vote green

vaalea

social aspect is huge in green party, but it's big on sustainable growth and support of community/small business/etc... as said already it all ties in together
you have checked out http://vote.greenparty.ie/vision ?
Economy, Community, Sustainability.

and this isn't about pointing fingers at individuals... (prev posts) it's that those who want to blame the green party probably also have themselves and fellow irish citizens to blame. Even I have cut my expenses in almost half because my situation has changed - you just do what you have to. This is life to make the best of, and yes, govt can have influence and affect, but we also have personal responsibility. Ireland is not immune the the economies of other countries... etc.

hinault

By the end of next weekend hopefully the Greens will be a footnote in parliamentary history.

They put party before country.
Just like their coalition partners.

gsxr1

vaalea wrote: »

social aspect is huge in green party, but it's big on sustainable growth and support of community/small business/etc... as said already it all ties in together
you have checked out http://vote.greenparty.ie/vision ?
Economy, Community, Sustainability.

Seweryn wrote: »

Bio fuel production in Ireland......To cut the story short, it simply means that the PPO(pure plant oil) is now over €1.50 per litre after the new levies, taxes and fees are pumped into the price of the Bio-Fuel, which makes no sense at all for anyone to buy it as motor fuel. It is not the end of the story. If no one is going to buy if from now on, the local producers and all their employees will be soon signing on the Dole. And the Government will have to borrow more money to pay the unemployed people their benefits instead of supporting local businesses.
By doing this, the Government also "promotes" usage of fossil fuels.

How green is that I have no idea :mad:.

Most diesel engines can run on bio fuel. It was cheap . Now it is not.

I run on biofuel . Now instead of vegetable oil and a much cleaner low carbon gas streaming coming from my big engine.

I will have black diesel smoke and all those yellow fields around the country trying to start a sustainable fuel source in Ireland will be gone soon. Along with the millions invested in it..

Green money more like it

thank good they are gone.

barclay2

hinault wrote: »

By the end of next weekend hopefully the Greens will be a footnote in parliamentary history.

They put party before country.
Just like their coalition partners.

I'm guessing this is in reference to staying in government for, some would argue, too long. Correct me if i'm wrong on that, you didn't support your claim with any specifics.

They stayed in government until they could help put through a piece of legislation they felt was necessary for the country - even though they knew it would make them even more unpopular. And THEN they left government to face electoral destruction.

Saying that is "party before country" puts the truth exactly backwards.

If they had left government so that someone else could put through difficult legislation, THAT would have been party before country.

You may also have meant their original decision to enter coalition with FF. They entered government with a party that had just been given a uniquely strong mandate to govern. Furthermore, they and the whole country knew that entering government with FF has historically been a self-damaging political decision for small parties in Ireland - and they did it anyway. They did it because they wanted to fight for policies that they felt were too important to leave until the next election. Leaving those policies until the next election would have been politically wise for them - it would have been party before country - but they chose the far more demanding job of going into government.

A costly political decision for them, yes. Party before country, no.

johno2

barclay2 wrote: »

If they had left government so that someone else could put through difficult legislation, THAT would have been party before country.

Spot on. Unfortunately our electorate is too angry right now to think clearly.

johno

The Mad Hatter

vaalea wrote: »

social aspect is huge in green party, but it's big on sustainable growth and support of community/small business/etc... as said already it all ties in together
you have checked out http://vote.greenparty.ie/vision ?
Economy, Community, Sustainability.

Sorry, I'm not getting my meaning across. There are particular social issues which the Greens have no particular stance on which I'll be voting with independents and other parties on before I vote Green.

hinault

barclay2 wrote: »

I'm guessing this is in reference to staying in government for, some would argue, too long. Correct me if i'm wrong on that, you didn't support your claim with any specifics.

They stayed in government until they could help put through a piece of legislation they felt was necessary for the country - even though they knew it would make them even more unpopular. And THEN they left government to face electoral destruction.

Saying that is "party before country" puts the truth exactly backwards.

If they had left government so that someone else could put through difficult legislation, THAT would have been party before country.

You may also have meant their original decision to enter coalition with FF. They entered government with a party that had just been given a uniquely strong mandate to govern. Furthermore, they and the whole country knew that entering government with FF has historically been a self-damaging political decision for small parties in Ireland - and they did it anyway. They did it because they wanted to fight for policies that they felt were too important to leave until the next election. Leaving those policies until the next election would have been politically wise for them - it would have been party before country - but they chose the far more demanding job of going into government.

A costly political decision for them, yes. Party before country, no.

With all due respect that is all baloney.
If FF had a uniquely strong mandate they would have had an overall majority and would not need to go in to coalition.

The Greens were members of the government.
A government of collective responsibility remember.

They voted through the Bank Guarantee.
They voted through NAMA legislation.
They even stood up in the Dail in support of Willie O'Dea - even after O'Dea had tried to defame a Limerick City Councillor.

I welcome the political extinction of the Green Party.

Adrian009

johno2 wrote: »

I agree with you on the first 2 points, especially the first one. Due to EU legislation and international treaties (Kyoto) all parties are now beginning to take the message that the greens have been pushing for 30 years on board.

It was their inexperience in high level politics that destroyed them in the popularity stakes. Bertie stitched them up really well after the last election. He knew that unpopular policies would have to be implemented by the 2007 government and most of them were a perfect fit for the green party. He even had 6 independents on board which meant the greens didn't have the votes to get FF out of government during the first year of government if they started to get cold feet about FF policies. After that first year I think they may have begun to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

Apart from the stag hunting and the dog breeding bills, nearly everything else was pretty much going to happen in some form or another anyway. It was always going to have a financial cost attached to it because it's easier to mess up the environment than it is to protect it. Bertie knew this and figured he'd let the ignorant masses put the blame on the greens instead of FF. I can honestly say I saw a backlash coming against the greens less than a month after the last election, and that was before the full extent of the economic situation became clear.

I'll be voting for my local Green candidate, I have to thank the greens for finally opening up some business opportunities that allow me to work in a field that I have always wanted to. Until they had their time in government there was acres of red tape and a sickening resistance from the bureaucrats to any business idea that was remotely green. Now we have good recycling centers in all major towns, smart meters to allow export of electricity back into the grid, organic certification for farms, grants to improve the energy efficiency of houses and businesses, proper incentives to drive energy efficient vehicles and water metering is well advanced (but may yet be killed off). Most of this would have happened anyway but I think it would have been to a much lower standard if the GP weren't involved.

johno

It was Fianna Fail, not the Greens, that caused this enconomic meltdown. So, I am still thinking of giving them a vote, but they had better stick to their principles from now on. Let the last few years be a wake up call, because they are in the last-chance saloon.

hinault

Adrian009 wrote: »

It was Fianna Fail, not the Greens, that caused this enconomic meltdown. So, I am still thinking of giving them a vote, but they had better stick to their principles from now on. Let the last few years be a wake up call, because they are in the last-chance saloon.

The Cabinet is collectively responsible.

The Greens were members of the cabinet that prepared the legislation for the bank guarantee and NAMA.
And then voted for the bank guarantee and NAMA.

You want to have your cake and eat it.

Adrian009

hinault wrote: »

The Cabinet is collectively responsible.

The Greens were members of the cabinet that prepared the legislation for the bank guarantee and NAMA.
And then voted for the bank guarantee and NAMA.

You want to have your cake and eat it.

Fianna Fail will not have any share of my election cake. I'm still thinking about voting for the Greens or not.

hinault

Adrian009 wrote: »

Fianna Fail will not have any share of my election cake. I'm still thinking about voting for the Greens or not.

Refusing to accept that the Greens were part of the Cabinet that enacted the bank guarantee and NAMA, is trying to have your cake and eat it.

It is of course up to you to vote whatever way you choose.

But lets be clear a vote for the Greens is a vote for the failed economic policies of the last administration who have taken this country back to the 1980's.

Adrian009

hinault wrote: »

Refusing to accept that the Greens were part of the Cabinet that enacted the bank guarantee and NAMA, is trying to have your cake and eat it.

It is of course up to you to vote whatever way you choose.

But lets be clear a vote for the Greens is a vote for the failed economic policies of the last administration who have taken this country back to the 1980's.

Fair enough.

Tarobot

hinault wrote: »

But lets be clear a vote for the Greens is a vote for the failed economic policies of the last administration who have taken this country back to the 1980's.

The banking guarantee was vindicated by Patrick Honohan's report. NAMA has yet to prove to be the complete disaster most people are predicting.

The failed economic policies you're referring to were laid back in the early 2000s by Fianna Fail and the PDs. It was in 2002/3 that the housing bubble really took off and covered up the other parts of our economy that weren't performing.

It was late 2007 that the veil was finally lifted on what state our economy was really in. Do we really have that poor a grasp of economic cycles? Blaming the Greens for the economic crisis is like blaming firefighters for a fire because they were the last ones at the scene.

barclay2

hinault wrote: »

With all due respect that is all baloney.
If FF had a uniquely strong mandate they would have had an overall majority and would not need to go in to coalition.

The Greens were members of the government.
A government of collective responsibility remember.

They voted through the Bank Guarantee.
They voted through NAMA legislation.
They even stood up in the Dail in support of Willie O'Dea - even after O'Dea had tried to defame a Limerick City Councillor.

I welcome the political extinction of the Green Party.

Regarding the mandate to govern. We voted, we gave no party an overall majority. Yet someone had to lead the government. So we had to ask - on the basis of peoples' votes, what party has the moral authority to lead the next government?

Of the mandates we gave, Fianna Fáil had by far the strongest. If the greens had supported a FG/Labour government, they would have supported two parties whose combined mandate was not as strong as the mandate we gave FF. They got more seats than FG and Labour combined. You argue that FF's mandate was not uniquely strong - who, then, had an equally strong or stronger mandate to lead the government?

On the banking guarantee, i do think the greens supported a flawed policy. The blanket nature of the guarantee - covering senior bondholders instead of only depositors - was a mistake. But it is odd to think the greens deserve any more punishing for it than non-government parties.

Here is why: if any other party had been in the greens position, they would have done the same thing. FG supported the guarantee. SF supported the guarantee. Labour voted against it but not because they thought it was the wrong idea in principle - Gilmore said at the time that they supported it in principle but felt "some questions have not been answered".

If a government without the greens had been in place, the same thing would have happened. FG would have made the same mistake. It certainly sounds like labour would have made at least a similar mistake. SF would have made the same mistake.

Voting for any other parties instead of the greens based on the mistaken banking guarantee does not make sense, because they all would have done it too.

barclay2

hinault wrote: »

Refusing to accept that the Greens were part of the Cabinet that enacted the bank guarantee and NAMA, is trying to have your cake and eat it.

It is of course up to you to vote whatever way you choose.

But lets be clear a vote for the Greens is a vote for the failed economic policies of the last administration who have taken this country back to the 1980's.

It is very, very important to distinguish between two things - (a) the reason we entered a prolonged recession and (b) our response to entering recession. The greens have been part of (b) and i've addressed that in my previous post.

The greens were not part of (a). The reasons for Ireland entering a recession are related to policies that preceded the greens entering government - an unsustainable tax base, poor property planning laws, poor regulation of the financial sector, an economy that had lost its competitive edge.

Voting against the greens because Ireland entered a recession is arguing that we entered a recession because of post-2007 policies. We entered recession because of pre-2007 policies.

hinault

Tarobot wrote: »

The banking guarantee was vindicated by Patrick Honohan's report. NAMA has yet to prove to be the complete disaster most people are predicting.

The failed economic policies you're referring to were laid back in the early 2000s by Fianna Fail and the PDs. It was in 2002/3 that the housing bubble really took off and covered up the other parts of our economy that weren't performing.

It was late 2007 that the veil was finally lifted on what state our economy was really in. Do we really have that poor a grasp of economic cycles? Blaming the Greens for the economic crisis is like blaming firefighters for a fire because they were the last ones at the scene.

:D:D

I don't know many firefighters who pour oil (voting for the bank guarantee) on the fire (economic implosion).

The party that you appear to support were central to the decision to socialise what were/are private bank debts.

Party before country.

barclay2

hinault wrote: »

:D:D

I don't know many firefighters who pour oil (voting for the bank guarantee) on the fire (economic implosion).

The party that you appear to support were central to the decision to socialise what were/are private bank debts.

Party before country.

I've addressed this here. The criticisms you are offering here are just as applicable to FG, SG and Labour (who supported the guarantee "in principle" so would have done something broadly similar in government).

You can't just say "party before country" at the end, you need to support it with specifics. I cannot see how supporting the guarantee was party before country - not only in the case of the greens but all the parties that supported it in principle. How was the guarantee in the interest of the green party? What party interest did it serve at the expense of the national interest?

If you say it is party before country, please back it up with some argument and evidence.

Tarobot

hinault wrote: »

:D:D

I don't know many firefighters who pour oil (voting for the bank guarantee) on the fire (economic implosion).

The party that you appear to support were central to the decision to socialise what were/are private bank debts.

Party before country.

I'm not sure why you think things would have been any different with another party in power. FG supported the guarantee as did Sinn Fein. The breadth of the guarantee was a mistake, of course, but the decision was made on the information available at the time. The lack of regulatory oversight, again the result of FF and PD policy, meant the government had to take the banks on their word. And now we know they were lying.

I'd also remind you that the banking guarantee is only 50% of our problem. The other major problem is our public deficit and if you look at what the other parties were saying in 2007, it was spend, baby, spend.

Actually, the Green Party had the most realistic forecast of economic growth out of all the 2007 manifestos. Meh, don't worry about the facts though.

hinault

Tarobot wrote: »

I'm not sure why you think things would have been any different with another party in power. FG supported the guarantee as did Sinn Fein. The breadth of the guarantee was a mistake, of course, but the decision was made on the information available at the time. The lack of regulatory oversight, again the result of FF and PD policy, meant the government had to take the banks on their word. And now we know they were lying.

I'd also remind you that the banking guarantee is only 50% of our problem. The other major problem is our public deficit and if you look at what the other parties were saying in 2007, it was spend, baby, spend.

Actually, the Green Party had the most realistic forecast of economic growth out of all the 2007 manifestos. Meh, don't worry about the facts though.

if you're going to try to lecture me about economics/statistics, I'd suggest that you get your numbers correct.

the cost of the banking bailout stands at approximately €100 billion currently and is rising.
As the country continues to grind to half all additional banking losses are currently indemnified by the bank guarantee which your party voted for.
The cost of the banking crisis dwarfs any budgetary/fiscal deficit that exists.

This should not mitigate the seriousness of the budgetary/fiscal deficit but the banking bailout will costs multiples of the budget/fiscal deficit.

And as for the Greens 2007 economic policies - the fact is that we're now in the process of an economic death cycle.
Increase carbon taxes!!!!!!!
Bank lending is dead. Jobs losses continue. Fiscal/Banking debt is growing.
Emigration continues to rise.

The Green Party cannot absolve itself from the fact that it was party to the introduction of the bank guarantee and NAMA.
I would also question the political wisdom of a party which was only too willing to go in to coalition with a FF leader of the calibre of Bertie Ahern.
A man who at the time was being questioned at the Tribunal about his tax affairs, political favours and other ancilliary matters.
This is the same Bertie Ahern who suggested that the economic doomsayers should go and commit suicide.

No.
The Green record is there for everyone to see.
Expedient. Economically illiterate. Politically naive.

ei.sdraob

Some "brown" stuff coming from the Greens here
would it have made any difference if ALL of the opposition voted against? FF/Greens still would have ploughed ahead and won the vote.
the greens where in coalition, without them there would have been no government, this is basic politics now

to insist that they did not have a key position in government is silly at best

Actually, the Green Party had the most realistic forecast of economic growth out of all the 2007 manifestos

whats that now? the Greens had economic foresight :eek: dear god you are clutching at straws

i will drink to the greens demise in coming days! and then go on a pointless recreational drive in my v8 too add some more carbon to the air :P

hinault

@ei.

The Greens here must be referring to the economic policies that led to the Croke Park deal:mad::mad::mad:

I'm telling you this lot did put party before country.

Tarobot

hinault wrote: »

if you're going to try to lecture me about economics/statistics, I'd suggest that you get your numbers correct.

the cost of the banking bailout stands at approximately €100 billion currently and is rising.
As the country continues to grind to half all additional banking losses are currently indemnified by the bank guarantee which your party voted for.
The cost of the banking crisis dwarfs any budgetary/fiscal deficit that exists.

I'm not lecturing anyone, I'm having a debate so you can dial the feigned indignation down a notch.

The cost of the guarantee is at €50bn, not €100bn - I'd like to see where you get your figures from. Ireland's national debt will be about €50bn higher due to the money pumped into the banks in the form of capital. Alan Dukes has said they will need another €50bn but that is one person's opinion.

And the banking crisis most certainly does not dwarf the current spending deficit. €50bn of the €85bn EU/IMF loan facility is for current spending.

hinault wrote: »

This should not mitigate the seriousness of the budgetary/fiscal deficit but the banking bailout will costs multiples of the budget/fiscal deficit.

In what way?

hinault wrote: »

And as for the Greens 2007 economic policies - the fact is that we're now in the process of an economic death cycle.
Increase carbon taxes!!!!!!!
Bank lending is dead. Jobs losses continue. Fiscal/Banking debt is growing.
Emigration continues to rise.

Try talking to me in proper sentences. We need additional income in the form of taxes and most economists agree that carbon is an externality that needs to be internalised. We are in this situation because of the economic policies of FF/PD governments. You have yet to accept that things would have been no different with FG in power.

hinault wrote: »

The Green Party cannot absolve itself from the fact that it was party to the introduction of the bank guarantee and NAMA.
I would also question the political wisdom of a party which was only too willing to go in to coalition with a FF leader of the calibre of Bertie Ahern.
A man who at the time was being questioned at the Tribunal about his tax affairs, political favours and other ancilliary matters.
This is the same Bertie Ahern who suggested that the economic doomsayers should go and commit suicide.

You can blame the 40% of the electorate that gave FF a first preference and the 60% that gave them some sort of preference in 2007. The maths is there for anyone to see - FF were going to get into power either with or without the Greens.

hinault wrote: »

The Green record is there for everyone to see.
Expedient. Economically illiterate. Politically naive.

I'm afraid you haven't proven that at all. Merely typing it doesn't make it true.

Edit: ei.sdraob, your irrational hatred for the Greens has been laid bare on these forums many times. Your posts are not even worth responding to because they do the Greens more good than harm.

Mr. Optimistic

I for 1 will not be voting for the Greens or any of the other big parties. There was a time when I used to have respect for the Greens before they hopped into bed with Fianna Fail. How can you ask us to vote for the Greens when it was the Greens who propt up this government for as long as it did. This is a real oppertunity for democratic change in this country and to do so we have to move away from the old guard of the BIG parties including the Greens.

If we are serious about changing our political structures and systems then we have to look beyond the current parties on offer. There is a small group of independants out there who are offering a real oppertunity for change, the Independant Alliance For Change. The BIG parties talk of change, but can we really believe them. The prospective future Taoiseach of this country is the longest serving T.D in the Dail. How can he be in favour of real change, he along with the other big players are so inbeded in the system that a change for them is never going to happen. This is a real oppertunity for us as a people to elect the right people, with the right intentions for this country to the government and give the people a voice.

The power is in our hands, this is a time for courage to be brave enough to use our vote to make real change happen, when the day comes ask yourself why am i going to give this person my vote? This is a great country with great people and with the right people leading the way we can pull ourselves out of this mess. For the record I am not associated to any political group or party, I'm just a concerned citizen of Ireland that wants to see real change and not just hot air promises that we have been hearing for so long.

hinault

Tarobot wrote: »

I'm not lecturing anyone, I'm having a debate so you can dial the feigned indignation down a notch.

The cost of the guarantee is at €50bn, not €100bn - I'd like to see where you get your figures from. Ireland's national debt will be about €50bn higher due to the money pumped into the banks in the form of capital. Alan Dukes has said they will need another €50bn but that is one person's opinion.

And the banking crisis most certainly does not dwarf the current spending deficit. €50bn of the €85bn EU/IMF loan facility is for current spending.

We've borrowed €67 billion from the IMF/EU.
This has to be repaid with interest.

What about the €34 billion (so far) given to Anglo? How will this be repaid?

What about €130 billion of funds given by the ECB to the Irish banks because deposits which were in the banks, have been withdrawn?
What about the €50 billion of funds given by the ECB to the Central Bank?
You do know that the taxpayer faces potential liabilities as a result of these transfers?

What about the €3.5 billion given to both BOI and AIB? How will this money be repaid?

most independent economists have suggested that the liabilities as a result of the bank guarantee will cost this country north €100 billion.

Separately what do you have to say about the opportunity cost of pouring €34 billion in to a bank that will never repay that money?
What would €34 billion do if it was invested in the real economy?

Any thoughts about how the €54 billion cost of NAMA will be recouped in a terminally declining property market?
NAMA was voted in favour of by your party.

Tarobot wrote: »

Try talking to me in proper sentences. We need additional income in the form of taxes and most economists agree that carbon is an externality that needs to be internalised. We are in this situation because of the economic policies of FF/PD governments. You have yet to accept that things would have been no different with FG in power.

You can blame the 40% of the electorate that gave FF a first preference and the 60% that gave them some sort of preference in 2007. The maths is there for anyone to see - FF were going to get into power either with or without the Greens.

I'm afraid you haven't proven that at all. Merely typing it doesn't make it true.

Whether FF were going to get in to power or not doesn't absolve the policies which the Green party implemented when it went in to coalition with FF.
Your party's thumbprints are all over the policies that have ensured the economic destruction of this country.

fcukwit John Gormley wittering on about how the Greens were going to put a brake on FF.

barclay2

Mr. Optimistic wrote: »

I for 1 will not be voting for the Greens or any of the other big parties. There was a time when I used to have respect for the Greens before they hopped into bed with Fianna Fail. How can you ask us to vote for the Greens when it was the Greens who propt up this government for as long as it did. This is a real oppertunity for democratic change in this country and to do so we have to move away from the old guard of the BIG parties including the Greens.

Two things. Firstly, the greens went into government with a FF party who had just been given a uniquely strong mandate by the country. Far stronger than any other party, far stronger than Fine Gael and Labour combined. On "propping up" this government - the reason we are all here discussing this election is because the Greens left government. They declined to continue in government with FF.

Yes, they could have done it a bit earlier, but they chose to stay in government until legislation was passed which they felt was important for the country - even though they knew they'd take a huge electoral hit for waiting. They put the country's interest ahead of their own political interest - that is not something we see very frequently in Irish politics, and we'd all be a lot better off if parties in previous governments had acted like that.

Secondly, calling the Greens a "BIG" party and proposing independents as a new alternative seems very strange to me - in January 2011 there were 6 Green party TD's and 8 independent TD's. The "independent" category was bigger than the green category.

hinault wrote: »

We've borrowed €67 billion from the IMF/EU.
This has to be repaid with interest.

What about the €34 billion (so far) given to Anglo? How will this be repaid?

What about €130 billion of funds given by the ECB to the Irish banks because deposits which were in the banks, have been withdrawn?
What about the €50 billion of funds given by the ECB to the Central Bank?
You do know that the taxpayer faces potential liabilities as a result of these transfers?

What about the €3.5 billion given to both BOI and AIB? How will this money be repaid?

most independent economists have suggested that the liabilities as a result of the bank guarantee will cost this country north €100 billion.

Separately what do you have to say about the opportunity cost of pouring €34 billion in to a bank that will never repay that money?
What would €34 billion do if it was invested in the real economy?

Any thoughts about how the €54 billion cost of NAMA will be recouped in a terminally declining property market?
NAMA was voted in favour of by your party.





Whether FF were going to get in to power or not doesn't absolve the policies which the Green party implemented when it went in to coalition with FF.
Your party's thumbprints are all over the policies that have ensured the economic destruction of this country.

fcukwit John Gormley wittering on about how the Greens were going to put a brake on FF.

At least you seem to have finally accepted that they were not responsible for the recession in the first place - this responsibility lies with the policies of previous governments and other opposition parties who proposed similar policies.

Unfortunately, you're still arguing that the Greens should be punished for the guarantee that every conceivable alternative government would have introduced.

Punish the greens if there is damage they did to the country that the alternative parties would not have done - and if that damage outweighs the good they did. Don't punish them for what everyone else would have done. It makes no sense.

hinault

Green Party revisionism is in full swing.

The GP's track record in government is one of expediency, willingness to consign this country's economy to the 1980's, unfettered support for first Ahern and then Cowen (drunkgate, bank guarantee, NAMA, Croke Park deal), willingness to support a cabinet minister accused of perjury.
Your party could not take a principled stand by walking away.
As I said party before country.

What an opportunistic and expedient rabble you and your politicians are.
Your revisionism clearly illustrates how delusional you lot actually are.

I welcome the political implosion of your party and your consignment to the political pages of history.

barclay2

hinault wrote: »

Green Party revisionism is in full swing.

The GP's track record in government is one of expediency, willingness to consign this country's economy to the 1980's, unfettered support for first Ahern and then Cowen (drunkgate, bank guarantee, NAMA, Croke Park deal), willingness to support a cabinet minister accused of perjury.
Your party could not take a principled stand by walking away.
As I said party before country.

What an opportunistic and expedient rabble you and your politicians are.
Your revisionism clearly illustrates how delusional you lot actually are.

I welcome the political implosion of your party and your consignment to the political pages of history.

There you go again, and unfortunately you've brought personal insults into it.

"Willingness to consign this country's economy to the 1980s". I'll say it again. The reason this country, including our banks, are in such a terrible situation is rooted in polices of previous governments. Not the greens. The banking guarantee - the greens' biggest mistake - is something that every alternative government would have done. The criticisms you are offering here are criticisms of all the parties that will now be favoured at the expense of the greens.

"Unfettered support for Ahern and then Cowen." I don't know what other, clearer way I could say it. The greens left government, they discontinued their membership in the government, they pulled out of government, they resigned their membership of the government, they went over to the opposition benches....and that's why we all get the chance to vote this Friday. That is, quite simply, not "unfettered support" for FF.


"Party before country". Again, I don't know how to say it more clearly than I already have. It would have been easy to leave government earlier and let someone else deal with the difficulties facing the country. They could have let the other parties deal with it. It was in their own interest to get out of government - but they didn't do it. They didn't do it because it would have been the gutless, party-before-country thing to do.

I am still waiting to hear how anything they did, anything you have said they did, puts their own party interests ahead of the national interest.

ei.sdraob

Tarobot wrote: »

Edit: ei.sdraob, your irrational hatred for the Greens has been laid bare on these forums many times. Your posts are not even worth responding to because they do the Greens more good than harm.

My "hatred" for the Greens is quite rational and justified, and as I have mentioned i gave them a preference before (never again)

* I hate their condensending nanny attitude
* backing FF at all costs
* the hypocrisy
* the lies thru a grinning smile from the likes of Eamon
* the way they look down at rural Ireland
* the lack of integrity, despite the claims
* the focus on minor issues while the country is falling apart
* the introduction of taxes with little to balance them out
* the ecofascist minority within the green movement in general
and finally the worst mayor in Galway's history who happens to be Green

we always know that FF are corrupt and useless, but the Greens have been a huge letdown and have made the word GREEN dirty

barclay2

ei.sdraob wrote: »

My "hatred" for the Greens is quite rational and justified, and as I have mentioned i gave them a preference before (never again)

* I hate their condensending nanny attitude
* backing FF at all costs
* the hypocrisy
* the lies thru a grinning smile from the likes of Eamon
* the way they look down at rural Ireland
* the lack of integrity, despite the claims
* the focus on minor issues while the country is falling apart
* the introduction of taxes with little to balance them out
* the ecofascist minority within the green movement in general
and finally the worst mayor in Galway's history who happens to be Green

we always know that FF are corrupt and useless, but the Greens have been a huge letdown and have made the word GREEN dirty

Could you please provide examples/evidence to support these descriptions? Its not ok to just declare these things to be the case.

How are they condescending?
Backing FF at all costs? They just left government with FF. That's why there's an election on Friday.
What lies did they tell?
How do they look down at rural Ireland?
What did they do that displayed a lack of integrity?
What "minor" issues have they focused on? Climate change? Education? Renewable energy? Getting the finance bill passed?
What "ecofascist" minority? (really i wish people wouldn't throw the word "fascist" around. Comparing a wing of the green party to the murderers of millions....we can keep the tenor of debate above that)

Mr. Optimistic

barclay2 wrote: »

Two things. Firstly, the greens went into government with a FF party who had just been given a uniquely strong mandate by the country. Far stronger than any other party, far stronger than Fine Gael and Labour combined. On "propping up" this government - the reason we are all here discussing this election is because the Greens left government. They declined to continue in government with FF.

Yes, they could have done it a bit earlier, but they chose to stay in government until legislation was passed which they felt was important for the country - even though they knew they'd take a huge electoral hit for waiting. They put the country's interest ahead of their own political interest - that is not something we see very frequently in Irish politics, and we'd all be a lot better off if parties in previous governments had acted like that.

Secondly, calling the Greens a "BIG" party and proposing independents as a new alternative seems very strange to me - in January 2011 there were 6 Green party TD's and 8 independent TD's. The "independent" category was bigger than the green category.



At least you seem to have finally accepted that they were not responsible for the recession in the first place - this responsibility lies with the policies of previous governments and other opposition parties who proposed similar policies.

Unfortunately, you're still arguing that the Greens should be punished for the guarantee that every conceivable alternative government would have introduced.

Punish the greens if there is damage they did to the country that the alternative parties would not have done - and if that damage outweighs the good they did. Don't punish them for what everyone else would have done. It makes no sense.

We can go on and on all day, about the poor Greens about how they tried to implement so many legislations for the greater good of the country, what a load of crap. You took your eye off the ball and turned a blind eye to what was really happening. You put your necks on the line because you saw the train coming down the tunnel towards you and in a last desperate attempt to walk away with some small bit of dignity you thought lets pull the plug and hope the people will appreciate us for taking the right course of action. Not going to happen I'm affraid.

As regards voting for independants if you look at my thread I am not proposing people vote for any random independant, I clearly state who I think people should vote for if they want to see an oppertunity for real change in this country.

The Mad Hatter

Mr. Optimistic wrote: »

You took your eye off the ball and turned a blind eye to what was really happening. You put your necks on the line because you saw the train coming down the tunnel towards you and in a last desperate attempt to walk away with some small bit of dignity you thought lets pull the plug and hope the people will appreciate us for taking the right course of action.

What a beautiful muddle of mixed metaphors!

What does it mean, though?

vallo

For me it is very simple.
First, when I voted green in my top 3 last time I did not think for 1 second that in doing so I was facilitating returning FF to office.
I firmly believe that everything that FF/Greens did since 2007 has exacerbated the problem and they took a series of worst possible decisions resulting in the calamatous break down of the Irish economy. The Greens cannot side step the blame.
Second, for the next 18 months at least it is all about the economy.
All other issues pale into insignificance, so I couldn't care less about any peripheral issues.
Although the local green candidate is a great human being, I will not be voting green again. Probably ever.

bleg

vallo wrote: »

For me it is very simple.
First, when I voted green in my top 3 last time I did not think for 1 second that in doing so I was facilitating returning FF to office.
I firmly believe that everything that FF/Greens did since 2007 has exacerbated the problem and they took a series of worst possible decisions resulting in the calamatous break down of the Irish economy. The Greens cannot side step the blame.
Second, for the next 18 months at least it is all about the economy.
All other issues pale into insignificance, so I couldn't care less about any peripheral issues.
Although the local green candidate is a great human being, I will not be voting green again. Probably ever.

So you're better off having another anonymous back bencher making up the numbers?

barclay2

Mr. Optimistic wrote: »

We can go on and on all day, about the poor Greens about how they tried to implement so many legislations for the greater good of the country, what a load of crap. You took your eye off the ball and turned a blind eye to what was really happening. You put your necks on the line because you saw the train coming down the tunnel towards you and in a last desperate attempt to walk away with some small bit of dignity you thought lets pull the plug and hope the people will appreciate us for taking the right course of action. Not going to happen I'm affraid.

As regards voting for independants if you look at my thread I am not proposing people vote for any random independant, I clearly state who I think people should vote for if they want to see an oppertunity for real change in this country.

Firstly, saying "you took your eye off the ball and turned a blind eye" is again just stating something to be the case with nothing to support it. How did they take their eye off the ball in a way that makes them MORE deserving of punishment than FG/Labour/SF and the independents that supported the guarantee?

Secondly, saying they put they pulled out of government when they did because they "saw the train coming down the tunnel" is demonstrably false. Why? Because they saw "the train coming down the tunnel" months BEFORE they pulled the plug - the whole country saw it. The most self-serving thing to do would have been to resign months before they actually did - but they chose not to.

Mr. Optimistic wrote: »

This is a real oppertunity for democratic change in this country and to do so we have to move away from the old guard of the BIG parties including the Greens.

If we are serious about changing our political structures and systems then we have to look beyond the current parties on offer. There is a small group of independants out there who are offering a real oppertunity for change, the Independant Alliance For Change. The BIG parties talk of change, but can we really believe them.

This clearly posits two alternatives - the "big" parties as you call them, and independents as a "non-big" alternative. My point is twofold - firstly, the Greens are not a "big" party, there are fewer of them than there are independents. Secondly, independents have been just as much a part of the political system as smaller parties in Ireland such as the greens and sinn féin.

But more importantly I'd like to hear why the alliance constitutes "a real opportunity for change" so i'll look them up.

vallo

bleg wrote: »

So you're better off having another anonymous back bencher making up the numbers?

So anyone who isn't green is going to be an "anonymous back bencher"?
How strange.

barclay2

vallo wrote: »

For me it is very simple.
First, when I voted green in my top 3 last time I did not think for 1 second that in doing so I was facilitating returning FF to office.
I firmly believe that everything that FF/Greens did since 2007 has exacerbated the problem and they took a series of worst possible decisions resulting in the calamatous break down of the Irish economy. The Greens cannot side step the blame.
Second, for the next 18 months at least it is all about the economy.
All other issues pale into insignificance, so I couldn't care less about any peripheral issues.
Although the local green candidate is a great human being, I will not be voting green again. Probably ever.

Firstly, the real reason FF got back into office is because far more people voted for them than for any other party,not because of the greens. If the greens had sided with FG and Labour they would have sided with two parties whose COMBINED mandate from the people was smaller than that of FF. Would it have been more democratic to do that? In addition, it wouldn't have stopped FF getting into government - FF could have done it with the support of independents. I don't see how that would have been better for the country (long-term, of course, it would have been better for the greens as a party).

Secondly, I agree that the greens cannot sidestep the blame - but neither can FG, SF or Labour because they supported the bank guarantee (Labour supported it "in principle" according to gilmore), so it makes no sense to punish the greens and elect FG/Labour/SF instead. The latter would have brought in the same policy if in government.

Third, on it being "all about the economy". Implicit in your argument is that an environmentally-minded party cannot contribute to economic recovery. I disagree. The fundamental problem with our economy is that we are living far beyond our means, our costs far outweigh our earnings. A lot of these costs are attributable to poor environmental policies/standards going back for years and years. Examples:

The money we would have saved if we had brought in smarter planning laws before the bubble ever happened
How much lower our national energy bill would be if we'd developed a better public transport system years ago
How much lower our energy bill would be if we'd brought in better home energy efficiency standards BEFORE the construction boom
How much more employment we would have if we'd developed our native renewables industry years ago like Denmark
How much money we've spent cleaning pollutants out of water over the last few years
How much lower our national water bill would be if we'd introduced smarter water conservation policies years ago
How much more stable our long-term business environment would be if we were less vulnerable to oil-price shocks
How much more export-potential our agri-food sector would have if it was better placed to tap into the growing demand for clean, green food sources

I could go on and on and on. Many of these things will continue to cost us money right through our current difficulties. The economy and the environment are not two alternative policy areas that compete for our attention. They are two sides of the same coin. Failure to understand this for years has cost this country an enormous amount of resources and lost opportunities.

click_here!!!

Government investment in the green economy will help create sustainable jobs in both urban and rural areas (think wind farms in the west of Ireland).

The carbon tax is only 4 cent per liter of petrol. Yet that money can help fund research and development into green technologies. These will create jobs and exports.

Look at how the US government's huge space program investment has yielded massive results: satellite-based weather forecasting has increased worldwide agricultural production by more than 10% since 1960. This benefit was unexpected by most people at the time and indeed has been taken for granted by the majority of the population since then.

Likewise, I don't think that people fully realize the huge advantages of tearing ourselves free of huge energy bills, ecosystem damage and the propping up of dictators in Libya, Saudi Arabia and even Russia to a lesser extent.

Sustainable policies aren't anti-economy at all. Profit-motivated companies are getting into sustainability in a big way. Indeed it makes sense for them to avoid damaging any environment they operate in and use. For example, Dow Chemical and Coca Cola have been improving natural water systems in the areas of the developing world they operate in so that they won't have to pay huge amounts to purify dirty water themselves. They save a fortune doing this. ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2048324,00.html ).

Tarobot

click_here!!! wrote: »

Likewise, I don't think that people fully realize the huge advantages of tearing ourselves free of huge energy bills, ecosystem damage and the propping up of dictators in Libya, Saudi Arabia and even Russia to a lesser extent.

Yep, a direct connection between high oil prices and political oppression in these countries. Iran, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia all suffer terrible human rights violations.

ei.sdraob

Tarobot wrote: »

Yep, a direct connection between high oil prices and political oppression in these countries. Iran, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia all suffer terrible human rights violations.

So does China from where we import windmills and from where come 99% of rare earths required for "green" technologies, at expense of the environment there and their people.

Like I said, Green hypocrites.


Of course we could import uranium from such oppressive regimes such as Australia, Canada and US instead :rolleyes: and have clean and reliable energy source.

Mr.Micro

ei.sdraob wrote: »

So does China from where we import windmills and from where come 99% of rare earths required for "green" technologies, at expense of the environment there and their people.

Like I said, Green hypocrites.

If the Greens had their way the country would be covered in windmills just because the power to drive them is natural but the actual turbines are ugly and visually polluting on the environment.

Tarobot

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If the Greens had their way the country would be covered in windmills just because the power to drive them is natural but the actual turbines are ugly and visually polluting on the environment.

That's open for debate but most wind turbines will be offshore, not onshore.

Edit: Am loving this "ignore" option

ei.sdraob

Tarobot wrote: »

That's open for debate but most wind turbines will be offshore, not onshore.

which is very expensive, below from Eirgrid report (excludes billions which would be required for new offshore grid connections)



But of course the Greens have a great grasp of large numbers, sure yee had no issue signing away billions to banks :rolleyes:

johno2

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If the Greens had their way the country would be covered in windmills just because the power to drive them is natural but the actual turbines are ugly and visually polluting on the environment.

I think they're beautiful. So much better than a boring empty sky above our hillsides and mountains. Up close they're very impressive pieces of engineering. I wish there was more of them near where I live.

johno

Mr.Micro

Tarobot wrote: »

That's open for debate but most wind turbines will be offshore, not onshore.

Edit: Am loving this "ignore" option

Not when they are on ones doorstep and more planned. :mad:

ei.sdraob

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Not when they are on ones doorstep and more planned. :mad:

He is breaking the forum rules, time to report so

barclay2

ei.sdraob wrote: »

So does China from where we import windmills and from where come 99% of rare earths required for "green" technologies, at expense of the environment there and their people.

Like I said, Green hypocrites.


Of course we could import uranium from such oppressive regimes such as Australia, Canada and US instead :rolleyes: and have clean and reliable energy source.

That story is an argument for advancing green politics in China and an argument for having environmentally-minded governments around the world to raise these issues with China. Throwing out a story from a country with weak environmental policies doesn't allow you to just conclude "like i said, green hypocrites", it shows why it's important that countries have strong environmental policies.

On the very, very vague point that you raised with it, there is also a very obvious difference between importing windmills from China and importing oil from middle eastern autocrats. In the case of countries like Saudi Arabia,Iran etc. oil makes up by far the biggest portion of their foreign earnings, unlike windmills in China, and the earnings from that oil are the single biggest thing that keeps autocrats there in power. [/B] Also, we buy a lot more than just windmills from China

I personally have no problem with nuclear compared to reliance on fossil fuels. In Ireland's case, however, the small size of our domestic market and huge start-up costs required for nuclear make it bad policy on cost-benefit grounds. Someone posted this document on here a couple of days ago, an analysis of the low carbon power generation options for Ireland, which concludes on nuclear:

"The Nuclear portfolio exhibits low emissions.....but would have high project risk associated with it because of public acceptance issues and the complexity of the overall project.The construction of a green-field nuclear
power station is a complex process, with long lead times required for resolving public acceptance issues and policy decisions. A domestic nuclear regulatory and supporting industry would have to be established. Commercially available nuclear stations are large for the size of the island’s power system and we have assumed that a high system cost is required to integrate nuclear generation. More detailed technical feasibility studies and a full project risk review would be needed to develop this option. Nuclear could be re-examined in a different light at a future date if smaller nuclear generators become commercially available."

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Low%20Carbon%20Generation%20Options%20for%20the%20All%20Island%20Market%20%282%29.pdf

Edited: Ha, in fact it may have been you who posted it

click_here!!!

Some posters have mentioned issues with wind farms.

I don't think that wind power is the only green technology. It is just an example of the most well-known one. Ireland doesn't have to just excel in development of wind power – we are in the early stages of building wave power generators and a host of other technologies. I will answer your question about China's share in wind turbine manufacturing.

I'd wager that at least one of the people on here who don't like Green policies own an iPod/Apple product or a car.

Volvo is a Chinese-owned car company 1.

Apple iPods are made in China.

The largest wind turbine manufacturer (Vestas) is Danish. The next largest one (GE) is American.2

However, the third largest one is Chinese. If your suspicions of Chinese dominance in environmental R&D are correct, wouldn't that just mean that Western countries would have to beat them? Isn't that a further reason for green investment in renewable technologies (of all types)?

About rare-earth mining: these metals are used in all sorts of products, including the brakes of cars, the processing chip in your iPod and in some renewable energy products. This is an example of environmental issues being more than about carbon emissions. To truly manage this issue, you need someone who cares about the whole environment in government. Which party do you think will be first to propose this as an issue to be addressed? Which party will all the other parties eventually follow (just as on climate change)?

No, I'm not suggesting Sinn Féin, them green hypocrites!!

oncevotedff

vaalea wrote: »

Why do so many people overlook the greens?

Dishonesty in 2007 in promising not to go into coalition with FF and then doing so, lack of integrity in continuing in government long after they should have pulled the plug and the carbon tax which is another nail in the coffin of the Irish economy.

Three reasons not to vote for the Greens.

recedite

telekon wrote: »

Maybe if we vote them back in they can triple the carbon tax rate. Yay! :rolleyes:


Some of us depend on transport for their work. Disaster of a tax.

€1.44 at the moment!! Jesus, like.
Thanks a million ye cretins. :mad:

Sorry to bring bad news, but oil prices are only going to up from now on.
Peak Oil.

click_here!!!

recedite wrote: »

Sorry to bring bad news, but oil prices are only going to up from now on.
Peak Oil.

Maybe the same people who voted for Fianna Fáil last time round and are complaining about the Greens going into coalition with who they voted for can speculate on barrels of oil instead of empty houses. Then they'd be able to afford the back-breaking 4 cent per litre carbon tax.