Did you vote Green and will you again?

Jackie laughlin

I think we need to be quite clear about corruption because a FF tactic is to spread the muck about so that people become cynical about politics and see no point in voting for other than FF or no point in voting at all. Apart from Lowry, FG were actively and shamefully involved in the Dublin rezoning scandals. The PDs, Labour, the Greens, the Socialist Party, the Workers Party and SF are blameless in this matter. Opposition to rezoning/land speculation has been the traditional preserve of Labour. PDs and the Socialist party did not exist at the height of the Dublin rezoning scandals, while the Greens had yet to win a Council seat.

Of course I accept that land speculation is not the only root of political corruption.

Two points need to be emphasised. Firstly, land and building is by far the greatest source of political corruption in Ireland. Secondly, with a few exceptions corruption IS confined to FF.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Two points need to be emphasised. Firstly, land and building is by far the greatest source of political corruption in Ireland. Secondly, with a few exceptions corruption IS confined to FF.

The reason most corruption is confined to FF is not because FF are corrupt by nature but because they are the party of Government. In the last 40 years FF have been in power for about 30 of them.
The opportunity to be corrupt is far less on the opposition benches that in Government buildings.
When FG were in a position of power either nationally or locally they have proven to be prone to corruption as well.

gbh

Voipjunkie wrote:

The reason most corruption is confined to FF is not because FF are corrupt by nature but because they are the party of Government. In the last 40 years FF have been in power for about 30 of them.
The opportunity to be corrupt is far less on the opposition benches that in Government buildings.
When FG were in a position of power either nationally or locally they have proven to be prone to corruption as well.

Sounds to me you are excusing FF corruption. Corruption is either right or wrong. If you think of it another way though, FF have literally bought election victories with money provided by builders and developers. No wonder they keep getting back into power. If FG or Labour got the money FF got in donations from dodgy builders then they also would hardly ever be out of power. So its not that honest FF get into power and are corrupted. Its corrupt FF getting into power.

nesf

gbh wrote:

Sounds to me you are excusing FF corruption. Corruption is either right or wrong. If you think of it another way though, FF have literally bought election victories with money provided by builders and developers. No wonder they keep getting back into power. If FG or Labour got the money FF got in donations from dodgy builders then they also would hardly ever be out of power. So its not that honest FF get into power and are corrupted. Its corrupt FF getting into power.

Personally I read it as simply saying that power corrupts and that it's unsurprising that the party who has been in power the most is the most corrupt. That doesn't excuse anything or make it better, it just explains why we'd expect to see more in one party over the other.

ednwireland

back to the question i gave the greens a transfer and would again, trevor sargent was a breath of fresh air this morning he actually answered questions

Mick86

Voipjunkie wrote:

Gormley never ruled out anything he was never in a position to rule out anything
Perhaps you could provide us with some of these press releases so we can evaluate them ourselves

I provided a couple of links. This "discussion" has become tedious, boring and pretty pointless by the way. See you in the next cartoon.

Voipjunkie

Mick86 wrote:

I provided a couple of links. This "discussion" has become tedious, boring and pretty pointless by the way. See you in the next cartoon.

You provided links in which Gormley attacked FF and the PDs in an election campaign in which he was fighting for his seat against the Leader of the PDs

No where in either of those links does it say that the Greens would not share power with them.

Just to remind you that political parties attack each other during election campaigns for example McDowell compared Bertie to a certain Romanian dictator while his party was in government with FF and then went straight back into power with them.

Jackie laughlin

Power doesn't necessarily corrupt. That's a tired, outworn cliche dished out by cynics.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Power doesn't necessarily corrupt. That's a tired, outworn cliche dished out by cynics.

No Power doesn't necessarily corrupt the point is that it is hard to be corrupt when you have no power

Voipjunkie

gbh wrote:

Sounds to me you are excusing FF corruption. Corruption is either right or wrong. If you think of it another way though, FF have literally bought election victories with money provided by builders and developers. No wonder they keep getting back into power. If FG or Labour got the money FF got in donations from dodgy builders then they also would hardly ever be out of power. So its not that honest FF get into power and are corrupted. Its corrupt FF getting into power.

No wrong I am not excusing anything I am merely pointing out that there is more corruption in FF because they have more opportunity that does not excuse it it explains it.

Secondly the reason FF gets the donations is because they are in power and as such in a position to further the aims of those builders. Look at what happened to the massive debt that FG had when they entered government the last time miraculously it was all paid off because of generous donations when they came into power. Money follows power and influence in this country it follows FF more because they are in power most of the time

Jackie laughlin

Cynics never produce competent argument.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Cynics never produce competent argument.

I presume that is aimed at me if you see a incompetence in my argument it should be no problem to you to point it out.
Of course it is far easier to make bland innocuous comments that to argue a case.

Jackie laughlin

Voip,
It was not aimed exclusively at you. However, "No Power doesn't necessarily corrupt the point is that it is hard to be corrupt when you have no power", is a cynical, bland, innocuous comment.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Voip,
It was not aimed exclusively at you. However, "No Power doesn't necessarily corrupt the point is that it is hard to be corrupt when you have no power", is a cynical, bland, innocuous comment.

How is it cynical it is a fact people who believe that all FF are corrupt and if you get rid of them you will get rid of corruption are living in cloud cuckoo land.
The reason why there has been less corrupt FGers is that there has been less opportunity for them.

Look at the 3 parties that are playing games with the political donations FF,FG,and the PDs are the 3 parties that recieved NO donations above the limit at which they have to declare.
Why because they do not want people to know where they get there money from so they rig all donations to come in under the declaration level.

Look at the FG record in local government in Dublin and FG were well capable of abusing their position when they had the power to do it.

Look at FG after the election all the moral high ground about Lowry went out the window when they were in a position were lowry might have been of use to them.


Look to the UK where New Labour promised an end to sleaze of the tories and
what did they deliver cash for honours.


If you want to live in the fantasy land where corruption is the preserve of one party then go ahead I will stick to the real world where people of all parties and none are capable of being corrupt thankfully they are in a minority in all parties.

gbh

I would agree that none of the more established parties are free from sleaze. The classic example of it for me was when Denis O'Brien donated money to all the major parties at the same time largely with the intent of buying their silence about something or other. The fact that no-one rejected the money proved to me there was something rotten in the state of Irish politics and that parties did then and maybe do now, from time to time prostitute themselves to the highest bidder.

From the evidence so far of tribunals, and putting aside the issue of who has been in power the longest, I dont think anyone, even you, could seriously argue that any of the other parties have had within their ranks so many people willing to take what can only be described as bribes as Fianna Fail and to prostitute themselves to whoever will pay. Most of the time of the tribunals is taken up with dealing with the corruption of litterally dozens of FF elected officials many of whom reached the heights of the FF party.

And there really is no excusing this type of corruption tbh, whether the party is in power longer or not. It's a blatent misuse of power and has largely contributed to the cynicism about politics which FF strangely continue to benefit from. After all voters penalised FG and Labour repeatedly in polls whenever some new damning revelation came out about FF. Where is the justice in this and why should FF be rewarded by the electorate for being incapable of going straight?

Jackie laughlin

Could it be that many people support corruption?

Voip continues to rehearse the FF line that politics is inherently corrupt and that there's no point in voting for change. It's a very dangerous line as there may be parties waiting in the wings to capitalise on a loss of faith in representative democracy.

FF and FG did form a "rezoning coalition" in Dublin County Council. Labour was not involved; one of their councillors broke ranks and was promptly expelled from the party. When the PDs came on the scene, they were not involved. Later still, the Greens arrived and they were not involved.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Could it be that many people support corruption?

Voip continues to rehearse the FF line that politics is inherently corrupt and that there's no point in voting for change. It's a very dangerous line as there may be parties waiting in the wings to capitalise on a loss of faith in representative democracy.

FF and FG did form a "rezoning coalition" in Dublin County Council. Labour was not involved; one of their councillors broke ranks and was promptly expelled from the party. When the PDs came on the scene, they were not involved. Later still, the Greens arrived and they were not involved.

No my point is what you appear to be saying in the last paragraph that people should not vote for FG to end corruption no more than they can trust FF to end corruption (ignoring the fact that we will never truly end corruption)


There will always be corruption to some level and that is across all parties just voting for a different party will not end or necessarily reduce corruption we should vote for parties who can be trusted (or who we think can be trusted) to change the laws and deal with corruption.


Personally I would trust the Greens to deal better with corruption than I would trust FF ,FG or the PDs lets not forget that McDowell was in the process of raising the limit for donations declarations which his own party has managed to stay under.
But we will have to wait and see many people believed the PDs would do something about these things before but they failed miserably.

K-9

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Voip continues to rehearse the FF line that politics is inherently corrupt and that there's no point in voting for change. It's a very dangerous line as there may be parties waiting in the wings to capitalise on a loss of faith in representative democracy.

FF and FG did form a "rezoning coalition" in Dublin County Council. Labour was not involved; one of their councillors broke ranks and was promptly expelled from the party. When the PDs came on the scene, they were not involved. Later still, the Greens arrived and they were not involved.

I don't think Voip was saying that. The electorate didn't vote for change for other reasons. Mainly because there really wasn't that much change offered by the alliance for change.

Why was Labour not involved in a rezoning coalition. I'm sure nothing to do with personal, political reasons?

And who was it brought the corruption in Dublin Council to light? Labour? No, Trevor Sargent? Yes.

Funnily enough he didn't have the power that Labour had to bring corruption into the public domain, but at least he used the power he had!

gbh

Seanies32 wrote:

I don't think Voip was saying that. The electorate didn't vote for change for other reasons. Mainly because there really wasn't that much change offered by the alliance for change.

This is Fianna Fail speak. Are you saying the electorate looked at upright Enda Kenny and didnt like what they saw compared to Bertie Ahearn with his dubious history of signing blank cheques, promoting Ray Burke and other financial dealings? If thats the case then the people will get a government they deserve. Sounds to me you've been reading too much of the Sindo.

Voipjunkie

gbh wrote:

This is Fianna Fail speak. Are you saying the electorate looked at upright Enda Kenny and didnt like what they saw compared to Bertie Ahearn with his dubious history of signing blank cheques, promoting Ray Burke and other financial dealings? If thats the case then the people will get a government they deserve. Sounds to me you've been reading too much of the Sindo.

I think people here are making the presumption that if you are not pro FG then you must be pro FF

Personally I am neither pro FF or pro FG just because I do not accept that all Fianna Failers are inherently corrupt and all Fine Gaelers are inherently honest does not mean I in any way support FF.

For the record I did not vote for FF,FG or the PDs at the last election

Jackie laughlin

Seanies,
I take it you dislike Labour and admire the Greens. However, Labour were the opposition to the re-zoning scandals long before the arrival of the Greens. For all his good work in publicising rezoning scandals, TS certainly was not the first person to publicise the issue.

The reason for Labour opposition was ideological. Indeed, it must be admitted that the reason for PD opposition was ideological; their brand of neo-liberalism does not support downright corruption.

Grudaire

I have yet to talk to a green supporter who would vote for someone else in the next election......

Húrin

I have always voted Green and I always will. Only a catastrophic failure of the party would dissuade me from doing so.

gbh wrote:

Its fair to say those who voted in the Mansion House are closer to the levers of power than ordinary voters and are probably councillors, advisors, etc to the Greens hence a certain amount of vested interest.

That's not fair to say. The vast majority of the people who voted in the Mansion House, including me, were ordinary grassroots party members. Not advisors, not councillors.

Húrin

Montallie wrote:

I voted Green and will not do so again. I might as well have voted for Fianna Fail in the first place if I'd wanted them. This morning I compared a list I had kept of what the Green's policies were with what they got from joining FF, and it seems to me they got no concessions on the most important of their policies. I am deeply disappointed. I had thought that the Greens, of all the parties, were the most principled. It seems now that it really is a case of 'anything for power.'

And what good would have been done by taking the "principled" stance and entering opposition for yet another five years? Has this country not been lacking in Green contribution to power for too long?

dreamerbeliever wrote:

I gave em a vote, but now to me they are sell outs. They're part of a government that's gonna build a road through Tara and bring in co-location hospitals. Stuff that I thought that the Greens were dead set against in principle.

So next time you will vote for who exactly? Without the Greens in government there would be a road through Tara and co-located hospitals, so what difference has it made? I think that there is more chance of mitigating the damage of the above with greens in government than outside of it.

When you're a party with 6 seats in discussion with a party with 78 seats, it's no time to be ideological, and it is unfair to democracy to expect concession on everything.

Darragh29 wrote:

Yes I did and I can tell you for certain, NO I WON'T!!! As far as I'm concerned, these shower of these sh*tehounds have thrown away every bit of dignity and honesty that I thought they had. Whatever about compromise, which I understand is necessary in life, these people have completely thrown in some core principles, all for the love of a few Mercs & Perks.

Fate loves the fearless

Húrin

DarkJager wrote:

Their policies such as raising the price of petrol may help the environment, but at a massive cost to the ordinary taxpayer. Tree hugging policies are okay as long as the normal working citizen isn't getting ****ed over to fund them.

That's a load of ****e. Nobody will get ****ed over, how high do you think the price of petrol will be? If we don't reduce consumption now, the price will get a hell of a lot higher years down the road. Your lack of interest in protecting our environment is not only short-sighted, but suicidal.

bk wrote:

I think it is quite funny, many here who say they won't vote for the greens again seem to be actually FG/Labour supporters who only gave them their 3rd or 4th preference and are now pissed because the greens did the sensible thing.

People like you are no lose to them, as they will make up for that lose with transfers from FF people in the next election (assuming an election pact with FF).

The only people who really matter are the people who give the greens their first preference, in other words actually real green supporters. We should really only be interested in how these people will vote in the next election.

Actually the Greens are unique in that they benefit from transfers right across the political spectrum; transfer voters are important.

nesf

H&#250 wrote: »

That's a load of ****e. Nobody will get ****ed over, how high do you think the price of petrol will be? If we don't reduce consumption now, the price will get a hell of a lot higher years down the road.

Honestly, what we (as in Irish people) do will probably have little to nothing to do with the price of petrol. We're very car dependent I agree but we're truly tiny on an international scale. Us changing means little versus what the US, China etc are doing.


But, from an economic/policy point of view, don't put an extra tariff on petrol, just subsidise the alternatives. Don't punish people, make it "better" for them to use the alternative. Easier for the public to swallow and generally as effective.

Voipjunkie

nesf wrote:

Honestly, what we (as in Irish people) do will probably have little to nothing to do with the price of petrol. We're very car dependent I agree but we're truly tiny on an international scale. Us changing means little versus what the US, China etc are doing.


But, from an economic/policy point of view, don't put an extra tariff on petrol, just subsidise the alternatives. Don't punish people, make it "better" for them to use the alternative. Easier for the public to swallow and generally as effective.

I believe the point is that irrespective of what we do the price of oil is going to get higher and higher as demand in China/India etc increases and supply decreases so we should be weening ourselves of something we are over dependent on now while it is still a choice.

While us not using oil might not be significant on a global scale it is in our own interests to start to find alternatives now and to give us an incentive to changes in taxes on usage might give us the kick up the back side we need before it is out of our hands

is_that_so

Voipjunkie wrote:

I believe the point is that irrespective of what we do the price of oil is going to get higher and higher as demand in China/India etc increases and supply decreases so we should be weening ourselves of something we are over dependent on now while it is still a choice.

While us not using oil might not be significant on a global scale it is in our own interests to start to find alternatives now and to give us an incentive to changes in taxes on usage might give us the kick up the back side we need before it is out of our hands

It might do and principle of being green is laudable but if you live somewhere where public transport is unreliable, non-existent or too damned expensive you may have no choice.

There is no point taxing petrol or even subsidise alternatives until there is a proper public transport network.

K-9

is_that_so wrote:

It might do and principle of being green is laudable but if you live somewhere where public transport is unreliable, non-existent or too damned expensive you may have no choice.

There is no point taxing petrol or even subsidise alternatives until there is a proper public transport network.

If you live in a rural area with no public transport it would be a lot harder to support extra tax on petrol especially when there is no alternative fuel available.

An emissions tax on cars could be unfair to. A second hand car that is 10 years old would pollute more than a new car so it could be unfair on poorer sections of society.

I think nearly everybody agrees with the Green agenda in general. It's the specifics that have to be worked out. Is there any examples of how the Greens in Govt. in Europe have dealt with public transport/fuel taxes/emission charges?

billy the squid

Voting green in these parts might not seem worthwhile in these parts, as our green candidate did not get in, but the fact that she increased her vote sends a message I think.

To answer the OP question would i vote for green again. Ask me in 12 months. The three things I wanted the greens to do were

Boundary extension for Limerick
The scrapping of Co-Location
An end to the calcutta style overcrowding on our local city bus service.

Co location looks like it is going ahead in Limerick Regional Hospital
There hasn't been a peep out of the environment minister regarding a boundary extension, or even a plebasite or boundary commission. (this might come in time which is why I am waiting)
And I will also have to wait to see what they do with the public transport system.

The boundary extension issue is the deal breaker for me though.