Green Convention on NAMA coming up...

Dont get me wrong, its great that they are talking. But my question remains - do they not realise that booking losses of the magnitude that market value would imply would immediately bust the banks? Surely there must be a few accountants, or people who took Finance 101 at athlone? The la-la-la happy fairyland approach “oh, lets pay market value but oh, not that horrid nationalisation” approach grates …

What’s the process here? Do the party membership have the power to prevent the parliamentary party from agreeing to NAMA. Do they have the power to force a withdrawal from government?

Surely it has dawned on a fair few of the members that- purely from a self interested perspective- resigning on a NAMA point of principle is the only hope they have of not being wiped out at the next General Election.

I don’t know many Greens myself but I reckon Greens and Labour types are generally a little more thoughtful than the cap doffing crew that turn up for FF and FG conferences. FF supporters in particular seem to be motivated by money rather than political debate. My guess is that there are enough within the Green rank and file to “upset the apple tart”. Its not over yet


See my post above. What you read in the IT is one thing the proces of getting there is another.

so enlighten us. And tell me if you understand
Market Value = losses in excess of core capital = need to recapitalise = absent any others who aint there , the state= nationalisation.
I guess you do. do the other greens understand that, if they do why are they writhing around like paul gogarty , if not what part of the logical chain gives them confusion?

Yes the members have the power to prevent the PP from supporting NAMA. Essentially the members pass and binding change to policy. TD’s Councillors etc have agreed to be bound by the party policies. When this policy change is specific it is very difficult to get away form it.

What happened in Athlone was monumental. Body of Evidence and others are wondering how the greens can be for NAMA and against paying over market prices for loans. This has to do with the preferendum process, which is essential a controlled debate which gathers the full spectrum of opinions within the party membership. Unlike what the IT and the independent are saying this morning, the members did not have options put infront of them. Rather the members suggested various aspects of the problem and focused on the core problem. After a few hours the list of items is narrowed down and hence what might look like a stupid result was achieved. NAMA with out paying over the odds is not NAMA, I know that. The vast majority of Greens in Athlone know that. But that’s not the point. The preferendum process throws up odd loking results, but they are reflctive and get to the truth all be it in around about way. If I have time later in the day I will explain thepreferendum process. It’s a great tool for getting over devisive situations.

Believe me you have seen the first true signs of the end of NAMA.

Further discussion of Green Party responses to NAMA proposals in this thread please →