Green Party wish list.

Tell me how

Blueshoe wrote: »

What percentage of the vote for the green party get?

7.1% of first preferences.

By some distance their highest amount. They have 12 TD's. Double their previous highest amount.

It's an area of ever growing concern amongst the electorate.

gnf_ireland

Tell me how wrote: »

It is passing the buck to put the weight of delivery solely on the shoulders of the Greens. The FG led government signed the country up to the Paris agreement. Asking the Greens to provide a comprehensive, pain free path to delivering on our commitments is completely unreasonable from many who on several other issues demand that the government be held to account. As it should be. FF/FG should be saying 'here is what needs to be done' as much as the Green Party.

The difference i guess with the Green's is this is core to their movement, and is the primary mandate they are elected under. The other parties tag green policies into their much bigger manifesto, whereas this is central to the Greens.

So I would hope they have spent time thinking up creative and innovative solutions to try tackle the issue, rather than increase carbon taxes. There is only so much tax that can be raised from the public and increase in carbon taxes means labour taxes have to reduce - and the government will not exactly be flush after all of this

I understand the role in policy making, but if they want to hit the 7%, they need to put practical solutions on the table

jimmycrackcorm

gnf_ireland wrote: »

I understand the role in policy making, but if they want to hit the 7%, they need to put practical solutions on the table

somehow I don't think they will get the same level of support when the people that voted them in see what that annual 7% actually means to them.

We cut down the national beef herd, so Irish beef gets more expensive, and we end up eating imported brazillian beef. It's a repeat of the CO2 debacle where we ended up with dirty nox cars instead.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats the difference between having a national government and election in few months time,vs what a ffg/greeb coalition and election in few months time

If there is a FF, FG and Green government, why on earth will there be an election in a few month's time?
That is a coalition that will last the full 5 years I think.

_Kaiser_

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The FG has constantly failed to deliver in terms of the green agenda. When they had the chance they buckled and done nothing.

I keep saying this. Nobody really cares about the "Green agenda" in this country except middle class wealthy people who use it to virtue signal when times are good, and younger people whose idealism hasn't been tainted by the realities of life.

People certainly don't care when they find themselves paying higher taxes for public transport they can't benefit from anyway or for things they can't do anything about.
They care even less when the good times end and the hard choices are around cuts and unemployment support - as will shortly be the case again. Many too remember their last stint in Government and the damage they did to the country.

The rise in the Green vote (as with SF) was primarily a protest against FG. Ryan might see himself as King maker and in a position to force through their "tax everyone" policies, but FF/FG aren't so stupid as to not recognise what that would do to their support, never mind the country in the upcoming recession.

hmmm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

People certainly don't care when they find themselves paying higher taxes for public transport they can't benefit from anyway or for things they can't do anything about.
They care even less when the good times end and the hard choices are around cuts and unemployment support - as will shortly be the case again. Many too remember their last stint in Government and the damage they did to the country.

Agree fully. The world has completely changed since the election. The mandate they received from comfortable middle class voters in a growing economy worried about social redistribution has completely gone in an environment where the worldwide economy is heading towards a potential depression, and tax revenue is collapsing.

The Greens now can either go into government, and do their best to bring their viewpoint to the decisions which will be made in the next couple of years. But to do that they will have to be imaginative - e.g. there are lots of decisions to be made about the future of public transport, working from home etc.

If they have unrealistic expectations, based on the world from 3 months ago, they will either be excluded from government or disappoint their voters. They may have to abandon some of their promises, but wouldn't you prefer to be in there being part of the decisions?

Yellow_Fern

Tell me how wrote: »

To be fair to the Greens, their motivation is primarily towards seeing policies adopted which are necessary. If all they wanted to do was to be part of a government, they could just be very loose with their language like other parties are.

They seem to be the only party who is intent on following their manifesto.

It is true that they are intent on following their manifesto. The problem is their manesfo puts climate before human welfare. Net zero emissions by 2050 isnt necessary and is nearly guaranteed to cause my harm to humans than resulting climate change. Environmentalism is a fundamentalist religion which is why the Green Parties and Thornbergs of the world differ so much from the IPCC who are the adults in the room here.

Kivaro

Simon Coveney said today that "Green Party Can Forget Its Demands For 7% Emissions Reduction."
The Green Party is deluded if they think we (the normal people) can afford the enormous expenses and costs associated with this 7% cut; especially in such an uncertain time of recession and pandemic. This 7% cut requires even more taxes on the public, who have yet to pay for the billions being spent to fight the virus.
I am also sick of seeing their smug faces as they talk down to us about their policies.

The Green Party needs a touch realism to come back to the party, so that those people who want a better environment in the future and those who support realistic sustainability initiatives will have a "real" voice.

Shefwedfan

hmmm wrote: »

Agree fully. The world has completely changed since the election. The mandate they received from comfortable middle class voters in a growing economy worried about social redistribution has completely gone in an environment where the worldwide economy is heading towards a potential depression, and tax revenue is collapsing.

The Greens now can either go into government, and do their best to bring their viewpoint to the decisions which will be made in the next couple of years. But to do that they will have to be imaginative - e.g. there are lots of decisions to be made about the future of public transport, working from home etc.

If they have unrealistic expectations, based on the world from 3 months ago, they will either be excluded from government or disappoint their voters. They may have to abandon some of their promises, but wouldn't you prefer to be in there being part of the decisions?

Another BS excuse to be honest, this year its the virus, last year it was the ?


The year before it was the? last 20 years has been what exactly?



To be honest, nobody has any thought leadership, any vision? its sit like pigs in the mess we have made and then blame someone else. Of it FG fault or its FF or its XYZ?


One of the top companies in the World for renewable and they have done nearly zero revenue in Ireland, but are an Irish company.

PommieBast

hmmm wrote: »

If they have unrealistic expectations, based on the world from 3 months ago, they will either be excluded from government or disappoint their voters. They may have to abandon some of their promises, but wouldn't you prefer to be in there being part of the decisions?

The Green party should have stuck to environmental stuff for their opening gambit, giving at most six "demands". The 17-strong list is a monumental blunder regardless of the merits (or otherwise) of the individual policies.

Water John

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

somehow I don't think they will get the same level of support when the people that voted them in see what that annual 7% actually means to them.

We cut down the national beef herd, so Irish beef gets more expensive, and we end up eating imported brazillian beef. It's a repeat of the CO2 debacle where we ended up with dirty nox cars instead.

You're a bit behind in the science. Unless the country is increasing the herd size then it's not adding GHG. With the correct management and stocking, land can become a carbon sink, absorbing carbon every year.

BTW has anyone noticed the carbon tax is going up today. Where are all the protesters? This is being implemented by FG.
Simon would always be very pro, big business.

Shefwedfan

Water John wrote: »

You're a bit behind in the science. Unless the country is increasing the herd size then it's not adding GHG. With the correct management and stocking, land can become a carbon sink, absorbing carbon every year.

BTW has anyone noticed the carbon tax is going up today. Where are all the protesters? This is being implemented by FG.
Simon would always be very pro, big business.

It was announced last year.....

hmmm

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Another BS excuse to be honest, this year its the virus, last year it was the ?

The year before it was the?

This is going to be the biggest economic event in 10 years, and possibly 100 years. The world economy is going to be operating at 70% capacity for 12-18 months, and possibly longer. Things we took for granted are no longer guaranteed - taxation, government spending, globalisation.

As a simple example - if 50% of the office population shifts to WFH permanently, the plans to expand commuting capacity have to be reconsidered. What happens when people don't want to travel on public transport and all get into their cars?

These are all questions we need the Green providing input into. Everything that was in a manifesto 2 months ago is now irrelevant.

Rows Grower

Kivaro wrote: »

Simon Coveney said today that "Green Party Can Forget Its Demands For 7% Emissions Reduction."
The Green Party is deluded if they think we (the normal people) can afford the enormous expenses and costs associated with this 7% cut; especially in such an uncertain time of recession and pandemic. This 7% cut requires even more taxes on the public, who have yet to pay for the billions being spent to fight the virus.
I am also sick of seeing their smug faces as they talk down to us about their policies.

The Green Party needs a touch realism to come back to the party, so that those people who want a better environment in the future and those who support realistic sustainability initiatives will have a "real" voice.

There now demanding "commit to the 7% and then we'll talk".

Looks like we'll be having another election which is a lot more appealing than having them in government.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/commit-to-the-7-and-then-well-talk-catherine-martin-reacts-to-tanaistes-shocking-comments-997153.html

PommieBast

Rows Grower wrote: »

There now demanding "commit to the 7% and then we'll talk".

That's blown it. If it was 7% and done deal then they might have had a reasonable chance.

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

7.1% of first preferences.

By some distance their highest amount. They have 12 TD's. Double their previous highest amount.

It's an area of ever growing concern amongst the electorate.

In middle class dublin. Its a growing concern among people who will be the least inpcted by their tax first, service later regime.

Edgware

Don't panic.
There's a deal to be done yet. Plenty independents there willing to get some of the pork barrell. The Greens can piss off. We will deal with them at the next election. First Year Arts students playing student politics

nigeldaniel

Jeepers, I do not know why so many have it in for the Greens. I would not say they are a bad lot myself even though I vote FG.

Edgware

nigeldaniel wrote: »

Jeepers, I do not know why so many have it in for the Greens. I would not say they are a bad lot myself even though I vote FG.

We all don't want to go back to the 1950s.

Tell me how

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

It is true that they are intent on following their manifesto. The problem is their manesfo puts climate before human welfare. Net zero emissions by 2050 isnt necessary and is nearly guaranteed to cause my harm to humans than resulting climate change. Environmentalism is a fundamentalist religion which is why the Green Parties and Thornbergs of the world differ so much from the IPCC who are the adults in the room here.

Listen to the science.

Not many other religions follow such an approach. Or political parties either for that matter.

Tell me how

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I keep saying this. Nobody really cares about the "Green agenda" in this country except middle class wealthy people who use it to virtue signal when times are good, and younger people whose idealism hasn't been tainted by the realities of life.

People certainly don't care when they find themselves paying higher taxes for public transport they can't benefit from anyway or for things they can't do anything about.
They care even less when the good times end and the hard choices are around cuts and unemployment support - as will shortly be the case again. Many too remember their last stint in Government and the damage they did to the country.

The rise in the Green vote (as with SF) was primarily a protest against FG. Ryan might see himself as King maker and in a position to force through their "tax everyone" policies, but FF/FG aren't so stupid as to not recognise what that would do to their support, never mind the country in the upcoming recession.

And the scientists who are working in this area.

The reality of life is much more likely to be increased difficulty for a large portion of people on the planet if sustainability is not factored in to the society in a meaningful way.

The idea of every increasing demand to fuel sales, to increase revenue to justify payrises just cannot work. How can it?

The population has increased by 700% in the last 200 years. Maybe you might argue, as others, that population control is the solution. Do so, if you wish, but at least recognize the reality that what is happening is unsustainable.

Rows Grower

Tell me how wrote: »

And the scientists who are working in this area.

The reality of life is much more likely to be increased difficulty for a large portion of people on the planet if sustainability is not factored in to the society in a meaningful way.

The idea of every increasing demand to fuel sales, to increase revenue to justify payrises just cannot work. How can it?

The population has increased by 700% in the last 100 years. Maybe you might argue, as others, that population control is the solution. Do so, if you wish, but at least recognize the reality that what is happening is unsustainable.

Where are you getting these figures from?

Shefwedfan

Edgware wrote: »

We all don't want to go back to the 1950s.

That has to be one of the most stupid comments I have seen in a longtime on here


Green agenda is cutting edge in reality. If anything an invest will put us ahead of everyone and into the future. Combustion engines gone and replace with alternatives is hardly going back to the 60%


Wind/wave/solar energy generation? 50s?


New public transport like Metro, 50s? well in ervery other country you might say but not for Ireland



This is just a start.

Tell me how

Rows Grower wrote: »

Where are you getting these figures from?

My posts should have said two hundred years. I have edited it.

Doesn't change the impact which we are having, or the growth focus of society heretofore which is simply unsustainable in this manner.

McMurphy

Edgware wrote: »

Don't panic.
There's a deal to be done yet. Plenty independents there willing to get some of the pork barrell. The Greens can piss off. We will deal with them at the next election. First Year Arts students playing student politics

Herding Cats.

Anyone hear Catherine Martin on with SOR earlier today? Sounds to me like the Greens (assuming she speaks for the party as a whole) were never that serious about govt anyway. Her very first line (when asked about her party entering govt) was along the lines of "she would question the solid foundation of any govt where two of the three large party's have not and will not sit doewn and talk with the third party" Podcast = here

New Election / National Govt of unity on the cards I (still) reckon.

BarryD2

McMurphy wrote: »

Her very first line (when asked about her party entering govt) was along the lines of "she would question the solid foundation of any govt where two of the three large party's have not and will not sit doewn and talk with the third party" Podcast = here.

Ahh.. feeling ignored?

Lots for SF to do up north, show real skills and bring people together - the hard cross community work on the ground.

That's when southern voters and parties will start to take a real interest!

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

In middle class dublin. Its a growing concern among people who will be the least inpcted by their tax first, service later regime.

This tax argument is a nonsense. If it was all about tax, governments worldwide would be falling over themselves to introduce tax and blame the climate when doing so, but they haven't. As you know.

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

This tax argument is a nonsense. If it was all about tax, governments worldwide would be falling over themselves to introduce tax and blame the climate when doing so, but they haven't. As you know.

so are you saying I have absolutely no tax increases to worry about with the Green Party ?

McMurphy

BarryD2 wrote: »

Ahh.. feeling ignored?

Lots for SF to do up north, show real skills and bring people together - the hard cross community work on the ground.

That's when southern voters and parties will start to take a real interest!

I dont know how you got that completely ridiculous and downright stupid idea into your head bazza, but I was pointing out that the very party FF/G are trying to seduce and entice into bed are expressing concerns on the political footings any incoming govt will be governing on.

From where I am sittiing, it looks like Leo is going to be denied at giving Michael a go in the big seat.

New Election incoming.

BarryD2

The Greens have become an urban/ townie party and largely a middle class party. The fact is that their vision of a sustainable future is living in dense settlements which can be serviced by energy generated elsewhere, where people have high quality public transport, where services and employment is close by and owning the likes of a car is not required.

For the Greens, rural Ireland is for providing food to sustain above, to locate wind & solar farms etc., to have nice places where weekend breaks can be had by the urban citizens.

So any carbon tax/ carbon reduction policies will inevitably reflect that vision and a chill & expensive wind will inevitably blow on rural dwellers. There's no way around that, you can't have one set of carbon taxes say for urban dwellers and another for rural areas. If you concentrate public services and transport in urban areas, they'll be let disappear further in rural parts and so on.

I heard Catherine Martin on earlier and she was asked to spell out clearly what a 7% annual reduction in carbon would mean in the real world and she simply evaded and avoided the question.