Eamon Ryan resigns before the General Election.

This policy is a great example of the kind of sh1te that the Greens have to put up with, where the very slightest change, having to do things slightly differently, following a model used in many more progressive countries, is treated as huge assault on democracy, a threat to our way of living, a vast imposition by the Green Party (not by the Government who signed off on it, of course).

The 'perfectly convenient' system didn't have a good outcome, as it didn't get a high percentage of plastic bottles and cans through the system for recycling. It may have been convenient for you, but it was a fig leaf, designed to make you feel better about not having to think about reducing consumption on any way, prioritising recycle over reduce and reuse.

Hard to blame Ryan for stepping back after thirty years, and still the whingers find his departure to be something to whinge about.

Their problem was in how they pushed. The electorate have had their say on that and will have a further say in a GE. Let's see if getting rid of their leader and deputy leader will come to their aid.

Its all set up nicely for Catherine Martin to be leader in the near future. Hackett or ROG will be just interim leaders. they will have to face a leadership battle within 6 months of a general election and no doubt the greens will anoint Catherine Martin after the drubbing they will get in the forthcoming GE.

Very smart move from the Martin dynasty to sit out this leadership vote, the Martin clan qould teach the Healy Raes a thing or two.

Very reminiscent of the "it's not what they're saying, it's the way they're saying it" nonsense from the 2015 and 2018 referendums.

As if those who disagree with a political point get to police the way those in favour of it campaign and act.

I don't think there'd be any form of implementing their policies which would be acceptable to those giving out about the GP. They're opposed to the policies but don't want to say they are (again, see 2015 and 2018)

As I said already, if you have achieved real permanent change, it doesn't matter that you are subsequently powerless, you can reflect on your huge achievements.

Well enjoy patting yourselves on the back. That's all there is to be said.

I have better things to be at to tell you the truth.
If they aren't missed it's because they didn't affect me much when all is said and done.
A bit like the PDs and Renua in that regard.

Thats a segment of a study. I've no knowledge of where or under what conditions.

Here's my own practical experience:

After 20 years of dealing with specifically wood in construction here in Ireland, 'native' is a byword for sh1t when it comes to spruce grown here. It's not used by builders because it's knotty crap which breaks at the over large knots. It's also not acceptable at all in any public project.

Despite the generous incentives for forestry investors, lack of compliance checks with the scheme terms and conditions has allowed them to plant a subsidised plantation and then ignore it for 25 years before just sending the lot for pulp.

Let's look at the life cycle of one of these planted by a farmer in his 50s who's children are preparing for or in off farm careers which they might later combine with farming as they mature and inherit.

He plants Sitka in the hope of having an income for 20 years. Gov funds the entire land prep, fencing and planting cost. Happy days. The subsidies keep himself and his wife going as a nice pension sideline.

This tree plantation (they're not forests) support no biodiversity because we don't have animals, birds or plants adapted to living in a close planted monospecies sitka plantation. It's dead bar the sitka.

His children don't live anywhere on the farm because who wants to build in the middle of a dark spruce plantation, and theres no need to be there to calve the trees or feed them in winter. They move away.

25 years later, in his seventies he harvests the wood.

The wood as pulp goes into mostly mdf for cheap kitchens, and cheap furniture. This cheap furniture is usually the first thing in a house to be thrown in a skip after as little as 15 to 25 years. All that carbon decays into the atmosphere along with a bunch of nasty glues, paints, and plastic coatings.

So it does nothing for carbon capture either. 50 is too short.

Meanwhile, the farmer or his children are obliged to replant, - which eats up much of the money received for the trees, and this time there's no 100% grant aid nor 20 year subsidy.

His kids aren't going to make a penny from this and the by now falling down fences need to be replaced. One of them needs money for an extension or renovation or whatever and the others don't have enough readies to buy them out.

The replanted land is now sold - for very little as it's now worth next to nothing, and the only buyers are a multinational fund who can rent or sell the carbon credits (the gov don't own them this time as it's not grant assisted) who can take a view in decades or longer.

And that's the end of another family farm in Ireland and a few acres more owned by some faceless fund based in NY/Frankfurt/Singapore.

If one wants to plant trees then plant native slow growing mixed broadleaf trees. That might be a forest some day and do some good. It won'tgive you a short term flush of money though.

Sitka is an invasive weed and should be banned.

No idea Andy, lack of any credible alternatives maybe. He comes across initially as a fairly polite half competent reasonable person until you start looking at his actual positions on stuff or comes out with a clanger, or nods off, or his mask slips and his hate of all of us plebians is laid bare.

While I have you, - and on this very subject (hate and jealousy of plebians, farmers and rural dwellers) I read and noted your now deleted insult laden rant against us here, the day before yesterday I think it was. I had a reply typed up for you, but didn't post it as you'd no doubt report my very carefully civil reply as 'uncivil' and the Beastman would take no greater pleasure than in giving me a two point warning for it which would result in a 5 week auto ban as I've a couple of his little presents still sitting on my profile for another few days.

We can discuss it after they expire and I promise I'll be very civil, but I don't promise to agree with your characterisations of people who choose to, or need to live in the countryside, the places they live or their homes.

Laters..

Winning the hearts and minds of the general public by the same attitude you have. Keep it up and see what happens.

Greens are not facing electoral rejection =

Green councillor topped the poll in my local area. Overall their number of seats is down but its down from a record high, and is higher than it was in the two previous local elections.

This is hardly a disaster.

Moreover, their vote essentially went to the Social Democrats, who have a track record of exactly nothing in government - but who in fairness would be fairly similar to the Greens in outlook and in their position on Environmental matters.

So in that sense, they are being punished for being in government, but the ideas they stand for are not being rejected.

And it can very easily swing back in their favour the next time, particularly if the SDs have a run in government and have the social media whingebag spotlight on them for a change.

Yeah you are right, you are not sure what is.

Here's what is - Progressive Democrats. Political force throughout 1980s/90s/00s…. now gone. Thats rejection.

Ups and downs from election to election, thats people wanting a change.

Same story with the European elections - 2019 was an exception election for the Green Party; but it still got 90'000 first preferences in the most recent election which is higher than what it got in the 2014 european elections.

The most recent elections were a very typical Green vote; compared to 2019 when we saw an exceptionally high Green vote.

I wouldnt see it as a rejection at all - there is a core vote that has stuck with it; and there is a floating vote that has gone elsewhere this time (Social Democrats), but will be back again in the future- and thats how elections go.

It's not really the Green supporters driving the boom and bust. It's the fair weather voters, the blow ins who give a high preference in one election, and drop them entirely next time round.

Indeed, let's see what happens.

But hey, once you don't have to do anything hugely outrageous, like carry a bag of empties into the shop, right?

Martin was a credible alternatives, and yet a majority of the members, who all hate him if you're to be believed, voted for Ryan. The more logical explanation is that you're spoofing, or you were only quite happy to believe a spoofer, instead of looking at the actual facts of the situation.

And maybe ease off on the 'I'll see you outside the pub' thinly veiled threats.

Being mature adults, I'd guess that most Green members would have no difficulty in distinguishing between the role of Ministers running Departments and the role of party officers running the party. It makes no sense to change Ministers with the end of the Government's term in sight.

Well they already showed they had the cynical opportunism down to a tee during the disastrous 2007-2011 government, remember when they wanted to do ministerial musical chairs so they'd all get a pension?

Welcome to democracy. A party goes into government has to make decisions which all have costs. One of these costs is losing votes. Ultimately enough decisions are made that voters get annoyed/bored/prefer alternative that a party loses votes and eventually gets voted out. That's how democracy works. Generally the only way a party never leaves government is if it's some form of dictatorship.

I heard a quote from one Irish politician that was along the lines of the worst day in government is still better than a day in opposition. When you are in opposition you can only indirectly force change by pressuring the government.

For all your criticisms of the Green party they have implemented more of their policies than SF ever has despite being around 10 or so less years than the modern SF party. It's very easy to sit in opposition and shout from the ditch. Arguably a very cushy lifestyle, the benefits of being a TD but none of the costs and risks associated with actually changing things/actually implementing your parties policies. While I've mentioned SF(they actually appear to want to get into government) this applies even more to Hodge podge of independents and parties like PBP who use the excuse of ideological purity to avoid actually having to get their hands dirty.

The Greens haven't done that. The advantage the greens have though is they have a strong core vote that a lot of other small parties don't have due to being focused primarily on a single issue. So they will rebound in future.