Wrapping this thing up....

DeVore

Firstly, I would like to thank the Deputy Gogarty for engaging and the representatives for taking the time out to pose the questions and conduit them from the public. Not forgetting the community managers, Dav and Darragh, and the mods, who worked in the backgrounds to help me execute the ideas in my head!

There are some outstanding questions which I will round up as Mr Gogarty has indicated he doesnt want to leave any unanswered. This may take a few days as we have taken up a good bit of his time over the last 36 hours and the man has a job and a family too lets not forget.


It has been a unique and interesting engagement between a sitting TD and Boards.ie. Something I hope will be repeated.

I would like the participants to give their opinion/feedback/wrap up on this thread (one post per person please).

---

Personally, I'm very impressed and happy with the way things have developed given that this is the first time we have done this and that we had less than 10 days to pull it off. I hope it has disproved the cynics who say that you cant have an informed and mature debate online and that other TD's will consider stepping up to the mark and talking to the populace.

I believe that Mr Gogarty has written with passion and honesty. I dont agree with everything he has said but thats what my vote is for. I have come away from this with some changed opinions and with considerably more information and opinion to think about.

DeV.

deelite

Thanks to DeV, Dav and Daragh for organising this and also to the others who debated with Paul and board members who posted questions.

Paul fair play to you for taking the time and energy to come on this debate (even at 2:00 a.m.). I've not changed my opinion about the Green Party but I have changed my opinions towards you - for the better.

Thanks again Paul

gandalf

As I said in the thread on the main politics forum the debate went as I expected with some clarifications but nothing ground-breaking or dramatic.

I'd like to thank Tom and the lads for the opportunity to participate. I'd also like to thank Paul for his involvement in this enterprise it was brave and I believe it has painted him in a better light personally than has been projected of him by the media or by his Twitter outbursts. With regards to the Green Party the engagement has not changed my opinion at all about them and I do believe they will be another sacrificial lamb at the election alter deflecting the ire of the country away from Fianna Fail come the next General Election.

All in all it was an interesting experience.

johnnyskeleton

I was skeptical going in, so I'm not dissappointed with the results.

Deputy Gogarty refused to engage in any debate on NAMA, other than "if you accept that the banks must be bailed out then it follows that you must accept X". His reasons for accepting that the banks must be bailed out is because the Minister for Finance said it. To me this reads like a smoker justifying their habit because "if you accept that you must have nicotine then it follows that you must smoke." There was, to my mind, a complete failure to deal with the issues on anything other than a superficial level. Plus, I think his understanding of how NAMA actually works is mistaken at best. He seems to think it is a way that we can get cheap money from the ECB.

Deputy Gogarty styles himself as a rebel, but he just can't do that within the confines of being a member of the governing party. Moreover, he refuses to accept responsibility for the damage caused by FF or even admit that it is damage, save insofar as it will not cost him his political neck to do so.

I'd thank him for trying this out, which is something a lot of politicians would shy away from altogether. But at the end of the day he is not a rebel in the government, or at least he is maybe 10% rebel and 90% loyal, so no wonder his answer to DeV which started this off was that he supported FF through patriotism.

Terry

I'm a little pissed off about losing connectivity on the day.
I had offered to field questions from other people but could not follow up on that promise. I apologise to all involved.

Minister Gogarty did not give me a clear answer to the one serious question I did ask. I understand that it was late and he was tired, but I still felt that I was fobbed off.

In saying that, I would like to thank Minister Gogarty for giving us the opportunity to question him.
I hope that you are not the last politician to give this opportunity to boards.
Regardless of that, you were the first.
Boards has shown that sitting TDs will not suffer universal abuse, so hopefully more TDs will give us the same chance to question them, and hopefully the Admins will give other users the chance to question the next TD who volunteers their time to us.

Paul (may I call you Paul?*) thank you for giving us your time.
I don't agree with most of your policies, but I respect the fact that you made time for us.
Boards.ie is the largest discussion forum in Ireland, and one of the largest discussions boards on the entire internet. To ignore us users is idiotic.

Ireland has a population of ~4.5 million, but boards still makes a massive impression on worldwide internet traffic. To ignore us would be foolish at best.
You chose to engage us in discussion. That's a smart move on your part. Let's hope that my meeting with your nemisis results in a similar manner.

Once again, thank you for your time.






*I don't care. I'm calling you Paul regardless.

Dirk Gently

only getting a chance to read over things now. Like others have said, it wasn't very engaging on the issues. The format does lend itself to fluffy general replies though. Not sure how to overcome that beyond TD's just contributing to threads and debating like any regular poster, having their replies quoted and challenged, which is not very practical from a modding point of view and would frighten anyone off in fairness. I'm not sure how hard hitting the experiment can be in reality tbh.

I'd like to thank Paul for coming here nonetheless, although it wasn't particularly hard hitting you could probably count the number of TD's willing to do something like this on one finger so for that, well done Paul. My opinion of the greens or the government haven't changed but at least I have confirmation on my opposition which I suppose is something in itself.

Hopefully Paul also realises now the pitfalls of posting one liner rebellious tweets and the stomach turning reaction some people (like myself) get when seeing that from someone who's party is in government. When you add substance (relative to twitter anyway) you at least came across well personally if not so much politically. Perhaps in future when you tweet, tweet a link to a blog or something where you can explain better whatever point you are making. The tweets in themselves just look disingenuous and shallow, especially when directed at other people.

PaulGogartyTD

Terry wrote: »

I'm a little pissed off about losing connectivity on the day.
I had offered to field questions from other people but could not follow up on that promise. I apologise to all involved.

Minister Gogarty did not give me a clear answer to the one serious question I did ask. I understand that it was late and he was tired, but I still felt that I was fobbed off.

In saying that, I would like to thank Minister Gogarty for giving us the opportunity to question him.
I hope that you are not the last politician to give this opportunity to boards.
Regardless of that, you were the first.
Boards has shown that sitting TDs will not suffer universal abuse, so hopefully more TDs will give us the same chance to question them, and hopefully the Admins will give other users the chance to question the next TD who volunteers their time to us.

Paul (may I call you Paul?*) thank you for giving us your time.
I don't agree with most of your policies, but I respect the fact that you made time for us.
Boards.ie is the largest discussion forum in Ireland, and one of the largest discussions boards on the entire internet. To ignore us users is idiotic.

Ireland has a population of ~4.5 million, but boards still makes a massive impression on worldwide internet traffic. To ignore us would be foolish at best.
You chose to engage us in discussion. That's a smart move on your part. Let's hope that my meeting with your nemisis results in a similar manner.

Once again, thank you for your time.


*I don't care. I'm calling you Paul regardless.

Thanks, Terry. I'm not a Minister and I like to be called Paul.

If you would like to re-ask the part of the question you felt I couldn't answer, then I will try again, but perhaps it is just an issue of disagreement.

PaulGogartyTD

clown bag wrote: »

only getting a chance to read over things now. Like others have said, it wasn't very engaging on the issues. The format does lend itself to fluffy general replies though. Not sure how to overcome that beyond TD's just contributing to threads and debating like any regular poster, having their replies quoted and challenged, which is not very practical from a modding point of view and would frighten anyone off in fairness. I'm not sure how hard hitting the experiment can be in reality tbh.

I'd like to thank Paul for coming here nonetheless, although it wasn't particularly hard hitting you could probably count the number of TD's willing to do something like this on one finger so for that, well done Paul. My opinion of the greens or the government haven't changed but at least I have confirmation on my opposition which I suppose is something in itself.

Hopefully Paul also realises now the pitfalls of posting one liner rebellious tweets and the stomach turning reaction some people (like myself) get when seeing that from someone who's party is in government. When you add substance (relative to twitter anyway) you at least came across well personally if not so much politically. Perhaps in future when you tweet, tweet a link to a blog or something where you can explain better whatever point you are making. The tweets in themselves just look disingenuous and shallow, especially when directed at other people.

Thank you, you are right. Tweet in haste, repent at leisure. I am happy to stand over tweets I made off my own bat; it's the replies back to nasty or cynical messages I should be wary of. You can't debate in Twitter and many of those who contact me are not interested in debate, simply insulting and point scoring. I should not lower myself to that level, nor should I assume that a reply to a tweet will not be spread to the media.

Thankfully the boards.ie debate was an excellent and balanced experience.

PaulGogartyTD

deelite wrote: »

Thanks to DeV, Dav and Daragh for organising this and also to the others who debated with Paul and board members who posted questions.

Paul fair play to you for taking the time and energy to come on this debate (even at 2:00 a.m.). I've not changed my opinion about the Green Party but I have changed my opinions towards you - for the better.

Thanks again Paul

Thanks Dee

PaulGogartyTD

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I was skeptical going in, so I'm not dissappointed with the results.

Deputy Gogarty refused to engage in any debate on NAMA, other than "if you accept that the banks must be bailed out then it follows that you must accept X". His reasons for accepting that the banks must be bailed out is because the Minister for Finance said it. To me this reads like a smoker justifying their habit because "if you accept that you must have nicotine then it follows that you must smoke." There was, to my mind, a complete failure to deal with the issues on anything other than a superficial level. Plus, I think his understanding of how NAMA actually works is mistaken at best. He seems to think it is a way that we can get cheap money from the ECB.

Deputy Gogarty styles himself as a rebel, but he just can't do that within the confines of being a member of the governing party. Moreover, he refuses to accept responsibility for the damage caused by FF or even admit that it is damage, save insofar as it will not cost him his political neck to do so.

I'd thank him for trying this out, which is something a lot of politicians would shy away from altogether. But at the end of the day he is not a rebel in the government, or at least he is maybe 10% rebel and 90% loyal, so no wonder his answer to DeV which started this off was that he supported FF through patriotism.

No, I think NAMA is a way the banks can get cheap/ready money from the ECB and by default the taxpayer.

I am not trying to be a rebel. I speak my mind, but sometimes my mind is in agreement with those who I am not always naturally inclined to agree with.

I am happy to support NAMA and I acknowledge you disagree with the whole concept behind bailing out the banks or the necessity to avoid absolute economic and social meltdown by risking a collapse in the system, even for a short period. In this I am not alone.

I do not claim to be an expert in matters financial, but I have taken an interest in the matter and have listened to those on both sides of the debate and fed my thoughts into the Green Party internal process. We believe we made NAMA better. We believe we have introduced more transparency into the system through the banking inquiry. We also acknowledge that what we are supporting, partially because of who we are supporting in Government, is not popular and may lead to serious electoral damage.

But if you believe in something, you push it. There are many compromises we have had to make in Government, but this was not one of them. In fact the opposite was the case. It would have been a great one to go to the country on and save our political skins. We didn't. And I for one had nothing to gain from staying in Government from a selfish personal perspective.

PaulGogartyTD

gandalf wrote: »

As I said in the thread on the main politics forum the debate went as I expected with some clarifications but nothing ground-breaking or dramatic.

I'd like to thank Tom and the lads for the opportunity to participate. I'd also like to thank Paul for his involvement in this enterprise it was brave and I believe it has painted him in a better light personally than has been projected of him by the media or by his Twitter outbursts. With regards to the Green Party the engagement has not changed my opinion at all about them and I do believe they will be another sacrificial lamb at the election alter deflecting the ire of the country away from Fianna Fail come the next General Election.

All in all it was an interesting experience.

Thank you for your time and courtesy, Gandalf. I do agree with you, we will inevitably be a sacrificial lamb at the next election. I only hope on balance that the sacrifice was worth it in terms of long-standing policy implementation and making many of the right decisions needed for the country at this time.

It is too early for me or my party to claim we will be vindicated. Equally it is too early for our detractors to say for sure that our tenure in Government has not been a good influence overall.

Best wishes to you and other posters,

Paul

Liam Byrne

PaulGogartyTD wrote: »

I am happy to support NAMA and I acknowledge you disagree with [the whole concept behind bailing out the banks or] the necessity to avoid absolute economic and social meltdown by risking a collapse in the system, even for a short period.

Yet again, this is phrased in a very patronising manner, implying that the poster (johnnyskeleton) disagrees with "a necessity".

Maybe those who enter Leinster House all speak this way, hiding what they're saying behind bogus claims; but either way it's pretty pathetic.

johnnyskeleton didn't disagree with any necessity
johnnyskeleton didn't disagree with any necessity to avoid absolute (or otherwise) economic and social meltdown

The above statement - in a single sentence - goes from a possibly justifiable mention of "risking a possible bank collapse that might possibly cause an economic and social meltdown which might possibly be absolute and catastrophic" and puts it forward as "a necessity" that johnnyskeleton somehow disagrees with.

I tell ya something, with 5 levels of distance from the absolute necessity, that's some stretch. :rolleyes:

Yes, it might be preferable not to risk that scenario AT ALL, but burying it in 5 levels of doublespeak and hyperbole does your argument absolutely no favours , particularly from someone who supposedly "hates hyperbole".

southsiderosie

Thanks Dev for kicking things off and letting me jump in at the last minute.

Thanks Deputy Gogarty for participating and taking the time to not only lay out your positions, but to re-engage with posters (at 2am, no less). I thought your perspective on Dail and election reforms was particularly interesting. I don't think we agree on calling elections, but luckily I am not an Irish voter!

That said, I can't ever imagine my Congressman at home participating in something like this, so it's been a real treat for me to be able to have such access to Irish politics. I hope that other TDs will participate in similar exchanges in the future (with maybe a few logistical tweaks).

Thanks again,

r

Scofflaw

The above statement - in a single sentence - goes from a possibly justifiable mention of "risking a possible bank collapse that might possibly cause an economic and social meltdown which might possibly be absolute and catastrophic" and puts it forward as "a necessity" that johnnyskeleton somehow disagrees with.

Avoiding "a possible power surge that might possibly cause a reactor meltdown which might possibly be absolute and catastrophic" would have sounded pretty to good to the inhabitants of Chernobyl. Necessary, even, some might say.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sparks

Scofflaw wrote: »

Avoiding "a possible power surge that might possibly cause a reactor meltdown which might possibly be absolute and catastrophic" would have sounded pretty to good to the inhabitants of Chernobyl. Necessary, even, some might say.
cordially,
Scofflaw

It's an interesting if flawed comparison; interesting because like nuclear reactors, the details of macroeconomics are not well-understood by the average occupant of the Clapton omnibus; flawed because Chernobyl is a past event with a probability of occurrence being defined as 1.0, not a future one with an unknown probability of occurrence.

In either case, the Deputy has not made the case that pursuing any option other than NAMA would, without any other possibility, lead to riots in the streets. And given that many economists - who are more qualified in economics than he is - disagree with that conjecture, I'd suggest that there is an onus on the Deputy as a Deputy to be able to support his contention. He is, after all, putting his name to a policy that will cost tens of billions - doing so without knowing the full facts would seem almost criminally negligent.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Avoiding "a possible power surge that might possibly cause a reactor meltdown which might possibly be absolute and catastrophic" would have sounded pretty to good to the inhabitants of Chernobyl. Necessary, even, some might say.

As I said, mentioning (or even highlighting) the risk of a possible messy failure and explaining how it could possibly lead to a possible catastrophe was justifiable.

Claiming that johnnyskeleton was "against a necessity" was not.

Scofflaw

Sparks wrote: »

It's an interesting if flawed comparison; interesting because like nuclear reactors, the details of macroeconomics are not well-understood by the average occupant of the Clapton omnibus; flawed because Chernobyl is a past event with a probability of occurrence being defined as 1.0, not a future one with an unknown probability of occurrence.

Whereas we are in the convenient position of a domino-style bank collapse having a probability of 0.0, and can therefore argue that what was done might have been unnecessary - such are the inevitable problems with hindsight.

Sparks wrote: »

In either case, the Deputy has not made the case that pursuing any option other than NAMA would, without any other possibility, lead to riots in the streets. And given that many economists - who are more qualified in economics than he is - disagree with that conjecture, I'd suggest that there is an onus on the Deputy as a Deputy to be able to support his contention. He is, after all, putting his name to a policy that will cost tens of billions - doing so without knowing the full facts would seem almost criminally negligent.

I think the Deputy has made the point about only knowing what they knew at the time well enough.

Liam Byrne wrote:

As I said, mentioning (or even highlighting) the risk of a possible messy failure and explaining how it could possibly lead to a possible catastrophe was justifiable.

Claiming that johnnyskeleton was "against a necessity" was not.

I can't help but feel you've actually made a very similar jump to the one you're complaining of, though. The statement you quote is short summary of a position already discussed at some length, and it seems a little unfair to take it as if it were the only statement made.

I am happy to support NAMA and I acknowledge you disagree with...the necessity to avoid absolute economic and social meltdown by risking a collapse in the system, even for a short period. In this I am not alone.

The Deputy has variously said through his posts that: (1) a collapse in the system, even for a short period, would have lead to absolute economic and social meltdown; (2) it was necessary to avoid that possibility; (3) the Deputy believes that doing something was necessary to avoid that possibility; (4) they did something; and (5) what they did seemed like the best option at the time.

It's very easy for someone to disagree with the bank bailout now, from a position where the collapse under discussion has a comfortable probability of zero, but it doesn't seem out of line that someone who thought it was necessary at the time should stand over that decision now. The Deputy seems to me to have acknowledged that that's his view, and that he's not alone in that view - who knows what the various naysayers would have said had they had to make the decision at the time themselves?

After all:

Liam Byrne wrote:

Fact is that we need banks. So the original bailout / guarantee, while hard to stomach, was essential.

That sounds like someone talking about a 'necessity' to me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sparks

Scofflaw wrote: »

Whereas we are in the convenient position of a domino-style bank collapse having a probability of 0.0, and can therefore argue that what was done might have been unnecessary - such are the inevitable problems with hindsight.

Not that I wish to appear belligerent, but we don't have that convenient position. We've already had to recapitalise banks more than once; so in effect, we've staved off the collapse several times by transferring private debt to the public exchequer and there's a limit to that ability; if we exceed that limit - as some argue that we already have - we may well see such a collapse anyway, only from a position of having no funds available to ameliorate the resultant damages.

I think the Deputy has made the point about only knowing what they knew at the time well enough.

To be fair, the Deputy's point was that he only knew what the Minister had said. I would expect that someone whose profession was to vote on policy decisions would have undertaken to learn more about a decision of this magnitude. I would have expected he would have taken time to consult with economics experts and to ask questions. It's obviously not always feasible to devote so much time to every vote, but I think it's only reasonable to ask for it on a vote of this level of importance and which calls for this level of committment of resources.

The Deputy has variously said through his posts that: (1) a collapse in the system, even for a short period, would have lead to absolute economic and social meltdown; (2) it was necessary to avoid that possibility; (3) the Deputy believes that doing something was necessary to avoid that possibility; (4) they did something; and (5) what they did seemed like the best option at the time.

(1) is debatable as it seems there is confusion between the consequences of not guaranteeing deposits and not guaranteeing bondholders, a point being made by the pundits in droves at the moment and by economists two to three years ago.
(2) is a truism, as is (3) and (4).
(5) is a point of serious contention, and while I accept that it was impossible to make a choice all would agree with, I would argue that it would be unacceptable behaviour from a public representative to make a decision of this magnitude without having detailed reasoning for their decision that they could later stand over. It's one thing to be wrong; it's another be wrong because of not doing due diligence.

It's very easy for someone to disagree with the bank bailout now

Indeed; but my point is that there were several highly qualified economists publicly disagreeing with the bailout several years ago, and that there was adaquate precedent even then for avoiding such a costly policy.

it doesn't seem out of line that someone who thought it was necessary at the time should stand over that decision now.

It certainly doesn't; if that person can show that they actually performed a reasonable degree of investigation before committing tens of billions of public funds to such a decision.

who knows what the various naysayers would have said had they had to make the decision at the time themselves?

Well, to be fair, they were saying in public two and three years ago what they would have said had they had to make the decision themselves. We're not talking about hindsight experts here, but people who put their considerable professional reputations behind their opinions on national media at the time.

That sounds like someone talking about a 'necessity' to me.

It sounds like someone talking about the first two guarantees to me (the original raising of the deposit guarantee from €30k to €100k and the later raising of the deposit guarantee to cover all deposits), both of which are almost universally acknowledged as being necessary and vital acts both then and now to prevent a run on the banks; and neither of which were as ruinously expensive as the later guaranteeing of bondholders.

Liam Byrne

Sparks wrote: »

It sounds like someone talking about the first two guarantees to me (the original raising of the deposit guarantee from €30k to €100k and the later raising of the deposit guarantee to cover all deposits), both of which are almost universally acknowledged as being necessary and vital acts both then and now to prevent a run on the banks; and neither of which were as ruinously expensive as the later guaranteeing of bondholders.

Absolutely, as indicated clearly and concisely by the word original in my post that Scofflaw chose to quote.......just a pity that he chose to misrepresent it and use it to imply support for his own additional stance.

Of course, why let a clear fact get in the way of a quick discreditary dig ? It's par for the course for this government, and the Greens have obviously been infected.