Time for an 'alternative' Green Party?

View

Guell72 wrote: »

I think there should be a new Green group.
But it should not involve anyone in the current Green party. Even those who "Split" from the Green party after doing the damage. Nobody who remained in the party when they went into government should be involved in any new Green movement. They cant just bail out now that the writing is on the wall and get away without any responsibility.

And when the new Green group goes into coalition with, let's say, FG in 10 years time, what happens then? Are they in their turn to be replaced with another new Green group?

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

And when the new Green group goes into coalition with, let's say, FG in 10 years time, what happens then? Are they in their turn to be replaced with another new Green group?

Evidently so - although it won't be ABFF voters calling for it as it is now.

amused,
Scofflaw

Guell72

View wrote: »

And when the new Green group goes into coalition with, let's say, FG in 10 years time, what happens then? Are they in their turn to be replaced with another new Green group?

They wouldnt have to be replaced if they did a good job, didnt break promises, or find sneaky ways around them, would they.
Nobody from the current crop has covered themselves in glory.
I can only presume anyone still supporting the greens now is the green version of the FF or FG lifer. They cant ever imagine their precious party doing any wrong. Just look at how they've been performing. How the hell can that be defended? Blind faith i guess.

View

Guell72 wrote: »

They wouldnt have to be replaced if they did a good job, didnt break promises, or find sneaky ways around them, would they.

It isn't possible to be in Government without failing to do a good job (on more than one occassion), "breaking promises" and finding "sneaky ways" around them.

They go with the territory I'm afraid...

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

Evidently so - although it won't be ABFF voters calling for it as it is now.

amused,
Scofflaw

Well, fair's fair. Why shouldn't FFers have the chance to criticise the new Greens for betraying their principles, selling out etc?

IrishTonyO

View wrote: »

Well, fair's fair. Why shouldn't FFers have the chance to criticise the new Greens for betraying their principles, selling out etc?

by ABFF I think he means Anyone but Fianna Fail, not Fianna Fail voters, as in people who voted green as a protest vote against Fianna Fail

View

IrishTonyO wrote: »

by ABFF I think he means Anyone but Fianna Fail, not Fianna Fail voters, as in people who voted green as a protest vote against Fianna Fail

My take was that:

Today, the ABFF voters (FG, Lab etc) all complain about the current Green Party being in coalition with FF.
In 10 years time, the FF voters all complain about the "New Green" Party being in coaliton with FG etc.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

My take was that:

Today, the ABFF voters (FG, Lab etc) all complain about the current Green Party being in coalition with FF.
In 10 years time, the FF voters all complain about the "New Green" Party being in coaliton with FG etc.

I would imagine so, I'm afraid - everyone will change partners, but the dance will be the same.

cordially,
Scofflaw

simonj

There has already been a split in the Greens - before De Burca, after McKenna -

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/donegal-greens-decide--to-split-from-party-1930796.html

Donegal greens broke away.

IMHO the greens - if they are to remain cohesive and effective they need to act,

1) Make changes to the executive, get rid of the lobbyists there, and try to get back to basic core values.

2) Leave Government on an issue of principle, e.g. the reduction of royalties to Shell, or the payback offset, incinerators, lack of green industry initiatives, poor social planning, cutbacks for the poorest in society, armnaments corporations setting up dummy fronts in Ireland, baling out corrupt bankers, double jobbing TDs, family members being put on quangos or euro jobs etc etc etc.

But it is too late, another monkey has died on the FF organ grinders plate.

I think De Burca may be the victim of a smear campaign by the parties TD's - but if it emerges that the resignation came after a threat on an EU position, then my opinion of the Green TDs will sink even further.

Its a shame, I think the Greens started out well - and we need more modern parties than the three amigos - but thats Irish politics for you

simonj

Guell72 wrote: »

I think there should be a new Green group.
But it should not involve anyone in the current Green party. Even those who "Split" from the Green party after doing the damage. Nobody who remained in the party when they went into government should be involved in any new Green movement. They cant just bail out now that the writing is on the wall and get away without any responsibility.

There are still very decent people in the Greens - just not the TDs, and the executive is a major problem.

The Raven.

I definitely think we need a 'Green' party, but it should be renamed as 'The Environment Party', as not enough emphasis has been given to planning issues such as excessive rezoning and inappropriate development. I know that these have serious implications for green issues, but they also impact negatively on Heritage matters. Apart from destroying the quality of life of local residents, they also badly affect the tourist trade.

John Gormley has made great promises about curbing excessive rezoning, but in development applications the response from the Department of the Environment has been very weak. This needs to be urgently addressed.

Guell72

View wrote: »

My take was that:

Today, the ABFF voters (FG, Lab etc) all complain about the current Green Party being in coalition with FF.
In 10 years time, the FF voters all complain about the "New Green" Party being in coaliton with FG etc.

I think there is a reluctance among the remaining Green party supporters to face reality. The greens have lost support through their own actions. You cant lay it on ABFF voters. There are so many Green voters who wont be voting Green ever again. You'll see this soon enough when we go to the polls. Who are you going to blame that on?

Scofflaw

Guell72 wrote: »

I think there is a reluctance among the remaining Green party supporters to face reality. The greens have lost support through their own actions. You cant lay it on ABFF voters. There are so many Green voters who wont be voting Green ever again. You'll see this soon enough when we go to the polls. Who are you going to blame that on?

I'd put it down to two things - those who voted for them for the first time on the basis that they would only form a coalition that didn't include Fianna Fáil, and those who are long-term Green voters from the "McKenna tendency" - that is, those whose main interests are things like fluoridation, vaccination, Shell to Sea, and so on. That accounted, I would say, for roughly a third of Green electoral support, to judge both by the number that supported McKenna for party leader and the fall in support at the locals.

I can't say I'm particularly surprised at the loss of a swathe of Green supporters - I think that was always going to happen whenever the Greens went into government, because elements of the Greens' plans in opposition were never going to get past any coalition partner. The damage might have been less if the Greens were entering a Fine Gael-led coalition, mostly because many Green voters are ABFF by inclination (I am myself) - it probably would have dawned on Green supporters that such a rainbow coalition wasn't allowing much of the Green program through either, but it would have done so more slowly, by which time many of them would have had an emotional investment in government.

As to what the Greens can do to recover from their current straits - obviously, implementation of more of their programme would help. What might be most telling in the long run, though, is the fact that there isn't an alternative (electoral) Green Party. If I were to cast about for somewhere else for my vote to go, I can't see any other Irish party on the horizon that fundamentally cares about environmental matters - if I were as unhappy with the Greens as some are, that would still be the case, and I'd prefer to stay in and try to fix things than transfer my vote to one of Ireland's environmentally unconscious parties.

Naturally, that suggests that what will happen at some point between here and 2012 is that McKenna will form an "alternative" Green Party which will soak up the unhappy third of Green support, thus ensuring that nobody from either party is elected.

cordially,
Scofflaw

anymore

Theree are many environmental issues which ahve nothing whatsoever to do with global warming, yet the Greens dont seem to have taken an intereest in them. E.G near to where I live, car owners now have to compete with a glut of advertising trailers for parking spaces and in some cases legitimate traffic signs are obscured or blanked out altogether by advertising signs - God alone knows what tourists or visiting executives make of it all ?

So yes for me there is space for at least a non politicial environmental lobby, one that doest want to save the world but to ensure we have decent environment to live in...small is beautiful !

simonj

Anymore - Dont know if your in Dublin, but the advertising trailers were banned in South RRotterdam for those reasons.

What is ironic is that the 450 odd bikes in the Dublin bike scheme were recieved in return for advertising space, so another screwup by the elected representitives and/or council

anymore

simonj wrote: »

Anymore - Dont know if your in Dublin, but the advertising trailers were banned in South RRotterdam for those reasons.

What is ironic is that the 450 odd bikes in the Dublin bike scheme were recieved in return for advertising space, so another screwup by the elected representitives and/or council

Thanks.
I understand from a TD that they are banned in Cork as well...problem is no one seems very interested in seeing the ban enforced - I have seen various emails on the subject and the response in general seems to be 'pass the ball'.

Macha

simonj wrote: »

What is ironic is that the 450 odd bikes in the Dublin bike scheme were recieved in return for advertising space, so another screwup by the elected representitives and/or council

The Dublin Bike scheme was decided on and implemented by Dublin City Council, not the Dail.

The scheme, or a form of it, exists in a number other European cities, including Paris, Lyon, Brussels. London is currently planning for the introduction of the scheme there.

It may not be perfect but to dismiss the scheme as a "screwup" is far off the mark.

?Cee?view

It's also off the mark to insinuate that the Green Party have any claim to Dublin Bikes as another one of their "achievements". Indeed, Cuffe was openly critical of the scheme.

Macha

churchview wrote: »

It's also off the mark to insinuate that the Green Party have any claim to Dublin Bikes as another one of their "achievements". Indeed, Cuffe was openly critical of the scheme.

That's not exactly the whole story. Cuffe was concerned about the amount of advertising being given as part of the scheme - concerns that I (and many others) would have shared. That's not the same as thinking the whole scheme was a waste of time.

?Cee?view

taconnol wrote: »

That's not exactly the whole story. Cuffe was concerned about the amount of advertising being given as part of the scheme - concerns that I (and many others) would have shared. That's not the same as thinking the whole scheme was a waste of time.

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. I'm not saying that Cuffe was critical of the whole scheme. I accept that he was being critical of aspects of it - frankly I think he was demonstrating naivety by not accepting that some "deals" had to be done to finance it.

What I am saying is that Dublin Bikes is not a Green Party achievement.

Macha

churchview wrote: »

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. I'm not saying that Cuffe was critical of the whole scheme. I accept that he was being critical of aspects of it - frankly I think he was demonstrating naivety by not accepting that some "deals" had to be done to finance it.

What I am saying is that Dublin Bikes is not a Green Party achievement.

That's not exactly fair. The initial scheme agreed on 170 panels at a value of €101m but more discussions reduced the number to 120 panels at a value of €83m. There are "deals" and then there are "deals" - the devil is in the detail.

?Cee?view

I don't know the minutiae of the detail of the schemes costings, but Cuffe was quoted as saying that it was a "dodgy deal".

However, I'll reiterate, the entire scheme was not a Green Party initiative nor a Green Party acheivement.

Macha

churchview wrote: »

I don't know the minutiae of the detail of the schemes costings, but Cuffe was quoted as saying that it was a "dodgy deal".

You can look up the details and they will confirm what I have written. Cuffe was right to want councillors to look for a better deal and that's exactly what they did.

churchview wrote: »

However, I'll reiterate, the entire scheme was not a Green Party initiative nor a Green Party acheivement.

I don't understand why you're so desperate to point this out - it's something like the third time you've written it. There was only one Green Party councillor when the deal was agreed on by DCC.

?Cee?view

taconnol wrote: »

I don't understand why you're so desperate to point this out - it's something like the third time you've written it. There was only one Green Party councillor when the deal was agreed on by DCC.

Simply because I'm sick of hearing it claimed by many (and I'm not including you or having a go at you) as a Green Party "achievement". Also, I only stated it three times as in your replies to me you ignored this.

Please don't take this personally. I've read your posts on many threads and I do not include you in what I characterise as fundamentalist Greens. Your posts are overshwelmingly balanced and informed, which unfortunately is not a view that I would have of the current Green Party

Scofflaw

churchview wrote: »

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. I'm not saying that Cuffe was critical of the whole scheme. I accept that he was being critical of aspects of it - frankly I think he was demonstrating naivety by not accepting that some "deals" had to be done to finance it.

That seems to be a general theme.

churchview wrote: »

What I am saying is that Dublin Bikes is not a Green Party achievement.

I haven't seen anyone claiming that, but since the Greens get the blame for the mess left by the previous decade of feckless government, I don't see why they shouldn't equally get the credit for a scheme that had nothing to do with them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha

churchview wrote: »

Simply because I'm sick of hearing it claimed by many (and I'm not including you or having a go at you) as a Green Party "achievement". Also, I only stated it three times as in your replies to me you ignored this.

Ah sorry, I didn't ignore it - I just didn't respond because I agreed with you! Crossed wires

churchview wrote: »

Please don't take this personally. I've read your posts on many threads and I do not include you in what I characterise as fundamentalist Greens. Your posts are overshwelmingly balanced and informed, which unfortunately is not a view that I would have of the current Green Party

Very kind of you to say so. I can't say I'm overly delighted with the way some things are going within the party and I know others feel the same way and are hoping to have something of a shake-up.

For example, incinerators should not be taking up all of our time: there are bigger fish to fry when we have 400K+ unemployed in this country!

?Cee?view

Scofflaw wrote: »

That seems to be a general theme.



I haven't seen anyone claiming that, but since the Greens get the blame for the mess left by the previous decade of feckless government, I don't see why they shouldn't equally get the credit for a scheme that had nothing to do with them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The general theme is that Cuffe was demonstrating naivety?

So you acknowledge that the "scheme had nothing to do with them". Thank you.

?Cee?view

taconnol wrote: »

Ah sorry, I didn't ignore it - I just didn't respond because I agreed with you! Crossed wires


Very kind of you to say so. I can't say I'm overly delighted with the way some things are going within the party and I know others feel the same way and are hoping to have something of a shake-up.

For example, incinerators should not be taking up all of our time: there are bigger fish to fry when we have 400K+ unemployed in this country!

Until others within the Green movement take your attitude, I cannot see how there is any political future for Greens. Green aspirations must be viewed in the wider context of our society. In order to be considered credible by greater numbers of people, Greens need to produce credible policies (albeit with a Green slant) to issues other than narrow environmental concerns. Unfortunately, the current Greens are not viewed as having any expertise in any areas other than core Green concerns.

ajdb

taconnol wrote: »

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.

An alternative GP - interesting idea. The Greens have definitely not lived up to the expectations of many supporters, going into power with FF was a mistake and one that has been compounded over time. NAMA was and will continue to be a disaster. Ryan hasn't delivered on Broadband although at least he's done more in two years than Dempsey ever did. Gogarty is a total waste of space.

I am a GP member and am of the opinion that FF will do far more damage to the country than any possible good the Greens can do.

The GP should pull out of Government and we should be engaging with Labour and FG.

There is no 'silver bullet' solution to the mess that FF has created, however once FF are out, the country can at least start to clean up.

Scofflaw

churchview wrote: »

The general theme is that Cuffe was demonstrating naivety?

Actually, it was more that deals have to be done in politics - and that the Greens seem to be vilified by one segment of the electorate for not doing such deals, while being vilified by another for doing them.

churchview wrote: »

So you acknowledge that the "scheme had nothing to do with them". Thank you.

Like taconnol, I haven't either claimed it or contradicted your claim - as far as I can see, nobody has. I'm aware both that it's a council scheme, and that the Green Councillor is currently listed as on the point of extinction in the Red Book.

cordially,
Scofflaw