Green Party conference

Poly

Just watching the smug fcukers dimming the lights at their party conference.
I wonder will Gormley mention that they all face electoral armageddon in the next election.

Note to John, dimmers use just as much power as full lights.

Sulmac

It's one dim conference alright! :pac:

(someone had to say it )

yoshytoshy

I was beginning to enjoy it ,but gormley is just singing the same song.

Making out fine gael are full of empty promises ,it's not fine gael who have driven the country into the ground.

If the green party coalition were so good ,they wouldn't have to back track over everything they've done for the last few years ,muppets.

Biggins

I wish they would see the light (and go)!

changes

I despise the green party.

Its a farce that because i can't afford a newer than 2008 car I have to pay a higher rate of motor tax than those well off enough to afford a new car.

Unfettered unfairness imo.

Poly

I was enjoying it myself, I turned off all the lights and threw another baby seal on the fire. (I didn’t club it to death first as that would be just cruel.)
I loved his parting line “ we will always, always, always do the right thing”

Liam Byrne

Poly wrote: »

I loved his parting line “ we will always, always, always do the right thing”

The topsy-turvy world of The Greens......it translates to "never, ever, ever" here in the real world. :mad:

steamengine

Missed the whole thing unfortunately - thought they said switch off all televisions - realise now it was lights - silly me !:rolleyes:

bmaxi

Why didn't they have brilliant ideas like these before agreeing the programme for government?
"What's that you say"?, "they did, they just reneged on them all".

martingore

Im looking forward to their decimation at the next election .

Biggins

martingore wrote: »

Im looking forward to their decimation at the next election .

You, me and 95% of the country.

juuge

Saw Eamon Ryan sitting there with a grin on him like a cat that just caught a mouse, yet my cousin lives twenty miles from Tallaght and still can’t get broadband, yeah! keep smiling Eamon sure you’re doin’ a great job..........:mad:

Mr.Micro

The Greens would not be even having a conference if they were not propping up the inept FF in Government. So self important and nothing if substance to them. The vanity of power never ceases to amaze. I suppose they cannot believe their luck in getting into power and now congratulate themselves how wonderful they are and the difference they are making.

Martin 2

Poly wrote: »

Just watching the smug fcukers dimming the lights at their party conference.
I wonder will Gormley mention that they all face electoral armageddon in the next election.

Note to John, dimmers use just as much power as full lights.

Just on a point of information

Modern dimmers most definitely reduce the power used by combined lamp and control. Most work by varying the percentage of time the lamp is on per cycle for mains(AC) powered lamps or by varying the ON/OFF time (at high speed) for DC lamps. The dimmer control circuitry wastes some power itself but it's very small (<1W) compared to the full power of the lamp.

You're probably thinking of school science experiments where power diverted from the lamp is dissipated in a series resistive load. This technique may have been used decades ago (altho I'd say a variac was more common).

kmurr04

I didn't think it was that bad, it could have been a whole lot worse

The Raven.

He is right about this though:

Gormley calls for end to 'irresponsible' rezonings

Green Party leader John Gormley has accused some Opposition county councillors of being involved in a last ditch effort to push through irresponsible zoning proposals in parts of the country.

He said the Planning Bill currently going through the Oireachtas will put an end to the sort of unfettered and irresponsible rezonings that were a feature of political life.

Delivering the keynote address at the Green Party’s convention in Waterford tonight Mr Gormley said those type of rezonings must now come to an end.

“Let me be very blunt on this point. There are councillors up and down this country who know that the new Planning Bill currently going through the Houses of the Oireachtas will mean that the sort of unfettered and irresponsible rezonings that took place previously, must now come to an end. And they are trying in a last ditch effort to get through their irresponsible zoning proposals.

He said Labour Party councillors had, for the most part, behaved responsibly but the same was not true of Fine Gael councillors.

“Fine Gael is still receiving contributions from the developers, still rezoning, and still has not woken up to the new reality. They still believe that this sort of mad over-zoning stimulates the economy. Well, it doesn't. It is disgraceful and it is time that Enda took these guys to task and told them that enough is enough.”

It is a pity that this new legislation wasn't brought in years ago. How long more do we have to wait before it goes through the red tape?

kmurr04

Even if it doesn't go through, the soil directive will take care of that

zootroid

bmaxi wrote: »

Why didn't they have brilliant ideas like these before agreeing the programme for government?
"What's that you say"?, "they did, they just reneged on them all".

Fortunately actions speak louder than words. I'll never take Gormley seriously again.

The Raven.

kmurr04 wrote: »

Even if it doesn't go through, the soil directive will take care of that

Thanks for that. I am reading through it now. It is of great interest to those of us who are fighting against unprecedented, large-scale, monstrous Planning Applications, and the subsequent destruction of our environment and our quality of life.

Kingdom

martingore wrote: »

Im looking forward to their decimation at the next election .

I'm not. Actually the thought is quite sickening, because it's one less credible alternative to the "big boys" who appear to have no credibility themselves. And they'll only have themselves to blame, just like the PD's.

Politics in this country is a shambles.

IrishTonyO

Another Green councillor has resigned from the party. At this stage I know of more ex Green Party members than current members.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0328/greens.html

maggy_thatcher

martingore wrote: »

Im looking forward to their decimation at the next election .

<pedant>
Decimation would only mean they'd lose 0.6 seats (rounded off to the nearest whole number would mean just one seat). I assume you meant annihilated, which would be much more popular
</pedant>

opinion guy

Earlier the Convention passed a motion calling on Iarnród Éireann to market Ireland's rural rail network.

ARGHGHG. Does my head in when state bodies with a monopoly waste money on advertising

yoshytoshy

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Another Green councillor has resigned from the party. At this stage I know of more ex Green Party members than current members.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0328/greens.html

It's getting beyond a joke know ,gormley is coming across more and more like the Joker ,every day.
He should be wearing a jacket with dollar signs printed all over it.

Darsad

Biggins wrote: »

You, me and 95% of the country.

Not too sure what the actual electorate of Ireland is but given the recent poll with an electorate of say 2million this would mean that there is still 100,000 people that would vote for these morons this i find astonishing.

opinion guy

Darsad wrote: »

Not too sure what the actual electorate of Ireland is but given the recent poll with an electorate of say 2million this would mean that there is still 100,000 people that would vote for these morons this i find astonishing.

Wait a minute thou. Why are people scapegoating them? Those very same 100,000 thousand people would still vote for Fianna Fail. Much like the PD's were wiped out but FF got back in. Fact is - they have gotten some concessions out of FF -Christ only knows what FF would be up to if the Greens weren't there. And frankly I don't think Fine Gael are any credible alternative.

What I do have a problem with is Healthcare. Clearly the greens have no input on that and I really don't think I can forgive them for letting FF-PD policy reign.

ART6

Possibly off-topic, but I read a letter in a UK Sunday paper today where it was suggested that at the next election the UK may end up with a hung parliament. The writer suggested that might be a good thing if taken literally:D

Biggins

Darsad wrote: »

Not too sure what the actual electorate of Ireland is but given the recent poll with an electorate of say 2million this would mean that there is still 100,000 people that would vote for these morons this i find astonishing.

Its only to be expected to be honest, besides independent supporters, there will always be those of extended friends and family that will back their own.
...A bit like blind, faithful die-hard FF supporters.

Macha

Darsad wrote: »

Not too sure what the actual electorate of Ireland is but given the recent poll with an electorate of say 2million this would mean that there is still 100,000 people that would vote for these morons this i find astonishing.

Why? They are the only party with decent environmental policies.

Liam Byrne

taconnol wrote: »

Why? They are the only party with decent environmental policies.

Many of which are unworkable and/or incur a substantial cost to people who can't afford to do much more than survive nowadays.

Example : new cars have less emissions, but taxing the crap out of people who have no choice but to use their current car (due to lack of public transport and the current recession) is going to mean that it will be LONGER before they can afford to upgrade.

Provide the choices FIRST; THEN it's fair to tax people for not using them.

flutered

in an effort to reduce energy costs the greens have decided to switch off the light at the end of the tunnell

The Raven.

taconnol wrote: »

Why? They are the only party with decent environmental policies.

I absolutely agree. I know they are responsible for propping up the Fianna Fail government etc. but we definitely need them for environmental issues. No other party gives a damn about heritage and the environment.

We need them for things like this:

Gormley to launch probes into planning complaints

INVESTIGATIONS will be launched into planning matters in up to six local authorities following what was described as an "alarming and increasing number of complaints" to the Environment Minister.

The Environment Minister cannot intervene in any individual planning cases or decisions, but can launch investigations where a local authority is found to be in breach of planning laws, or where they breach their own local development plan.

At least six independent investigations will be launched at the start of next month but some local authorities might be subject to two investigations on separate grounds.

Local Authorities write lengthy development plans with lofty ideals and then proceed to contravene all these by giving planning permission for totally inappropriate developments. Most people don't care about these things until it is too late.

Macha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Many of which are unworkable and/or incur a substantial cost to people who can't afford to do much more than survive nowadays.

The cost is already being borne, it's just they are externalised to the rest of society so there is no incentive to curb them. The idea that the environment is a "free lunch" is one that is widely believed and has brought us to where we are today. Unfortunately it is not true.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Example : new cars have less emissions, but taxing the crap out of people who have no choice but to use their current car (due to lack of public transport and the current recession) is going to mean that it will be LONGER before they can afford to upgrade..

How are we "taxing the crap" out of people with cars? And there are many, many people who DO have the choice and don't choose public transport. Why shouldn't those people pay for the damage and high costs incurred by their activities? The costs are there - the mistake seems to be the belief that they either:
a) don't exist or
b) should be paid for by all of society.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Provide the choices FIRST; THEN it's fair to tax people for not using them.

This is a nonsense. You mean to not increase taxes on polluting transportation until we have a world-class public transport system? That is not going to happen for a long time. We don't have decades to reduce our carbon emissions.

Eliot Rosewater

taconnol wrote: »

Why? They are the only party with decent environmental policies.

The Green Party policies are often unpragmatic. They are against nuclear power. Among the reasons cited are safety (are the Greens against gas power too?) and that "Nuclear power leads to nuclear weapon". Some of the other reasons cite problems which effect all methods of electric power generation (1 & 6), while a few more aren't even related to nuclear power (2, 4 & 5). The fact that they mentioned Chernobyl just emphasizes the stink of "preconceived position" wafting from the document.

Liam Byrne

taconnol wrote: »

How are we "taxing the crap" out of people with cars?

Er......VAT, VRT, additional VAT on the VRT, Road Tax, 60% of petrol costs, new annual NCT, VAT on the parts that the NCT tells you you have to replace (even the new sections that have nothing to do with safety)..........

taconnol wrote: »

And there are many, many people who DO have the choice and don't choose public transport.

The costs are there - the mistake seems to be the belief that they either:

b) should be paid for by all of society.

You do realise that there is an inherent double-standard in saying the above ?

You're saying that "everyone shouldn't pay", but you're happy with those who DON'T have the choice paying ?

taconnol wrote: »

You mean to not increase taxes on polluting transportation until we have a world-class public transport system?

Where did I mention "world-class" ? A public transport system would be enough.

My aunt told me just yesterday about a letter that arrived promising a local bus for the area here. The bus route was never implemented, and the letter was 15 years ago!

No choice but to have a car, and that's 3.5 miles from a city centre.

So please don't factor in those people who live on a DART line.

taconnol wrote: »

This is a nonsense. You mean to not increase taxes on polluting transportation until we have a world-class public transport system?

No, it's pointing out that areas that will NEVER have a public transport system (see above) will have to use more-polluting cars for longer because people won't be able to afford them due to paying additional taxes on same cars.

Surely you can see that that is counter-productive enough to qualify as "ridiculous" ?

Also, years ago my dad had to fork out the expense of installing a septic tank and annually pay the cost of emptying it, because there was no sewerage system; likewise, the local area created its own water scheme, paying out of their own pockets.

Now, despite having already forked out to provide the road with the above services, we are going to be charged and taxed for having them.

Ridiculous, unethical and unfair.

Macha

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The Green Party policies are often unpragmatic.

Show me a political party that doesn't have some unpragmatic policies. Please.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

They are against nuclear power. Among the reasons cited are safety (are the Greens against gas power too?)

Do you understand the difference between the explosion of a nuclear power plant vs a gas plant?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

and that "Nuclear power leads to nuclear weapon". Some of the other reasons cite problems which effect all methods of electric power generation (1 & 6), while a few more aren't even related to nuclear power (2, 4 & 5). The fact that they mentioned Chernobyl just emphasizes the stink of "preconceived position" wafting from the document.

No 1 is about cost and does not affect all methods of electric power generation so that is false

No 6 does not affect all methods of generation, so again that is false.

No 2 is very relevant because nuclear is not compatible with variable energy sources like wind, etc. It would be incredibly stupid of anyone to jointly pursue a policy of high levels of integration of renewables into a grid and nuclear, in a grid as small as ours. It doesn't make sense from a grid perspective and anyone with an understanding of basic energy generation would know that.

No 4 is very relevant because a stablising or reduction of future demand will impact on any plans to build a nuclear station, which has a lead-in time of about 10 years, is an incredibly expensive piece of infrastructure that once built, we will have locked ourselves into that course of action.

No 5 is of course relevant because energy is not just electricity but also transport, heating and cooling. These are significant sectors of energy usage and emissions and nuclear does nothing to assist with reducing either usage or emissions in these areas.

ons of nuclear, you're more than welcome to do so in the Sustainability Forum.

FYI, position of other parties on nuclear power:

Labour - against
SF - against
FF - against (White Paper of 2007 reiterated strong opposition)
FG - cannot find a policy on their website about it!

So, according to your logic, none of the main political parties are pragmatic.

Macha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

VAT, VRT, additional VAT on the VRT, Road Tax, 60% of petrol costs, new annual NCT....

Sorry, did none of these exist prior to 2007?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You do realise that there is an inherent double-standard in saying the above ?

You're saying that "everyone shouldn't pay", but you're happy with those who DON'T have the choice paying ?

There will always be those who for whatever reason may not have a choice, that doesn't mean that they should not pay for the costs they are generating. You seem to want to ignore the fact that there are costs involved - a common theme.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Where did I mention "world-class" ? A public transport system would be enough.

We have one - it isn't amazing but I'm wondering what you expect to be implemented before environmental taxes are considered. I'm also wondering how you expect all this wonderful infrastructure to be paid for.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No choice but to have a car, and that's 3.5 miles from a city centre.

Where is "here"?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So please don't factor in those people who live on a DART line.

You know how we got here? DO you understand how we got to such low densities? Do you remember who was in power when all this rezoning was going on? Do you remember who voted them in? And do you remember who was saying it was all going to end in tears?

As Gormley said last night, Labour Councillors acted with restraint for the most part but FG and FF Councillors were a disgrace. But they were voted in again and again. At what point in a democracy does it start being the fault of the people who voted?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, it's pointing out that areas that will NEVER have a public transport system (see above) will have to use more-polluting cars for longer because people won't be able to afford them due to paying additional taxes on same cars.

Again, again again you ignore the fact that there are costs. WHO is going to pay?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Surely you can see that that is counter-productive enough to qualify as "ridiculous" ?

No, I do not agree with your point of view at all.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Also, years ago my dad had to fork out the expense of installing a septic tank and annually pay the cost of emptying it, because there was no sewerage system; likewise, the local area created its own water scheme, paying out of their own pockets.??

I suppose this is the fault of the Green Party as well. Now this is ridiculous. Where was he living? Wow - paying for services that he used like waste and water - what a crazy, crazy idea..

Liam Byrne

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry, did none of these exist prior to 2007?

The tax take on petrol certainly didn't. It's gone up due to the rise in the core price, and an additional 15 cent (I think) on top of that....

If it's related to the amount of pollution, it should be a set amount per litre; surely a litre of petrol pollutes the same amount whether oil is €50 or €100 a barrel ?

And in addition, there's no denying that the road tax certainly did go up significantly.

taconnol wrote: »

No, I do not agree with your point of view at all.

Let me get this straight - you don't agree that it is counter-productive to ensure that no-one has enough cash to afford a new, greener car ?

taconnol wrote: »

Wow - paying for services that he used like waste and water - what a crazy, crazy idea..

Did you completely miss the point ?

The issue is paying TWICE for the services. Paying for the implementation, and now paying the Government for using them.

Traumadoc

Many people were impressed when the saw Gormley state the "bleeding obvious" in his "planet bertie" address. I voted for Gormley in the election because of this. Then he looses all integrity by going into government with ahern, then a year later sheds a tear for ahern when he resigns. He goes on to suggest that ahern could be a good mayor for Dublin.

The greens have lost all credibility they will reap what they have sown, the party will go the way of the PDs.

Good riddance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqkoz7hmc1s

Macha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The tax take on petrol certainly didn't. It's gone up due to the rise in the core price, and an additional 15 cent (I think) on top of that....

Oil is at approximately 80USD/bbl

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If it's related to the amount of pollution, it should be a set amount per litre; surely a litre of petrol pollutes the same amount whether oil is €50 or €100 a barrel ?

Yes, but the logic behind the tax is three-fold:
1) Market signal to consumers to switch to more environmentally-friendly alternatives (I accept your argument that for many there are no/poor alternatives today. This is also a market signal to the private sector to create those alternatives (though of course with something like public transport, the government is a major player)
2) Polluter pays principle - that the person polluting and creating that cost should pay for it, not society at large.
3) Collecting of money to help fund fund those alternatives and pay for the costs incurred by that activity.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And in addition, there's no denying that the road tax certainly did go up significantly.

It isn't Road Tax, it's Motor Tax. Secondly, the Motor Tax system was changed and rates were lowered for some bands and raised for others. At the lowest end of the scale, a car is only charged €172/year. For cars registered after 1 July 208, the lowest rate is €104/year. So it is not accurate to say that Motor Tax went up because it is more complicated than that.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Let me get this straight - you don't agree that it is counter-productive to ensure that no-one has enough cash to afford a new, greener car ?

Exaggeration seems to be the game here. I said nothing about "no one" being able to afford a greener car. From an environmental point of view, a more efficient car should only be bought once the old car is no longer road-worthy. The embodied energy in manufacturing that car (not to mention dealing with the waste created by scrapping the old car) far outweighs the differences in emissions and other pollutants between the two cars.

This fixation with car-based transport is what has to change. Even if all our cars were electric, it is still silly to have such a high dependency on cars and to build our transport systems and design our cities around the car.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The issue is paying TWICE for the services. Paying for the implementation, and now paying the Government for using them.

What are the circumstances around your father having to build a septic tank? Was he building a one-off house? In what area of which county? Was he aware of this before he started building? I have the same questions with the water scheme.

Macha

Traumadoc wrote: »

Many people were impressed when the saw Gormley state the "bleeding obvious" in his "planet bertie" address. I voted for Gormley in the election because of this. Then he looses all integrity by going into government with ahern, then a year later sheds a tear for ahern when he resigns. He goes on to suggest that ahern could be a good mayor for Dublin.

The greens have lost all credibility they will reap what they have sown, the party will go the way of the PDs.

Yes and until Irish voters stop punishing smaller parties for going into power with the larger parties, FF and FG will continue to dominate. And the smaller parties will continue to have to compromise and go into power with them.

Labour experienced exactly the same backlash in the 1990s after going into power with FG. What short, short memories Irish voters seem to have.

As for going into power with FF, Labour would have done the same if it had worked out. I don't understand why people don't get this.

Oh and the PDs ceased to exist because FF adopted all their policies. I would love for this to happen to the Green Party. But, as I stated before, they are the only political party in Ireland to have decent environmental policies.

IrishTonyO

taconnol wrote: »

Yes and until Irish voters stop punishing smaller parties for going into power with the larger parties, FF and FG will continue to dominate. And the smaller parties will continue to have to compromise and go into power with them.

Labour experienced exactly the same backlash in the 1990s after going into power with FG. What short, short memories Irish voters seem to have.

As for going into power with FF, Labour would have done the same if it had worked out. I don't understand why people don't get this.

Oh and the PDs ceased to exist because FF adopted all their policies. I would love for this to happen to the Green Party. But, as I stated before, they are the only political party in Ireland to have decent environmental policies.

So what did you think of the secret deal to replace ministers. Even though they said it was a policy they didn't bother telling most of their members, councillors etc, or the voting public that this was a policy of theirs. Wonder what other secret policies they have, that they haven't bothered telling us about.

Liam Byrne

taconnol wrote: »

It isn't Road Tax, it's Motor Tax. Secondly, the Motor Tax system was changed and rates were lowered for some bands and raised for others. At the lowest end of the scale, a car is only charged €172/year. For cars registered after 1 July 208, the lowest rate is €104/year. So it is not accurate to say that Motor Tax went up because it is more complicated than that.

As I said.....if you can afford a newer car, you can benefit from that "choice".

However that choice is unavailable to loads of people, and is less available if they are paying more tax in the meantime.

taconnol wrote: »

Exaggeration seems to be the game here. I said nothing about "no one" being able to afford a greener car.

I'm the one who said that......basically, people paid for their cars and the VRT and whatever else, and are now being punished for not being able to afford the newer, greener car.

taconnol wrote: »

This fixation with car-based transport is what has to change.

As I pointed out, the bus service promised to this area never materialised. How do you imagine that a "necessity" is a mere "fixation" ?

taconnol wrote: »

What are the circumstances around your father having to build a septic tank? Was he building a one-off house? In what area of which county? Was he aware of this before he started building? I have the same questions with the water scheme.

1960s. Lots of houses on the same road. And it's unlikely that it's all that unique, as I would guess that even houses built on this road today need their own septic tank. I'm surprised that you're asking so much about something that would be pretty common in Ireland, but I (no slight intended) think this is a common problem with The Greens; people don't all live in the real world in non inner-city redevelopments, and since this seems to be hard for the Greens to get their heads around, they don't comprehend that houses that people paid good money for are the norm - and I'm not talking about the much-maligned "one-off housing" in the middle of nowhere that they complain about and use as the benchmark (as you yourself did above).

Macha

IrishTonyO wrote: »

So what did you think of the secret deal to replace ministers. Even though they said it was a policy they didn't bother telling most of their members, councillors etc, or the voting public that this was a policy of theirs. Wonder what other secret policies they have, that they haven't bothered telling us about.

Yeah I don't know what the story was with that - was it a rumour, or was it really a deal? If it was, it was just stupid. A party is supposed to choose it's leader because of their leadership qualities, vision, whatever, not because they've waited long enough. It isn't pass the parcel!

In short, it was stupid.

Liam Byrne

taconnol wrote: »

Yes and until Irish voters stop punishing smaller parties for going into power with the larger parties,

They are not punished for this. They are punished for propping up the corrupt FF and voting in objectionable (to most people) ways.

taconnol wrote: »

As for going into power with FF, Labour would have done the same if it had worked out. I don't understand why people don't get this.

How can you state this as fact ? And would Labour have pulled out once the extent of the corruption became apparent, and the ridiculous bank guarantee was rushed in ?

Speaking personally, I voted for a Green candidate, but never again.....and the "reasons" are nothing to do with what you suggest. The reasons are their support of the sickening NAMA, the adverse impact they are having on my way of life (despite me being concientious ) and the fact that they reneged on 2 of the 3 promises before the election.

taconnol wrote: »

But, as I stated before, they are the only political party in Ireland to have decent environmental policies.

We disagree on this. They have the correct mindset but are imposing unfair policies and charges, and therefore - IMHO - their policies are not decent.

IrishTonyO

taconnol did you see Cuffe on Vincent Browne the other night? he admitted about the secret deal, but I have never seen any politician so out of his depth in that interview. In case you missed it you can get it here, definitely worth watching

http://www.tv3.ie/shows.php?request=tonightwithvincentbrowne

Traumadoc

taconnol wrote: »

Yes and until Irish voters stop punishing smaller parties for going into power with the larger parties, FF and FG will continue to dominate. And the smaller parties will continue to have to compromise and go into power with them.

Labour experienced exactly the same backlash in the 1990s after going into power with FG. What short, short memories Irish voters seem to have.

As for going into power with FF, Labour would have done the same if it had worked out. I don't understand why people don't get this.

Oh and the PDs ceased to exist because FF adopted all their policies. I would love for this to happen to the Green Party. But, as I stated before, they are the only political party in Ireland to have decent environmental policies.

If small Irish parties showed some integrity, like when Harney stopped the Bertie Bowl madness. Then Mc dowell said that he could not see anything wrong with Berties tribunal evidence ( "I won it on a horse race") he lost all integrity. He lost all credibility as he had claimed he would be FFs watchdog.


Greens too have lost all integrity. They are finished.

BTW talking of short memories it was FF not FG that labour went into government with. :rolleyes:

Macha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As I said.....if you can afford a newer car, you can benefit from that "choice".

However that choice is unavailable to loads of people, and is less available if they are paying more tax in the meantime.

Ugh this does not make sense at all - the old rates are based on cc and the new rates are based on CO2. It's apples and oranges. And as I said, you are simplifying what is a tax with several bands within it.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm the one who said that......basically, people paid for their cars and the VRT and whatever else, and are now being punished for not being able to afford the newer, greener car.

Sorry but greener cars have to be incentivised - I can't believe you're actually arguing against that. You seem to have zero long-term view of this problem.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As I pointed out, the bus service promised to this area never materialised. How do you imagine that a "necessity" is a mere "fixation" ?

Which area? Your comment doesn't actually make sense. I'm talking about our national policy of prioritizing cars and in turn car-based development, resulting in your aunt's situation. That's the fixation I'm referring to. I appreciate that you're saying driving is a necessity for her.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

1960s. Lots of houses on the same road. And it's unlikely that it's all that unique, as I would guess that even houses built on this road today need their own septic tank. I'm surprised that you're asking so much about something that would be pretty common in Ireland, but I (no slight intended) think this is a common problem with The Greens; people don't all live in the real world in non inner-city redevelopments, and since this seems to be hard for the Greens to get their heads around, they don't comprehend that houses that people paid good money for are the norm - and I'm not talking about the much-maligned "one-off housing" in the middle of nowhere that they complain about and use as the benchmark (as you yourself did above).

Your comment is completely unfair. You gave little details of your father's house, except that he had to put in the services himself. It was not that much of a leap to ask if it was a one-off house. I ask for more detail and you show that it was not. But because I don't guess this, suddenly I, and many Greens are guilty of "not living in the real world"? That is an extremely unfair comment to make. I am not a mind-reader.

And I'm afraid urban houses that have septic tanks are not very common these days. Census 2006 data shows that there are over 400,000 septic tanks in Ireland and the vast majority are outside urban areas. These tanks are not checked or regulated in any way and as a result, the ECJ has found that Ireland has failed to make adequate legislation for dealing with domestic waste-water from septic tanks. The results of this can be seen in the EPA national water research results - 60% of our ground water is contaminated with coliforms.

maggy_thatcher

Traumadoc wrote: »

BTW talking of short memories it was FF not FG that labour went into government with. :rolleyes:

What about the Rainbow Coalition (FG, Labour and Democratic Left) back in the late '90s? If I recall, that was the last time that Labour/FG were in government...

Macha

Traumadoc wrote: »

IGreens too have lost all integrity. They are finished.

What do you mean by integrity? Pulling out of government at the drop of a hat? At the first calling for a political plate on a head? You think a general election every 2-3 years is what this country needs? Ridiculous.

Liam Byrne

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but greener cars have to be incentivised - I can't believe you're actually arguing against that. You seem to have zero long-term view of this problem.

I do have a long-term view. And - personally - I don't need to be "incentivised" into doing the right thing.

My point is that by taxing people more, you're delaying what you are supposedly trying to achieve.

taconnol wrote: »

Your comment is completely unfair. You gave little details of your father's house, except that he had to put in the services himself. It was not that much of a leap to ask if it was a one-off house. I ask for more detail and you show that it was not. But because I don't guess this, suddenly I, and many Greens are guilty of "not living in the real world"? That is an extremely unfair comment to make. I am not a mind-reader.

I appreciate that, but it is the standard Green reply to suggest the "one-off", which is precisely what you did.

taconnol wrote: »

And I'm afraid urban houses that have septic tanks are not very common these days.

I did not mention urban. It is an area that is 3.5 miles from the dead centre of the city, but it is not - thankfully - "urban".

But this is irrelevant. The fact is that the Greens are responsible for a charge for using something that was already paid for, and whose maintenance is also paid for. By all means impose a fine if it is polluting, and cover the cost of the inspections from the fines.

But stop charging law-abiding people on the double.

Anyway, we're going off-topic into Green policies, and the thread is about the conference.