Where’s your post from last night gone? BD :unamused:

I made representations across government against NAMA at the time. But don’t let that get in the way of your weird little obsession with me 8-


From Namas website;

*Questions about NAMA itself and the loans it has acquired
How long will NAMA exist?
NAMA will be wound up when the Minister for Finance determines that its continued existence is no longer necessary. Staff employed by NAMA are on fixed purpose contracts which means that their contracts will be terminated when the Agency’s work is concluded

That day couldn’t come quick enough.


I am clearly not permitted to accuse you of onanism :smiley:

You can say you did, and well done to you if you did. My words against NAMA are on here dated from before the NAMA act.

If you want to have a discussion, try starting without the abuse.

As it is, I can’t be arsed reading more of what you write.


But if you read the fine print of the NAMA Bill it turns out that the cumulative losses of NAMA will become sovereign debt of the state. And all NAMA assets not disposed of by the time NAMA is wound up become the property of the state. Expect your grandchildren to be paying tax to cover the cost of owning undisposable NAMA assets. Or more likely, covering the cost of the write down of assets sold at 90% discount just after liquidation.

NAMA is a pure Enron style off balance sheet accounting entity. The longer it exists the more likely the losses are run out using simple future value of money decay. If the real world inflation rate is 10% and the cost of money is 1% just watch those billions disappear (in adjusted terms) over a few decades. Of course real economy growth also disappeared due to massive misallocation of investment, but you cannot have everything.


Can we have a little bit of fucking decorum in this thread please? :wink:


At least one criterion of a well-run state WAS met. Cosgrave handed over power to the losers in the civil war. We can be proud of that peaceful transition, not a small matter at all.


But it was very touch and go at the time. If Eoin O Duffy had better political judgement his coup would have been unopposed. I remember the subject being discussed 30/40 years later and even hard core FF’ers agreeing that if it had been the other way around there was no way FF would have handed over power in '32. Luckily for all of us C na G did (mostly) believe in the rule of law and in representative democracy… By '48 a lot more water had flown under the bridge so the transition was a lot smoother. But with a lot of bad blood from the outgoing lot. Shades of Haughey in '81.

After winning in '32 Dev then proceeded to dismantle what little defense forces the country had ( the only possible source of successful opposition) leaving the country completely defenseless by the late 1930’s. Compare and contrast with Denmark and Norway at the time. Real neutrals.

Dev also rewrote the constitution to make FF the permanent party of power. After the misfortune of the 1948 and 1954 elections FF then spent most of the '50’s and '60’s trying to change the voting system so they could never lose an election again. Only really gave up in the 1970’s. Even then the reign of FF has only ended recently after a 70 years run as the default party of government.

And the most successful recent Irish political party? One that has murdered thousands of people and, does not believe in the rule of law, is a classic authoritarian nationalist socialist party very much in the 1930’s populist dictatorship mold. Pure Chavismo.

Not exactly the sign of a well run state. Again compare and contrast with Norway and Finland. Countries with comparable histories but a very different civic and political culture.

Bloody Lutherans and their honest, well run, civil societies…


No, it would not have been unopposed. Almost 50% of the electorate voted for FF and the country would have been plunged into civil war (again).

A bit moot really.

Oh? I don’t think you’re right about that. The most obvious attempt to change the voting system occurred occurred before the 1948 election (3 seater constituencies increase from 15 to 32, - described by Tim Pat Coogan as “a blatant attempt at gerrymander which no Six County Unionist could have bettered.”) That attempt was unsuccessful but probably contributed to the maintaining the FF/FG system ever since. It might be difficult to accept, but the real reason FG have never governed on their own or ever been returned for a second term in government is because the majority of the electorate don’t trust them. RM Smylie’s quote about CnaG still applies to FG. A party “who one wished would be open to ideas, until one saw the kind of ideas they were open to”.

The alcohol has kicked in, eh? No Irish political party has murdered thousands of people, unless you extend the definition to cover the impact of government policy? Mother and Baby Homes? The Industrial Schools? The failure to address social issues like the heroin epidemic of the 80’s, grinding poverty, homelessness, the Hepatitis scandal? And as far as I’m aware every political party believes in the rule of law, but it would be nice to see it applied in a fair and evenhanded way.

The Irish political system works (generally) and we get the politicians we vote for. Most (all?) Norwegian and Finn I’ve ever met prefer Ireland. I’m not sure how that fits into your sectarian worldview?


Can we get back on topic?


Maybe, but I doubt we’ll stay there for long. :wink:



As for NWL. There is always a decay curve of relevance with bloggers. Especially highly focuses crisis bloggers. Once the crisis moves on all that can be said has been said and they usually spiral into irrelevance,

I think NWL has discovered the hard way that it does not matter how true and accurate ones analysis is it does not matter a rats ass in the bigger scheme of Irish politics and Irish political culture. Its a cute hoor culture with a cute hoor electorate so honest competent politicians only get elected by accident. Or when all other avenues have been exhausted.

Hence the anomaly of Garret the Good. An experiment which was tried once, never to be repeated.

So NWL in its prime will be useful as a primary source for future historians ( as will this site). But that’s about as far as its influence will go.


Not to derail the thread further, I’m sure we’ll get to discuss this elsewhere, but I remember the first time I got a school holiday due to it being a polling day was the last time ( of three) that FF tried to change the voting system to single member FPP constituencies. This was in 1968. A bit before your time I think.

That particular attempt at a constitutional stroke was started by the men in the mohair suits in the mid '50’s. They get full marks for perseverance in the face of repeated referenda rejections. They only got distracted from attempting electoral hegemony by the headcases up the North when some of the key mohair men ended up in the dock at the Arms Trial…

En bananrepublikk as they would say in Norway…


There’s not really much left to say on the topic, based on Andy’s quotes. Cringeworthy if a commentator wants to be taken seriously.


As I already pointed out, NAMA’s existence was anti-free market (in numerous ways); it’s patently absurd to then argue that its disposals are fine because “that’s the free market”.
Always key to highlight the hypocrisies and lies of the neolibs, so no problem with the NWL tweets.


A final word on this off topic thread…

Ah yes. That’s not a bad example. And after losing the referendum Boland redrew the constituencies in 1969 to give FF a significant electoral advantage. And in 1973 FG and Labour came to power and set about redrawing the constituencies again but this time to benefit themselves! Brendan Halligan’s book ‘Our Worst Preference’ is an interesting read as it details his experiences as part of that ‘redrafting’, and also the serious flaws that he sees in the STV system.

FF? FG? Labour? No winners in that beauty contest.