Vent - the Greens are Vegetables

The Valley

I'm very surprised the Green party have not taken account of the peoples anger, mistrust and frustration with FF.
Now rather than act in the public interest and bring down the government on principles they have got involved in dirty politics and have been bought and bribed by FF. The net result is the green party will bare the brunt of the people anger at the next general election, if I have to wait 2 yrs i'll wait.

I will NEVER NEVER NEVER vote for Green party again. I voted green last time out on party policy and i never thought they would prop up FF.

We need a green party but not one that can be bought. This party is morally corrupt.

Shame on the greens, and god love the next one that knocks on my door

Liam Byrne

No argument here. Annihilation on the way for selling us down the swanee, and I'll look forward to delivering it to them.

They got some votes in previous elections (local, national & european) but never again.

spurious

The only Green who has a chance of being re-elected is Sargent and that's because he did what he said he would do if they got into bed with the slimy ones.

Joey the lips

The Valley wrote: »

I'm very surprised the Green party have not taken account of the peoples anger, mistrust and frustration with FF.
Now rather than act in the public interest and bring down the government on principles they have got involved in dirty politics and have been bought and bribed by FF. The net result is the green party will bare the brunt of the people anger at the next general election, if I have to wait 2 yrs i'll wait.

I will NEVER NEVER NEVER vote for Green party again. I voted green last time out on party policy and i never thought they would prop up FF.

We need a green party but not one that can be bought. This party is morally corrupt.

Shame on the greens, and god love the next one that knocks on my door

The greens are surviving. I no more than you would love to see the govt gone but the greens would not have got back in. The green party might be morally corrupt but they are surviving.

Out of curiosity because I love these comments so much .... what in your opinion have they achieved by being in govt and why dont you like them for continueing that work.

I ask not as a green voter because I think that your assumption that they are daft because they wanted to continue there work is a little childish.

personally I hate the greens. They have just brought forward the introduction of water charges so I am screwed but whats your gaffe

nuac

someone on radio yesterday morning summed it up for me - a green member at that meeting was able to wield some power -- better than spending another Saturday morning selling organic vegs at the local stall.

However I doubt if any political party could operate for long the way they do'

The Valley

Surviving now is surely not enough. I know they would take a hit if a general election was called tomorrow but at least they would be in a position to rebuild. By taking the moral high ground now and leaving government has to be better than either seeing some other issue topple the government or wait for a general election.

I voted green last time round on local issues. They have brought changes with
their policies but the horse has bolted. Warmer homes and stopping bad planning - who is building anyway theses days. an extra tax for rezoned land.
These were necessary 10 years ago. Energy sufficient bulbs

Their programme for government is aspirational and time will tell if they get everything they want. What happened their last PFG? and at a time of huge uncertainty they are talking about fur farming and rights for transsexuals. While these may be also necessary surely we have bigger problems to tackle.
Granted - If they stay in power they probably will sort out the expense issue

My main issue, and I apologise if you think it is childish, but I believe neither party have a mandate. The greens are proping up FF, they could have asked for anything this week and FF would have caved in. They have been bought and as a results of them adding more employees to the public sector, contrary to everything they had been saying somewhere, somthing else will now be cut.
I know water charges and any other tax's may not be liked but they are necessary to get this country back on its feet. I just want some other party to administer the medicine.

bmaxi

spurious wrote: »

The only Green who has a chance of being re-elected is Sargent and that's because he did what he said he would do if they got into bed with the slimy ones.

Really! He wasn't slow to accept a Junior Ministry from those same slimy ones.

hallelujajordan

The Valley wrote: »

I'm very surprised the Green party have not taken account of the peoples anger, mistrust and frustration with FF.
Now rather than act in the public interest and bring down the government on principles they have got involved in dirty politics and have been bought and bribed by FF. The net result is the green party will bare the brunt of the people anger at the next general election, if I have to wait 2 yrs i'll wait.

I will NEVER NEVER NEVER vote for Green party again. I voted green last time out on party policy and i never thought they would prop up FF.

We need a green party but not one that can be bought. This party is morally corrupt.

Shame on the greens, and god love the next one that knocks on my door

Why do so many posters on here believe that the Greens have some sort of obligation to the wider electorate or the country as a whole. The only obligation any political party has is to its members and its voters. The Greens take the unusual step of allowing their members to vote on the PfG . . When is the FF vote ? ?

This populist crap is really starting to wind me up. It's OK to hate their policies and hate their tactics but I don't know how you can accuse them of moral corruption simply for choosing to stay in government and trying to influence change rather than wilting away on the back benches.

Mr. Incognito

There are only two Green ministers and how many Fianna Fail ones?

Your anger is misplaced pal. I think the greens are doing okay in the portfolios they have and seem to be playing the game.

If they had walked out they'd get clattered so they were never going to do that. Have to see if they actually can push through anything in this term.

dresden8

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Why do so many posters on here believe that the Greens have some sort of obligation to the wider electorate or the country as a whole.

What, you really believe the government has no obligations to the electorate or the country as a whole?

That sentence just about sums up the Greens.

And you will wonder why you get wiped out at the next election.

Roll on.

population

spurious wrote: »

The only Green who has a chance of being re-elected is Sargent and that's because he did what he said he would do if they got into bed with the slimy ones.

He pulled the crudest, spinning PR three card trick I have ever seen in Irsh political circles. Had Nu-Lab written all over it in its execution. He wont survive, he has already shown himself to be a liar. It is all over people

hallelujajordan

dresden8 wrote: »

What, you really believe the government has no obligations to the electorate or the country as a whole?

That sentence just about sums up the Greens.

And you will wonder why you get wiped out at the next election.

Roll on.

Spin, spin, spin . . I love the way context gets spun so way out of control on these boards. . .

Yes, the government clearly have an obligation to the people. The first obligation of a political party is to its members and voters. Once they are elected and form a government, they have an obligation to the people of the country from within that government to try to govern in a way that will improve all of our quality of life.

The members of a political party have no obligation to exit government because the people who voted for everyone else do not like their policies. In the context of deciding whether or not to stay in a government and try to implement a programme that their leaders have agreed with their coalition party the Green Party's only obligation is to its members and voters. . . And, unlike all other political parties in Ireland, the GP actually allow their members to have an active say in this process . .

turgon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

In the context of deciding whether or not to stay in a government and try to implement a programme that their leaders have agreed with their coalition party the Green Party's only obligation is to its members and voters. . .

I understand. In the same way that FF only have an obligation to developers, bankers and certain interest groups and can ignore everyone else?

The Green Party are learning from Fianna Fail faster than Id have ever expected.

hallelujajordan

turgon wrote: »

I understand. In the same way that FF only have an obligation to developers, bankers and certain interest groups and can ignore everyone else?

The Green Party are learning from Fianna Fail faster than Id have ever expected.

Yeah, and Labour party only has an obligation to the Unions . .we could keep doing this forever !

One of the only ways to try to reduce this 'influence' is to ban corporate donations which ironically is one of the things that the GP (those described in this thread as morally corrupt!) have included in the revised programme for government.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

What, you really believe the government has no obligations to the electorate or the country as a whole?

That sentence just about sums up the Greens.

And you will wonder why you get wiped out at the next election.

Roll on.

The Greens, like any elected party, only have the duty to do right by the country according to their own views of what's right. If people elect a right-wing party to government, there isn't any expectation that they'll fight for workers' rights.

Your complaint boils down to "the Greens aren't doing what I think they should do" - as do most of the complaints on this (and other) threads. Since most of the people complaining aren't either Green Party members or even core Green Party voters, there's no reason why the Green Party should have any real interest in how you think they should go about things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Greens, like any elected party, only have the duty to do right by the country according to their own views of what's right. If people elect a right-wing party to government, there isn't any expectation that they'll fight for workers' rights.

Your complaint boils down to "the Greens aren't doing what I think they should do" - as do most of the complaints on this (and other) threads. Since most of the people complaining aren't either Green Party members or even core Green Party voters, there's no reason why the Green Party should have any real interest in how you think they should go about things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And I hope they keep that mindset at the next election and stay the fnck away from my door.

I shan't be troubling them with my vote in the future.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Spin, spin, spin . . I love the way context gets spun so way out of control on these boards. . .

So do I....

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The members of a political party have no obligation to exit government because the people who voted for everyone else do not like their policies. In the context of deciding whether or not to stay in a government and try to implement a programme that their leaders have agreed with their coalition party the Green Party's only obligation is to its members and voters

I'm not going to highlight the blatant errors within the quote, I'm going type them here:

1) "people who voted for everyone else"

Who says ? You do not have to be a member of the Green Party to vote for them. For example, I'm not, and I gave them a vote. So your dismissive "people who voted for everyone else" is way off the mark.

Whatever about the differentiation if you had said they were looking after "their members" (which you didn't say), do you not agree that they should look after those who voted for them ?

Of course, personally, I'd prefer if the elected servants of this country looked after everyone equally, and in a way "proved" to those who didn't vote for them that they were worth a vote next time (proper performance measurement there) and thereby governed for the good of the country as a whole.

2) "the Green Party's only obligation is to its members and voters"

Again, if you'd said "members", it would have been hard to completely disagree; personally, again, I'd remove the word "only" and replace it with "primary", and give you some leeway on that statement then; but once again you included us pesky non-member voters who took them at their word and gave them a chance, which they've blown.

3) Finally, the way the Greens act you'd swear that the ONLY policies which improved life for their members were their own; are Green members' children not being mortgaged by NAMA ? Can a Green member look their kids in the face in the future and tell them, "yes, you're paying crazy taxes that are a result of us caving in to greedy bankers and their buddies, and yes, I know you can't get a home or afford food and clothes, but look at this windmill with its environmentally-friendly lightbulb" ?

Is it lousy on the Greens that they were seen as the "watchdogs" to keep FF in check ? A little. But the fact is that without the votes of those who aren't "Green" but voted in order to ensure that FF didn't get an overall majority (actually, voted to keep them out of Government entirely, but the Greens also shot that through a few hours later) but let's assume that we voted just to stop FF having free reign........without those votes, the Greens wouldn't have gotten into power AT ALL. And therefore yes, they do owe the country something, other than just their own narrow-minded policies.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So do I....



I'm not going to highlight the blatant errors within the quote, I'm going type them here:

1) "people who voted for everyone else"

Who says ? You do not have to be a member of the Green Party to vote for them. For example, I'm not, and I gave them a vote. So your dismissive "people who voted for everyone else" is way off the mark.

Whatever about the differentiation if you had said they were looking after "their members" (which you didn't say), do you not agree that they should look after those who voted for them ?

? ? ? Did I not say their members and voters as you go on to quote below ? ? ?

Of course, personally, I'd prefer if the elected servants of this country looked after everyone equally, and in a way "proved" to those who didn't vote for them that they were worth a vote next time (proper performance measurement there) and thereby governed for the good of the country as a whole.

Quick lesson in democracy, cos you don't seem to get it. . Political party A produces a manifesto based on how they believe the country should be run. Electorate gets to vote on that manifesto and if they get enough votes they get a mandate to implement that manifesto ! Are you suggesting that they ought to abandon the manifesto (on which they won their mandate) and instead represent the inclusive manifesto of all of the people ? ? ?

2) "the Green Party's only obligation is to its members and voters"

Again, if you'd said "members", it would have been hard to completely disagree; personally, again, I'd remove the word "only" and replace it with "primary", and give you some leeway on that statement then; but once again you included us pesky non-member voters who took them at their word and gave them a chance, which they've blown.

If you gave them a chance you supported their manifesto and gave them a mandate to try to implement it. As a small party this is a difficult thing to do but I don't believe they have done too bad a job of it so far !

3) Finally, the way the Greens act you'd swear that the ONLY policies which improved life for their members were their own; are Green members' children not being mortgaged by NAMA ? Can a Green member look their kids in the face in the future and tell them, "yes, you're paying crazy taxes that are a result of us caving in to greedy bankers and their buddies, and yes, I know you can't get a home or afford food and clothes, but look at this windmill with its environmentally-friendly lightbulb" ?

wtf ? ? Is the fact that they have just agreed a revised PfG with FF not proof postiive that they are willing to look at, accept, compromise, influence and implement the policies of their government partners. Is it not better that they do that rather than sit on the back benches (assuming they were to win any seats) and allow their childrens futures to be dictated by others ??

Is it lousy on the Greens that they were seen as the "watchdogs" to keep FF in check ? A little. But the fact is that without the votes of those who aren't "Green" but voted in order to ensure that FF didn't get an overall majority (actually, voted to keep them out of Government entirely, but the Greens also shot that through a few hours later) but let's assume that we voted just to stop FF having free reign........without those votes, the Greens wouldn't have gotten into power AT ALL. And therefore yes, they do owe the country something, other than just their own narrow-minded policies.

Actually, this is just arrogant. What you are doing here is taking the GP mandate and twisting it to suit your needs. The Greens were not elected to prevent FF from getting an overall majority. They were elected like everyone else in DE based on their policies and manifesto and have the same right as everyone else in Leinster House to try to implement their manifesto. You seem to believe that their mandate is somewhat diluted. That they have a role other than the implementation of their policies. That their mandate is 'owned' by a larger force in the electorate that only put them there to protect us from FF and that therefore they have a different obligation to everyone else.. Not just arrogant, plain wrong

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

And I hope they keep that mindset at the next election and stay the fnck away from my door.

I shan't be troubling them with my vote in the future.

That's up to you - but you can hardly complain that as a result they don't take your preferences into account.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's up to you - but you can hardly complain that as a result they don't take your preferences into account.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well, I gave them a vote and they still don't take my preferences into account as it is.

Fool me once......

hallelujajordan

dresden8 wrote: »

Well, I gave them a vote and they still don't take my preferences into account as it is.

Fool me once......

Are your preferences consistent with their manifesto ? ?

dresden8

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Are your preferences consistent with their manifesto ? ?

I gave Trev a vote on the basis he wouldn't lead his party into government with FF.

He did.

Anyone remember Planet Bertie?

hallelujajordan

dresden8 wrote: »

I gave Trev a vote on the basis he wouldn't lead his party into government with FF.

He did.

Anyone remember Planet Bertie?

Well, technically, he didn't

dresden8

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Well, technically, he didn't

Well, technically

He led his party into the talks.

He led his party through the talks.

He led his party into the convention where he gave a hearty endorsement of going into government.

He led his party into the Dail into coalition with FF and he himself nominated Bertie as Taoiseach.

From the Green website itself.

http://www.greenparty.ie/people/trevor_sargent

He was elected first Leader of the Green Party in October 2001 and held the position until his resignation following the party's entry into Government in June 2007.

My emphasis.

Technically he did, and technically he's a liar and technically those who propogate that lie are liars.;)

hallelujajordan

dresden8 wrote: »

Well, technically

He led his party into the talks.

He led his party through the talks.

He led his party into the convention where he gave a hearty endorsement of going into government.

He led his party into the Dail into coalition with FF and he himself nominated Bertie as Taoiseach.

From the Green website itself.

http://www.greenparty.ie/people/trevor_sargent



My emphasis.

Technically he did, and technically he's a liar and technically those who propogate that lie are liars.;)

Wikipedia recalls events slightly differently . .

"Following the 2007 general election the Green Party entered talks on forming a coalition government with Fianna Fáil. A programme for government was agreed after over a week of negotiations, which was ratified by 86% by a special conference of the Green Party membership following passionate endorsements of the deal by Sargent and the rest of the Green leadership. However Sargent announced that he would resign his position as leader of the party and would not accept a seat in cabinet, as he had promised he would not lead the party into government with Fianna Fáil before the election. It was a surprise announcement and Sargent was generally lauded for such a demonstration of integrity. Instead of entering cabinet he was appointed Minister of State for Food and Horticulture by Bertie Ahern on 20 June 2007."

Regardless of the chain of events, I would think that the 86% party membership endorsement would trump your vote

dresden8

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Wikipedia recalls events slightly differently . .

"Following the 2007 general election the Green Party entered talks on forming a coalition government with Fianna Fáil. A programme for government was agreed after over a week of negotiations, which was ratified by 86% by a special conference of the Green Party membership following passionate endorsements of the deal by Sargent and the rest of the Green leadership. However Sargent announced that he would resign his position as leader of the party and would not accept a seat in cabinet, as he had promised he would not lead the party into government with Fianna Fáil before the election. It was a surprise announcement and Sargent was generally lauded for such a demonstration of integrity. Instead of entering cabinet he was appointed Minister of State for Food and Horticulture by Bertie Ahern on 20 June 2007."

Regardless of the chain of events, I would think that the 86% party membership endorsement would trump your vote

Nothing you have posted above changes the fact that Trev is a liar and what you previously posted is a lie, regardless of the chain of events.

People will remember that barefaced lie.

Sand

@hallelujajordan

Well, technically, he didn't

A stroke worthy of Haughey himself. Bertie and Trev must have had a great laugh about it.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

i voted for and now hate the b@stards , but I have to grudgingly admire the sheer balls they have and the sneaky play they are going to perform .

they will be doing just enough to make it look as if they they were snakes in the grass for FF all along , and do some stuff that will take the moral high ground above FF so people will go ' hmm, maybe they arent so bad after ' all .


people will get sucked in , and the fcukers WILL get back in next time.

personally we should have burned the whole lot of em out of it months ago

but we are slaves , and always will be .

hallelujajordan

dresden8 wrote: »

Nothing you have posted above changes the fact that Trev is a liar and what you previously posted is a lie, regardless of the chain of events.

People will remember that barefaced lie.

When Sargent said that he would not go into government with FF I believe he truly meant it so technically at the time this wasn't a lie . . . Had he said it with every intention of trying to form a government with FF but as an attempt to win more votes then Yes, he was lying but I don't believe that this was the case . .

I'm not a GP member, voter or supporter but I do believe that following a GE all elected TD's have a responsibility to try to form a government. Faced with the opportunity to implement Green Party policies and with a groundswell of support from within the Green Party Sargent clearly changed his mind. He did what he felt was the noble thing and stood by his word by stepping down as leader of the Greens and not taking a cabinet position.

Some might say that this was a very personal sacrifice as opposed to a 'stroke'. .

33% God

Before this weekend the greens would not have got a preference from me. They probably will now. While I would have liked to see the government fall I much rather the Greens removing 3rd level fees from the table. It means that me and my friends can continue our education. I really hope they do begin to grab Cowen by the balls a bit more, but that's unlikely really. They'll get a preference, but not a first or second one.

peasant

33% God wrote: »

While I would have liked to see the government fall I much rather the Greens removing 3rd level fees from the table.

Heiliger Sankt Florian / Verschon mein Haus / Zünd andre an!

Oh holy Sankt Florian
save my home
Light up someone else's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Florian

The St. Florian principle ...as long as my little world is rocked as little as possible, I don't care about the state of the nation.

It's this egotistical, small minded mindset ...that's what's wrong with Irish politics.

And since yesterday it now wholly includes the green party as well ...as of yesterday all politicians well and truly are the same.

Boskowski

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Quick lesson in democracy, cos you don't seem to get it. . Political party A produces a manifesto based on how they believe the country should be run. Electorate gets to vote on that manifesto and if they get enough votes they get a mandate to implement that manifesto ! Are you suggesting that they ought to abandon the manifesto (on which they won their mandate) and instead represent the inclusive manifesto of all of the people ? ? ?

...

That their mandate is 'owned' by a larger force in the electorate that only put them there to protect us from FF and that therefore they have a different obligation to everyone else.. Not just arrogant, plain wrong

Well, sorry for stepping in, but I think there is the little issue of Realpolitik which you seem to ignore.

When the greens were elected all was rosy and we were all humming merrily away making big bucks and I wouldn't blame then one bit for pursuing primarily if not entirely their goals.

But things have changed a bit and being in government brings responsibilities which go beyond banning light-bulbs and operating against fur farms. And I'm all for closing fur farms myself by the way.

Right before our eyes the crime of the century is being committed by our own government for which - I hardly need to add - this government has no moral mandate whatsoever. This crime is so big that it has the potential to damage the country for generations.

Now how would you call it responsible to put the head in the sand and let it happen in exchange for abandoning college fees and closing 3 fur farms?

The greens had the ability to pull the plug on it but all they have shown is that their political maturity and responsibility is on the level of a high-school pupils council or so.

No way the Greens in Germany (for instance) would have let it happen. Because their views go beyond core green agendas. They allow themselves to have opinions on other things too. But it seems that the Greens in Ireland have not much of an ideology beyond preservation of the environment.

I'm still shocked actually over what happened this weekend...

brianthebard

hallelujajordan wrote: »

He did what he felt was the noble thing and stood by his word by stepping down as leader of the Greens and not taking a cabinet position.

Some might say that this was a very personal sacrifice as opposed to a 'stroke'. .

He's a junior minister! What sacrifice did he make exactly? And your preferencing of wikipedia above the Greens official website is lolzworthy.

Boskowski

33% God wrote: »

It means that me and my friends can continue our education.

Ye let the country go f*ck. Who cares as long as I can finish my college and have my nights out?

Are you for real?

hallelujajordan

brianthebard wrote: »

He's a junior minister! What sacrifice did he make exactly? And your preferencing of wikipedia above the Greens official website is lolzworthy.

The opportunity to sit at the cabinet table with a full and meaningful ministry. The chance to represent the party that he had led since its inception into government (the ultimate goal for any politician). The salary and pension differential between full and junior ministry !

BTW, Wiki is not contradicting the Green website; It just says the same thing but with a different slightly different slant !

Lockstep

spurious wrote: »

The only Green who has a chance of being re-elected is Sargent and that's because he did what he said he would do if they got into bed with the slimy ones.

I had such a load of respect for him when I heard he stepped down. My ma was in the gael thact with him and he cycled the whole way behind the bus, seemed a true green but I was gutted that the Greens lost such an obviously honest man, until I heard he was hoping for a ministerial position. SOunds like he just stepped down for the show.

Open for correction though.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

? ? ? Did I not say their members and voters as you go on to quote below ? ? ?

Yes, you did. Which is precisely WHY I said that they SHOULD represent their voters as well. If you bothered to read the post before diving in to their defence, I said that "if you'd only said voters", I'd view it differently, but BECAUSE you said they should represent their voters, that means that - as one of those voters, they should represent ME.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Quick lesson in democracy, cos you don't seem to get it. .

:rolleyes:

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Are you suggesting that they ought to abandon the manifesto (on which they won their mandate) and instead represent the inclusive manifesto of all of the people ? ? ?

Their mandate, in case you decide to rewrite history again, included Sargent saying that he would not go into Government with FF. So I voted accordingly.

And while - personally (and there's no confusion on this because I've said so) - each party SHOULD try to do what's best for the country, but I've said I could understand a party putting their voters first.

And as a voter who voted for them, that includes ME. My opinion - even within your "represent your voters only" criteria - counts, and deserves representation.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Actually, this is just arrogant. What you are doing here is taking the GP mandate and twisting it to suit your needs. The Greens were not elected to prevent FF from getting an overall majority.

I disagree completely. They said they would not go into Government with FF.

And I've already admitted that it's unfair that - because at least some of their votes - mine included - were based on that, they need to incorporate that into their actions. But sorry; you've already defended that "people vote based on different things" elsewhere, and you can't twist that to suit yourself now.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

They were elected like everyone else in DE based on their policies and manifesto and have the same right as everyone else in Leinster House to try to implement their manifesto. You seem to believe that their mandate is somewhat diluted. That they have a role other than the implementation of their policies. That their mandate is 'owned' by a larger force in the electorate that only put them there to protect us from FF and that therefore they have a different obligation to everyone else.. Not just arrogant, plain wrong

Absolute RUBBISH. Why did you say "larger force in the electorate" in order to make it seem like it wasn't just those who voted for them ? Having said "they should represent their voters" (as you pointed out above) why didn't you say "that their mandate is owned by those who voted for them" ? Were you afraid that - having said that above - it would prove my point ?

What is the difference between....

"Why did you vote Greens ?" "

Because they promised windmills"

and

"Why did you vote FF ?" "

Because they promised not to go into coalition with FF"

Are those two promises not equal reason ? And why is pointing out that they reneged on the first one - twice - unfair ?

I know why I voted for them. And they've let me down. Again.

Look, there probably WAS a core vote that wanted Green policies, but as soon as they said they wouldn't lie down with FF, then that increased their vote. Maybe I'm unique, and maybe it only increased it by one, but I can categorically state that as FACT; it DID increase their vote by AT LEAST one.

I can't speak for everyone, but given some of the replies around the time of that u-turn, I don't think I'm unique.

So even if they got 5% extra votes, that's 5% who mightn't give a crap about lightbulbs, fur farms, etc, but - as you said yourself - as VOTERS, need to be represented. That 5% made a difference, and "gave them a chance" to implement their mandate as long as they stood by ALL their promises.

And that's even assuming that the remaining votes put lightbulbs and fur farms ahead of their children's futures and a fair society where profits and losses are EITHER privatised OR socialised, but not half-and-half.

freyners

While i would love to see fianna failure dumped out of power i do actually admire the greens for what they've done. They secured a guarantee against the re-introduction of college fees, making batty o'keefe looking like an idiot.

• Conscious of the economic pressures on parents today, this Government will not proceed with any new scheme of student contribution for Third Level education.

Húrin

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Why do so many posters on here believe that the Greens have some sort of obligation to the wider electorate or the country as a whole.

They are the government so they are morally obliged to serve the people. Especially given they're a party that claims to be pro-democracy.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your complaint boils down to "the Greens aren't doing what I think they should do" - as do most of the complaints on this (and other) threads. Since most of the people complaining aren't either Green Party members or even core Green Party voters, there's no reason why the Green Party should have any real interest in how you think they should go about things.

Not quite. 70% plus of people in Ireland want a change of government. Most green party members are naturally somewhat left wing people and they mostly understand why people hate FF and in many cases are even sympathetic. The Greens had an unprecedented opportunity to eliminate FF with the stroke of a pen. Instead they chose to all but merge with them.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Electorate gets to vote on that manifesto and if they get enough votes they get a mandate to implement that manifesto ! Are you suggesting that they ought to abandon the manifesto (on which they won their mandate) and instead represent the inclusive manifesto of all of the people

There is no mandate any more. NAMA and unconditional alliance with Fianna Fáil were not in the manifesto that people voted for.

You seem to believe that their mandate is somewhat diluted. That they have a role other than the implementation of their policies. That their mandate is 'owned' by a larger force in the electorate that only put them there to protect us from FF and that therefore they have a different obligation to everyone else.

Remarkably, you seem to believe that their mandate is not diluted and thus that the Irish people are all for them.

Political parties that believe in democracy, as the Greens go to pains to show that they do, have an obligation to listen to the will of the people. Political parties that clearly only govern in the interests of narrow groups lose elections and rightly so.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Are your preferences consistent with their manifesto ? ?

NAMA and unconditional alliance with Fianna Fáil were not in the manifesto that I voted for.

freyners wrote: »

While i would love to see fianna failure dumped out of power i do actually admire the greens for what they've done. They secured a guarantee against the re-introduction of college fees, making batty o'keefe looking like an idiot.

• Conscious of the economic pressures on parents today, this Government will not proceed with any new scheme of student contribution for Third Level education.

Do You know that they didn't cost that statement? Thus if Fianna Fáil decided that they couldn't afford to pay fees anymore, this "guarantee" will be swiftly scrapped because they know by now that the Greens will never stand up and walk out.

heyjude

I can understand peoples' frustration with the Greens decision not to bring down the government, but I liken their situation to that of a prisoner on death row, who is given the choice of being executed now or in two/three years time. The Greens know that if there was an election now, they'd be lucky to have any TDs left, so they've nothing to lose by staying in government for another 2 years, they might actually get some green policies implemented in the meantime and they might even recover a bit in the opinion polls.

I don't understand though, the depths of peoples' anger against the Greens, which often seems more heated than the anger felt against FF, who are really responsible for our current mess.

What I thought was puzzling about the Green conference, was the debate/vote on Nama and the comment from one of the Greens about how they were looking after the taxpayers interests ! Surely, this couldn't be coming from the party that advocates a carbon tax(on what surely will shortly be rising fuel prices), water charges and is is part of a government that is seriously considering a property tax ? In any case, they evidently regarded it as being in the taxpayers interests to support Nama, or was it the Greens interest(since opposing Nama would probably have brought down the government) ? Taxpayers interests, I don't think so.

At the end of the day though, we should remember that while the Greens might prolong the current government, it is, as its two predecessors have been, a Fianna Fail dominated and led government and they're the real villains, no matter how much they(and their supporters) try to deflect anger onto their smaller coalition partners.

Kalashnikov_Kid

The Valley wrote: »

I'm very surprised the Green party have not taken account of the peoples anger, mistrust and frustration with FF.
Now rather than act in the public interest and bring down the government on principles they have got involved in dirty politics and have been bought and bribed by FF. The net result is the green party will bare the brunt of the people anger at the next general election, if I have to wait 2 yrs i'll wait.

I will NEVER NEVER NEVER vote for Green party again. I voted green last time out on party policy and i never thought they would prop up FF.

We need a green party but not one that can be bought. This party is morally corrupt.

Shame on the greens, and god love the next one that knocks on my door

Well said. I shamefully gave them my first preference because I thought they would make a noticeable difference and be a strong check on power. Oh how wrong was I...

Boskowski

heyjude wrote: »

I don't understand though, the depths of peoples' anger against the Greens, which often seems more heated than the anger felt against FF, who are really responsible for our current mess.

Make no mistake. The real anger is not with the Greens. I don't think anyone really expected them to do the right thing. For that we're simply too disillusioned with politics in Ireland atm.
The real anger is where it belongs. The decision of the greens is just being seen as another one of the endless things that seem to be wrong in politics. And said decision may yet turn out to be a travesty of historical magnitude. Let's hope we're wrong on that one...

walshb

spurious wrote: »

The only Green who has a chance of being re-elected is Sargent and that's because he did what he said he would do if they got into bed with the slimy ones.

No he didn't. He said that he wouldn't go into power with FF and that he'd resign rather than do this. What does he do? He leads them into power and THEN resigns and is given a cosy little number. He is as slimey as they come

hallelujajordan

I am amazed at all of you people who believe that the Greens are acting outside their mandate by a) going into govt with FF and b) agreeing to NAMA. In both cases they refreshed their mandate by going back to their members for a vote and in both cases they agreed to and did obey that vote. Their behaviour is the essence of democracy.

For those who believe they have let your vote down by changing their manifesto, that's just silly. . . A political party has the right to change their strategy mid term and do so all the time with the support of their members, usually at a party conference. If you want to influence that, join the party.

For those who believe they have a moral obligation to pull out of government . .again, nonsense. Their moral obligation is to try to run the country as best they can and exercise their mandate in the most effective way that they can.

And for the really silly people who claim to have voted Green to keep FF out of government I have to ask . . Which government were you looking for by voting Green . . another Rainbow coalition ? Do you remember the last rainbow government. This just doesn't add up. If you voting on a national level in 2007 (as opposed to locally like many people) then the only sensible vote to keep FF out of government would have been a vote for either FG or Labour.

The Green Party have 6 seats in the Dail and 2 ministries at the cabinet table. They have a mandate from their party members that they have just this weekend refreshed and they have every right to stay in government and pursue their policies.

Long Onion

The Greens were naive and got a bit starstruck when they were presented with the otion of getting into government. They just got chewed up by FF, as did the PD's. We now have a Green party who have overseen the Corrib pipeline and the running of a motorway through the hill of Tara.

They will argue that these were small sacrifices which would have to be made if they were to secure further, meaningful changes. Personally I believe that the fact they were willing to partake in Government knowing that they would have to sit by these decisions, marked their mindset from the get go. If a Green party was willing to accept the building of a motorway through an historical site, why are people now so monplussed about their willingness to support FF?

The real problem, as I see it, is the fact that FF were so desperate to cement an absolute parliamentary majority at any cost, that they hopped into bed with a party with whom they had little in common. Both parties made their beds, both sets of grass roots members stood by and ignored what didn't fit with the manifesto as they felt that this could be justified by future gains in other areas.

The real question is whether or not we, as voters, are willing to allow flexibility in stated manifesto's or whether we take a hard line stance and wish for no-compromise politics?

P.S. I did not vote for the Greens or FF and think that they are both morally bankrupt

peasant

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The Green Party have 6 seats in the Dail and 2 ministries at the cabinet table. They have a mandate from their party members that they have just this weekend refreshed and they have every right to stay in government and pursue their policies.

Technically correct !

But ...

Whatever about their TD's or ministers having been tainted by power, the fact the the grassroots of the party swallowed another load of FF promises hook, line and sinker is disappointing.

You know ...your stereotypical green party member ...that holier than thou attitude that they carry so well, that righteous indignation about everything that is wrong in the world. I mean ...they'd love to imprison you for driving a SUV if you'd let them ...yet they happily support a party that sees nothing wrong with governement members using a jet AND a limousine to get to Kerry ?

We're well used to moral ambiguity and sleeze from the old apparatus (FF or any other established party) ...the hope was that this party and these people would carry some of their righteous indignation to the heart of the machine and effect some changes.

Nope ...the machine has just gobbled them up, broke their backbone and spat them out again ...and they haven't even noticed, they're even proud of themselves.

hallelujajordan

peasant wrote: »

Technically correct !

You know ...your stereotypical green party member ...that holier than thou attitude that they carry so well, that righteous indignation about everything that is wrong in the world. I mean ...they'd love to imprison you for driving a SUV if you'd let them ...yet they happily support a party that sees nothing wrong with governement members using a jet AND a limousine to get to Kerry ?

Or . . . maybe they recognise that they can only change things from the inside. Maybe they, like all good politicians, are willing to work and compromise to achieve at least some of their goals from within government rather than achieve none of them from the back benches. Maybe John Gormley told the Taoiseach that he would not support the govt in a no confidence motion against the CC (Oh thats right, he did !) and maybe the government jet issue became a moot issue when the CC announced his resignation. Maybe they got significant concessions in the PfG about reforming the political expenses system, the number of seats in the Dail and banning corporate donations (Oh that's right, they got all those things too !)

Honest to God, the self righteous indignation about the Green Party on here is nothing short of ridiculous. . . . .

Riskymove

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I am amazed at all of you people who believe that the Greens are acting outside their mandate by a) going into govt with FF and b) agreeing to NAMA. In both cases they refreshed their mandate by going back to their members for a vote and in both cases they agreed to and did obey that vote. Their behaviour is the essence of democracy.

if you really believe that is the "essence of democracy" then you should want the Greens to refresh the mandate of the people that really count - the thousands that voted for them in an election based on a manifesto (which was conveniently ignored) - not a few hundred members

what the Greens have shown the electorate is that they are more than happy to put one manifesto to the people in an election campaign and get votes based on that - and then simply change their position after the election

Macha

Riskymove wrote: »

if you really believe that is the "essence of democracy" then you should want the Greens to refresh the mandate of the people that really count - the thousands that voted for them in an election based on a manifesto (which was conveniently ignored) - not a few hundred members.

And how exactly do you suggest the Greens find out what those voters want? Sounds like all you want is a general election.

Riskymove

taconnol wrote: »

And how exactly do you suggest the Greens find out what those voters want? Sounds like all you want is a general election.

well if you want to say your "behaviour is the essence of democracy" and have a mandate then a general election is the only way, especially given the extrordinary changes since the time of the last election

hallelujajordan

Riskymove wrote: »

if you really believe that is the "essence of democracy" then you should want the Greens to refresh the mandate of the people that really count - the thousands that voted for them in an election based on a manifesto (which was conveniently ignored) - not a few hundred members

what the Greens have shown the electorate is that they are more than happy to put one manifesto to the people in an election campaign and get votes based on that - and then simply change their position after the election

Are you suggesting that every time a government changes its mind on something or circumstances shift so that they can no longer implement all of their manifesto, they ought to resign from government and trigger a new general election. If this were the case we would have a GE every year and nothing would ever get done !