Green Party to stay in Government

Our man in Havana

greendom wrote: »

But I thought FG were supposed to be even more right wing than FF?

(Genuine question btw)

So what. At least they are no where as corrupt as FF.

greendom

turgon wrote: »

Why not? Theyre the only party with a remote chance of reducing government spending.

Just what the country needs if you want it to decline ever faster into a slump - reducing spending will just make the current situation even worse. I know the budget deficit is too high at the moment, but now is not the time to try and reduce it. It will kill the economy stone dead.

Macha

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Erm, sounds like your regular politician, to me...

Funny...I can't imagine any other party doing any differently. Oh yeah, would they have put it to their members in a democratic vote? I didn't see FF's members voting on the new PfG.

hallelujajordan

Personally, am delighted . . . FF / Green coalition is the only government with the balls to take on the unions and the public service this winter . .

Besides, as a green supporter faced with the choice of 1, maybe 2 TD's on the back benches with no influence over anything and no opportunity to implement any green policies versus 4 TD's, 2 Govt Ministers and a PfG that gives some real attention to Green party policies, which would you choose ?

greendom

Bond-007 wrote: »

So what. At least they are no where as corrupt as FF.

Are you sure. If it is true it's probably just because they haven't had the opportunity

greendom

greendom wrote: »

Just what the country needs if you want it to decline ever faster into a slump - reducing spending will just make the current situation even worse. I know the budget deficit is too high at the moment, but now is not the time to try and reduce it. It will kill the economy stone dead.

How can reducing government spending POSSIBLY make the situation worse?

You don't think things like social welfare are WAY too expensive? I mean a full time minimum wage job doesn't make that much more than someone at home on benefits..

greendom

Bond-007 wrote: »

So what. At least they are no where as corrupt as FF.

So how would a coalition with Labour work? Where's the common ground - apart from hatred of FF? Is that enough to bring about recovery?

hallelujajordan

greendom wrote: »

Just what the country needs if you want it to decline ever faster into a slump - reducing spending will just make the current situation even worse. I know the budget deficit is too high at the moment, but now is not the time to try and reduce it. It will kill the economy stone dead.

Now is not the time to reduce public spending ? ? ?

So whats your plan, we keep on borrowing 400M a week until the IMF comes in and declares us bankrupt ? mmmm . . interesting economic theory !

brianthebard

taconnol wrote: »

Funny...I can't imagine any other party doing any differently. Oh yeah, would they have put it to their members in a democratic vote? I didn't see FF's members voting on the new PfG.

Is there really that much to gloat about when its clear that the fur lobby group within the party was the casting vote on NAMA, which means our economic present and future has been decided by a group of about 100 people?

greendom

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

How can reducing government spending POSSIBLY make the situation worse?

You don't think things like social welfare are WAY too expensive? I mean a full time minimum wage job doesn't make that much more than someone at home on benefits..

Because you are taking money out of a seriously sick economy; supressing it, squeezing out any life it had. State benefits is another argument, but overall the government should be trying to breath life into the economy not the opposite.

Sand

RIP
Green Party
1981-2012

greendom

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Now is not the time to reduce public spending ? ? ?

So whats your plan, we keep on borrowing 400M a week until the IMF comes in and declares us bankrupt ? mmmm . . interesting economic theory !

Italy's public debt is 3 times ours - I don't see the IMF knocking at their door. Public deficit is bad, but we still have some breathing room to try to instill life back into the economy.

turgon

greendom wrote: »

Italy's public debt is 3 times ours - I don't see the IMF knocking at their door. Public deficit is bad, but we still have some breathing room to try to instill life back into the economy.

Italy is 13 times bigger???

Biggins

brianthebard wrote: »

Is there really that much to gloat about when its clear that the fur lobby group within the party was the casting vote on NAMA, which means our economic present and future has been decided by a group of about 100 people?

100 people roughly that has decided to saddle the country with 40 years of further debt and made big bankers happy tonight.

:mad:

The Greens are going to be decimated at the next election for sure and it's of their own making.

Flamed Diving

greendom wrote: »

Because you are taking money out of a seriously sick economy; supressing it, squeezing out any life it had. State benefits is another argument, but overall the government should be trying to breath life into the economy not the opposite.

Quickly explain a means for not removing money from the economy, while simultaneously injecting money into the economy, all while avoiding default?

Sand

Quickly explain a means for not removing money from the economy, while simultaneously injecting money into the economy, all while avoiding default?

The way I understand it, the difference is, We're Irish.

MikeC101

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Quickly explain a means for not removing money from the economy, while simultaneously injecting money into the economy, all while avoiding default?

We all plant some of these? They're green after all.



On a more serious note - surely we must cut *some* of the social welfare bill?

Shave ten euro off the 204.30 a week payment, and that's a chunk saved. And this is spoken as someone currently on social welfare - prices have fallen, why not decrease social welfare in line with that? It increased by more than inflation in the "good" times.

turgon

MikeC101 wrote: »

Shave ten euro off the 204.30 a week payment, and that's a chunk saved. And this is spoken as someone currently on social welfare - prices have fallen, why not decrease social welfare in line with that? It increased by more than inflation in the "good" times.

This is exactly why Labour should not be in power. They will not be willing to change this, or the public sector wage bill.

Rb

Biggins wrote: »

100 people roughly that has decided to saddle the country with 40 years of further debt and made big bankers happy tonight.

:mad:

The Greens are going to be decimated at the next election for sure and it's of their own making.

Not just 100 people, 100 "Green" people...what a bad taste that leaves in the mouth.

I suppose the positive thing is that they'll waste quite a significant amount of their party's money on their next campaign

Rb

Regarding shaving money off the dole, instead of taking such a measure, why not just have those who are signing on do X amount of hours of work instead? In community projects, helping local businesses etc?

Dampsquid

Ok, the Greens didn't do it for us... so what.. When are people going to take to the streets? We only have days or weeks before NAMA is passed.

We have to stand up for ourselves

Flamed Diving

Dampsquid wrote: »

Ok, the Greens didn't do it for us... so what.. When are people going to take to the streets? We only have days or weeks before NAMA is passed.

We have to stand up for ourselves

Someone must take the lead, my damp-squidded friend...

turgon

Dampsquid wrote: »

Ok, the Greens didn't do it for us... so what.. When are people going to take to the streets? We only have days or weeks before NAMA is passed.

Unfortunately any such march will be hijacked by Socialists so you can count me out.

@Rb: why are you against reducing social welfare? Its clearly went this high merely as an exercise in purchasing votes.

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

This is exactly why Labour should not be in power. They will not be willing to change this, or the public sector wage bill.

Proof?

MikeC101

Rb wrote: »

Regarding shaving money off the dole, instead of taking such a measure, why not just have those who are signing on do X amount of hours of work instead? In community projects, helping local businesses etc?

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that there might be an issue of businesses using this "free" labour instead of paying people to do it?

Plus the public service unions would declare war if their staff had to put into force these schemes without extra pay, a few months training, promotions all around, and an extra tea break.

(Apologies, but I recently saw an employee diary in my local social welfare office with several 15 minute tea breaks and a two hour lunch pencilled in, and she spent 10 minutes of my "meeting" sitting on her co workers desk having a chat, while the queue waited, and am feeling somewhat annoyed)

MikeC101

turgon wrote: »

This is exactly why Labour should not be in power. They will not be willing to change this, or the public sector wage bill.

Is this for sure? The only recent thing I remember reading from Labour on the civil service was a program of increased efficiency, and not job/pay cuts.
But it's hard to believe they couldn't face up to the reality that cuts are going to have to be made.

Sand

@Rb

Regarding shaving money off the dole, instead of taking such a measure, why not just have those who are signing on do X amount of hours of work instead? In community projects, helping local businesses etc?

The dole is there to support people between jobs as a safety net. Its not there as an alternative career path or life style. Id prefer if people on the dole were out there looking for actual "real" jobs as opposed to being diverted into make work schemes.

Personally, my advice to people on the dole for a long term would be to get involved in some sort of community work or charity work regardless. Itll look better on the CV than a big blank gap. Maybe they can train up to act as bodyguards for Greens trying to canvass for votes in 2012?

@MikeC101

Is this for sure? The only recent thing I remember reading from Labour on the civil service was a program of increased efficiency, and not job/pay cuts.
But it's hard to believe they couldn't face up to the reality that cuts are going to have to be made.

Gilmore is on record as saying there wont be any paycuts or job cuts in the public sector as far as he is concerned. Seeing as were taking in 34 billion a year, 9.1 billion of that is gone to paying for NAMA (Cheers Green Party) and then youve got to pay for Social Welfare ( 20 Billion)...well, weve got about 5 Billion left for the public sector, let alone everything else.

Job and salary cuts are impossible to avoid, "efficiencies" arent going to save 26 billion per year.

Rb

turgon wrote: »

@Rb: why are you against reducing social welfare? Its clearly went this high merely as an exercise in purchasing votes.

Oh I'm certainly not, however the majority of those on the dole might be, hence why I believe that if we could get those claiming out working for their welfare the country would benefit in a plethora of different ways.

It might also deal with those who just do not want to work, yet are happy to claim money from those who do in that no work = no dole.

Perhaps a combination of the two? Possibly cut back the dole and provide an incentive by giving full dole to those who work/take part? Interesting thought none the less.

At least we'll always be able to boost the price of smokes without much fear of the revenue disappearing

greendom

turgon wrote: »

Italy is 13 times bigger???

yes, but Italy's debt is something like 120% of its GDP Ireland's is something over 40%

greendom

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Quickly explain a means for not removing money from the economy, while simultaneously injecting money into the economy, all while avoiding default?

Now is not the time to remove money from the economy; unless we all want a 10 year slump that is