Green policy

Casillas

I remember the last general election when the Green Party made a big deal out of the promise of, a rural transport network and all Ireland broadband coverage. Neither happened.
A) Will it?
When?

If not;
A) Did they just lie because they didn't believe they would be in government?
Incapable due to the realities of power?
C) Stuck in Dublin so they don't care about broadband or transport?

I want to know because they are important amongst our Irish wilderness.

Revolution9

Casillas wrote: »

I remember the last general election when the Green Party made a big deal out of the promise of, a rural transport network and all Ireland broadband coverage.

Honest question, did they promise to deliver or promise to try to deliver?

Corsendonk

Can we get someone to twit to Dan Boyle?

Seth Brundle

<headline>Shock as the greens misled the public</headline>

The greens gave up on almost everything that had believed in as they signed up with Bertie. Whatever promises were made prior to that were thrown out the window!

Macha

They were election promises not part of a programme for government, they are a small party in a coalition and since 2007 we've had a financial crisis with a housing bubble, mass unemployment, falling GDP and a massive public deficit.

A little bit of context wouldn't go astray.

Colonel Sanders

taconnol wrote: »

They were election promises not part of a programme for government, they are a small party in a coalition and since 2007 we've had a financial crisis with a housing bubble, mass unemployment, falling GDP and a massive public deficit.

A little bit of context wouldn't go astray.

OK they said they wouldn't support NAMA without a banking levy to recoup any shortfall being included in the legislation

No levy (apart from some lip service payed) yet they supported NAMA

Scofflaw

Casillas wrote: »

I remember the last general election when the Green Party made a big deal out of the promise of, a rural transport network and all Ireland broadband coverage. Neither happened.
A) Will it?
When?

If not;
A) Did they just lie because they didn't believe they would be in government?
Incapable due to the realities of power?
C) Stuck in Dublin so they don't care about broadband or transport?

I want to know because they are important amongst our Irish wilderness.

The answers appear to be that:

1. they couldn't be negotiated in full with Fianna Fáil to form part of the coalition programme for government (some parts such as the Western Rail Corridor were)

2. there is something of a shortage of money

3. neither of those are programmes that could be delivered overnight, even with the best will in the world and endless quantities of cash.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

OK they said they wouldn't support NAMA without a banking levy to recoup any shortfall being included in the legislation

No levy (apart from some lip service payed) yet they supported NAMA

There is provision for such a levy in the legislation - but actually putting the levy into the legislation defeats a large part of the point of NAMA, since it retains the losses on the banks' balance sheets.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett

Let's face it. They introduced precious little "Green" initiatives instead they introduce plenty of sly stealth taxes masquerading as environmental policies. It's still prohibitive for industry to introduce renewable energy as the red tape is unbelievable and there is precious little incentive to do so. They could have made many strides forward on recycling and have not done so. They have, instead, clung on to power for dear life and in so doing have probably killed off any chance of re-election. I fear they will take a far worse drubbing in the next election than the PDs did... And rightly so!

Macha

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Let's face it. They introduced precious little "Green" initiatives instead they introduce plenty of sly stealth taxes masquerading as environmental policies.

Can you explain the difference between a carbon tax introduced as a green initiative and a carbon tax introduced as a sly stealth tax masquerading as an environmental policy?

Lenny Lovett

taconnol wrote: »

Can you explain the difference between a carbon tax introduced as a green initiative and a carbon tax introduced as a sly stealth tax masquerading as an environmental policy?

Yeah... Wording!

Just to prove that I'm not being flippant here, I invested in a manufacturing company here a few years ago and we have a similar operation in the UK. We use a lot of electricity and two years ago decided to install Wind turbines and Solar panels to boost our green credentials and to save some money. We had three turbine and five solar panels installed and commissioned and producing electricity in the UK factory within five months and were exporting excess to the National Grid immediately. We are still trying to get the necessary permits here two years later, And are nowhere near getting agreement to export to the Grid. So, remind me again, apart from taxes, what the Greens achieved??

Macha

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Yeah... Wording!

Indeed...

Biggins

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Yeah... Wording!

:pac: Very good!

Sorry. I can't help but laugh!

LOL I love you guys!

Lenny Lovett

Biggins wrote: »

:pac: Very good!

Sorry. I can't help but laugh!

LOL I love you guys!

You may laugh but it's not really funny. They implemented a raft of ill thought out policies and have really messed up environmentally beneficial projects for others. Another example:
In the paper industry it has become unaffordable to recyle paper here in Ireland. Why? Because a Green initiative was to give grants to local/social employemnt schemes to collect waste paper and shred it and sell the shredded paper as horse bedding. Yes! Horse bedding. The thing they used to use straw for and the the soiled straw would be taken away and used as fertiliser. Now they have the shredded paper. So these social schemes get a grant from the Government to buy the waste paper thus pushing up the value/cost of the waste paper to such an extent that it's cheaper for paper processers to buy new virgin paper in Ireland than to buy waste. Excellent thinking there Greens! Oh, and the straw that heretofore was used as horse bedding? It get's burned as the farmers have no market for it... Very environmentally friendly!

Biggins

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

You may laugh but it's not really funny...

O' no worries. I'm with you.
The present Green Party heads are a waste of space.
They have so damaged Ireland, its landscape and its people, with their antics - or lack there of, etc, that the status of being considered "Green" is for the foreseeable future, tarnished.

...That said, ye all still manage to make me laugh sometimes.

Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Let's face it. They introduced precious little "Green" initiatives instead they introduce plenty of sly stealth taxes masquerading as environmental policies. It's still prohibitive for industry to introduce renewable energy as the red tape is unbelievable and there is precious little incentive to do so. They could have made many strides forward on recycling and have not done so. They have, instead, clung on to power for dear life and in so doing have probably killed off any chance of re-election. I fear they will take a far worse drubbing in the next election than the PDs did... And rightly so!

As usual, I find myself at something of a loss to identify these "plenty of sly stealth taxes" - and I find that it's rare for the author of such comments to be able to identify them either.

So far, from the Green Party, we've had a 'carbon tax' on fuel which was exactly the same size as, and took the place of, the standard budgetary excise rise on fuel. There was the reorganisation of VRT on the basis of emissions, but that's not exactly new.

I'm going to guess that the other "sly stealth taxes" will turn out to be the PSO, possibly bin tax, and a set of charges that haven't actually been introduced.

I wait with interest your version of this raft of taxes.

interested,
Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wait with interest your version of this raft of taxes.

interested,
Scofflaw

Yes among the carbon tax and VRT there are also the Bin tax, Water charges, Waste (sewerage) charges, charges/licence fees for green energy initiatives which should be at least free or, even better, grant aided.

I absolutely agree that water should be charged for in some form or another but for the reason of ensuring continuity of supply and eradicating waste rather than trying to curtail it's use. Also credit should be given for water conservation and harvesting rainwater. Instead, as usual, they just see it as a way of penalising and collecting more money. It's all licences and permits and endless paperwork from them. Absolutely no lateral thinking. No positive initiatives. Imagine if they thought laterally and rather than penalise people by taxing bags etc, they introduced a deposit and pay back scheme for plastic bags, bottles, cans etc. You would have several advantages: 1. People would return all waste for recycling if they knew they would get some payback. 2.Kids would be eager to pick up discarded cans and bottles and claim back the money for them thus reducing littering. 3. Councils etc would save on street cleaning. They could have made the Supermarkets administer the scheme. They could also provide incentives for manufacturers to reduce packaging. But no, they prefer a negative form such as taxation rather than a positive type of payback.

Discodog

As someone with an interest in Animal Welfare I should be a natural Green especially as none of the other parties have the slightest concern or policy. Yet, even for me, the Greens are a disaster. The Dog Breeding Bill will be ineffectual & there is no sign of the Animal Welfare Bill.

During meetings & correspondence with some senior Greens I found them to be hopeless. They simply do not listen & have the arrogance that seems to come with power. I care about the environment, wildlife, animals etc & now I have no one to vote for.

Even worse the Greens are delaying the recovery by keeping this inept government in power even though there are no obvious successors.

Lenny Lovett

Discodog wrote: »

Even worse the Greens are delaying the recovery by keeping this inept government in power even though there are no obvious successors.

And every day that they prop up this dead Government they are shaving away more and more support and credibility.

You are so right about the Dog breeding bill. WTF was that all about? Such a load of guff and nonsense.

Discodog

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

And every day that they prop up this dead Government they are shaving away more and more support and credibility.

You are so right about the Dog breeding bill. WTF was that all about? Such a load of guff and nonsense.

The Dog Breeding Bill was desperately needed but the final version has no teeth. The Greens gave in to everyone especially the Greyhound lobby. It won't stop them killing 10,000 Greyhounds every year.

Casillas

Scofflaw wrote: »

The answers appear to be that:

1. they couldn't be negotiated in full with Fianna Fáil to form part of the coalition programme for government (some parts such as the Western Rail Corridor were)

2. there is something of a shortage of money

3. neither of those are programmes that could be delivered overnight, even with the best will in the world and endless quantities of cash.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Honestly we're going to hear about the state of the economy for the next 20 years. Meanwhile generation after generation leave rural Ireland because there is nothing here for them. Case in point the nearest village to me has 300 people, one shop, church, hurling field and a school. Rather than build a garda barrack, GP office, bus stop etc. etc. a new estate of forty houses was built. There's no bank or post office, no restaurant etc. and no way without a car to get anywhere. To be honest I'm looking at leaving here as well because of such a lack of amenities/transport. Before you say there aren't enough people to have amenities, the lack of people is due to migration towards the towns/cities due to such a lack.

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

They were election promises not part of a programme for government, they are a small party in a coalition and since 2007 we've had a financial crisis with a housing bubble, mass unemployment, falling GDP and a massive public deficit.

A little bit of context wouldn't go astray.

Ah maybe they should **** off and grant the people an election if you claim they cant deliver on what they promised.

same goes for FF, but more so the Greens since yee had a chance to walk away before signing up to the NAMA.

:mad:

The people of this country dont need more excuses we need a plan and leadership in face of the changes you highlighted, not ****ing wasting time on things like hunting when there are so many unemployed

Het-Field

Sorry, but the levels of delusion in the ranks of the Green Party, particularly amongst its Parlimentary Party is hilarious.

I enjoyed opening up my morning newspaper and reading the "defiant" John Gormley stating that "The Greens wont be wiped out like the PDs". The next Government will NOT contain the Green Party. They are fighting for between 1 and 2 seats, and if Gormley ever needs the wake up call stating that he is not returning to the next Dail, all that will be required is for Michael McDowell to throw his hat back in the ring. I believe that Ryan could well be beaten, and this will leave Seargent on his tobler.

First, the Local Elections articulate just how poorly the Greens are thought of in this day and age. Before any Greens on this site try to differentiate on the basis of the nature of the elections, I would simply say that all Irish Politics is local, and the results of those elections are as evidentially probative as any General Election.

Second, the defiant "we'll see", or "just wait until polling day" are hollow attempts at defiancy. I heard it all before from the Progressive Democrats and their followers. It is ignoring the inevitable.

Third, they have ignored collective cabinet responsibility, which equates to the Greens playing the ostrich. The blood of NAMA, mass recapitalisation, and the gradual deterioration of our economic affairs which has accompanied it, is just as much on the hands of the Green Party, as on the hands of anybody else. They will get burned for that, and I wont be weeping their demise.

Bye Bye Greens !

Macha

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Yes among the carbon tax and VRT there are also the Bin tax, Water charges, Waste (sewerage) charges, charges/licence fees for green energy initiatives which should be at least free or, even better, grant aided.

There is tax relief on bin charges. You're talking about water charges, not a water tax. And what waste charges? Green energy initiatives are provided grants and other forms of support through SEAI and feed-in tariffs.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

They could also provide incentives for manufacturers to reduce packaging. But no, they prefer a negative form such as taxation rather than a positive type of payback.

Have you had a look at the public deficit lately?

ei.sdraob

Oh and

Certain members here who support the Greens this time last year during the Lisbon 2 debate, used to repeatedly claim that
".. there is nothing wrong with having a second referendum asking people for opinion since its democratic and so much has changed in a year..."

Yet every-time I ask why we are being denied an election, I am told sure they were elected for xyz and circumstances abc changed, and we cant have election every-time we turn a corner

Please be a little more consistent :rolleyes:


we need an election, even if the alternative parties are not much better, to punish the existing lot and make it clear that the people of this country do not tolerate failure and incompetence, something that the current government has displayed plenty of

Het-Field

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Oh and

Certain members here who support the Greens this time last year during the Lisbon 2 debate, used to repeatedly claim that
".. there is nothing wrong with having a second referendum asking people for opinion since its democratic and so much has changed in a year..."

Yet every-time I ask why we are being denied an election, I am told sure they were elected for xyz and circumstances abc changed, and we cant have election every-time we turn a corner

Please be a little more consistent :rolleyes:


we need an election, even if the alternative parties are not much better, to punish the existing lot and make it clear that the people of this country do not tolerate failure and incompetence, something that the current government has displayed plenty of

IIRC the Green Party had actively campaigned AGAINST every EU Treaty until Lisbon. For Lisbon I they sat on the fence, before acting the "Johnny Come Lately" to EU integration for Lisbon II. As such, consistency is not the Party's strongpoint.

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

IIRC the Green Party had actively campaigned AGAINST every EU Treaty until Lisbon. For Lisbon I they sat on the fence, before acting the "Johnny Come Lately" to EU integration for Lisbon II. As such, consistency is not the Party's strongpoint.

Their decisions on referenda are taken democratically among party members. I think that's more important than "consistency".

Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Yes among the carbon tax and VRT there are also the Bin tax, Water charges, Waste (sewerage) charges, charges/licence fees for green energy initiatives which should be at least free or, even better, grant aided.

I absolutely agree that water should be charged for in some form or another but for the reason of ensuring continuity of supply and eradicating waste rather than trying to curtail it's use. Also credit should be given for water conservation and harvesting rainwater. Instead, as usual, they just see it as a way of penalising and collecting more money. It's all licences and permits and endless paperwork from them. Absolutely no lateral thinking. No positive initiatives. Imagine if they thought laterally and rather than penalise people by taxing bags etc, they introduced a deposit and pay back scheme for plastic bags, bottles, cans etc. You would have several advantages: 1. People would return all waste for recycling if they knew they would get some payback. 2.Kids would be eager to pick up discarded cans and bottles and claim back the money for them thus reducing littering. 3. Councils etc would save on street cleaning. They could have made the Supermarkets administer the scheme. They could also provide incentives for manufacturers to reduce packaging. But no, they prefer a negative form such as taxation rather than a positive type of payback.

The problem there is that none of the charges you've mentioned were introduced by the Greens. The bin tax, waste charges, green energy subsidies, plastic bag tax, PSO levy, you name it - all in place before the Greens entered government. Water charges haven't happened yet, but we signed up to them before Lisbon under the EU's Water Services Directive.

I don't mind people asking what the Greens have achieved, but claiming they're responsible for a series of taxes which were already in place before they entered government, or which haven't actually happened at all, is frankly very silly.

What made you blame the Greens for these taxes? Had you never paid them before the Greens entered government? Or do you feel that the Green Party was somehow responsible for them even though they were in opposition at the time?

mystified,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

Their decisions on referenda are taken democratically among party members. I think that's more important than "consistency".

The decision on whether signup to NAMA was also taken "democratically" within the Green party

in the process denying the general electorate an election and an opportunity to exercise their "democratic" vote

in your pursuit of holding onto power at all costs and having a chance of implementing policies that few care for, you are actively allowing this country to be sunk deeper into a sinkhole

are yee afraid that the Greens will be wiped out in an election? do the right thing and step down now, that will earn some respect from the electorate for doing the right things

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Oh and

Certain members here who support the Greens this time last year during the Lisbon 2 debate, used to repeatedly claim that
".. there is nothing wrong with having a second referendum asking people for opinion since its democratic and so much has changed in a year..."

Yet every-time I ask why we are being denied an election, I am told sure they were elected for xyz and circumstances abc changed, and we cant have election every-time we turn a corner

Please be a little more consistent :rolleyes:


we need an election, even if the alternative parties are not much better, to punish the existing lot and make it clear that the people of this country do not tolerate failure and incompetence, something that the current government has displayed plenty of

Those two points are entirely consistent. There's nothing wrong with a second referendum, whether anything has changed or not - as per the Supreme Court judgement - and we elect a government for the duration, unless it loses a vote of confidence. You can't recall the government simply because circumstances have changed - a government is elected to deal with all circumstances during its term, expected or unexpected.

That the government has lost the confidence of the people is, or would be, a good argument for calling a general election - if there were some mechanism for determining whether that's genuinely the case. Levels of grumbling on internet forums and Joe Duffy aren't actually conclusive evidence of anything, and making the elected government subject to the whims of that kind of self-publicising populism is ochlocracy (qv), not democracy.

Also, it can hardly be denied that everyone who would have preferred another government at the 2007 GE has a vested interest in calling for a change, and their claim that the government has lost the confidence of the country can hardly be said to be in any sense objective.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The decision on whether signup to NAMA was also taken "democratically" within the Green party

in the process denying the general electorate an election and an opportunity to exercise their "democratic" vote

When an election is held, it is the government that reserves the right to dissolve government on or before the 5 year term. If you want to be involved in the decisions of political parties, get involves in a political party.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

in your pursuit of holding onto power at all costs and having a chance of implementing policies that few care for, you are actively allowing this country to be sunk deeper into a sinkhole

That is your opinion. I don't believe anything the opposition are saying shows any improvement on what's being done now. Gilmore goes on about the bond-holders in Anglo, in apparent ignorance that the issue with Anglo is actually the ECB. The idea of letting Anglo go is a nicely populist one but unfortunately it would be a rather stupid thing to do.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

are yee afraid that the Greens will be wiped out in an election? do the right thing and step down now, that will earn some respect from the electorate for doing the right things

What rubbish.

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Those two points are entirely consistent. There's nothing wrong with a second referendum, whether anything has changed or not - as per the Supreme Court judgement - and we elect a government for the duration, unless it loses a vote of confidence. You can't recall the government simply because circumstances have changed - a government is elected to deal with all circumstances during its term, expected or unexpected.

That the government has lost the confidence of the people is, or would be, a good argument for calling a general election - if there were some mechanism for determining whether that's genuinely the case. Levels of grumbling on internet forums and Joe Duffy aren't actually conclusive evidence of anything, and making the elected government subject to the whims of that kind of self-publicising populism is ochlocracy (qv), not democracy.

Also, it can hardly be denied that everyone who would have preferred another government at the 2007 GE has a vested interest in calling for a change, and their claim that the government has lost the confidence of the country can hardly be said to be in any sense objective.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So call an election then

let the people decide, if they have confidence in this government then you have nothing to worry about surely

The Greens can pull out at any stage from the coalition triggering elections

Or for that matter call for those by-elections to be run

You are allowing the country to be dragged down by FF in order to do what? bring in electric cars and a dog breeding bill?


come on now please do not put your policies above the future of this country, please

Macha

Using that logic, we should have an election every 6 months or so. I'm sure that would do wonders to the spread on Irish government bonds.

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

When an election is held, it is the government that reserves the right to dissolve government on or before the 5 year term. If you want to be involved in the decisions of political parties, get involves in a political party.


That is your opinion. I don't believe anything the opposition are saying shows any improvement on what's being done now. Gilmore goes on about the bond-holders in Anglo, in apparent ignorance that the issue with Anglo is actually the ECB. The idea of letting Anglo go is a nicely populist one but unfortunately it would be a rather stupid thing to do.


What rubbish.

So that's it?

shut up and put up is your answer??

I'll remember that whenever the Greens show up on my doorstep again and at the ballot box.

taconnol wrote: »

Using that logic, we should have an election every 6 months or so. I'm sure that would do wonders to the spread on Irish government bonds.

its the same logic used by green supporters here when discussing lisbon 2 this time last year

there is nothing wrong with giving the people a right to exercise their right to vote

the greens and FF are ****ting their pants right now at the thought of an election, and rightly so yee are responsible for this mess

Discodog

The Greens were given a choice to stay in power & do what they think is best for them or leave & do what is best for the Country. NAMA & the whole bank baleout mess could not of happened without the Greens. In my book they are actually worse than FF, in that I expected the Greens to have some moral conscience.

The Greens know that they were wrong but they lacked the moral fibre to say no. They saw a glint of power & decided to take it at any cost. Their reward will be years in the wilderness & probably a split.

The terrifying thing about politics is the way that people with so little knowledge are given so much power. This lack of knowledge means that "experts" with a vested interest have the real say & the politicians follow like sheep.

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

Using that logic, we should have an election every 6 months or so. I'm sure that would do wonders to the spread on Irish government bonds.

Oh and thats the exact same bull**** rhetoric used by Labour in UK few months ago

by this stage the markets would take an election as a sign that we are actually serious about our problems

how much worse do things have get before IMF/EU come knocking at the present course we are on?

our record rate increases are due to the world finally waking up that FF/Greens have lied to everyone when it came to the economy, put positive spin on everything, and now the leader of the government is shown to be an incompetent drunk who is unable to put together a coherent sentence after a party "think in"

jimmycrackcorm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Oh and thats the exact same bull**** rhetoric used by Labour in UK few months ago

by this stage the markets would take an election as a sign that we are actually serious about our problems

how much worse do things have get before IMF/EU come knocking at the present course we are on?

our record rate increases are due to the world finally waking up that FF/Greens have lied to everyone when it came to the economy, put positive spin on everything, and now the leader of the government is shown to be an incompetent drunk who is unable to put together a coherent sentence after a party "think in"

Apparently our latest bond rate increase is directly attributable to the Irish Independent publishing a report by Barclays.

The markets would actually punish us further if we had an election because Labour will get the populist vote in a coalition and won't tackle the two areas that need to be cut to reduce the deficit, public sector and social welfare.

As long as people call out for an election simply to punish the government then I despair of the electorate ever voting for the right but hard reasons.

Het-Field

taconnol wrote: »

Their decisions on referenda are taken democratically among party members. I think that's more important than "consistency".

Interesting that it took jumping into bed with Fianna Fail, and the attraction of hoards of careerist hacks to the ranks of the Green Party before a democratic decision amongst party members to endorse the European Agenda was taken.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

So call an election then

let the people decide, if they have confidence in this government then you have nothing to worry about surely

The Greens can pull out at any stage from the coalition triggering elections

Or for that matter call for those by-elections to be run

You are allowing the country to be dragged down by FF in order to do what? bring in electric cars and a dog breeding bill?


come on now please do not put your policies above the future of this country, please

What evidence can you present that the majority of the people want an election? Something a little more than "me and my mates all agree".

After all, if we're going to have elections on the basis that someone is complaining, we'll have them every day.

amused,
Scofflaw

Het-Field

Scofflaw wrote: »

What evidence can you present that the majority of the people want an election? Something a little more than "me and my mates all agree".

After all, if we're going to have elections on the basis that someone is complaining, we'll have them every day.

amused,
Scofflaw

Sorry, but did the Local and European Elections not tell you something about the mood in the country ?

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

Interesting that it took jumping into bed with Fianna Fail, and the attraction of hoards of careerist hacks to the ranks of the Green Party before a democratic decision amongst party members to endorse the European Agenda was taken.

It isn't interesting; it makes perfect sense. Going into government has gotten rid of many of the extremists and naysayers.

Corsendonk

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

They could also provide incentives for manufacturers to reduce packaging. But no, they prefer a negative form such as taxation rather than a positive type of payback.

Manufacturers are already reducing packaging based on consumer feedback and costs. The price of plastics have escalated with petro-chemical prices so manufacturers have reduced microns in packaging etc So do you want to regulate an area that the market regulates itself?

Het-Field

taconnol wrote: »

It isn't interesting; it makes perfect sense. Going into government has gotten rid of many of the extremists and naysayers.

Excellent. So now the "naysayers and extremists" are gone. After the next election the careerists will also be gone, and the Greens will be left with little or nothing and will have undone all the work done on the Party since it's foundation. Im cool with that !

Can you confirm ? Is this an example of the behaviour at the PP's Think in this week ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UdmYInXplY&feature=related

Corsendonk

Scofflaw wrote: »

What evidence can you present that the majority of the people want an election? Something a little more than "me and my mates all agree".

After all, if we're going to have elections on the basis that someone is complaining, we'll have them every day.

amused,
Scofflaw

Can we have that as a question on the census?

ei.sdraob

Het-Field wrote: »

Sorry, but did the Local and European Elections not tell you something about the mood in the country ?

And Cowens rating being at 17% down from 55% in 2007, even Bush had higher ratings at his lowest point, which says alot!

lets not forget the other polls placing greens and FF behind FG and Lab

of course we could have those by elections to get a better picture, but no :rolleyes:

@Scofflaw
by the same logic, how did the government know that we needed to hold the Lisbon 2 referenda so quickly after the first?

and yes i was here then alongside you involved in the debates this time last year

Lenny Lovett

taconnol wrote: »

There is tax relief on bin charges. You're talking about water charges, not a water tax. And what waste charges? Green energy initiatives are provided grants and other forms of support through SEAI and feed-in tariffs.

And can you tell me how long it takes to get clearance for a wind turbine or three from the SEAI? How long the grant takes? How long the whole process to get set up to feed into the grid takes? At least two years compared to a couple of months in the UK. As I said in an earlier post I have found out by experience and at considerable cost. They have as much interest in promoting Green Energy as Michael O'Leary has!

taconnol wrote: »

Have you had a look at the public deficit lately?

Yes. Sadly we can't miss it... Who's responsible for getting us to that level again???????
Anyway, what's the deficit got to do with my proposal for returning bottles, cans, plastic etc? It would cost nothing. It's a deposit scheme!

Scofflaw wrote: »

What evidence can you present that the majority of the people want an election? Something a little more than "me and my mates all agree".

After all, if we're going to have elections on the basis that someone is complaining, we'll have them every day.

amused,
Scofflaw

You don't think the people in the constituencies who's by elections have been postponed, have a right to their representation? Very democratic of you Sir!

Het-Field

ei.sdraob wrote: »

And Cowens rating being at 17% down from 55% in 2007, even Bush had higher ratings at his lowest point, which says alot!

lets not forget the other polls placing greens and FF behind FG and Lab

of course we could have those by elections to get a better picture, but no :rolleyes:

@Scofflaw
by the same logic, how did the government know that we needed to hold the Lisbon 2 referenda so quickly after the first?

and yes i was here then alongside you involved in the debates this time last year

In fairness, poll ratings dont really count for much. The only party who really seems to quote them is the Green Party. In the polls they have hovered between 2-6% over the past three years. Naturally, it is far more beneficial for the supporters of the party to quote those figures then to quote the 1.6% figure that they garnered in the Local Elections, which happens to be emperical evidence of their lack of popularity in the country.

ei.sdraob

Het-Field wrote: »

In fairness, poll ratings dont really count for much. The only party who really seems to quote them is the Green Party. In the polls they have hovered between 2-6% over the past three years. Naturally, it is far more beneficial for the supporters of the party to quote those figures then to quote the 1.6% figure that they garnered in the Local Elections, which happens to be emperical evidence of their lack of popularity in the country.

well the topic has gone to the ridiculous level of Green advocates are asking the stupid question of

"why hold an election to find out if the government has a mandate, when there is no evidence out there"

well doh! having a democratic vote will provide the evidence for or against!

recedite

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Yes among the carbon tax and VRT there are also the Bin tax, Water charges, Waste (sewerage) charges, charges/licence fees for green energy initiatives which should be at least free or, even better, grant aided.

Don't you understand the difference between a tax and paying for something? "Bin tax"? FFS I suppose you get a gas tax too, instead of a gas bill.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

And can you tell me how long it takes to get clearance for a wind turbine or three from the SEAI?

SEAI don't do turbines or clearances. You would need planning permission from the local authority, plus authorisation from this crowd;
http://www.cer.ie/en/electricity-generation-licences-and-authorisations.aspx
But then, if you were really trying to install wind turbines for a big company with another sister company in the UK, you would already know that.

Macha

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

And can you tell me how long it takes to get clearance for a wind turbine or three from the SEAI? How long the grant takes? How long the whole process to get set up to feed into the grid takes? At least two years compared to a couple of months in the UK. As I said in an earlier post I have found out by experience and at considerable cost. They have as much interest in promoting Green Energy as Michael O'Leary has!

Oh dear. SEAI are not involved in the regulation or authorisation of wind turbines. Lenny Lovett, I recommend you familiarise yourself with the regulatory system surrounding renewable energy before you decide to criticise it.

Yes. Sadly we can't miss it... Who's responsible for getting us to that level again???????
Anyway, what's the deficit got to do with my proposal for returning bottles, cans, plastic etc? It would cost nothing. It's a deposit scheme!

One that I fully support.

Lenny Lovett

recedite wrote: »

SEAI don't do turbines or clearances. You would need planning permission from the local authority, plus authorisation from this crowd;
http://www.cer.ie/en/electricity-generation-licences-and-authorisations.aspx
But then, if you were really trying to install wind turbines for a big company with another sister company in the UK, you would already know that.

You don't believe me? I have a sheaf of paperwork on it. And yes I may have been mixed up on who's who as regards the permits etc as I'm not dealing with it directly but the basic point stands. There's too much red tape and permits etc involved. Oh, and by the way, strangely, we don't need planning permission as the turbines are lower than the regulation height for planning purposes. So, maybe you'll address the core issues of why it takes so long and why we have to jump through so many hoops to get this done! But you probably won't - the Green TDs avoid the issue too!