Vent - the Greens are Vegetables

The Valley

I'm very surprised the Green party have not taken account of the peoples anger, mistrust and frustration with FF.
Now rather than act in the public interest and bring down the government on principles they have got involved in dirty politics and have been bought and bribed by FF. The net result is the green party will bare the brunt of the people anger at the next general election, if I have to wait 2 yrs i'll wait.

I will NEVER NEVER NEVER vote for Green party again. I voted green last time out on party policy and i never thought they would prop up FF.

We need a green party but not one that can be bought. This party is morally corrupt.

Shame on the greens, and god love the next one that knocks on my door

Liam Byrne

No argument here. Annihilation on the way for selling us down the swanee, and I'll look forward to delivering it to them.

They got some votes in previous elections (local, national & european) but never again.

spurious

The only Green who has a chance of being re-elected is Sargent and that's because he did what he said he would do if they got into bed with the slimy ones.

Joey the lips

The Valley wrote: »

I'm very surprised the Green party have not taken account of the peoples anger, mistrust and frustration with FF.
Now rather than act in the public interest and bring down the government on principles they have got involved in dirty politics and have been bought and bribed by FF. The net result is the green party will bare the brunt of the people anger at the next general election, if I have to wait 2 yrs i'll wait.

I will NEVER NEVER NEVER vote for Green party again. I voted green last time out on party policy and i never thought they would prop up FF.

We need a green party but not one that can be bought. This party is morally corrupt.

Shame on the greens, and god love the next one that knocks on my door

The greens are surviving. I no more than you would love to see the govt gone but the greens would not have got back in. The green party might be morally corrupt but they are surviving.

Out of curiosity because I love these comments so much .... what in your opinion have they achieved by being in govt and why dont you like them for continueing that work.

I ask not as a green voter because I think that your assumption that they are daft because they wanted to continue there work is a little childish.

personally I hate the greens. They have just brought forward the introduction of water charges so I am screwed but whats your gaffe

nuac

someone on radio yesterday morning summed it up for me - a green member at that meeting was able to wield some power -- better than spending another Saturday morning selling organic vegs at the local stall.

However I doubt if any political party could operate for long the way they do'

The Valley

Surviving now is surely not enough. I know they would take a hit if a general election was called tomorrow but at least they would be in a position to rebuild. By taking the moral high ground now and leaving government has to be better than either seeing some other issue topple the government or wait for a general election.

I voted green last time round on local issues. They have brought changes with
their policies but the horse has bolted. Warmer homes and stopping bad planning - who is building anyway theses days. an extra tax for rezoned land.
These were necessary 10 years ago. Energy sufficient bulbs

Their programme for government is aspirational and time will tell if they get everything they want. What happened their last PFG? and at a time of huge uncertainty they are talking about fur farming and rights for transsexuals. While these may be also necessary surely we have bigger problems to tackle.
Granted - If they stay in power they probably will sort out the expense issue

My main issue, and I apologise if you think it is childish, but I believe neither party have a mandate. The greens are proping up FF, they could have asked for anything this week and FF would have caved in. They have been bought and as a results of them adding more employees to the public sector, contrary to everything they had been saying somewhere, somthing else will now be cut.
I know water charges and any other tax's may not be liked but they are necessary to get this country back on its feet. I just want some other party to administer the medicine.

bmaxi

spurious wrote: »

The only Green who has a chance of being re-elected is Sargent and that's because he did what he said he would do if they got into bed with the slimy ones.

Really! He wasn't slow to accept a Junior Ministry from those same slimy ones.

hallelujajordan

The Valley wrote: »

I'm very surprised the Green party have not taken account of the peoples anger, mistrust and frustration with FF.
Now rather than act in the public interest and bring down the government on principles they have got involved in dirty politics and have been bought and bribed by FF. The net result is the green party will bare the brunt of the people anger at the next general election, if I have to wait 2 yrs i'll wait.

I will NEVER NEVER NEVER vote for Green party again. I voted green last time out on party policy and i never thought they would prop up FF.

We need a green party but not one that can be bought. This party is morally corrupt.

Shame on the greens, and god love the next one that knocks on my door

Why do so many posters on here believe that the Greens have some sort of obligation to the wider electorate or the country as a whole. The only obligation any political party has is to its members and its voters. The Greens take the unusual step of allowing their members to vote on the PfG . . When is the FF vote ? ?

This populist crap is really starting to wind me up. It's OK to hate their policies and hate their tactics but I don't know how you can accuse them of moral corruption simply for choosing to stay in government and trying to influence change rather than wilting away on the back benches.

Mr. Incognito

There are only two Green ministers and how many Fianna Fail ones?

Your anger is misplaced pal. I think the greens are doing okay in the portfolios they have and seem to be playing the game.

If they had walked out they'd get clattered so they were never going to do that. Have to see if they actually can push through anything in this term.

dresden8

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Why do so many posters on here believe that the Greens have some sort of obligation to the wider electorate or the country as a whole.

What, you really believe the government has no obligations to the electorate or the country as a whole?

That sentence just about sums up the Greens.

And you will wonder why you get wiped out at the next election.

Roll on.

population

spurious wrote: »

The only Green who has a chance of being re-elected is Sargent and that's because he did what he said he would do if they got into bed with the slimy ones.

He pulled the crudest, spinning PR three card trick I have ever seen in Irsh political circles. Had Nu-Lab written all over it in its execution. He wont survive, he has already shown himself to be a liar. It is all over people

hallelujajordan

dresden8 wrote: »

What, you really believe the government has no obligations to the electorate or the country as a whole?

That sentence just about sums up the Greens.

And you will wonder why you get wiped out at the next election.

Roll on.

Spin, spin, spin . . I love the way context gets spun so way out of control on these boards. . .

Yes, the government clearly have an obligation to the people. The first obligation of a political party is to its members and voters. Once they are elected and form a government, they have an obligation to the people of the country from within that government to try to govern in a way that will improve all of our quality of life.

The members of a political party have no obligation to exit government because the people who voted for everyone else do not like their policies. In the context of deciding whether or not to stay in a government and try to implement a programme that their leaders have agreed with their coalition party the Green Party's only obligation is to its members and voters. . . And, unlike all other political parties in Ireland, the GP actually allow their members to have an active say in this process . .

turgon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

In the context of deciding whether or not to stay in a government and try to implement a programme that their leaders have agreed with their coalition party the Green Party's only obligation is to its members and voters. . .

I understand. In the same way that FF only have an obligation to developers, bankers and certain interest groups and can ignore everyone else?

The Green Party are learning from Fianna Fail faster than Id have ever expected.

hallelujajordan

turgon wrote: »

I understand. In the same way that FF only have an obligation to developers, bankers and certain interest groups and can ignore everyone else?

The Green Party are learning from Fianna Fail faster than Id have ever expected.

Yeah, and Labour party only has an obligation to the Unions . .we could keep doing this forever !

One of the only ways to try to reduce this 'influence' is to ban corporate donations which ironically is one of the things that the GP (those described in this thread as morally corrupt!) have included in the revised programme for government.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

What, you really believe the government has no obligations to the electorate or the country as a whole?

That sentence just about sums up the Greens.

And you will wonder why you get wiped out at the next election.

Roll on.

The Greens, like any elected party, only have the duty to do right by the country according to their own views of what's right. If people elect a right-wing party to government, there isn't any expectation that they'll fight for workers' rights.

Your complaint boils down to "the Greens aren't doing what I think they should do" - as do most of the complaints on this (and other) threads. Since most of the people complaining aren't either Green Party members or even core Green Party voters, there's no reason why the Green Party should have any real interest in how you think they should go about things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Greens, like any elected party, only have the duty to do right by the country according to their own views of what's right. If people elect a right-wing party to government, there isn't any expectation that they'll fight for workers' rights.

Your complaint boils down to "the Greens aren't doing what I think they should do" - as do most of the complaints on this (and other) threads. Since most of the people complaining aren't either Green Party members or even core Green Party voters, there's no reason why the Green Party should have any real interest in how you think they should go about things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And I hope they keep that mindset at the next election and stay the fnck away from my door.

I shan't be troubling them with my vote in the future.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Spin, spin, spin . . I love the way context gets spun so way out of control on these boards. . .

So do I....

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The members of a political party have no obligation to exit government because the people who voted for everyone else do not like their policies. In the context of deciding whether or not to stay in a government and try to implement a programme that their leaders have agreed with their coalition party the Green Party's only obligation is to its members and voters

I'm not going to highlight the blatant errors within the quote, I'm going type them here:

1) "people who voted for everyone else"

Who says ? You do not have to be a member of the Green Party to vote for them. For example, I'm not, and I gave them a vote. So your dismissive "people who voted for everyone else" is way off the mark.

Whatever about the differentiation if you had said they were looking after "their members" (which you didn't say), do you not agree that they should look after those who voted for them ?

Of course, personally, I'd prefer if the elected servants of this country looked after everyone equally, and in a way "proved" to those who didn't vote for them that they were worth a vote next time (proper performance measurement there) and thereby governed for the good of the country as a whole.

2) "the Green Party's only obligation is to its members and voters"

Again, if you'd said "members", it would have been hard to completely disagree; personally, again, I'd remove the word "only" and replace it with "primary", and give you some leeway on that statement then; but once again you included us pesky non-member voters who took them at their word and gave them a chance, which they've blown.

3) Finally, the way the Greens act you'd swear that the ONLY policies which improved life for their members were their own; are Green members' children not being mortgaged by NAMA ? Can a Green member look their kids in the face in the future and tell them, "yes, you're paying crazy taxes that are a result of us caving in to greedy bankers and their buddies, and yes, I know you can't get a home or afford food and clothes, but look at this windmill with its environmentally-friendly lightbulb" ?

Is it lousy on the Greens that they were seen as the "watchdogs" to keep FF in check ? A little. But the fact is that without the votes of those who aren't "Green" but voted in order to ensure that FF didn't get an overall majority (actually, voted to keep them out of Government entirely, but the Greens also shot that through a few hours later) but let's assume that we voted just to stop FF having free reign........without those votes, the Greens wouldn't have gotten into power AT ALL. And therefore yes, they do owe the country something, other than just their own narrow-minded policies.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So do I....



I'm not going to highlight the blatant errors within the quote, I'm going type them here:

1) "people who voted for everyone else"

Who says ? You do not have to be a member of the Green Party to vote for them. For example, I'm not, and I gave them a vote. So your dismissive "people who voted for everyone else" is way off the mark.

Whatever about the differentiation if you had said they were looking after "their members" (which you didn't say), do you not agree that they should look after those who voted for them ?

? ? ? Did I not say their members and voters as you go on to quote below ? ? ?

Of course, personally, I'd prefer if the elected servants of this country looked after everyone equally, and in a way "proved" to those who didn't vote for them that they were worth a vote next time (proper performance measurement there) and thereby governed for the good of the country as a whole.

Quick lesson in democracy, cos you don't seem to get it. . Political party A produces a manifesto based on how they believe the country should be run. Electorate gets to vote on that manifesto and if they get enough votes they get a mandate to implement that manifesto ! Are you suggesting that they ought to abandon the manifesto (on which they won their mandate) and instead represent the inclusive manifesto of all of the people ? ? ?

2) "the Green Party's only obligation is to its members and voters"

Again, if you'd said "members", it would have been hard to completely disagree; personally, again, I'd remove the word "only" and replace it with "primary", and give you some leeway on that statement then; but once again you included us pesky non-member voters who took them at their word and gave them a chance, which they've blown.

If you gave them a chance you supported their manifesto and gave them a mandate to try to implement it. As a small party this is a difficult thing to do but I don't believe they have done too bad a job of it so far !

3) Finally, the way the Greens act you'd swear that the ONLY policies which improved life for their members were their own; are Green members' children not being mortgaged by NAMA ? Can a Green member look their kids in the face in the future and tell them, "yes, you're paying crazy taxes that are a result of us caving in to greedy bankers and their buddies, and yes, I know you can't get a home or afford food and clothes, but look at this windmill with its environmentally-friendly lightbulb" ?

wtf ? ? Is the fact that they have just agreed a revised PfG with FF not proof postiive that they are willing to look at, accept, compromise, influence and implement the policies of their government partners. Is it not better that they do that rather than sit on the back benches (assuming they were to win any seats) and allow their childrens futures to be dictated by others ??

Is it lousy on the Greens that they were seen as the "watchdogs" to keep FF in check ? A little. But the fact is that without the votes of those who aren't "Green" but voted in order to ensure that FF didn't get an overall majority (actually, voted to keep them out of Government entirely, but the Greens also shot that through a few hours later) but let's assume that we voted just to stop FF having free reign........without those votes, the Greens wouldn't have gotten into power AT ALL. And therefore yes, they do owe the country something, other than just their own narrow-minded policies.

Actually, this is just arrogant. What you are doing here is taking the GP mandate and twisting it to suit your needs. The Greens were not elected to prevent FF from getting an overall majority. They were elected like everyone else in DE based on their policies and manifesto and have the same right as everyone else in Leinster House to try to implement their manifesto. You seem to believe that their mandate is somewhat diluted. That they have a role other than the implementation of their policies. That their mandate is 'owned' by a larger force in the electorate that only put them there to protect us from FF and that therefore they have a different obligation to everyone else.. Not just arrogant, plain wrong

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

And I hope they keep that mindset at the next election and stay the fnck away from my door.

I shan't be troubling them with my vote in the future.

That's up to you - but you can hardly complain that as a result they don't take your preferences into account.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's up to you - but you can hardly complain that as a result they don't take your preferences into account.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well, I gave them a vote and they still don't take my preferences into account as it is.

Fool me once......

hallelujajordan

dresden8 wrote: »

Well, I gave them a vote and they still don't take my preferences into account as it is.

Fool me once......

Are your preferences consistent with their manifesto ? ?

dresden8

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Are your preferences consistent with their manifesto ? ?

I gave Trev a vote on the basis he wouldn't lead his party into government with FF.

He did.

Anyone remember Planet Bertie?

hallelujajordan

dresden8 wrote: »

I gave Trev a vote on the basis he wouldn't lead his party into government with FF.

He did.

Anyone remember Planet Bertie?

Well, technically, he didn't

dresden8

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Well, technically, he didn't

Well, technically

He led his party into the talks.

He led his party through the talks.

He led his party into the convention where he gave a hearty endorsement of going into government.

He led his party into the Dail into coalition with FF and he himself nominated Bertie as Taoiseach.

From the Green website itself.

http://www.greenparty.ie/people/trevor_sargent

He was elected first Leader of the Green Party in October 2001 and held the position until his resignation following the party's entry into Government in June 2007.

My emphasis.

Technically he did, and technically he's a liar and technically those who propogate that lie are liars.;)

hallelujajordan

dresden8 wrote: »

Well, technically

He led his party into the talks.

He led his party through the talks.

He led his party into the convention where he gave a hearty endorsement of going into government.

He led his party into the Dail into coalition with FF and he himself nominated Bertie as Taoiseach.

From the Green website itself.

http://www.greenparty.ie/people/trevor_sargent



My emphasis.

Technically he did, and technically he's a liar and technically those who propogate that lie are liars.;)

Wikipedia recalls events slightly differently . .

"Following the 2007 general election the Green Party entered talks on forming a coalition government with Fianna Fáil. A programme for government was agreed after over a week of negotiations, which was ratified by 86% by a special conference of the Green Party membership following passionate endorsements of the deal by Sargent and the rest of the Green leadership. However Sargent announced that he would resign his position as leader of the party and would not accept a seat in cabinet, as he had promised he would not lead the party into government with Fianna Fáil before the election. It was a surprise announcement and Sargent was generally lauded for such a demonstration of integrity. Instead of entering cabinet he was appointed Minister of State for Food and Horticulture by Bertie Ahern on 20 June 2007."

Regardless of the chain of events, I would think that the 86% party membership endorsement would trump your vote

dresden8

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Wikipedia recalls events slightly differently . .

"Following the 2007 general election the Green Party entered talks on forming a coalition government with Fianna Fáil. A programme for government was agreed after over a week of negotiations, which was ratified by 86% by a special conference of the Green Party membership following passionate endorsements of the deal by Sargent and the rest of the Green leadership. However Sargent announced that he would resign his position as leader of the party and would not accept a seat in cabinet, as he had promised he would not lead the party into government with Fianna Fáil before the election. It was a surprise announcement and Sargent was generally lauded for such a demonstration of integrity. Instead of entering cabinet he was appointed Minister of State for Food and Horticulture by Bertie Ahern on 20 June 2007."

Regardless of the chain of events, I would think that the 86% party membership endorsement would trump your vote

Nothing you have posted above changes the fact that Trev is a liar and what you previously posted is a lie, regardless of the chain of events.

People will remember that barefaced lie.

Sand

@hallelujajordan

Well, technically, he didn't

A stroke worthy of Haughey himself. Bertie and Trev must have had a great laugh about it.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

i voted for and now hate the b@stards , but I have to grudgingly admire the sheer balls they have and the sneaky play they are going to perform .

they will be doing just enough to make it look as if they they were snakes in the grass for FF all along , and do some stuff that will take the moral high ground above FF so people will go ' hmm, maybe they arent so bad after ' all .


people will get sucked in , and the fcukers WILL get back in next time.

personally we should have burned the whole lot of em out of it months ago

but we are slaves , and always will be .

hallelujajordan

dresden8 wrote: »

Nothing you have posted above changes the fact that Trev is a liar and what you previously posted is a lie, regardless of the chain of events.

People will remember that barefaced lie.

When Sargent said that he would not go into government with FF I believe he truly meant it so technically at the time this wasn't a lie . . . Had he said it with every intention of trying to form a government with FF but as an attempt to win more votes then Yes, he was lying but I don't believe that this was the case . .

I'm not a GP member, voter or supporter but I do believe that following a GE all elected TD's have a responsibility to try to form a government. Faced with the opportunity to implement Green Party policies and with a groundswell of support from within the Green Party Sargent clearly changed his mind. He did what he felt was the noble thing and stood by his word by stepping down as leader of the Greens and not taking a cabinet position.

Some might say that this was a very personal sacrifice as opposed to a 'stroke'. .

33% God

Before this weekend the greens would not have got a preference from me. They probably will now. While I would have liked to see the government fall I much rather the Greens removing 3rd level fees from the table. It means that me and my friends can continue our education. I really hope they do begin to grab Cowen by the balls a bit more, but that's unlikely really. They'll get a preference, but not a first or second one.

peasant

33% God wrote: »

While I would have liked to see the government fall I much rather the Greens removing 3rd level fees from the table.

Heiliger Sankt Florian / Verschon mein Haus / Zünd andre an!

Oh holy Sankt Florian
save my home
Light up someone else's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Florian

The St. Florian principle ...as long as my little world is rocked as little as possible, I don't care about the state of the nation.

It's this egotistical, small minded mindset ...that's what's wrong with Irish politics.

And since yesterday it now wholly includes the green party as well ...as of yesterday all politicians well and truly are the same.