Time for an 'alternative' Green Party?

Scofflaw

With de Burca's resignation, and following on from the loss of support the Greens have suffered from about a third of previous supporters, is there now electoral room for an alternative Green Party? Or a non-electoral Green lobby group, given that many original Greens were unhappy with electoral politics?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Biggins

I would have to say yes.
One that stays true to its core fundamental ideals and its actual words spoken to the public.

Macha

Biggins wrote: »

One that stays true to its core fundamental ideals and its actual words spoken to the public.

Even after it goes into power as a minority parter in a coalition?

Will there be unicorns and mermaids in this party?

There are already plenty of non-electoral green lobby groups in Ireland. I really don't see the point in setting up another one to simply add to the fragmentation.

Scofflaw

Biggins wrote: »

I would have to say yes.
One that stays true to its core fundamental ideals and its actual words spoken to the public.

I have to say that that suggests to me a Green lobby group. I don't think any political party has ever been able to carry out in government (let alone coalition) exactly what it promised in opposition.

What would the core fundamental ideals of such a party or group be? I've heard everything from pacifism to vegetarianism to subsidiarity to opposition to fluoridation touted as "core fundamental" ideals, so I'm a little wary of the phrase!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

Well one thing is certain: a new green party would regain the lost voter share quicker than the current Greens. The Green Party is now a spoiled and disdained brand, and people feel betrayed by them.

I think that one has to be very clear where the Greens went wrong. After their election people seemed to be immediately griping about how they weren't given much weight in Government. As a parliamentary party of 6 TD's I think that that criticism was undeserved. To steal a Greens cliché: its better to do a little inside government than nothing outside it.

But theres a big difference between having a minor agenda in Government and being the necessary crutch for what is seen as corrupt party (FF). Even though I wasn't of age in 2007, I remember the Greens being marketed as some kind of new party, a change with the old. I think people who voted for them rightly felt betrayed that the Greens supported Fianna Fail through the Bertie fiasco and when the populace clearly wanted a change.

I say this as I would hate to see new greens become ideologically opposed to being in government. I think the new greens should embrace government but should not stand for the kind of things the old Greens have.

Macha

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But theres a big difference between having a minor agenda in Government and being the necessary crutch for what is seen as corrupt party (FF).

Can you explain in detail the difference?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think the new greens should embrace government but should not stand for the kind of things the old Greens have.

Can you give some examples? And what exactly the Greens should have done?

Eliot Rosewater

taconnol wrote: »

Can you explain in detail the difference?

I have no problem with a small party being in government and only implementing small changes. Thats all that can be expected (although Im sure Im in the minority in this regard).

However lately the Greens have been the only reason this Government has kept going. By staying in Government the Greens have condoned all that FF have done, such as what happened with Bertie. Theres also the argument that the population want a change of Government and that the Greens are choosing to ignore this. Even though the tactic is governmentally advantageous for the Greens Im not sure if its the "right" thing to do, especially as I suspect that many of people who voted Green are now calling for them to pull out.

IrishTonyO

I voted for the Greens last time as Trevor Sargeant said he would not lead his party into government with Fianna Fail. I along with a lot of other people took that to mean they would not go into government with FF, not that TS would stand down and they would go in with Gormley. As a result of this I definitely feel betrayed and in fact lied to. It was my first time voting green and I think my last.
However I do know a number of green councillors and they are all of the opinion that the parliamentary party have lost the ethos of the party. I made my complaints known to my local Green TD when they went into government and pointed out the numerous areas of lies I was told before the election and his answer was, as they were not a majority in government they could not fulfil the pre election promises!! Did they honestly think they could get a majority government?? And if not then they told blatant lies.

ei.sdraob

just what we need

yet another authoritarian party who care more for animals than people

Red_Marauder

The Green Party may once have had relevance to those who had a specific interest in environmental issues before it became popular, or those people who were in University in the 80s and early 90s when climate change started to gain serious attention, and saw the need to drive the issue mainstream.

But they have become a relic of the success of the Green agenda.

Every major political party now has a green platform and has developed policies to cope with climate change and emissions and a healthier environment generally.

Where does this leave the green party?
What have they got left to offer apart from providing the fourth wheel to a Government in a getaway car?

We don't need a new green party. We don't even need the current one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Every major political party now has a green platform and has developed policies to cope with climate change and emissions and a healthier environment generally.

Where does this leave the green party?
What have they got left to offer apart from providing the fourth wheel to a Government in a getaway car?

We don't need a new green party. We don't even need the current one.

Not true at all. As someone who works in the environmental and sustainability sector, I can tell you that no previous government has gotten results like we have seen since the Greens came into power.

FG's green policies are risible and Labour's are little better. For example, Labour opposes water charges and as Enda revealed on Newstalk last week, FG haven't really thought about them.

It's also about putting words into action and in the environmental sector, Labour and FG have a miserable track record.

I'll put my hand up and say I'm a member of the Greens. But I would also love if what you are saying were true and that there is no need for a Green Party in this country. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Scofflaw

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The Green Party may once have had relevance to those who had a specific interest in environmental issues before it became popular, or those people who were in University in the 80s and early 90s when climate change started to gain serious attention, and saw the need to drive the issue mainstream.

But they have become a relic of the success of the Green agenda.

Every major political party now has a green platform and has developed policies to cope with climate change and emissions and a healthier environment generally.

Where does this leave the green party?
What have they got left to offer apart from providing the fourth wheel to a Government in a getaway car?

We don't need a new green party. We don't even need the current one.

I wish that that were true - and for at least a couple of major issues (climate change, most obviously, but also several others) it is the case, because those issues are being driven by more environmentally conscious nations at the EU level.

However, that does nothing about our national planning, waste or transport issues, nor does it mean that the decisions taken with respect to the Irish environment are anything approaching environmentally friendly, because the other Irish parties are about as environmentally conscious as the corpse of a property developer.

To claim that the green agenda is a victim of its own success in Ireland is quite extraordinary, in one sense - this is not a country where the green agenda has gained anything more than a toe-hold, despite its "green" image. Its mainstream politics reflect the views of the majority of the electorate, particularly the rural electorate, that Greens (and people like An Taisce) are a bunch of latte-sipping tree-hugging D4 nannies - a view that is regularly expressed here and elsewhere.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conorhal

When the splitters say alternative, what they mean is 'a return to comfortable unelectability', thus allowing them to be as barmy as they like while avoiding anything approaching the reality of doing business in the Dail. DeBurca is acting like a bit of a 'George Lee' for the Greens, when faced with the reality that as a small party who represent a small minority in government, she and many Greens simply couldn't accept that they didn't run the show and couldn't implement every granola inspired initiative that crossed their minds without having to reference it's economic viability, public acceptance or it's impact upon jobs and their constituents.
As far as I can see, they would rather go back to sticking their head in the clouds than actually be part of the unpleasant realities of government, with all it's compromises, legal and budgetary restrictions etc that suits their uncompromising nature.....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Hold up a second. Two things - first, this is not to become an "I hate the Greens because..." thread - second, how many of those who feel that any Green Party is superfluous (as per Red_Marauder) would vote for any Green Party?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well we have secured a VRT exemption for electrical vehicles and the Greens did bring about changes in VRT that have so far resulted in a 12% reduction in emissions, according to SEI.

To be honest low-emission vehicles (as opposed to electric vehicles) are not going to cut it - it's small fry. Most EU cities have a public transport: private transport ratio of 80:20. Dublin's is the reverse. Fiddling around with VRT while this ratio stays the same is like the proverbial arranging of the deckchairs.

Biggins

Some background history first:

The Irish Green Party began in 1981 as the Ecology Party of Ireland (EPI). In November 1982, the EPI participated in its first General Election and then changed its name to the Green Alliance/Comhaontas Glas in 1983. By 1985 they won their first race, when Marcus Counihan was elected to the Killarney Urban District Council.

1987 brought about another name change, this time to the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas signaling a growing electoral focus of the Irish grassroots Green movement. Then came the breakthrough of 1989, when Dublin’s Roger Garland became the Party’s first member of Irish Parliament (Dáil Éireann) or TD (Teachta Dála, Gaelic for “assembly delegate). Building upon this success, 13 Greens were elected to city and town councils in 1991. In 1994, the party won its first seats in the European Parliament, electing Patricia McKenna (Dublin) and Nuala Ahern (Leinster). But they didn’t stop there, as months later the Dublin City Council elected John Gormley to be the city’s first Green mayor, giving the party an increasingly high profile in the nation’s capital.

May 1997 saw the party double its number of TDs, as Gormley and Trevor Sargent were elected to the Dáil, and two years later, McKenna and Ahern successfully defended their European Parliament seats. After 10 years, the party had seemingly secured a solid place in Irish politics and looked forward to stepping up to the next level.

At its 2001 Annual Convention, the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas took steps to make it a more successful electoral force, including establishing the position of Party Leader and electing Sargent to fill that role. These steps paid off, as in the 2002 General Election the Party added four seats, bringing to the Dáil Eamon Ryan in Dublin South, Paul Gogarty in Dublin West, Ciarán Cuffe in Dún Laoghaire and Dan Boyle in Cork South Central.
In 2004, while McKenna lost a close re-election bid and the party’s second seat fell victim to the reduction in the number of Ireland’s seats in the European Parliament following enlargement of the EU, the Greens performed very well in local elections, expanding their number of town and county Green councilors to 26. Among this group was Niall Ó Brolcháin, elected in Galway, Ireland’s third largest city, who then was named Mayor. Branching out to win in many parts of the country, this also represented a breakout from the party’s perceived traditional Dublin base.
http://greenpages.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/irish-greens-enter-coalition-government-for-the-first-time/

taconnol wrote: »

...what exactly the Greens should have done?

How about sticking to their words and policies?

The Greens had previously to election attacked the government on a number of fronts: automobile-dependency, racing development sprawl :rolleyes:, a deterioration in the quality of public infrastructure and services :rolleyes:, and the undue influence of corporate donations on public policy (aye, big changes there too) :rolleyes:.
Earlier preconditions also included into going into power with the FF mafia was the future non use use of Shannon Airport by American troops. :rolleyes:
So too was the non-construction of a new motorway near the “Hill of Tara”. :rolleyes:
The Party had previously also taken positions against the construction of the ‘Corrib’ gas pipeline. :rolleyes:
The encouragement through tax breaks and other financial incentives of private healthcare services (called “co-location” as the new facilities would be built on existing public hospital sites - not new ones!!! Try explaining that one Greens to the cancer patients of Ireland and the patients of Crumlins Childrens Hospital!) :rolleyes:
...and thats only to start with.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I voted for the Greens last time as Trevor Sargeant said he would not lead his party into government with Fianna Fail. I along with a lot of other people took that to mean they would not go into government with FF, not that TS would stand down and they would go in with Gormley. As a result of this I definitely feel betrayed and in fact lied to. It was my first time voting green and I think my last...

Very true and to use Trevors VERY words around 2007, he denounced Fianna Fail as a party of "bad planning, corruption and bad standards".
SOURCE

ei.sdraob wrote: »

just what we need
yet another authoritarian party who care more for animals than people

Thats very presumptive isn't it? Your already saying what a so call new green based party's ideology is based around - even before its even thought of and put to the people. Talk about seriously jumping the gun...

Red_Marauder wrote: »

We don't need a new green party. We don't even need the current one.

I would say different. We should have some form of separate green organisation - if only to keep in-check the policies of those elected and they maybe pretending to have such policies just to win over the public!
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes!

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wish that that were true - and for at least a couple of major issues (climate change, most obviously, but also several others) it is the case, because those issues are being driven by more environmentally conscious nations at the EU level.

global warming can be solved (well global temperature can be dropped by 1-2 degrees C) by a very simple system costing 100 million dollars a year

as described in great detail in this latest NY Times bestseller

i don't see why you need a political movement for a problem (or set of problems) that can be solved by well-funded engineering project(s)

Biggins wrote: »

Thats very presumptive isn't it? Your already saying what a so call new green based party's ideology is based around - even before its even thought of and put to the people. Talk about seriously jumping the gun...

the whole Green movement is based around the idea of un-sustainability and dictating to people how live their lives in order so that we can revert to a more "simple" time

its an idealogical movement that ignores how people behave and respond to pressures, hence its ultimately doomed to failure like Communism before it
the current Green movement is very authoritarian in its ways, how would this New Greens party might be any different?

/

Macha

Biggins wrote: »

How about sticking to their words and policies?

Biggins, do you understand the realities and practicalities of the formation and functioning of coalition governments?

Edit: ei.sdraob, that book has been widely discredited and frankly mocked for it's pie-in-the-sky geo-engineering climate change "solutions". Just read the first review on your link.

Biggins

taconnol wrote: »

Biggins, do you understand the realities and practicalities of the formation and functioning of coalition governments?

I do indeed but I also understand the difference between compromise and complete sell out too!
The Green Party as it stands now has more u-turns in it than just the motorway between the Dail and Gormley's actual home!

Macha

Biggins wrote: »

I do indeed but I also understand the difference between compromise and complete sell out too!

And what is that, exactly?

eoinbn

By all means. Create an alternative party that will never achieve a single objective. Right now governments all around the world are doing things that they would prefer not to, yet in one of the countries hit worst by the recession some members of a junior party believe that they should stick to their core principals and not give an inch...

Biggins

taconnol wrote: »

And what is that, exactly?

There is enough threads here already outlining the many ways that the present Green party has backtracked.
I'm not going to bore you and regurgitate them all. A quick search will do that job easy.

I'm not against Green ideas in any way. I'm not against a green based party going into a union-ship with a decent and more honest based party.
I am against any organisation that is willing to sell is soul to the devil just to see little or nothing gained and a Green organisation tarnished by its leaders when its ground membership have genuine heartfelt good ideas - but their chances of any of them being implemented, ruined by fools now at the top.

Scofflaw

Biggins wrote: »

I do indeed but I also understand the difference between compromise and complete sell out too!
The Green Party as it stands now has more u-turns in it than just the motorway between the Dail and Gormley's actual home!

Presumably the difference comes back to this question of "core fundamental principles", and whether the Green Party has traduced those in government rather than abandoning non-core issues that couldn't be negotiated (and bearing in mind that the PfG was voted in by Green members) - but you still haven't said what they are?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bob Z

Scofflaw wrote: »

With de Burca's resignation, and following on from the loss of support the Greens have suffered from about a third of previous supporters, is there now electoral room for an alternative Green Party? Or a non-electoral Green lobby group, given that many original Greens were unhappy with electoral politics?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Good idea but what could we call it? The Off-Green Party?

Biggins

Scofflaw wrote: »

Presumably the difference comes back to this question of "core fundamental principles", and whether the Green Party has traduced those in government rather than abandoning non-core issues that couldn't be negotiated (and bearing in mind that the PfG was voted in by Green members) - but you still haven't said what they are?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Being honest with yourself and the forum I, myself couldn't say what others "core fundamental principles" are or should be in a future possible new organisation. It would be presumptive of me to say the least.
I cannot attempt to even being to mention a fuller layout of a new Green constitution and memorandum of ideas and to my discredit (and to the much credit of good others here) I'm not as knowledgeable in the vast areas of green issues compared to those said others.

If a new green org' was to be formed (its a big "IF"), I would hope they stick to the ideas they espouse, hopefully more so than the org' presently residing in the Dail.
The issues that the present "Green Party" are advocating, seem to change week to week depending on the whims of Fianna Fail heads!
The leash stretching from FF headquarters to the Green Party Headquarters must be very tight. Its being yanked often enough!

Scofflaw

Bob Z wrote: »

Good idea but what could we call it? The Off-Green Party?

There's certainly plenty of room for a marketing campaign, anyway - "Greened-off?", "Have Fianna Fail eaten your Greens?" - but that doesn't really tell us what it would stand for.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Biggins

Originally Posted by Bob Z
Good idea but what could we call it?

"Natures Best?"

paddyland

taconnol wrote: »

Well we have secured a VRT exemption for electrical vehicles and the Greens did bring about changes in VRT that have so far resulted in a 12% reduction in emissions, according to SEI.

To be honest low-emission vehicles (as opposed to electric vehicles) are not going to cut it - it's small fry. Most EU cities have a public transport: private transport ratio of 80:20. Dublin's is the reverse. Fiddling around with VRT while this ratio stays the same is like the proverbial arranging of the deckchairs.

We have a FF minister for transport, whose priority seems to be the proliferation of toll roads (and whose appointments to the boards of those toll companies raises huge questions), while under his entire tenure, and the minister before him, NOTHING of any substance was done about the appalling lack of decent public transport in the country.

That would appear to be the sum total of FF policy on public transport, i.e. nothing, the same FF government being propped up and excused by this waste of a Green Party, or should we say a Yellow Party.

The Green Party seem to have nothing to say on the subject of public transport, other than encouraging everyone to buy bicycles. We don't have the weather for bicycles in this country!

Scofflaw

paddyland wrote: »

We have a FF minister for transport, whose priority seems to be the proliferation of toll roads (and whose appointments to the boards of those toll companies raises huge questions), while under his entire tenure, and the minister before him, NOTHING of any substance was done about the appalling lack of decent public transport in the country.

That would appear to be the sum total of FF policy on public transport, i.e. nothing, the same FF government being propped up and excused by this waste of a Green Party, or should we say a Yellow Party.

The Green Party seem to have nothing to say on the subject of public transport, other than encouraging everyone to buy bicycles. We don't have the weather for bicycles in this country!

Although apparently the Swedes do:

In average, 15-35% of the passengers use the bicycle as a feeder to regional trains in northern Europe, Rystum A, 1992 (4). The highest figures can be found in dense populated urban areas. i.e. in The Netherlands and in the county of Malmohuslan in south Sweden. In the county of Malmohuslan, Sweden, minimum 30% (max 55%) of the feeder trips to regional trains in the home part of the journey is made by bicycle and up to 25% in the away part of the journey, Rystam, 1996 (3). In the home part the bicycle users are mostly commuters and in the away part mostly they are leisure-, shopping- or other cathegories of passengers. Danish and Swedish study show that 2-10% of the passengers use the bicycle in both ends of a multimodal trip, the more commuters the higher share, Go JensenJ, 1995 (I) and Rystam, 1996 (3).

I've already pointed out that this is a thread about an alternative Green Party, not an opportunity to whinge unconstructively about the current one.

regards,
Scofflaw