Greens vote for government - 87% of delegates in favour

Beelzebub

Seanies32 wrote:

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

There is no way in hell that they didn't know about this before they sold their asses.

Diogenes

Diogenes wrote:

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?

I'll have misread it too if that happens.
A return to a 1980's style depression is very very unlikely.
A slow down wouldn't be too much of a worry as it's a slow down in growth and growth is still growth ie a moving foward albeit at a slower pace from the current position.

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.

Not as easy to compare the two.Labour were and are pretty much ordinary.
The greens are more of a change and do party-so it's conceivable that they could have a good record in the areas that they secured in their government programme.
I'll be disappointed for instance if Eamon Ryan sits on his áss for 5 yrs in his new portfolio.There will be a lot of happy people on boards for instance if he pushes broadband here up to continental standards and gives comreg teeth and forces them to use them.
He's also got a good area to play in as regards energy from a green point of view.
I know theres been a lot of spin (especially from FG) as regards how much of the FF manifesto ended up in the GP/FF programme.

But look at it this way-a lot of that stuff in the FF manifesto wasnt going to end up in a programme for government with any other party.Other parties wouldnt have pushed it.It would have ended up on the cutting room floor like a lot of party manifesto's usually do in a compromise coalition.
FF hadn't gone suddenly green in this election-All that stuff was in there aspirationally to head off a supposed green tide.It was there to haggle people at the doorsteps to not vote green.

redspider

Voipjunkie wrote:

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.

Well, Labour have two choices at each election, decide that they want to grow and be a strong 'left' part of a government, or else decide to remain out of government. The 1992 'Spring Tide' was a choice for the latter, it got overwhelming support (for Labour), 33 seats, and was a big dent in the FF/FG cohort. However, they blew it all by courting with both sides, instead of sticking with principles. Principles and core beliefs are important, perhaps not to all people, clearly some people reward those that are 'cute hoors' and on the make, but there are still many many people that reward people that stick to their good principles. Staying on the sideline over a petty point of principle is of course pointless. But if you had several core beliefs and positions, suchas the Green's have (had?), then the choice to go in is a difficult one and could blow up in their faces. Could - there is qa chance that they will play it well and to their advantage, but if they do have the watchdog role, I only think they will do so if they bite the bullet on a particular issue, point of principle and walk before 2012. Not walk next week, but at some stage, and not for the sake of walking either.

Labour, ever since its formation has been sidelined and squeezed out by the 'civil war'-based FF&FG majority. Most countries in Europe have had a pure left-based government in the last century. Perhaps Ireland is unique in that it never had. So, you could consider us behind the curve in our political maturity. But the Labour party should look at their growth as a long term battle and objective, and build it up piece by piece.

One thing that all the smaller parties need including Labour is electoral reform.
A 3-seater constitiuency is not as representative as a 5-seater, and 10-seaters if adopte would be more representative, so the current system favours the bigger parties. But getting FF and FG to change the status quo is like trying to get turkeys to vote for Xmas. But that is what is needed to help the likes of Labour grow, and indeed GP, SF or others that come to the fore. Is it time for a new political movement in Ireland?

I agree that there is a core vote for FF which sort of reminds me of support that is akin to supporting your local GAA team. It is not policy based support but the politics is seen like a sport. The celebrations are there to match as well with screams of joy, jumping in the air, etc. But with each election there are about 20% of votes which are on the move, according to some estimates, so change over time is possible, slowly in FF's case, as demographics eventuially bring in change. Lets not forget that the equivalent of FG had the majority back in 1922 but this was changed in about 20 years. Things can change.

I did not notice though that Pat Rabitte yesterday in his speech to the Dail did remark that FF would be in control for the forseeable future, which sounded a bit defeatist.

There is nothing about 5 years in opposition that is doomed and this government may not be that stable. The Greens could walk on an issue or two or three when they build up. Lowry could turn. Even McGrath (with egging on from other Independents) could reduce the FF/PD support and it could fall. Its early days ....

Redspider

redspider

Some of you may have caught this yesterday ....

When in the Dail chamber, Enda Kenny was making a speech and mentioned about how the Green's had gone in with FF, etc, and semi-lambasting them for doing so. Trevor Sargent responded quite vigorously, even with anger, but what he said and hinted at was interesting. He basically said that if Enda had the nerve to do a deal with SF, that the Green's would have joined them to form an FG/Labour/GP/SF/Independents coalition. So, the Green's would have been 'happy' to work in Government with SF, and there is no reason policy-wise why they shouldnt.

The numbers of this coalition would have been:
FG + Lab + GP + SF + 3x Ind's =
51 + 20 + 6 + 4 + 3 = 84

and a majority, a slim one, but a majority nonetheless.

So, clearly the Greens discussed this with FG after the election evaluation but FG stuck to their guns and refused to entertain it and didnt even speak with SF. That left the Green's with no option but to pursue a 'deal with the devil', a 'dance' that they have now started and what remains to be seen how it will work out, and how they can maintain their credibility. And left SF angry with all and sundry for not even being considered for a discussion. I still cant fathom that if Ian Paisly cant discuss with SF, why are FG and FF so against doing so!

I just thought that Sargents remark was a revealing one .....

redspider

Diogenes

Tristrame wrote:

I'll have misread it too if that happens.
A return to a 1980's style depression is very very unlikely.
A slow down wouldn't be too much of a worry as it's a slow down in growth and growth is still growth ie a moving foward albeit at a slower pace from the current position.

A total collapse and recession is unlikely, but the bursting of the property bubble is coming, and with that will see an awful lot of bitter people with negative equity, when the next election comes.

Not as easy to compare the two.Labour were and are pretty much ordinary.
The greens are more of a change and do party-so it's conceivable that they could have a good record in the areas that they secured in their government programme.

I dunno, now I'll admit that it's been a few years since I read Fergus Finlay's account of the that government in his, biased, but very warts and all, book, Snakes and Ladders.

An awful lot of the seeds of the celtic tiger were sown by that government, and policy was driven by the labour TDs.

I'll be disappointed for instance if Eamon Ryan sits on his áss for 5 yrs in his new portfolio.There will be a lot of happy people on boards for instance if he pushes broadband here up to continental standards and gives comreg teeth and forces them to use them.
He's also got a good area to play in as regards energy from a green point of view.
I know theres been a lot of spin (especially from FG) as regards how much of the FF manifesto ended up in the GP/FF programme.

But look at it this way-a lot of that stuff in the FF manifesto wasnt going to end up in a programme for government with any other party.Other parties wouldnt have pushed it.It would have ended up on the cutting room floor like a lot of party manifesto's usually do in a compromise coalition.
FF hadn't gone suddenly green in this election-All that stuff was in there aspirationally to head off a supposed green tide.It was there to haggle people at the doorsteps to not vote green.

I think thats a glass is half full approach. I think the reason that the PDs and FF worked so well together (I'm using a very loose definition of the term "worked well together" as they for the Irish people a terrible government, but an effective political entity) is that they generally saw eye to eye with each other on most things.

Its my opinion that the Greens are going into this, already with the image that they are the junior partner, they don't even have the power to bring the government down if they leave. Thats not an effective position to be in to enact changes. The Green's policies are policies that are viewed with either indifference, or lip service by Fianna Fail, when, as you said, they're trying to snare the green vote.

I really think any serious changes that the greens are going to try and make will often be viewed with apathy, and possibile hostility by Fianna Fail.

I think the Greens are facing an uphill struggle, and at the end of it, what little they achieve won't be greeted with applause by the Irish Public.

luckat

Thread-creeping slightly, I suspect that the 'henge' in Tara is a royal house. Now, as a republican (in the non-bomber sense), I wouldn't have any great meas on royals and their doings, but historically, it seems a shocking pity to buldoze a road through this area, so central to Ireland's identity.

Here's a description of Maeve's gaff in Connacht; I assume that this is the standard Celtic Tiger desirable home of 300BC, and equivalent to the kind of pad the kings in Tara would have had:

(From Cuchulain of Muirthemne, translated by Alexandra Gregory)
This now was the appearance of Cruachan, the Royal house of Ailell and of Maeve, that some called Cruachan of the poets; there were seven divisions in the house, with couches in them, from the hearth to the wall; a front of bronze to every division, and of red yew with carvings on it; and there were seven strips of bronze from the foundation to the roof of the house. The house was made of oak, and the roof was covered with oak shingles; sixteen windows with glass there were, and shutters of bronze on them, and a bar of bronze across every shutter. There was a raised place in the middle of the house for Ailell and Maeve, with silver fronts and strips of bronze around it, and four bronze pillars on it, and a silver rod beside it, the way Ailell and Maeve could strike the middle beam and check their people.

And outside the royal house was the dun, with the walls about it that were built by Brocc, son of Blar, and the great gate; and it is there the houses were for strangers to be lodged.

heh I remember reading snakes and ladders.

As for the greens-It's my opinion that if Ryan does a good job in his department and I expect he will,he may top the poll next time round.
He's not an abrasive character,he knows his stuff and seems very capable and he's been given a department where he can effect green thinking.

As for the property bubble,boom or whatever you want to call it...
theres no doubt about it that unless our population density goes like China that a market equilibrium will have to be reached.

Currently in my opinion,theres too much demand still and too much money available in the market place for anything too serious to happen.

If house prices fall they fall but what matters is that people are still able to pay their mortgage.
No one could possibly be buying a house at the prices they are today and be expecting that in the medium term their house value will always remain above the mortgage value.Sheer supply and demand will make it fluctuate.
We've just gone through an extraordinary growth period economy wise thats made it possible for an expectation in peoples minds that they can trade up and down at will.
Realism suggests that won't always be the case.

As for a back lash,I'll put it to you this way...I'd like to think that reasonable peoples decisions on house purchases should stand on their own two feet and not be dependent on expecting the impossible ie high single figure economic growth ad infinitum.
If people think that any government is immune from supply and demand issues in houses and either market oversupply (which commercial reality would make a temporary phenomenon anyway) or equilibrium isn't going to affect their house value vs mortgage value at some point-then they are deluding themselves.

I'd like to think also that any opposition could at least in theory get elected soley on the basis of what they have to offer rather than on scare mongering.
FG and labour just didn't get the scare message out hard enough this time or perhaps not enough of the electorate believed it.

Like I said in the other thread,I think Kenny did a creditable job getting back 20 of the 23 seats his party lost in 02 but spinning that as a sucess is a bit much especially when the so called mood for change should have been capitalised on enough to pass through the 83 seat barrier.
The mood in the country such as it was actually slightly increased FF's share on 02 despite regular disfavourable media coverage towards Ahern.

is_that_so

Tristrame wrote:

As for a back lash,I'll put it to you this way...I'd like to think that reasonable peoples decisions on house purchases should stand on their own two feet and not be dependent on expecting the impossible ie high single figure economic growth ad infinitum.
If people think that any government is immune from supply and demand issues in houses and either market oversupply (which commercial reality would make a temporary phenomenon anyway) or equilibrium isn't going to affect their house value vs mortgage value at some point-then they are deluding themselves.

I'd like to think also that any opposition could at least in theory get elected solely on the basis of what they have to offer rather than on scare mongering.
FG and labour just didn't get the scare message out hard enough this time or perhaps not enough of the electorate believed it.

Like I said in the other thread,I think Kenny did a creditable job getting back 20 of the 23 seats his party lost in 02 but spinning that as a sucess is a bit much especially when the so called mood for change should have been capitalised on enough to pass through the 83 seat barrier.
The mood in the country such as it was actually slightly increased FF's share on 02 despite regular disfavourable media coverage towards Ahern.

For many of the house buying electorate they have no memory of what it was like before the Celtic Tiger. Elections also tend to be won and lost in that last few weeks before an election when the electorate registers the election is coming. In that type of scenario there is more of a risk of an "emotional" decision.

I agree about Kenny , and he did as well as could have been expected. Unfortunately he was depending on a party who need to take a really good look at who they are and what they stand for, and find some new blood.

Governments get blamed for everything and the electorate is extraordinary fickle. Smaller parties tend to suffer more as they often offer a new perspective, that is not represented by the main two parties and can end up being severely punished when they are seen to disappoint. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect the Greens to be exposed to that risk next time out, however well they perform.

As for scaremongering well , that was not mutually exclusive. FF , with their effective "lack of experience" ploy also frightened voters. I would suggest it was not so much into voting for FF, as ensuring they did not vote for the inexperienced opposition.

As observers have pointed out, this has been a very odd election, more presidential in its approach. In the end it was more about Bertie or Enda, than anything of real substance.

gbh

is_that_so wrote:

In the end it was more about Bertie or Enda, than anything of real substance.

Exactly, thats what the media especially the Sindo reduced it to as they always reduce it to. And once its reduced to that, they favour Bertie cause he's their man. But people seem to think the Sindo Mickey Mouse hack journalists know politics better than the ordinary Joe Soap when in reality they are peddling the biased agenda of their bosses.