I came to the Green Party convention on the 10th October 2009 with an open mind, not being a member of either of the five Green Party constituency groups that called for the convention to debate and vote on the National Asset Management Agency Bill 2009.
I took the responsibility very seriously, devoting many hours prior to the convention to attempting to understand the significance of the NAMA proposal and seeking council from businesses and members of the public on whether it was indeed in the best interest of our Nation for this legislation to be introduced in its current format. I believed that my democratic vote could make a difference and was honoured to be given an opportunity to vote on this matter of national importance.
However, as someone who has observed politics for many years, I found the manner in which the convention was organised to be worthy of Machiavelli, the master of political manipulation.
Firstly, the members were presented with a debate on the Programme for Government (PFG) rather than the NAMA legislation.
Secondly, insufficient time was given for members to review the PFG document prior to debate. Procedures for the day stated that it was to be circulated to members at 10am rather than after noon, which was the case. The logisitical difficulties here are understandable in the circumstances, however, these could have been overcome by holding the debate on NAMA first.
Thirdly, the NAMA proposal was not allowed to be debated as part of the Programme for Government.
Fourthly, the debate on the NAMA proposal commenced after voting had ceased on the PFG. Yet, the opening argument by the party was that by not supporting this legislation the government would fall; making a mockery of the first vote to support the Programme for Government.
Fifthly, voting on the Programme for Government closed before the debate was finished while allowing members to vote on the NAMA motion before the debate had even commenced was reprehensible.
Sixthly, the procedures allowed for up to 30 speakers to debate the Programme for Government, while less than 10 speakers had the opportunity to debate the NAMA proposal, which let us not forget was the very reason for the convention in the first place.
Seventhly, the National Executive Committee (NEC) did not allow the original or any alternative motion that would have allowed the party to reject or seek changes to the NAMA proposal while remaining in Government.
Despite the clear unease within the Green Party to supporting this legislation by following such procedures, the NEC and Party headquarters ensured that there was no possibility that the motion to reject NAMA could be won.
For the convention to be transparent, clearly the order of the day’s business should have been to discuss the most significant motion first, that being the NAMA proposal, especially given that the convention was called for to debate and vote on the proposed NAMA legislation by Green Party constituency groups. Notwithstanding this, one could argue that implementing the NAMA legislation is the most significant political decision in the Programme for Government and perhaps the most important Statute Bill ever written in the history of our nation.
While I accept the democratic will of the party members, I believe that the convention represented political manipulation of the highest order, was deeply flawed in its procedures and may as a consequence destroy the Green Party for decades to come.
As a result of the aforementioned, the Green Party now have the distinction over any other political party that it’s not just its parliamentarians that voted for NAMA but its ordinary members.
If the Government get it wrong, especially when they do not have the support of the people to make such an important decision, the Government and the Green Party in particular will forever be associated with NAMA; this may well prove to be the tipping point, not climate change, for green politics in Ireland this century.
Posts
14 comments:
I agree, Declan. It was a shameful & distrustful way to treat the membership, really quite a mockery of democratic principles. Like you, whilst being highly suspicious of NAMA & mindful of the implications of it's unpopularity, I was open to reasoned persuasion of it's neccesity. Instead we were treated to 'stroke' politics of the worst kind.
The Green Party will be decimated at the next election.
You have to bear in mind that there was a vote taken in the morning on a request to change the order of business. That vote overwhelmingly adopted the agenda.
In terms of the NAMA motion, you have to bear in mind that this motion was brought by five constituency groups. It was apparent that all five couldn't agree amendments to the motion in advance of the day.
I don't feel we were railroaded. The margin by which both votes supported the Parliamentary Party position indicates that even if there was a measure of "manipulation", it would have to have been pretty significant to have had any bearing.
Although the agenda set out that NAMA was to be part of the second debate, almost all of the speakers who spoke against the programme for government, did so because of NAMA. To that extent the NAMA debate ended up forming part of the debate on the programme for government.
What is the alternative folks? Fine Gael and Labour would most likely introduce NAMA by another name. Even Garret Fitzgerald and Alan Dukes have declared it to be the least worst option.
We are in a mess, and we are in government with the party which, arguably, caused that problem. But we voted to take that position two years ago knowing full well the history of that party. We can't just change our mind on that because we are finding the kitchen a bit hot.
Government is about pragmatism and compromise. Only the oppositon can afford to hold uncompromised principles, but only in government can they effect real change. No other party would be prioritising the environment at a time like this. There are many reasons to stay in government and continue the work, and very few reasons to pull out and send ourselves to the back benches where you can do nothing.
Declan, I, too, was an attendee at the convention and agree wholeheartedly with your appraisal of the proceedings. We, the members, were manipulated to the advantage of the parliamentary party and to no good at all.
It is clear that our leadership has no meaning grasp of economics and the pitfalls of fractional reserve banking. We should be fighting to establish a system with a different basis and avoid a similar collapse later. Yet, like lemmings we rush headlong to reestablish the same system that caused the problem in the first instance.
I do not agree that the nature of our being manipulated should be characterized as Machiavellian; it was far to clumsy for that. I suppose it is being idealistic to a fault to expect any leader/s once knowing power to behave differently.
William DeTuncq
Hi,
I too was at the Convention and spoke against NAMA, including highlighting some of Pat's points in relation to democratic and moral issues. Saturday was an abusive experience as far as I'm concerned. It was a done deal and we were just lured up from the outposts to make it look credible. I think one of the commentators to Fintan O'Toole's article in the Times sums it up well "the Greens have just poured round-up on themselves". It was insidious the manner in which NAMA was inserted into the Programme for Government, the appeasement to Paul Gogarty (who sometimes is the most radical) and the pressure on members with every Minister & TD speaking in favour on both matters. I am concerned also the fact that our branch has haemorraged good members, as i'm sure is the case for many other branches, but our leadership seem to have little interest or worry about this as long as they can be replaced with bright eyed eager young people who are probably more easy to mould than us old lot with what seems now an irrevelant ideology! As in the Lord of the Rings the lure of the "precious" in this case power seems to have won out and is ok at any cost. The gains are too few to have sold out on our principles, and like FF our leadership seems to be losing touch with the people of this country. I too am soul searching. An agenda item for Tuesday for sure!
Bernie
Quentin, with all due respect, I find your pragmatism over principles argument quite disturbing. The causes & perpetrators of the worst financial crisis since the depression are no small matter - & most certainly not with the electorate at large. The Green support for brushing it all under the carpet (not to mention the +credibly+ suggested risk of massive cost over decades) will be +etched+ in voters minds for a generation. Likely the Greens will disapear from the Dail next election & not return for many years.
By the same argument, the reverse is also true. The Greens drawing the line on a principle as important as this would have been a historic moment, long remembered. FF then +still+ had choice to accept an alternative or go to the polls. If the latter, I think the Greens would have greatly increased their poll over two yrs ago - even to the possibility of a coalition with FG, Labour or both. If the former, some real reforms of the financial system may have been possible & certainly could have been brought to (long overdue) public debate.
Regardless of what the Greens achieve (& won't be much, given the economic situation) over the next two yrs, the one major thing the general public thought of them - their integrity - has been destroyed. The media rubbishing (much of it unfair) of the last two years has now been confirmed in the public's eyes.
Neo-liberal economics is the +antithesis+ of sustainability & the Greens have just signed up to more of it.
At the very least, the party could have had a proper debate about it.
As you know, I spoke in favour of going in with FF two years ago - I have no problem with 'pragmatism'. But the present circumstances are so radically changed now, that no one would consider the party 'untrustworthy' or 'turncoats' & certainly not the electorate.
Sometimes, Government, to it's credit & really what it perhaps should aspire to be, is about far more than pragmatism.
The UK Labour Government proved that in 1945 & we probably have them to thank here too for health services, welfare benefits & education & their example set amidst a sea of media & 'establishment' opposition.
I'll leave you with Rockefeller's qote:
"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws.."
Hi Declan and fellow members. It's great to see some good debate taking place here, esp for members who (like me) cannot make meetings at present. I would have to agree that the convention was not run in a manner which gave members confidence that their voices were being sufficiently taken into account. The manner in which the 'group of five' were ridden roughshod over definitely left a sour taste in the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that the meeting should have lasted at least two days, if not longer. Furthermore, is there any reason why we could not have received the PFG doc on Saturday by email and spent two weeks debating it online (not trying to amend, but just to read and understand and ask for explanations). Then we could have had a one-day meeting, or, better still, have voted online or by postal ballot, to decide the outcome. What was all the rush about?
On the issue of NAMA, the party should have waited until the final Bill had been drafted and gone through all committee stages and then circulated it to each member for reading and subsequent voting. If we do intend to complain to the National Executive as to the manner in which the convention was held, I would suggest that we request them to have a major study into party communications and decision-making processes and devise new methods of communication and a new method of voting and coming to decisions (Online? Post? some combination...)
As to the substantive issues of the PFG and NAMA, I am very happy with what has been achieved in the PFG, and, having arrived feeling negative about NAMA, ended up voting for. I was convinced by the arguments of those who said that NAMA was extremely likely to come into being anyway and our rejection of it would simply have paved the way for a Fine Gael/Labour government to pursue their own version of NAMA. Therefore, should we have NAMA with our oversight, plus the PFG, or NAMA by Fine Gael and Labour and lose the gains for the environment achieved in the PFG.
For those who say we achieved little in the PFG I would just summarise the items which, alone, for me justify the whole 'deal':
1. Carbon Tax. 2.Site Valuation Tax. 3.Water metering and charging. 4.Lots of good stuff on R&D, Sustainable Energy businesses, ICT, fibre optics, broadband etc. 5. More work on electricity grid and renewable energy onshore and offshore, interconnectors etc. 6. Ireland fully GM free. 7. Very good stuff on National Food Security Policy, Farm gate shops, more support for organics. 8. Micro production and direct selling of food to be encouraged and not impeded (as at present). 9. Healthy school meals policy. 10. Increase forestry to 10,000 ha per annum. 11. 30% broadleaves in annual planting. 12. All-Ireland Walkways Development Plan. 13. No further co-location projects in Hospitals. 14. Good stuff on Equality, Disability and Children. 15. Climate Change Bill (incl details of main elements to be included) 16. Licensing and inspection of septic tanks and waste water facilities. 17. Cap on incineration capacity. 18. Five freedoms for animal welfare. 19. Replace badger culling with more effective and humane methods of control. 20. Phase out fur farming in 3 years. 21. End stag hunting. 22. Lots of good stuff on Public Transport - most importantly: Following completion of present motorway building in 2011, all monies to be allocated in future in ratio of 2:1 in favour of public transport. 23. Good stuff on Electoral reform, not least the banning of corporate donations.
I could go on, but sufficeth to say that I feel that our children may thank us more in the future, for all this, than they may curse us for NAMA. Final point on NAMA: most commentators seem to accept that we do not need to return to the top of the boom madness to make NAMA work, but just advance property prices by 10% in the next ten years from the present drop of 45%. Best wishes to all
Vinnie Bourke
Pragmatism over principles? Hmm. Poor Quentin. I would have seen you as someone principled to the core, but also very much aware of how politics and representative democracy works. So for someone to describe your reasoned views as disturbing is amusing in one sense, but sinister in another way.
Once you get elected you have to take a decision one way or the other and negotiate with people of a different viewpoint. Those who take the "principled" stand without negotiation and sometimes compromise never move the process forward one milimetre. But they remain pure and sure that is all that counts, right?
If you live in a hut on the blasket islands and meditate for 8 hours a day then of course you can remain pure and untainted by corrupt ideas. If you live in the real world, it's a different story. Even Mother Theresa had to negotiate and do deals to help the poor for God's sake!
But as for principles, I personally was prepared to pull the plug on Friday over Education and political reform. My election photograph was taken and my bottom line was outlined. Thankfully we got enough in my view to make the programme worth fighting for. That involved inevitable compromise and stuff I didn't like remaining.
Such is political life.
But as for principles... some nasty accusations went unresponded to in the last few weeks as regarding the motivations of our Green elected reps on NAMA.
I am sorry, but I see NAMA with Green amendments as crucial for the survival of our country. It is a moral imperative, whatever about who caused the problem. Others disagree of course seeing it as a monumental folly.
Whichever it ends up being, I find it insulting in the extreme that somehow you can hold a different view and be considered somehow one of the unwashed, while others bathe in their own sanctimonious purity for holding a viewpoint that is different.
Hey Declan,
Sorry to hear your disappointment with the Convention on Saturday.Every time we fail to reach a consensus within the Party it has to be seen as a failure, whatever the circumstances or causes. But as I said many times during the past month, this is an extremely complex and emotive topic, so getting consensus on how the vote on it was, in the end, too difficult. Just look at how the 5 groups couldn't agree on the motion, hence why the NEC struck out Motion B.
Just to address some of your points, as they have been raised by others in different forums.
There was nothing wrong with the Parliamentary Party stating that by voting against NAMA the Party would pull out of Government. Many members clearly felt empowered to vote for the PfG and against NAMA (roughly 17% of the members switched between the two ballots). That was the reality and Gormley was quite open about it.
Balloting was allowed early on NAMA so that people could leave early. I had members from different parts of the Country literally shouting at me that they couldn't vote on NAMA even earlier. This happens at EVERY Convention - the debate over when to start voting. The NEC decided to allow early balloting as there is a strong enough demand for it. Again, its an example of finding it too hard to reach a perfect consensus on an issue.
The complaint that not enough time was given to NAMA has been raised before. Please remember that we have had three Party seminars AND a Party conference on NAMA. It has been discussed at branch meetings and in the national, local and international media. We've had debate on it enough.
As for the motions, I've alluded to part of the problem above - that the five DCGs didn't agree until last minute on the motions. Whatever wording would have occured, the 2/3 burden would always have rested on those proposing the motion - the 5 DCGs, there is no way the NEC would have changed that. If you read the R & P you'll see the NEC acted entirely within its remit.
The complaint by you about the Party not being able to vote on seeking changes while staying in Government confuses me slightly. By voting down the NAMA motion that is exactly where we are - staying in Government and seeking further changes that way. The concerns raised in Athlone remain valid concerns and the PP have not given up on getting further amendments.
The point about discussing NAMA first it a political point but has not practical implications. The NEC disagreed with this suggestion and so did the membership when the adopted the agenda.
We have this dangerous habit forming in the Party where certain members can no longer accept differences of opinion. The NEC, and the membership, took a different view on how to organise Saturday's event. Both acted entirely within their rights in doing so. Yet however some reject this, and some (such as yourself) suggest that there is manipulation, or abuse of the Party constitution. There is not, there is a basic difference of opinion on this issue.
If we have lost the ability to agree to disagree then I fear that indeed it is the end of the Party.
Andrew Murphy
National Coordinator
Considering the above comment, I see we're back to the old puzzler,"Are you still beating your wife?" I am one of those who wished to stay in government, but not supporting NAMA. That option was not offered, which by leaving reference to NAMA in the PFG killed such a possibility. When Gormley says, "No NAMA, No government!" he defeats the democratic process. If, before the fact, he poses such a condition, then debate, convention, is held to ransom--a bitter disappointment for me. Me thinks that those who move to support this manipulation protest too much.
William DeTuncq
This is the problem of trying to micro-legislate by popular ballot. It doesn't work!
You cannot move amendments by having 700 people debate intricies of legislation.
An effort was made to have five constituency groups work on a wording weeks ago and it was not possible within the allotted time. So imagine what it was like if piecemeal wordings were tabled from the floor.
The chair decided that sufficient opportunity had been given to come with an acceptable alternative wording. The membership agreed with this view and a massive show of hands supported proceeding.
If the show of hands had gone the other way, nothing could have stopped it.
It is also clear that in a financial resolution like NAMA, voting against it or against a particular version of it that the PP was happy with but others were unhappy with would have meant that the Government falls automatically.
That is why Government TDs MUST attend the budget. It is akin to a no confidence vote. So John Gormley is entirely correct to say that if the PP was forced to micro-vote for NAMA to the Nth degree, it would probably mean voting against at some stage, meaning going out of Government.
The membership were given that option openly and honestly. And the decided by a two-thirds majority that they did not support NAMA being a tool to pool out of Government.
@William
The 5 groups wanted a binding vote on the PP. I binding vote on the PP to vote against a financial resolution will ALWAYS result in the Government falling, no matter when that vote takes place.
There was, as has been stated, repeated debate on NAMA. The membership were given ample time to express their concerns and views on NAMA, and the PP tried to accommodate these concerns.
A fine rear-guard action by the party apparatchiks.
My record of Saturday's meeting is very close to your own, Declan, as I recorded on the GAN website: Voting for Christmas: 68.7% of turkeys said 'No'.
You might find a book by Cooke and Kothari of interest:
Participation: the new tyranny?
I think 'capture' is the term used in this situation.
I can accept being out-politicked but I'd rather it was called as I saw it and not dressed up as 'pragmatism'.
/r
Declan,
I agree entirely with your post. The adoption of the agenda at the outset of the convention was raised a few times by people. There was a proposed amendment to the agenda put from the floor. Rule 2 of Standing Orders for National Convention permits such amendments. Where there is a motion to adopt the agenda as is, and a proposed amendment to that motion, the amendment MUST ALWAYS be taken first. If the membership vote to accept the amendment, the amended motion is then put to a vote; if the amendment doesn't pass, the original motion is put to a vote. But, what happened at the convention was that the Chair put the UNAMENDED agenda to a vote, leaving the proposed amendment neutered. This was entirely "out of order" in the procedural and constitutional sense of the words.
I want to address some of Andrew Murphy's points.
He states: "The concerns raised in Athlone remain valid concerns and the PP have not given up on getting further amendments." Andrew, who are you speaking for here? It appears to be the Parliamentary Party! But, the NEC is supposed to represent ordinary members, not the PP. The PP are well capable of doing that themselves.
Andrew states that there was lack of agreement on Motion B: "Just look at how the 5 groups couldn't agree on the motion, hence why the NEC struck out Motion B." The initial draft of Motion B was formulated by me in a meeting between GAN and some of G5. It was discussed for four hours until a final version was agreed. The lodging of a strong simple motion “A” and a "weak" complex motion “B” was a careful and deliberate strategy. These were subsequently accepted and agreed by all of the G5, and submitted the NEC. It was the NEC who could not agree it -- not G5.
I have read the R&P (in particular, Rule 16 in the R&P for National Convention), and it's clear me that the NEC breached them. Nowhere in any of the R&P or the Constitution does it say that the NEC has the right to reject motions. That is something which MUST be left to members in a ballot; It may be outside the control of the NEC and the PP, and that may worry them, but that's democracy!
The issue of opening the ballot boxes early has been mentioned. Some years ago, our group submitted a motion to Annual Convention to introduce postal ballots at conventions; the intention was to facilitate disabled members who might have difficulty travelling. Party Officials argued strongly against it, stating that people needed to be present at conventions to hear ALL of the debate. Yet, when it suits them, the ballot boxes can be opened early before the debate is finished. If sufficient notice is given that ballot boxes would NOT be opened until debates were finished, then I believe that would be appropriate in the interests of fairness, transparency and thorough debate. If it costs members a little more in transport/overnights, so be it. Whoever said democracy was supposed to be cheap?
I am aghast at Andrew's comment on NAMA: " We've had debate on it enough." It's not up to the NEC to decide that -- the Party's Constitution is very clear: If FIVE Dail Constituency Groups request a Special Convention on a particular topic, then the NEC MUST hold one. The NEC DO NOT have discretion here, regardless of how much debate they believe has taken place. The perogative of the Constituency Groups trumps that – as stated plainly in the Party's Constitution. The only mistake that the G5 made, in my view, was that they did not specify a date and a time for the Convention in their motion calling for one, which they are actually entitled to do under the Party's Constitution.
The issues raised are not in the slightest to do with differences of opinion, as suggested by Andrew Murphy. It is to do with an NEC which is ill-informed about the Party's own R&P and Constitution, and which has adopted a biased position to achieve particular ends. I for one have absolutely no confidence in them.
Regards,
Kevin.
Paul you say supporting the NAMA legislation was a moral Imperative. In stating the case for a moral imperative one must first come up with a precise statement of the principles on which your moral judgement are based. The PP have not reached out to its members, nor the Government to the public, to explain clearly why there is an ethical obligation for the state to bail out Anglo Irish Bank. Moral philosophy addresses the question, what ought i do? and a answer to that requires much more than delivering a threat to the green party members that not supporting the legislation would have resulted in the government falling. The inhabitants of Dail Eireann have failed miserable to communicate to the public why Anglo Irish Bank is of systematic importance to the state. You may claim it is an economic imperative but a moral imperative it is not!
Post a Comment