Time for an 'alternative' Green Party?

Scofflaw

With de Burca's resignation, and following on from the loss of support the Greens have suffered from about a third of previous supporters, is there now electoral room for an alternative Green Party? Or a non-electoral Green lobby group, given that many original Greens were unhappy with electoral politics?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Biggins

I would have to say yes.
One that stays true to its core fundamental ideals and its actual words spoken to the public.

Macha

Biggins wrote: »

One that stays true to its core fundamental ideals and its actual words spoken to the public.

Even after it goes into power as a minority parter in a coalition?

Will there be unicorns and mermaids in this party?

There are already plenty of non-electoral green lobby groups in Ireland. I really don't see the point in setting up another one to simply add to the fragmentation.

Scofflaw

Biggins wrote: »

I would have to say yes.
One that stays true to its core fundamental ideals and its actual words spoken to the public.

I have to say that that suggests to me a Green lobby group. I don't think any political party has ever been able to carry out in government (let alone coalition) exactly what it promised in opposition.

What would the core fundamental ideals of such a party or group be? I've heard everything from pacifism to vegetarianism to subsidiarity to opposition to fluoridation touted as "core fundamental" ideals, so I'm a little wary of the phrase!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

Well one thing is certain: a new green party would regain the lost voter share quicker than the current Greens. The Green Party is now a spoiled and disdained brand, and people feel betrayed by them.

I think that one has to be very clear where the Greens went wrong. After their election people seemed to be immediately griping about how they weren't given much weight in Government. As a parliamentary party of 6 TD's I think that that criticism was undeserved. To steal a Greens cliché: its better to do a little inside government than nothing outside it.

But theres a big difference between having a minor agenda in Government and being the necessary crutch for what is seen as corrupt party (FF). Even though I wasn't of age in 2007, I remember the Greens being marketed as some kind of new party, a change with the old. I think people who voted for them rightly felt betrayed that the Greens supported Fianna Fail through the Bertie fiasco and when the populace clearly wanted a change.

I say this as I would hate to see new greens become ideologically opposed to being in government. I think the new greens should embrace government but should not stand for the kind of things the old Greens have.

Macha

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But theres a big difference between having a minor agenda in Government and being the necessary crutch for what is seen as corrupt party (FF).

Can you explain in detail the difference?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think the new greens should embrace government but should not stand for the kind of things the old Greens have.

Can you give some examples? And what exactly the Greens should have done?

Eliot Rosewater

taconnol wrote: »

Can you explain in detail the difference?

I have no problem with a small party being in government and only implementing small changes. Thats all that can be expected (although Im sure Im in the minority in this regard).

However lately the Greens have been the only reason this Government has kept going. By staying in Government the Greens have condoned all that FF have done, such as what happened with Bertie. Theres also the argument that the population want a change of Government and that the Greens are choosing to ignore this. Even though the tactic is governmentally advantageous for the Greens Im not sure if its the "right" thing to do, especially as I suspect that many of people who voted Green are now calling for them to pull out.

IrishTonyO

I voted for the Greens last time as Trevor Sargeant said he would not lead his party into government with Fianna Fail. I along with a lot of other people took that to mean they would not go into government with FF, not that TS would stand down and they would go in with Gormley. As a result of this I definitely feel betrayed and in fact lied to. It was my first time voting green and I think my last.
However I do know a number of green councillors and they are all of the opinion that the parliamentary party have lost the ethos of the party. I made my complaints known to my local Green TD when they went into government and pointed out the numerous areas of lies I was told before the election and his answer was, as they were not a majority in government they could not fulfil the pre election promises!! Did they honestly think they could get a majority government?? And if not then they told blatant lies.

ei.sdraob

just what we need

yet another authoritarian party who care more for animals than people

Red_Marauder

The Green Party may once have had relevance to those who had a specific interest in environmental issues before it became popular, or those people who were in University in the 80s and early 90s when climate change started to gain serious attention, and saw the need to drive the issue mainstream.

But they have become a relic of the success of the Green agenda.

Every major political party now has a green platform and has developed policies to cope with climate change and emissions and a healthier environment generally.

Where does this leave the green party?
What have they got left to offer apart from providing the fourth wheel to a Government in a getaway car?

We don't need a new green party. We don't even need the current one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Every major political party now has a green platform and has developed policies to cope with climate change and emissions and a healthier environment generally.

Where does this leave the green party?
What have they got left to offer apart from providing the fourth wheel to a Government in a getaway car?

We don't need a new green party. We don't even need the current one.

Not true at all. As someone who works in the environmental and sustainability sector, I can tell you that no previous government has gotten results like we have seen since the Greens came into power.

FG's green policies are risible and Labour's are little better. For example, Labour opposes water charges and as Enda revealed on Newstalk last week, FG haven't really thought about them.

It's also about putting words into action and in the environmental sector, Labour and FG have a miserable track record.

I'll put my hand up and say I'm a member of the Greens. But I would also love if what you are saying were true and that there is no need for a Green Party in this country. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Scofflaw

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The Green Party may once have had relevance to those who had a specific interest in environmental issues before it became popular, or those people who were in University in the 80s and early 90s when climate change started to gain serious attention, and saw the need to drive the issue mainstream.

But they have become a relic of the success of the Green agenda.

Every major political party now has a green platform and has developed policies to cope with climate change and emissions and a healthier environment generally.

Where does this leave the green party?
What have they got left to offer apart from providing the fourth wheel to a Government in a getaway car?

We don't need a new green party. We don't even need the current one.

I wish that that were true - and for at least a couple of major issues (climate change, most obviously, but also several others) it is the case, because those issues are being driven by more environmentally conscious nations at the EU level.

However, that does nothing about our national planning, waste or transport issues, nor does it mean that the decisions taken with respect to the Irish environment are anything approaching environmentally friendly, because the other Irish parties are about as environmentally conscious as the corpse of a property developer.

To claim that the green agenda is a victim of its own success in Ireland is quite extraordinary, in one sense - this is not a country where the green agenda has gained anything more than a toe-hold, despite its "green" image. Its mainstream politics reflect the views of the majority of the electorate, particularly the rural electorate, that Greens (and people like An Taisce) are a bunch of latte-sipping tree-hugging D4 nannies - a view that is regularly expressed here and elsewhere.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conorhal

When the splitters say alternative, what they mean is 'a return to comfortable unelectability', thus allowing them to be as barmy as they like while avoiding anything approaching the reality of doing business in the Dail. DeBurca is acting like a bit of a 'George Lee' for the Greens, when faced with the reality that as a small party who represent a small minority in government, she and many Greens simply couldn't accept that they didn't run the show and couldn't implement every granola inspired initiative that crossed their minds without having to reference it's economic viability, public acceptance or it's impact upon jobs and their constituents.
As far as I can see, they would rather go back to sticking their head in the clouds than actually be part of the unpleasant realities of government, with all it's compromises, legal and budgetary restrictions etc that suits their uncompromising nature.....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Hold up a second. Two things - first, this is not to become an "I hate the Greens because..." thread - second, how many of those who feel that any Green Party is superfluous (as per Red_Marauder) would vote for any Green Party?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well we have secured a VRT exemption for electrical vehicles and the Greens did bring about changes in VRT that have so far resulted in a 12% reduction in emissions, according to SEI.

To be honest low-emission vehicles (as opposed to electric vehicles) are not going to cut it - it's small fry. Most EU cities have a public transport: private transport ratio of 80:20. Dublin's is the reverse. Fiddling around with VRT while this ratio stays the same is like the proverbial arranging of the deckchairs.

Biggins

Some background history first:

The Irish Green Party began in 1981 as the Ecology Party of Ireland (EPI). In November 1982, the EPI participated in its first General Election and then changed its name to the Green Alliance/Comhaontas Glas in 1983. By 1985 they won their first race, when Marcus Counihan was elected to the Killarney Urban District Council.

1987 brought about another name change, this time to the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas signaling a growing electoral focus of the Irish grassroots Green movement. Then came the breakthrough of 1989, when Dublin’s Roger Garland became the Party’s first member of Irish Parliament (Dáil Éireann) or TD (Teachta Dála, Gaelic for “assembly delegate). Building upon this success, 13 Greens were elected to city and town councils in 1991. In 1994, the party won its first seats in the European Parliament, electing Patricia McKenna (Dublin) and Nuala Ahern (Leinster). But they didn’t stop there, as months later the Dublin City Council elected John Gormley to be the city’s first Green mayor, giving the party an increasingly high profile in the nation’s capital.

May 1997 saw the party double its number of TDs, as Gormley and Trevor Sargent were elected to the Dáil, and two years later, McKenna and Ahern successfully defended their European Parliament seats. After 10 years, the party had seemingly secured a solid place in Irish politics and looked forward to stepping up to the next level.

At its 2001 Annual Convention, the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas took steps to make it a more successful electoral force, including establishing the position of Party Leader and electing Sargent to fill that role. These steps paid off, as in the 2002 General Election the Party added four seats, bringing to the Dáil Eamon Ryan in Dublin South, Paul Gogarty in Dublin West, Ciarán Cuffe in Dún Laoghaire and Dan Boyle in Cork South Central.
In 2004, while McKenna lost a close re-election bid and the party’s second seat fell victim to the reduction in the number of Ireland’s seats in the European Parliament following enlargement of the EU, the Greens performed very well in local elections, expanding their number of town and county Green councilors to 26. Among this group was Niall Ó Brolcháin, elected in Galway, Ireland’s third largest city, who then was named Mayor. Branching out to win in many parts of the country, this also represented a breakout from the party’s perceived traditional Dublin base.
http://greenpages.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/irish-greens-enter-coalition-government-for-the-first-time/

taconnol wrote: »

...what exactly the Greens should have done?

How about sticking to their words and policies?

The Greens had previously to election attacked the government on a number of fronts: automobile-dependency, racing development sprawl :rolleyes:, a deterioration in the quality of public infrastructure and services :rolleyes:, and the undue influence of corporate donations on public policy (aye, big changes there too) :rolleyes:.
Earlier preconditions also included into going into power with the FF mafia was the future non use use of Shannon Airport by American troops. :rolleyes:
So too was the non-construction of a new motorway near the “Hill of Tara”. :rolleyes:
The Party had previously also taken positions against the construction of the ‘Corrib’ gas pipeline. :rolleyes:
The encouragement through tax breaks and other financial incentives of private healthcare services (called “co-location” as the new facilities would be built on existing public hospital sites - not new ones!!! Try explaining that one Greens to the cancer patients of Ireland and the patients of Crumlins Childrens Hospital!) :rolleyes:
...and thats only to start with.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I voted for the Greens last time as Trevor Sargeant said he would not lead his party into government with Fianna Fail. I along with a lot of other people took that to mean they would not go into government with FF, not that TS would stand down and they would go in with Gormley. As a result of this I definitely feel betrayed and in fact lied to. It was my first time voting green and I think my last...

Very true and to use Trevors VERY words around 2007, he denounced Fianna Fail as a party of "bad planning, corruption and bad standards".
SOURCE

ei.sdraob wrote: »

just what we need
yet another authoritarian party who care more for animals than people

Thats very presumptive isn't it? Your already saying what a so call new green based party's ideology is based around - even before its even thought of and put to the people. Talk about seriously jumping the gun...

Red_Marauder wrote: »

We don't need a new green party. We don't even need the current one.

I would say different. We should have some form of separate green organisation - if only to keep in-check the policies of those elected and they maybe pretending to have such policies just to win over the public!
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes!

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wish that that were true - and for at least a couple of major issues (climate change, most obviously, but also several others) it is the case, because those issues are being driven by more environmentally conscious nations at the EU level.

global warming can be solved (well global temperature can be dropped by 1-2 degrees C) by a very simple system costing 100 million dollars a year

as described in great detail in this latest NY Times bestseller

i don't see why you need a political movement for a problem (or set of problems) that can be solved by well-funded engineering project(s)

Biggins wrote: »

Thats very presumptive isn't it? Your already saying what a so call new green based party's ideology is based around - even before its even thought of and put to the people. Talk about seriously jumping the gun...

the whole Green movement is based around the idea of un-sustainability and dictating to people how live their lives in order so that we can revert to a more "simple" time

its an idealogical movement that ignores how people behave and respond to pressures, hence its ultimately doomed to failure like Communism before it
the current Green movement is very authoritarian in its ways, how would this New Greens party might be any different?

/

Macha

Biggins wrote: »

How about sticking to their words and policies?

Biggins, do you understand the realities and practicalities of the formation and functioning of coalition governments?

Edit: ei.sdraob, that book has been widely discredited and frankly mocked for it's pie-in-the-sky geo-engineering climate change "solutions". Just read the first review on your link.

Biggins

taconnol wrote: »

Biggins, do you understand the realities and practicalities of the formation and functioning of coalition governments?

I do indeed but I also understand the difference between compromise and complete sell out too!
The Green Party as it stands now has more u-turns in it than just the motorway between the Dail and Gormley's actual home!

Macha

Biggins wrote: »

I do indeed but I also understand the difference between compromise and complete sell out too!

And what is that, exactly?

eoinbn

By all means. Create an alternative party that will never achieve a single objective. Right now governments all around the world are doing things that they would prefer not to, yet in one of the countries hit worst by the recession some members of a junior party believe that they should stick to their core principals and not give an inch...

Biggins

taconnol wrote: »

And what is that, exactly?

There is enough threads here already outlining the many ways that the present Green party has backtracked.
I'm not going to bore you and regurgitate them all. A quick search will do that job easy.

I'm not against Green ideas in any way. I'm not against a green based party going into a union-ship with a decent and more honest based party.
I am against any organisation that is willing to sell is soul to the devil just to see little or nothing gained and a Green organisation tarnished by its leaders when its ground membership have genuine heartfelt good ideas - but their chances of any of them being implemented, ruined by fools now at the top.

Scofflaw

Biggins wrote: »

I do indeed but I also understand the difference between compromise and complete sell out too!
The Green Party as it stands now has more u-turns in it than just the motorway between the Dail and Gormley's actual home!

Presumably the difference comes back to this question of "core fundamental principles", and whether the Green Party has traduced those in government rather than abandoning non-core issues that couldn't be negotiated (and bearing in mind that the PfG was voted in by Green members) - but you still haven't said what they are?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bob Z

Scofflaw wrote: »

With de Burca's resignation, and following on from the loss of support the Greens have suffered from about a third of previous supporters, is there now electoral room for an alternative Green Party? Or a non-electoral Green lobby group, given that many original Greens were unhappy with electoral politics?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Good idea but what could we call it? The Off-Green Party?

Biggins

Scofflaw wrote: »

Presumably the difference comes back to this question of "core fundamental principles", and whether the Green Party has traduced those in government rather than abandoning non-core issues that couldn't be negotiated (and bearing in mind that the PfG was voted in by Green members) - but you still haven't said what they are?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Being honest with yourself and the forum I, myself couldn't say what others "core fundamental principles" are or should be in a future possible new organisation. It would be presumptive of me to say the least.
I cannot attempt to even being to mention a fuller layout of a new Green constitution and memorandum of ideas and to my discredit (and to the much credit of good others here) I'm not as knowledgeable in the vast areas of green issues compared to those said others.

If a new green org' was to be formed (its a big "IF"), I would hope they stick to the ideas they espouse, hopefully more so than the org' presently residing in the Dail.
The issues that the present "Green Party" are advocating, seem to change week to week depending on the whims of Fianna Fail heads!
The leash stretching from FF headquarters to the Green Party Headquarters must be very tight. Its being yanked often enough!

Scofflaw

Bob Z wrote: »

Good idea but what could we call it? The Off-Green Party?

There's certainly plenty of room for a marketing campaign, anyway - "Greened-off?", "Have Fianna Fail eaten your Greens?" - but that doesn't really tell us what it would stand for.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Biggins

Originally Posted by Bob Z
Good idea but what could we call it?

"Natures Best?"

paddyland

taconnol wrote: »

Well we have secured a VRT exemption for electrical vehicles and the Greens did bring about changes in VRT that have so far resulted in a 12% reduction in emissions, according to SEI.

To be honest low-emission vehicles (as opposed to electric vehicles) are not going to cut it - it's small fry. Most EU cities have a public transport: private transport ratio of 80:20. Dublin's is the reverse. Fiddling around with VRT while this ratio stays the same is like the proverbial arranging of the deckchairs.

We have a FF minister for transport, whose priority seems to be the proliferation of toll roads (and whose appointments to the boards of those toll companies raises huge questions), while under his entire tenure, and the minister before him, NOTHING of any substance was done about the appalling lack of decent public transport in the country.

That would appear to be the sum total of FF policy on public transport, i.e. nothing, the same FF government being propped up and excused by this waste of a Green Party, or should we say a Yellow Party.

The Green Party seem to have nothing to say on the subject of public transport, other than encouraging everyone to buy bicycles. We don't have the weather for bicycles in this country!

Scofflaw

paddyland wrote: »

We have a FF minister for transport, whose priority seems to be the proliferation of toll roads (and whose appointments to the boards of those toll companies raises huge questions), while under his entire tenure, and the minister before him, NOTHING of any substance was done about the appalling lack of decent public transport in the country.

That would appear to be the sum total of FF policy on public transport, i.e. nothing, the same FF government being propped up and excused by this waste of a Green Party, or should we say a Yellow Party.

The Green Party seem to have nothing to say on the subject of public transport, other than encouraging everyone to buy bicycles. We don't have the weather for bicycles in this country!

Although apparently the Swedes do:

In average, 15-35% of the passengers use the bicycle as a feeder to regional trains in northern Europe, Rystum A, 1992 (4). The highest figures can be found in dense populated urban areas. i.e. in The Netherlands and in the county of Malmohuslan in south Sweden. In the county of Malmohuslan, Sweden, minimum 30% (max 55%) of the feeder trips to regional trains in the home part of the journey is made by bicycle and up to 25% in the away part of the journey, Rystam, 1996 (3). In the home part the bicycle users are mostly commuters and in the away part mostly they are leisure-, shopping- or other cathegories of passengers. Danish and Swedish study show that 2-10% of the passengers use the bicycle in both ends of a multimodal trip, the more commuters the higher share, Go JensenJ, 1995 (I) and Rystam, 1996 (3).

I've already pointed out that this is a thread about an alternative Green Party, not an opportunity to whinge unconstructively about the current one.

regards,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

this is not to become an "I hate the Greens because..." thread

The reason I commented on peoples' disillusionment with the Green Party of now was to speculate on how a new green party could evolve. My fear would be that the new greens, in attempting to learn from the mistakes of the past, would have a policy of not going into government. I wouldn't vote for a party if they had such a self-imposed policy.

Scofflaw wrote: »

how many of those who feel that any Green Party is superfluous (as per Red_Marauder) would vote for any Green Party?

As someone of a liberal outlook, I generally wouldn't give my number 1 to a green party as such parties seem to advocate broad social policies outside of the main green agenda. However I do care for the environment and if a green party were campaigning for policies that would help people like me to help the environment, then I would vote for them. The proposal donegelfella made, that low-emissions cars have significantly less VRT, would be such a positive policy.

paddyland

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've already pointed out that this is a thread about an alternative Green Party, not an opportunity to whinge unconstructively about the current one.

regards,
Scofflaw

Point taken, the inference I would hope to be taken from my earlier post is that a new Green Party WOULD have quite a lot to say about public transport, surely a core element of green thinking in any genuine green party.

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The reason I commented on peoples' disillusionment with the Green Party of now was to speculate on how a new green party could evolve.

Apologies - I'm not trying to prevent comments on the current Green Party, of course. As you say, the disillusionment of part of the original Green support base is an important part of the evolution of an alternative. I'm only concerned that criticism be constructive rather than "urg..yar...Greens bad!".

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

My fear would be that the new greens, in attempting to learn from the mistakes of the past, would have a policy of not going into government. I wouldn't vote for a party if they had such a self-imposed policy.

I'm concerned myself that a new movement would either have to have such a policy, accept that at whatever point they entered government they would suffer the fate of the current Green Party, or content themselves in opposition with saying and promising so little, or being so evidently pragmatic, that they would barely seem worth supporting.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As someone of a liberal outlook, I generally wouldn't give my number 1 to a green party as such parties seem to advocate broad social policies outside of the main green agenda. However I do care for the environment and if a green party were campaigning for policies that would help people like me to help the environment, then I would vote for them. The proposal donegelfella made, that low-emissions cars have significantly less VRT, would be such a positive policy.

I often have issues with Green social/economic policy myself - I'd certainly be interested in a market-oriented Green Party, but I suspect it wouldn't solve the issues of the currently disillusioned Green supporters.

On the other hand, it's pretty hard to see market-oriented solutions to the problems created by economics predicated on unlimited growth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thebman

We need a green issue orientated party for a few things. Planning is one of them and housing standards along with tackling the issue of political donations and general corruption in general tighter restrictions on expenses and staying in your position if are found to have performed irregular actions in your position like Bertie did. The greens were supposed to stand for all these things or at least wanted themselves to be seen to be these things. Going into power has shown they have a lot of other issues that they seem to think are more important.

I think the majority of the general public voting for the greens thought the above was part of their core policies but it seems to have been deserted to get carbon tax and water metering. Basically greens just appear to be used by FF to bring in extra revenue generating mechanisms and get fobbed off on most other issues and thrown a bone every now and again. Their refusal to criticise their coalition partners has badly hurt their public image to a point that I don't believe can be restored.

Do we need another green party. We need any kind of party that stands for the first things I listed IMO. I don't care about the name as long as they have green issues at heart but a sensible out look on economic views and a realisation of the knock on effects of their desires. For example, giving grants for green issues driving up the prices to what they were before just gives money to green companies for no reason and will always be the effect of giving grants to subsidise things IMO. The market has determined what people are willing to pay and if you give everyone a grant of x amount then they'll be willing to pay x and the original amount and the market will very quickly adapt to the new situation making the grant redundant unless means tested in some way in which case it is unfair on the people that are actually paying most of the taxes and becomes a redistribution of wealth mechanism.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hold up a second. Two things - first, this is not to become an "I hate the Greens because..." thread - second, how many of those who feel that any Green Party is superfluous (as per Red_Marauder) would vote for any Green Party?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't think someone can say why we need a new green party without discussing what it is about the current one that has caused a need for a new green party.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

and not only people
what have the Green Party done about cow flatulence
methane is 40x times more dangerous than CO2, and we have plenty of these animals roaming our country
will the farmers have to pay Methane Tax :P


yes i think the Greens have admirable goals, but unfortunately they are idealists and are not pragmatic enough, for example they are against using nuclear power to replace coal plants, even tho that would save a huge amount of emissions until renewable energy can fill the gap and take over (thats if it can)

Scofflaw

thebman wrote: »

I don't think someone can say why we need a new green party without discussing what it is about the current one that has caused a need for a new green party.

See my post above:

Apologies - I'm not trying to prevent comments on the current Green Party, of course. As you say, the disillusionment of part of the original Green support base is an important part of the evolution of an alternative. I'm only concerned that criticism be constructive rather than "urg..yar...Greens bad!".

Hmm:

Any alternative Green Party has to think pragmatically about how people can meet their needs in a more environmentally friendly way. That is where the current party has so clearly failed.

yes i think the Greens have admirable goals, but their are unfortunately for themselves idealists and are not pragmatic enough

Poor old Greens - too pragmatic for their ex-supporters, too idealistic for their non-supporters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Biggins wrote: »

Being honest with yourself and the forum I, myself couldn't say what others "core fundamental principles" are or should be in a future possible new organisation. It would be presumptive of me to say the least.
I cannot attempt to even being to mention a fuller layout of a new Green constitution and memorandum of ideas and to my discredit (and to the much credit of good others here) I'm not as knowledgeable in the vast areas of green issues compared to those said others.

If a new green org' was to be formed (its a big "IF"), I would hope they stick to the ideas they espouse, hopefully more so than the org' presently residing in the Dail.
The issues that the present "Green Party" are advocating, seem to change week to week depending on the whims of Fianna Fail heads!
The leash stretching from FF headquarters to the Green Party Headquarters must be very tight. Its being yanked often enough!

In fact, I was asking what you felt the core fundamental values of the existing Green Party are, or were. I've never been entirely certain myself, but then I don't pay much attention to claims of principle in politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kraggy

ei.sdraob wrote: »

just what we need

yet another authoritarian party who care more for animals than people

The Greens haven't implemented one of their policies relating to animals or animal welfare published in their party policy document.

So I wouldn't class them as animal-lovers.

Biggins

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, I was asking what you felt the core fundamental values of the existing Green Party are, or were. I've never been entirely certain myself, but then I don't pay much attention to claims of principle in politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well I like many of the voters of Ireland could only go with the principles as they are laid out on their website and in the literature they present to us through the doors when seeking our vote.
Some of those were:

* Cut carbon emissions by 3 percent per year - (happened?)
* Subsidize offshore wind, wave and tidal power (far fetched idea maybe but an admirable idea)
* Replace vehicle and motor tax. (Happened?)
* Invest more in public transport. (They are cutting bus services, etc)
* Cut value-added tax by 1 percentage point (LOL - we getting more tax's!!!)
* Keep existing rates of corporate and income tax, increase capital gains tax to 25 percent and reintroduce a levy on bank deposits. (I'll say nothing!)
* Exempt buyers trading down to smaller homes and some first-time buyers from stamp duty. (Happened? No.)
* Levy a windfall tax on development land. (Happened? No.)
* Replace commercial rates with a Site Value Tax. (Happened? No.)
* Cap private rent increases. (Nothing done!)
* Provide affordable housing. (Nada, nothing - more cuts)
* Spend more on teachers (LOL!)
* Hospitals (- cuts!)
* Police (- cuts!)
* Public transport... social housing... and trains... :rolleyes:
* Ban corporate, foreign and institutional donations to political parties. (Nothing!)
* Cut the number of seats in the lower house of parliament to 130 from 166 and extend freedom of information. (Nothing!)
* End the use of Shannon Airport by U.S. military forces involved in the war in Iraq. (Nothing!)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2665649920070526
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1493160420070614


For the record:

The seven principles that the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas adopted at its foundation were elaborated and expanded in the revised 1997 Constitution. They are:

1. The impact of society on the environment should not be ecologically disruptive.
2. Conservation of the resources is vital to a sustainable society.
3. All political, social and economic decisions should be taken at the lowest effective level.
4. Society should be guided by self-reliance and co-operation at all levels.
5. As caretakers of the earth, we have the responsibility to pass it on in a fit and healthy state.
6. The need for world peace overrides national and commercial interests.
7. The poverty of two-thirds of the world's family demands a redistribution of the world's resources.

http://www.greenparty.ie/en/about/history

Its too east to shoot holes in some of the above and what the heads of the present Green party has actually done - or "not" in some cases!

---

Interesting comment I came across - refers back to '96

Democracy on paper, elitism in practice.

This ludicrous situation is contrived by our constitution in the interests of democracy, but not of political action. Nothing about our structures facilitates political action, ideas and campaigning. In fact, our structures are blatantly undemocratic in that they create a vacuum where public representatives have a free hand on almost every matter, and the membership has no say at all. For a political party claiming to epitomise democratic forms of decision-making, this is an ironic division of intellectual labour: the members exist for the sake of the Party and not vice versa.

The naivety which underpins this structure is a political one: the Green Party is not certain about exactly which facets of Irish society it wishes to change. Instead, we have become an organisation loosely held together by seven unclarified ethical principles while our elected representatives are off negotiating for their inclusion in government - in order to do what, we may well ask. No policy development has taken place in the Party since 1993, most are out of date, and all (except perhaps the economics and housing policies) are inadequate tools for participation in government at either local or national level.

Sadhbh O Neill was Green Party councillor for Donaghmede

http://www.iol.ie/~mazzoldi/toolsforchange/zine/imb96/deep.htm

I guess nothing has changed then since Sadhbh O Neill spoke even as far back as then. Sad...

ei.sdraob

kraggy wrote: »

The Greens haven't implemented one of their policies relating to animals or animal welfare published in their party policy document.

So I wouldn't class them as animal-lovers.

i was referring to how they signed onto NAMA (and ensuring there was no early election) by making few fur lovers happy

Sand

Its too east to shoot holes in some of the above and what the heads of the present Green party has actually done - or "not" in some cases!

Thats the problem with being an idealistic party, which the Greens are, in theory if nor recent practise. Humans are very definitly imperfect. Ideals demand perfection. Politics and political decisions are human. Very easy to drive a gas guzzling humvee knockoff through the gap between the two. Its very cruel to demand a human being meet the requirements of their claimed idealogy at all times. We are only human after all, not abstract meanderings.

Its right to say that the Greens have admirable claimed ideals, but its also true to say that ideals or ideas are not responsible for the behaviour of those who believe in them.

Do we need another Green party? Another "None of the above" option on the ballot? No. We need all parties to take enviromental issues seriously.

Do we need another Green party? Another "Power at all costs!" option on the ballot. No. We already have Fianna Fail, and to a lesser degree Fine Gael for that.

Essentially, the Greens are going to get wiped out at the next election - they tried to play politics with the big boys but Fianna Fail dont run this country by chance. They are this country, in a very real way. They know how to be self interested whilst appearing to be patriotic. The Greens have yet to learn how to do this, and given the electoral wipeout they are facing in 2012 they will never get the chance to learn.

The result of that will be messy - a lot of "I told you so!", but no, there will not be an electable Green agenda for a generation or more regardless of brave new starts greeted in the Irish Times to great fanfare. Green agendas might be affordable where the government hasnt much fiscal restraint, but ironically the Greens have ensured anything up to 60-70 billion of government spending is diverted to the complete disaster of NAMA. Imagine trying to beg for funding for the Green agenda in an enviroment where youre already down 60 billion.

Biggins

Sand wrote: »

...but no, there will not be an electable Green agenda for a generation or more regardless of brave new starts greeted in the Irish Times to great fanfare. Green agendas might be affordable where the government hasnt much fiscal restraint, but ironically the Greens have ensured anything up to 60-70 billion of government spending is diverted to the complete disaster of NAMA. Imagine trying to beg for funding for the Green agenda in an enviroment where youre already down 60 billion.

All good points. By they supporting FF and NAMA, they brought about themselves that MASSIVE bill on their own heads - effecting their own now unclear agenda (it seems to change from month to month!) and their own demise...

They reap as they sow. How's that for a Green quote?

View

I'd have to honestly ask what would be the point of setting up a "New Green" Party?

Presuming they were electorally succesful, then sooner or later they'd stand on the threshold of coalition. At that point principles and policies would need to be compromised - that would not keep the purists happy. After all, it would be a case that they had left the (original) Greens over this precise issue and were now being asked to do the same again.

The only real difference I'd see is they might be luckier timing wise - maybe entering coalition at the start of a boom rather than a bust...

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

I'd have to honestly ask what would be the point of setting up a "New Green" Party?

Presuming they were electorally succesful, then sooner or later they'd stand on the threshold of coalition. At that point principles and policies would need to be compromised - that would not keep the purists happy. After all, it would be a case that they had left the (original) Greens over this precise issue and were now being asked to do the same again.

The only real difference I'd see is they might be luckier timing wise - maybe entering coalition at the start of a boom rather than a bust...

That's about how I see it panning out. Ideals are easy enough in opposition, as are criticisms of the government and talking up how much better you'd do things - but when you enter government, those ideals have to be translated into practical action against vested interests, apathy, inertia, conflicting legislation, and the sheer complexity of real government...and that's assuming you're a single party in government rather than a coalition.

However, that still leaves me with the question of how those of us who want to pursue a pro-environmental agenda are going to pick up the pieces - because I take it none* of us want an Irish political scene entirely devoid of a Green movement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*although there are perhaps those who would prefer no Green movement to a Green movement that doesn't meet their standards

Eliot Rosewater

View wrote: »

I'd have to honestly ask what would be the point of setting up a "New Green" Party?

Well obviously they will take a different approach. Theres no problem with going into government and exerting a bit of influence, small though it be, once one doesn't stand for the kind of things the current Greens have.


Also, thinking more abstractly, theres plenty of different policies the new greens could have. Such as being pro-nuclear power or pro-incineration.

Or a different approach to public transport. Yes I know the usual scapegoat is the "infrastructure" or something but being honest the price is the biggest thing holding it back, at least in here Cork. Its cheaper for me to drive into Cork than to get the bus including parking. It seems that Government run bus services have failed. However as usual with these kind of things, the implementer of the system (FF) is blamed rather than the system itself (Government run transport).

But if the new greens are going to be cut from the same cloth as the current Greens, one has to wonder will there be any turnaround on these policies, or will it be just turning the Greens back 5 years to their idealogical stance.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Total voter base = 2 (optimistically).

amused,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

There are some, including current members of the Green Party, former members of the party, and supporters or potential supporters of the movement from which the party springs, who seem to me to have an opposition mindset. If they can't have all of what they want, they seem unwilling to settle for getting some of it.

When the Greens went into government, they bargained to get some of what they wanted. Some of the habitual oppositionists quit the party at that stage. It's the same pattern of splitting that one sees in socialist movements or among Irish republicans: when there is an attempt made by the leaders to deal with other interest groups, a group shears itself off because they won't accept the deal. The group that splits off is typically, in my view, the more extreme or intolerant part of the movement. It might be best if the extremists just went away, but it generally doesn't work out so easily: movements get damaged.

I don't like to see too many fracture lines. Another party competing for the votes of the environmentally-concerned would probably do more harm than good. The electoral prospects of the Greens have been set back for the next few years, and I don't think there is any way around that. I think they have to repair their image, and that means more than doing a public relations job. They need to review their policies and "get real".

For example, zero waste is just not going to happen, but that is the basis of the party's waste management policy: that enables them to oppose both landfill and incineration (and allows John Gormley to put constituency issues ahead of national policy). I have no respect for policies that ignore realities. Yes, it is acceptable to try to change realities, but only within the limits of what is truly possible. You can put "zero waste" up there as the impossible dream and aim to get as close as possible to it; but it is necessary to recognise that there will still be a waste disposal problem.

At the next general election, the voters are likely to present them with an opportunity: they will be excused the burdens of government, and much of the burden of public representation. That should give them the time to reflect on their policies, their successes (there have been some) and their failures, and plan a future that might be better for them and for us.

I am quite concerned about our environment (among other things) and I should be the sort of person whose vote the Green Party would hope to win. But I am also concerned about good government, and want to vote for parties that are prepared to participate pragmatically in the running of the state -- no way will I vote for starry-eyed idealists who are so focused on their dreams that they will be permanently in opposition.

I don't know if the Greens will evolve into a party that I would vote for. Given where thay are now, they have to do something to broaden their appeal, and I think the place they should look for inspiration is their own origins as an ecological movement, but it should become an ecological movement that grows up to face the big issues as well as the little ones that dominated the attention of many of its founders.