Greens vote for government - 87% of delegates in favour

ninebeanrows

Tristrame wrote:

But they are on record(at least last night) that they wont be taking the mercs,they'll have hybrids...Rofl
You'll never vote for them AGAIN...
Did you even have a vote this time?

Have you even read the document and what it says about climate change and carbon taxes?

These kind of posts just make me laugh because they're not in touch with the real world at all in my opinion

Well yes i have actually read what they are getting and i meant to say i will never vote for them in the future when i would actually have.

A reduction of 3% on average of CO2 emissions?? What a farce the government already had to reduce emissions by likely more than this amount to escape being fined millions. Everything else in the Environment agreement is utter nonsense, like drawing up reports etc.

No set objectives for Energy in the future some ridiculous agreement that we will have 1/3 of our energy renewable by 2020.. thats just utter crap, of course i wish it were true.

350million extra for education? And that's there big break.

Sorry i see absolutely nothing in the draft that is in anyway tangible and makes me go ahh yes they've done something. It's all itsy bitsy things that more than likely will be forgotten about.

Heinrich

I just wonder why we need a Green presence in the Dail when we see some of the FF green policies in their manifesto.

For instance:

In particular, we will:
Increase the use of alternative energies for generating power in order to ensure that
one third of electricity consumed in Ireland comes from renewable sources by 2020.
Create new opportunities for our farmers by moving agriculture to a new dual system of
food and power production.
Facilitate the establishment of a new bio-fuel industry in Ireland on the back of this new
agricultural production.
Improve the energy efficiency of new Irish homes by up to 40%.

That is taken from page 56 of the Fianna Fail Manifesto 2007.

Will the Green Presence be toned down once the dust has settled on the new Dail? Finian's Rainbow will be an interesting spectacle, hopefully not too expensive. But then we won't really know the cost as the deals are confidential, Mr Healey-Rae's certainly is.

miju

Seanies32 wrote:

So if they got their way on Shannon Airport but didn't get Tara how would you feel?

thats a completely irrelevant question given that they got nothing on Tara and practically nothing on Shannon as well apart from commitments it wont happen again :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Weathercheck

Weathercheck wrote:

Well yes i have actually read what they are getting and i meant to say i will never vote for them in the future when i would actually have.

A reduction of 3% on average of CO2 emissions?? What a farce the government already had to reduce emissions by likely more than this amount to escape being fined millions. Everything else in the Environment agreement is utter nonsense, like drawing up reports etc.

No set objectives for Energy in the future some ridiculous agreement that we will have 1/3 of our energy renewable by 2020.. thats just utter crap, of course i wish it were true.

350million extra for education? And that's there big break.

Sorry i see absolutely nothing in the draft that is in anyway tangible and makes me go ahh yes they've done something. It's all itsy bitsy things that more than likely will be forgotten about.

You've read all 90 pages and you in the middle of the leaving cert ? I doubt that. What you've posted are the soundbytes available on the web.
You forgot about the carbon tax by the way

Heinrich wrote:

I just wonder why we need a Green presence in the Dail when we see some of the FF green policies in their manifesto.

To be honest thats their manifesto.
Guff with which they could talk if it was ever brought up at the door where there was a strong green candidate running.
Guff that they put in there when they thought there was going to be a green "tide".
It would have been the part of their manifesto that was least used in a programme for government if they had no green alliance and had a bigger pd party or joined with labour.

At least with the greens in there and if they do their job right in a few green departments the outcome could be interesting.

Heinrich

Tristrame wrote:

At least with the greens in there and if they do their job right in a few green departments the outcome could be interesting.

It will depend on what departments they get. If we take the last budget as an example of what can happen; Cowen says that stamp duty will not be interfered with as it will damage the housing market. The issue is discussed in the Dail. Election time come along and - hey presto - we are told that great things are in store for the first time buyers. U turn but who cares. That's dosh in someone's pocket so happy ending.

Then we have MacDowell. He was not my favourite person but he did enormous work. I found it strange that he accepted Bertie's many conflicting excuses re the cash loans/gifts/digouts. Not discussing the Bertie part but highlighting the fact that a Senior Council, ex AG would be fobbed off as easily. And where is he now. What will be done with his work? The unfinished stuff and repercussions from his 140+ amandments bill?

Heinrich,
I have a giant decoder installed in my brain at this stage that translates what politicians of every party come out with at election time.
It applies to all parties including independents.
Prior to election they have their sun moon and stars wish list.
After the election they have whats left.
If in government that equates roughly to what the civil service tell them is possible.
Some of course get lazy-those are the ones ideally you should throw out.
If not elected they still have their sun moon and stars list to bash whoever is in power.
Thats the luxury of opposition.

To be frank with you I'd have been sceptical of the Greens but I have to admire this brave step given their fan base.If it bears fruit, it will have been a very very good practical and genuine move by them to get their type of policies driven as opposed to being a glorified minority focus group.
Reserved kudos.
Verdict in 2012.

Villain

Well I voted for Mary White because I wanted a local TD and now it looks like we will have a local Junior Minister so thats good, all politics is local.

To look at the bigger picture? well the greens imo are right to give it a go in Government and try to implement some of their policies but and this is very important for the long term future of the party, they have to make FF accountable unlike the PD's who bent every which way Bertie told them to and well we all know how that has ended. If issues arise they have to stand tough and ask for the same type of action as if they were in opposition anything less and they will not only have lost all credability but they will suffer the same faith as the PD's.

This may well turn out to be a stable government in that Bertie has brought along enough support in PD's and indo's to support him should the Greens pull the plug and that is exactly what they should do if the need arises not do a McDowell on it and ask questions and then even though no real answers come accept the answers and continue, if or when the tribunal shows that Bertie lied to the public before this election the Greens either have to get his resignation or walk imo.

Keano

Liam Byrne wrote:

I would assume that there has been no full research into this, so there are no figures, but then there were no figures available when the Green candidates promised that they would stop it and/or would not go into Government unless it was stopped.

Anyway, what price do you put on human life ?

I emailed the Green Party website today to express my disgust.

As for Trevor Sargent, yes he stood by the "words" that he'd uttered, saying that he wouldn't lead the Greens into Government with FF, but I don't think he's stood by the spirit or meaning of those words; resigning as leader while still supporting FF is yet another cop-out.

I will not be voting Greens next time out.

Human life should not be lost but nor should jobs! I gave greens my number 2 as there candidate proposed good things for the airport but he didnt get elected. Partly to the fact that he was Green and Greens wanted flights stopped and a lot of people in that area work in the airport and knew well job losses were inevitable if it were a Green government. Which it is now, but the flights continue. However, secret flights need to be stopped

is_that_so

I am divided on this, seeing as it was certainly not an option I voted for. Pragmatic politics certainly won out and it is better to be in power. Whether they can genuinely make a difference is open to debate. I'd like to think so, but it all sounds bit like a revolutionary mantra "por la patria" (for the country), and as long as that is the belief anything is negotiable.


FF have covered themelves as well and probably done better out of it, and being a party led by a man with no real ideology didn't really have to give up any "core" values. They were being led to the Green side anyway with Kyoto.

By pulling in an "environmental" party FF can also more easily blame them for any new taxes.

Of greater concern to me is what Bertie will do. For all his talents he is not known for his sweeping changes and we could be left with a lot of the same incompetents that we have had to date.

One potential problem the Greens could face down the line is an electoral backlash. They have after all become a party of protest for some and "the deal the devil" will upset some of those. Anecdotally I am aware of a good number of "disgruntled" voters who will not vote for them again. It's one thing preaching to the choir and quite another convincing those with no real interest in politics.

redspider

Well, the Green Party members have overwhelming voted for this deal. But the affect it will have on their support base is still to be measured. It will remain to be seen whether 441-67 is the actual reflection of negativity across the voter base, about 13%. I would hazard a guess that the negativity to this FF-GP deal is a higher percentage than that, and also much higher among the many that gave transfers to the Green's from Labour and Fine Gael. That could result in a PD-like decimation (the colloquial usage of the phrase!) next time out. Or not, only time will tell.

What votes they get will also depend a lot on what the GP do when in government. If they are pliable and maleable, and just toe the FF line, then they could get punished badly. As it stands, the Green Party have, I believe whilst not checking the figures in detail, many TD's that just came in on the 'final counts', ie: 3rd, 4th or 5th seats. Like low hanging fruit, they could be the first to fall if a swing away form them would occur.

I thought Garland's lambasting of the agreement yesterday was significant. He thinks its too much to give up, and he is probably right. So, a 'new' or at least a changed Green Party will emerge at the far side of the 5 years (or less). The pattern across Europe has been that after Green parties get into power, they lose popularity as their eco policies become mainsteam. And then with a name like 'Green Party', it is difficult to re-invent yourself towards the electorate. That's why labels such as FF and FG have been so successful here in Ireland over the years because they are meaningless in policy terms and it means you can be right or left on each policy issue.

By the way, is the FF-GP agreement document on the web yet?
Also any news on the Ministeries?

What also needs to be mentioned is Trevor Sargent. Its true that he is living up to the letter of what he said in that he would not be leader in the case of an FF-GP coalition, but he is failing in terms of its meaning. If he was so anti-FF, as he claimed to be, and wanted to clean up politics and Bertie, then he should have put his leadership on the line and been against this deal, forcing the party to vote in a new leader. What has happened is a backtrack on that. And its not good seeing a party leader backtrack on a core principle(among other core principles) and weasel into a junior ministry position. Scruples and 'moral fortitude' have been thrown out the window.

The other thing which is striking is how can a party leader recommened an agreement with FF when it then means he has to resign from that leadership? Surely his doubts for going in with FF should be carried through to the party at large. If Sargent had proper scruples and stuck to his principles, he would have threatened to resignfrom the leadership before FF/GP talks even took place.

Overall, there seems to be a lot of pragmatism in the GP leadership. Perhaps they themselves see the writing on the wall long-term for the Green's. This recent election, in which they expected to gain several seats saw them barely hold their own, losing one and gaining one (the latter was pnly due to Labour mismanagment of candidates, they ran two in CW-KK whereas one would have done!). So, better to get in now and work with a devil and get something done than wait on the sidelines and hope. But it is a risky stategy and is likely to lead to a decimation the next time, although that is not certain and it is all to play for. Who know's, maybe they will get in a 'brand consultant' and re-label themselves to something more neutral.

By the way, does anyone have any ideas on who is going to be Tanaiste? Mary Harney again, or a rotating one? It cant be Sargent, would Lowry take it or be offered it, I doubt it.

redspider

Villain

Tanaiste could well be the taosieach in training i.e. Cowen or it could be Gormley but I doubt Harney.

seamus

I don't know. Given how mixed the rainbow is, it may make more sense to give Tanaiste to an Independent - so the PDs and Greens are on an equal footing. Lowry for Tanaiste?

I still can't believe that anyone thinks it's better to be out of Government and maintain your manifesto than in Government with some sacrifices.

The Greens will never get an overall majority. It's that simple. To make national changes, you need to be in Government. Without an overall majority, you have to concede some of your policies before you can be in Government.

redspider

> Tanaiste could well be the taosieach in training i.e. Cowen or it could be Gormley

Yes, it could be Cowen, and that would suit FF down to the ground when they plan the transition from Bertie to Spliffo. If it was the Green's though, surely they would have mentioned it/hinted at it ?!?

seamus wrote:

I still can't believe that anyone thinks it's better to be out of Government and maintain your manifesto than in Government with some sacrifices.

The Greens will never get an overall majority. It's that simple. To make national changes, you need to be in Government. Without an overall majority, you have to concede some of your policies before you can be in Government.

Its all a matter of timing and the amount of sacrifices. The GP have made a lot of sacrifices. No small party that is growing expects to wait until they have an overall majority, but clearly it was a viable option this time for the Greens to go into opposition again and wait until they were stronger and give up less.

By joining the FF-PD-Ind government, they are giving FF strength, a government they were clearly vehemently against, but also they are going in in such a way that many of their core principles are being brushed under the carpet and ignored. That is a smack in the mouth for their mandate. It will be interesting to see any polls that are done (we could even hold one on boards.ie) to measure the percentage of voters that gave a no.1 to GP or a transfer, and measure how they would vote differently now.

It could mean long-term in fact that fewer of their policies will get enacted as they could be decimated the next time. Its a bit like grabbing a nettle to use an analogy. Judging when to do so is hard and many will feel that the party have sold out too much. But its not a case of wait and see for 5 years, as there is also the performance of what they do in the Dail during those 5 years, and their new FF-watchdog role. It will be iether the making or breaking of them, and with just 6 seats, some barely in, its a risky strategy.

The PD's had a similar choice back in 1987 (wasn't it?) when going in with FF for the first time. But they were of closer stock and policy-wise much closer, as it was more personality differences and the only had the anti-corruption/anti-CJH 'core principle'. They had little to lose and went in with 14 seats I think it was. GP's on the other hand have a lot more to give up policy-wise and therefore a lot more to lose it would seem.

redspider

bk

As for the question of "will the greens get wiped out at the next election for going into government with FF?" I see two scenarios, the one already suggested by multiple voters that they will, but I also believe that there is another more interesting scenario that hasn't been raised yet.

While many people care about the environment, I believe many people where afraid to vote for the greens as they were seen by many to be too radical and immature and wouldn't do well in government.

Now I've no doubt that the greens will lose some of their core radical members, but this isn't a bad thing, if the greens can prove to be mature and stable in government and actually get some things done. Then many of the people who in this election would have been afraid to vote for them, could well vote for them at the next election as they will have proven themselves.

I could see the greens easily taking many of the socially conscious middle class voters who typically vote Labour, as now the Greens can say that the have recent government experience, unlike Labour.

Also while the greens will lose transfers from FG/Labour, they could very well gain many transfers from FF transfer monster machine, if they are put forward as part of the next government.

Basically it will all come down to how they perform over the next 5 years.

luckat

From what I've heard of the agreement, most of Fianna Fail's concessions are 'commitment to make a commitment at some time in the future'.

Not great.

The good thing is that the Greens will be at the Cabinet table, becoming familiars and friends of those now there, and there will be an inevitable infection with Green ideas. Just hope it doesn't go the other way too.

Now it's time for ordinary people to start following the money, and asking who owns the land under and around the M3 and the companies doing the building.

Liam Byrne

Keano A Legend wrote:

Human life should not be lost but nor should jobs!

True, but when it's a choice between one or the other, the jobs should go. If I was working there, I'd resign before I'd handle their luggage or check their passports! The verbal reassurances aren't worth the paper they're not written on, since the troops aren't even abiding by the regulations that they're meant to wear civilian clothes while in the airport and not be seen in public wearing a uniform or combat gear; if they blatantly make a joke of that rule, God knows what other rules they are breaking!

And that's making an assumption that the jobs would be at risk; since no-one has bothered to even look into it - Bertie saying that it's not open for debate (great democratic approach there! :mad: ) that's a HUGE claim to make.

Either way, the jobs issue is not a factor; the issue is whether the Greens promised something and then went back on it before they even went into Government, and the answer is a resounding YES.

If it weren't such an issue, I could almost write a Harvey-Norman style Gift Grub sketch - "Complete Sell-Out Now On......everything must go in order to make room for new power tools! Principles, half-price! Ethics, half-price! In fact, everything we've sold you to date must clear to make way for our new partners!"

I now know why, if someone is sick, they say they're gone Green..... :mad:

Lemming

Heinrich wrote:

But then we won't really know the cost as the deals are confidential, Mr Healey-Rae's certainly is.

Why not just put a request under the freedom-of-information act. It's a government document between members of the elected body politic.

I don't actually think it is Lemming.
The documents shown as signed on the tv interviews were all on FF headed paper.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote:

And that's making an assumption that the jobs would be at risk; since no-one has bothered to even look into it - Bertie saying that it's not open for debate (great democratic approach there! :mad: ) that's a HUGE claim to make.

As I understand it the greens had a choice as regards Shannon.
Would there be any more lives lost in Iraq if they were out of government as opposed to if they were in government.
It would make no difference either way so on that basis it would have been remiss of them to use the losss of lives argument as a reason to rule out getting at least some green agenda at the cabinet table.

Incidently those troops are currently legality wise going through their on a UN mandate.
I suppose you could look at it this way,there are 2 green heads at the table now who will be involved in a discussion as to how to limit "our nations" exposure to war when ever it comes up a new.

With open skes and the end of the shannon stop over no T.D in Limerick or Clare from either FF,FG or labour are likely to be arguing for anything that would reduce revenue at Shannon.
Neither of those parties are going to be pushing for píssing off U.S business interests either.

Really and truly imho, Shannon is less and less of an issue given that theres a more and more anti war agenda politically in the U.S
Shrewd thinkers in the Greens and FF may even be privately hoping/expecting that in a little over a year a democrat president that is actually very Ireland friendly will neutralise this leftist debate by steering the U.S away from the Bush agenda.

redspider

bk wrote:

As for the question of "will the greens get wiped out at the next election for going into government with FF?" I see two scenarios, the one already suggested by multiple voters that they will, but I also believe that there is another more interesting scenario that hasn't been raised yet.

While many people care about the environment, I believe many people where afraid to vote for the greens as they were seen by many to be too radical and immature and wouldn't do well in government.

I could see the greens easily taking many of the socially conscious middle class voters who typically vote Labour, as now the Greens can say that the have recent government experience, unlike Labour.

Also while the greens will lose transfers from FG/Labour, they could very well gain many transfers from FF transfer monster machine, if they are put forward as part of the next government.

Basically it will all come down to how they perform over the next 5 years.

Of course it will be a case of losing voters and gaining others, but how much they lose and how much they gain is very open to how they perform over the next 5 years, given that they have gone in breaking some of their core principles. My prediction would be a bit if a backlash in 5 years time, but as we've seen with the PD's and other parties, personalities can gain a filip from being in power and can maintain voter support, despite abhorrent policies.

Its all very much to play for. But they are supporting the coalition as it stands and can always pull out should there be a shenanigan or two.

Also, Labour may gain votes from 'leftish' people who this time out voted Green.

Redspider

Diogenes

Tristrame wrote:

I don't actually think it is Lemming.
The documents shown as signed on the tv interviews were all on FF headed paper.

Exactly, how can it be a government document when its part of negotiations to form a government? It's a offer from a one political party to another.

I don't think this is a smart move by the Greens. I am one of the doom and gloomer who think the Irish Economy is about to take a battering, and the Greens will be tainted by being part of the government that was in power during a national recession. Never mind that the recessions roots will have been sown before the Greens took office. Irish voters have short memories.

Voipjunkie

Diogenes wrote:

Exactly, how can it be a government document when its part of negotiations to form a government? It's a offer from a one political party to another.

I don't think this is a smart move by the Greens. I am one of the doom and gloomer who think the Irish Economy is about to take a battering, and the Greens will be tainted by being part of the government that was in power during a national recession. Never mind that the recessions roots will have been sown before the Greens took office. Irish voters have short memories.

if it is a contract to spend public money then it is a public document no matter what header is on the paper

Besides now that the FF is safely in the CC seat Healey Rae will be throwing that deal around south kerry like confetti

Voipjunkie

redspider wrote:

Also, Labour may gain votes from 'leftish' people who this time out voted Green.

Not mine I prefer a party that puts its money where its mouth is rather than sitting on the sidelines as a point of principle.
What good can Labour do for the people who voted for them when they are sitting on the opposition benches while they look down their noses at FF it is time they grasped the reality that FG is no better than FF and like it or lump it 40+% of the people vote FF on a regular basis we might like it to be different but that is the way it is and Labour are doomed to another 5 years on the wrong sid eof the house.

Diogenes

Diogenes wrote:

Exactly, how can it be a government document when its part of negotiations to form a government? It's a offer from a one political party to another.

I was talking about the agreement with the independents actually and not the GP/FF programme for government.
The two things are entirely different.

The FF headed documents the indo's were showing presumably were a contract between the indo's and FF , signed by Ahern and the individual indo's and saying I'll give you XY and Z and you in turn fall under the government whip.

Presumably whats agreed wont be kept a secret as each Indo will want to claim credit for it.
Ergo though the cost of each item mightn't exactly be announced by the Indo-An FOI request will secure that information.

Jonny Arson

Day 1 of government for Greens - They enter and Dick Roche has already signed the order to bulldoze through Tara

My god the Greens better somehow get used to the next 4 years and 364 days of been shafted and being made look like fools by Fianna Fáil!

K-9

Jonny Arson wrote:

Day 1 of government for Greens - They enter and Dick Roche has already signed the order to bulldoze through Tara

My god the Greens better somehow get used to the next 4 years and 364 days of been shafted and being made look like fools by Fianna Fáil!

Or maybe the Greens wanted it done before they entered Govt. A cunning plan

Montallie

At the start of the thread Jimoslimos says things can only be changed from the inside. So where does that leave Gandhi and Nelson Mandela?

nesf

Montallie wrote:

At the start of the thread Jimoslimos says things can only be changed from the inside. So where does that leave Gandhi and Nelson Mandela?

As people who weren't in a fair democratic system where they could actually have gotten into coalition in the first place perhaps?

Diogenes

Voipjunkie wrote:

if it is a contract to spend public money then it is a public document no matter what header is on the paper

I would sincerely doubt that FF would draw up anything as formal as contract when talking to the Indos. It would be a statement of principle, or a promisary note, not a legally binding, contract.

Leaving aside the basic implausibility of it, its fecking FF, who would frankly, in the words of Joesph Kennedy to his son "Don't write anything down".

Tristrame wrote:

I was talking about the agreement with the independents actually and not the GP/FF programme for government.
The two things are entirely different.

Sorry re reading your post thats perfectly clear, should have seen that.

Any thoughts on the bulk of my post though, what if the greens have miss read the economic climate, and will preside over the economic collapse of Ireland?

Also what of the historical president with Labour? In 92 the party's best turn out in its existance was seen as a protest vote aganist FF, and the fact that they went into government with FF, was seen as betrayal by many voters. The drubbing they took next election was harsh and unfair, considering how effective that government was. Surely that should be a warning sign to the Greens.

Hector Gilbert

The Green Party shouldn't make its decisions specifically with an eye to getting votes. Good policies and vote-getting policies are not the same thing. If they are part of an effective government but get thumped in the next election they would have still done a good job.