FF & Green Party in Government [Archive] - Page 3

BohsPartisan

13/06/2007, 11:11 PM

The notion that the Greens - or any party - should try to grow in opposition for a few decades until (presumably) they can take over themselves is nonsense. It's like a club saying they'll settle for fourth in the league each year because they don't want to embarrass themselves in Europe and take a step backwards. The only issue with the Greens, I would imagine, is not whether they want to go into Government or not, but whether it's the right deal and the right partner party.

Stupid comparison Stu, surprised at you. Not to mention the obvious question of whos shoes would you rather be in right now, UCD's or Shels?

The Greens quickness to jump into bed with right wing parties will mean that they will forever be on the margins and never be in a position to implement any of their programme as it simply won't happen on the basis of six seats. A real party who wanted to grow in opposityion would not be simply sitting on their hands waiting for elections. I'm not expectin the Greens to ever become a mass party, just illustrating exactly why they won't.

OneRedArmy

13/06/2007, 11:30 PM

The Greens quickness to jump into bed with right wing parties will mean that they will forever be on the margins and never be in a position to implement any of their programme as it simply won't happen on the basis of six seats. A real party who wanted to grow in opposityion would not be simply sitting on their hands waiting for elections. I'm not expectin the Greens to ever become a mass party, just illustrating exactly why they won't.Left and right wing are relative concepts BP. As a socialist everyone is right wing to you! You view FF, Lab, FG (not to mention the PDs) as shades of the same colour (all presumably right wing). Therefore in your world only an absolute Green majority, in the absence of Ireland re-discovering socialism again, would allow them to govern.

I admire you sticking to your convictions but a bit of realpolitik wouldn't go amiss.

BohsPartisan

13/06/2007, 11:37 PM

I admire you sticking to your convictions but a bit of realpolitik wouldn't go amiss.

For the greens perhaps. They had a little niche, now they've lost it. going into government at a time that even Bertie is warning of rough economic waters is not cleverest of moves.

Ringo

14/06/2007, 7:24 AM

They may not need the Greens on Thursday but a coalition without the Greens isn't going to see them through 5 years of Government.

There's only one side folding and its FF.

The greens have sold ou, for power. Their finished at the next election.

Macy

14/06/2007, 7:25 AM

Reported on politics.ie that Trevor Sergeant has resigned as leader of the Greens, following on from a comment years back that he'd sooner resign than enter into Government with Fianna F�il.
It was in his conference address this year wasn't it? The same conference that Gormley had his rant about not living on "Planet Bertie". Still, it got them the FG/Labour transfers, that was the main thing, that got them into Government with FF...

OneRedArmy

14/06/2007, 7:34 AM

It was in his conference address this year wasn't it? The same conference that Gormley had his rant about not living on "Planet Bertie". Still, it got them the FG/Labour transfers, that was the main thing, that got them into Government with FF...The same transfers they pick up at every election?

The Greens have always got transfers from everywhere, nothing different this time.

monutdfc

14/06/2007, 8:44 AM

The greens have sold ou, for power. Their finished at the next election.
It's definitely a dangerous strategy they have followed, and only time will tell. Especially with darker economic clouds on the horizon and the risk that Bertie will put the blame on the Greens and their Carbon Tax and "Business-unfriendly" approach. (Much as the PD's copped the voter ire for the state of the Health Service.) There are a number of voters who will feel let-down by this deal, and they won't be as 'transfer-friendly' in the next election (but will still be to some extent). The 'anyone but FF' vote will be lost, but they all voted FG anyway.
But on the other hand, I think the mentality of the typical Green voter is different. It is not as much a protest vote as a vote to get their policies implemented. I voted Green at this election and will do so again, and while I am far from blown over by the deal I agree with the pragmatic approach that is better to get something done than the alternative which was sit on the oppposition benches while the PD's and Indos prop up FF for another 5 years. The Greens are still perceived as a niche party, whereas in truth they have as comprehensive a manifesto as any other party, and it is possible that this will allow them to break out of that niche.

OneRedArmy

14/06/2007, 9:02 AM

It's definitely a dangerous strategy they have followed, and only time will tell. Especially with darker economic clouds on the horizon and the risk that Bertie will put the blame on the Greens and their Carbon Tax and "Business-unfriendly" approach. (Much as the PD's copped the voter ire for the state of the Health Service.) There are a number of voters who will feel let-down by this deal, and they won't be as 'transfer-friendly' in the next election (but will still be to some extent). The 'anyone but FF' vote will be lost, but they all voted FG anyway.
But on the other hand, I think the mentality of the typical Green voter is different. It is not as much a protest vote as a vote to get their policies implemented. I voted Green at this election and will do so again, and while I am far from blown over by the deal I agree with the pragmatic approach that is better to get something done than the alternative which was sit on the oppposition benches while the PD's and Indos prop up FF for another 5 years. The Greens are still perceived as a niche party, whereas in truth they have as comprehensive a manifesto as any other party, and it is possible that this will allow them to break out of that niche.Amen to that.

Life is rarely about perfection or absolutes.

Macy

14/06/2007, 11:59 AM

The 'anyone but FF' vote will be lost, but they all voted FG anyway.
For the most part yes, and then transferred to Labour and the Greens. For a party that relies on transfers they now have no option but to deliver, as FF transfers only really go to FF...

Poor Student

14/06/2007, 12:29 PM

Why do people assume the Green have "sold out"? At the end of the day they will only make up a small fraction of the government and therefore can only implement a small fraction of their policy. The Green Party have the choice to try and impact on evironmental policy (their primary aim) at a crucial time or to sit outside and have no impact. Given the problems with climate change they're not a party to can afford to wait on the sidelines. I'm not saying they will single handedly halt global warming but from a Green perspective what's the point in waiting to grow in opposition for decades when it's too late to do anything about their primary concern?

pete

14/06/2007, 1:41 PM

It's definitely a dangerous strategy they have followed, and only time will tell. Especially with darker economic clouds on the horizon and the risk that Bertie will put the blame on the Greens and their Carbon Tax and "Business-unfriendly" approach.

I was thinking the same way. FF will take credit for the good Green policies & dodge the bad ones. FF blamed the PDs for the Health Service but took credit for the PDs lower tax policies.

Its plain to see the Green Party gave up on some of the less important policies.
There are feck all votes in Shannon & the M3 Motorway so dropping them was good politics.
I think this could be the end of the cuddly Greens getting loads of transfers as they have grown up into serious party. If they want to survive they need to own a successful area of government policy & need to stop FF from trying to take credit. At the moment I can't see any area is ripe for this.

WeAreRovers

14/06/2007, 2:16 PM

Best of luck to the Greens. Staying in opposition and sniping from the sidelines is best left (sic) to Labour. As far as I'm concerned any decision that leaves Patricia McKenna in tears is a good decision.

I'm pretty happy with how things have worked out. Shannon and Tara are non-issues, transport, local government, climate change etc are real issues where the Greens can make a real difference in government.

A combination of FF's ability to get things done coupled with these commitments http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0613/greendocu.html is good news from my point of view.

KOH

sligoman

14/06/2007, 2:33 PM

Good to know that the Greens value there voters anyway, going against most of what the party stood for. As someone said above, they're finished at the next election.

Risteard

14/06/2007, 2:42 PM

My vote stopped at Dan Boyle and i was disappointed he didn't get in.
However, I'm very disappointed at what GP accepted.
I wouldn't say he won't get a preference off me next time because i know damn well SF and Labour would also have jumped given the chance.
However, I'll be a bit more cynical towards them.
Going to look after the independents first.

WeAreRovers

14/06/2007, 3:15 PM

Risteard and Sligoman, if (and I know it's a big if) the Greens manage to get most or even some of this implemented http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0613/greendocu.html how in the name of muesli is it going against the wishes of their voters?

Likewise, if they didn't go into government they would get zero of their policies implemented. How would that be good for their voters? :confused:

KOH

OneRedArmy

14/06/2007, 3:22 PM

Radical proposal, but it may be an idea to give the Greens a while before you judge how much they've achieved.

Its verging on comical that some people on here have already decided not to vote for them in 5 years, before they have even had the ministerial seal granted.....:rolleyes:

Risteard, you are voting for who you want to represent you, not who you want in opposition. I can't help but think you've managed to mix the two up.

pete

14/06/2007, 4:20 PM

Require carbon offsetting of all official air travel in support of urban forests.

Sounds like something out of the Village movie. ;)

Introduce new national building standards in 2007 to ensure that new housing has 40% lower heat energy demand than existing building standards and revise them again in 2010 to achieve a 60% target in further years.

FF must have tried to resist that. Might be the subject of discussion in the Galway races tents next year...

Environmental organisations to become social partners.

Hippies & New Age Travellers to get increased social welfare. :D

BohsPartisan

14/06/2007, 4:53 PM

Radical proposal, but it may be an idea to give the Greens a while before you judge how much they've achieved.

Giving how they have gone into government with no assurances on anything - even less than I thought they'd get - I think its pretty safe to say they'll acheve nothing.

pineapple stu

14/06/2007, 5:54 PM

Stupid comparison Stu, surprised at you. Not to mention the obvious question of whos shoes would you rather be in right now, UCD's or Shels?
That's irrelevant unless the Greens suddenly go on a mass splurge at the next election and go bankrupt. Maybe First Division/Premier Division would have been a better comparison, but it's still valid to show the folly of people suggesting the Greens should lie in wait for a few decades.

BohsPartisan

14/06/2007, 6:54 PM

pineapple stu

14/06/2007, 7:44 PM

Actively build for what though?

What have they been doing the past however many years they've been around? No point actively building for something if you're going to turn that something down when it happens.

Bald Student

14/06/2007, 7:55 PM

There's no reason why you can't actively build your party while in government.

It's probably harder to do because they'll be expected to produce results where they only had to produce talk before but if they're not up to that job now, there's no reason to think that they will be after another 25 years.

OneRedArmy

14/06/2007, 11:41 PM

No one is saying they should lie in wait. I'm saying they should actively build, using the opposition benches as a platform to forward the struggles on the ground. If the Labour Party had done this two decades ago they would be the irrelivance they are today. A decade is a pretty short time in politics. As it is they get nothing and will get kicked for it at the next election.You've used the "struggles on the ground" phrase twice now, coupled with buzzwords like "grassroots achievements" and the like...what exactly does this mean?

You are clearly trying to reverse-justify what the Greens have done through the goals of the Socialist Party (who have little choice other than grassroots, given the election result).

A decade is an age in politics, particularly in proportional representation. Its at least two Governments. As an example, we've seen the rise and fall of the PDs, all in the last decade.

But the fundamental issue you, and many else on here, are ignoring, is that whilst the Greens may be even money to run straight into the role of FF scapegoats (as previously occupied by PDs), had they chosen the easy route of sticking to their principles in opposition, many voters, such as myself, would have questioned whether they were ever fit to govern. As WAR and Poor Student said above, for a party whose core policies are built on the environment and climate change not to go into Government at this particular time (and turn down the Environment portfolio), would be tantamount to political suicide.

Risteard

15/06/2007, 12:53 AM

Risteard, you are voting for who you want to represent you, not who you want in opposition.
So by represent me you mean in power? In that case I'd vote all FF so my representative isn't in opposition.
WeareRovers, I didn't say that it was going against the wishes of their supporters. However, I believe for a lot of them it probably will.
Despite not alligning themselves with FG/Lab, I suspect one or two of their seats owe to rainbow transfers.

Macy

15/06/2007, 7:26 AM

Greens obviously having a big impact on FF :rolleyes: Wicklows Biggest Dick (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/roche-signed-order-to-destroy-monument-701971.html)

Dodge

15/06/2007, 7:46 AM

At least he's been demoted, to the completely rubbish title of "super junior" minister for European Affairs (a title he held before)

BohsPartisan

15/06/2007, 8:21 AM

You've used the "struggles on the ground" phrase twice now, coupled with buzzwords like "grassroots achievements" and the like...what exactly does this mean?

You are clearly trying to reverse-justify what the Greens have done through the goals of the Socialist Party (who have little choice other than grassroots, given the election result).

.

Even if we had won two seats, or even four our strategy would not change. Our support comes from what we do in the communities and in the unions. For example, Joe got elected because we led the successful anti-water charges struggle. We organised networks in the communities particularly in Fingal and most of these people remain supporters and many of them help out with election campaigns. The GAMA struggle was an example of how we actually use our Dail seat. Joe used Dail privelege to put the GAMA controversy in the public domain. Yet first and foremost we organised those workers into a strike committee and consistantly assisted their strike. The abolition of the water charges when we had no seats, The Gama victory when we had one and the numerous smaller campaigns we were involved in, were bigger achievements than the Greens have ever had with all their seats. In fact they were bigger achievements than the entire opposition put together.
So if the Greens were serious about building from the ground, they would be actively involved in things like the Save Tara campaign, the Anti War movement, Shell to Sea, instead of making laudable statements at their conference or from Dail seats which they simply turn around and discard once they sniff the wet crotch of power.

WeAreRovers

15/06/2007, 11:18 AM

So if the Greens were serious about building from the ground, they would be actively involved in things like the Save Tara campaign, the Anti War movement, Shell to Sea, instead of making laudable statements at their conference or from Dail seats which they simply turn around and discard once they sniff the wet crotch of power.

What utter nonsense. Have you any concept of parliamentary democracy? None of the above campaigns have achieved anything - there's still a war in Iraq, Shell are still going to build onshore and the M3 is going ahead.

The Greens can actually make real advancements on their agenda in government. As I keep asking is that not the the point of entering politics in the first place.

The wacko left including the SP, Patricia McKenna and all the other loons are afraid of responsibility and would rather carp from the sidelines.

The SP tactic of 'actively building', 'working with the grassroots' etc are time-honoured Trot tactics and achieve nothing. But we've been down that road before.

KOH

BohsPartisan

15/06/2007, 11:31 AM

Yes well I'd expect that sort of nonsense from you. I've already pointed to successful extra parliamentary campaigns. I've discussed at length how we have built support on other threads. A party of the size of the greens could make a significant impact on the campaigns I mentioned if they adopted fight to win tactics. Obviously they will never do that.
As for my concept of parliamentary democracy, its not very democratic. You get to vote for someone once every five years and most of the options are the same. Building a revolutionary organisation is a long hard slog that is not for the easily bored or the easily discouraged. It is the case that this side of a revolutionary situation the revolutionaries will be a minority. However it is our task to make that minority a significant one which is respected among the working class. You cannot deny that we have had some success in this respect. Despite detractors like yourself we will not be deterred from the task we have set ourselves.
As Jim Connell wrote:
"Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here!"

hoops1

15/06/2007, 3:43 PM

As for my concept of parliamentary democracy, its not very democratic. You get to vote for someone once every five years and most of the options are the same. Building a revolutionary organisation is a long hard slog that is not for the easily bored or the easily discouraged. It is the case that this side of a revolutionary situation the revolutionaries will be a minority. However it is our task to make that minority a significant one which is respected among the working class. You cannot deny that we have had some success in this respect. Despite detractors like yourself we will not be deterred from the task we have set ourselves.
As Jim Connell wrote:
"Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here!"

LOL :eek:

pete

15/06/2007, 4:35 PM

Building a revolutionary organisation is a long hard slog that is not for the easily bored or the easily discouraged.

Would that be De Revolution as coined by Bertie 'Irelands only Socialist' in Ireland? :D

mypost

15/06/2007, 5:04 PM

The people I feel really sorry for, are the currently unemployed, as Martin Clueless Cullen, is their new Minister. The gobshi, will probably ask for a decrease in the Social Welfare Payment next year, due to "more challenging economic times". :rolleyes:

John83

15/06/2007, 5:52 PM

Greens obviously having a big impact on FF :rolleyes: Wicklows Biggest Dick (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/roche-signed-order-to-destroy-monument-701971.html)
I love the name in the link: ...roche-signed-order-to-destroy-monument-701971.html

pete

16/06/2007, 10:16 AM

Once you've seen one ruin you've seen them all. Its standard practice to excavate any finds anyway so I don't see anything new here.

Do we have to preserve every ruin we find? How could there be anything built?

:confused:

I think Roche is a Dick but he made the correct decision this time. If the Greens were so concerned they would not have elected FF to government.

Lionel Ritchie

16/06/2007, 10:25 AM

Once you've seen one ruin you've seen them all. Its standard practice to excavate any finds anyway so I don't see anything new here.

Do we have to preserve every ruin we find? How could there be anything built?

That's a bit trite Pete. We don't have to preserve everything we find but it's worth baring a couple of things in mind

* this is a hugely important and unique site. It's not like a Norman castle or similar where there are plenty of other examples out there.

* Archeology can only be done properly -not quickly.

pete

16/06/2007, 10:41 AM

That's a bit trite Pete. We don't have to preserve everything we find but it's worth baring a couple of things in mind

* this is a hugely important and unique site. It's not like a Norman castle or similar where there are plenty of other examples out there.

* Archeology can only be done properly -not quickly.

A colleague at work who is Italian said they just build over any archeological sites now as they have examples of everything already.

I assume Roche received advise from experienced respected Archeologists already anyway. Protesters want work stopped on all 38 sites for Independent assessment. I would be much more receptive of their arguments if they said one or two sites were important. All those 38 sites will be excavated & remains stored and locked in a warehouse never to be seen again anyway.

:rolleyes:

Lionel Ritchie

16/06/2007, 11:32 AM

A colleague at work who is Italian said they just build over any archeological sites now as they have examples of everything already.
:
Like I said we don't have other examples remotely comparable with this site.

I assume Roche received advise from experienced respected Archeologists already anyway. Generous assumption to make about anyone in an administration that forked out fifty million on unusable voting machines and did hopelessly conservative "back of an envelope" estimations on how much it'd cost to finance a vanity project stadium that thankfully never got built.

Protesters want work stopped on all 38 sites for Independent assessment. I would be much more receptive of their arguments if they said one or two sites were important. All those 38 sites will be excavated & remains stored and locked in a warehouse never to be seen again anyway.
well some of those protesters will see it all as one large site rather than a bunch of small ones. Independent assessment? I'd need a definition of what'd constitute an Independent Assessment. Provided there isn't a suspicion that whoever is assessing the place at the moment isn't being paid to tell the government what they want to hear I'm happy to take them at their word.

monutdfc

16/06/2007, 11:38 AM

Would you build a motorway through Stonehenge?

In terms of archaelogical significance this whole complex is stonehenge x 10.

pete

16/06/2007, 12:20 PM

They are not building a Motorway over the Hill of Tara, its just a road about a mile away. That is about 12-15 football pitches.

No one has been talking about Tara until a couple of years ago. Sure there is already a road going through it? Why suddenly the interest.

The voters in Meath clearly want the motorway as they voted in FF TDs. The Green Party clearly did not care enough about otherwise would have made it a condition of government to stop it. Its very naive to think that Gormley did not know Dick Roche had or would sign that order. Do you really think FF would try to pull a fast one & risk collapsing the government over the route of a road? All legal challenges have failed.

dahamsta

16/06/2007, 1:43 PM

The voters in Meath clearly want the motorway as they voted in FF TDs.pete, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use that kind of argument on Foot.ie. We decided when setting up this forum that we were going to try to have a higher level of debate than elsewhere, but this is a Star-level argument; an insult to your own intelligence, never mind everyone else's. Use it on the Politics forum on Boards if you like, but not here please.

adam

monutdfc

16/06/2007, 2:52 PM

They are not building a Motorway over the Hill of Tara, its just a road about a mile away. That is about 12-15 football pitches.

That statement displays a lack of knowledge about the subject. It is just not about the Hill of Tara, it is a whole complex of archaelogical monuments between the Hill of Tara and the Skryne Hill. Look at the map here:
http://www.nuigalway.ie/faculties_departments/archaeology/Tara_M3.html

Sure there is already a road going through it?
There is a huge difference between the current road that follows the topography and a motorway complete with interchanges.

onceahoop

16/06/2007, 10:16 PM

Even if we had won two seats, or even four our strategy would not change. Our support comes from what we do in the communities and in the unions. For example, Joe got elected because we led the successful anti-water charges struggle. We organised networks in the communities particularly in Fingal and most of these people remain supporters and many of them help out with election campaigns. The GAMA struggle was an example of how we actually use our Dail seat. Joe used Dail privelege to put the GAMA controversy in the public domain. Yet first and foremost we organised those workers into a strike committee and consistantly assisted their strike. The abolition of the water charges when we had no seats, The Gama victory when we had one and the numerous smaller campaigns we were involved in, were bigger achievements than the Greens have ever had with all their seats. In fact they were bigger achievements than the entire opposition put together.
So if the Greens were serious about building from the ground, they would be actively involved in things like the Save Tara campaign, the Anti War movement, Shell to Sea, instead of making laudable statements at their conference or from Dail seats which they simply turn around and discard once they sniff the wet crotch of power.

How long ago was the Water Rates protest. IMO the Socialist party have gone backwards. Yes they organised a great campaign for the water rates and Joe Higgins exposed the greed of employers in paying below the going rate to vulnerable workers. These were great achievements yet you don't have a seat in the Dail. It can't all be put down to gerrymandering. Admittedly you are a smaller party than the so called mainstream parties but tell me this where does Clare Daly hold her clinics. I've no doubt that your party would far better represent the working class than the Labour Party but I think some of your more extreme idealogy frightens off people therefore you'll continue pi@@@ng into the wind. The Celtic Tiger has you fcuked.

SolitudeRed

16/06/2007, 11:53 PM

So I am I right in thinking that this new Government will be made up of FF-Greens-PDs that sounds suspiciously like a rainbow government which FF warned would not be stable and therefore could not rule effectively!

I always thought Joe Higgins was a legend regardless of his politics he seemed to be the only effective opposition in the Dail IMHO.

Also not every one in Ireland has benefitted from the Celtic Tiger if i remember correctly from sociology Ireland has one of the highest percentages of pepole living in poverty amongst western European nations i think it was almost double the average rate of poverty.

BohsPartisan

16/06/2007, 11:58 PM

where does Clare Daly hold her clinics.
She is very contactable and does a lot of parish pump issues even if they are tedious. On the ideology front, I disagree with that. Look at the election results of the People Before Profit/SWP crowd. Other than Boyd Barrett who did well on the basis of a save the sea front campaign, they fared miserably and they quite deliberately don't mention the "S-Word".