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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
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.
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
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.
So by represent me you mean in power? In that case I'd vote all FF so my representative isn't in opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
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.
Greens obviously having a big impact on FF :rolleyes: Wicklows Biggest Dick
At least he's been demoted, to the completely rubbish title of "super junior" minister for European Affairs (a title he held before)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
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
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!"
LOL :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Would that be De Revolution as coined by Bertie 'Irelands only Socialist' in Ireland? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
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:
I love the name in the link: ...roche-signed-order-to-destroy-monument-701971.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
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.
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 mindQuote:
Originally Posted by pete
* 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
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:
Like I said we don't have other examples remotely comparable with this site.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete