Greens seek all-party consensus on Grave Economic situation

MrDarcy

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...

Scofflaw

Not sure how it would "save their skins" - it doesn't preclude elections, it just means that the idea is to have a stable policy whoever wins in 2012 (or before), so that the markets and those bailing us out know where we're gong for the next 4 years. It would have to be agreed by all the parties, or it won't happen, so it wouldn't matter who won the next election, and there'd be no market concern about a sudden change in direction. After all, June 2012 is only about 18 months away now.

Maybe that's a really outrageous idea, but it hardly helps the Green Party "cling to power".

regards,
Scofflaw

MrDarcy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not sure how it would "save their skins" - it doesn't preclude elections, it just means that the idea is to have a stable policy whoever wins in 2012 (or before), so that the markets and those bailing us out know where we're gong for the next 4 years. It would have to be agreed by all the parties, or it won't happen, so it wouldn't matter who won the next election, and there'd be no market concern about a sudden change in direction. After all, June 2012 is only about 18 months away now.

Maybe that's a really outrageous idea, but it hardly helps the Green Party "cling to power".

regards,
Scofflaw

There's an old WW2 saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes"... This, "let's all have a big group talk", is nothing less than revolting. The constitution of Ireland provides for an eventuality whereby a government cannot pass it's own laws. This suggestion by the GP that we all need to sit down now and "think outside the box", because the situation is, "THAT GRAVE", when it is so obvious that the eye now is on what is an immient general election.... BOLL*X!

The situation is only "THAT GRAVE", because the GP allowed this dysfunctional shambolic state rapist government to fight for another day. It's like an alcoholic, heroin addicted gambler turning up at a poker table without a pair of kaks on him and someone deciding to back him up, "because it is the right thing to do".

Scofflaw

MrDarcy wrote: »

There's an old WW2 saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes"... This, "let's all have a big group talk", is nothing less than revolting. The constitution of Ireland provides for an eventuality whereby a government cannot pass it's own laws. This suggestion by the GP that we all need to sit down now and "think outside the box", because the situation is, "THAT GRAVE", when it is so obvious that the eye now is on what is an immient general election.... BOLL*X!

The situation is only "THAT GRAVE", because the GP allowed this dysfunctional shambolic state rapist government to fight for another day. It's like an alcoholic, heroin addicted gambler turning up at a poker table without a pair of kaks on him and someone deciding to back him up, "because it is the right thing to do".

A nice turn of invective - very foamy - but really doesn't address the point even vaguely. How is this supposed to help the Green Party "cling to power"?

I won't ask about whether it's a good idea on its own merits, for obvious reasons.

regards,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

The effect this proposal, even if it were taken up and implemented, would have on the Green Party's electoral future is approximately nil.

The effect on our economy of having some measure of medium-term consensus on budgetary policy could be very positive -- and it's not as if the alternative government has much wriggle-room anyway. In fact, the opposition should see this as an opportunity to face the electorate without being burdened with unreasonable expectations that they could magic our economic problems away.

MrDarcy

Scofflaw wrote: »

A nice turn of invective - very foamy - but really doesn't address the point even vaguely. How is this supposed to help the Green Party "cling to power"?

I won't ask about whether it's a good idea on its own merits, for obvious reasons.

regards,
Scofflaw

How about you try conversing in simple English, would this be too much to ask??? Maybe you might explain to us all what is invective or foamy about a political party that you are very obviously subscribed to, attaching the whole country to a state of derision, for want of some basic leadership, the absence of which is causing the state to fall further and further into recession???

I'm so sick of politically constipated apologists like yourself speaking through forked tongue in mystical language, as if you are some kind of gifted seer and the rest of us are illiterate gullies who cannot see the reality of what is happening to this country.

I wouldn't mind if there was purpose behind it. If you are so driven to defend the Green Party, then what have you to fear in the event of a General Election??? Of course I suppose you being so utterly enlightened beyond the rest of us gullies, you reckon there is a higher reason that we cannot understand, as to why the Green Party has to "do the right thing" and as Retard Gogarty would tell us, "it's not about the next election it's about the next generation"...

God help this state when the highest ambitions we have are the kind of "wizard of Oz", flavour of politics that you subscribe to, the auld "it'll all be grand once you don't politically educate yourselves and remain entirely, politically, and economically stupid"...

Scofflaw

MrDarcy wrote: »

How about you try conversing in simple English, would this be too much to ask??? Maybe you might explain to us all what is invective or foamy about a political party that you are very obviously subscribed to, attaching the whole country to a state of derision, for want of some basic leadership, the absence of which is causing the state to fall further and further into recession???

I'm so sick of politically constipated apologists like yourself speaking through forked tongue in mystical language, as if you are some kind of gifted seer and the rest of us are illiterate gullies who cannot see the reality of what is happening to this country.

I wouldn't mind if there was purpose behind it. If you are so driven to defend the Green Party, then what have you to fear in the event of a General Election??? Of course I suppose you being so utterly enlightened beyond the rest of us gullies, you reckon there is a higher reason that we cannot understand, as to why the Green Party has to "do the right thing" and as Retard Gogarty would tell us, "it's not about the next election it's about the next generation"...

God help this state when the highest ambitions we have are the kind of "wizard of Oz", flavour of politics that you subscribe to, the auld "it'll all be grand once you don't politically educate yourselves and remain entirely, politically, and economically stupid"...

Which again doesn't even seem to share the same planet as the question I asked, but is, perhaps, in other ways, very interesting, if one were a psychologist. I'm pretty sure I'm asking a very straightforward question in political terms, and one which does directly relate to the claim you made in your OP - really not mystical at all - but the glass appears to have once again come back full of foam and spittle.

Are you, er, tired and emotional, perhaps?

mildly,
Scofflaw

jank

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not sure how it would "save their skins" - it doesn't preclude elections, it just means that the idea is to have a stable policy whoever wins in 2012 (or before), so that the markets and those bailing us out know where we're gong for the next 4 years. It would have to be agreed by all the parties, or it won't happen, so it wouldn't matter who won the next election, and there'd be no market concern about a sudden change in direction. After all, June 2012 is only about 18 months away now.

Maybe that's a really outrageous idea, but it hardly helps the Green Party "cling to power".

regards,
Scofflaw

Not cling to power per say, but it does give them a big stick to bat everyone else with as well when they are turfed out of government for the next generation. If a 4 year plan is agreed with or without the oppositions parties support then they have lots of ammo to bash FG/Labour with when they are in government. If they deviate from the 4 year plan at all in any shape or form and Ireland doesn't get magical 8% growth then FF and their Green lackeys can immediately start banging the "patriotic" drum about the tough choices they would have done. 40+% of the population will lap it up, yes we are that stupid!

Also, how can an elected government draw a framework of budgets for 4 years when they have maximum of 2 budgets left in them. To calm the markets, well I am sure the markets aren't that stupid not to figure out that 4is greater than 2?

Don't forget too that the public sector reform is off the table this year. That the nub of the issue right there. They are washing their hands clean of that. It's easy to raise taxes that will make a small dent here and there. Public sector reform is the big elephant in the room. FF want Labour and FG to deal with that so that they can win back those votes, especially in urban areas.

So yes, this is all just political BS that the greens are just happy to dance to at their masters whim. At least Labour stuck the knife in FF in 95. We should rename the greens yellow!

TBH though it doesn't really matter, every month that passes we are being ruled by a greater extent by the EU. Vote 'yes' for jobs everyone!!:rolleyes:

jank

MrDarcy wrote: »

How about you try conversing in simple English, would this be too much to ask??? Maybe you might explain to us all what is invective or foamy about a political party that you are very obviously subscribed to, attaching the whole country to a state of derision, for want of some basic leadership, the absence of which is causing the state to fall further and further into recession???

I'm so sick of politically constipated apologists like yourself speaking through forked tongue in mystical language, as if you are some kind of gifted seer and the rest of us are illiterate gullies who cannot see the reality of what is happening to this country.

I wouldn't mind if there was purpose behind it. If you are so driven to defend the Green Party, then what have you to fear in the event of a General Election??? Of course I suppose you being so utterly enlightened beyond the rest of us gullies, you reckon there is a higher reason that we cannot understand, as to why the Green Party has to "do the right thing" and as Retard Gogarty would tell us, "it's not about the next election it's about the next generation"...

God help this state when the highest ambitions we have are the kind of "wizard of Oz", flavour of politics that you subscribe to, the auld "it'll all be grand once you don't politically educate yourselves and remain entirely, politically, and economically stupid"...

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.

Scofflaw

jank wrote: »

Not cling to power per say, but it does give them a big stick to bat everyone else with as well when they are turfed out of government for the next generation. If a 4 year plan is agreed with or without the oppositions parties support then they have lots of ammo to bash FG/Labour with when they are in government. If they deviate from the 4 year plan at all in any shape or form and Ireland doesn't get magical 8% growth then FF and their Green lackeys can immediately start banging the "patriotic" drum about the tough choices they would have done. 40+% of the population will lap it up, yes we are that stupid!

Also, how can an elected government draw a framework of budgets for 4 years when they have maximum of 2 budgets left in them. To calm the markets, well I am sure the markets aren't that stupid not to figure out that 4is greater than 2?

Don't forget too that the public sector reform is off the table this year. That the nub of the issue right there. They are washing their hands clean of that. It's easy to raise taxes that will make a small dent here and there. Public sector reform is the big elephant in the room. FF want Labour and FG to deal with that so that they can win back those votes, especially in urban areas.

So yes, this is all just political BS that the greens are just happy to dance to at their masters whim. At least Labour stuck the knife in FF in 95. We should rename the greens yellow!

TBH though it doesn't really matter, every month that passes we are being ruled by a greater extent by the EU. Vote 'yes' for jobs everyone!!:rolleyes:

At least that's in the same ballpark as the question, even if it doesn't quite address it, or hang together logically. If the strategy agreed is an all-party 4-year strategy, it's:

1. agreed by all parties - making it hard to hold over the heads of another party, because the Greens will also have agreed with it.

2. for 4 years - that means that whoever is in government will stick to the plan for the 2013 and 2014 budgets.

That's kind of the point of agreeing an all-party four-year strategy, you see. It's all-party and four year.

Also, you haven't outlined how this helps the Greens "cling to power" or even works out to their advantage in the next GE, where everyone is agreed they'll be destroyed. It wouldn't be much use having a strategy for the opposition benches if you haven't any TDs to sit on them.

I'm sure the idea that it might be genuinely intended won't cross some people's minds, but maybe it's actually the most logical explanation. It's certainly more logical than your proposal, and MrDarcy's views appear to be most likely the result of demonic possession, as far as I can make out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

1. agreed by all parties - making it hard to hold over the heads of another party, because the Greens will also have agreed with it.

Who is going to care what was agreed with the greens? Do you believe they are going to be a political force after the next election?

csm

I would imagine it won't so much help them 'cling to power' as cling to existence. By attempting to provide some leadership now they want to make themselves seem credible as a going concern. If they pull it off they'll have something to pin their hopes on come the next election.

To be fair, I see some benefit in a cross-party solution, but I don't think it's workable. Either decisiveness will be sacrificed for inclusiveness, or the government will ride roughshod over the opposition in the event of disagreement. The opposition probably wouldn't join in too. Apart from constant criticism of the government, I haven't seen them provide any concrete policies on how to get out of this mess.

It strikes me as a desperate attempt of the Green Party to stay alive. I think a good, environmentally-focused party is a beneficial thing for Ireland to have. Unfortunately I think the Green Party has failed on both those counts and the writing is on the wall for them. This cross-party appeal is gimmicky and people will see through it. If they really wanted to provide political stability for the markets through the next few years they would dissolve the government and hold an election now. That would at least be a principled stand.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

Who is going to care what was agreed with the greens? Do you believe they are going to be a political force after the next election?

If you look, you'll see that's the point I made, although you may have missed the point that "all-party" means all the parties have agreed to it - it's implicit in the phrase, although I have also spelled it out.

Frankly, I think that probably makes them the best, or only, party that might be able to broker such a deal - they're unlikely to benefit from it, and they could offer something that no-one else can, if they're sufficiently serious. The price might be an earlier election, with the Greens pulling the plug on the present government. That would mean, in turn, the earlier extinction of the Green Party - but I'd have to consider four years of stability worth that right at the moment, and it gives the Greens at least a small possibility of protecting elements of Green policy past 2012.

Collapsing the government without such a deal on the table wouldn't provide stability - it would suggest, instead, that we're prone to ditching any government that takes away our sweeties. Pulling the plug on the present arrangement with an all-party agreement on the table would be a different kettle of fish.

regards,
Scofflaw

Lockstep

I'm not a Green party member (nor have I ever been) but I fail to see what the problem is with this.

amcalester

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'm not a Green party member (nor have I ever been) but I fail to see what the problem is with this.

Me neither, I think it's a good idea that could, if done properly, provide some much needed stability.

Banned Account

The problem with politics is that it has become politicised. If the Greens suggest this they will be seen as trying anything just to save their own skins.

If FF had suggested it, they would have been portrayed as doing the same

If it were FG or Labour, they would have been accused of selling out and sleeping with the enemy in order to gain at the polls.

There has to come a point in time whereby a good idea would be seen as just that. If the idea is a good one, why should it matter in the slightest who came up with it?

Attitudes such as this are going to be responsible for keeping us in a rut for a lot longer than is really necessary - time for playing grown ups really.

5live

As i think FG have pointed out, ANY party supporting FF tend to be lacerated in the following election. See GP PD and labour party returns in elections after 'sharing ' power with FF for an indication of this. And what was the political reward from the electorate post Tallagh strategy? Eviceration! Why not wait till after the next election and see will the opposition join in a national concensus then? If you check outside right now you will probably spot the last of the Landraces flying their porcine way south for the winter:p

Liam Byrne

One wonders why Gormley didn't suggest this before NAMA & the despicable September 2008 meeting.

oh well , okay

If stability is what's needed then what could bring more stability then a new government with a fresh 5 year mandate ?

I really can't see how a 4 year plan with a general election in the middle is more in the national interest then a new government with a fresh 5 year mandate .

dan_d

Thanks Fitzcarldo.You got there before me.

MrDarcy, why exactly is this such an awful idea, other than whatever political notions you ascribe to it?

In the last 2-3 weeks it has become clear to me that the last 2 years have been an enormous waste of time. The EU just don't believe us anymore. They gave us 2 years - I suppose in the hope that maybe a rabbit would jump out of a hat and things wouldn't be as bad as expected - it's the only reason I can think of anyway. It became evident that that was not going to happen, and all the things that we spent the last 2 years trying to stave off have happened in the last 2 weeks. Cost of borrowing rose to an all time high (for us), our credit rating has been downgraded and may be downgraded again. And outsiders (the infamous markets, and Europe) are now telling us that they've given us 2 years, we haven't fixed the problem (if anything it's got worse), and we either make ourselves believable by telling them what we're going to do to solve it for the next 4 years, or we suffer the consequences.

So to your original point. I have been listening to the news in the last few days with a sense of pure disgust. The reason being that the Greens have made an extremely sensible and necessary suggestion, and FG/Labour have thrown it back in their faces. In my eyes, I cannot view our politicians in a lower light. They still seem to be under the impression that posturing and preaching about party politics will solve the problem, or at least get us somewhere. They do not seem to realise that we are now in territory that is so far beyond party politics that it's scary. This is no longer about whether you're in FG or FF. This is about whether or not this country is going to sink right to the bottom, or whether there's some hope of scraping the little pride we have together, and starting to push towards the top again.

The real reality is that (based on recent and previous polls, among other things) neither FG nor Labour will earn enough votes in an election to become a majority government. The Greens, to be honest, have such a small percentage they are almost inconsequential. And FF...it's a toss up whether they go back in, or stay out in the next election. So what is there to lose for any of them? Why is it so incredibly hard to see past their own big fat egos and get the hell in there to try and sort this out???

I couldn't care less who called this idea. It's a plan. It's actually a good one. And more importantly - it's one that they are being told needs to be done. It's quite clear the FF aren't going to last another 2 years. But they do need to produce a strategy for the next 4 years, a believable one. So if all parties do not go into a room and sort this out, FF produce a 4 year strategy, get ousted when a general election is called, and are replaced by whoever - FG/Labour, whatever - who instantly go about undoing everything and sending the message to the world yet again - we don't have a plan, we don't know what we're doing, we're only interested in getting ourselves into Government. And the markets will lurch. And the cost of borrowing will rise. And who knows? Our credit rating will go down again. And business in Ireland will take another nose dive. And meanwhile the stupid, ordinary Irish person struggles on praying they won't lose their job, or that maybe, just maybe, today is the day they'll find a new job, or that they'll be able to meet their mortgage payments this month....

Conversely of course, if our politicians do actually manage to see the big picture, get together and discuss something, at least there's some hope that the Gov could change but that should have a lesser effect on what the wider world thinks of us, and therefore, how they do business with us. Which should benefit us all in the long run.

The big picture is what matters here Mr Darcy. The one where this is about Ireland - not the greens, or FF, or FG or anyone. From the news this morning, FG are being backed into a corner and are now being just plain pedantic - "we won't talk unless we get a letter from Brian Cowen or Brian Lenihan". The game is now in their court. They can either be the bigger people, go in and get this done, or they can continue to be small-minded, petty, egotistic politicians, who only care about their vote quota. Either way, it's not about them anymore. The question is only when they'll have the plain, old-fashioned common sense to realise that.

_Kaiser_

MrDarcy wrote: »

How about you try conversing in simple English, would this be too much to ask??? Maybe you might explain to us all what is invective or foamy about a political party that you are very obviously subscribed to, attaching the whole country to a state of derision, for want of some basic leadership, the absence of which is causing the state to fall further and further into recession???

I have to agree here. It's also something I've noticed in the "Questions for Paul Gogarty" thread over on Politics.

Scofflaw, it's obvious that your loyalties lie with the Greens and it is certainly your right to support whatever party or policies you choose, HOWEVER I think it's a tad cynical to be pushing that agenda (thinly disgused with flowery language) in a thread such as this, or the aforementioned one in politics, where people have genuine and justified concerns and anger about the direction the Greens (and FF) are steering us.

Maybe I should take it to feedback, but surely a bit more objectivity is required?

_Kaiser_

Just to follow-up...

As highlighted by this post, the Greens have rolled back, or outright flipped, on so many of their pre-election promises (not forgetting of course that they went into government with FF - something their former leader dramatically resigned over... only to then accept a junior ministry anyway!) that surely they've lost any credibility at this stage.

Not to menion of course that have collaborated in denying the rights of people in 3 constituencies to parlimentary representation, lest they lose more of their dwindling majority.

The best thing that could be done (IMO) for all concerned is to call a general election and let the people vote on their leadership to date and decide who they want in power going forward.

I think that what the people really want from politics at this stage is not only honesty, but sincerity - that promises made will be promises kept - and people who can look at the "bigger picture" (ESPECIALLY now) rather than only as far as their consituency boundaries.

P. Breathnach

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I have to agree here. It's also something I've noticed in the "Questions for Paul Gogarty" thread over on Politics.

Scofflaw, it's obvious that your loyalties lie with the Greens and it is certainly your right to support whatever party or policies you choose, HOWEVER I think it's a tad cynical to be pushing that agenda (thinly disgused with flowery language) in a thread such as this, or the aforementioned one in politics, where people have genuine and justified concerns and anger about the direction the Greens (and FF) are steering us.

Maybe I should take it to feedback, but surely a bit more objectivity is required?

[I'm joining in this on-thread, even though a criticism of a mod is not supposed to be conducted here. This is because the mod most often available is Scofflaw, and reporting this and other such posts would put Scofflaw in a difficult position. I would be happy if another mod deleted it as part of a tidy-up of a messy sub-thread.]

Scofflaw makes no secret of his political sympathies, and it's no great achievement to discern sympathy with the green agenda. But in what way is it cynical to push that agenda? For balance, should we also prohibit people from posting attacks on the Green Party?

In my opinion Scofflaw writes lucidly, stylishly, and often with great wit. There is something sad about people objecting to the use of good writing in online discussion.

_Kaiser_

P. Breathnach wrote: »

[I'm joining in this on-thread, even though a criticism of a mod is not supposed to be conducted here. This is because the mod most often available is Scofflaw, and reporting this and other such posts would put Scofflaw in a difficult position. I would be happy if another mod deleted it as part of a tidy-up of a messy sub-thread.]

Scofflaw makes no secret of his political sympathies, and it's no great achievement to discern sympathy with the green agenda. But in what way is it cynical to push that agenda? For balance, should we also prohibit people from posting attacks on the Green Party?

In my opinion Scofflaw writes lucidly, stylishly, and often with great wit. There is something sad about people objecting to the use of good writing in online discussion.

Not at all. I've no objection at all to a literate and entertaining writing style, save where it's used to gloss over and (perhaps unintentionally - as witnessed by MrDarcy's reaction to the post from Scofflaw earlier in the thread) belittle the opinions of others.

For what it's worth, I feel the moderation on this forum is quite good - all I'm saying is that a bit more "balance and objectivity" should be considered when replying to a topic/party close to one's heart, lest it cause reactions such as the above that have (obviously as we're discussing it) derailed the main focus of the thread.

It'd be like me saying "I think VW make the greatest cars in the world!" and figuratively sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting "blah blah blah" to anyone who challenged that claim. Should I not be willing and able to debate the points they make with verifiable points of my own?

Anyway, as you say, we're going very off-topic here

SkepticOne

Getting back to the original topic. Is is not a bit rich that the greens are looking for consensus at a time when there are essentially no further options left for the country? I mean all that can be done now is either an unpopular budget of further cutbacks or an unpopular budget of tax hikes or some combination thereof.

As Liam Byrne points out, why weren't they looking for consensus from other parties before they pushed ahead with NAMA? More recently, I don't remember them looking for consensus before the Croke Park agreement which now means that cuts have to be made in the delivery of services rather than pay.

If the Green party were serious about this, they should have been approaching the other parties in private rather than grandstanding in the media. The other parties are quite right, imo, in being suspicious of this.

There is already basic consensus that public finances have been mismanaged so badly that severe cuts are now necessary so there's nothing to gain from meetings where this is the only possible outcome. And even if there was no consensus, the government being a majority government doesn't need consensus from other parties to govern. It is not like the 80's where the minority government required consensus from FG to make necessary cuts.

As for the four year programme. That is a broad commitment to bring the deficit under control. All the mainstream parties already agree on the need for this. Again, no need for private meetings.

Banned Account

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Not at all. I've no objection at all to a literate and entertaining writing style, save where it's used to gloss over and (perhaps unintentionally - as witnessed by MrDarcy's reaction to the post from Scofflaw in the thread) belittle the opinions of others.

For what it's worth, I feel the moderation on this forum is quite good - all I'm saying is that a bit more "balance and objectivity" should be considered when replying to a topic/party close to one's heart, lest it cause reactions such as the above that have (obviously as we're discussing it) derailed the main focus of the thread.

It'd be like me saying "I think VW make the greatest cars in the world!" and figuratively sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting "blah blah blah" to anyone who challenged that claim. Should I not be willing and able to debate the points they make with verifiable points of my own?

Anyway, as you say, we're going very off-topic here

I think Scofflaw makes it very clear when he is speaking as a mod and when he's speaking in a personal capacity, so I don't really see the issue with him arguing his personal view as strongly as any other poster would.

Sure, it would become an issue if he were to allow his personal view to influence the way in which he moderates but, I have never seen this happen and actually happen to think that he does an excellent job - I really don't see what the issue is here.

P. Breathnach

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

... It'd be like me saying "I think VW make the greatest cars in the world!" and figuratively sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting "blah blah blah" to anyone who challenged that claim. Should I not be willing and able to debate the points they make with verifiable points of my own?...

That's a pretty poor analogy! I would have quite a different idea about who stuck fingers in his ears.

peasant

SkepticOne wrote: »

Getting back to the original topic. Is is not a bit rich that the greens are looking for consensus at a time when there are essentially no further options left for the country?

Actually no, it's the sensible thing to do.

Admit defeat, face reality, roll up the sleeves and get done what needs to be done as quickly as possible. Without political posturing, without point-scoring, pool the resources ...do what's best for the country.

My only criticism of this idea is that it should have been done two years ago.

hobochris

peasant wrote: »

Actually no, it's the sensible thing to do.

Admit defeat, face reality, roll up the sleeves and get done what needs to be done as quickly as possible. Without political posturing, without point-scoring, pool the resources ...do what's best for the country.

My only criticism of this idea is that it should have been done two years ago.

From my point of view, what they are doing here is basically saying "We ****ed up and want to share the blame with the other parties" .

Banned Account

hobochris wrote: »

From my point of view, what they are doing here is basically saying "We ****ed up and want to share the blame with the other parties" .

Or

"We fúcked up and are asking the other parties to help us"

or

"The economy is fúcked and will need us all to fix it"

What does it matter, at this point, what the motivation is - shooting down a good idea because you don't like the person who suggested it, is the kind of poiscoring petty politics we need to get away from in this country.

For once, I think we should judge the ideas on their merits and not on the personal opinion we may hold on the creator.

SkepticOne

peasant wrote: »

Actually no, it's the sensible thing to do.

Admit defeat, face reality, roll up the sleeves and get done what needs to be done as quickly as possible. Without political posturing, without point-scoring, pool the resources ...do what's best for the country.

My only criticism of this idea is that it should have been done two years ago.

I don't see why meetings were needed then either. They knew that the opposition parties were opposed to the likes of NAMA but they pressed ahead anyway. What would meetings have achieved?

P. Breathnach

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

...
For once, I think we should judge the ideas on their merits and not on the personal opinion we may hold on the creator.

"For once"? I hope that is no more than a rhetorical flourish, and that you agree we should always judge ideas on their merits.

Police Chief Wiggum

how bad would it be for each party to put their list of big cuts to the electorate and then they can go ahead with the approval of the voters:rolleyes:

Banned Account

P. Breathnach wrote: »

"For once"? I hope that is no more than a rhetorical flourish, and that you agree we should always judge ideas on their merits.

Just an attempt to show how exasperated I am that we (as a nation) are still more hung up on pinning the blame on people than on solving the problem - that's all.

SkepticOne

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Or

"We fúcked up and are asking the other parties to help us"

or

"The economy is fúcked and will need us all to fix it"

What does it matter, at this point, what the motivation is - shooting down a good idea because you don't like the person who suggested it, is the kind of poiscoring petty politics we need to get away from in this country.

For once, I think we should judge the ideas on their merits and not on the personal opinion we may hold on the creator.

Either they know what needs to be done or they don't.

If they know what needs to be done then no one is stopping them from going ahead and doing it. They are, after all, the government. They don't need consensus to operate.

The other possibility is that they don't know what to do. In which case, what are they doing in power?

It is either one or the other.

Banned Account

SkepticOne wrote: »

Either they know what needs to be done or they don't.

If they know what needs to be done then no one is stopping them from going ahead and doing it. They are, after all, the government. They don't need consensus to operate.

No, they don't need it, but perhaps they think that it's the best way to come up with the best solution - asking for help is not always a bad thing, in fact it is somethimes the better thing to do.

SkepticOne wrote: »

The other possibility is that they don't know what to do. In which case, what are they doing in power?

You'll need to ask the electorate that one i'm afraid.

SkepticOne wrote: »

It is either one or the other.

This is the basis of my point - why is it one or the other? Why are we insisting on pursuing a reductionist path - why can we not have a consensus approach that 'mans up' and recognises that not one single party holds all the answers and that, periodically, we come across situation which require the input of all in order to deliver the best possible outcome?

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have to agree here. It's also something I've noticed in the "Questions for Paul Gogarty" thread over on Politics.

Scofflaw, it's obvious that your loyalties lie with the Greens and it is certainly your right to support whatever party or policies you choose, HOWEVER I think it's a tad cynical to be pushing that agenda (thinly disgused with flowery language) in a thread such as this, or the aforementioned one in politics, where people have genuine and justified concerns and anger about the direction the Greens (and FF) are steering us.

Maybe I should take it to feedback, but surely a bit more objectivity is required?

[I'm joining in this on-thread, even though a criticism of a mod is not supposed to be conducted here. This is because the mod most often available is Scofflaw, and reporting this and other such posts would put Scofflaw in a difficult position. I would be happy if another mod deleted it as part of a tidy-up of a messy sub-thread.]

Scofflaw makes no secret of his political sympathies, and it's no great achievement to discern sympathy with the green agenda. But in what way is it cynical to push that agenda? For balance, should we also prohibit people from posting attacks on the Green Party?

In my opinion Scofflaw writes lucidly, stylishly, and often with great wit. There is something sad about people objecting to the use of good writing in online discussion.

It's not discussion of moderation, though - I moderate as a moderator, I defend the Green Party as a poster. I responded to MrDarcy's points as a poster, I haven't done anything with the thread as a moderator!

As for "flowery language" - I did ask MrDarcy a very simple question. His assertion in the OP was that this was a trick by the Greens to cling to power. I asked him how that worked, and got abused (in very rhetorical way) for doing so. I'm not sure how that constitutes an example of me pushing the Green agenda in flowery language - my own view is that the OP set the thread up hoping for the Green-bashing echo chamber to get to work before anybody else found the thread, as per Lenny Lovett's oeuvre in the main forum. Personally, I'd call that "pushing the anti-Green agenda through rhetoric", but clearly opinions will differ.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fat_Fingers

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Just an attempt to show how exasperated I am that we (as a nation) are still more hung up on pinning the blame on people than on solving the problem - that's all.

Reason for that is that people who got us into this still are there going about their business as if nothing happened.
We are getting punished for their gross incompetence.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

One wonders why Gormley didn't suggest this before NAMA & the despicable September 2008 meeting.

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.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

Either they know what needs to be done or they don't.

If they know what needs to be done then no one is stopping them from going ahead and doing it. They are, after all, the government. They don't need consensus to operate.

The other possibility is that they don't know what to do. In which case, what are they doing in power?

It is either one or the other.

It isn't, though - we've been told we need a four year plan by the people who are bailing us out. That four year plan requires buy in, and it must include provision for change of government, otherwise it's not a four year plan, but an 18-month plan, since a general election is due no later than early June/late May 2012, and there's obviously a good possibility that Fianna Fáil will not be in power after it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Banned Account

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

Reason for that is that people who got us into this still are there going about their business as if nothing happened.
We are getting punished for their gross incompetence.

I agree with you 100%, there is a lot of punsihment to be meted out and deservedly so. My argument is that every hour spent pointing the finger is an hour less spent on solving the problem. Once we have a workable solution in place, we will have ample time to punish the guilty few.

In the meantime, I fear our lust for vengeance is getting in the way of the overriding need to fixour country. Refusing to play the blame game until further down the line does not have to be equated with being an apologist or turning a blind eye - it's just a question of prioritising.

hobochris

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Or

"We fúcked up and are asking the other parties to help us"

or

"The economy is fúcked and will need us all to fix it"

What does it matter, at this point, what the motivation is - shooting down a good idea because you don't like the person who suggested it, is the kind of poiscoring petty politics we need to get away from in this country.

For once, I think we should judge the ideas on their merits and not on the personal opinion we may hold on the creator.

There is only one idea left, Slash and burn.

My point is, even though on face value this could be perceived as putting party politics aside for the greater good of the country, What I really fear is going on, is this is a cute whore move(Party politics at its best) trying to share the blame for what is potentially going to be one of the most brutal budgets in history.

When it is really this government alone that have the country down this path, when their is really only option left and asking the other parties to share the burden of it.

IMO, Its is no more then trying to save political face, ignoring the parties proposing this idea, its is still a sneaky move.

Forgive me for being cynical but given the current government track record, it is very hard to trust anything they do or say.



This government know what option is left and what must be done,Rather then this PR stunt, if they really are putting the country first, why don't they just get on with it?

The choices of the next government about our economy are theirs alone to make.

SkepticOne

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

No, they don't need it, but perhaps they think that it's the best way to come up with the best solution - asking for help is not always a bad thing, in fact it is somethimes the better thing to do.

You'll need to ask the electorate that one i'm afraid.

This is the basis of my point - why is it one or the other? Why are we insisting on pursuing a reductionist path - why can we not have a consensus approach that 'mans up' and recognises that not one single party holds all the answers and that, periodically, we come across situation which require the input of all in order to deliver the best possible outcome?

There's no problem the government seeking advice from the opposition parties. Millions are paid to experts for advice on various issues. But at the end of the day, having gathered all advice, it is the government and the government alone that must make the final decision. That is fine. That is what governments are in power to do.

But that is not what is being suggested here. What is being suggested is a forum where an agreement can be hammered out on the budget that keeps everyone happy. This is an abrogation of responsibility. It won't lead to superior decisions but will simply lead to an average of the positions of the various parties. It is this sort of behaviour that has the country the way it is. It is typical Fianna Fáil.

The government know that there are no options left but to make severe cuts and tax rises. They will do this because they have no option. It is important that they also take all the political flak for this since they are the ones that brought about the conditions that made those cuts necessary. If they are not happy with this, then they should get out.

Fat_Fingers

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

I agree with you 100%, there is a lot of punsihment to be meted out and deservedly so. My argument is that every hour spent pointing the finger is an hour less spent on solving the problem. Once we have a workable solution in place, we will have ample time to punish the guilty few.

In the meantime, I fear our lust for vengeance is getting in the way of the overriding need to fixour country. Refusing to play the blame game until further down the line does not have to be equated with being an apologist or turning a blind eye - it's just a question of prioritising.

The problem in this country in that nobody is punished and nobody is accountable for anything.
Deal with it later means sweep it under the carpet and then some toothless tribunal in 20 years followed by state funeral just like Charles Haughey.

Banned Account

hobochris wrote: »

My point is, even though on face value this could be perceived as putting party politics aside for the greater good of the country, What I really fear is going on, is this is a cute whore move(Party politics at its best) trying to share the blame for what is potentially going to be one of the most brutal budgets in history.

When it is really this government alone that have the country down this path, when their is really only option left and asking the other parties to share the burden of it.

IMO, Its is no more then trying to save political face, ignoring the parties proposing this idea, its is still a sneaky move.

This government know what option is left and what must be done,Rather then this PR stunt, if they really are putting the country first, why don't they just get on with it?

I see wher you're coming from but there's a flaw in your logic. If, as you contend, bringing the other parties into the fray is indeed a way for having them share the blame for a harsh budget, then the natural corollory of this is that allowing them to take full control of the budget would leave them with 100% of the blame so it would be more 'cute hoor' to abandon ship now.

We know that this isn't the case though, as the electorate will be mindful of the fact that the budget is only going to be as harsh as it is due to the folly of the present government. If we accept that premise which i belive we must, then we can also accept that the electorate will also see that any input by FG/Lab is now only an attempt to help and not hinder.

Scofflaw

hobochris wrote: »

My point is, even though on face value this could be perceived as putting party politics aside for the greater good of the country, What I really fear is going on, is this is a cute whore move(Party politics at its best) trying to share the blame for what is potentially going to be one of the most brutal budgets in history.

When it is really this government alone that have the country down this path, when their is really only option left and asking the other parties to share the burden of it.

IMO, Its is no more then trying to save political face, ignoring the parties proposing this idea, its is still a sneaky move.

This government know what option is left and what must be done,Rather then this PR stunt, if they really are putting the country first, why don't they just get on with it?

The choices of the next government about our economy are theirs alone to make.

Unfortunately, that last statement there really isn't the case. An incoming government, whether it's in 2012 or before, will not have in any sense a free hand with the economy. What exactly is the sense in pretending that's so? So that the election can be fought (by both sides) on the basis of plans that nobody can put into practice, and will have to abandon the moment they're in Cabinet? What's the point of that?

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?

cordially,
Scofflaw

hobochris

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

I see wher you're coming from but there's a flaw in your logic. If, as you contend, bringing the other parties into the fray is indeed a way for having them share the blame for a harsh budget, then the natural corollory of this is that allowing them to take full control of the budget would leave them with 100% of the blame so it would be more 'cute hoor' to abandon ship now.

We know that this isn't the case though, as the electorate will be mindful of the fact that the budget is only going to be as harsh as it is due to the folly of the present government. If we accept that premise which i belive we must, then we can also accept that the electorate will also see that any input by FG/Lab is now only an attempt to help and not hinder.

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.

hobochris

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, that last statement there really isn't the case. An incoming government, whether it's in 2012 or before, will not have in any sense a free hand with the economy. What exactly is the sense in pretending that's so? So that the election can be fought (by both sides) on the basis of plans that nobody can put into practice, and will have to abandon the moment they're in Cabinet? What's the point of that?

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?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fair enough.

a little optimism may have been injected into that last statement. In reality our budgets will be edited by the EU for the next few at least.

Personally I am rooting for total political reform in the way we govern ourselves, but again, I may be a little optimistic in that as well.

Banned Account

SkepticOne wrote: »

But that is not what is being suggested here. What is being suggested is a forum where an agreement can be hammered out on the budget that keeps everyone happy. This is an abrogation of responsibility.

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?

SkepticOne wrote: »

It won't lead to superior decisions but will simply lead to an average of the positions of the various parties. It is this sort of behaviour that has the country the way it is. It is typical Fianna Fáil.

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.

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

The problem in this country in that nobody is punished and nobody is accountable for anything.
Deal with it later means sweep it under the carpet and then some toothless tribunal in 20 years followed by state funeral just like Charles Haughey.

But surely, if that happens, the blame will lie at the feet of the incoming government - why can we not ensure that when the tiome for canvassing comes around, we get an undertaking for Lab/FG that there will be meaningful action taken? Change is possible, no?

dolphin city

"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.

Scofflaw

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 that only happens if the plan agreed carries forward those elements of the current direction which are optional and publicly opposed? If the "national plan" involves a change to the current direction, doesn't that cut the other way, suggesting that Fianna Fáil are being forced to recognise that some of their decisions were the wrong ones?

I have to agree with you about the six-month memory span problem - it's continually stated here that the current government caused the crisis, as if the previous decade had nothing to do with it! Possibly, though, that's because people actually bought the claims of 'sustainable growth' and 'soft landings' - there's certainly evidence to support that - and therefore believe things really were quite rosy up to the crash.

cordially,
Scofflaw