The Green Party, disaster or just bad timing

gent9662

The greens have been in power now for while, what are peoples opinion on their general political ability? Have they proven themselves or have they helped to ruin the country with their green policies?

I am very interested in what people think. My personal opinion is that they are coming into government at a time when issues other than green are more important right now.

Thoughts?

Head The Wall

Most people seem to give out saying that they have diluted their policies, are in bed with the govt and are sellouts etc.

The reality is they are only a small minority of the govt and are only ever going to get free reign to do certain things. They also have to stay in government to get as much of their own agenda through and shock horror this involves voting with the govt at times, often voting against what they believe in.

Personally I think they have noble ideals but they are only manifested as revenue collecting due to their bargaining position with FF

gbee

The best description of the greens, which they have proven with the implementation of the carbon tax on a recession economy is this:

THE GREENS WOULD CURE A COLD BY CUTTING OFF YOUR HEAD!

This is not my saying but is seemingly very apt.

Macha

gbee wrote: »

The best description of the greens, which they have proven with the implementation of the carbon tax on a recession economy is this:

THE GREENS WOULD CURE A COLD BY CUTTING OFF YOUR HEAD!

This is not my saying but is seemingly very apt.

Given the yawning public deficit, I don't think that government attempts to raise revenue are misguided. Moreover a shift away from the currently pro-cyclical tax base is definitely desirable, if not entirely necessary.

Jaysoose

Do the greens have an agenda anymore? bunch of hypocrites clinging to power by kissing ff hole.

Liam Byrne

Looking at it as objectively as I can....

1) Sold out key promises to gain power
2) Agreed to NAMA and Anglo bailouts
3) Voted confidence in people like O'Dea
4) Attempting to impose unsustainable and ill-thought out taxes on people in a recession, only imposing the "polluter pays" when it suits them, and blatantly ignoring it at other times
5) No concept of people who are not living in the middle of a city and who don't want to due to family ties and commitments and the whole family support available; this - apparently - is a "lifestyle choice"
6) No objections to the "lifestyle choices" that see ministerial cars crossing the country while the minister involved takes a helicopter on the same route, thereby offering more unnecessary pollution in a single trip than I will over my entire life!

Bad timing ? Definitely
Some good done by them
But authors of their own forthcoming downfall, and the good done nowhere near balances the damage they are doing both directly and by propping up the objectionable

They - mistakenly in hindsight - got a vote from me last time. Never again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

scr123

Second to FF the Greens are my heroes. The sacrifices they have made for the sake of the country have been immense. Of course they did achieve the implementation of some core polices and full credit to them. I believe in next GE FF should where possible manage the voting and encourage FF voters to transfer to Greens.

flutered

obliberation would be the best thing to happen to them for us normal people, they are so out of touch with reality they seem to exist some where between pluto and mars.

gbee

flutered wrote: »

obliberation would be the best thing to happen to them for us normal people, they are so out of touch with reality they seem to exist some where between pluto and mars.

Absolutely, an to take one as an example, Dan Boyle who lost his seat last election and was appointed to the Senate by Pluto Ahern ~ has his clinic on the Peoplesrepublicofcork forums ~ OH and he makes policy decisions on his twitter pages.

fontanalis

Eamonn Ryan seems very clued in and lucid, his constant talking about the light bulbs just as the economy was on the rim of the toilet proved how much more in touch he is with reality.

Liam Byrne

fontanalis wrote: »

Eamonn Ryan seems very clued in and lucid, his constant talking about the light bulbs just as the economy was on the rim of the toilet proved how much more in touch he is with reality.

But - just like his water charges - he and his party are doing their damndest do make sure that the sh*t doesn't get flushed away.

Tora Bora

fontanalis wrote: »

Eamonn Ryan seems very clued in and lucid, his constant talking about the light bulbs just as the economy was on the rim of the toilet proved how much more in touch he is with reality.

Next minister, for rugby:)

Eliot Rosewater

In fairness, I can see the justification for the Greens staying in power with Fianna Fail to forward their environmental agenda.

What I can not justify is how a party that prides itself on its democratic principles voted against a motion to have by-elections in three Dáil constituencies.

Head The Wall

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In fairness, I can see the justification for the Greens staying in power with Fianna Fail to forward their environmental agenda.

What I can not justify is how a party that prides itself on its democratic principles voted against a motion to have by-elections in three Dáil constituencies.

Would you vote yourself out of a job though? Not many people with those kind of morals, politicians definitely don't fit in that category

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In fairness, I can see the justification for the Greens staying in power with Fianna Fail to forward their environmental agenda.

What I can not justify is how a party that prides itself on its democratic principles voted against a motion to have by-elections in three Dáil constituencies.

Unfortunately, that's what coalition government entails - you vote for what the bigger party wants unless (a) you can persuade them out of, or (b) you're prepared to rupture the coalition. The bigger party may not always need the votes of the smaller party, but the smaller party always needs the votes of the bigger party.

That sort of compromise is invariably the price of coalition, and there is always a section of the electorate that views any such compromise as a sellout. In this particular case there is also the issue that ABFF voters are unlikely to forgive the Greens going into coalition with Fianna Fáil in particular.

On the OP issue, I think the Greens have done pretty well - nearly all of the issues raised here have been political requirements of their coalition, and the other set of issues that come up regularly tend to be the result of the Green Party actually implementing party policy. Certainly it was unfortunate that they went into coalition just as the economy tanked - the high water mark now being placed somewhere around the early part of 2007 - but it's bizarre to watch people blame the Greens for the recession, or for failing to implement their more costly policies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

edellc

I've voted greens my whole life, when they eventually where given the opportunity to get into bed with FF and Trevor Sargent refused to lead the party into doing this it spoke volumes.....John Gormley on the other hand wanted to keep up with the jones in his D4 constabulary and made himself really comfortable under the duvet

With the announcement today regarding the reports published about the banks and the call for a vote of no confidence by the opposition parties in the govt...it was sickening to watch the news and see the cockyness of those in power so sure that the greens, independents and FF which make up the govt that on tuesday there will be a vote of confidence in our fabulous leader Biffo :eek:

I for one have no confidence in the green party anymore and will not be voting for them anytime soon again :mad:

I find the arrogance and condescending nature in which our government behaves insulting to our nation as a whole and hope that at the next available opportunity the Irish people grow a back bone and do what they failed to do at the last election

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, that's what coalition government entails - you vote for what the bigger party wants unless (a) you can persuade them out of, or (b) you're prepared to rupture the coalition. The bigger party may not always need the votes of the smaller party, but the smaller party always needs the votes of the bigger party.

That sort of compromise is invariably the price of coalition, and there is always a section of the electorate that views any such compromise as a sellout.

cordially,
Scofflaw

How many more "sell-outs" will the Greens endure?

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

How many more "sell-outs" will the Greens endure?

That depends - it's a balancing act between the political damage done by such compromises and the extent to which the Greens can promote their legislative agenda.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

.....but it's bizarre to watch people blame the Greens for the recession, or for failing to implement their more costly policies.

To be honest, I don't think anyone is ?

I think they're criticising them for adding to it by going in with FF (having promised not to) and for putting their smaller policies ahead of transparency, ethics and fairness (as you said yourself, the larger / more expensive policies aren't getting through).

That's an awfully large price to pay for small gains, particularly when they'll be annihilated as a result come the next election.

If they stood up and pulled the plug (maybe not now, but earlier) then some neutral voters like myself might considered them again......although I will say that septic tank taxes, water taxes and pushing up the price of petrol might prevent me from actually giving them a vote....so maybe - in hindsight - scratch that.....no, they weren't gonna get my vote next time, regardless of whether they suddenly developed a conscience and sense of ethics.

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, that's what coalition government entails...

I fully accept your point. I just think that the issue of the by-elections is a special issue, firstly, because the Greens seem to have a lot of pride in their democratic principles, and secondly because a vote on the by-elections isn't a policy vote in the same way that, say, NAMA is.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

To be honest, I don't think anyone is ?

It's a regular activity - almost an industry.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I think they're criticising them for adding to it by going in with FF (having promised not to) and for putting their smaller policies ahead of transparency, ethics and fairness (as you said yourself, the larger / more expensive policies aren't getting through).

No small party in Irish politics can realistically opt out of considering Fianna Fáil as a coalition partner, so my view of that tends to be that they were very stupid to say it. As a very junior coalition partner they weren't ever going to be allowed to reform the Irish political system, either - and in a Fine Gael led coalition they would similarly have been restricted to those reforms of interest to Fine Gael/Labour.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's an awfully large price to pay for small gains, particularly when they'll be annihilated as a result come the next election.

It's more than they achieved during their entire time in opposition.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If they stood up and pulled the plug (maybe not now, but earlier) then some neutral voters like myself might considered them again......although I will say that septic tank taxes, water taxes and pushing up the price of petrol might prevent me from actually giving them a vote....so maybe - in hindsight - scratch that.....no, they weren't gonna get my vote next time, regardless of whether they suddenly developed a conscience and sense of ethics.

Indeed, Liam, they were never at risk of getting your vote, as they've never been at risk of getting the votes of 95% of the electorate. They're a minority party, because there's only a small number of people who assign a high priority to environmental issues on an ongoing basis. Ireland is an environmentally unconscious country to a large, but not surprising, extent.

Either way, they couldn't have "pulled the plug" at any earlier time, because they weren't required to make up a majority until quite recently.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's more than they achieved during their entire time in opposition.

Fair point, I guess.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed, Liam, they were never at risk of getting your vote, as they've never been at risk of getting the votes of 95% of the electorate. They're a minority party, because there's only a small number of people who assign a high priority to environmental issues on an ongoing basis. Ireland is an environmentally unconscious country to a large, but not surprising, extent.

I take offence to this, to be honest.

Firstly, I did give them a vote.

Secondly, I do assign a high priority to environmental issues; where I differ from the Greens is that I believe 100% in the "polluter pays" principle, and I don't agree with arbitrarily hitting non-polluters with extra taxes.

There's an old phrase "if you build it, they will come", and providing alternatives at a feasible rate will encourage people to use them.

Example : there will be feck-all construction in Ireland now, and the boom is over, but instead of implementing building regulations that include the use of rainwater, the Greens are taxing water now when people have no choice and haven't the funds to retrofit.

Increasing ESB prices in order to allow other companies to undercut them hit everyone in this country, and made companies uncompetitive.

And I won't rehash the discussion that we had re septic tank owners, where the "polluter pays" principle was abandoned, with responsible people who look after their tanks still being taxed.

The same applies to those who have minimal-polluting cars......an annual test, paid for by the owner, in order to confirm that, instead of a test paid for as part of the road tax and fines for people who are polluting.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Either way, they couldn't have "pulled the plug" at any earlier time, because they weren't required to make up a majority until quite recently.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. They could have "pulled the plug" at any time; regardless of whether it still left FF + Ind with a majority, at least they would have been seen as ethical.

The "FF would still have scraped through" is irrelevant; we're talking about the Greens here, and if they were seen to object to corruption they would have been far more acceptable.

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I fully accept your point. I just think that the issue of the by-elections is a special issue, firstly, because the Greens seem to have a lot of pride in their democratic principles, and secondly because a vote on the by-elections isn't a policy vote in the same way that, say, NAMA is.

Sure - unfortunately, supporting the government also means supporting moves that are politics rather than policy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thebman

taconnol wrote: »

Given the yawning public deficit, I don't think that government attempts to raise revenue are misguided. Moreover a shift away from the currently pro-cyclical tax base is definitely desirable, if not entirely necessary.

Given the problem is businesses can't afford to stay in business because of the cost of doing here, I would say the best place to start would be for the government to cut its cloth to measure and not try to close more businesses by introducing new ways to get their money in the current climate.

I don't have a problem with green taxes but they need to cut the flat taxes as a result and need to cut the quangos and improve efficiency in the way public services are delivered to reduce costs and make the people whose positions are redundant as a result redundant since they are surplus to requirements.

Then cut social welfare and reform it so its more fair to those that pay in and are recently unemployed and punish the long term unemployed with penalties.

Then we can talk about increased taxes. Increasing taxes and saying we will do the rest later is going about things all backwards IMO. They won't cut the deficeit by increasing taxes as its simply too large and the cuts so far haven't been anywhere near large enough to fix the problem.

Most of this isn't the Green parties fault directly but they must share some of the responsibility as they are propping up their coalition partners who have shown that they steered us into this crisis and are showing they don't have the will to get us out.

The Green party should collapse the government, propping up this government is killing the parties long term future IMO.

Macha

thebman wrote: »

Given the problem is businesses can't afford to stay in business because of the cost of doing here, I would say the best place to start would be for the government to cut its cloth to measure and not try to close more businesses by introducing new ways to get their money in the current climate.

I wouldn't agree that the problem can be entirely encapsulated as the cost of business here. And I wouldn't agree that a carbon tax equates "trying to close more businesses". In fact, a carbon tax might penalise a carbon-intensive company but it will effectively reward a company that is, or makes attempts to become, a less carbon-intensive organisation. As the Stern Report clearly demonstrated, the cost of in-action for short-term gain far outweighs abatement costs - many of which actually save significant amounts of money as efficiency measures are implemented.

With regard to cutting spending instead of raising taxes, there is a danger in cutting government spending too much, ie a double dip recession.

thebman wrote: »

I don't have a problem with green taxes but they need to cut the flat taxes as a result and need to cut the quangos and improve efficiency in the way public services are delivered to reduce costs and make the people whose positions are redundant as a result redundant since they are surplus to requirements.

Of course all these things need to be done but these take a lot of time and in view of the ongoing industrial action, I think a lot longer than most people think. These are not short-term measures and so waiting for these to be completed before considering social welfare payments or new sources of income is not a good idea.

thebman wrote: »

They won't cut the deficeit by increasing taxes as its simply too large and the cuts so far haven't been anywhere near large enough to fix the problem.

Of course they won't cut the deficit by only increasing taxes. But that doesn't mean that new sources of revenue must be found at the same time as finding significant savings in expenditure on health, education and other public services.

Personally, I think that in addition to environmental taxes, there should be a property tax and raised levels of personal income tax - we are still completely out of line with the rest of the OECD on the last one.

thebman wrote: »

Most of this isn't the Green parties fault directly but they must share some of the responsibility as they are propping up their coalition partners who have shown that they steered us into this crisis and are showing they don't have the will to get us out.

I actually don't think they're doing too bad a job. The Honohan report clearly demonstrated that aside from questions over the breadth of the banking guarantee, the decision by the government in October 2008 was the right one. The IMF is here alright but they have been praising government efforts, including NAMA. I just don't think people can get their heads around the idea that the people that got us into this can get us out.

thebman wrote: »

The Green party should collapse the government, propping up this government is killing the parties long term future IMO.

I think a general election is the last thing we need right now. Do you think Labour coalition will implement the sort of tax cuts you recommend?

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I take offence to this, to be honest.

Firstly, I did give them a vote.

I'm wrong there, then, and I apologise.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Secondly, I do assign a high priority to environmental issues; where I differ from the Greens is that I believe 100% in the "polluter pays" principle, and I don't agree with arbitrarily hitting non-polluters with extra taxes.

There's an old phrase "if you build it, they will come", and providing alternatives at a feasible rate will encourage people to use them.

Example : there will be feck-all construction in Ireland now, and the boom is over, but instead of implementing building regulations that include the use of rainwater, the Greens are taxing water now when people have no choice and haven't the funds to retrofit.

Again, though, that's not the Greens - the Water Framework Directive entered into force in 2000, and was transposed into domestic legislation in 2003 (see here). The timetable included 2010 as the date set for introducing pricing policies, so the current Minister is implementing something set in motion a decade ago.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Increasing ESB prices in order to allow other companies to undercut them hit everyone in this country, and made companies uncompetitive.

True, although again that policy was already in place.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And I won't rehash the discussion that we had re septic tank owners, where the "polluter pays" principle was abandoned, with responsible people who look after their tanks still being taxed.

The same applies to those who have minimal-polluting cars......an annual test, paid for by the owner, in order to confirm that, instead of a test paid for as part of the road tax and fines for people who are polluting.

As you say, let's not rehash the discussion - I seem to recall we disagree.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by this. They could have "pulled the plug" at any time; regardless of whether it still left FF + Ind with a majority, at least they would have been seen as ethical.

The "FF would still have scraped through" is irrelevant; we're talking about the Greens here, and if they were seen to object to corruption they would have been far more acceptable.

Ah - I wondered if that was what you meant - walking out simply in order not to be in government with Fianna Fáil. I would have found that very disappointing, I admit, since it would simply send them back to the opposition benches to continue achieving nothing bar some moralistic posturing and gadding about with the tinfoil hat people.

There's an assumption that underlies much of these discussions, which is that at the next election there will be a non-Fianna Fáil government coalition which the Greens could have joined instead. I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but exactly the same assumption was made about the 2007 election.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm wrong there, then, and I apologise.

I appreciate that. I did notice, however, that you didn't comment about the presumption that only the Greens' approach was valid in terms of "assign[ing] a high priority to environmental issues on an ongoing basis".

We've discussed before that other people might need to be beaten with a whip to act responsibly, but like I said, that just pisses off those of us who do care, but are overlooked and are being hammered anyway.

If there was a genuine "polluter pays" then I wouldn't feel shafted by the Greens; as it is, I do, because they are imposing extra taxes on me despite me doing my best.

Another example : if I do away with my bin and just use "occasional-use" bags, then I could save about €100 a year; that would do me fine because I reckon it would end up being a bag every 3 weeks.

The problem : the bin company gives 2 recycling bags with every bin collection, but only gives a single recycling bag with a general rubbish bag. Nothing to do with cost; they just won't give out the recycling bags. So my two bags of recycling every three weeks would be a non-runner.

This, however, is a company that is licensed for waste collection since the state decided to privatise this.

Surely the whole aim of being green would be to ensure that most people would have at least a 2:1, if not a 3:1, ratio ?

So I'm already paying at least an extra €100 a year based on that alone.....that's what I get in Ireland for being green.......and short of polluting directly myself by driving to the recycling depot, there is no alternative.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah - I wondered if that was what you meant - walking out simply in order not to be in government with Fianna Fáil

Now, now......that's overly simplistic, and you of all people should know that!

It's nothing to do, per se, with Fianna Fáil.

It's a stance on the Green Party's election partner being unfair and corrupt, and condoning and supporting same.

The fact that it is Fianna Fáil is largely irrelevant, as I would expect no less of them in the event that any other coalition partner was doing anything like FF have been doing.

I might doubt that anyone else would be as brazenly condoning corruption and voting confidence and bailing out banks without any conditions, but if they were then I would expect any coalition partner to walk away from them, too.

peasant

Leaving all the green policies aside - how much they achieved or not, how much sense it made or not - the fact that they continued to sit around the table with arguably the worst governement this country has ever had through revelation after revelation and scandal after scandal, that they have handed the FF machine every single vertrebrae of their backbone on a platter while licking their boots for green concessions ...that has tainted them beyond repair for decades to come.

They are no longer "the Green party", they are just another hue of despicable "politicians".

Chuchoter

The Greens were very disappointing. Before I thought they were one of the only parties with some kind of credibility and then the sum total of their achievements were bicycles, plastic bags, lightbulbs and unbelievably stupid carbon taxes. You can't tax cars unless you vastly improve the public transport, thats not fair.

Macha

crayolastereo wrote: »

The Greens were very disappointing. Before I thought they were one of the only parties with some kind of credibility and then the sum total of their achievements were bicycles, plastic bags, lightbulbs and unbelievably stupid carbon taxes.

That sentence quite conveniently ignores quite a number of changes brought about by the Green Party. It also conveniently forgets that they are a tiny minority party.

crayolastereo wrote: »

You can't tax cars unless you vastly improve the public transport, thats not fair.

Census data repeatedly shows increased reliance on private cars, despite there being no change in commuting distances. People in Ireland choose to drive even when the distances are relatively small and could be travelled by public transport or cycling.

Also, improving public transport is insanely difficult when you have the sort of single-used, low density urban landscape that we do. Nevertheless, improvements have been made.

Liam Byrne

taconnol wrote: »

Also, improving public transport is insanely difficult when you have the sort of single-used, low density urban landscape that we do. Nevertheless, improvements have been made.

I presume that's Green-speak for "homes".

Macha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I presume that's Green-speak for "homes".

No, it's urban-planner speak for a separation of residential and other services (ie retail, hospitals, leisure, etc) and the spreading out of these areas over a very large area of land that results in an over-dependence on the private car as a means of transportation.

You don't have to be a member of the Greens or any other party to acknowledge the issue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's zero public transport in Donegal? Amazing. As it stands, the urban population does a pretty good job of subsidizing life out in places like Donegal. Moreover, the policies are not anti-driving - cars have their place - the policies are to ensure the correct emphasis on driving and other modes of transport, that are currently viewed as afterthoughts.

Why do your posts always have to be so extreme? It's never just that the Green party policy might not be having the desired impact in your opinion, you always have to state that its a total disaster. It really undermines your posts. The changes in VRT and the implementation of a carbon tax simply internalise the costs that were previously externalised. It's really a quite basic economic concept that is accepted pretty much across the mainstream economic spectrum, except of course among libertarians.

donegalfella wrote: »

Let the economy recover, let people get back to work, and then give people incentives to buy lower-emission vehicles. But don't implement anti-commuting, anti-work policies in the middle of a recession. That's senseless.

As if your opinion would have been any different a few years ago when the economy was flying high. The constant obsession with treating the economy and environment as opposite goals and a pendulum swinging between them betrays a complete lack of understanding of both subject matters. Please go and read the Stern report, particularly the sections about the economic impacts of inaction. The human insistence on focusing on short-term gains while in the process of collectively going over a cliff never ceases to amaze me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

With regard to cutting spending instead of raising taxes, there is a danger in cutting government spending too much, ie a double dip recession.

as if there is a choice :rolleyes:

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, I expect them to pay for the costs of their transport, which are currently externalised. Do you want those costs to remain socialised as they are today?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a separate issue. Of course welfare benefits should not discourage someone from seeking work.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I disagree. The Stern report clearly indicates that the costs of acting sooner are smaller than those of acting later. And if we implement these policies now at a time of significant restructuring of the economy, we can ensure that we are more aligned towards a low-carbon economy and all the benefits that it brings. Short-sighted policies, with little or no regard for long-term impacts are exactly what got us into this mess.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's great but no one cared then and so it wasn't done. Therefore it has to be done now. Lesson learned that sooner is better than later? Apparently not.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, you repeatedly portray the only alternative to your happy place of "individual and economic liberty" as the big evil state, takin' the little man's money. I, on the other hand, do not insist that is the only choice but then your idea of a "big, regulatory government" is probably quite different from most people's.

I don't really see what the problem is with simply pricing externalities and internalising them. It is the basic correction of a market failure. The polluter pays - do you want everyone else to instead? Sounds like socialism to me!

Bleh, I'm not going to continue on with this donegalfella. You've tried and failed repeatedly to convince other that the way forward in environmental protection is education and voluntary efforts with no evidence to it up. Just go and talk to any environmental NGO about their efforts in these areas and how silly it would be to try and attempt to combat a global issue like climate change armed with only these tools. It's pie-in-the-sky stuff.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No offence meant at all. Sometimes arguing with you feels like what it's probably like arguing with myself!

Chuchoter

taconnol wrote: »

That sentence quite conveniently ignores quite a number of changes brought about by the Green Party. It also conveniently forgets that they are a tiny minority party.
Census data repeatedly shows increased reliance on private cars, despite there being no change in commuting distances. People in Ireland choose to drive even when the distances are relatively small and could be travelled by public transport or cycling.

Also, improving public transport is insanely difficult when you have the sort of single-used, low density urban landscape that we do. Nevertheless, improvements have been made.

So what else did they achieve? I could quite easily be wrong but none spring to mind other than the ones I mentioned.

Its not insanely difficult. You just do sensible things like link places to train stations, for example if you live in Lucan, it would take like an hour to walk to the Adamstown station, yet instead of putting in a small bus to the station they decided to replicate the 25a into the 25b. Of course there is increased reliance on cars for small distances, because I assume the small distances your talking about are backroads like in Donegal or Kidare which you would be taking your life in your hands to walk or cycle on, and the buses in these areas (well not Donegal) are being cut.