Greens seek all-party consensus on Grave Economic situation

Scofflaw

dolphin city wrote: »

"I'm pretty sure I'm asking a very straightforward question in political terms"

maybe that's where you are going wrong scofflaw - maybe you should ask the question in NON political terms, i.e. ordinary dialect.

We all know politicians like to tie the ordinary person up in big words, and nonsensecial sentences, to make them feel that they cannot compete with the "educated politicans' when in reality all they are doing is putting smoke screens up so the ordinary joe soap will back off because they feel intimidated by the language.

I think that is what the other poster was trying to say - and I for one, agree. Let the politicians Give it to us in black and white - direct simple answers - instead of hiding behind words they cannot understand.

What's so difficult to understand about "how does that help them "save their skins?"", though? That's the question I asked in post 2 of the thread, more or less exactly like that - no long words, no rhetoric. I'm pretty sure that counts as "asking in non-political language" in anybody's book - aside from anything else, it was the exact phrase used by the OP.

So, since that's what the OP had claimed the plan was supposed to do, in those words, I can't see why he could have had any difficulty understanding it! As I said, I think he just couldn't answer it - it was just a slogan for other anti-Green posters to agree with him on, to have a nice rousing chorus of condemnation.

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Different Dáil arithmetic. Now the Greens could push Fianna Fáil to the table, then they couldn't. That could be what Gormley's point about this being a "minority government" is aimed at.

That makes absolutely no difference, because they still had the power to walk away if they had chosen to do so.

They didn't, and therefore any suggestions since will be coloured by that choice.

Banned Account

hobochris wrote: »

Unfortunately as someone once pointed out, the electorate only seem to have a 6 month memory when it comes to politics.

By bringing in the other parties, they are taking away their right to credibly challenge the decisions of this government on this budget, essentially taking the heat off them when it should be on them more then ever.

Surely this works both ways? If the electorate will have forgotten in six months, then FG/Lab have no reason not to get involved? You can't argue both sides of the coin.

Bill2673

"Greens seek all-party consensus on Grave Economic situation"....

....is the headline on the irish times.

Firstly, its interesting that it hasn't warranted a comment on boards yet, as far as I can see.


Second,

This is just Gormley trying to avoid being seen as a partner in a government that issues the toughest budget in history....?

Am I right?

Is there any other way to read it?

SkepticOne

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

I'll have to disagree to be honest, I see nothing wrong with an agreement being hammered out to keep eveyone happy.

The situation:

FF - "we have the best policies"
Greens - "We have the best policies"
FG - "We have the best policies"
Lab - "We have the best policies"

The reality:

No one party has the best policies to take us where we need to be so would it not make sense to put together a budget which draws all the best from what is available?

What makes you think that a deal between the parties will result in the best from each of their points of view? It could easily result in combining the worst.

You say this with such finality - how do we know that we will not get superior decisions? You seems to be more willing to accept a bad budget as long as FF get the blame, than you are to take a chance to put the divide to one side and maybe get a better one? This is the logic I can't understand - this willingness for us all to suffer with bad policy as long as FF get a much deserved kick up the hole.

I don't think it comes down to a good or bad budget. There is simply no option to do anything other than an unpopular austere budget at this point as the option to borrow simply isn't there. Naturally they want to be able to say that the opposition agrees with them as this spreads around the political fallout.

digme

snakes in the grass my man, snakes in the grass.
Our newspapers are also the problem.

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... At this point, surely even Fine Gael/Labour can win the next election on the basis of something other than pretending that when they get in there'll be no austerity?

My memory is longer than six months (albeit not perfectly reliable).

In the early 1980s we were in one of those economic pickles from which we could never hope to recover, and we had three general elections in rapid succession. I remember a campaign being fought and won on the basis of which side would impose the greater discipline on the economy and on the public finances.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

My memory is longer than six months (albeit not perfectly reliable).

In the early 1980s we were in one of those economic pickles from which we could never hope to recover, and we had three general elections in rapid succession. I remember a campaign being fought and won on the basis of which side would impose the greater discipline on the economy and on the public finances.

True, but it took us three general elections for that to be the case - and then the government that imposed the discipline was resolutely shunned in favour of the good-time charlies once again.

I think we're ever hopeful that we can get something for nothing. Sadly, I don't expect that to change. After all, most of the argument on these boards revolves around the banks and NAMA, with the public finances in second place, even though they're the primary reason we're facing budget cuts and tax hikes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Bill2673 wrote: »

"Greens seek all-party consensus on Grave Economic situation"....

....is the headline on the irish times.

Firstly, its interesting that it hasn't warranted a comment on boards yet, as far as I can see.


Second,

This is just Gormley trying to avoid being seen as a partner in a government that issues the toughest budget in history....?

Am I right?

Is there any other way to read it?

Merged with existing badly-titled thread - used your title to prevent similar confusion.

moderately,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... the discipline was resolutely shunned in favour of the good-time charlies once again...

Mot juste (mots justes?).

Shelflife

Scofflaw
How does it save their skins?

simply really, if they were to go to the country at the moment the greens would more than likely be wiped out completely and ff decimated.

if they remain in govt and actually make the proper hard decisions they will be wiped out and ff decimated as they will be directly associated with the harsh decisions.

If they get all party consensus and make the hard proper decisions they will in part deflect or be able to opportion some of the blame and may hold on to a seat or two.

the idea is good, but fg and lab have nothing to gain from effectively helping out those who are to blame for the mess.

my worry is that given time and if there was some "green shoots" appearing that those that got us into this mess would avoid the ultimate sanction of losing their seats.

we need a clean sweep of the dross thats there at the moment, i dont know if the alternative will be any better but we have to get rid of those who had their snouts in the trough for so long.

If the greens are genuine about the national good, they should withdraw from govt, force an election and then if there are any if them left , row in behind the new govt who will actually have a mandate from the people.

P. Breathnach

Shelflife wrote: »

... my worry is that given time and if there was some "green shoots" appearing that those that got us into this mess would avoid the ultimate sanction of losing their seats....

Why should that be a worry? It is for the electorate to decide, in due course, who they want in the Dáil.

Scofflaw

Shelflife wrote: »

Scofflaw
How does it save their skins?

simply really, if they were to go to the country at the moment the greens would more than likely be wiped out completely and ff decimated.

if they remain in govt and actually make the proper hard decisions they will be wiped out and ff decimated as they will be directly associated with the harsh decisions.

If they get all party consensus and make the hard proper decisions they will in part deflect or be able to opportion some of the blame and may hold on to a seat or two.

Even if we assume the electorate has only a six-month memory, I don't think that's going to work for the Greens. They lost a third of their support (never large in the first place) when they went into government with Fianna Fáil, and this wouldn't get that support back. They lost a lot of ABFF transfer votes when they went in with Fianna Fáil, and they won't get those back this way either. The people who voted for them on the basis of the environmental agenda aren't swayed by this kind of logic in the first place, and the people who don't like their policies but who gave them an nth preference because they liked the "Planet Bertie" rhetoric or their support for Shell to Sea and didn't really expect them to be able to ever carry out their policies won't be swayed by it either.

It's theoretically a good explanation, but it relies on Green voters being something other than what they are. 95% of the country has never agreed with the Greens.

Shelflife wrote: »

the idea is good, but fg and lab have nothing to gain from effectively helping out those who are to blame for the mess.

Nothing politically advantageous for those parties, you mean, unless the Greens agree to pull the plug on the current arrangement if there's an agreement.

Shelflife wrote: »

my worry is that given time and if there was some "green shoots" appearing that those that got us into this mess would avoid the ultimate sanction of losing their seats.

we need a clean sweep of the dross thats there at the moment, i dont know if the alternative will be any better but we have to get rid of those who had their snouts in the trough for so long.

Many of those responsible will not be losing their seats. Fianna Fáil are on the ropes, not out of the ring, and there's plenty of fight left in them.

Shelflife wrote: »

If the greens are genuine about the national good, they should withdraw from govt, force an election and then if there are any if them left , row in behind the new govt who will actually have a mandate from the people.

I'd accept that if there's an all-party consensus agreement that preserves some Green policies. Otherwise you're just asking them to give up any further opportunities to implement green policy - and the Greens (mirabile dictu) believe that green policy is best for the nation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dorcha

Maybe I’m being paranoid, but an All-Party Government sounds suspiciously to me like a One-Party Government. I don’t know what reasons other people had when they voted at the last General Election, but I didn’t vote for anyone to go into collation with anyone else.

If the Greens and the Government want this, then let them call a General Election, and then enter into talks with Fine Gael and Labour to try and work out an All-Party Government for the next term, and let them all then put this proposal to the people and see how people will vote on it. You cannot have an All-Party government without all parties having a few ministers. And do you think that some Fianna Fail ministers would be prepared to sacrifice their ministerial portfolios for the good of the country? I think we all know the answer to that.

Certainly the Greens will benefit by this proposal, because without thinking about it too deeply, many people will consider it is a good thing. Things have now come to the pass that “government” and the environment and finance, along with the wishes of the financial controllers, are considered more important that the needs of flesh and blood people. I’m sure we would all love it if people’s problems could be solved as easily as mathematical ones. But it’s a different universe.

Scofflaw

Dorcha wrote: »

Maybe I’m being paranoid, but an All-Party Government sounds suspiciously to me like a One-Party Government. I don’t know what reasons other people had when they voted at the last General Election, but I didn’t vote for anyone to go into collation with anyone else.

If the Greens and the Government want this, then let them call a General Election, and then enter into talks with Fine Gael and Labour to try and work out an All-Party Government for the next term, and let them all then put this proposal to the people and see how people will vote on it. You cannot have an All-Party government without all parties having a few ministers. And do you think that some Fianna Fail ministers would be prepared to sacrifice their ministerial portfolios for the good of the country? I think we all know the answer to that.

Certainly the Greens will benefit by this proposal, because without thinking about it too deeply, many people will cvonsider it is a good thing. Things have now come to the pass that “government” and the environment and finance, along with the wishes the financial controllers, are considered more important that the needs of flesh and blood people. I’m sure we would all love it if people’s problems could be solved as easily as mathematical ones. But it’s a different universe.

I don't think it would work out in a one-party sense - you'd have an agreement to have a national government, then a general election, followed by apportionment of posts in the new government according to the seats.

As for the Greens benefiting by making that proposal - or the one under discussion in this thread, which is for an all-party consensus on the next 4 years of economic planning - because many people would consider it a good thing - that seems fair enough. The thing is, I think, that only the Greens are in a position to deliver Fianna Fáil to the table.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

True, but it took us three general elections for that to be the case - and then the government that imposed the discipline was resolutely shunned in favour of the good-time charlies once again.

That'd be the same set of good-time charlies (interesting choice of phrase) that the Greens chose to get into bed with ?

Scofflaw wrote: »

it's continually stated here that the current government caused the crisis, as if the previous decade had nothing to do with it!

Well I've never stated that, but it's not enough to point out that the crisis was caused by past governments.

The crisis has lurched from one sickening revelation to another, and two years have passed without the government getting it sorted or even inspiring any confidence that they can get it sorted.

Even Iceland looks appealing at this stage; they're recovering and they're taking those responsible to court.

The Greens cannot get off the hook by claiming that it's the previous government that caused this; they chose to go into government, they chose to support NAMA, they chose to support the Anglo bailout and they've chosen to vote confidence in corrupt TDs like O'Dea.

And if the cause is the previous government, why haven't the Greens objected to Ahern ? Why haven't they pointed out that he's not eligible to be a TD because of his lack of a tax cert ?

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That'd be the same set of good-time charlies (interesting choice of phrase) that the Greens chose to get into bed with ?



Well I've never stated that, but it's not enough to point out that the crisis was caused by past governments.

The crisis has lurched from one sickening revelation to another, and two years have passed without the government getting it sorted or even inspiring any confidence that they can get it sorted.

Even Iceland looks appealing at this stage; they're recovering and they're taking those responsible to court.

The Greens cannot get off the hook by claiming that it's the previous government that caused this; they chose to go into government, they chose to support NAMA, they chose to support the Anglo bailout and they've chosen to vote confidence in corrupt TDs like O'Dea.

And if the cause is the previous government, why haven't the Greens objected to Ahern ? Why haven't they pointed out that he's not eligible to be a TD because of his lack of a tax cert ?

I accept most of those points - I don't have any particular faith in the current government to get us through or out of this mess better than the Opposition would, although I admit to no great faith in the Opposition either. If it comes down to it, I wouldn't trust a Green-led government to get us through it either - even less, in fact - but then I don't vote Green for their economic acumen, and I don't vote Fianna Fáil at all.

As to Bertie's tax clearance cert - that's either illegal or not. If it is, it's a matter for the courts, and if it isn't, then it's not a matter for the Greens.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Would they do it in exchange for an election right now while they're high in the polls, and can then claim they have no choice but austerity - which they would have had to do in any case, but could in this case blame on the all-party consensus?

cordially,
Scofflaw

hinault

MrDarcy wrote: »

THE GREEN Party is seeking the establishment of an all-party forum to discuss a four-year plan to deal with the “grave” state of the public finances.
Green Party leader John Gormley will contact the other party leaders today to see if they are willing to come together in the forum, along with their finance spokespeople, to discuss figures being made available by the Department of Finance.
Mr Gormley is hoping the parties can meet as soon as possible, ahead of the publication in early November of a four-year budgetary plan aimed at bringing the country’s deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product by 2014.
The group would comprise the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance, the leaders of Fine Gael, Labour, the Green Party and Sinn Féin, along with their respective finance spokespeople. Department of Finance officials would brief the group and explain the basis for their figures and projections.
“I think the situation is now so grave that it’s absolutely incumbent on all of the political parties, despite their political differences, to come together,” said Mr Gormley.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/1008/1224280636675.html

Well as we all know on this forum, we have a constitution in this state that provides for a scenario whereby if the government of the day lose their parlimentary majority in either house, that it automatically places upon the Taoiseach of the day, an onus to go to the President of Ireland to seek the desolution of the Dail, thereby triggering an election.

Now we know we are living in extraordinary times. We know we are not just up sh*t creak without a paddle, but we are up there without a pair of arms as well.

But low and behold, as we know, turkey's tend not to vote for Christmas, no matter how bad things will get, we can as always rely on The Green Party to lurch at this particular moment for a mechanism that might just save them from the cutting at the throat that the party will no doubt be squaring up to, slaughter house style, if there was an election forced upon the government in the morning.

If this isn't the last desparate act of a political failure like Gormley and his power junkie commrades, to try to save their own political skins, then I don't honestly know what is...

This is the same party which gave it's unequivocal support to the bank guarantee in sept 2008?

this is the same party which gave it's unequivocal support to Willie O'Dea.

This is the same party which gave it's unequivocal support to Brian Cowen
after the Morning Ireland interview.

MrDarcy

jank wrote: »

Might be off topic but this is some put down! I agree in general though. There are some posters on here who love to talk in phrases to try and make a simple point. Just because you have a better vocabulary doesn't mean you are right.

I know I'm right because as an employer, I'm on the very front line of all of this. My view's on here are backed up by the very very real threat of business closure, I don't get too wound up about the banks, I have no loans so I don't get too animated about the banks.

The problem we have here is that people are terrified out of their absolute wits. It could not be more obvious what the problem, the wrong man is running the country. I place huge importance on things like (A) inspiration, (B) leadership, and (C) integrity.

There is NOTHING there under any of these vital headings, when these notions are applied to our current leader.

We are catastropically failing to manage ourselves, and we have a pea balled minority party in government that are thinking of nothing further than their own continuance in office. That to me is the biggest problem we now have, I can tell you as a self employed person that the worse thing you can do in a crisis is just continue donkeying along doing the same old thing, while hoping for external factors, (does that sound even vaguely familar, "we are waiting for the global economy to recover!", to sort your situation out for you. Change takes courage and action is vital, inaction leaves you as you are.

You cannot expect the outcome to change when you keep doing the same old regular thing.

dunsandin

Lads, Lads, we've all fecked up, pretend we did it together before the auld lad comes home. Pleeease.
Pretty pleeeeaaase...
Get a spine, Gormless, you unpopular pnut. That and a lifeboat, cos you're going down.

MrDarcy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Would they do it in exchange for an election right now while they're high in the polls, and can then claim they have no choice but austerity - which they would have had to do in any case, but could in this case blame on the all-party consensus?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yet again, your entirely lost. The people of this country have no inherent or automatic problem with austerity. The bit that they have the issue with is having their faces plummelled into austerity by the same shower of pea balled c*nts that have p*ssed our hard earned money all over the state for the last ten years.

You need to take a grasp of the fact that an awful lot of the electorate were commuting twice a day from Ballymount to Trim/Kells or Navan, hopelessly strong armed up onto the rat race that kept them held in a two hour traffic jam on the M50 (on a good day with no accidents), while their political leaders, (by virtue of their benchmarked salaries), could live in their constituencies and lecture their constituents on a weekly basis of how good they have it, all paid for out of taxpayers money?!?!?!?!?

This is what you are telling us you should appreciate and be grateful for???

theroad

The problem with the Greens' proposal is that it is undemocratic.

They want a four-year plan? Call a snap election before Christmas and let us vote in a government. Every dog in the street knows the current administration does not have a mandate to do what's required. The buck ultimately stops with the electorate - it's our economy, after all. So far it seems to be the Men Who Know talking to each other and down to everyone else about what to do.

Cynicism notwithstanding, this is a mature, stable democracy and the people's voice needs to be listened to in this mess.

P. Breathnach

MrDarcy wrote: »

... The people of this country have no inherent or automatic problem with austerity....

The number of people who are resigned to austerity seems to me very small. Any argument predicated on such a claim is suspect.

theroad wrote: »

The problem with the Greens' proposal is that it is undemocratic....

How is it undemocratic for the elected representatives of the public to come to an agreement about how we are to be governed?

CptMackey

P. Breathnach wrote: »

T


How is it undemocratic for the elected representatives of the public to come to an agreement about how we are to be governed?

It is undemocratic because if they were to form a national government what would make them go for elections in the future when they could do what the want when they want, they would all continue to get paid and that is all they care about.

They dont care what the people think now so why would they if the form a national government

Scofflaw

MrDarcy wrote: »

Yet again, your entirely lost. The people of this country have no inherent or automatic problem with austerity. The bit that they have the issue with is having their faces plummelled into austerity by the same shower of pea balled c*nts that have p*ssed our hard earned money all over the state for the last ten years.

You need to take a grasp of the fact that an awful lot of the electorate were commuting twice a day from Ballymount to Trim/Kells or Navan, hopelessly strong armed up onto the rat race that kept them held in a two hour traffic jam on the M50 (on a good day with no accidents), while their political leaders, (by virtue of their benchmarked salaries), could live in their constituencies and lecture their constituents on a weekly basis of how good they have it, all paid for out of taxpayers money?!?!?!?!?

This is what you are telling us you should appreciate and be grateful for???

Once again, I am, as you say, entirely lost.

amused,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

CptMackey wrote: »

It is undemocratic because if they were to form a national government what would make them go for elections in the future when they could do what the want when they want, they would all continue to get paid and that is all they care about.

They dont care what the people think now so why would they if the form a national government

That's akin to jailing me for murder because I might just lose the run of myself at some unspecified future date and in unspecified circumstances.

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's akin to jailing me for murder because I might just lose the run of myself at some unspecified future date and in unspecified circumstances.

Ah, no it's not, because your analogy doesn't take into account the fact that they're our employees and should be actively working for our good.

Also, even with your above analogy, if you had a track record of "losing the run of yourself", wasting money and being corrupt, then anyone would be mad to blindly trust you with a carte blanche.

P. Breathnach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah, no it's not, because your analogy doesn't take into account the fact that they're our employees and should be actively working for our good.

Also, even with your above analogy, if you had a track record of "losing the run of yourself", wasting money and being corrupt, then anyone would be mad to blindly trust you with a carte blanche.

So are you saying that attempting to establish an all-party consensus on an important matter is undemocratic?

Suppose the government proposed some clear anti-corruption legislation. Would it be undemocratic for opposition parties to say "About time. Yes, of course we will support it."?

Amhran Nua

MrDarcy wrote: »

“I think the situation is now so grave that it’s absolutely incumbent on all of the political parties, despite their political differences, to come together,” said Mr Gormley.

It seems fairly clear that either the government has no idea what to do, or wants to spread the blame for what they have already decided to do. Given the amount of positive bombast being ladled out 24-7 by the organs of record, I'd lean towards the latter. Not much more to be said, really.

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So are you saying that attempting to establish an all-party consensus on an important matter is undemocratic?

Suppose the government proposed some clear anti-corruption legislation. Would it be undemocratic for opposition parties to say "About time. Yes, of course we will support it."?

It would be undemocratic if they had agreed in advance to saying yes to whatever the government proposed.

And again - if you base things on their track record - it's interesting that you used an anti-corruption example. I certainly wouldn't trust a party or government that's voted confidence in and supported Ahern, O'Dea, Burke, Haughey, O'Donoghue, Cooper-Flynn.

And before you change the suggestion as an anomaly, I wouldn't trust Lenihan to read key financial reports or make a logical and transparent financial decision either, based on his record to date.

So - based on two strong arguments backed up by facts and track records - I guess the answer is no.

P. Breathnach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

... So - based on two strong arguments backed up by facts and track records - I guess the answer is no.

So policy is not to be considered on its merits, but on the basis of who proposes it?

That's not grown-up politics.

Dorcha

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So are you saying that attempting to establish an all-party consensus on an important matter is undemocratic?

Suppose the government proposed some clear anti-corruption legislation. Would it be undemocratic for opposition parties to say "About time. Yes, of course we will support it."?

It's silly to reject anything completely out of hand, but I think, at this stage, it would require a truly independent person to go though any such proposals with a fine tooth comb. There's just no trust left any more - at least not by people who are not completely delusional.

One of the problems is that it's unlikely any such person exists at this stage. They would all be attached, in some degree or other, to the various parties or financial companies who have their own agenda which is usually opposed to that of the people in the street.

Basically we need a new spokesperson who will represent only the people and their needs and will be accountable only to the people. Time for a new organization, I think.

theroad

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So are you saying that attempting to establish an all-party consensus on an important matter is undemocratic?

The current administration has no mandate to pursue that course, and by the sound of it, no will to do so either. They are out of steam, electorally. When they go to the polls they'll be hammered, which is why they're hanging on with a rag-tag collection of Greens, "independent FF" TDs and three empty seats in the Dail. Hardly a ringing endorsment from the Plain People of Ireland.:)

So I don't think the Greens are in any position to call for an all-party consensus as things stand. IF they went to the country and campaigned on that basis - "If elected, we'll support the formation of a national government in the greater national interest." - that would be different.

It's time for a general election.

Scofflaw

The Greens have proposed two different things - one is a "national government, possibly after the election", and the other is an all-party consensus on the economic plan for the next four years.

To form a national government now would be no more undemocratic than the formation of any coalition - strictly, it would be more democratic, since it would be a broader coalition representing more of the electorate. It would become undemocratic - unconstitutional, in fact - if it tried to exceed the seven year maximum term provided for in Bunreacht. On the other hand, nobody has suggested that - what seems to have been suggested is forming such a government after the next election.

To try to form an all-party consensus on the economic plan for the next four years is a completely different issue. Such a consensus would only be possible if the opposition parties actually agree with what is proposed.

At the moment, all the signs point to Cowen rejecting either idea, and at most accepting suggestions from the opposition.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MrDarcy

theroad wrote: »

The problem with the Greens' proposal is that it is undemocratic.

They want a four-year plan? Call a snap election before Christmas and let us vote in a government. Every dog in the street knows the current administration does not have a mandate to do what's required. The buck ultimately stops with the electorate - it's our economy, after all. So far it seems to be the Men Who Know talking to each other and down to everyone else about what to do.

Cynicism notwithstanding, this is a mature, stable democracy and the people's voice needs to be listened to in this mess.

You couldn't hazard a guess at what rediculous woodenheaded idea they will come up with next, it's like as if they decide to go into a room and not come out until they have managed to dream up the most stupid, incredibly arsemashed idea possible.

The latest Green brainwave is to start throwing up more toll booths on national roads and on the M50, let's make small business even less competitive, let's climb up the arse of the motorist sure isn't he loaded, as it is, you can't drive p*ssing distance without running into a tolled road...

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Greens have proposed two different things - one is a "national government, possibly after the election", and the other is an all-party consensus on the economic plan for the next four years.

and they can shove both ideas! I want those who were in Government and responsible for this mess to have not one thing to do with the recovery these clowns have already proven their inability to run an economy so why should anyone agree to their nonsense which is in reality a thinly veiled attempt at preserving themselves as a political party.

In short: To hell with them.

To hell and back again!

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So policy is not to be considered on its merits, but on the basis of who proposes it?

That's not grown-up politics.

Bull, because it refuses to acknowledge that one grouping is completely untrustworthy and another - while not exactly 100% trustworthy - doesn't have the same objectionable track record.

If two people propose something - one a known con-man or his associate, the other a trustworthy individual, which one would you believe ?

P. Breathnach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Bull, because it refuses to acknowledge that one grouping is completely untrustworthy and another - while not exactly 100% trustworthy - doesn't have the same objectionable track record.

If two people propose something - one a known con-man or his associate, the other a trustworthy individual, which one would you believe ?

If two people propose the same thing, it is absurd to say, on the basis of having a good opinion of one of them and a poor opinion of the other, that one is right and the other is wrong.

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If two people propose the same thing, it is absurd to say, on the basis of having a good opinion of one of them and a poor opinion of the other, that one is right and the other is wrong.

Who said anything about two people proposing the same thing ? Who else is proposing keeping the current incumbent/incompetents in power ?

Anyway, this is just nit-picking; if you were open to taking the obvious point about someone's track record you would have done so.

Obviously you don't view it as "grown-up politics" to vote based on someone's track record, which is pretty ironic considering that if more people did that in 2007 we'd be in a lot less of a mess.

P. Breathnach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Who said anything about two people proposing the same thing ?

I did, in defending the idea of all-party consensus, and it is on that point you expressed disagreement with me.

... Anyway, this is just nit-picking; if you were open to taking the obvious point about someone's track record you would have done so.

Obviously you don't view it as "grown-up politics" to vote based on someone's track record, which is pretty ironic considering that if more people did that in 2007 we'd be in a lot less of a mess.

I wasn't discussing voting.

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I did, in defending the idea of all-party consensus, and it is on that point you expressed disagreement with me.

Well I didn't see that anywhere in your post.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I wasn't discussing voting.

It doesn't even have to be voting. If someone has a track record of lying and supporting corruption then I for one wouldn't accept any of their proposals at face value.

P. Breathnach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well I didn't see that anywhere in your post...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68414097&postcount=76
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68415172&postcount=81
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68428774&postcount=91

Liam Byrne

OK - I think I can see the misunderstanding.

You are talking about policies that might come AFTER the all-party stuff.

Everyone else is talking about the Greens suggestion itself.

mikemac

If FF/GP cannot even form a government or even a minority government then the Taoiseach goes to the President to dissolve the Dáil and a general election is called for.
Now the President may refuse, this is not likely though.

I think we'll see an election called next March, not before then. My own hunch, everybody has their own view.

And to address the OP, I've nothing against an all party government. There are capable members in FF.
A decade in opposition will do them good, let them reform (if they are capable) and reinvigorate

But where were the GP before NAMA, that was the time for this call for this, not now
They have no mandate to call for national government, not with three byelections outstanding
Call an election, and we will see then

theghost

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If two people propose the same thing, it is absurd to say, on the basis of having a good opinion of one of them and a poor opinion of the other, that one is right and the other is wrong.

True, but you might conclude that one is proposing it because it seems like the right thing to do whilst the other has an ulterior motive in proposing it.

Unfortunately when the Green Party proposes a national consensus or a national government what I conclude - given their record in government - is that they are proposing this as a way of clinging to power for as long as possible and not for the good of the country

P. Breathnach

theghost wrote: »

True, but you might conclude that one is proposing it because it seems like the right thing to do whilst the other has an ulterior motive in proposing it.

Unfortunately when the Green Party proposes a national consensus or a national government what I conclude - given their record in government - is that they are proposing this as a way of clinging to power for as long as possible and not for the good of the country

I don't care about the motives for proposing something. What I am interested in is the idea that any proposal should be considered on its merits. Otherwise we get into cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face territory.

xavidub

I think the opposition should agree to the headline objective of returning to 3% deficit in 4 years. However the detail is up to individual parties and the price for this agreement should be an immediate general election.

SkepticOne

With regard to the idea for a national government, comparisons have been made with Churchill and the national wartime government in Britain. I don't think this comparison is valid as Britain at that time was facing an external threat.

The situation in Ireland is that the problem we're facing is Fianna Fail and the Greens themselves and the prospect of their continuing power. Our problems are internally, not externally generated. To have a national government with those two parties would be akin to Churchill inviting Hitler to his war cabinet.