The Greens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonofstan

Hope so. Nevertheless, in the Red C poll at the weekend, they were pretty nearly at the same rating as in the GE; whereas FF fell off a cliff. My feeling is that a fair proportion of Green voters are insulated enough not to be feeling the pinch yet - they send their kids to Gaelscoileanna or Educate Together schools where an affluent parent body can raise enough to cover extra activities, they have enough money to pay for health insurance (and 'alternative' 'therapies') - crudely, people who have time to be concerned about the planet because their more immediate material needs are well taken care of, and with no real feel for what its like to depend on crumbs from our very imperfect welfare state.

---

Nicely packaged stereotype Sonofstan ...though you forgot to include "sandal wearing muesli munchers".

Incidently, in my experience, a large proportion of Irish people who send their kids to Gaelscoileanna are dyed in the wool FF voters and have been since before they could vote because mammy and daddy told them who to vote for. They are also eager social climbers who send little Dunladh and Orlaith to said Gaelscileanna not because of the love of the old tongue (though they'll lie to your face this is why) but because it's an Irish manifestation of "white flight"*. In short they believe there's far less chance of their young being lumped in with blacks, muslims, Lithuanians etc... or special needs kids of any creed, race or nationality. Just while we're indulging in generalisations and all...;)

*The term White Flight emerged in the UK -and describes a phenomenon where middle-class white people sell up and move to the fringes of towns and cities thus forming a white "doughnut" on the periphery and send their kids to, for example, Catholic schools (though they may not themselves be RC) on the basis they'll get "traditional values based education". Translation -the local Pakis, Bangladeshis and other "ethnics" are less likely to enroll their kids in a faith based school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

Nicely packaged stereotype Sonofstan ...though you forgot to include "sandal wearing muesli munchers".

---

Yeah.... Though I did say 'a fair proportion' of Green voters.:o You have a point about the white flight thing....I sent my daughter to an ET school out of militant secularism, but was uneasy about the unintended consequence - the fact that her 'progressive' school was a great deal less diverse than the local Catholic schools.

Although i would guess the term originated in the US much earlier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonofstan

Yeah.... Though I did say 'a fair proportion' of Green voters.:o You have a point about the white flight thing....I sent my daughter to an ET school out of militant secularism, but was uneasy about the unintended consequence - the fact that her 'progressive' school was a great deal less diverse than the local Catholic schools.

Although i would guess the term originated in the US much earlier?

---

Probably ...the phenomenon certainly.

My little fellah is on the list for the local ET school and the local RC school. I'd prefer if he went to the ET school because we're not religious and he's not baptised and I'd be worried he'll be set apart in the RC school. If he does end up in the RC school, I've no problem with him being there for Religious studies classes and that -I'd be more worried he'd be put out of the class for them. That aside the RC school is fine, excellent in fact ...I know that first hand because I went there myself.

RC schools here in Ireland are, I think, kind of the "default" school in much the same way the secular, comprehensive/grammar school is in Britain. I think this explains the broader social mix in the Irish ones.

Back on the Green Party. They took the opportunity of power -which is what every political party wants. There's no point in having policies if you're not going to avail of opportunity to impliment as much of them as possible. Unfortunately for them, they didn't go into government in the same position of strength that say the Progressive Democrats did back in their heyday ...where FF genuinely needed them (and where in truth FF had very little idealogical difference with PD ideas ...regardless of what they tell their supporters). They've (Greens) never had a chance to get FF over a barrell like the PDs did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

Back on the Green Party. They took the opportunity of power -which is what every political party wants. There's no point in having policies if you're not going to avail of opportunity to impliment as much of them as possible. Unfortunately for them, they didn't go into government in the same position of strength that say the Progressive Democrats did back in their heyday ...where FF genuinely needed them (and where in truth FF had very little idealogical difference with PD ideas ...regardless of what they tell their supporters). They've (Greens) never had a chance to get FF over a barrell like the PDs did.

---

I think there is a serious difference between the PD's in Power and the Greens and its one the Greens underestimated. PD policies were ones FF were amenable to, but didn't have the balls to implement without someone to scapegoat if and when the electorate didn't like them. With the Greens, their "stated policies" have no attraction for big business so why would FF bend over and accept them? IMO there is no point in a left party being in coalition with a right party that has more seats because your policies are never going to be implemented. To be honest, and its probably known anyway, I see very little point in playing the election game under the current circumstances anyway apart from to highlight certain issues or ideas. A serious left party will never get into power under the current system and if they did its set up in such a way that they couldn't effect any real change. Change, real change that is, throughout history has not come through the ballot box but through the organisation, outside of regular politics of the masses, when it is clear to them that regular politics has failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald Student

I'll half agree with you again so but if we're not calling them corrupt financially then I'm going to object to using the phrase 'selling out'. I don't like throwing around metaphorical insults that we don't mean literally.

---

You can sell out for power, and whatever about Ryan (who I just think is lost in Government and just not up to the job (possibly just yet) tbh), Gormley clearly wanted to be in power even if it meant a crap deal. Which is exactly what he got. No surprise the Greens negotiating team included Gormley and Boyle (who needed to be nominated to the senate to realistically continue to have profile and a chance to win back his seat). So yes the Greens did sell out their ideals for power - personally regardless of the deal, as soon as they went in with FF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monutdfc

Deirdre de Burca is probably the next best bet for a seat next time out, followed by Niall O'Brolachain but he polled disappointingly last time out (as Mayor he took the flack for the Galway water crisis I think)..

---

I wouldn't think De Burca has a chance in Wicklow now. If she couldn't make it the last time I doubt she will this time. Behan probably saved his seat with his resignation*, theres at least one other FF seat even if they're decimated, 2 FG are likely next time, and there is one Labour seat. I don't see De Burca being a position to take that urban seat anyway, never mind how things are going. That's ignoring how her running in Dublin for Europe will play. I'd say they're more desperate to get Boyle back in. De Burca is a Gogarty waiting to happen.

*principled me arse, saw the writing on the wall more like. If he was that principled he wouldn't have taken so many donations from developers pre-election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

You can sell out for power, and whatever about Ryan (who I just think is lost in Government and just not up to the job (possibly just yet) tbh), Gormley clearly wanted to be in power even if it meant a crap deal. Which is exactly what he got. No surprise the Greens negotiating team included Gormley and Boyle (who needed to be nominated to the senate to realistically continue to have profile and a chance to win back his seat). So yes the Greens did sell out their ideals for power - personally regardless of the deal, as soon as they went in with FF.

---

If parties don't sell out to an extent, particularly smaller parties, they won't get near Government and are left to trying to influence from a position of opposition.

There has to be a value judgment as to whether you policies have a better chance of being realised as a junior coalition partner or in opposition, balanced against how much you can compromise without losing your vote.

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion we would end up with legislative stalemate at every election as only FF or FG would go into Government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

If parties don't sell out to an extent, particularly smaller parties, they won't get near Government and are left to trying to influence from a position of opposition.

There has to be a value judgment as to whether you policies have a better chance of being realised as a junior coalition partner or in opposition, balanced against how much you can compromise without losing your vote.

---

Of course, but going in when they weren't needed meant that they got a poor deal, so why go in? They should've walked when FF did the deal with the PDs and the Independents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion we would end up with legislative stalemate at every election as only FF or FG would go into Government.

---

They could go in together, and then we could have the option of a right wing grand coalition or a left wing one.