered our cash on banks and bonuses, and have refused to put the good of the country first in relation to expenses and quangos and extra taxes. Cowen was the Minister for Finance when Ahern landed us in this mess, and they have no interest in investigating the cause of the collapse (with Bertie's "friend" as a non-working Financial "Regulator :rolleyes:" at the centre of that controversy).
So whatever about making an informed decision, I genuinely cannot see how ANYONE would trust them, and especially on massive, long-term decisions involving handing billions to the banks and getting feck-all in return.
That's not a personal dig; I just genuinely can't believe that anyone could trust them.
P.S. "exceptional" and "unprecedented" are pretty much one and the same thing.
"exceptional" = "it's an exception, it hasn't happened before"
"unprecedented" = "there's no precedent because it hasn't happened before"
There might be subtle differences (in that exceptional could still be used if something had happened 2 or 3 times spanning long "unexceptional" period), whereas "unprecedented" has more emphasis on a one-off, but there's no difference in the case that we're talking about....the banking f-ups and blatant corruption, and Cowen & Lenihan's response with our money are - to date anyway - one-off.0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote:It is PRECISELY the point, because...
. . . I'd argue that it is FAR less subjective than those who have a vested interest. Yes, it's true that I don't want a financial noose around my head because of inept and incompetent and greedy people, but it's ALSO true that I'm merely voicing my opinion; I'm not forcing anyone else to pick up my tab, so therefore I have less to gain, in real terms.
If I buy 100 flatscreen TVs for a discount off their old price of €800, and pay €600 for them despite the fact that they're now valued at around €400, I won't make a profit.....fact.
As I said, not ONE neutral commentary that I could find reckons NAMA will make a profit in reality. And given the starting point of paying too much, that's not surprising.
I've said it before - show me a neutral commentary that reckons NAMA will make a profit, and I'll understand your trust of Lenihan & Cowen.
But at the moment there is no evidence to back up their hopes; key figures are missing or are notional, hopeful values, and there are no safeguards, and no legal obligations on the banks in return for OUR money.
So no, these two are NOT fit to run the country.
We are going around in circles here. .
The issue of this debate is not whether or not NAMA will make a profit or even about who believes it will make a profit.
@Het-field introduced the concept that there should exist the circumstances around which an emergency general election could be called in 'exceptional circumstances' or under 'unprecedented conditions' regardless of the stability and parliamentary support of the current government. He argues that NAMA and the current economic situation is so 'exceptional' (or 'unprecedented') that 'someone' should call a general election. He certainly implied that it should be the current government who would make that call. .
For the last few posts I have been trying to make the point that whatever your idealistic view (and to a certain extent I would support the ideal) it would be absolutely impossible to put in place a mechanism in legislation that would enable this model to work. .
Regardless of the circumstances someone other than a parliamentary majority would need to make the decision that the criteria have been met and that a GE should be called. . I contend that this assessment will always be subjective regardless of the nature of the 'exceptional circumstances'
If you stand by the assertion that such a facility should exist, please show me the mechanism that will enable it to work.
Please don't keep dragging this into a debate about whether or not NAMA will turn a profit. . I have already made my opinion on this matter really clear and it has been debated elsewhere on this forum. Even if I accept that NAMA will fail the debate about the circumstances under which we may trigger an emergency GE remains valid.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »Don't have time to compose a lengthy reply but want to observe that you have moved from 'exceptional circumstances' to 'unprecedented step' Are all 'unprecedented steps' 'exceptional' ? Would a set of circumstances have to fulfill both criteria in order to trigger an emergency GE ?. . It is all based on a subjective assessment and while I can accept the principle you still haven't proposed a mechanism that could be workable ..
And its crazy to suggest that the results of a mid-term election for a different body should be used to trigger a GE. . Its a completely different election, with completely different people for a completely different job !
Letas drop the semantics. I have persisted with the use "exceptional", and you have sought to use semantics and potential subjectivity to negate what I mean.
In any other country, under a list system I would agree with your second point. But many of our politicians do the same job wheter they are town councillors or an Taoiseach. I recall the recent appoinments to the Senate claiming that he will "provide strong and effective leadership for South Louth". BIFFO's brother has stated that BIFFO is "still holding clinics" in his local area. The powers of the councils have been so greatly eroded that they no longer have much of a role, and the majoirty of it is vested in the government. BIFFO doesnt need to hold clinics. Does Barack Obama hold clinics in parts of Chicago ? Does Gordon Brown, Nicholas Sarkozy, Dimitri Medvedev, Fidel Castro, Angel Merkel or any other world leader sit in front of local yokels bringing their negligible local difficulties to them ? In fact, Cowen has two fellow TDs which could do that job for him, not to mention the plethora of FF councellors who could take that job while he seeks to deal with the national crisis. Equally, the aformentioned senator has no mandate to "represent south louth". He has a mandate to scrutanise, and amend legislation. His duty is to that role, not to his parochial electorate.
Our parochial system of government means Ireland and most international democracies are incomparible. As such voting in either Mid Term, or full term elections are irrelevant, as they arre a commentary on governmental performance.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »I contend that this assessment will always be subjective regardless of the nature of the 'exceptional circumstances'
And my point is that it's nowhere near as subjective if EVERYONE NOT BENEFITTING FROM IT agrees that it's crap idea and will not return a profit.
Your "subjective" objection is actually running in a counter-productive manner in this scenario, because those who gain from it (and their buddies) are the ones who have power.
So it could easily be argued that their "subjective" assessment is what's selling us down the swanee.
Again, my point was that - by believing FF with blind faith - you have put yourself in a position where you cannot see that the "subjective" applies both ways.
I'll say it again; show me ONE independent, non-beneficiary reference that reckons NAMA is the way to proceed and I will start to understand your stance. Without that, there is a perfectly valid argument that FF's own stance is far too subjective.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »We are going around in circles here. .
The issue of this debate is not whether or not NAMA will make a profit or even about who believes it will make a profit.
@Het-field introduced the concept that there should exist the circumstances around which an emergency general election could be called in 'exceptional circumstances' or under 'unprecedented conditions' regardless of the stability and parliamentary support of the current government. He argues that NAMA and the current economic situation is so 'exceptional' (or 'unprecedented') that 'someone' should call a general election. He certainly implied that it should be the current government who would make that call. .
For the last few posts I have been trying to make the point that whatever your idealistic view (and to a certain extent I would support the ideal) it would be absolutely impossible to put in place a mechanism in legislation that would enable this model to work. .
Regardless of the circumstances someone other than a parliamentary majority would need to make the decision that the criteria have been met and that a GE should be called. . I contend that this assessment will always be subjective regardless of the nature of the 'exceptional circumstances'
If you stand by the assertion that such a facility should exist, please show me the mechanism that will enable it to work.
Please don't keep dragging this into a debate about whether or not NAMA will turn a profit. . I have already made my opinion on this matter really clear and it has been debated elsewhere on this forum. Even if I accept that NAMA will fail the debate about the circumstances under which we may trigger an emergency GE remains valid.
Statements in the same vein as the highlighted part give you the appearence of a troll. I have said that neither legislation nor the consitutiton could validate this type of thing. When a government believes a decision to be of "exception" (costing 56 Billion), then they become subject to a moral emcumbrance to ask the people. The payment of taxation, and the provision of state resources by the people should have some veto attached to it. You know as well as I do that the decision to NAMAise the debt is exceptional. The same would have applied in the 1970s when Jack Lynch was toying with the idea of invading the North. You are seeking to muddy the waters by arguing from a subjective position. You know as well as I do what can equate to "exceptional". These include decisions of extreme National Security, and exceptional and highly expensive decisions of national economic interest.
I didnt imply that the government should call it. I explicity stated that the government should call it. Of course I dont expect these Turkeys to vote for Christmas. I know that you might not be able to compute this, but FF wouldnt get any praise for their "recovery efforts".
Again you trot out the FF line i.e. "show me how you would do any better" by seeking me to articulate a mechanism. A government should KNOW when a decision of exception is to be taken, and they should seek a fresh mandate. Between 1997-2007 no such decisions were taken. Between 1994-1997, No such decisions were taken. At least in 1987 FF had a fresh mandate to engage in social partnership, and implement the cuts that they had told the public they wouldnt (another lie).0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »And my point is that it's nowhere near as subjective if EVERYONE NOT BENEFITTING FROM IT agrees that it's crap idea and will not return a profit.
Your "subjective" objection is actually running in a counter-productive manner in this scenario, because those who gain from it (and their buddies) are the ones who have power.
So it could easily be argued that their "subjective" assessment is what's selling us down the swanee.
Again, my point was that - by believing FF with blind faith - you have put yourself in a position where you cannot see that the "subjective" applies both ways.
I'll say it again; show me ONE independent, non-beneficiary reference that reckons NAMA is the way to proceed and I will start to understand your stance. Without that, there is a perfectly valid argument that FF's own stance is far too subjective.
The difference between the subjective position of the government and the subjective position of anyone else is that the governments position is supported by a parliamentary majority and there is a constitution and a whole slew of legislation that enables them to move their subjective positions into law . . Its how democracy works.0 -
-
hallelujajordan wrote: »The difference between the subjective position of the government and the subjective position of anyone else is that the governments position is supported by a parliamentary majority and there is a constitution and a whole slew of legislation that enables them to move their subjective positions into law . . Its how democracy works.
And Het-Field's whole point is that that "parlimentary majority" does not have a mandate because of the extraordinary / unprecedented circumstances.
Add in the fact that those circumstances were caused / exaggerated by the government's own actions and inactions and there is a strong case for getting the views of the people before squandering their money.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »And Het-Field's whole point is that that "parlimentary majority" does not have a mandate because of the extraordinary / unprecedented circumstances.
Add in the fact that those circumstances were caused / exaggerated by the government's own actions and inactions and there is a strong case for getting the views of the people before squandering their money.
I also feel Jordan has shifted the goalposts on several issues.
He claims that in 2007, the Irish people gave a mandate to the manifesto proffered by FF. He also stated that this mandate continues to exist. Subsequently, he states that by virture of the parlimentary majority, the decision to recapitalise the ailing banks, nationalise Anglo Irish Bank, and implement the National Assets Management Agency is validated. Thus, he has contradicted himself in terms of where he ffels the mandate flows from, and that the manifesto is rendered irrelevant once the election is complete.0
Advertisement