New Program for Government

Karl: you missed “the promise of 120,000 new jobs in the green and smart tech economies” according to the I.T.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1010/1224256346911.html

What is a “Green Job”. Kevin D and I try to teach several hundred unergraduates the rudiments of optimal use of scarce resources. Sounds just like the kind of war on waste that any sandal-wearing Green should appreciate.

The tricky bit is when you try to tell them that free tuition at University might not be the be either particularly efficient or equitable.

If University jobs are not all immediately re-classified as Smart Economy Green Jobs, are we wasting our time?

Mary White was just on the Radio 1, sounding positively giddy with the whole wielding-of-power thing.

Stag-hunting is gone, says she. Immediately. Oh yeah, it’ll take some messy legislation, but then it’ll be gone. Really.

And fur farming to be phased out over 3 years.

All in return for NAMA. Does anyone care to calculate the price per mink?

@Joe

Yeah I just heard Mary White on the radio too. My god, it’s chilling stuff. The approach the Greens have taken to negotiating with FF has not changed one iota – they are being cow-whipped again into a corner and nothing will change.

The Greens need to realise that FF cannot bring real reform to the country because they have not got the confidence of the people. The govt has lost its mandate and the only cure is a general election.

All they can do until then is damage.

@ Paul,

The line “Credit to Irish businesses will be guaranteed…” (page 3) is interesting in light of the Green support for the current NAMA draft in Cabinet: What part of Nama Bill guarantees credit to Irish businesses? Would that be the invisible article 13-and-a-half which restricts and dictates the lending practices of post-bailout participating institutions?

@ Graham

At this stage we need the IMF Cavalry to come and rescue us from this nonsense..

I don’t see any danger of disillusion. Anybody who believes that there’s anything to be expected by way of sound public policy from the Green document is already living in a secure fantasy land. This document is (to borrow a phrase from the UK) the longest suicide note in Irish political history.

I mean think about it. We have livelihoods being destroyed by the tens of thousands. People without pensions commuting from devalued houses in the fringes of Dublin which they bought because the corrupt planning system gave them no choice. And the Green solution? We need to incentivise you not to use your car. We want more PRSI from you. And, er, we want to ban stag hunting, save the ‘national’ culture etc..etc… The Greens will simply cease to exist as a parliamentary party after the next election.

Eoin, why don’t you suggest that NAMA opponents also want to slaughter furry animals while you’re at it?

@Eoin

I know that the temptation to think that things are under control is very strong – compelling even. But this Green document proves things aren’t under control. This blather about [insert here according to desired effect: 1. the European Commission; 2. the ECB; 3. Goldman Sachs; 4. Garret Fitzgerald (use only if you’re completely out to lunch)] has approved our ‘approach’ in the interests of ‘stability’ is just institution-to-institution diplomatic emollient. if we had taken a more radical approach as recommended by some of the 46 they’d be saying the same thing, believe me.

Even looking at this from the point of view of those who want to ‘wear the Green Jersey’ a.k.a. maintain in the current crisis the suspension of the need to think for themselves that was institutionalized by ‘Social Partnership’ and actually got us here in the first place – the failure to address the fiscal gap will increase the cost of borrowing and force us into a compound debt trap.

First program could not be delivered because it was premised on a growth rate of 5.5%.

Last thursday the Greens told us it was safe to tear up its last Program for Government and presumably deposit it in the Green bin.

Now are informed that the delivery of this program is subject to “Resources”. So, when will it be safe for me to tear this one up? They have premised the delivery of this Program on a verbal rather than a numerical measurement, not that it makes the slightest difference.

I have a suggestion for the Greens don’t bother to print this Program because it is another illusion. In that way, at least another pine tree will live another few years enabling it to recycle some more Co2. If only, it could recycle hot air also. Mr. Gormley, Mr. Ryan, NAMA is a machine for devouring resources!

@Eoin

‘Taking the p1ss out of the Greens and their priorities simply because you don’t agree with them or find them important doesn’t seem to be the best way of moving the debate on.’

What are you five years old or something?

Taking the piss out of the Greens – the Blanche DuBois wing of this vested-interest driven, union-dominated kleptocracy – will have to entertain us coz’ they’ve taken the money we had intended to use for fun.

Besides.

We don’t need a debate.

We need an election.

@Proposition Joe

They mean personal pension contributions (e.g. PRSAs). It makes it more expensive to rescue your decimated personal pension by increasing the contributions and could prove seriously expensive in the long run. It’s a pure fiscal grab and will hurt those private sector workers on middle incomes with poorly funded personal pensions the hardest. All the measures to grab tax have been aimed at this same group. Anyone in the private sector who votes Green or FF at the next election is certifiable…mind you I’m not impressed with the alternative parties…

Well already they impose the 1% income levy on employers’ contributions to PRSA – treating it as BIK. We’d need to wait until the relevant Finance Bill to see what they mean. But it’s widely expected in the pensions industry that the Revenue will try to reduce its exposure to the costs of tax relief for pension contributions. I can’t see how it can affect employer funded Defined Benefit schemes….but we don’t know..what they have in mind until we see the Bill.

OK I give up.

Well read the first paragraph of this….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanche_DuBois

it proves that Blance DuBois is nothing like the Green Party. I withdraw my comparison.

“We are the same people we were a year ago: enterprising, confident and compassionate. Neither our talent nor our determination has been dimmed by our current difficulties.”

And the two parties remain on Planet Bertie.

The word “transparency” doesn’t appear once in the document. So the same Victorian era secrecy will continue to protect insiders including the beneficiaries of €16 billion public procurement.

It’s clear that the Green politicians do not appreciate what remedies are required for a broken political system, beyond headline grabbing window dressing.

“This is an unparalleled programme of reform in all areas of Government activity – in politics, economics and across our society.”

This nonsense deserves absolute contempt.

The laundry list of aspirations which lacks a specific proposal to change a failed political system, is risible.

Outline new electoral systems for Seanad Éireann.”

Ken Whitaker headed a committee on the Constitution that reported in 1996 and recommended electoral reform; so we need a another delaying review 13 year later?

This is typical of the attitude to reform in Ireland.

An OECD report on the public service was commissioned in Jan 2007 and a taskforce is reviewing its propoals almost 3 years later.

If only aspirations and the preface of “”We will…” meant anything.

“We will strengthen our relationship with the global Irish diaspora to ensure those with a strong interest in Ireland can work together and contribute to our overall efforts at economic recovery.”

How impressive!

‘Make recommendations on the feasibility of extending the franchise for Presidential Elections to the Irish abroad.

Examine and make recommendations for changes to the electoral system for Dáil elections, including the number of deputies and their means of elections.”

So the voter franchise may be extended for presidential elections, for an office without power — how obvious is this window dressing?

Beyond all the blather, there is a simple truth; the Greens are pursuing their own individual salf-interest by propping up the builders’ party Fianna Fáil, which has brought ruination to tens of thousands of people.

Shame on the Green party and its Faustian bargain.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1017922.shtml

Eoin,
Good points.

As for the rest, I’m glad this is an economics discussion site, I’d hate to see it if it was politically motivated.

@jl
“the value of the owned collatoral is being progressively destroyed.”
Absolutely. And further measures that will have to be taken (removal of tax reliefs for residents and investors) will erode support for high prices aswell. NAMA is buying a bundle of assets that will continue to depreciate long after the ‘market’ has hit bottom…

Graham,

You’d know your own position better than I would, but that’s not as it seems to me. I believe, as a group, you have pushed yourselves into this sad, dark corner (30 billion valuation on 120 billion assets at peak, anyone) by losing objectivity on this a long time ago.

Thanks for the reply anyway.

@Eoin
“But hey, this aint my blog”.
Bondholder.com Eoin, that’s your natural home. The Green leadership insisted on having their deciding vote on Nama on the same weekend as voting on the PfG. Pfg vote first, PfG released on day of vote, 2/3 needed to vote down Nama, official motion requires Greens to vote against in Oireachtas, market value motion ruled out of order, hour and a quarter for party members to debate and decide on Nama (Athlone meeting just discussed the options)…
How could we possibly be cynical?
Nama has been a charicature of proper policy making.

@jl

Your post nails it. Their plans will screw up the economy even more and – that’s going to throw the NAMA assumptions out of whack. What’s really scary is that – even from their own point of view – assuming their point of view is political survival, or saving lesbian seals or some such (or for FF, survival of the vested interests) – this doesn’t actually work. ON THEIR OWN TERMS it’s going to fail. It’s like they’re opening a department store where they plan to overcharge all of the customers – only it’s in Hiroshima and it’s 5th August 1945…..

One member of the party is on radio saying that every euro invested in education brings 17 euro in return. This is the level of economic literacy we are dealing with. Education now a ponzi scheme.

I remember telling a third year class rep who had a poster with ‘no fees,tax the rich’ that he could easily have had ‘subsidise the rich. Tax the rich’. That is the illogicality of things now. Total contradictions on policy direction. Mad concepts of the returns to investments. Wooly stuff about things that just don’t matter.

So now to add to McCarthy, OECD public service and Commission on Taxation we get the strategic review of higher education in the bin too.

Protecting the mink – protecting their asses more like.

Getting back to economics it does make the budget all the more interesting.

No university fees – Can’t raise money there. That would have been a good stealth tax. Good news for the middle classes! My son started this year. Being selfish that’s one less year for fees. Wonder if we can hold out for another 6 (I have another one to get through the system), then I’m all in favour of university fees!

500 more teachers. That’s not going to help the public expenditure arithmetic.

No increase in taxes. But of course PRSI is not seen as a tax. Removing the ceiling will hit the higher income earners hard but if I remember rightly the US multinationals are always threatening armageddon if the government does this.

So where are the cuts to come? Health? Social welfare?
Perhaps we’ve decided we don’t need them at all and the hoped for world recovery will raise income enough. The only thing is that recovery is looking a bit fragile and here at home the news on the jobs front this week was decidedly bad (hopefully one off). Don’t forget sterling, it’s heading back to where it was a year ago just before Christmas.

Lisbon voted through, Greens on board, next Nama and finally the budget. Never a dull moment.

Well good luck to the Greens. They’ll need it.

For what its worth, in my fairly extensive discussions with Green Party members over the past few months, I never got the impression that more than a tiny minority of them understood even the very basics of how the NAMA project was going to work, i.e. the mechanics of what was being purchased by the government, who was issuing bonds, what the role of the ECB was and so on.

Lesson learned on my part.

@ Karl W

I feel we must give credit to the GAN people.

Their on-line campaign was pretty good.

They just left it too late.

I bet Ryan and Gormley both end up as FF candidates.

The only substantive “achievement” of the GP is the dropping of the return of fees. The GP TDs calculate that this will play well amongst their electorate in leavy midddle class suburbia. However the bill for this will be paid for by increased taxe on the middle classes -PRSI, Carbon and water & by undermining the remaining equity in thier homes. This is precisely the element of the elctorate that can figure this out. This is also probably the segment of the populace that can work out that NAMA is now circling the drain.

Mink are vicious little brutes. And if they’re released into the wild, as some nutters did a few years ago, they will wipe out pretty well all wildlife in the area. So if you’re going to save the environment, the only options are (a) an adopt-a-mink scheme, allowing Green Party members to keep mink in their baths and (b) gassing the beasts.

Of course, if you’re going to do that, it would be wasteful not to use the fur ….

“Among the many things it is planning to achieve is … developing Ireland as an international centre for cloud computing ….”

Shouldn’t that be cloud-cuckoo computing?

bjg

@Richard Tol
I think you hit the nail on the head, if the spending commitments in the document are taken at face value, it means either cuts in SW, cuts in public sector pay, cuts in the capital budget & further significant increases in taxation. Our only recreation will be mink hunting or posibly we will need the little critters for food and warmth. Last one out please turn off the lights please.

Where can I get my GP approved mink fur coat?

@Eamonn76

“The emphasis on Green jobs is now taking on a distasteful appearance.”

One hears on the grape vine that “environmental entrepreneur” is one of the more common occupations among the party faithful. No doubt all well placed to “bid” for a taste of that 500 mill.

Ethical pork anyone?

From the Program for government.

“The most eye-catching of the commitments is the decision to conduct a feasibility study into converting the GPO complex into a new Abbey Theatre by 2016, in time for the centenary commemoration of the Easter Rising”

The first play to be performed there should be “NAMA and The Tragedy of the Green’s”

Any suggestions!

@ Paul McDonnell

“What are you five years old or something?”

No Paul, but even a five year old could see that your ideas for letting the banks go t1ts up & bust would be among the more insane ideas suggested on this site. Remind me again why the Open Republic didn’t ever really get off the ground?

I’ve been reasonably civil in our previous discussions, but if you’re going make comments like the above i don’t see why i should remain so.

You’ve got to hand it to Cowen, as reluctant as I am to do so…..

but for someone who appears to have no real mandate and only some 23% (or so) of the country supporting him, he looks like he’s got Lisbon, has the Greens, will get NAMA over the line soon and then will stuff us all with the budget in December……………. and he will still be in power come the New Year.

Could something like this happen in any other democratic country?

I guess last night at the GP party was one hell of a lesson in hanging on to power whatever the cost.

@Eoin I don’t need to remind you why the Open Republic didn’t get off the ground because I didn’t tell you in the first place. But it’s a very, very good question. And since you ask it here’s why.

The Open Republic Institute was promoted on the basis that it would only accept funding from business or private individuals. It was designed on the model of the UK’s IEA or Adam Smith Institute or the USA’s Cato or AEI.

No business in Ireland was willing to support it because the Social Partnership system functions on the basis of Omerta when it comes to criticism of public public policy. No business leader (with the exception of Michael O’Leary) is willing to offend the government. This is because the social partnership system is deemed to comprise vested interests and ONLY vested interests and the common denominator of these vested interests is deemed to be a reasonable mean and therefore acceptable to all.

When I met with David Dilger of Greencorp he said – when I had finished my pitch – ‘Yes, Paul, but what’s in it for YOU?’ I’m never at a loss for words but I was then. I think if I’d said ‘David I want 50 grand a year and my own car’ he probably would have understood and immediately coughed up. The truth is that Ireland has no tradition of liberalism.

My view of the banks is broadly similar to many of the 46 and is driven, like the 46, ultimately by the fact that NAMA is a moral hazard engine. The 46 were not arguing for the banks to go ‘tits up’ as you put it but for an orderly failure that imposed losses on bondholders and shareholders rather than on taxpayers.

I was somewhat impolite about your pulling up your skirts and jumping on to a table about comments on the Greens because I thought it’s just another of the infinite variants on that Irish theme of closing down debate – Omerta. The truth is that the Irish don’t do transparency or accountability. You need to be living in a rather twee fantasy world if you think that ‘politeness’ about the green ‘principles’ is some kind of gentlemanly code of conduct without which we are all lost to barbarism. Such attention to conduct on your part requires an heroic blindness to some more obvious problems that will arise from the Green policy ideas.

Don’t take my word for it. Watch the results of the next election. They will be destroyed – utterly.

@ Karl Whelan

Is that supposed to be your professional opinion on the programme for government document? Really more of an insight into your own prejudices I would have thought.

As for “greens not understanding how NAMA works”, that is code for “didn’t agree with me on all of my blindingly brilliant insights”, right? As a green member (and an LSE graduate in economics with distinction), my opinion would be that Greens understand NAMA much better than any other non-expert party or grouping in society. Are you suggesting that Fine Gael or Labour understand it any better?

You seem to have enjoyed the spotlight over the last few weeks. I must say it is refreshing to see the academic economists finally playing a roll in public life. Pity it wasn’t before Fianna Fail/PD economically illiterate government destroyed the public finances and economy. (incidentally, are you on the record anywhere once over this 10 year period warning of the imminent disaster?) Where were the economic economists then?

I’ll engage with the topic on Richard’s thread where he has at least offered some sort of constructive analysis.

This site is fast becoming a parody of politics.ie

NAMA has become the Irish version of the US debate on abortion or gun control.

If the Greens had decided to vote down NAMA we’d be hearing how brave, wise and forthright their decison making was, and how we respected them all along. They are a great example of how the political system can work in an honest and transperent manner.

Now that they’ve decided, after months of listening to all the arguments, to go with NAMA and the new PfG, well it appears they’re all psychopaths, criminals (per Enda) and lunatics who are going to bankrupt the nation, and indeed they are proof positive that the political system in this country is broken. They want to protect the transgendered for God’s sake. Kill ’em all.

‘Now that they’ve decided, after months of listening to all the arguments, to go with NAMA and the new PfG, well it appears they’re all psychopaths, criminals (per Enda) and lunatics who are going to bankrupt the nation, and indeed they are proof positive that the political system in this country is broken.’

Eoin, the new PfG seems to prevent / reduce cuts in public spending and seems to wish to raise taxes further – ergo – it’s catastrophic nonsense.

The POLICY is bad. Not only will it not work. It will make things worse.

The fact that it’s been deliberated and decided upon by well-meaning middle-class types who ‘love’ the environment doesn’t make it any better. If they had decided to embrace fiscal restraint they would not have contradicted their green values.

@Eoin
No, we wouldnt. We would critique the POLICIES of parties, not the parties themselves except in so far as the structures lead to policies. I think.
I think Nobel Laureate Joe has the patent on “criminals”.
The issue of protecting ungenetically modified transgendered mink is to highlight the “issues” that the GP think are paramount RIGHT NOW.

@ Paul

you’re missing the point, and by quite some distance. This thread isn’t really about the PfG, its about NAMA. Everything is now about NAMA. It now dictates how we view the sanity and competency of everyone involved in public life. Per most of the posts on this site:

Anti NAMA: all your policies are sane, coherent, and level headed.

Pro-NAMA: cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.

Give credit and bravery awards to the Greens Against NAMA (GAN), sure the rest of them were probably out back smoking hemp…

At no stage do i remember there even being a discussion about what the Greens would or would not look to put in the new PfG prior to the last couple of days, but now everyone wants to tell anyone who’s listening how batsh1t crazy the whole party is. Thats the whole point of this thread, and its 95% based on NAMA and about 5% or less on the PfG.

@ Brian L

Joe’s got the copyright, but Enda has obviously licenced it.

“”As a result of the decision today by the Green Party, it is the Irish taxpayer who is going to be the victim of this “criminal” policy,” he said”

The whole point of this thread has been to discredit the Greens and the policies they have included in the PfG, not because of the policies themselves, but because they voted for NAMA. You said it yourself:

“I could have cared less what would be in the PfG”

At least your honest about it. Not so a lot of others on the thread.

@eoin
So NAMA isn’t a policy in bond-land then?
“The whole point of this thread has been to discredit the Greens and the policies they have included in the PfG, not because of the policies themselves, but because they voted for NAMA”.

As a self-appointed defender of the bond-holders in Irish banks you cannpt blame us tax-payers if we complain about being ripped off by you and the NAMA policies you support. My vested interest group is a tad larger than yours.

@Eoin Bond
you misread me – i care less about the PfG BECAUSE its irrelevant ; they would have gone for bbq mink if that would keep them in power. Dont misquote please.

@Eoin
What I said was , for those too lazy to back up ;
“I could have cared less what would be in the PfG – it was clear to me that they would do what was needed to stay in power. Thats what political parties do.”
IE the PfG had feckall to do with economics and all to do with politics.

@ Brian L

you’ve clarified what you were trying to say. But i didn’t misquote you.

Your cynicism, possibly completely correct, meant that you never really cared what was going to be in the pfg, right? But that doesn’t make the Greens all of a sudden a bunch of whack jobs, or this thread any less about NAMA.

@IP
Nae problem.

I just find the hypocrisy on this post amusing. For months everyone has tried to bring the Greens round to the anti-NAMA viewpoint, gone out of their way to inform and discuss with them, treated them as having a hugely important role in the medium term economic outlook for the country (i assume KW doesn’t give up his personal time to just any random group of people), and generally shown high levels of fairness and respect to them.

Now that they’ve voted for NAMA, well sure we knew all along that they were f***ing insane organic gardeners and transgendered-minkophiliacs who couldn’t even get through a junior cert economics module without scratching their heads. They’re a danger to the entire political process to be sure.

The new found honesty shown in the wake of the Green’s decision is just as worthy of the political process as the Green’s input into the PfG is.

(Note: i obviously exempt Paul MacD from this, his virtiolic contempt for the Greens has been reasonably obvious from a while back)

@ Karl

Fair enough (and apologies for personalising the debate). If you want serious discussion, however, you have a responsibility to lead by example.

@ Paul McDonnell

Have you read the PfG or just the Sunday Independent??? The PfG states that “the public finances would need to be corrected by €4 billion in each of the next three years (2010, 2011 and 2012).” With regard to the tax raises – these moves are implementation of Commission on Taxation recommendations, and in line with principle of keeping labour taxes to a minimum and providing more stable tax base in future.

@ JC. The PfG may state this but in so doing it’s paying lip service o existing policy. There’s no specific recommendation as to how the government will get the deficit under control. Tax raises are not in line with anything. All tax is, at the end of the day, income tax. Property tax will be paid out of my income as will any carbon levies. The country needs to lower spending. Repeating the platitudes in the PfG as if they amount to concrete policies doesn’t constitute a valid objection to my observations about the – er – disordered nature of Green ‘policy’. Here’s the guts of what they say and why their thinking is wrong.

1. Correction of the public finances
We will take into account reports and existing aspirations. We will use GDP as a frame of reference (not a good idea given the GDP / GNP gap and its reasons)

2. Restoring our damaged banking system.

NAMA will help get credit flowing again….- no it won’t. Period.

3. Regaining competitiveness
‘The future of the economy lies in exports’. …..No it doesn’t. It lies in improved productivity and better marketable skills..and fiscal restraint and lower taxes….

4. ‘Protecting jobs and investing in retraining those who have lost jobs
The number of people in employment has fallen sharply and we must take all possible and sensible measures to protect and support existing jobs.’

Drivel.

If anything the Sunday is too kind to this nonsense.

Look I don’t know what your problem is.

1. Left of center Green party produces anti-enterprise, big-government plan, stuffed with token ideas to ‘help’ the economy.

2. People who don’t confuse press release boilerplate with real analysis say it’s bullshit…

…and suddenly we’re into ‘you hypocrite..’….. ‘don’ be nasty to the poor old Greens’……

Really. It brings my inner Alex (Clockwork Orange). One just wants to take a baseball bat to this document.

@Barra
Im not mocking TG/TS people. I am wondering if, important as their rights are, its something that is more important than, say, ensuring that we have enough cash in the kitty to enforce said rights, or do we foother around for a while more. To denigrate the putting forward of something is not the same as denigrating the thing itself.

@BL, KW,

do not feed the troll. Eoin started as a person with a reasonable point of view that NAMA was a responsible soulution to the situation we were in becasue it provided for risk transfer, liquidity injection and capital provision to the banking system. As such it had the tacit support of the ECB/EU. It might work if it was combined with a fiscal strategy to put the Irish economy back on a growth path so underpinning value of the assets taken on. However, his writings have got more despairing as NAMA has evolved & he has resorted in time honoured FF fashion to playing the man and not the ball. Why is this the case-possibly because it is becoming increasingly obvious that the version of NAMA that is go down the slip way is bent out of shape in compairison with the original design
*we are overpaying for an even more toxic collection of assets
*public policy through taxing the collatoral and reducing the incomes of the property buying class will erode the value of the collatoral
*instead of true risk transfer, we have some cack handed subbies and levy at some indetermined time in the future-this will hurt the brains of anybody trying to figure out if the Irish banks are profitable
*We have no new regulatory framework
*we have no road map for recapping the banks.
In short we will end up with an undercapitalised banking system, dependent on ECB liquidity, with an unxceratin business model and no capacity to lend. The taxpayer will end up with a heap of overvalued dirt and a national debt that will strangle the private sector in this country for decades to come. I suspect that is why Eoin has to resort to the off the ball stuff.

@Paul MacDonnell
I think there are a couple of reasons to be nervous of GM in Ireland. Prevailing winds mean that anything planted in the west would leave pollen trails across the country. So the genie would be out of the bottle and would be pretty much impossible to put back in. Some of the GM developments have been designed to allow greater use of stronger pesticides and herbicides. Others are designed to allow crops to grow in marginal conditions. Neither of these things appear to be ‘required’ in Ireland.

There appears to be a market for GM free food across Europe. In addition, there appears to be a move against GM food for economic reasons. This is along the lines that cheap imports of food may be GM contaminated and so should be labelled. Therefore GM-free gives european farmers an advantage in provision of components to agri-business. Put simply, it is a protectionist measure.

Finally, I’d see it linked in with the desired increase in horticulture and particularly organic. As far as I know, you can’t be certified organic if there is a GM crop grown within a certain distance. Given the fragmented nature of Irish farms (something NAMA might sort out 🙂 ) the two are somewhat incompatible.

It is easier to say no now and yes later than vice-versa. I am reasonably sure that this will be the FF take on it! If I see a constitutional amendment, I will start to get worried, but until then it will be legislation that a simple majority can remove.

@Paul

Some indeed have been engineered to provide greater pest resistance (i.e. incorporating ‘natural’ pesticide genes from other crops). They were the subject of a big fuss a while ago where some chap claimed that they could kill rats (i.e. the ‘natural’ pesticide treated humans as pests!), but I believe he was debunked to some degree.

A greater danger of them is perceived to be the effects they have on beneficial wildlife (bees in particular).

A particularly beneficial development was, I believe, the crossing of vitamin A producing genes from daffodils with rice? Or some such. A Swiss chap developed it to cope with vitamin A deficiency in Asia/Africa.

But as far as I am aware, much of what is developed is done so that broad spectrum pesticides and herbicides can be used. Monsanto make no bones about it:
http://www.asgrowanddekalb.com/web/
“The Most EXCLUSIVE Genetics and INCLUSIVE Risk Reduction Seed Choice. DEKALB® brand Genuity™ SmartStax™ combines the newest exclusive DEKALB DKC genetics and the most all-inclusive trait technology ever – all in one seed bag.”
“Spectrum

* The absolute broadest spectrum of above and below ground insect protection
* Roundup Ready® 2 Technology and Liberty Link® herbicide tolerance for broad spectrum weed control”

Actually I should correct myself, it is, I think, more herbicide, but less insecticide (the insecticide being generated internally in the plant).

I don’t consider myself anti-scientific in any way. I’m happy for human/animal genetic experimentation to take place, for example, but the thought of random effects in wild insect and plant populations gives me the willies!

It is not triffids I’m worried about, it is pesticide resistant insects, herbicide resistant weeds. The economic costs of buying differently engineered seed each year and the specific treatment that has to be applied to it to kill off the superbugs and superweeds. The same sort of thing we have seen develop over the last seventy years of feckless antibiotic usage.