Why Do The Green Party Attract Such Animosity?

Scofflaw

churchview wrote: »

10 October 2009 - Programme for Government is released. At page 24 it states:

• We will introduce a scheme for the licensing and inspection of septic tanks and wastewater treatment systems.

29 October 2009 - the European Court of Justice ruled that Ireland had broken EU law for failing to enact legislation to deal with domestic wastewater from septic tanks and other treatment systems.

If you're making the point that the Greens decided to score an easy point in their PfG by saying they were going to do something that the Minister would have known was about to happen anyway, then I'd go with the Greens being guilty as charged. That's politics for you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

churchview wrote: »

10 October 2009 - Programme for Government is released. At page 24 it states:

• We will introduce a scheme for the licensing and inspection of septic tanks and wastewater treatment systems.

29 October 2009 - the European Court of Justice ruled that Ireland had broken EU law for failing to enact legislation to deal with domestic wastewater from septic tanks and other treatment systems.

If it was in the PfG that means FF agreed to just as much as the Greens, hence it is hard to see how it just a "Green Party" issue (FF wasn't obliged to agree).

Likewise, faced with an ECJ ruling, then there would have needed to be some measure to deal with the issue irrespective of which parties were in Government at the time. Does the ECJ ruling actually say "You must have licensing" or merely "This is an outstanding issue, which you need to fix by some means pronto"?

gbee

It's so inconvenient isn't it.

Liam Byrne

View wrote: »

Does the ECJ ruling actually say "You must have licensing" or merely "This is an outstanding issue, which you need to fix by some means pronto"?

Good question, especially considering the lies about how the EU and IMF "approved" of the approach to the banking disaster.

dynamick

View wrote: »

Does the ECJ ruling actually say "You must have licensing" or merely "This is an outstanding issue, which you need to fix by some means pronto"?

ecj wrote:

In terms of monitoring, the Court found that monitoring systems must involve regular inspections by local authorities of the functioning and maintenance of septic tanks and individual waste water treatment systems. The Court found that Irish local authorities have powers of inspection under various Irish laws, which also set out minimum standards of inspection. However, it argued that these powers are not exercised within a framework of regular checks and inspections at appropriate intervals. The Court rejected any argument that an absence of regular inspections could be justified on the basis of the high number of septic tanks in Ireland.

http://www.iro.ie/documents/EUPolicyReview09-6.pdf

Hating the greens can be a cathartic form of psychological projection. A guy who identifies himself as environmentally friendly may build a house with good insulation and ecotech features. He can look to his recycling habits and feel good about his green credentials. Then along come some green taxes that affect his lifestyle, and he doesn't want to pay them. His identity is now threatened and, at a subconscious level, he feels hypocritical.

In time-honoured fashion, the way to dispel uncomfortable, subconscious feelings is to project them, particularly onto whoever has made you feel this way.

IrishTonyO

dynamick wrote: »

http://www.iro.ie/documents/EUPolicyReview09-6.pdf

Hating the greens can be a cathartic form of psychological projection. A guy who identifies himself as environmentally friendly may build a house with good insulation and ecotech features. He can look to his recycling habits and feel good about his green credentials. Then along come some green taxes that affect his lifestyle, and he doesn't want to pay them. His identity is now threatened and, at a subconscious level, he feels hypocritical.

In time-honoured fashion, the way to dispel uncomfortable, subconscious feelings is to project them, particularly onto whoever has made you feel this way.

or the Green Party could just be two-faced, arrogant twats, that have turned their backs on their main principles and deserve all the animosity they get? May be simple, but it rings true for me

ei.sdraob

IrishTonyO wrote: »

or the Green Party could just be two-faced, arrogant twats, that have turned their backs on their main principles and deserve all the animosity they get? May be simple, but it rings true for me

such as the polluter pays principle... or integrity ...

Scofflaw

IrishTonyO wrote: »

or the Green Party could just be two-faced, arrogant twats, that have turned their backs on their main principles and deserve all the animosity they get? May be simple, but it rings true for me

"Rings true" for quite a lot of people, but that doesn't make it true. The Irish Green Party isn't great - I vote for it in the absence of better alternatives that I find relatively easy to think of, but which resolutely fail to exist - but the charges levelled against them here and elsewhere regularly turn out to be a case of :

1. hate the Greens
2. find some 'reasons' - anything 'environmental' will do.

Hence, I think, the thread. There's a visceral level of dislike which is simply out of all proportion to the impacts of their policies, and which regularly blames them for things which have nothing to do with them - a fine example is the accusation of "green cronyism" levelled at the Greens over the appointment of a Birdwatch Ireland representative to the European Economic and Social Committee:

Greens out-crony Fianna Fáil as dairy sector loses out to birdwatcher on key EU group – Doyle

Fine Gael Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Spokesperson, Andrew Doyle TD, today (Monday) said the Green Party’s biggest achievement in Government is to out-crony Fianna Fáil. Deputy Doyle said Agriculture Minister Brendan Smith must demonstrate some backbone and stand up to the ludicrous decision to replace the ICMSA with a Birdwatch Ireland rep on the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).

“The Greens are continuing their assault on rural Ireland and getting a seat on an EU group for one of their cronies is just an added bonus. It makes no sense to exclude the representatives of the vital dairy sector from this key group, the work of which feeds into EU decisions. The question must be asked: why is the farming pillar the only one to lose a nomination? The Greens are showing they’ve learned a lot in Government – about cronyism. And their coalition hostages, Fianna Fáil, cave every time to avoid facing the people.

“The fact is the ICMSA was so well regarded on the EESC that its representative was appointed Rapporteur for the last European Dairy Report, which is widely respected. Clearly the ICMSA has an important input to make to this EU consultative body and, as a contributor to the economy, has a genuine case to be there. Where is the Agriculture Minister on this? Has Fianna Fáil capitulated completely to the Greens? I am calling on Minister Brendan Smith to demonstrate some hitherto unseen backbone and stand up to this ludicrous decision.”

That's a really splendid piece of utter rubbish, but I'm prepared to bet that people who dislike the Greens would swallow it whole - it contains many of the standard anti-Green elements, such as the "assault on rural Ireland" that posters here have happily trotted out. Fair enough, it now accuses Fianna Fáil of capitulating to the Greens rather than reverse, although the reverse remains equally popular.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hence, I think, the thread. There's a visceral level of dislike which is simply out of all proportion to the impacts of their policies, and which regularly blames them for things which have nothing to do with them

Like ?

1) Going into Government after promising not to
2) Voting in favour of NAMA
3) Voting confidence in Cowen, O'Donoghue & O'Dea
4) Landing us with extra taxes

"out of all proportion" my arse!

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Like ?

1) Going into Government after promising not to

They did quite a lot of not ruling out any coalition in advance, and then their membership voted for it.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

2) Voting in favour of NAMA

So what?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

3) Voting confidence in Cowen, O'Donoghue & O'Dea

Part of being in government.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

4) Landing us with extra taxes

Tot up the extra taxes, so, and tell me how much you're paying in Green taxes.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"out of all proportion" my arse!

I couldn't possibly comment directly - but, yes, your hatred of them seems frankly weird and out of all proportion. NAMA may or may not work out, but it's a bizarre thing to pin on the Greens - whoever was in government would have had to do something similar, because the position we'd be in would be the same whoever was currently in, as it's a result of the last decade of stupidity. It's not like we got ourselves into a position of needing something like NAMA in the lifetime of this government.

Voting confidence in people like O'Dea and Donoghue was revolting, but no more revolting than any other purely political necessity. I'm sure you're sure that the Greens are only going to get this one run in government in the foreseeable future, yet you also think they should collapse the coalition and terminate their one stab at it.

As to extra taxes - I'm sure that if we were still awash with money, the Greens would no more want to land you with extra taxes than the next party. They'd want to shift the burden about, so that it accords with their policy aims, but if we still had the cash, they'd go for revenue-neutral to avoid irritating voters. However, we're not awash with cash, so they can't.

regards,
Scofflaw

Sand

Like ?

1) Going into Government after promising not to
2) Voting in favour of NAMA
3) Voting confidence in Cowen, O'Donoghue & O'Dea
4) Landing us with extra taxes

"out of all proportion" my arse!

All the above sums it up regarding the Greens though I amnt so sure on 4 - extra taxes were inevitable, but the Greens have been hamfisted in economic policy in general.

I dont know why the Greens are so bewildered by the hatred towards them - they burnt their supporters by going into power with Fianna Fail, invited contempt by the sleight of hand by which they justified it to themselves, they spat in the face of the nation by supporting the massive theft that is NAMA, and they have consistently endorsed and supported Fianna Fail at every shameful episode in this government.

What exactly did they expect for their lies, theft and contempt for the will of the people? They were warned repeatedly that they could get out of the government with some respect, or they could be buried at the next election. They chose to be buried electorally - to be wiped out. They should at least have the dignity to die quietly and stop moaning about how unfair it all is. Theyre hanging onto power for dear life, but theyre running out of road. The electorate is waiting for them.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

They did quite a lot of not ruling out any coalition in advance, and then their membership voted for it.

In your opinion. I would not have voted for them if I had thought they would do this.

They therefore completely ignored my wishes, and so have ensured that they will not get my vote again.

Scofflaw wrote: »

So what?

Again, they did not represent me, or the majority of the country.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Part of being in government.

An amazing cop-out! Voting confidence in con-men is not part of being in Government.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Tot up the extra taxes, so, and tell me how much you're paying in Green taxes.

I'll keep you posted as soon as their latest schemes are in place, like water charges and petrol taxes and septic tank charges, although hopefully this fiasco of a government will fall before those can be imposed on us.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Voting confidence in people like O'Dea and Donoghue was revolting, but no more revolting than any other purely political necessity. I'm sure you're sure that the Greens are only going to get this one run in government in the foreseeable future, yet you also think they should collapse the coalition and terminate their one stab at it.

Self-fulfilling prophesy. If they persist in defending corruption and the indefensible, then they will only get one run in government; if they had acted responsibly and ethically, they might have been voted in again.

However, all of their choices have ensured that they won't.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In your opinion. I would not have voted for them if I had thought they would do this.

They therefore completely ignored my wishes, and so have ensured that they will not get my vote again.

Fair enough if you voted Green on an ABFF basis - and I'm sure that applies to quite a lot of voters.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Again, they did not represent me, or the majority of the country.

The majority of the country probably know no more about NAMA than they read in the papers - but I'm still not sure there's actually any such thing as a majority against NAMA.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

An amazing cop-out! Voting confidence in con-men is not part of being in Government.

It's certainly part of being in government with Fianna Fáil - and, to be honest, it's probably part of being in any Irish coalition.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'll keep you posted as soon as their latest schemes are in place, like water charges and petrol taxes and septic tank charges, although hopefully this fiasco of a government will fall before those can be imposed on us.

Again, water charges are something we signed up for under the previous government. The petrol charge is about 3-4 c per litre last time I looked, and the septic tank charge hasn't been finalised.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Self-fulfilling prophesy. If they persist in defending corruption and the indefensible, then they will only get one run in government; if they had acted responsibly and ethically, they might have been voted in again.

However, all of their choices have ensured that they won't.

Rubbish. One choice, and one choice alone, cost them the support of about a third of their voters - the decision to go into coalition with Fianna Fáil. Everything since then has largely been a case of articulating the hatred that engendered - if one doesn't object to that, then about as far as one can go is to damn them with faint praise.

regards,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

The majority of the country probably know no more about NAMA than they read in the papers - but I'm still not sure there's actually any such thing as a majority against NAMA.

And I'd be pretty sure that the majority is against it, with that number increasing by the day as more and more of the lies used to sell it to us are exposed.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's certainly part of being in government with Fianna Fáil

And the Greens knew this before they went in with them, so that's no excuse for the inexcusable. In actual fact, it makes them look even worse.

Either you're ethical or you're not. And if you are, then you don't vote confidence in people that don't deserve it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Rubbish. One choice, and one choice alone, cost them the support of about a third of their voters - the decision to go into coalition with Fianna Fáil. Everything since then has largely been a case of articulating the hatred that engendered - if one doesn't object to that, then about as far as one can go is to damn them with faint praise.

I think you do have a point regarding the "original decision", because if that decision had been the correct one, and they had avoided being in bed with FF, then they wouldn't have been in a position to saddle us with NAMA and wouldn't have been in a position to vote confidence in con-men as "part of being in government with FF". So on that basis, yes, you do have a point......they had already proven that their ethics were questionable, and therefore maybe we should not be surprised that they voted confidence in the con-men.

Yet again, however, I'll point out that that hatred is a direct result of the choices that The Greens have made.

They have no-one to blame but themselves.

Macha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And I'd be pretty sure that the majority is against it, with that number increasing by the day as more and more of the lies used to sell it to us are exposed.

And I'm pretty sure the majority don't understand NAMA. Indeed, most of the arguments I've heard against it both here and in the media are largely based on misinformation. But there's a difference between claiming a majority are against it and you being "pretty sure" that you think a majority might be against it.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And the Greens knew this before they went in with them, so that's no excuse for the inexcusable. In actual fact, it makes them look even worse.

If you look at the seats in the 2007 election, FF were going to get back into power either with Labour or the Greens. That is the reality. If Labour had gone in with them, I'm sure there would be plenty of threads on here about how much everyone hates Labour.

Let's also not forget that after ruling out a coalition with FF, Rabitte did admit that he would be prepared to negotiate a deal with Fianna Fail in the aftermath of the 2007 Election. So I hope you're not planning on voting for Labour either as an ABFF voter!

Liam Byrne

taconnol wrote: »

And I'm pretty sure the majority don't understand NAMA. Indeed, most of the arguments I've heard against it both here and in the media are largely based on misinformation. But there's a difference between claiming a majority are against it and you being "pretty sure" that you think a majority might be against it.

The old "ye don't understand it" line.....wasn't the same defence trotted out by Callely re the expense claims ?

We understand that many of us on boards said it was a hair-brained idea that would neither (a) prevent nationalisation (b) get credit flowing nor (c) make a profit.

All 3 of those are coming true, and costing us billions in the process.

So "ye just don't understand it" doesn't ring true.

taconnol wrote: »

If you look at the seats in the 2007 election, FF were going to get back into power either with Labour or the Greens.

You seem pretty sure that Labour would have sold their souls and not chosen FG.

taconnol wrote: »

If Labour had gone in with them, I'm sure there would be plenty of threads on here about how much everyone hates Labour.

Absolutely true; if Labour had gone in with them, I would be disgusted at Labour's lack of ethics, and would never vote for them again.

However, what someone else would do is irrelevant. The Greens made their own choices, and will be judged accordingly.

Macha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The old "ye don't understand it" line.....wasn't the same defence trotted out by Callely re the expense claims ?

We understand that many of us on boards said it was a hair-brained idea that would neither (a) prevent nationalisation (b) get credit flowing nor (c) make a profit.

All 3 of those are coming true, and costing us billions in the process.

So "ye just don't understand it" doesn't ring true.

My point that most people don't understand NAMA really has nothing to do with the Callealy expense claim but I obviously see why you would want to try and link the two unrelated issues.

I genuinely believe that NAMA was the only option and while I respect people who argue differently, I don't have much time for those whose arguments are based on misinformation. And unfortunately, most of the arguments I have seen, heard and read against NAMA are based on misinformation.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You seem pretty sure that Labour would have sold their souls and not chosen FG.
Absolutely true; if Labour had gone in with them, I would be disgusted at Labour's lack of ethics, and would never vote for them again.

However, what someone else would do is irrelevant. The Greens made their own choices, and will be judged accordingly.

Ahem

Mr Rabbitte said that he was keen to keep Sinn Fein out of power, hinting that he would be prepared to negotiate a deal with Fianna Fail.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1837777.ece

And didn't Labour go into talks with FF after the election about creating a coalition government or does my memory fail me?

Liam Byrne

I've read that article, and I cannot see anything to back up the claim of such a "hint".

As for your memory, well I don't remember it but if you can post a link to prove it then I will be disgusted with Pat Rabbitte (whom I was sure was one of the good guys).

However, I will point out - again - that what others might choose to do will only reflect on them, and The Greens made their own choices and will be judged accordingly.

Whether or not Labour would have sold their souls is irrelevant to what The Greens decided to do.

Macha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've read that article, and I cannot see anything to back up the claim of such a "hint".

The hint is that Rabbitte was suggesting that whatever happened, he couldn't let Sinn Fein into power. And given the result of the election, that meant FF in power, either with Labour or the Greens.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As for your memory, well I don't remember it but if you can post a link to prove it then I will be disgusted with Pat Rabbitte (whom I was sure was one of the good guys).

As the party with the most seats, FF opened negotiations with all prospective partners, ie everyone except Sinn Fein and FG.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/labour-lovebombed-as-bertie-seeks-himself-a-new-bride-685169.html

This is an interesting timeline of what was said and the subtleties of the public statements during the post-election negotiations for the new government. In my opinion, it didn't work out with Labour because Labour were bigger than the Greens and would have required FF to give up too much in terms of cabinet positions.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

However, I will point out - again - that what others might choose to do will only reflect on them, and The Greens made their own choices and will be judged accordingly.

My point is that if you refuse to vote for any party that wouldn't go into power with FF, you're basically left with FG. Labour, Independents, Greens, etc - forget it. They're small and will only ever take office as part of a coalition.

I see FG as pretty much the same as FF but would have obviously preferred FF out of office in 2007 (and earlier). But if the Irish people had voted differently in 2007, it wouldn't have been a FF/Labour vs FF/Greens decision but hey, don't you just love democracy?

View

Liam Byrne wrote: »

4) Landing us with extra taxes

Seriously, it wouldn't matter who was in government - given how bad the state's finances are, extra taxes are a certainty.

View

taconnol wrote: »

My point is that if you refuse to vote for any party that wouldn't go into power with FF, you're basically left with FG.

Based on the latest opinion polls, I am not even sure that is true anymore. It is possible - altough I suspect unlikely - that FF could come third in the next election. In that case, the possible governments would be a FG-led coalition or a Labour-led one. FF would have a tough choice to make as to their preferred partners.

Also, it shouldn't be forgotten that the "Tallaght Strategy" essentially consisted of FG keeping a minority FF government in office...

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

Based on the latest opinion polls, I am not even sure that is true anymore. It is possible - altough I suspect unlikely - that FF could come third in the next election. In that case, the possible governments would be a FG-led coalition or a Labour-led one. FF would have a tough choice to make as to their preferred partners.

Also, it shouldn't be forgotten that the "Tallaght Strategy" essentially consisted of FG keeping a minority FF government in office...

I'll be very (if pleasantly) surprised if Fianna Fáil comes third in the next election - whatever may have happened to the Greens, that would be a shakeup devoutly to be wished.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And I'd be pretty sure that the majority is against it, with that number increasing by the day as more and more of the lies used to sell it to us are exposed.

Says the man who only deals in substantiated facts? That's "silent majority" stuff - even the "NAMA nation" protests of happy memory seem to have died the death. I suspect (although, like yourself, I have no proof) that the majority of people appreciate that something like NAMA was needed, know that they don't know enough to judge whether it's the best solution, and are just hoping that whatever it does, it doesn't cost us too much money.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And the Greens knew this before they went in with them, so that's no excuse for the inexcusable. In actual fact, it makes them look even worse.

Either you're ethical or you're not. And if you are, then you don't vote confidence in people that don't deserve it.

If you're that ethical, you won't actually be in politics in the first place. The Greens liked to believe they were, when they were in opposition - perhaps I personally didn't suffer any disappointment on that score because I always expected them to compromise whatever needed to be compromised.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I think you do have a point regarding the "original decision", because if that decision had been the correct one, and they had avoided being in bed with FF, then they wouldn't have been in a position to saddle us with NAMA and wouldn't have been in a position to vote confidence in con-men as "part of being in government with FF". So on that basis, yes, you do have a point......they had already proven that their ethics were questionable, and therefore maybe we should not be surprised that they voted confidence in the con-men.

There wasn't another game in town, and hasn't been at a general election for nearly a generation. The 2007 election was supposed to be a landslide for Fine Gael, after all.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yet again, however, I'll point out that that hatred is a direct result of the choices that The Greens have made.

They have no-one to blame but themselves.

I haven't suggested they blame anybody else - I just think it's a bit silly and a bit weird.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Says the man who only deals in substantiated facts? That's "silent majority" stuff - even the "NAMA nation" protests of happy memory seem to have died the death.

No - if something is a fact, then I'll state it as such.

If I suspect or feel something, I'll state it as that.

And based on every person I've talked to (which I'll openly admit is not an entire population of the country) I haven't met one single person who believes that NAMA is a good idea.

I also haven't met one single person who reckons that we have a decent government (and that includes one former diehard FF campaigner who originally argued his point with me, and now rolls his eyes in disgust at FF); considering that an inexplicable 20% support FF, I'll admit that my meetings are in no way representative, but it is strange that NOT ONE has anything positive to say about that fiasco.....well, it's not really, considering that of the 3 supposed objectives, NAMA hasn't achieved a single one, but in terms of this discussion, it is.

It might be an opinion of mine and others that it's a disaster, but it's one supported by the facts.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I haven't suggested they blame anybody else - I just think it's a bit silly and a bit weird.

I don't find it weird at all that a disastrous Government that is wasting billions is hated, and that the fact that the Greens could have done the decent thing on a few occasions and chose not to reflects badly on them.

Macha

I'm afraid even someone who has done an introductory module on sociological methodology would acknowledge that your sampling system is completely off. Your claim that a majority is opposed to NAMA remains unsubstantiated, notwithstanding the opinions of people within your social circle.

Liam Byrne

taconnol wrote: »

I'm afraid even someone who has done an introductory module on sociological methodology would acknowledge that your sampling system is completely off. Your claim that a majority is opposed to NAMA remains unsubstantiated, notwithstanding the opinions of people within your social circle.

That's a bit rich coming from the poster who claims that "most people" are against it "because of misinformation". :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No - if something is a fact, then I'll state it as such.

If I suspect or feel something, I'll state it as that.

And based on every person I've talked to (which I'll openly admit is not an entire population of the country) I haven't met one single person who believes that NAMA is a good idea.

I also haven't met one single person who reckons that we have a decent government (and that includes one former diehard FF campaigner who originally argued his point with me, and now rolls his eyes in disgust at FF); considering that an inexplicable 20% support FF, I'll admit that my meetings are in no way representative, but it is strange that NOT ONE has anything positive to say about that fiasco.....well, it's not really, considering that of the 3 supposed objectives, NAMA hasn't achieved a single one, but in terms of this discussion, it is.

It might be an opinion of mine and others that it's a disaster, but it's one supported by the facts.

Except that even if you just go by people you talk to, you need to exclude the posters on this forum - some of whom clearly consider NAMA either a decent idea, or at least a not-worst option (I don't think we have anyone who's delighted by it, any more than people are delighted by a choice of medical options), and some of whom clearly support Fianna Fáil!

Unless we're not really real, of course.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't find it weird at all that a disastrous Government that is wasting billions is hated, and that the fact that the Greens could have done the decent thing on a few occasions and chose not to reflects badly on them.

Ah - "reflects badly" isn't something I have a problem with. I personally think it was silly of them to claim they were some kind of moral paragons in opposition, something that was given the lie even at the time by their playing of politics - that they had to make unpleasant and even downright revolting choices in government should have come as no surprise given the tenor of Irish politics (next time round we may well see a Fine Gael-led coalition that includes, once again, such luminaries as Lowry).

Again, though, the view that the current government is "wasting billions" isn't one that everyone would agree with - my view would be that the billions were wasted already during the "boom", and this is just the bit where the bill falls due.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that even if you just go by people you talk to, you need to exclude the posters on this forum - some of whom clearly consider NAMA either a decent idea

Fair point, but even the number supporting NAMA on this forum has nosedived over the past few months.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, though, the view that the current government is "wasting billions" isn't one that everyone would agree with - my view would be that the billions were wasted already during the "boom", and this is just the bit where the bill falls due.

Incorrect. The €22 billion given to Anglo, never to return, was given in the lifetime of this government.

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'll be very (if pleasantly) surprised if Fianna Fáil comes third in the next election - whatever may have happened to the Greens, that would be a shakeup devoutly to be wished.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In the recent elections in the Netherlands, the CDA - their previous largest party - dropped to 4th place. Likewise, in Belgium, the (Flemish) CD&V and the (Walloon) MR - both Christian Democrat parties - also dropped almost a third of their respective votes. These were the leading parties in their respective outgoing governments, so I suspect that electorates could be in a foul mood everywhere.

Of course, that doesn't mean the electorate in Ireland will "take their revenge", but, then again, Ireland has been hit harder than either of the above.

So, although it is unlikely that FF will drop to 3rd, it is always possible...

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Fair point, but even the number supporting NAMA on this forum has nosedived over the past few months.

Or got bored arguing with people who were never going to change their minds on the subject.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Incorrect. The €22 billion given to Anglo, never to return, was given in the lifetime of this government.

Again, Anglo was going to be a cost one way or another - and again, that cost accrued during the lifetime of previous governments. There are arguments back and forth over whether letting a bank default creates more damage than nationalisation - and Anglo was the first to go, which means that a default there could have snowballed very nastily, whatever about the 'systemic' importance of the bank otherwise - but Anglo spent most of the previous decade sailing itself up the creek with Bertie and Cowen's connivance.

Again, it's a funny thing to blame the Greens for, given they're the minority party to the party whose fault, unquestionably, most of the current brown stuff hitting the fan happens to be. Obviously, that leads naturally to "why are the Greens propping up that party?", which puts us back at square one in terms of the animosity to the Greens.

A point that may not be considered by most people is that these are genuinely very stressful times for Ireland, and Fianna Fáil, like it or not, can do no wrong in the eyes of about quarter of the electorate, while enjoying the tacit support of a good chunk more. That's a surprisingly important point, because the opposition parties don't have the ability to hold the country together that Fianna Fáil does. They're higher in the polls - for the moment - but they don't have the root and branch local machinery on the ground to provide social cohesion during what is, while not the end of the world, certainly a period of national crisis. Like it or not, that's important right now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

In the recent elections in the Netherlands, the CDA - their previous largest party - dropped to 4th place. Likewise, in Belgium, the (Flemish) CD&V and the (Walloon) MR - both Christian Democrat parties - also dropped almost a third of their respective votes. These were the leading parties in their respective outgoing governments, so I suspect that electorates could be in a foul mood everywhere.

Of course, that doesn't mean the electorate in Ireland will "take their revenge", but, then again, Ireland has been hit harder than either of the above.

So, although it is unlikely that FF will drop to 3rd, it is always possible...

As per my point above to Liam, I doubt it. I think there's simply too much Fianna Fáil in the bedrock for it to happen - and the fact that we've been hit harder actually makes it slightly less likely. I'm dubious of opinion polls, because they're often used as a way of indicating unhappiness with the government that doesn't translate into voting.

Still, maybe! Who knows for sure? If the signs show that we're coming out of the woods in 2012, it may lead to a rise in Fianna Fáil's support, but it may also allow people to say that it's time to really change horses.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Anglo spent most of the previous decade sailing itself up the creek with Bertie and Cowen's connivance.

Again, it's a funny thing to blame the Greens for, given they're the minority party to the party whose fault, unquestionably, most of the current brown stuff hitting the fan happens to be. Obviously, that leads naturally to "why are the Greens propping up that party?", which puts us back at square one in terms of the animosity to the Greens.

Agreed, to a point. But they chose to go into government with that party, and chose to continue to prop them up. That was their choice, and that is what they will be judged on.

In addition, as I said, they did not simply passively "prop them up", but they voted in favour of a number of seriously objectionable motions, abandoning any ethics.

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's a surprisingly important point, because the opposition parties don't have the ability to hold the country together that Fianna Fáil does. They're higher in the polls - for the moment - but they don't have the root and branch local machinery on the ground to provide social cohesion

Fianna Fail cannot provide social cohesion, because their ethos ensures that everyone affected by their crap decisions (in the past and now) looks at their buddies getting off scot-free, billions being pumped into a corrupt bank, their TDs lying, their senators getting thousands in "expenses", and says "why the f**k should that come out of my pocket"

The "share the pain" message will NOT get through while FF (fully supported by the Greens) continue to live the high life while expecting ordinary people to foot the bill, despite being on the breadline themselves.

Macha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's a bit rich coming from the poster who claims that "most people" are against it "because of misinformation". :rolleyes:

What I actually said was "I'm pretty sure the majority don't understand NAMA" and referred to misinformed discussions in the media & online. There's a qualitative difference between that and saying "The majority don't understand NAMA - FACT".

Liam Byrne

taconnol wrote: »

What I actually said was "I'm pretty sure the majority don't understand NAMA" and referred to misinformed discussions in the media & online. There's a qualitative difference between that and saying "The majority don't understand NAMA - FACT".

Reduced to misquoting me now ? Where did I use the word "FACT" ?

Liam Byrne wrote:

Again, they did not represent me, or the majority of the country.

Liam Byrne wrote:

And I'd be pretty sure that the majority is against it, with that number increasing by the day as more and more of the lies used to sell it to us are exposed.

It's a discussion board, and therefore everything posted is an opinion - unless, of course someone does phrase it with " - FACT". I'll admit that the 2nd phrasing is more precise, however as I said there is no-one that I know who is in favour of it (in FACT, most people I know are vehemently against it) and those that Scofflaw referred to who used to defend it before the most recent sickening revelations were revealed have all but disappeared from boards discussion on the subject.

While I take his point that they were unable to impose their views on those who pointed out over a year ago that it wouldn't work, I also find it stretching credibility that this has coincided with proof that the 3 "reasons" / "objectives" for NAMA have been discredited and debunked.

Macha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Reduced to misquoting me now ? Where did I use the word "FACT"

I didn't say that I was quoting you - in fact you haven't said anything like the above so I'm not sure how you could possibly have considered it a misquote. I was giving two different versions of how an issue can be phrased, which leave the reader with two different impressions of opinion versus fact.

And given that you can say to know me or at least know of me, your claim not to know anyone who supports NAMA is a little disingenuous.

And I think your additional evidence of there being less people on Boards defending NAMA and how the only explanation of this is that there are less supporters, rather than even considering the alternative explanation that Scofflaw offered, is more evidence of trying to make the facts fit the faith. Meh, I'm bored of this now - again.

Liam Byrne

taconnol wrote: »

I didn't say that I was quoting you - in fact you haven't said anything like the above so I'm not sure how you could possibly have considered it a misquote. I was giving two different versions of how an issue can be phrased, which leave the reader with two different impressions of opinion versus fact.

Mea culpa - completely my mistake. I thought you were referring / comparing to my earlier comment that people didn't approve of NAMA.

My apologies.

taconnol wrote: »

And given that you can say to know me or at least know of me, your claim not to know anyone who supports NAMA is a little disingenuous.

I said that everyone I know is against NAMA. That is true.
Everyone "I know of" is obviously not against NAMA, because I "know of" Brian Lenihan & Alan Dukes, Seanie Fitzpatrick, etc.

taconnol wrote: »

And I think your additional evidence of there being less people on Boards defending NAMA and how the only explanation of this is that there are less supporters, rather than even considering the alternative explanation that Scofflaw offered, is more evidence of trying to make the facts fit the faith.

Considering the recent revelations, it's not that much of a jump. Admittedly an extrapolation (which I acknowledged, so your claim that I didn't consider it is 100% incorrect), it's hardly a massive jump considering that none of the 3 supposed objectives of the project are being achieved.

LOADS of people were on here swearing blindly that "NAMA will make a profit"; those people are now very, very silent.

Does that cover everyone who supported NAMA ? Obviously not. But it does include an awful lot of posters, and it is naive to discount it as a significant factor, as you have done.

Het-Field

taconnol wrote: »

I didn't say that I was quoting you - in fact you haven't said anything like the above so I'm not sure how you could possibly have considered it a misquote. I was giving two different versions of how an issue can be phrased, which leave the reader with two different impressions of opinion versus fact.

And given that you can say to know me or at least know of me, your claim not to know anyone who supports NAMA is a little disingenuous.

And I think your additional evidence of there being less people on Boards defending NAMA and how the only explanation of this is that there are less supporters, rather than even considering the alternative explanation that Scofflaw offered, is more evidence of trying to make the facts fit the faith. Meh, I'm bored of this now - again.

Fine. NAMA in Sweden, which is the basis for the decision to adopt the model, was created in a system where the banks were national entities, and as a result the state was already in possession of the good and bad debts, and there was no major difficulties when it came to valuation of the loans. It has never been done in a system where the banks were privately owned, and the debt privately accrued.

The vast majority of people I know who are aware of that are not in favour of NAMA. Many friends who are activists in the Green Party and Fianna Fail fall between the stools of sceptical of NAMA, and downright objection. Most are well aware that it is going to make billion euro losses (NAMA's own valuation means little or nothing to me, as it is within their interest to proffer a belief of 800 Million Euro Losses), and most are aware that the assets which comprise NAMA will never be sold, and some will not even exist when NAMA is wound up in 50 years time.

The NAMA model is generally derided by the public, and emperical evidence of opposition is not required, because it would equate to sticking your head in the sand to suggest that the Irish people are behind a banking strategy, which in it's Irish incarnation is untested and liable to cost Ireland a pretty penny.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Mea culpa - completely my mistake. I thought you were referring / comparing to my earlier comment that people didn't approve of NAMA.

My apologies.

I said that everyone I know is against NAMA. That is true.
Everyone "I know of" is obviously not against NAMA, because I "know of" Brian Lenihan & Alan Dukes, Seanie Fitzpatrick, etc.

Considering the recent revelations, it's not that much of a jump. Admittedly an extrapolation (which I acknowledged, so your claim that I didn't consider it is 100% incorrect), it's hardly a massive jump considering that none of the 3 supposed objectives of the project are being achieved.

LOADS of people were on here swearing blindly that "NAMA will make a profit"; those people are now very, very silent.

Does that cover everyone who supported NAMA ? Obviously not. But it does include an awful lot of posters, and it is naive to discount it as a significant factor, as you have done.

Again, that's nothing more than some hard to verify assertions - I know I've stopped arguing about NAMA because the debate has hit a brick wall. I don't think one can either say that it will or won't have made a profit in 10 years time, and I don't see any point in arguing with people who believe they can definitively say right now that it's going to lose money hand over fist, particularly when there's a known mechanism for clawing back losses if there are losses.

Apart from anything else, I don't have any emotional investment in NAMA, whereas those who oppose it appear, again, to bring a level of antagonism to the debate that's frankly not worth dealing with for something I only care mildly about.

Now if I extrapolate from my experience of not bothering any more, I would say the reason people who don't object to NAMA are "very, very silent" (in itself a hyperbolic claim) is because they can't be bothered arguing with people who get extremely hot under the collar about it and who are absolutely convinced they're right.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't see any point in arguing with people who believe they can definitively say right now that it's going to lose money hand over fist, particularly when there's a known mechanism for clawing back losses if there are losses.

That's just ridiculous sleight-of-hand, creative accounting; because NAMA has not prevented nationalisation....if NAMA loses and claws back those losses, then it's still us that are paying.

If NAMA had achieved even one of its stated objectives, then the above might be relevant, because we wouldn't be paying the levies, however it hasn't, so the above is irrelevant.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Now if I extrapolate from my experience of not bothering any more

Ah but tannocol says that extrapolating from your own experience is not scientific enough!

So tell me this - you're really claiming that the figures released in NAMA's revised business plan have absolutely no bearing on your opinion of NAMA ?

You really, really "only care mildly about" the fact that billions are being pumped into an ill-thought-out, badly-planned knee-jerk reaction that has achieved absolutely none of its 3 stated objectives ?

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's just ridiculous sleight-of-hand, creative accounting; because NAMA has not prevented nationalisation....if NAMA loses and claws back those losses, then it's still us that are paying.

That assumes the banks are still nationalised at that point.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If NAMA had achieved even one of its stated objectives, then the above might be relevant, because we wouldn't be paying the levies, however it hasn't, so the above is irrelevant.

This is where I, once again, find that I'm not sufficiently concerned to defend NAMA in the teeth of your bitterness, while remaining entirely unpersuaded that you're actually correct.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah but tannocol says that extrapolating from your own experience is not scientific enough!

And he's quite right. Mind you, my extrapolation as a 'pro-NAMA' (or, rather, not deeply anti-NAMA) poster carries a little more weight than yours, since I can answer for at least one 'pro-NAMA' poster and you can't!

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So tell me this - you're really claiming that the figures released in NAMA's revised business plan have absolutely no bearing on your opinion of NAMA ?

You really, really "only care mildly about" the fact that billions are being pumped into an ill-thought-out, badly-planned knee-jerk reaction that has achieved absolutely none of its 3 stated objectives ?

You see, on the one hand, we have you (and others) roaring that NAMA is economic treason, a sale of Ireland into debt slavery, the worst thing evar and so on - and on the other hand we have the reaction of the international markets, the EU, our fellow European states, and so on. Then we have the fact that whether NAMA had happened or not, Ireland was already well in over its head in debt, privately and then publicly - so NAMA isn't something that was done just for fun. So it's hard to see what exactly in the details of NAMA is the bit that outrages you so much.

As to the revised business plan:

NAMA has published its revised business plan that suggests that 25% of loans are producing income for the agency.

The original business plan published last October assumed that 40% of the acquired loans would be income-producing.

On the assumption that NAMA recovers all of the money it pays out, it now estimates it will produce €1bn in profit at the end of ten years.
Advertisement

The original business plan estimated a profit of €4.8bn based on a rise in assets value of 10%.

Today's revised figures say that if they recover the full value of the loans plus 10% it will result in a profit of €3.9bn.

If the money recovered is -10%, the agency will lose €800m.

OK - again, what outrages you there? Fair enough, you're pretty good at being outraged, but still, one hopes that there's more to it than your apparently large capacity for outrage.

slightly puzzled,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Liam Byrne wrote: »

LOADS of people were on here swearing blindly that "NAMA will make a profit"; those people are now very, very silent.

So very true, where are they now? where are the apologies and the revision of their support for NAMA often based on the suppostion that NAMA would make a profit. Many of us knew from the start that there was no way in hell NAMA would make a profit, I knew it just from the persistent attempts of government cronies trying to push that lie.

There was a lot of 'we had to do that but now this WILL happen' and when the desired consequences didnt materialise (there is always a previously unforeseen excuse) we are just reminded that 'we had to do that' regardless on how they sweetened it by headlining the future airy fairy benefits.

When you are basing huge decisions on forecasted outcomes, someone has to be held accountable when the forecasts are shown to be bull****

First lie to convince the people to accept NAMA
NAMA Business Plan: Government forecasts Irish “bad bank” profit of €4.8bn by 2020

NAMA says it expects to make a profit of about €1bn

NAMA prediction of €4.8bn profit cut to €800m loss

Second lie to convince the people to accept NAMA

Credit flows again when we take the distressed assets off the books of the banks

IMF warned Nama would not lead to significant bank lending

Cowen: NAMA will free up lending

I'm sure there were more lies (cough - inaccurate forecasts) but those two are enough for me

Karl Whelan summed this up back in Dec 2009

...the government has not yet moved on from a political strategy aimed at promoting NAMA by claiming that it’s going to do stuff that it won’t actually do. The government is being supported in this by those opinion writers who continue to write (some of them every week) that the passage of the NAMA bill involved the government “winning the argument” about NAMA being the best way to “fix the banks.” This strikes me as a very backward-looking political strategy, focused on justifying past decisions rather than dealing with what’s to come. A public that has been lead to believe that NAMA was the final solution may not be in any mood to support future plans, no matter how necessary they may be.

Scofflaw

Whoa - hold up there! The only reason NAMA has come up here is that it's another thing that people get really outraged about, to the extent that those who are not outraged eventually give up:

I've given up posting in this section because it isn't a discussion thread anymore - it's a mixture of ranting, pissing and moaning and most of it ill informed

This not a thread about NAMA! The bit of that post that's relevant is this bit:

Many of us knew from the start that there was no way in hell NAMA would make a profit, I knew it just from the persistent attempts of government cronies trying to push that lie.

Some people appear to have "known from the start" - heck, pretty much "in advance" - that NAMA wouldn't make a profit. Similarly, some people appear to "know" that the Greens are responsible for things they aren't, are loading us with taxes that somehow can't be quantified, are attacking rural life through measures that pre-date their time in government, and so on.

What that suggests to me is that people hate the current government, and believe that pretty much anything it does is bad, bad, bad. Facts appear to be irrelevant, contradictions are to be shouted down.

somewhat moderately,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

Whoa - hold up there! The only reason NAMA has come up here is that it's another thing that people get really outraged about, to the extent that those who are not outraged eventually give up:

This not a thread about NAMA!

somewhat moderately,
Scofflaw

Sorry I was aiming to explain why some people may be outraged at NAMA (and the government). I think I did that with evidence and without pissing and moaning. Conceding an argument by accusing your opposition of pissing and moaning is ad hominem is it not?

You are free to point out where my post is ill informed, if you want to start another thread to do this I'll understand.

IrishTonyO

Have to say this thread should either be renamed to NAMA or get back on topic. It is now merely a discussion between a few members on different aspects of NAMA. The Green party the topic of this thread has not been mentioned in I don't know how many posts

Scofflaw

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Have to say this thread should either be renamed to NAMA or get back on topic. It is now merely a discussion between a few members on different aspects of NAMA. The Green party the topic of this thread has not been mentioned in I don't know how many posts

I'm trying - but NAMA, it seems, is another thing that attracts the kind of animosity the Greens do, and from pretty much the same people.

Laminations wrote:

Sorry I was aiming to explain why some people may be outraged at NAMA (and the government). I think I did that with evidence and without pissing and moaning. Conceding an argument by accusing your opposition of pissing and moaning is ad hominem is it not?

Eh, it's neither a concession nor an ad hominem. If someone genuinely feels that the people they're arguing with aren't doing anything but pissing and moaning without reference to the facts, they're entitled not to bother with further discussion, and make a note to that effect.

I often feel that a lot of what is being directed at the Greens is just pissing and moaning, because when you challenge the so-called 'facts' they turn out to be vague and unsubstantial.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

Whoa - hold up there! The only reason NAMA has come up here is that it's another thing that people get really outraged about, to the extent that those who are not outraged eventually give up:

This not a thread about NAMA! The bit of that post that's relevant is this bit:

Some people appear to have "known from the start" - heck, pretty much "in advance" - that NAMA wouldn't make a profit. Similarly, some people appear to "know" that the Greens are responsible for things they aren't, are loading us with taxes that somehow can't be quantified, are attacking rural life through measures that pre-date their time in government, and so on.

What that suggests to me is that people hate the current government, and believe that pretty much anything it does is bad, bad, bad. Facts appear to be irrelevant, contradictions are to be shouted down.

somewhat moderately,
Scofflaw

Firstly I did not drag the thread off topic to NAMA, it was already being discussed. My reply was a direct response to your question, the answer to which you should know already. After listing the revised NAMA plan you ask

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK - again, what outrages you there? Fair enough, you're pretty good at being outraged, but still, one hopes that there's more to it than your apparently large capacity for outrage.

slightly puzzled,
Scofflaw

I was outlining the reason behind the outrage. I again invite you to counter those reasons

Secondly I was showing that outrage can be justified and that in the case of NAMA we were sold a pup, like many had been saying for a long time. Thirdly, I do not have a problem with the Greens for any of the reasons you summarise there, I think Green policies although potentially costly to individuals in the present are beneficial in the long run. Facts to me are always relevant. It is a fact that the Green position, espoused by their leader, was not to go into government with FF. It is a fact that the Greens (overall) backed NAMA. It is a fact that Gormley is a hypocritical NIMBY. It is a fact that the Greens have been tarnished by their allegence with FF and the perceived lack of ethical and moral standards they have in government, they have voted confidence in disasters

Hate is a strong word but I have no confidence in the current government and want them out. However, I do not think everything they do is bad. You are strawmanning. I'll start a thread about FF myths and lies, you can question any of the points, I wont shout you down, I'll go and try and substantiate the points with sources.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Firstly I did not drag the thread off topic to NAMA, it was already being discussed.

I know - I was just trying to head it off at the pass before we started getting into the NAMA details.

Laminations wrote: »

Secondly I was showing that outrage can be justified and that in the case of NAMA we were sold a pup, like many had been saying for a long time.

And I guess my response would be that the revised business plan from NAMA has a range of outcomes from -0.8bn to +3.9bn. I don't have a problem with someone saying "there's a risk" and "it's extremely opaque", but I do mind the mad gibbering of "see, we told you it would make a huge loss!" and the spitting levels of outrage. I certainly don't see that outrage as justified on the facts - it's "justified" by the assumption that people have made all along that it's a pup.

Laminations wrote: »

Thirdly, I do not have a problem with the Greens for any of the reasons you summarise there, I think Green policies although potentially costly to individuals in the present are beneficial in the long run. Facts to me are always relevant. It is a fact that the Green position, espoused by their leader, was not to go into government with FF.

Their position was made explicit earlier on:

Greens will not rule out any party coalition
Thursday, 7 September 2006 19:35

The leader of the Green Party, Trevor Sargent, has said his party will not be ruling out coalition with any party ahead of a General Election.

and

The Green Party is refusing to rule out the possibility that it might enter a coalition with Fianna Fail after this year's election.

Party leader Trevor Sargent said over the weekend that the Greens were willing to enter negotiations with Fianna Fail after the election.

He said his party would be focusing on maximising its number of seats in the coming months in order to have the greatest possible leverage in any post-election discussions.

Source Unison.ie 22nd January 2007

and

While there was no formal arrangement between any of these parties in 2002, Labour and FG came together well in advance of the 2007 election as an alternative government, with a common programme. This arrangement was prompted by their own analyses of 2002 which ascribed their poor results to the lack of a clear alternative to the incumbent government. These two parties tried to include the Green Party in their arrangement, but without success. The Greens made it clear that they wanted the existing government out of office and said they would prefer to join a FG/Labour coalition rather than an alternative led by FF, but the party preferred to campaign on an independent platform.

So I've seen several statements to the effect that the Greens didn't rule out any coalition, but I haven't actually seen any statement to the effect that the Greens did rule out going into coalition with Fianna Fáil as a party, although that is how Trevor Sargent's personal statement that he wouldn't lead the Greens into coalition with them was often reported.

The position of leader of the Greens, however, does not, as it would in other parties, allow someone to make a statement of that kind for the party. The only way the Greens could have been bound not to enter coalition with Fianna Fáil would have been a vote of the party - as far as I'm aware, there was no such vote, but perhaps you can correct me?

In the absence of such a vote, Sargent's statement was exactly what he said - it was a statement of his position, not that of the party. In other words, he was saying that part of the price for the Greens voting to enter coalition with Fianna Fáil was that he would step down as leader - neither more, nor less, because he had no power to make a binding statement on behalf of the party without a vote that never happened.

Laminations wrote: »

It is a fact that the Greens (overall) backed NAMA.

That actually is a fact, but is only a damning one if you feel that NAMA damns anyone who supports it.

Laminations wrote: »

It is a fact that Gormley is a hypocritical NIMBY.

That, on the other hand, is pure opinion. If the NIMBY reference is to his opposition to the Ringsend incinerator, he's no more NIMBY than any other politician in DSE, every single one of whom opposed the incinerator - but Andrews voted for it, and Creighton's party is now calling for the Minister to withdraw his opposition to it. Labour have maintained a prudent silence - but the one politician who can't be accused of hypocrisy on the issue is Gormley.

Laminations wrote: »

It is a fact that the Greens have been tarnished by their allegence with FF and the perceived lack of ethical and moral standards they have in government, they have voted confidence in disasters

That's again an opinion, but one I would agree with. However, I expected them to get tarnished in office - everybody does. On the other hand, I'm currently seeing Labour and Fine Gael tarnish themselves in opposition - a far more impressive achievement!

Laminations wrote: »

Hate is a strong word but I have no confidence in the current government and want them out. However, I do not think everything they do is bad. You are strawmanning. I'll start a thread about FF myths and lies, you can question any of the points, I wont shout you down, I'll go and try and substantiate the points with sources.

I haven't claimed you hate the current government, or that your opposition is irrational.

cordially,
cofflaw

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

And I guess my response would be that the revised business plan from NAMA has a range of outcomes from -0.8bn to +3.9bn. I don't have a problem with someone saying "there's a risk" and "it's extremely opaque", but I do mind the mad gibbering of "see, we told you it would make a huge loss!" and the spitting levels of outrage. I certainly don't see that outrage as justified on the facts - it's "justified" by the assumption that people have made all along that it's a pup.

(the Greens supporting NAMA)actually is a fact, but is only a damning one if you feel that NAMA damns anyone who supports it.

Ok so the revised NAMA plan now has a range of possible outcomes. Find me a headline around the time the government were trying to push NAMA through that alluded to any possible losses or government forecasts that included any range of returns. And I dont mean a headline referring to something Karl Whelan or another economist said, I mean one that showed the government acknowledging the risks rather than propounding the idea that NAMA would save us all

That's again an opinion, but one I would agree with. However, I expected them to get tarnished in office - everybody does. On the other hand, I'm currently seeing Labour and Fine Gael tarnish themselves in opposition - a far more impressive achievement!

Are you really trying to equate FFs actions in government to FGs lacklustre opposition and leadership grab or Labours populist pontificating? Why did you expect them to get tarnished in office? for 'tough decisions'? for green policies? I dont (and I'd imagine most dont) belittle them on their policies, I belittle them on their integrity. You may think the ends justify the means, in that they'll make a deal with the devil (Ciaran Cuffes words) to stay in government and get green policies through, but I judge a party on both the outcomes and the methods they use.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Ok so the revised NAMA plan now has a range of possible outcomes. Find me a headline around the time the government were trying to push NAMA through that alluded to any possible losses or government forecasts that included any range of returns. And I dont mean a headline referring to something Karl Whelan or another economist said, I mean one that showed the government acknowledging the risks rather than propounding the idea that NAMA would save us all

What difference would that make, exactly, though? I'm sure the government will remain resolutely upbeat about the prospects of NAMA all the way - what relevance does it have to what NAMA is?

Laminations wrote: »

Are you really trying to equate FFs actions in government to FGs lacklustre opposition and leadership grab or Labours populist pontificating?

No, I don't think I mentioned Fianna Fáil - and the actions of no other party are in any sense equatable to the crimes of Fianna Fáil, with the possible exception of the PDs.

Laminations wrote: »

Why did you expect them to get tarnished in office? for 'tough decisions'? for green policies? I dont (and I'd imagine most dont) belittle them on their policies, I belittle them on their integrity. You may think the ends justify the means, in that they'll make a deal with the devil (Ciaran Cuffes words) to stay in government and get green policies through, but I judge a party on both the outcomes and the methods they use.

A 'deal with the devil' is exactly what is required for a small Irish political party to get legislation through on things that, let's face it, a good deal of rural Ireland tends to take as unwarranted D4 hippy interference in their antediluvian habits. Both the major parties have strong rural support bases, and whichever of them won the last GE would have currently been giving Ireland unpleasant medicine, so coalition with either would involve unpleasant compromises on the part of the Greens.

For me, the chances of the Greens ever becoming more than a very minor party in Ireland are next to non-existent in the foreseeable future - and always have been. It has nothing to do with the present government - it has to do with the attitude of the majority of Irish people to the things the Greens care about. That's the reason Ireland has for years had the worst track record on implementing EU environmental legislation, and comes up with virtually no such legislation of its own - or at least, none that affects rural constituencies (the plastic bag levy and the smoky fuel ban primarily and solely affect the towns) - whether under Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael/Labour. So the Greens are never, and were never, going to be the kingmakers in the Dáil except in circumstances identical to the current ones - and this is not a normal or common set of circumstances by any means.

The best we could have hoped for under a rainbow coalition coming out of GE '07 would have been the very lightest and faintest of greenwashes - the current government may be a deal with the devil, but at least the devil has (however inadvertently) offered the best ever possible deal for the Irish Green Party. For those of us who voted Green because of the environment first of all (rather than picking them as the environmentally friendly ABFF option), that's important - and voting confidence in Willie O'Dea is a price I wouldn't think twice about paying.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Scofflaw wrote: »

...the plastic bag levy... primarily and solely affect the towns...

I'm curious where this comes from.