The Greens - will they bolt?

Eggball

Will the Greens cut out at their special convention, or will they get their 2/3 majority?

Biggins

Himm and haw - then cave in.
The usual.

Ludo

To me, they appear to be preparing to leave the government. The statements they have made in the last week seem to be almost preparing the way for their departure. The statement today about O' Donoghue being a prime example.

The_Minister

They can't go.

If they do, and an election is called, then they will only have one TD left.

They will be finished as a party, and their agenda will go to the wayside.

jank

The_Minister wrote: »

They can't go.

If they do, and an election is called, then they will only have one TD left.

They will be finished as a party, and their agenda will go to the wayside.

Thing is though I think if they are seen to have brought down the government then that could be a very popular move for them. Remember the PD's had the same oppertunity but didnt take it, the Greens cant make the same mistake.

Kalashnikov_Kid

The_Minister wrote: »

They can't go.

If they do, and an election is called, then they will only have one TD left.

They will be finished as a party, and their agenda will go to the wayside.

I'm not so sure - if they are just seen as yes men to the big daddy in power then I think they will lose a lot of their credability - like a certain libertarian party that were once big in the 80's - the name escapes me!

The greens have a good chance to pick up seats in Cork (Dan Boyle) and Louth (Mark Deary). They will lose a few too for sure, but I can't see them coming out of this in a good light if they don't give NAMA some meaningful debate, at the very least. They are already on a slippery slope as it is - maybe they should cut their losses.

mike65

They lack the bottle to bring down the gravy train (so to speak).

The_Minister

jank wrote: »

Thing is though I think if they are seen to have brought down the government then that could be a very popular move for them. Remember the PD's had the same oppertunity but didnt take it, the Greens cant make the same mistake.

The opposition will just say 'too little, too late', as will most of the media, and Fianna Fail will turn on them.
They will lose the same number of seats, and their agenda will be destroyed.

They are an ideologically based party, they care more about doing what they can for their cause, as opposed to thinking about what may be done in ten years time if they grow.
Their issues have a time limit on them and need immediate action - they cannot wait.

Sand

@The_Minister

You are aware of course that the Greens cant avoid an election for ever? And their popularity is hardly going to increase by being seen to provide the life support for a hated government? Especially after the December budget? Especially if they bring down NAMA on us, with the promise of a third of the budget going to service the national debt for years, if not decades to come?

The ship is going down, its only a matter of when and how the Greens choose to exit - on a point of principle where they make the best of things by drawing a line between themselves and Fianna Fail, admit it was a really bad idea and wear some sackcloth and ashes for a year or two. Their core vote hasnt got much places to migrate to after all, and if they see the Greens doing the right thing, even at the 11th hour...then theyll be more inclined to forgive.

If they follow the "Hang on for dear bitter life" and wholly alienate not only their floating vote, but also their core vote, then they *will* be buried at the next election.

If anything, if they manage their exit properly, and claim credit for bringing down this joke of a government then they might just pick up a spot in a Rainbow government opposing Fianna Fail - even if Fianna Fail get caned, itll still probably need as many TDs as possible to keep the Fianna Fail/Sinn Fein/Independants out of power. The Greens arent stupid - in power with a lame duck government like Fianna Fail, lurching from crisis to crisis until the inevitable electoral annialation in 2012 or in power with a government with an actual mandate to 2014/15.

imokyrok

The Green have worded their Nama motion in such a way that it will only take one third of the delegates to agree with Nama for it to proceed. One third of any group of delegates would vote for practically any proposal. The conference is about cosmetics, nothing more. They have no intention of pulling out.

jank

Sand wrote: »

@The_Minister

You are aware of course that the Greens cant avoid an election for ever? And their popularity is hardly going to increase by being seen to provide the life support for a hated government? Especially after the December budget? Especially if they bring down NAMA on us, with the promise of a third of the budget going to service the national debt for years, if not decades to come?

The ship is going down, its only a matter of when and how the Greens choose to exit - on a point of principle where they make the best of things by drawing a line between themselves and Fianna Fail, admit it was a really bad idea and wear some sackcloth and ashes for a year or two. Their core vote hasnt got much places to migrate to after all, and if they see the Greens doing the right thing, even at the 11th hour...then theyll be more inclined to forgive.

If they follow the "Hang on for dear bitter life" and wholly alienate not only their floating vote, but also their core vote, then they *will* be buried at the next election.

For once I agree with Sand. Better to lose a few seats now and let the party continue rather than face annihilation like the PD's did.

If the PD's brought down the government before the last GE I can tell you now they would still be a party, not a footnote in the history books.

jank

imokyrok wrote: »

The Green have worded their Nama motion in such a way that it will only take one third of the delegates to agree with Nama for it to proceed. One third of any group of delegates would vote for practically any proposal. The conference is about cosmetics, nothing more. They have no intention of pulling out.

I am pretty sure it is 2/3 but I know that the new program for government has to have a 2/3 majority for it to pass. Easy way for the greens to pull the plug!!

Remember the greens are fairly blameless in all this mess. They were unluckly to enter government at the time they did. They have the benefit of seeing how the PD's ended up and 95% of people who hate the government hate FF as it was they who have been in power for the last 12 years.

The greens can earn alot of public brownie points by finally slaying the beast!

Thats my view on it anyway

Liam Byrne

AFAIK, they require two-thirds support for whatever motion.

But the sneaky feckers that brought us Sargent "I won't lead the Greens into Government with the scum" have "negatived" the proposal, so that in real terms they only require one-third.

That's my read of what I've heard, anyway.....

Biggins

jank wrote: »

I am pretty sure it is 2/3 but I know that the new program for government has to have a 2/3 majority for it to pass. Easy way for the greens to pull the plug!!

Remember the greens are fairly blameless in all this mess. They were unluckly to enter government at the time they did. They have the benefit of seeing how the PD's ended up and 95% of people who hate the government hate FF as it was they who have been in power for the last 12 years.

The greens can earn alot of public brownie points by finally slaying the beast!

Thats my view on it anyway

...and I agree.

The two thirds quota has been mentioned a number of times alone over the last few days in the news alone.
...and IF the Greens did indeed do the right thing - they could win back some credibility in the last few days/weeks/months of their term in the Dail.
Will they be that shrewd? I seriously doubt it.

dresden8

Remember, any new taxes are Green taxes.

Surely even the greens can see through this.

imokyrok

jank wrote: »

I am pretty sure it is 2/3 but I know that the new program for government has to have a 2/3 majority for it to pass. Easy way for the greens to pull the plug!!

Remember the greens are fairly blameless in all this mess. They were unluckly to enter government at the time they did. They have the benefit of seeing how the PD's ended up and 95% of people who hate the government hate FF as it was they who have been in power for the last 12 years.

The greens can earn alot of public brownie points by finally slaying the beast!

Thats my view on it anyway

No - they have been very FF about it. The Nama motion is to reject NAMA (this will require a two thirds majority, i.e. one third needed to prevent this rejection). This was told to me by a Green member who was then very irrate that I made this fact public. They learned the art of political manipulation at the feet of the masters.

Lame Lantern

In bringing down the Fianna Fáil coalition government of 1992, the PDs increased their Dáil standing from six to ten (figures off the top of my head), successfully distancing themselves from an unpopular Reynolds government rather than sweat out the remaining years until the next mandated election. Dictating the terms of an election will make the party appear stronger and ideally cut the perceived idealogical umbilical chord with Cowen.

However, for the Greens, this next election will not be about expanding their voting base. It will be about retaining their sitting TDs which means appeasing their grassroots. In the current climate they cannot hope to do so through the implementation of policy (not that people will listen to that kind of politics right now anyway) so an assault on Fianna Fáil will help them campaign in liberal constituencies sympathetic to their ideology where they have long standing election infrastructures in place. Off the top of my head, Cuffe, Ryan and Gormley will all be capable of running solid campaigns after taking down Fianna Fáil. Even if the government's support recovers somewhat in subsequent years, this would remain their best opportunity for re-election.

If the Greens know their voters, they'll run like hell. If they're mistaken in thinking they launch a broad, national campaign having remained in government until 2012, we'll be seeing Sargent flying the flag solo once again.

Trotter

Why isn't Gormely sitting down with Eamon Gilmore and Enda Kenny saying "I'll pull the plug, but in return I want whatever Greenies that are left to be in on the next government" ?

I suppose for all we know he might be.

Biggins

Trotter wrote: »

Why isn't Gormely sitting down with Eamon Gilmore and Enda Kenny saying "I'll pull the plug, but in return I want whatever Greenies that are left to be in on the next government" ?

Jeasus - what a good idea! I'd even consider looking at them in a good light again!

mike65

If Gormley put that to me as the leader of FG or Labour I'd tell them to feck off, as they clearly couldn't be trusted any further than they could be thrown!

ei.sdraob

Watch frontline on now on rte1

the greens sold out

dvpower

Trotter wrote: »

Why isn't Gormely sitting down with Eamon Gilmore and Enda Kenny saying "I'll pull the plug, but in return I want whatever Greenies that are left to be in on the next government" ?

I suppose for all we know he might be.

That presupposes that
a) FG / LAB actually want an election at the moment
b) the Greens would still be around after the election
c) any deal done now would be respected later

Biggins

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Watch frontline on now on rte1

the greens sold out

If true - no surprise.

dvpower

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Watch frontline on now on rte1

the greens sold out

I dunno; they seem to be speaking with a number of voices.

ei.sdraob

dvpower wrote: »

I dunno; they seem to be speaking with a number of voices.

they seemed to be bickering alot between themselves and especially fianna fail

and whats with the one going on about animal rights? animals are important but ffs there are people in serious trouble who need jobs

Trotter

Here we have a number of the greens saying the people on the doorsteps want them to stay in goverment. I seriously doubt that.

Biggins

Trotter wrote: »

Here we have a number of the greens saying the people on the doorsteps want them to stay in government. I seriously doubt that.

I swear on my own life - I have yet in the last year to come across ONE person that wants that.
Thats just crap PR spin. :mad:

ei.sdraob

maybe the greens should go green

dvpower

ei.sdraob wrote: »

they seemed to be bickering alot between themselves and especially fianna fail

and whats with the one going on about animal rights? animals are important but ffs there are people in serious trouble who need jobs

If that lot are representative of the 500 meeting in the convention, I'd say they're going to have problems getting a 2/3 majority.

I wouldn't want to be in the fur farm business right now

Trotter

They think that they can save the country with 8 TDs. Its self serving, self survival rubbish. I have a sinking feeling they'll stay in. Sickening.

ei.sdraob

Trotter wrote: »

They think that they can save the country with 8 TDs. Its self serving, self survival rubbish. I have a sinking feeling they'll stay in. Sickening.

yes that was a certain feeling looming like a bad smell, watching all that

some appear to care more about staying in power and implementing their far off green ideas, rather than doing whats right for the country

power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

edit: wtf are they going on about carbon taxes and planning? these issues are so far down the list of issues that need to be addressed its not funny

skelliser

agreed

whats the use in planning if nothing is gonna be built here for 10 years. Some of the notions these guys are on about, its scary. They are so out of touch much worse then ff i fear.

MikeC101

In a strange way, I almost despise the Greens more than FF.

FF are doing pretty much what I'd expect of them to do - clinging to power in any way they can. They don't have principles.

For some reason I thought the Greens had a semblance of moral character. Now, they can go and rot on an eco friendly compost heap for all I care.

"A deal with Fianna Fáil would be a deal with the Devil. We would be spat out after 5 years, and decimated as a party". Ciaran Cuffe might be proven to have been very correct.

Macha

Does anyone here have any idea what it would do to our economy if the government were to fall right now?

Personally, I would never forgive the Greens if they let the government collapse right now at a time when we need political stability.

Ludo

But we don't have political stability right now...far from it in fact. It is all just fire fighting, damage control and covering their ass by the government. A clean slate provided by a snap general election is what will bring stability.

Macha

Ludo wrote: »

But we don't have political stability right now...far from it in fact. It is all just fire fighting, damage control and covering their ass by the government. A clean slate provided by a snap general election is what will bring stability.

I disagree. In the 2007 general election, the Dail was dissolved on the 29th of April, election took place on the 24th of May and a new government wasn't formed until the 14th of June. So we had 6 weeks of no government and every single politician putting his or her efforts into getting re-elected. Not focusing on the economy at all but falling over each other to promise the most populist policies possible - hardly what we need right now.

And what exactly will FG do differently with the economy? NAMA will still go ahead, regardless of what Enda says. His alternative does not even make sense.

Having said that, FF needs to seriously cop on and get rid of Mary Coughlan & stop covering for John O'Donoghue.

Ludo

taconnol wrote: »

I disagree. In the 2007 general election, the Dail was dissolved on the 29th of April, election took place on the 24th of May and a new government wasn't formed until the 14th of June. So we had 6 weeks of no government and every single politician putting his or her efforts into getting re-elected. Not focusing on the economy at all but falling over each other to promise the most populist policies possible - hardly what we need right now.

Well how long was the dail on holidays for in the last few months? We effectively had no government then either as far as I can see and the country didn't fall apart.
As to the 6 weeks you mention...who exactly ran the country during that period?

Macha

Ludo wrote: »

Well how long was the dail on holidays for in the last few months? We effectively had no government then either as far as I can see and the country didn't fall apart.

It was too long and even though they cut it by 3 weeks, I think the summer break was far too long. I also believe the long break did significant damage as it was during a time when important decisions needed to be taken quickly. (I didn't say they country would fall apart, did I?)

There is also a big difference in the image projected to the outside world of a summer break and a general election.

Darsad

taconnol wrote: »

Personally, I would never forgive the Greens if they let the government collapse right now at a time when we need political stability.

Thats simply because it would be the end of your green moronic pals and their idiotic policies just look at the bunch of tree hugging twits on with kenny last night good riddance and the sooner the better!

Macha

Darsad wrote: »

Thats simply because it would be the end of your green moronic pals and their idiotic policies just look at the bunch of tree hugging twits on with kenny last night good riddance and the sooner the better!

I stopped reading at 'tree hugging twits'.

God forbid you put forward a decent argument instead of throwing out names and nonsense.

maynooth_rules

taconnol wrote: »

Does anyone here have any idea what it would do to our economy if the government were to fall right now?

Personally, I would never forgive the Greens if they let the government collapse right now at a time when we need political stability.

So rather than walk out of governement and let the people have their say and give their mandate to the politicians that WE want to get us out of this complete and utter mess, they should stay in with the shower of wasters and chancers that they currently share government with, simply for political stabilitys sake. Forgive me but id rather a government that had a set plan of how to get us out of this recession, id rather a leader that has been given a mandate by the people, and id rather a Minister for Finance who has been educated in Economics. Give me that over accepting a totally incompetent, underperforming government simply because of political stabilitys sake

Ludo

taconnol wrote: »

It was too long and even though they cut it by 3 weeks, I think the summer break was far too long. I also believe the long break did significant damage as it was during a time when important decisions needed to be taken quickly. (I didn't say they country would fall apart, did I?)

There is also a big difference in the image projected to the outside world of a summer break and a general election.

That is where we disagree I guess. To me taking a summer break where out Taoiseach was invisible for a couple of months says I couldn't care less about the economy...I'm off to my villa in the sun.

An election says we are going to discuss everything, get it all out there and let the people decide who they think can help the most or who they trust the most.
That creates a better impression to me.

Macha

maynooth_rules wrote: »

So rather than walk out of governement and let the people have their say and give their mandate to the politicians that WE want to get us out of this complete and utter mess, they should stay in with the shower of wasters and chancers that they currently share government with, simply for political stabilitys sake. Forgive me but id rather a government that had a set plan of how to get us out of this recession, id rather a leader that has been given a mandate by the people, and id rather a Minister for Finance who has been educated in Economics. Give me that over accepting a totally incompetent, underperforming government simply because of political stabilitys sake

Whatever you might think, the general election of 2007 gives FF & Greens a mandate of 5 years. You can go on and on about mandates all you like but those are the facts.

You also say 'simply for political stability's sake' a few times as if this is of little importance. Let me tell you, big business, investors and those lending us money do not consider political stability of little importance. Take a look at the reduction in cost of Ireland's borrowings as a result of the YES to Lisbon - largely due to certainty in Ireland's long-term direction and place in the EU.

Regarding plans, I really don't see FG's alternative as any sort of credible plan. The reality is that if FG got into power, they would continue with NAMA. I would also, as already mentioned, be fearful of nonsensical populist policies getting a foothold as is often the case around general election times. No one wants to pay more tax and no one wants social services to suffer and no one wants NAMA but unpopular decisions are often the necessary ones.

Ludo wrote: »

That is where we disagree I guess. To me taking a summer break where out Taoiseach was invisible for a couple of months says I couldn't care less about the economy...I'm off to my villa in the sun.

Fair enough

Amhran Nua

Trotter wrote: »

Here we have a number of the greens saying the people on the doorsteps want them to stay in goverment. I seriously doubt that.

Their performance in the locals said it all really.

taconnol wrote: »

Does anyone here have any idea what it would do to our economy if the government were to fall right now?

It wouldn't be saddled with billions in useless debt?

taconnol wrote: »

And what exactly will FG do differently with the economy?

Reform the healthcare sector along the lines of the Dutch system, cutting almost half of the persistent deficit in the process, is one of their policies I believe.

taconnol wrote: »

Having said that, FF needs to seriously cop on and get rid of Mary Coughlan & stop covering for John O'Donoghue.

Yes, a nice couple of sacrificial lambs to fig leaf the real culprits.

The damage that six weeks of politicking versus the damage that these people will do if they are allowed to remain in power are in no way comparable.

Amhran Nua

taconnol wrote: »

Let me tell you, big business, investors and those lending us money do not consider political stability of little importance.

Businesses don't want to do business in a country with extremely unpopular governments, because it leads one way or the other to instability.

taconnol wrote: »

no one wants NAMA but unpopular decisions are often the necessary ones.

You're kidding with this right? NAMA is neccessary? Even if it does go ahead in all of its deformed from original purpose glory there are no guarantees the banks will start lending again. Why would they, they've just been handed years of profits. And if they do lend, what will they lend to, the property market? We don't need or want that monstrosity revived, we want real productive businesses.

Biggins

In relation to NAMA, the Greens and what its means for the state and the next generation to be saddled down with 40+ billion of debt, I suggest folk watch the discussion that took place on the 21st on RTE's Frontline: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0921/thefrontline_av.html

For last nights one, watch the recap here: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1005/thefrontline_av.html

Macha

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Reform the healthcare sector along the lines of the Dutch system, cutting almost half of the persistent deficit in the process, is one of their policies I believe.

Funnily enough, reform of the healthcare sector is on the list for Saturday's convention.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, a nice couple of sacrificial lambs to fig leaf the real culprits.

You know sometimes you just can't win. Everyone on here is baying for O'Donoghue's head and spitting feathers but then when it's suggested he's just sacrificial lambs. You think Mary Coughlan isn't a real culprit?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The damage that six weeks of politicking versus the damage that these people will do if they are allowed to remain in power are in no way comparable.

I disagree.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Businesses don't want to do business in a country with extremely unpopular governments, because it leads one way or the other to instability.

Sorry but that is totally ridiculous. You think that business doesn't like doing business in countries with unpopular governments? I think very little in history would support that thesis.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You're kidding with this right? NAMA is neccessary? Even if it does go ahead in all of its deformed from original purpose glory there are no guarantees the banks will start lending again. Why would they, they've just been handed years of profits. And if they do lend, what will they lend to, the property market? We don't need or want that monstrosity revived, we want real productive businesses.

-What's your alternative to NAMA?
-Of course the banks are going to start lending again, do you have any proof to the contrary?

Amhran Nua

taconnol wrote: »

Funnily enough, reform of the healthcare sector is on the list for Saturday's convention.

Oh its on the list, thats great.

taconnol wrote: »

You know sometimes you just can't win. Everyone on here is baying for O'Donoghue's head and spitting feathers but then when it's suggested he's just sacrificial lambs. You think Mary Coughlan isn't a real culprit?

You know what I would call firing those two? A good start.

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but that is totally ridiculous. You think that business doesn't like doing business in countries with unpopular governments? I think very little in history would support that thesis.

Yes, thats why third world countries have such thriving business environments.

taconnol wrote: »

-What's your alternative to NAMA?

Click on the sig there. Its fairly similar to David McWilliams' proposal of a few weeks ago, except we had ours up in March. Dermot Desmond also suggested an alternative.

taconnol wrote: »

-Of course the banks are going to start lending again, do you have any proof to the contrary?

Lots and lots. And thats after the stimulus programmes.

Lending at many of the nation's largest banks fell in recent months, even after they received $148 billion in taxpayer capital that was intended to help the economy by making loans more readily available.

Ten of the 13 big beneficiaries of the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, saw their outstanding loan balances decline by a total of about $46 billion, or 1.4%, between the third and fourth quarters of 2008, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of banks that recently announced their quarterly results.

Those 13 banks have collected the lion's share of the roughly $200 billion the government has doled out since TARP was launched last October to stabilize financial institutions. Banks reporting declines in outstanding loans range from giants Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc., each of which got $45 billion from the government; to smaller, regional institutions. Just three of the banks reported growth in their loan portfolios: U.S. Bancorp, SunTrust Banks Inc. and BB&T Corp.

The loan figures analyzed by the Journal exclude some big TARP recipients that haven't reported fourth-quarter results yet, such as Wells Fargo & Co.

The overall decline in loans on the 13 banks' books -- from about $3.36 trillion as of Sept. 30 to $3.31 trillion at year's end -- raises fresh questions about TARP's effectiveness at coaxing banks to reopen their lending spigots.

"It has failed," said Campbell Harvey, a finance professor at Duke University's business school. "Basically we have dropped a huge amount of money ... and we have nothing to show for what we actually wanted to happen."

Macha

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Oh its on the list, thats great.

:rolleyes:

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You know what I would call firing those two? A good start.

More populist nonsense.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, thats why third world countries have such thriving business environments.

Um..you think only 'third world countries' have unpopular governments? Dear oh dear.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Click on the sig there. Its fairly similar to David McWilliams' proposal of a few weeks ago, except we had ours up in March. Dermot Desmond also suggested an alternative.

Look, I know you're promoting your new political party but I'm afraid it doesn't make a lot of economic sense. There is also the damage to consider that dropping NAMA and starting with another programme would do.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Lots and lots. And thats after the stimulus programmes.

Please. After WSJ's input into the Lisbon debate, they have very little credibility left.

Amhran Nua

taconnol wrote: »

More populist nonsense.

More meaningless rhetoric.

taconnol wrote: »

Um..you think only 'third world countries' have unpopular governments? Dear oh dear.

They make good case studies for the direction we're going under this government.

taconnol wrote: »

Look, I know you're promoting your new political party but I'm afraid it doesn't make a lot of economic sense. There is also the damage to consider that dropping NAMA and starting with another programme would do.

So you have no objections you are able to enunciate to the policies? As for damage done by dropping NAMA, we already have one of the most unpopular governments in the history of the state, its not like there will be a crisis of confidence.

taconnol wrote: »

Please. After WSJ's input into the Lisbon debate, they have very little credibility left.

So tell us, what factual inaccuracies do you see in that article? Any? And those two took me about five seconds of googling to turn up, there are plenty more. The fact is that banks open their doors long enough to take stimulus funds, say thanks, then close up again. Saying it will be any different in Ireland is ludicrous in the extreme.

You haven't a leg to stand on here.

Biggins

To be fair, I think we have gotten off topic.
I assume on that topic, an awful lot fear the worst and see the presnt FF lot dragging us down into a bigger hole instead of filling it.

If its right or wrong (debatable) the same lot that got us to a great degree, to the present situation, is trying by their seemingly tried and tired ways, to get us out of the mess.

Myself, I think its time to seek alternative independent folk to re-access the situation, seek and provide their own independent solutions.
Ones that are devoid of mud slinging, blame escapism and ones that is not still looking after the big boys first and those in power.