Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

General and Quick-Fire Questions

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    bijapos
    Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭bijapos


    posted by Anonymous1987

    What is the green party stance on nuclear power in Ireland? Do they see it as a favourable economically viable alternative source of energy or not and why?


  • Options
    #33
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    As far as I'm aware, and I checked the website of the green party to confirm, the Green party are the only political party in the Dáil that doesn't have a clear policy in relation to Drugs/narcotics. Why is this? (correct me if I'm wrong) Does the green party support the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use?


  • Options
    #34
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Questions from Slydice with a request to take particular attention to point 3.
    Slydice wrote: »
    Q1: What exactly would FF need to do for him to stop voting with them in the Dail?

    Q2: What does he think would FF need to do for the GP to stop voting with them in the Dail?

    Q3: How does he feel about having voted to shackle the Irish people with 100b legacy of debt? URL="http://twitter.com/brianmlucey/statuses/25977679606"]1[/URL URL="http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2010/09/30/banking-statement-by-minister-of-finance/#comment-78337"]2[/URL


  • Options
    #35
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Immigration is consistently one of the most contentious issues on boards. The Green Party's web briefing on immigration has apparently not been updated since 2005, and certainly a lot has changed since then. Could you please address the following:

    1. What if anything would you have done differently regarding the admission of Eastern European workers into the Irish labor market in 2004?

    2. The Pamela Izevbekhai case has contributed to throwing the entire Irish asylum process into disrepute. What changes do you think need to be made in the asylum system?

    3. What if any role should the government play in promoting social, economic, and political integration? And how can this be done given the economic situation of the government?


  • Options
    #36
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Ok, lets let Paul catch up, we'll call a moratorium on questions for the moment....

    DeV.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Due to my lack of internet access today, DeV has given me permission to post this question.
    Thank you, Tom.

    IRMA collect IP addresses of those downloading illegally. I feel that this is an invasion of privacy. Would you agree?

    I am of the opinion that the only people who should be investigated for illegal internet usage are suspected terrorists and paedophiles.
    I feel that file sharing is akin to borrowing a cassette from a friend and using a double cassette player to record an album to a blank tape.

    Minister Gogarty, we're roughly the same age. We both grew up in the 1980's. I'm not accusing you of any wrong doing, but I believe that there is a high possiblity that you broke copyright laws by recording a copyrighted tape that you borrowed from a friend when you were younger.

    I have broken this law. My first copy of Nirvana's "Bleach" was passed to me on a blank tape. I went on to make a copy of a copy of this for myself.
    I use Nirvana as an example. There were many more lesser known bands before and after this.

    Do you condone the prosecution of people sharing copyrighted MP3 (mp4, flac, ogg, aac, wma etc.) files, when the sharing of copyrighted music has been happening since the advent of home recording?

    I have a large collection of vinyl albums and singles, but they are scratched. I paid for these and can no longer listen to them properly.
    Would you support me being prosecuted for downloading mp3 versions of these albums? Remember that I have already paid for these recordings.

    Allow me to give you a simple example.
    In 1983 I purchased a copy of U2's Boy album on vinyl with my communion money.
    In 1988 I purchased a copy of the same album on cassette for my new Sony walkman.*

    I have paid for that album on two seperate occasions. Were I to download an mp3 version of that through a file sharing site, there is a chance that I would be prosecuted.

    I no longer own a walkman or a record player. How am I supposed to listen to the material I purchased?

    Do you believe I should be punished for gaining access to material I have already paid for?

    Would you support legislation which would not punish people who engage in P2P downloading if they can produce a physical copy of an album they have been convicted of downloading, thus showing that they have already paid for it?

    Also, do you support the current copyright laws, wherein a person can actually be prosecuted for buying a CD and giving it to someone else as a gift? According to these laws, you cannot give any music you purchase to anyone else, so buying someone a CD as a present is actually illegal.


    *No, I do not have 27 and 22 year old reciepts to prove I bought those albums. The record shop in Celbridge has been closed for years. I doubt they would remember me anyway.


  • Options
    #38
    PaulGogartyTD
    Company Representative Posts: 115 Verified rep ✭PaulGogartyTD


    Nijmegen wrote: »
    Do you expect the Green Party to have any deputies returned to the Dail after the coming election?

    What are your plans, and the party plans in general, for life after what looks to be a worse-than-PD style drubbing to come?

    Do you feel that a smaller party in government gets an unfair portion of the blame come election time?

    Do I expect us to have any re-elected? I don't know really. If people knew our motivations and the facts behind all the decisions then perhaps we would do well. But that's lah lah land politics. Even Obama has record low ratings. And as I said elsewhere, the German Greens hit a 3% low while in Government; now as an opposition party they are second in the polls at 24% nationally.

    So I perhaps expect us to still have some Dail representation, but hope for us to have more.

    My plans personally? If not re-elected, I want to record an album, write a book or two, do a few journalistic nixers and become the primary carer for my children for a few years.

    I would also be on half pay severance for about six months afterwards (we don't get unemployment benefit but severance), and those six months would be spent working on behalf of the community at a part-time level. After that it would be more on a lower level as I would have to find alternative work or be heavily engaged in child-rearing.

    If re-elected, along with my work as a TD, which would be in opposition most likely, I would like to spend more time with my children anyhow, record an album anyhow and write a book anyhow as I always wanted to do so. Any journalistic nixers would realistically have to be donated to charity or done for free (as is the case with stuff I do now as an elected TD), unless the subject matter had nothing to do with politics. You got to have a life and for a while now I have had a half-life.

    Do I feel the smaller party gets an unfair proportion of the blame? Too right I do.


  • Options
    #39
    PaulGogartyTD
    Company Representative Posts: 115 Verified rep ✭PaulGogartyTD


    bijapos wrote: »
    Posted by Laminations

    The deputy responds to a question on Patrick Nearys salary in comparison to Ben Bernecke's by simply saying 'that was the agreed amount'. This says nothing as to whether he thinks Neary deserved such a salary or now deserves such a large pension, for what was essentially failure to regulate. Neary said on Primetime that all our banks were adequately capitalised and in need of no help!!

    So does the deputy think that something should and could be done to tax the pensions of high paid public servants who screw up so royally?

    Deserved it then or now? In hindsight clearly no.

    I think that the pensions of high paid public servants could be taxed more, but it would be difficult to penalise someone unless they were convicted of commiting fraud. Penalties for bad judgement, even incompetence cannot be enforced retrospectively.


  • Options
    #40
    PaulGogartyTD
    Company Representative Posts: 115 Verified rep ✭PaulGogartyTD


    DeVore wrote: »
    I will say this on the topic of the Greens getting it worse than FF.

    Its one of the few areas that I DO feel sorry for the greens. Its like "we didnt expect anything but corruption and brown envelopes from FF but we held the Greens up to higher standards.... so, even though they may not have been *as bad* as FF, they were relatively worse then our expectations."

    Basically we feel proportionately MORE let down by the Greens even though I would contend that they werent as culpable as FF. We just didnt expect anything different from FF.

    I wouldnt absolve the Greens for NOT blowing the whistle or having more backbone but I think the lions share of the blame should be laid at the FF door.

    When you think about it, the Greens are unlikely to return a TD next election... while we are almost certain to get several FF deputies. That seems wrong to me.

    DeV.

    We HAVE lived up to our principles. We aren't corrupt. We haven't taken money from vested interests. We are still driven by policy considerations rather than personal benefits. You could argue that ministerial positions are benefits, but you can only implement legislation as a minister in a particular department.

    We took a decision that if all the major parties have dodgy sides to them, then you have to respect the mandate (eg Paisley and McGuinness) rather than engaging in futile purity contests. We made a number of major policy differences with more on the way shortly.

    We negotiated on the basis of numbers available and decided that it was better to achieve what was possible rather than be so principled as to do nothing, but feel morally superior, which in politics is a zero sum game.

    We know that FF share the blame for making the economic downturn worse but also believe genuinely that the other parties also contributed to the property bubble where they had power at local level and that this pro-developer process was influenced by corporate donations being legal.

    We get flak for some of the more recent decisions like the bailout and NAMA but the fact is that we genuinely believe these to be the best course of action, based on the information made available to us.

    We did appoint qualified Green people to certain public offices, but we also looked outside the party unlike other parties. We have promised to get rid of political patronage through appointments to public office legislation, something we obtained in the PfG.

    We are not corrupt. But we did get off to a slow start in Government and sometimes we didn't respond quickly enough to things we should have. Perhaps people should feel sorry for us, but we certainly shouldn't feel sorry for ourselves. We made a decision in good faith and we have to take it on the chin and continue doing the best we can, while we can.


  • Options
    #41
    PaulGogartyTD
    Company Representative Posts: 115 Verified rep ✭PaulGogartyTD


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    As far as I'm aware, and I checked the website of the green party to confirm, the Green party are the only political party in the Dáil that doesn't have a clear policy in relation to Drugs/narcotics. Why is this? (correct me if I'm wrong) Does the green party support the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use?

    We used to, but I think that policy was changed. I think we now support it for medicinal use only (open to correction and if so, will edit). The reason for such a stance in my opinion is that while a good percentage of people can take cannabis for recreational use and have no side effects, there are a minority who will suffer side effects or for whom cannabis becomes a gateway drug.

    The same could be said for alcohol of course, by far the biggest recreational drug problem in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    PaulGogartyTD
    Company Representative Posts: 115 Verified rep ✭PaulGogartyTD


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Immigration is consistently one of the most contentious issues on boards. The Green Party's web briefing on immigration has apparently not been updated since 2005, and certainly a lot has changed since then. Could you please address the following:

    1. What if anything would you have done differently regarding the admission of Eastern European workers into the Irish labor market in 2004?

    2. The Pamela Izevbekhai case has contributed to throwing the entire Irish asylum process into disrepute. What changes do you think need to be made in the asylum system?

    3. What if any role should the government play in promoting social, economic, and political integration? And how can this be done given the economic situation of the government?

    Speaking personally:

    1. Nothing. We are part of Europe with all its benefits and responsibilities.

    2. Resources need to be put in to ensure that claims are processed quickly and fairly. Then you wouldn't have a situation where people become native. If they do, especially children, they should not be sent back, even if they are found to be economic migrants. I was involved in the Kunle Eluhanlo case and was heartened to see how he was supported by his classmates and community in Palmerstown.

    I think that non EU applicants should be free to apply for work permits from the home country and subsequently qualify for social welfare on the basis of contributions. If there was a fair quota-based work system it might help in defining what constitutes an economic migrant and an asylum seeker. But I don't have the time to elaborate here, or tie it in with party policy.

    3. The Government needs to be proactive in areas such as housing and education. Creating ghettos benefits no-one. Schools where there are a high level of kids with english as a second language need additional supports. With investment, newcomer children and adults should be a net economic benefit.


  • Options
    #43
    PaulGogartyTD
    Company Representative Posts: 115 Verified rep ✭PaulGogartyTD


    bijapos wrote: »
    Post 98 by dublindave

    Do you think Ireland should continue to contribute €950m each year to overseas aid, even though we will have to borrow every cent.

    Yes, it's a moral duty. But we should always get value for that money in terms of outcomes. A more equal world benefits everyone in terms of trade and global stability. Pity other larger countries don't take the same view as Ireland.


  • Options
    #44
    PaulGogartyTD
    Company Representative Posts: 115 Verified rep ✭PaulGogartyTD


    bijapos wrote: »
    posted by Anonymous1987

    What is the green party stance on nuclear power in Ireland? Do they see it as a favourable economically viable alternative source of energy or not and why?

    Eamon Ryan has always said he supports a debate. But aside from the arguments about economic viability without state subsidies and the massive danger/cost of waste storage, it is clear that Ireland may not be ideally suited for nuclear in any event.

    The economies of scale are not there in terms of our population size. It would take 20+ years to commission. We would have domestic storage issues, or else high costs of overseas storage. We would have to pay for the raw materials in any event, just like we import oil and gas today. And lastly we would have to have a backup powered by fossil fuels.

    Better to focus on our comparative advantage, renewables, which are costly by today's oil and gas prices, but with peak oil and other rising transportation costs will be comparatively cheaper in just a few years. Renewables can be stored and our energy can be exported at peak production to the UK and mainland Europe.


  • Options
    #45
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Terry: You might be interested to learn that while you Internet was out..... UPC won their case.

    :)

    DeV.


  • Options
    #46
    PaulGogartyTD
    Company Representative Posts: 115 Verified rep ✭PaulGogartyTD


    Terry wrote: »
    Due to my lack of internet access today, DeV has given me permission to post this question.
    Thank you, Tom.

    IRMA collect IP addresses of those downloading illegally. I feel that this is an invasion of privacy. Would you agree?

    I am of the opinion that the only people who should be investigated for illegal internet usage are suspected terrorists and paedophiles.
    I feel that file sharing is akin to borrowing a cassette from a friend and using a double cassette player to record an album to a blank tape.

    Minister Gogarty, we're roughly the same age. We both grew up in the 1980's. I'm not accusing you of any wrong doing, but I believe that there is a high possiblity that you broke copyright laws by recording a copyrighted tape that you borrowed from a friend when you were younger.

    I have broken this law. My first copy of Nirvana's "Bleach" was passed to me on a blank tape. I went on to make a copy of a copy of this for myself.
    I use Nirvana as an example. There were many more lesser known bands before and after this.

    Do you condone the prosecution of people sharing copyrighted MP3 (mp4, flac, ogg, aac, wma etc.) files, when the sharing of copyrighted music has been happening since the advent of home recording?

    I have a large collection of vinyl albums and singles, but they are scratched. I paid for these and can no longer listen to them properly.
    Would you support me being prosecuted for downloading mp3 versions of these albums? Remember that I have already paid for these recordings.

    Allow me to give you a simple example.
    In 1983 I purchased a copy of U2's Boy album on vinyl with my communion money.
    In 1988 I purchased a copy of the same album on cassette for my new Sony walkman.*

    I have paid for that album on two seperate occasions. Were I to download an mp3 version of that through a file sharing site, there is a chance that I would be prosecuted.

    I no longer own a walkman or a record player. How am I supposed to listen to the material I purchased?

    Do you believe I should be punished for gaining access to material I have already paid for?

    Would you support legislation which would not punish people who engage in P2P downloading if they can produce a physical copy of an album they have been convicted of downloading, thus showing that they have already paid for it?

    Also, do you support the current copyright laws, wherein a person can actually be prosecuted for buying a CD and giving it to someone else as a gift? According to these laws, you cannot give any music you purchase to anyone else, so buying someone a CD as a present is actually illegal.


    *No, I do not have 27 and 22 year old reciepts to prove I bought those albums. The record shop in Celbridge has been closed for years. I doubt they would remember me anyway.

    I am a bit torn on this. As a music lover, I want the artists I like to get paid adequately for what they have produced. But I don't want to pay for it twice or thrice over because of the various formats.

    So for repeats or for sharing with friends, I think it is fair to allow people copy and share, because if you get interested in a band or artist, you will pay the full whack for new material.

    I don't like the I.P stuff being used, but then again there are those who have made great profits through piracy. And stealing new material that you don't already own is theft. Sharing with friends is common sense, but sharing with strangers is theft in my view, unless you are downloading stuff you already have in a different format.

    The only way around this on a global basis would be to create a new system whereby those who want to purchase can, those who want to re-register can and those who want to share or lease can, at a realistic very low price per play. But this could only be for new material and not for stuff that is already out there. I am not proficient enough in the technology to know if this would work without being hacked, but not everyone can afford to do a Radiohead and hope that people will pay a reasonable amount for their work.

    Sorry if its a scattergun answer. It's getting later and I am typing faster....


  • Options
    #47
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Sorry rereading my post, while I didnt say the Green party was "corrupt" someone could read between the lines and think I was saying that.

    Here's a hint, if I thought the Greens were corrupt, I would type this: "I think the Green Party is corrupt" :)

    I was highlighting the rather absurd situation where the Greens are getting it in the neck WORSE then FF simply because people feel "let down by them" (rightly or wrongly) relative to FF who they kinda expect it from :)

    Nothing more, nothing less. I think that the party may have made some long term, strategic mistakes by getting into bed with FF. Admittedly things have gone "t*ts up" in the mean time in a way few foresaw but well... you cant lie with dogs and complain about fleas :)


    Still, I just wanted to correct that mis-assumption. I do not accuse the Greens of corruption. Other things, perhaps but not that, imho.

    DeV.


  • Options
    #48
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    DeVore wrote: »
    Terry: You might be interested to learn that while you Internet was out..... UPC won their case.

    :)

    DeV.
    I saw that yesterday, and that was one of the things which prompted my question.

    UPC offer 20Mb lines out my way, but the best I can get is 14Mb, and that's pushing it.
    The only viable option for me is Eircom. I stated that in the thread you linked to.

    Whilst it did go down today, It's (apart from UPC) the only one offering unlimited downloads.
    UPC went down at least 3 times a week. Eircom is stable most of the time.

    Me and the majority of those close to me are being ripped off by all ISP's,
    This "up to " stuff needs to be sorted out.
    I have "Up to " 8Mb broadband. The reality is about 6.5Mb.

    Yeah, they can pimp it at whatever speed, but that's no use to the end user.

    I'm happy enough. Gamers are not.

    [IMG][/img]989406442.png


  • Options
    #49
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Regarding Third Level Fees
    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    What is the greens position on fees by the back door... ie. massive increases in the registration fee? It has already been raised significantly during the lifetime of this government.


  • Options
    #50
    PaulGogartyTD
    Company Representative Posts: 115 Verified rep ✭PaulGogartyTD


    DeVore wrote: »
    Sorry rereading my post, while I didnt say the Green party was "corrupt" someone could read between the lines and think I was saying that.

    Here's a hint, if I thought the Greens were corrupt, I would type this: "I think the Green Party is corrupt" :)

    I was highlighting the rather absurd situation where the Greens are getting it in the neck WORSE then FF simply because people feel "let down by them" (rightly or wrongly) relative to FF who they kinda expect it from :)

    Nothing more, nothing less. I think that the party may have made some long term, strategic mistakes by getting into bed with FF. Admittedly things have gone "t*ts up" in the mean time in a way few foresaw but well... you cant lie with dogs and complain about fleas :)


    Still, I just wanted to correct that mis-assumption. I do not accuse the Greens of corruption. Other things, perhaps but not that, imho.

    DeV.

    I take what you say on board. I know you didn't say corrupt, but many reading your post might be thinking it, something that bugs me big time.

    Those who say we sold out or rolled over or were complicit in wrong doing might be wrong in my view in terms of the politically obtainable, but my journalistic background would acknowledge that such opinions are fair comment. Calling us corrupt is a bit tight, but given that I said in the Dail and the radio that Fianna Fail are "addicted to corruption" you can understand some people wanting revenge ;-) .

    Plus you can have an addiction but being a recovering addict. Once corporate donations legislation is in, it will be more difficult for FF to go dipso with developers, FG go bananas with business interests and for Labour to tango with trade unions.


  • Options
    #51
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    PaulGogartyTD wrote: »
    Once corporate donations legislation is in, it will be more difficult for FF to go dipso with developers, FG go bananas with business interests and for Labour to tango with trade unions.

    This is something I am looking forward to.
    I do have questions about certain aspects of this, but you're swamped, so I'll leave it be for now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    PaulGogartyTD
    Company Representative Posts: 115 Verified rep ✭PaulGogartyTD


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Regarding Third Level Fees

    We secured an agreement on no third level fees during the lifetime of the Government in the PfG last year. We expect this commitment to be kept.

    There were no guarantees on registration fees. But at the same time there was no increase in the registration charge during the most recent budget.

    The Education Committee which I chair looked at the issue of Reg fees and found that a difference between what constituted student services in the eyes of the Department and what the money was actually covering. My understanding is that because of this registration fees will be abolished in favour of a new student services charge. This will undoubtedly be an excuse to raise more for the Department and to cover any discrepancies in terms of where the money is actually going. And no doubt there are plans in place to increase the actual newly defined charge. I don't know exactly because I have not seen any budgetary proposals as of yet.

    The USI are concerned about such an increase, as would I. But even if raises the expense for students and even if it is counterproductive, and no matter what the opposition parties say, an increased charge cannot be said to be a third level fee because the actual cost of courses varies between €7-14,000 normally and beyond in the case of some courses. I hope the Minister does not go down this route because it will cause additional hardship for students. But it cannot be ruled out, because even if education is protected in the budget, in line with the PfG commitments, and is the best performing department, it will still take a hit if we have to cut more overall than was originally envisaged. And with wages ruled out of the equation, what areas of education do you cut back on and what areas do you preserve? This is the question facing everyone.

    So aside from an increase in student charges, which may happen, fees are off the agenda for now. But what will happen beyond the PfG period? The Green Party is looking at long term funding issues for third level and the rest of the education sector, but that is for our manifesto for the next election. Meanwhile all the political parties will have to set out what their projections are for the next four years, hopefully as part of a consensus, but let's not hold our breath for too long.

    I would say, expect efforts to increase charges in the light of the economic pressures. But don't expect fees to be reintroduced.


  • Options
    #53
    PaulGogartyTD
    Company Representative Posts: 115 Verified rep ✭PaulGogartyTD


    bijapos wrote: »
    Post 72 by timbel

    Do you think that sitting TDs should be able to claim pensions?

    Should TDs be able to claim multiple pensions (ministerial, etc) at the same time?

    When is the government going to bring in real reform of the political system (not the half baked "reform" of expenses last budget)?

    By this I mean,
    - reducing the ratio of TDs to population
    - fully vouched expenses
    - 1 pension per TD which can only be claimed at retirement (this mean proper retirement, not finishing in the Dail and going back to work in the private sector, eg. as a non executive director of some board, etc)

    TDs claiming pensions and one pension per TD? I don't like claims while still a TD, but the AG's advice was that it couldn't be restricted fully until after the next election because of the reasonable expectation element. Doesn't stop voluntary withdrawals of pensions however....

    Ratio of TDs to population? The Green Party would like to reduce TDs by about 20-30 seats, but at the same time we want to reform local government by creating properly funded regional representation and a more effective local authority level with less councillors. This would be the subject of negotiation and there is no agreement with FF. The only agreement is to set up an electoral commission, which is behind a couple of our other priorities time-wise.

    Real reform? There was a 15% decrease in the amount going towards expenses last year. The old overnight system or daily allowance was changed for a swipe scheme based on a minimum attendance. It is no longer a turning up payment, but rather a reasonable Oireachtas attendance expense allowance incorporating constituency travel.

    As someone who called for a swipe card system in 2003 I am happy to see how this works out for a year or two. As someone who called for a fully vouched system of expenses in 2003 I have concerns about the vouched system as it currently operates. Not the actual amount, which is fair and now covers leaflet distribution and advertising, but more the fact that TDs and Senators can choose to get a lesser amount unvouched rather than provide documentation for a larger vouched amount. If we are spending money then it should be documented. There is an audit coming up at the end of this year and I for one am making sure that everything spent using my vouched allowance has receipts or invoices.

    That said my once concern is that people get an idea of what you are up to on the ground from these receipts, something that is transparent in terms of the public, but politically sensitive in terms of giving your political rivals heads up.


  • Options
    #54
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    PaulGogartyTD wrote: »
    Plus you can have an addiction but being a recovering addict. Once corporate donations legislation is in, it will be more difficult for FF to go dipso with developers, FG go bananas with business interests and for Labour to tango with trade unions.

    So even though FF are corruption addicts, you are happy to get into bed with them on the basis that they might some day change? A bit of battered wife sindrome, no?


  • Options
    #55
    PaulGogartyTD
    Company Representative Posts: 115 Verified rep ✭PaulGogartyTD


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    So even though FF are corruption addicts, you are happy to get into bed with them on the basis that they might some day change? A bit of battered wife sindrome, no?

    That was tongue in cheek. I grew up in an area where FF and FG operated in a rezoning alliance to put houses in with no thought of facilities. The Flood/Mahon Tribunal has reported extensively on issues pertaining to my constituency.

    We stated before the next election and this is on the record that we did not rule out any party, but preferred Fine Gael and Labour. As I mentioned elsewhere this combination was not possible and so we negotiated with FF on the basis of our respective mandates.

    Would you prefer if I said that we work well with FF and they are ideal partners? We have a good businesslike relationship and human interactions are constructive and positive, but on a personal level I do not like what FF have stood for or indeed what FG have stood for.

    If FF were taking loadsa legitimate political donations and then along comes Fine Gael and takes money from National Toll Roads, Treasury Holdings etc (all legal and above board of course) then in our view there is no difference between the larger parties in terms of their desire for monies from available business sources. Such monies are not normally given simply out of a desire to support the democratic process.

    If people were smart and trusting enough to vote Green Party to effect change, it would be unfair and morally reprehensive not to get in and do what you can, in an honourable manner, as part of a coalition government. If we had said, no, we are purer than FF and no, we are purer than FG, where does that leave you? Pure but ineffective.

    We have made progress and have been treated negatively because we got fleas from lying down with the FF dog. Better to lie down with the dog than let the dog crap all over the kitchen I say. This Government has been a better Government because of Green influence.

    To me an FG/Labour alternative would not be much different than FF in terms of attitudes to vested interests or Green issues. But as stated elsewhere, that would still have been our preference back then. Given the way they have behaved since, I cannot see any difference and could only hope that in government all parties strive to work well together.

    Their responsibility was in terms of assisting the speculation-driven property bubble at local level because they weren't in government at national level to stoke up the dependence on stamp duty revenue. FF bears the greater responsibility. They know that, we know that, but the focus now has to be on finding solutions and getting us out of the mess we are in rather and point scoring over past failures.

    If there was an election tomorrow FF would be out of the race. If we had seats that we could salvage we would be saying make sure that there is Green in any future rainbow. Because of the experience we have built up and because of the policies we have implemented. A lot of people might be attracted to an FG/Green or Lab/Green government. We would say doin't give FG/Lab an absolute majority, make sure it has a shade of Green in it.


  • Options
    #56
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    PaulGogartyTD wrote: »
    If people were smart and trusting enough to vote Green Party to effect change, it would be unfair and morally reprehensive not to get in and do what you can, in an honourable manner, as part of a coalition government. If we had said, no, we are purer than FF and no, we are purer than FG, where does that leave you? Pure but ineffective.

    That's pretty condescending, to be honest...."smart enough and trusting enough" ?

    I trusted The Greens based on what Sargent had said. I also trusted them to investigate proper Green options and make them affordable and sustainable, while also trusting them not to attempt to make non-city living a potential nightmare due to uncertainty as to what they would choose to tax next.

    So "trusting" applies; "smart" does not.

    Never again.


Advertisement