Green Social Dividend Clause in NAMA legislation.

[Christine Murray]

Points 1 through 6 are very telling of how the issue was approached (at link)

23% of members want NAMA with GP policy and only current market values being paid
for transferred loans.
20-21% want the Swedish solution ( @ link)
14-15% want a free-market Laissez-faire approach.
13% want NAMA in its current form with no change.
12-13% want partial nationalisationand a good bank.
12% want full nationalisation.

Jayzus, they're playing the big boys game now and wd want to get in gear for
the 16th with regard to additional legislative clauses.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking17.htm

[Mar Tweedy]

Points 1 through 6 are very telling of how the issue was approached (at link)

23% of members want NAMA with GP policy and only current market values being paid
for transferred loans.
20-21% want the Swedish solution ( @ link)
14-15% want a free-market Laissez-faire approach.
13% want NAMA in its current form with no change.
12-13% want partial nationalisationand a good bank.
12% want full nationalisation.

Jayzus, they're playing the big boys game now and wd want to get in gear for
the 16th with regard to additional legislative clauses.

Green Party calls for 'social dividend' in Nama Bill - The Irish Times - Mon, Sep 14, 2009

All those 'gives' that the Greens have been letting go (even though not without a fight) may just give them enough negotiating power to get something substantial out of the Nama process. I haven't lost hope....

[Marascal]

Please note that the conference on Saturday from which the results above came from was supposed to be a listening and information excercise. The preferendum results are not supposed to indicate exactly what the policy should be, only what most would agree on. The voting assigned points to each option from 6 points down to 1 for least preferred option, so the above numbers don't mean that 23% are on for the top 1 result exclusively.

[Christine Murray]

All those 'gives' that the Greens have been letting go (even though not without a fight) may just give them enough negotiating power to get something substantial out of the Nama process. I haven't lost hope....

One of the most telling things is that they have a pride in a functioning
grassroot system, that in itself is problematic because all of us can see
that there have been difficulties between the parliamentary party and
the grassroot over other legislations that the greens have signed off on.
In this case (NAMA) it really comes down to just getting workable clauses
or not supporting the legislation.

its a value choice, they really should start operating on quorum system
in relation to emergency legislation and up the grassroot communication
cos there's lots of them angry over that huge gap in policy/government.

[Christine Murray]

Please note that the conference on Saturday from which the results above came from was supposed to be a listening and information excercise. The preferendum results are not supposed to indicate exactly what the policy should be, only what most would agree on. The voting assigned points to each option from 6 points down to 1 for least preferred option, so the above numbers don't mean that 23% are on for the top 1 result exclusively.

I know that but two national newspapers have headlined on this issue and there
is most definitely a gap between the parliamentary party and the Grassroot.


John Gormley's comments on NAMA were (for instance) subtley different to Boyles (in recent weeks).

[Marascal]

I know that but two national newspapers have headlined on this issue and there
is most definitely a gap between the parliamentary party and the Grassroot,
John Gormley's comments on NAMA were (for instance) subtley different to Boyles (in recent weeks).

Wan't aimed exclusively at you Dot, it tends to look as if the party was split 5 ways on Saturday if you look at it without understanding where the values come from.

I'd be interested in knowing your opinions on the flaws in NAMA, I know a great deal more now than I did last week but I still want to understand more. What are the worst aspects adn do you believe they can be changed for the better?

[Christine Murray]

In my OP I am referring to the addition of a Social Dividend clause, it beggars belief
that it has not been an issue before in terms of the long term goals of NAMA.

My comments are solely to do with the gap between the Parliamentary party and the
stated policy objectives of the Greens in terms of Planning, which are worthy
but not always attainable when acting as a Junior Coalition partner to FF
(whose planning is legendary, one need only look at the SIB, Adamstown
or the Late Mr Lawlor to understand this).

The Greens want Aaarhus (that was no longer available in 2006 when Mr Roche
brought in the Strategic Infrastructure Bill , which included elements of Aarhus).

Planning should take cognisance of the needs of a nation and not the wealth
of developers- the Greens have an uphill battle on the issue and the clause is
interesting but to advance it the party has to take hard decisions in whether
to support the existent programme for government (new one is not negotiated
yet) or to listen to a split grassroot on implementation/clause inclusion.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking17.htm

[Mar Tweedy]

One of the most telling things is that they have a pride in a functioning
grassroot system, that in itself is problematic because all of us can see
that there have been difficulties between the parliamentary party and
the grassroot over other legislations that the greens have signed off on.
In this case (NAMA) it really comes down to just getting workable clauses
or not supporting the legislation.

its a value choice, they really should start operating on quorum system
in relation to emergency legislation and up the grassroot communication
cos there's lots of them angry over that huge gap in policy/government.

I wonder is it a consequence of consensus decision-making processes? What happens if a consensus is reached (eg going into Govt with FF) and some of the part that is not reflected in the final decision leaves. Then the next consensus is missing that part and comes to a consensus. And some of the ones who are not reflected in that final decision leave and so on.

It leaves me wondering though how respectful of consensus decision making people are if they leave when the consensus decision isn't theirs?

Just some thoughts - clearly there are strains between grassroots/leadership/electorate.

[Christine Murray]

In this case respect for the grassroot is a luxury, there is no negoatiated programme
for Government. There is a desire for a social dividend clause in which members are
split five ways and there is most definitely a lack of sure focus on what is attainable.

They need a quorum and effective agreed decision-making regarding getting clauses.

The Irish Times - Letters < (this is funny btw)

[Mar Tweedy]

In this case respect for the grassroot is a luxury, there is no negoatiated programme
for Government. There is a desire for a social dividend clause in which members are
split five ways and there is most definitely a lack of sure focus on what is attainable.

They need a quorum and effective agreed decision-making regarding getting clauses.

The Irish Times - Letters < (this is funny btw)

And they need it fast? What would you suggest?