Internal Abuse in The Green Party

blanch152

mynamejeff wrote: »

has any body pointed out the irony of all the shinnerbots starting and posting about people leaving another party because or inappropriate behaviour in the party ?


http://trinitynews.ie/2020/12/why-i-decided-to-resign-from-sinn-fein/

Don't be making unfair accusations against Sinn Fein members. Do you not realise that none of those allegations have been proven in a court of law and that you should not repeat them under threat of punishment?

On a more serious note, the interview that Mary-Lou did supporting Spacey and Allen and criticising the MeToo movement begins to make sense when you read that article.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Don't be making unfair accusations against Sinn Fein members. Do you not realise that none of those allegations have been proven in a court of law and that you should not repeat them under threat of punishment?

On a more serious note, the interview that Mary-Lou did supporting Spacey and Allen and criticising the MeToo movement begins to make sense when you read that article.

It's not like you haven't been corrected on this about umpteen times on this one already, but could you link to McDonald "supporting Spacey and Allen"?

Why must you lie blanch, why?

maccored

mynamejeff wrote: »

has any body pointed out the irony of all the shinnerbots starting and posting about people leaving another party because or inappropriate behaviour in the party ?


http://trinitynews.ie/2020/12/why-i-decided-to-resign-from-sinn-fein/

what was that? "Look! Over there!" - is that what you're saying?

maccored

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

The forum already has a thread which covers all the parties in government. Would have thought a lowly councillor leaving could have been covered in that thread? not sure why a separate thread was required?

awww

nigeldaniel

I would have plenty of time for the Greens myself. When someone does not like the direction of the party they are entitled to leave, that's democracy. What goes on within the party needs to be carefully looked at as we do not always hear the truth rather the dramas that some crave for. Also, it's not as if they are put into straitjackets as soon as they have the party badge on their shirt. That notion is belonging to a godforsaken ideology.

Hotblack Desiato

nigeldaniel wrote: »

When someone does not like the direction of the party they are entitled to leave, that's democracy.

Seems many of them aren't willing to accept the democratic decision their party made to enter government.

jmcc wrote: »

The "progressive" types that join political parties as some kind of career advancement (a surprising number of TDs are school teachers on a Dail sabbatical)

That's true of all parties and none

Ruth Coppinger has gone back to teaching after losing her seat.

There's plenty of FF and FG ex- (well, NOT ex- as their teaching jobs are held open for them :rolleyes: ) teachers among their ranks too.

Although the rate things are going, it won't be safe for Norma Foley to ever enter a staffroom again...!

timmyntc wrote: »

Idealism is nice, but politics is all about compromise.
If you want to make a difference in politics you have to compromise, otherwise you just sit in opposition forever doing next to nothing.

Idealos vs. Realos

Same shít as was happening 35-40 years ago in the German Green Party once they started to get a sniff of power.

Turbocharged these days by social media of course.

And no doubt fascinating to those living and breathing it within the party, but all it does is massively alienate voters.

Very reminiscent of this quote -

"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." - Wallace Sayre

Augme

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The green party was one formed that core policy was specifically around environmental issues. But in recent years seems to have been hijacked by a new membership more concerned about social issues. Witness McHugh as an example.

They'll just lose out by moving away for that core that people are voting them to deal with such as climate action.

This seems a strange conclusion. I'd argue they gained a lot from being "hijacked" by members who were concerned about social issues.

To me it seems like it's a case that they will kose votes as they have become a party who only care about climate issues. A large % of their new TDs and councillors had strong campaigns based in their vocal supoort for social issues.

As it stands, the green party will be an irrelevance after the next election.

Baggly

Danzy wrote: »

Blanch is legendary at bringing all threads to his single obsession in life.

Mod

You are done in this thread. Dont post here again.

Cut out the personal attacks folks.

markodaly

What is happening to the Greens is just what generally happens to left-wing leaning parties when they are in government, there are the pragmatists who want to get some stuff done, while the idealists think they got in on an overall majority, thinking they can boss and dictate a programme for government.
Labour had it last time out as well.

It will happen to the SD's and it will happen most of all to SF, who have built up this unbelievable and unrealistic expectation among many of their newfound voters. SF are especially vulnerable given the way they have 3 different types of voters who support them today.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

What is happening to the Greens is just what generally happens to left-wing leaning parties when they are in government, there are the pragmatists who want to get some stuff done, while the idealists think they got in on an overall majority, thinking they can boss and dictate a programme for government.
Labour had it last time out as well.

It will happen to the SD's and it will happen most of all to SF, who have built up this unbelievable and unrealistic expectation among many of their newfound voters. SF are especially vulnerable given the way they have 3 different types of voters who support them today.

The problems with what the Greens were doing arose long before it came to implementing the programme for government though. They were in internal turmoil at the idea of even entering government.


https://extra.ie/2020/06/26/news/politics/green-party-split-government

https://www.thejournal.ie/catherine-martin-green-party-2-5126610-Jun2020/

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The problems with what the Greens were doing arose long before it came to implementing the programme for government though. They were in internal turmoil at the idea of even entering government.


https://extra.ie/2020/06/26/news/politics/green-party-split-government

https://www.thejournal.ie/catherine-martin-green-party-2-5126610-Jun2020/

Yeap, same as every other left-wing party the last time out.

Remember the talk about SF 'winning' the election, but took them about 3 months to write a letter to SOL/PBP to even talk about a proposal?

Let us not pretend that the likes of PBP or SOL will ever go into government even if SF are offering a 'left wing alliance'. These types of parties make their living on always being on the outside.

In fairness, SF does want to get into government, but at their own schedule but they will find it hard to cobble together the TD's to elect MLMD as Taoiseach next time out. They will probably need at least the SD's and Labour, and more to form a government.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Yeap, same as every other left-wing party the last time out.

Not tallying with the facts Mark. All parties have issues around coalescing with others...even with parties almost identical with them. Here's Leo Varadkar in 2016:

Straight-talking health minister Leo Varadkar was first to go off-message when he ruled out the coupling on everyone's lips - a grand alliance of his own Fine Gael and arch-enemies Fianna Fáil.

"I don't favour it," he said. "I don't think it's a good idea for either party. I don't think it would last. I don't trust them and I think it would open the door to Sinn Féin as the lead opposition."

Similarly in FF:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20347651.html


The 'this is unique to parties of the Left is a moot tired point, all parties have these internal spats. All parties swallow their 'principled' objections if it is politically favourable to them, especially personally.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not tallying with the facts Mark. All parties have issues around coalescing with others...even with parties almost identical with them. Here's Leo Varadkar in 2016:

Still beating that dead horse?

FF and FG are in government now with the Greens. What Leo said 5 years ago, is useless at this stage.

The 'this is unique to parties of the Left is a moot tired point, all parties have these internal spats. All parties swallow their 'principled' objections if it is politically favourable to them, especially personally.

Left-wing parties more so. Centrists or right of centre parties are generally more practical, left-wingers more idealogical. It is why the left hate Labour today.
You never hear of the centre giving out too much about it.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Still beating that dead horse?

FF and FG are in government now with the Greens. What Leo said 5 years ago, is useless at this stage.







Left-wing parties more so. Centrists or right of centre parties are generally more practical, left-wingers more idealogical. It is why the left hate Labour today.
You never hear of the centre giving out too much about it.

What 'dead horse'?

All parties posture, it isn't 'unique' to the left. The 'practical', as you call them, parties will always find a way to stay in power. Which is as cynical as the left is ideological. And as we are seeing, leading to the decline of the prominent 'practical' parties vote share. From 84% of the vote to the mid 40's and the 'practical' merger of the two centre parties to try and halt that decline and loss of power. You are the one flogging a dead horse I fear.

Any comment on the topic of the thread BTW?

Is accepting a role in government going to destroy the whole party? Is it effectively two parties now, the Eamonn Ryan one and the Catherine Martin one?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not tallying with the facts Mark. All parties have issues around coalescing with others...even with parties almost identical with them. Here's Leo Varadkar in 2016:



Similarly in FF:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20347651.html


The 'this is unique to parties of the Left is a moot tired point, all parties have these internal spats. All parties swallow their 'principled' objections if it is politically favourable to them, especially personally.

Fine Gael have been in numerous coalitions over the years with numerous types of parties going back to the 1940s.

Fianna Fail have embraced it in more recent times, initially with the Progressive Democrats and then others.

Both parties have shown the ability to form coalitions and to maintain them under difficult circumstances.

Of the other current parties, only Labour and the Greens have been able to go into government. Yes, there must be some doubts over the Greens ability to last the distance given their previous performance, but at least they get to the starting line and only drop out halfway through.

The facts are that Sinn Fein, PBP, I4C and the rest of the rabble can't even pull on their shorts to get to the starting line.

So away with your fantasies and consider those real facts.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What 'dead horse'?

All parties posture, it isn't 'unique' to the left. The 'practical', as you call them, parties will always find a way to stay in power. Which is as cynical as the left is ideological. And as we are seeing, leading to the decline of the prominent 'practical' parties vote share. From 84% of the vote to the mid 40's and the 'practical' merger of the two centre parties to try and halt that decline and loss of power. You are the one flogging a dead horse I fear.

Any comment on the topic of the thread BTW?

Is accepting a role in government going to destroy the whole party? Is it effectively two parties now, the Eamonn Ryan one and the Catherine Martin one?

What is the purpose of a political party, if it is not to get into power and implement policies?

There really is no other point to a political party, unless you are a narcissist, just interested in the attention.

You deride the parties that go into power as cynical, I consider those that don't useless and pointless.

Baggly

FrancieBrady wrote:

Any comment on the topic of the thread BTW?

Mod

Cut this out please.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What is the purpose of a political party, if it is not to get into power and implement policies?

There really is no other point to a political party, unless you are a narcissist, just interested in the attention.

You deride the parties that go into power as cynical, I consider those that don't useless and pointless.

To stand for something would be what I look for in a political party. No longer interested in those who want power for the sake of it since falling for Enda Kenny's nonsense about a new politics.
Look at the evidence here...Leo standing against a coalition with FF because he 'doesn't trust them'...4 years later what had they done to change anyone's mind on 'trust', yet....
Michael's promise to the electorate to 'never coalesce with FG' yet a few months later....

Cynical?...most definitely, by any definition of the word.

Fann Linn

FrancieBrady wrote: »

To stand for something would be what I look for in a political party. No longer interested in those who want power for the sake of it since falling for Enda Kenny's nonsense about a new politics.
Look at the evidence here...Leo standing against a coalition with FF because he 'doesn't trust them'...4 years later what had they done to change anyone's mind on 'trust', yet....
Michael's promise to the electorate to 'never coalesce with FG' yet a few months later....

Cynical?...most definitely, by any definition of the word.

Less than a year ago LV was saying putting MM in power was like returning John Delaney to the FAI. Talk is cheap.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

To stand for something would be what I look for in a political party. No longer interested in those who want power for the sake of it since falling for Enda Kenny's nonsense about a new politics.
Look at the evidence here...Leo standing against a coalition with FF because he 'doesn't trust them'...4 years later what had they done to change anyone's mind on 'trust', yet....
Michael's promise to the electorate to 'never coalesce with FG' yet a few months later....

Cynical?...most definitely, by any definition of the word.

"To stand for something"

The likes of Neil Blaney stood for something in the wilderness for over two decades.

Richard Boyd-Barrett and Paul Murphy have been standing for something in the wilderness for a similar length of time, never achieving anything positive, their only contribution to try and negate something somebody else is doing. I expect more from my politicians. Standing on a high horse is not achieving any change.

I have an awful lot of admiration for small parties like the Progressive Democrats, Labour and the Greens who have shown that it is possible to achieve a greater amount than your voting support deserves by going into government. Yes, you take the risk that your supporters naively think you are selling out, but a small party in a coalition government can bat above its ranking.

For the hurlers on the ditch, disdain isn't coming close.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

"To stand for something"

The likes of Neil Blaney stood for something in the wilderness for over two decades.

Richard Boyd-Barrett and Paul Murphy have been standing for something in the wilderness for a similar length of time, never achieving anything positive, their only contribution to try and negate something somebody else is doing. I expect more from my politicians. Standing on a high horse is not achieving any change.

I have an awful lot of admiration for small parties like the Progressive Democrats, Labour and the Greens who have shown that it is possible to achieve a greater amount than your voting support deserves by going into government. Yes, you take the risk that your supporters naively think you are selling out, but a small party in a coalition government can bat above its ranking.

For the hurlers on the ditch, disdain isn't coming close.

I come from a different view.
I think without principled opposition we would have disappeared as a self sustaining country.

Democracy and the functioning of it, would never get disdain from me. And an opposition, even if they never get into power, is an asset and neccesary part of any political entity.

I find it blood curdlingly arogant to have 'disdain' for that

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I come from a different view.
I think without principled opposition we would have disappeared as a self sustaining country.

Democracy and the functioning of it, would never get disdain from me. And an opposition, even if they never get into power, is an asset and neccesary part of any political entity.

I find it blood curdlingly arogant to have 'disdain' for that

I would love to see principled opposition but the reality is we don't.

We have opportunistic populists, socialists who are against wealth taxes for example.

We also have populist egotists who want pubs opened and schools closed in a pandemic.

There is no principled opposition in Ireland.

An opposition that never gets into power is the hallmark of a democracy like that of the Soviet Union or communist China. What we have is an opposition unwilling and unable to go into power.

Fann Linn

blanch152 wrote: »

"To stand for something"

The likes of Neil Blaney stood for something in the wilderness for over two decades.

Richard Boyd-Barrett and Paul Murphy have been standing for something in the wilderness for a similar length of time, never achieving anything positive, their only contribution to try and negate something somebody else is doing. I expect more from my politicians. Standing on a high horse is not achieving any change.

I have an awful lot of admiration for small parties like the Progressive Democrats, Labour and the Greens who have shown that it is possible to achieve a greater amount than your voting support deserves by going into government. Yes, you take the risk that your supporters naively think you are selling out, but a small party in a coalition government can bat above its ranking.

For the hurlers on the ditch, disdain isn't coming close.

Have to disagree Blanch, coming from a lifelong support and membership of the LP. When you've gone to the meetings, AGMs and Ard Fheiseanna, knocked on the doors, stuck up the posters and garnered the votes, there are times when in fact your word should be your bond or to quote Eamonn Gilmore there should be red line issues that just aren't crossed.

To do otherwise is just playing the public as fools or as my old TU rep Pat Rabbitte said once:
'The things you tend to do during an election'.

CrazyFather1

Fann Linn wrote: »

Less than a year ago LV was saying putting MM in power was like returning John Delaney to the FAI. Talk is cheap.

Same can be said of Mary Lou. One minute she is going around telling everyone she wants to go into coalition with FF or FG. The next minute she is telling everyone how terrible those parties are.

If they are that bad why was Sinn Fein and their supporters so desperate to join them last Feb? look at the online comments for both FF & FG from Sinn Fein supporters since then? it's the same people in FF & FG now as it was last Feb, are we saying if FF joined with SF in government then they wouldn't be terrible?

All of that would suggest Sinn Fein just wanted "power for the sake of it" wouldn't it?

Fann Linn

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Same can be said of Mary Lou. One minute she is going around telling everyone she wants to go into coalition with FF or FG. The next minute she is telling everyone how terrible those parties are.

If they are that bad why was Sinn Fein and their supporters so desperate to join them last Feb? look at the online comments for both FF & FG from Sinn Fein supporters since then? it's the same people in FF & FG now as it was last Feb, are we saying if FF joined with SF in government then they wouldn't be terrible?

All of that would suggest Sinn Fein just wanted "power for the sake of it" wouldn't it?

You've made my point for me. 'The things you tend to do during an election'.

CrazyFather1

Fann Linn wrote: »

You've made my point for me. 'The things you tend to do during an election'.

I know, just making the point that all of the parties will sell their souls to get into power. Trying to say Sinn Fein or any of the parties are the shining light is not true and never will be.

Truth is at the moment no matter how many elections we have no party will gather enough votes to get into power so will have to join another. So fairly pointless slagging them off if you end up sitting beside them. That's my opinion but I am sure someone else thinks I am wrong

Fann Linn

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

I know, just making the point that all of the parties will sell their souls to get into power. Trying to say Sinn Fein or any of the parties are the shining light is not true and never will be.

Truth is at the moment no matter how many elections we have no party will gather enough votes to get into power so will have to join another. So fairly pointless slagging them off if you end up sitting beside them. That's my opinion but I am sure someone else thinks I am wrong

I agree. I'd be still in the LP only Gilmore lied through his teeth. SF will get my vote now and I'll judge them then.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I would love to see principled opposition but the reality is we don't.

We have opportunistic populists, socialists who are against wealth taxes for example.

We also have populist egotists who want pubs opened and schools closed in a pandemic.

There is no principled opposition in Ireland.

An opposition that never gets into power is the hallmark of a democracy like that of the Soviet Union or communist China. What we have is an opposition unwilling and unable to go into power.

First principles for me - don't go into government just for the sake of it, especially when you purport to be diametrically opposed to the ideology of the majority pary. Not unless what you want is very highly valued by that calition. The problem fr Greens and Labour is they are treated (and allow themselves to be) as scapegoats and mouth pieces by the coalition parties they go in with.
After that, the 'populist' tag can be thrown at any party, in or out of government. Ever hear of 'election budgets' 'mainfesto promises that never get followed through'? Every single last one of them, engage in that.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

First principles for me - don't go into government just for the sake of it, especially when you purport to be diametrically opposed to the ideology of the majority pary. Not unless what you want is very highly valued by that calition. The problem fr Greens and Labour is they are treated (and allow themselves to be) as scapegoats and mouth pieces by the coalition parties they go in with.
After that, the 'populist' tag can be thrown at any party, in or out of government. Ever hear of 'election budgets' 'mainfesto promises that never get followed through'? Every single last one of them, engage in that.

The bit in bold is only your opinion, it is not anything more than that.

It also isn't supported by much in the way of evidence.

Labour has achieved great societal change only be being in government. The Greens are achieving change on the climate issue through being in government. Yes, they didn't or won't achieve everything they set out to do, but the question is whether any minority party can expect or should expect to do that. After all, being a minority party, they don't have the support of the majority.

The moral high horse position that you adopt is that a party which doesn't have a majority should go into a coalition and dictate everything that happens. That sounds an awful lot like Germany in 1933.

To me, going into government and achieving some credible long-lasting change as opposed to hurling from the ditch is the equivalent of half a loaf being better than starving.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The bit in bold is only your opinion, it is not anything more than that.

It also isn't supported by much in the way of evidence.

Labour has achieved great societal change only be being in government. The Greens are achieving change on the climate issue through being in government. Yes, they didn't or won't achieve everything they set out to do, but the question is whether any minority party can expect or should expect to do that. After all, being a minority party, they don't have the support of the majority.

The moral high horse position that you adopt is that a party which doesn't have a majority should go into a coalition and dictate everything that happens. That sounds an awful lot like Germany in 1933.

To me, going into government and achieving some credible long-lasting change as opposed to hurling from the ditch is the equivalent of half a loaf being better than starving.

Labour - a party that is supposed to be standing up for the working class have decimated themselves. That is their achievement.

Yes, they achieve some of their aims, enough to keep cannon fodder for the power swap somewhat credible, but they sarcrifice credibilty and support to do that. Which is more fundamentally damaging in the longterm, as it strenghtens the power swap.
And the Greens are in the process of doing the same thing - hence the internal abuse and harrassment as people in the party object.

Piecemeal gains in other words and one step forward, several back.

BTW, yours is an 'opinion' also, if I am not mistaken.