Vent - the Greens are Vegetables

Boskowski

hallelujajordan wrote: »

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 ? ? ?

...

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

Well, sorry for stepping in, but I think there is the little issue of Realpolitik which you seem to ignore.

When the greens were elected all was rosy and we were all humming merrily away making big bucks and I wouldn't blame then one bit for pursuing primarily if not entirely their goals.

But things have changed a bit and being in government brings responsibilities which go beyond banning light-bulbs and operating against fur farms. And I'm all for closing fur farms myself by the way.

Right before our eyes the crime of the century is being committed by our own government for which - I hardly need to add - this government has no moral mandate whatsoever. This crime is so big that it has the potential to damage the country for generations.

Now how would you call it responsible to put the head in the sand and let it happen in exchange for abandoning college fees and closing 3 fur farms?

The greens had the ability to pull the plug on it but all they have shown is that their political maturity and responsibility is on the level of a high-school pupils council or so.

No way the Greens in Germany (for instance) would have let it happen. Because their views go beyond core green agendas. They allow themselves to have opinions on other things too. But it seems that the Greens in Ireland have not much of an ideology beyond preservation of the environment.

I'm still shocked actually over what happened this weekend...

brianthebard

hallelujajordan wrote: »

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'. .

He's a junior minister! What sacrifice did he make exactly? And your preferencing of wikipedia above the Greens official website is lolzworthy.

Boskowski

33% God wrote: »

It means that me and my friends can continue our education.

Ye let the country go f*ck. Who cares as long as I can finish my college and have my nights out?

Are you for real?

hallelujajordan

brianthebard wrote: »

He's a junior minister! What sacrifice did he make exactly? And your preferencing of wikipedia above the Greens official website is lolzworthy.

The opportunity to sit at the cabinet table with a full and meaningful ministry. The chance to represent the party that he had led since its inception into government (the ultimate goal for any politician). The salary and pension differential between full and junior ministry !

BTW, Wiki is not contradicting the Green website; It just says the same thing but with a different slightly different slant !

Lockstep

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.

I had such a load of respect for him when I heard he stepped down. My ma was in the gael thact with him and he cycled the whole way behind the bus, seemed a true green but I was gutted that the Greens lost such an obviously honest man, until I heard he was hoping for a ministerial position. SOunds like he just stepped down for the show.

Open for correction though.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

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

Yes, you did. Which is precisely WHY I said that they SHOULD represent their voters as well. If you bothered to read the post before diving in to their defence, I said that "if you'd only said voters", I'd view it differently, but BECAUSE you said they should represent their voters, that means that - as one of those voters, they should represent ME.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Quick lesson in democracy, cos you don't seem to get it. .

:rolleyes:

hallelujajordan wrote: »

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 ? ? ?

Their mandate, in case you decide to rewrite history again, included Sargent saying that he would not go into Government with FF. So I voted accordingly.

And while - personally (and there's no confusion on this because I've said so) - each party SHOULD try to do what's best for the country, but I've said I could understand a party putting their voters first.

And as a voter who voted for them, that includes ME. My opinion - even within your "represent your voters only" criteria - counts, and deserves representation.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

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.

I disagree completely. They said they would not go into Government with FF.

And I've already admitted that it's unfair that - because at least some of their votes - mine included - were based on that, they need to incorporate that into their actions. But sorry; you've already defended that "people vote based on different things" elsewhere, and you can't twist that to suit yourself now.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

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

Absolute RUBBISH. Why did you say "larger force in the electorate" in order to make it seem like it wasn't just those who voted for them ? Having said "they should represent their voters" (as you pointed out above) why didn't you say "that their mandate is owned by those who voted for them" ? Were you afraid that - having said that above - it would prove my point ?

What is the difference between....

"Why did you vote Greens ?" "

Because they promised windmills"

and

"Why did you vote FF ?" "

Because they promised not to go into coalition with FF"

Are those two promises not equal reason ? And why is pointing out that they reneged on the first one - twice - unfair ?

I know why I voted for them. And they've let me down. Again.

Look, there probably WAS a core vote that wanted Green policies, but as soon as they said they wouldn't lie down with FF, then that increased their vote. Maybe I'm unique, and maybe it only increased it by one, but I can categorically state that as FACT; it DID increase their vote by AT LEAST one.

I can't speak for everyone, but given some of the replies around the time of that u-turn, I don't think I'm unique.

So even if they got 5% extra votes, that's 5% who mightn't give a crap about lightbulbs, fur farms, etc, but - as you said yourself - as VOTERS, need to be represented. That 5% made a difference, and "gave them a chance" to implement their mandate as long as they stood by ALL their promises.

And that's even assuming that the remaining votes put lightbulbs and fur farms ahead of their children's futures and a fair society where profits and losses are EITHER privatised OR socialised, but not half-and-half.

freyners

While i would love to see fianna failure dumped out of power i do actually admire the greens for what they've done. They secured a guarantee against the re-introduction of college fees, making batty o'keefe looking like an idiot.

• Conscious of the economic pressures on parents today, this Government will not proceed with any new scheme of student contribution for Third Level education.

Húrin

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.

They are the government so they are morally obliged to serve the people. Especially given they're a party that claims to be pro-democracy.

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

Not quite. 70% plus of people in Ireland want a change of government. Most green party members are naturally somewhat left wing people and they mostly understand why people hate FF and in many cases are even sympathetic. The Greens had an unprecedented opportunity to eliminate FF with the stroke of a pen. Instead they chose to all but merge with them.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

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

There is no mandate any more. NAMA and unconditional alliance with Fianna Fáil were not in the manifesto that people voted for.

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.

Remarkably, you seem to believe that their mandate is not diluted and thus that the Irish people are all for them.

Political parties that believe in democracy, as the Greens go to pains to show that they do, have an obligation to listen to the will of the people. Political parties that clearly only govern in the interests of narrow groups lose elections and rightly so.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Are your preferences consistent with their manifesto ? ?

NAMA and unconditional alliance with Fianna Fáil were not in the manifesto that I voted for.

freyners wrote: »

While i would love to see fianna failure dumped out of power i do actually admire the greens for what they've done. They secured a guarantee against the re-introduction of college fees, making batty o'keefe looking like an idiot.

• Conscious of the economic pressures on parents today, this Government will not proceed with any new scheme of student contribution for Third Level education.

Do You know that they didn't cost that statement? Thus if Fianna Fáil decided that they couldn't afford to pay fees anymore, this "guarantee" will be swiftly scrapped because they know by now that the Greens will never stand up and walk out.

heyjude

I can understand peoples' frustration with the Greens decision not to bring down the government, but I liken their situation to that of a prisoner on death row, who is given the choice of being executed now or in two/three years time. The Greens know that if there was an election now, they'd be lucky to have any TDs left, so they've nothing to lose by staying in government for another 2 years, they might actually get some green policies implemented in the meantime and they might even recover a bit in the opinion polls.

I don't understand though, the depths of peoples' anger against the Greens, which often seems more heated than the anger felt against FF, who are really responsible for our current mess.

What I thought was puzzling about the Green conference, was the debate/vote on Nama and the comment from one of the Greens about how they were looking after the taxpayers interests ! Surely, this couldn't be coming from the party that advocates a carbon tax(on what surely will shortly be rising fuel prices), water charges and is is part of a government that is seriously considering a property tax ? In any case, they evidently regarded it as being in the taxpayers interests to support Nama, or was it the Greens interest(since opposing Nama would probably have brought down the government) ? Taxpayers interests, I don't think so.

At the end of the day though, we should remember that while the Greens might prolong the current government, it is, as its two predecessors have been, a Fianna Fail dominated and led government and they're the real villains, no matter how much they(and their supporters) try to deflect anger onto their smaller coalition partners.

Kalashnikov_Kid

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

Well said. I shamefully gave them my first preference because I thought they would make a noticeable difference and be a strong check on power. Oh how wrong was I...

Boskowski

heyjude wrote: »

I don't understand though, the depths of peoples' anger against the Greens, which often seems more heated than the anger felt against FF, who are really responsible for our current mess.

Make no mistake. The real anger is not with the Greens. I don't think anyone really expected them to do the right thing. For that we're simply too disillusioned with politics in Ireland atm.
The real anger is where it belongs. The decision of the greens is just being seen as another one of the endless things that seem to be wrong in politics. And said decision may yet turn out to be a travesty of historical magnitude. Let's hope we're wrong on that one...

walshb

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.

No he didn't. He said that he wouldn't go into power with FF and that he'd resign rather than do this. What does he do? He leads them into power and THEN resigns and is given a cosy little number. He is as slimey as they come

hallelujajordan

I am amazed at all of you people who believe that the Greens are acting outside their mandate by a) going into govt with FF and b) agreeing to NAMA. In both cases they refreshed their mandate by going back to their members for a vote and in both cases they agreed to and did obey that vote. Their behaviour is the essence of democracy.

For those who believe they have let your vote down by changing their manifesto, that's just silly. . . A political party has the right to change their strategy mid term and do so all the time with the support of their members, usually at a party conference. If you want to influence that, join the party.

For those who believe they have a moral obligation to pull out of government . .again, nonsense. Their moral obligation is to try to run the country as best they can and exercise their mandate in the most effective way that they can.

And for the really silly people who claim to have voted Green to keep FF out of government I have to ask . . Which government were you looking for by voting Green . . another Rainbow coalition ? Do you remember the last rainbow government. This just doesn't add up. If you voting on a national level in 2007 (as opposed to locally like many people) then the only sensible vote to keep FF out of government would have been a vote for either FG or Labour.

The Green Party have 6 seats in the Dail and 2 ministries at the cabinet table. They have a mandate from their party members that they have just this weekend refreshed and they have every right to stay in government and pursue their policies.

Long Onion

The Greens were naive and got a bit starstruck when they were presented with the otion of getting into government. They just got chewed up by FF, as did the PD's. We now have a Green party who have overseen the Corrib pipeline and the running of a motorway through the hill of Tara.

They will argue that these were small sacrifices which would have to be made if they were to secure further, meaningful changes. Personally I believe that the fact they were willing to partake in Government knowing that they would have to sit by these decisions, marked their mindset from the get go. If a Green party was willing to accept the building of a motorway through an historical site, why are people now so monplussed about their willingness to support FF?

The real problem, as I see it, is the fact that FF were so desperate to cement an absolute parliamentary majority at any cost, that they hopped into bed with a party with whom they had little in common. Both parties made their beds, both sets of grass roots members stood by and ignored what didn't fit with the manifesto as they felt that this could be justified by future gains in other areas.

The real question is whether or not we, as voters, are willing to allow flexibility in stated manifesto's or whether we take a hard line stance and wish for no-compromise politics?

P.S. I did not vote for the Greens or FF and think that they are both morally bankrupt

peasant

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The Green Party have 6 seats in the Dail and 2 ministries at the cabinet table. They have a mandate from their party members that they have just this weekend refreshed and they have every right to stay in government and pursue their policies.

Technically correct !

But ...

Whatever about their TD's or ministers having been tainted by power, the fact the the grassroots of the party swallowed another load of FF promises hook, line and sinker is disappointing.

You know ...your stereotypical green party member ...that holier than thou attitude that they carry so well, that righteous indignation about everything that is wrong in the world. I mean ...they'd love to imprison you for driving a SUV if you'd let them ...yet they happily support a party that sees nothing wrong with governement members using a jet AND a limousine to get to Kerry ?

We're well used to moral ambiguity and sleeze from the old apparatus (FF or any other established party) ...the hope was that this party and these people would carry some of their righteous indignation to the heart of the machine and effect some changes.

Nope ...the machine has just gobbled them up, broke their backbone and spat them out again ...and they haven't even noticed, they're even proud of themselves.

hallelujajordan

peasant wrote: »

Technically correct !

You know ...your stereotypical green party member ...that holier than thou attitude that they carry so well, that righteous indignation about everything that is wrong in the world. I mean ...they'd love to imprison you for driving a SUV if you'd let them ...yet they happily support a party that sees nothing wrong with governement members using a jet AND a limousine to get to Kerry ?

Or . . . maybe they recognise that they can only change things from the inside. Maybe they, like all good politicians, are willing to work and compromise to achieve at least some of their goals from within government rather than achieve none of them from the back benches. Maybe John Gormley told the Taoiseach that he would not support the govt in a no confidence motion against the CC (Oh thats right, he did !) and maybe the government jet issue became a moot issue when the CC announced his resignation. Maybe they got significant concessions in the PfG about reforming the political expenses system, the number of seats in the Dail and banning corporate donations (Oh that's right, they got all those things too !)

Honest to God, the self righteous indignation about the Green Party on here is nothing short of ridiculous. . . . .

Riskymove

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I am amazed at all of you people who believe that the Greens are acting outside their mandate by a) going into govt with FF and b) agreeing to NAMA. In both cases they refreshed their mandate by going back to their members for a vote and in both cases they agreed to and did obey that vote. Their behaviour is the essence of democracy.

if you really believe that is the "essence of democracy" then you should want the Greens to refresh the mandate of the people that really count - the thousands that voted for them in an election based on a manifesto (which was conveniently ignored) - not a few hundred members

what the Greens have shown the electorate is that they are more than happy to put one manifesto to the people in an election campaign and get votes based on that - and then simply change their position after the election

Macha

Riskymove wrote: »

if you really believe that is the "essence of democracy" then you should want the Greens to refresh the mandate of the people that really count - the thousands that voted for them in an election based on a manifesto (which was conveniently ignored) - not a few hundred members.

And how exactly do you suggest the Greens find out what those voters want? Sounds like all you want is a general election.

Riskymove

taconnol wrote: »

And how exactly do you suggest the Greens find out what those voters want? Sounds like all you want is a general election.

well if you want to say your "behaviour is the essence of democracy" and have a mandate then a general election is the only way, especially given the extrordinary changes since the time of the last election

hallelujajordan

Riskymove wrote: »

if you really believe that is the "essence of democracy" then you should want the Greens to refresh the mandate of the people that really count - the thousands that voted for them in an election based on a manifesto (which was conveniently ignored) - not a few hundred members

what the Greens have shown the electorate is that they are more than happy to put one manifesto to the people in an election campaign and get votes based on that - and then simply change their position after the election

Are you suggesting that every time a government changes its mind on something or circumstances shift so that they can no longer implement all of their manifesto, they ought to resign from government and trigger a new general election. If this were the case we would have a GE every year and nothing would ever get done !

Riskymove

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Are you suggesting that every time a government changes its mind on something or circumstances shift so that they can no longer implement all of their manifesto, they ought to resign from government and trigger a new general election. If this were the case we would have a GE every year and nothing would ever get done !

not at all, but in this situation, given the drastic change in circumstances and lack of popular support for the Government I think there should be a general election based on the differing party's plans for economic recovery

I should add that i have no problem with what the green's have done but I do have a problem with it being presented as some glorious, selfless, democratic act; it was a case of political extortion - fully understandable but none the less, thats what it was

turgon

I wouldnt actually criticize the Greens for not holding true to their manifesto. As junior members of a coalition they will not be able to implement all that they promised.

NAMA is a big sticking point for me and those letters LTEV - Long Term Economic Value - will be ones I probably wont forget for a long long time. The LTEV is designed to help developers by giving them more taxpayers money than the value of what is being bought. The Greens are supporting this measure with a great 68% margin. How can they justify this?

Biggins

Riskymove

turgon wrote: »

How can they justify this?

er....as I said....they are extorting as much as possible out of FF in return for supporting NAMA...thats how they justify it

Liam Byrne

turgon wrote: »

NAMA is a big sticking point for me and those letters LTEV - Long Term Economic Value - will be ones I probably wont forget for a long long time. The LTEV is designed to help developers by giving them more taxpayers money than the value of what is being bought. The Greens are supporting this measure with a great 68% margin. How can they justify this?

Nail, head. If you took the "political reform" and added "ditch LTEV, add assurances re lending, and ensure that all the bank heads responsible get fired with no payoff or pension", and then the Greens might have managed to come out of last weekend with some respect.

Yes, they're a small party, but they had FF on a platter. And while FF out would have been the preferred option, at least demanding and getting the above would have ensured that FF they didn't do too much damage before they eventually get kicked out.

And the Greens would have come out with some credit which might possibly have allowed them to get the remaining items they wanted post 2012.

Macha

Riskymove wrote: »

not at all, but in this situation, given the drastic change in circumstances and lack of popular support for the Government I think there should be a general election based on the differing party's plans for economic recovery

I understand the sentiment - even as a Green I'm itching for a general election (and yes, yes I know we're not going to get a lot of votes).

But how exactly would that work? Are we basing the dissolution of the government on Red C polls? What qualifies as a drastic change in circumstances? Is a general election always the best idea when there is already a 'drastic change in circumstances'?

Liam Byrne

taconnol wrote: »

Is a general election always the best idea when there is already a 'drastic change in circumstances'?

Not always, no. But when it's on the eve of a Government introducing the worst rip-off ever and is a way of preventing that, then it's definitely the best idea.

jmayo

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.

Yeah he resigned as leader but then accepted nice cushy ministrry.
Some principled stand alright. :rolleyes:

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Or . . . maybe they recognise that they can only change things from the inside. Maybe they, like all good politicians, are willing to work and compromise to achieve at least some of their goals from within government rather than achieve none of them from the back benches. Maybe John Gormley told the Taoiseach that he would not support the govt in a no confidence motion against the CC (Oh thats right, he did !) and maybe the government jet issue became a moot issue when the CC announced his resignation. Maybe they got significant concessions in the PfG about reforming the political expenses system, the number of seats in the Dail and banning corporate donations (Oh that's right, they got all those things too !)

Honest to God, the self righteous indignation about the Green Party on here is nothing short of ridiculous. . . . .

No the ones that usually show the righteousness are the green ministers, particularly gormless and ryan.
Oh look at us we cycle to work, look at us we take the boat to save the envoironment and costs.

Ah but wait, the government chauffeur is following them with their papers, the embassy have a car dispatched to Hollyhead to pick gormless up.
F***ing hypocrits.

Ah yes you may state they are inside trying to change things.
After all it is better to be inside the tent pi**ing out than ...

Remember whose tent it is, it is the good ould ff tent and they are pis*ing out on us just like ff.

Yeah they are changing things from the inside. :rolleyes:
The government will introduce a raft of new taxes and guess what most of them such as water charges, carbon taxes etc will be down to the greens.
It is a win win for ff.
ff know they will have to change the expenses system after all the information that has come to light in the last couple of months.
It is expedient for them now to do something and using it as a bargaining chip with the greens is no skin of ff's nose.

As I said before ff have convinced the greens they have some power and are actually changing them. :rolleyes:
Just think of the image of Maggie steering the car in the opening credits of The Simspons.
The camera zooms out and hey presto, she has a toy steering wheel.
Get the picture ?

turgon

jmayo wrote: »

The camera zooms out and hey presto, she has a toy steering wheel.
Get the picture ?

John Gormleys a cartoon character? :eek:

hallelujajordan

jmayo wrote: »

No the ones that usually show the righteousness are the green ministers, particularly gormless and ryan.
Oh look at us we cycle to work, look at us we take the boat to save the envoironment and costs.

Ah but wait, the government chauffeur is following them with their papers, the embassy have a car dispatched to Hollyhead to pick gormless up.
F***ing hypocrits.

Ah yes you may state they are inside trying to change things.
After all it is better to be inside the tent pi**ing out than ...

Remember whose tent it is, it is the good ould ff tent and they are pis*ing out on us just like ff.

Yeah they are changing things from the inside. :rolleyes:
The government will introduce a raft of new taxes and guess what most of them such as water charges, carbon taxes etc will be down to the greens.
It is a win win for ff.
ff know they will have to change the expenses system after all the information that has come to light in the last couple of months.
It is expedient for them now to do something and using it as a bargaining chip with the greens is no skin of ff's nose.

As I said before ff have convinced the greens they have some power and are actually changing them. :rolleyes:
Just think of the image of Maggie steering the car in the opening credits of The Simspons.
The camera zooms out and hey presto, she has a toy steering wheel.
Get the picture ?

Whether or not they are successful in changing things in the way they want is actually irrelevant to this argument. The point is, they made a decision as is their right, to use the democratic mandate they have within government to attempt toeffect change as opposed to sitting in the backbenches watching Enda / Eamonn lead the country. They have every right and mandate to make this decision

turgon wrote:

The Greens are supporting this measure with a great 68% margin. How can they justify this?

Is this a joke or am I missing your point. They are accepting the decision of a two third majority of their party ? Would pulling the plug on NAMA and government in line with the view of less than one third of their membership be more justifiable, more democratic ?