Green Party been Wiped out locally

wildswan

I used to give them a vote.

I think they qualify for ministers pensions in a year, which is probably what they are holding out for:rolleyes:

They will never get one from me again!

cyclopath2001

taconnol wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You're all just focusing on the negative and ignoring the postive. It's very easy to come to convenient conclusion when you ignore all the facts that don't fit into your view.

The only thing that has made my cycle to work easier is the recession (less cars).

The Greens lost a pile of votes, perhaps because they're all words and no action, just like their FF brothers?

pedigree

HI,
Great news that they are nearly wiped out, all they have done is cost us all money.
Pedigree

Macha

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The Greens lost a pile of votes, perhaps because they're all words and no action, just like their FF brothers?

Again, with no reference to the actual reality. I'm done - no one here seems to be interested in taking a balanced view, just have a rant.

Villain

taconnol wrote: »

Again, with no reference to the actual reality. I'm done - no one here seems to be interested in taking a balanced view, just have a rant.

Its hard to have a balanced view when you look back to what Gormley and Sargent were saying before the General election they have done an about turn and drags themselves down

Seth Brundle

wildswan wrote: »

I used to give them a vote.

I think they qualify for ministers pensions in a year, which is probably what they are holding out for:rolleyes:

They will never get one from me again!

Isn't it two years in government to become entitled for the pension?

taconnol wrote: »

Again, with no reference to the actual reality. I'm done - no one here seems to be interested in taking a balanced view, just have a rant.

For the very few actual positives that they have done themselves (and I certainly don't think that the revised motor tax system fits in there), there have been too many negatives since the last general election for me to have any respect for them.

cyclopath2001

taconnol wrote: »

Again, with no reference to the actual reality. I'm done - no one here seems to be interested in taking a balanced view, just have a rant.

The reality is that they lost public support and confidence.

jmayo

taconnol wrote: »

Again, with no reference to the actual reality. I'm done - no one here seems to be interested in taking a balanced view, just have a rant.

Ok balanced view...

Trevor Sargant stated before last GE that he would not lead the GP into coalition with FF.
Then after election he resigns as leader, so that GP can go into coalition with FF.
Lo and behold he accepts jnr minister position.

Lets look at policy and standpoints on issues that were reasons GP had received votes pre last GE, and then view how their stance has changed.

Education - GP big proponents of education spending back ff in government to increase class sizes and cut funding for special needs.
Tara motorway - FF pulled fast one and left Gormley with egg on face before ink dry on program for government.
Shannon military flights - new government do nothing about use of Shannon for US military related flights.
Ringsend incinerator - Gormley objected to this in constituency before election but big change of mind
Corrib Gas - Eamon Ryan opposed to this but now minister of energy changed tune.

Ethics - GP had been seen as ethical, but yet they are part of a government that has seen collapse of Ireland financial sector due to unethical (and to most of world criminal behaviour) and nobody is apparently being brought to account for the little dirty deals that went on. Reluctantly some of the main protagnosists left their offices.

Responsibility - since GP went into government we have had notable public servants (Fás - Molloy) walk away with lump sums, even though they wantly wasted tax payers money and our finacial regulatory authorities have been shown as a complete joke yet left with lump sum payoffs.

GP back all FF measures in tacking, or rather not tacking, the financial crisis in the banks.

Biggest GP coup, a bicycle to work scheme :rolleyes:

Now please tell me why a previous GP voter should vote for this party that is now being directed it appears with the sole purpose to keep ff in power ?

BTW I am not GP voter, but in the past I always thought they had principled opinions.

Liam Byrne

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The reality is that they lost public support and confidence.

"lost" sounds a bit too passive, as if it wasn't their fault (FF-speak).

The reality is that they shafted those who voted for them based on their promises (no getting into bed with FF, resolve the Tara issue, get the American invaders out of Shannon).

So they didn't "lose" it, they gave it the two fingers.

astrofool

taconnol wrote: »

In relation to the Bike to Work scheme is aimed at people who wouldn't be buying online. Most online bikes involve a certain degree of assembly and that is people who are more into cycling and probably already have a bike. The people targeted with this scheme want to go into a shop, try out the bike etc etc. The two people I know only bought their bikes because of the scheme and both now commute to work on their bikes instead of motorbike/car before. As far as I'm concerned, the scheme is a success.

I think that you're making out the people who use the scheme to be idiots. I want to use the scheme, but I want to buy the bike I want, circumventing the Irish high street of rip off prices.

It's the details of these schemes (bike, VRT, car parking) that have left the GP as the party of the idiots.

anonymous_joe

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"lost" sounds a bit too passive, as if it wasn't their fault (FF-speak).

The reality is that they shafted those who voted for them based on their promises (no getting into bed with FF, resolve the Tara issue, get the American invaders out of Shannon).

So they didn't "lose" it, they gave it the two fingers.

I hate the Greens for that reason, and will never vote for them again, but watching John Gormley on Questions and Answers I feel like giving him a hug.

He looks broken.

Traumadoc

taconnol wrote: »

I don't know - do you?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You're all just focusing on the negative and ignoring the postive. It's very easy to come to convenient conclusion when you ignore all the facts that don't fit into your view.

Traumadoc - your issue is with the civil service, not the Greens. The problem is the Dept of Finance (I assume you all expect the Greens to hold sway in there as well :rolleyes:)

my issue with the civil service - I asked Gormley to help - he did sweet FA - even a response would be nice. Seems to me Ruairi Quinn has more sway than Gormley.

He is a hypocrit-look at his speech in 2007.
I feel betrayed because I voted for the man based on what I thought was a man of principles - I will never vote for that gobdaw again.

gcgirl

20goto10 wrote: »

It's a disgrace what is happening to the Greens. The level of ignorance in voters is all too aparant once again. Why should the Greens be punished for what Fiana Fail have done? The Greens are coming up with some great initiatives. There is big money in Green economics and to just brush it all aside as unimportant is just plain ignorance.

Fine Gael and Labour...jesus christ talk about going from bad to worse.

A couple of weeks ago one of the other parents tracked John Gormley down with thanks to EastCoast radio as we tried to get him to sign our petition To save our Special Needs Class, His Answer He Refused I think that gives you as good answer that he is out of touch completely and now he is living on Borrowed time!

Red Alert

Eamonn Ryan is a total joke as well, he's looking at a boot from office in the next election. He has done little to nothing for the constituency.

cyclopath2001

astrofool wrote: »

It's the details of these schemes (bike, VRT, car parking) that have left the GP as the party of the idiots.

The scheme is a side show.

Bicycles are cheap. Ownership of a bicycle has never been an obstacle to anyone who wants to cycle to work. The big problem is facilities: cyclists want reasonable priority, a sense of safety, somewher to park their bikes, showers/changing at work.

The Greens have gone for a gimmick instead of doing something useful.

lostexpectation

the problem was the left right split in the greens and supporters/voters

they rejected the pro-privatisation pdgreens,

nows the chance for a red green alliance.

Sponge Bob

Dunno about that either , look at the vote Joe Higgins got vs the vote Patricia McKenna got.

Anyway half the red/green mob are Vegans :eek: .

I simply looaaAAathe Vegans , miserable intolerant fascists the whole lot of them . I would not put them in charge of a strimmer on a Fás scheme

squonk

taconnol wrote: »

Again, with no reference to the actual reality. I'm done - no one here seems to be interested in taking a balanced view, just have a rant.

Well I honestly can't think of what good the Greens have done! They've rammed their policies down the electorate's throats in an arrogant fashion even when those policies cost the taxpayer extra. No choice, or compromise was given, I cite the light bulbs fiasco here and, finally, I have not seen any major improvement in public transport, or even the beginning of a reform plan, just cuts in Dublin Bus services and what improvements have happened on the Rail network were on track from the Transport 21 program which started many years ago under a previous governemnt. All the greens have succeded in doing is to kill off any interest I had in Green issues. I think you'll find a lot of people feel that way because they basically feel betrayed. Sorry, but I think that's true.

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

I think that you're making out the people who use the scheme to be idiots. I want to use the scheme, but I want to buy the bike I want, circumventing the Irish high street of rip off prices.

It's the details of these schemes (bike, VRT, car parking) that have left the GP as the party of the idiots.

I cycle everywhere (including to work) and have done so for the last 5 years. And I still would not buy a bike online because I don't feel I have the knowledge to put the bike together/know what would suit me without trying it out or advice from someone with more knowledge of bikes. Are you calling me an idiot? I'm certainly not calling myself an idiot.

Sure there are people who are happy to buy bikes off the internet but most of these people basically already have bikes. For example, my boyfriend bought his last bike off the internet - it's his 2nd and he's a triathlete. But he knows how to put it together/what he's looking for etc. Not everybody has that knowledge.

Again, you're missing the point of the scheme. It isn't for people like my boyfriend who buy bikes over the internet. It's not even really for people like me who already have a bike. It's an INCENTIVE scheme for people who don't cycle now and are most likely to buy a bike if they see that they're going to a deal like VAT off.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The scheme is a side show.

Bicycles are cheap. Ownership of a bicycle has never been an obstacle to anyone who wants to cycle to work. The big problem is facilities: cyclists want reasonable priority, a sense of safety, somewher to park their bikes, showers/changing at work.

The Greens have gone for a gimmick instead of doing something useful.

Again, I agree that safety/parking facilities etc are important but you're missing the behavioural psychology of the scheme, as explained above. The scheme is to act as an incentive through publicity, giving people a better deal and allowing them to spread out the cost -these things are all proven to be very strong motivators.

My brother earns €40k/year, other friend earns even more. Do you think they couldn't afford a bike before the scheme? Of course not. But guess what? Now they have both bought bikes and cycle to work.

You can argue that other measures are needed as well (and I would agree with you). You can even argue that these other measures are more important (and I would agree with you) but trying to argue that the cycle-to-work scheme is a failure itself is just false.

squonk wrote: »

Well I honestly can't think of what good the Greens have done!

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you go back and read any of my posts that list successful inititatives, you would be able to think of some. You've clearly glossed over the facts that dont suit your point of view and carried on with the same way of thinking.

gcgirl

taconnol wrote: »

I cycle everywhere (including to work) and have done so for the last 5 years. And I still would not buy a bike online because I don't feel I have the knowledge to put the bike together/know what would suit me without trying it out or advice from someone with more knowledge of bikes. Are you calling me an idiot? I'm certainly not calling myself an idiot.

Sure there are people who are happy to buy bikes off the internet but most of these people basically already have bikes. For example, my boyfriend bought his last bike off the internet - it's his 2nd and he's a triathlete. But he knows how to put it together/what he's looking for etc. Not everybody has that knowledge.

Again, you're missing the point of the scheme. It isn't for people like my boyfriend who buy bikes over the internet. It's not even really for people like me who already have a bike. It's an INCENTIVE scheme for people who don't cycle now and are most likely to buy a bike if they see that they're going to a deal like VAT off.


Again, I agree that safety/parking facilities etc are important but you're missing the behavioural psychology of the scheme, as explained above. The scheme is to act as an incentive through publicity, giving people a better deal and allowing them to spread out the cost -these things are all proven to be very strong motivators.

My brother earns €40k/year, other friend earns even more. Do you think they couldn't afford a bike before the scheme? Of course not. But guess what? Now they have both bought bikes and cycle to work.

You can argue that other measures are needed as well (and I would agree with you). You can even argue that these other measures are more important (and I would agree with you) but trying to argue that the cycle-to-work scheme is a failure itself is just false.


This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you go back and read any of my posts that list successful inititatives, you would be able to think of some. You've clearly glossed over the facts that dont suit your point of view and carried on with the same way of thinking.

fair if you live in Dublin, but would you cycle from Wicklow Town in to Dublin?? Price of bikes are not that bad they are starting from 150 upwards Lidi and aldi sell them as well cheap enough they are dear if you wanna light weight carbon fibre model but come on how someone earning 40 k a yr who cant afford a bike send them down to Halfords?? Biking is not an option for people with kids!

astrofool

I think you're fighting a losing battle defending the Greens here, I thought at least one other person might be on your side by now.

On the bike scheme, it should have been implemented thusly:
Person buys a bike.
Person has receipt (verified independently if needed, like any tax audit).
Person fills in amount on their tax return, it's counted as a credit (up to €1000), and gets the tax back.
Person can't claim again for 5 years.

What happened was:
Person wants a bike
Person checks to see if their company is in the scheme (or if self employed, goes to the hassle of signing up to the scheme).
Person goes and finds the bike they want, haggles the price to whatever.
Person does not buy the bike.
Person goes to the company with the quote.
Company checks if the bike seller is on the approved list.
If not on the approved list, they try to get them added to the approved list.
Assume success, company applies for a voucher to that amount from the scheme.
Voucher arrives, person takes voucher and then buys the bike.
Company charges the employee in each salary (if they're on PAYE) until the bike is paid off.

Now, what kind of braindead moron do you think thought up that rigmarole?

I also don't understand you talking about specialist bikes, and having to assemble them. You can get fully assembled, out of the box, working bikes from the internet for far cheaper than you can get them on the high street in Ireland. You can even be an idiot with bikes in this case, and as a big +1 save the tax payer money.

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

I think you're fighting a losing battle defending the Greens here, I thought at least one other person might be on your side by now.

I don't care if I have other posters to prop me up. I am capable of independent thought.

Your ideas of how it should have been implemented are bad. The first stumbling block is you expect people to go out and pay full price for a bike straight off. This is a large disincentive - even knowing that they will eventually get the VAT back, this is part of behavioural psychology.

As for having to check if their company is in the scheme, there is a significant administrative cost and so I don't think it's fair that very small companies are expected to carry that cost. Hence, it's not mandatory. Therefore it's a necessary step. You make it sounds impossible, rather than just sending an email to HR. And sorry but the majority of PAYE employees do not fill out tax returns.

You're also making up steps. Obviously if a company is involved with the scheme, they will advise employees of authorised dealers - they won't have to come back and try to add the scheme onto the approved list :rolleyes:. A lot of larger companies are also dealing with biketowork.ie, who handle the entire system for both employer and employee.

This is also the system used by other governments with cycle-to-work schemes, including the UK.

As for bikes you buy online. The vast majority require a certain element of assembly - sorry but that's the truth. Again, you're ignoring the fact that most people who are being targeted by the scheme will not buy online.

Edit - gcgirl, I'm not suggesting people commute 50k, if they don't want to! The point of the scheme is as an incentive to buy a bike for commuting purposes. And as such, it is effective, and indeed more effective in its current form that some of the forms suggested here.

squonk

taconnol wrote: »

Edit - gcgirl, I'm not suggesting people commute 50k, if they don't want to! The point of the scheme is as an incentive to buy a bike for commuting purposes. And as such, it is effective, and indeed more effective in its current form that some of the forms suggested here.

Half the time the weather is enough to disuade people from cycling to work and then there's the traffic. If public transport worked it'd be more of an incentive. With bikes you capture a few extra people who will take up the scheme, but making more buses available you still get people out of their cars and onto public transport which is carrying more people with less emmissions. The fact that this bicycle scheme is being examined in such detail here just shows that it's all people have to talk about as regards Green commuting incentives, and it also sounds like a lot of people don't understand the scheme, and I only became aware of the scheme from reading this thread. That says that either the Greens haven't done a lot to tackle real issues, or have and have been very bad at communicating what they have done. Either way, they've dug their own grave.

gcgirl

Why would you wanna buy a bike online there are shops you know!! as i have stated here before we are in the Shytes and to be honest its not the Greens to blame its FF but the fact the Greens sold out their whole priciple and basically bent over for FF and Ryans & Gormless's arrogence that people want rid of them, it took one minister to put their foot down and stop the Special needs class being withdrawing and the class sizes are going up!!

CiaranC

See here is a reason why people didnt vote green. Bicycles are not exactly a pressing issue just at the moment, but we get pages of Bicycle debate.

Macha

squonk wrote: »

Half the time the weather is enough to disuade people from cycling to work and then there's the traffic.

That's funny becuase 18% of trips in Denmark are made by bike and their weather is a lot worse than ours.

Perception of safety is an issue. I say perception because it isn't backed up by the statistics. The irony is that if more people were to cycle, the roads would have less motorised vehicles and would be safer.

squonk wrote: »

If public transport worked it'd be more of an incentive. With bikes you capture a few extra people who will take up the scheme, but making more buses available you still get people out of their cars and onto public transport which is carrying more people with less emmissions.

As I've already said, you can talk about other necessary measures but the bike-to-work scheme is not the mess/failure it's being made out to be here.

squonk wrote: »

The fact that this bicycle scheme is being examined in such detail here just shows that it's all people have to talk about as regards Green commuting incentives, and it also sounds like a lot of people don't understand the scheme, and I only became aware of the scheme from reading this thread. That says that either the Greens haven't done a lot to tackle real issues, or have and have been very bad at communicating what they have done. Either way, they've dug their own grave.

You're making quite a few assumptions here (conveniently so):
-no it's what we're discussing at the moment, not the only thing we've discussed
-no, people do understand the scheme, just because a few people are are picking holes in it.
- sorry but just because you weren't aware of the scheme doesn't mean the Greens are bad at communicating (this assumption is incredibly narcissistic!)

Edit - gcgirl, I have been trying to make that point about buying bikes from a shop for a while. As for increasing class sizes, I think you'll find that it is largely due to FF/PD policies that wasted our country's windfall property tax on paying off the public sector and unions.

CiaranC - I'm perfectly happy to discuss smart grids, increases in renewable energy capacity and storage, innovation in the EGS sector but most people here are happier to pick holes in the cycling scheme.

astrofool

taconnol wrote: »

I don't care if I have other posters to prop me up. I am capable of independent thought.

Your ideas of how it should have been implemented are bad. The first stumbling block is you expect people to go out and pay full price for a bike straight off. This is a large disincentive - even knowing that they will eventually get the VAT back, this is part of behavioural psychology....

It's not the VAT back, it's the tax back, if someone is on the lower rate of tax, the scheme will get them 21% (standard rate) + PRSI (~4%) back on the price of the bike, the cost of the bike is basically taken away from your taxable income. On the higher rate it's 47% (41% rate + prsi 6%).

You could even add the cost online, as you would for rent/medical bills/waste etc. via revenue.ie (this would make it immediate)

That is far more accessible than the voucher scheme, and is a lot less administration.

The way the scheme is set up is a sop to the high street bike sellers, who know they'd be completely circumvented on a scheme like this otherwise.

You can buy a bike online fully assembled, as I said, even idiots can apply and buy.

gcgirl

Bikes V Kids getting a raw deal in school!!

The Greens are living on another planet

DB10

The grass is always greener on the other side.

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

It's not the VAT back, it's the tax back, if someone is on the lower rate of tax, the scheme will get them 21% (standard rate) + PRSI (~4%) back on the price of the bike, the cost of the bike is basically taken away from your taxable income. On the higher rate it's 47% (41% rate + prsi 6%).

Sorry yes I keep writing VAT by mistake.

astrofool wrote: »

The way the scheme is set up is a sop to the high street bike sellers, who know they'd be completely circumvented on a scheme like this otherwise.

Imagine the outcry on here if it turned out that most of the bikes bought from the scheme were from the UK? Come on.

astrofool wrote: »

You can buy a bike online fully assembled, as I said, even idiots can apply and buy.

Again, the vast majority of people buying a bike through this scheme would not buy online.