Green Party - "Lets tax everything we can possibly make an excuse for"

edanto

Be constructive instead of dismissive. Let's take all the criticism that you have made and set it to the side without disagreeing with it.

Suggest what you would have done in their place, given the election results and coalition agreements. What would you do if you were in charge of a tiny party that had a chance at government?

is_that_so

edanto wrote: »

Be constructive instead of dismissive. Let's take all the criticism that you have made and set it to the side without disagreeing with it.

Suggest what you would have done in their place, given the election results and coalition agreements. What would you do if you were in charge of a tiny party that had a chance at government?

Of course

I don't think the idea is necessarily bad, the PDs have managed it well enough. I have a much dimmer view of the independents and their sweetheart deals.

It's just the approach that I think they have made a complete mess of. Even so another stint as part of a much more vocal opposition might not have been a bad thing.


Ethics

Before the election the Green Party disapproved very strongly of FF and had all but dismissed them before diving in feet first. Somebody needed to do a what if scenario to consider that possibility.

Trevor Sargent should have resigned on the spot before negotiations and refused his junior ministry. It shows credibility on ethics.

The Greens should have maintained their independent voice. A good example yesterday was Gormley saying they support the tribunal. Surely someone should have copped on before this that might be the right mantra and leave FF to fend off criticisms of Bertie. Unfortunately Mr Gormley has almost been the first minister out on each of the previous occasions Bertie was attacked.

Establish what the deal breakers were and stick to them. If they are not in, you walk away and you tell people why you were walking away. IMO honest opposition is better than craven support.

Also figure out how one can justify a 180 degree turn.

Managing expectations

It seems fairly obvious that the M3 was a done deal yet the Greens remained opposed to it right up until they got in. Yet again a bit of sensible PR here, by nipping it in the bud, ala the Bertie weep, just to point out that they were not making excuses and that some things were likely to be beyond them.

Pre-empt these. Talk about plans and problems. It's newsworthy, they've never been there before.

Stop before you speak

Again Gormley has been more guilty of this. Two examples spring to mind - the M3 and the recent minor embarrassment over the light bulbs. It would be useful if he spent a bit more time checking with other people first rather than trying to tell everyone how well the Greens are doing.

What are they going to do?

Ryan is a good example here. Many of the things he is talking about are very long term. What do they expect to have to show for the next 3-5 years?

Implicit in this is the need to talk through ideas, measure their political impact and naturally economic cost.
This to my mind goes beyond the manifesto. Voters need to know why the hell they should put them back in again. As a small party the Greens need us more than we need them. Many of the potential Green seats still rely on non-Green people passing over their 2nd and subsequent preferences.


Keep an eye on their larger partners

I think the Greens got a really poor deal out of the negotiations , nevertheless this should not stop them keeping an eye on the large party. That to me is part of being in coalition as a junior party. That also offers the possibility of them being recognised as a party rather than just part of the government.

Find their voice

They should look at the PDs, what's left of them, as an example of how to get on in Government and still be a party. To date they have not done that apart from crowing about how much they have achieved.
A further risk here is that if they get all of their Green policies implemented they remove the need for the Greens. What else do they stand for?

As they stand they are virtually FF proxies and while FF will weather the storm from the opposition, the Greens will probably not. They are easy pickings and they run the risk of being remembered as Labour were, and punished in the same way.

eoinmadden

dresden8 wrote: »

What I don't get is Sargent's shenanigans.

And it is clear why you don't understand..

dresden8 wrote: »

He declares he would never lead his party into government with Fianna Fáil.

I think he said he wouldn't lead his party in government with Fianna Fáil. There is a difference. And he has kept that promise.
I remember watching the Green Party convention on TV last year. When Sargent said he wouldn't lead his party in government with FF, I turned round to my girlfriend and said "Sargent says the Greens are open to going into government with FF. But they'll appoint a new leader." I understood what he was saying, and read between the lines.

eoinmadden

Is_That_so, regards to your topics "Managing expectations", "What are they going to do?" and in particular "Stop before you speak" it seems you are accusing the Green ministers of engaging in too much long term planning and not enough spin. An unusual complaint!

You then go on to make the hilarious comment:

They should look at the PDs, what's left of them, as an example of how to get on in Government and still be a party.

The PDs have only two TDs left.. one whom indicated on local radio, the day of the count, that he'd be happy to negotiate joining Fianna Fáil and who this week claimed the majority of people are no longer supportive of the Mahon Tribunal.

is_that_so

eoinmadden wrote: »

Is_That_so, regards to your topics "Managing expectations", "What are they going to do?" and in particular "Stop before you speak" it seems you are accusing the Green ministers of engaging in too much long term planning and not enough spin. An unusual complaint!

Not that unusual. I still have to show what I've done at the end of a month , even if I have a plan for a year. It's a question of getting the mix right. Ther is little evidence in recent history that half of the "long term planning" will ever come to fruition so it's easy to say they'll do it.

Oh and they're at the spin like the rest of them.

eoinmadden wrote: »

You then go on to make the h[ilarious comment: The PDs have only two TDs left.. one whom indicated on local radio, the day of the count, that he'd be happy to negotiate joining Fianna Fáil and who this week claimed the majority of people are no longer supportive of the Mahon Tribunal.

True but not that hilarious. And yes they will most likely rejoin the FF pool. But for now they are still capable of telling FF what they think without upsetting the cart too much , even with two TDs, although they were far better at it when Rottweiler McDowell was in there. Now there was a man with integrity.

djpbarry

is_that_so wrote: »

But for now they are still capable of telling FF what they think without upsetting the cart too much

But that's because they essentially are FF.

eoinmadden

is_that_so wrote: »

But for now they are still capable of telling FF what they think without upsetting the cart too much ,

Harney has backed the tribunal. Grealish has said he does not back the tribunal.
The green party ministers have said they back the tribunal.
Honestly... really... you call Grealish's behaviour "telling FF what they think"?
On what other issue has there been public disagreement between FF and the PDs lately?

is_that_so wrote: »

even with two TDs, although they were far better at it when Rottweiler McDowell was in there. Now there was a man with integrity.

McDowell certainly was good at giving the appearance of integrity and the appearance of being a straight talker.. sadly he didn't live up to his image, in my opinion. The PDs were a party to be admired once, but McDowell, Parlon and Grealish have put an end to that.

fairtaxforcars

edanto wrote: »

Be constructive instead of dismissive. Let's take all the criticism that you have made and set it to the side without disagreeing with it.

Suggest what you would have done in their place, given the election results and coalition agreements. What would you do if you were in charge of a tiny party that had a chance at government?

Well, let's get back to the original issue - TAX.

If the greens were in the slightest bit genuine they would not have shafted early adopters (those who ordered low emissions diesel cars for new year). By 'shafted' I mean that anyone who buys a diesel low emssions car (i.e. was on board to the green message and who was foolish enough to believe that the greens were FAIR and beyond STROKE politics).

I ordered a diesel 2 litre car (126g emissions) before the budget - WHY do the greens thinks its fair to tax me for the LIFETIME of the car at 2000cc rate and not at CO2 rate (as for all who but after July 1)? I would be willing to pay the extra VRT (all 6000 of it!) but to be penalised for the cars lifetime - that really is a stroke. I will never believe anything from them again - what difference is there between them and FF? smaller but just as sly!