Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

2011 election vs. 2007 election

  • 26-01-2011 9:59pm
    #1
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 10,878 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    I reckon there'll be some key differences in voting patterns this time around which will be crucial in the final result.

    - National v Local politics: given the whole IMF situation, I think people are looking at how they vote much more from a national perspective rather than a local perspective. In the past, TDs have been elected largely based on what they do for the local area, and while there will be a certain degree of that still, I think a lot more people are looking at the bigger picture i.e. a national view on government, and what is best for the country as a whole. I think this is more evident than ever before.

    - Protest vote: people obviously are angry at FF and the Greens, so the protest vote will be huge this time around. Some people will vote for anyone just to "get at" the current government, so it will be interesting to see how it affects the counts for the likes of SF. (I just hope people see past the protest and realise that the people they vote might be sitting in government trying to run the place.)

    - Independents: I've mixed feelings on how this election will be for independents, partially based on the national v local point above, but also based on the sway that independents have had recently in government which can be a good or a bad thing depending on the situation. And now with the likes of hugely popular people like Shane Ross and David McWilliams (possibly) in the mix, there could be even more powerful figures calling the shots. Then again, people might avoid voting independent based on the Healy-Rae scenario where local politics seemingly had ultimate power over the government.

    - Increased interest: maybe it's just because things are so much more transparent now with Facebook, Twitter, websites and blogs, but there seems to be much more interest than before in this election. I hope, regardless of the results, that we get huge turnouts in all areas, as that in itself would show that people want to fix Ireland.

    Thoughts?


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    There is a lot there.

    I was out of the country for 2007 and it was a mixed bag.
    I was happy to see the greens in and despite what the news media (who systematically disregard Eamonn Ryans entire brief and most of John Gormleys) would have you believe they performed excellently in their briefs.

    I would love to think that this will be about national issues but I think its asking a lot. Maybe too much for the electorate. But certainly I think the Media are being responsible (for once) in pushing the national agenda. I would like to see Reform be a big deal, because I think a really strong approach to political reform could fix that problem for the future.

    Protest votes scare the crap out of me.
    The idea that people could vote for murderers because of FF failures just worries me. I like living in Ireland, I will miss it if I have to leave in shame and disgust at my own people. Which is what will happen if SF get into government.

    The independents is a funny issue.
    I certainly think that if someone like shane ross can prop up a close dail then it can only be an asset. I think McWilliams is a egotist and while he was right during the last dail, he sounds disconnected a lot these days. But all out, I think we will see more of them this time around.

    I think the penetration of 24hr media is making interets seem high.
    I would be very interested to see if turn out increases. I don't imagine it will.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,189 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    There is a lot there.

    I was out of the country for 2007 and it was a mixed bag.
    I was happy to see the greens in and despite what the news media (who systematically disregard Eamonn Ryans entire brief and most of John Gormleys) would have you believe they performed excellently in their briefs.

    You must be out of your freaking mind as well as out of the country if you think eamon "sanctimonious" ryan did well in his brief. :rolleyes:
    Or perhaps you think high speed broadband connection is a Three dongle where you end up getting 60k download speeds ?
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    I would love to think that this will be about national issues but I think its asking a lot. Maybe too much for the electorate. But certainly I think the Media are being responsible (for once) in pushing the national agenda. I would like to see Reform be a big deal, because I think a really strong approach to political reform could fix that problem for the future.

    Agreed.
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    Protest votes scare the crap out of me.
    The idea that people could vote for murderers because of FF failures just worries me.

    Agreed.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    jmayo wrote: »
    You must be out of your freaking mind as well as out of the country if you think eamon "sanctimonious" ryan did well in his brief. :rolleyes:
    Or perhaps you think high speed broadband connection is a Three dongle where you end up getting 60k download speeds ?

    No.
    Department of Communication, Energy and Natural resources.
    Private industries marketing midband as broad band is not the fault of Government.
    Last I checked Eamonn Ryan wasn't part of Threes staff.

    This proves my point.
    The media ignore everything except Comms. (which admittedly he wasn't too hot on, to your criticism I would add his absurd free to air rugby madness)

    He did simply tremendous work in his tenure for the energy agenda. Opening up Energy markets, introducing Part L to the building regulations, implementing the EPBD, funding for energy efficiency projects, the national retrofit plan. Tonnes of stuff.

    Considering the upwards spiral of energy prices this was a really valuable contribution. Which no-one hears about, because its has no impact on how fast you can tweet about cheryl coles hair.

    Also, are we really going to whip politicians for being "sanctimonious"?
    Better have a sturdy whip and a strong arm, cos you'll be doing a lot of whippin'.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,189 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    No.
    Department of Communication, Energy and Natural resources.
    Private industries marketing midband as broad band is not the fault of Government.
    Last I checked Eamonn Ryan wasn't part of Threes staff.

    Ah come on he comes out in the media and tells people he is rolling out high speed broadband nationally and what we get is Three Mobile. :mad:
    He then continually spouts absolute sh**e about how much an achievement it is. :mad:
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    This proves my point.
    The media ignore everything except Comms. (which admittedly he wasn't too hot on, to your criticism I would add his absurd free to air rugby
    madness)

    Ehh comms are very damm important, especially when the same minister is spouting even more sh**e about a smart economy. :rolleyes:
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    No.
    He did simply tremendous work in his tenure for the energy agenda. Opening up Energy markets, introducing Part L to the building regulations, implementing the EPBD, funding for energy efficiency projects, the national retrofit plan. Tonnes of stuff.

    So he is he guy responsible for out high enery costs, costs which have been kept high in order to allow competition in the market ?
    Great we pay more to ESB so that we can get something a little cheaper with another semi state Bord Gais.
    Why not just make ESB cut the costs to hell and we benefit even more ?
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    Considering the upwards spiral of energy prices this was a really valuable contribution. Which no-one hears about, because its has no impact on how fast you can tweet about cheryl coles hair.

    I don't tweet, I leave that to the twits in the green party. :rolleyes:

    Funny I remember some green supporters arguing about why we would need fast braodband as supposedly people only needed it for entertainment purposes.
    Are you using the same argument ?
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    Also, are we really going to whip politicians for being "sanctimonious"?
    Better have a sturdy whip and a strong arm, cos you'll be doing a lot of whippin'.

    He is one sanctimonious git like his boss, who spent years telling us about their political morals and ethics, only to dump them even quicker than that other high moral party, the pds. :rolleyes:

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    jmayo wrote: »
    Ah come on he comes out in the media and tells people he is rolling out high speed broadband nationally and what we get is Three Mobile. :mad:
    He then continually spouts absolute sh**e about how much an achievement it is. :mad:

    Yes, I said he performed poorly in Comms. A third of his brief.
    I know its important. But he still is not responsible for mobile "broadband."

    jmayo wrote: »
    Ehh comms are very damm important, especially when the same minister is spouting even more sh**e about a smart economy. :rolleyes:

    I never disputed that.


    jmayo wrote: »
    So he is he guy responsible for out high enery costs, costs which have been kept high in order to allow competition in the market ?
    Great we pay more to ESB so that we can get something a little cheaper with another semi state Bord Gais.
    Why not just make ESB cut the costs to hell and we benefit even more ?

    No.
    He isn't. Trade factors are.
    Bar the carbon tax, which is important, the price of energy is set by the price of gas and oil. Which is going up due to economic factors which are out of his control. Competition is working. I have saved money on my bills.[/lucy]

    jmayo wrote: »
    I don't tweet, I leave that to the twits in the green party. :rolleyes:

    Funny I remember some green supporters arguing about why we would need fast braodband as supposedly people only needed it for entertainment purposes.
    Are you using the same argument ?

    I'm not making any arguement like that.
    I'm saying that the energy stuff was ignored by the media.
    The same media who seem to have completely coloured you opinion on the greens.

    jmayo wrote: »
    He is one sanctimonious git like his boss, who spent years telling us about their political morals and ethics, only to dump them even quicker than that other high moral party, the pds. :rolleyes:

    Thats unfair. Most politicians are sanctimonious.
    But you seem more interested in hammering them than actually accepting the facts. I mean you have ignored the points I made about all the stuff he has done and just tried to imply that he made energy prices go up.

    So to fit your bill.
    As minister for broadband roll out he was a failure.
    Hopefully the next dail we will have a minister who will focus on improving Three's dongles and ignore silly things like Fuel Poverty, Peak Oil alleviation, climate change, Resource conservation.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 120 ✭✭Koyasan


    jmayo wrote: »
    He is one sanctimonious git like his boss, who spent years telling us about their political morals and ethics, only to dump them even quicker than that other high moral party, the pds. :rolleyes:

    When? No, I'm serious, when? Was it the so called promise not to go into Government. I remember that differently (http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0907/green.html) Was it being the onmly party to have marriage equality in their 2007 manifesto but introducing Civil Partnerships? (Fair point, even if they did say it was a stepping stone) Was it resigning immediately when you found out you did something wrong that you didn't know was wrong (Trevor Sargent)? I'm tired of hearing the name calling and people making broad statements about the parties in Ireland, but right now it seems 'fashionable' for it to be the Greens, without giving reasons why. (I imagine because people don't want to admit that thay (46.7%) of the population are responsible for FF returning to Government in 2007, not the Greens) You haven't answered the points raised by the other poster.

    Back to the thread, I've heard from friends who canvass for different parties that they notice a big difference from 2007. People are now actually reading and questioning them on election materials and are interested in details, whereas before they used to just take it out of their hands and throw it somewhere. That should make it a healthier campaign. I've never considered Ireland to be a very progressive, socially liberal, environmentally responsible country, and believe that the success of the Greens was part of the fashion at the time. That's changed now and the IT and RTE are reporting less on such issues. I expect their numbers to go down accordingly.

    What I'm most curious about is whether the move to the left in Dublin in 2009 will have any echo outside the capital.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,189 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    Yes, I said he performed poorly in Comms. A third of his brief.
    I know its important. But he still is not responsible for mobile "broadband."

    http://www.southernstar.ie/article.php?id=1121
    The National Broadband Scheme will be delivered by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in conjunction with the ‘3’ network. It aims to provide the remaining 10% of the population, or 33% of the geographical area of the country, with broadband coverage.

    A total of €223 million is being invested through a combination of Exchequer funds and EU co-financing. ‘3’ will also create 170 direct jobs in delivering the programme – the roll-out of which is expected to be completed by September, 2010, which is almost a year behind the original date promised initially by Minister Ryan.

    The contract for the roll-out was supposed to have been signed in July, 2008, but various delays have meant that it was not eventually signed until near the end of January – which means that the 20-month project will not fullfil Eamon Ryan’s promise that everyone in the country would have the capacity to receive broadband by the end of 2009. All such delays mean that, with every passing month, we are lagging further behind our international competitors and the extent of what is being provided is even less sufficient than it should be, if we seriously hope to adequately tackle our broadband infrastructural deficit.

    Now anyone that knows anything about broadband will tell you that the idea of using Three or 3 as the broadband provider of choice for this broadband for the masses was a joke in the first place.

    Everytime ryan comes on air and trying to tell us that 100k or less mobile broadband is world standard high speed broadband, he insults our intelligence and I don't like being insulted by someone coming across all sanctimonious.

    d'Oracle wrote: »
    No.
    He isn't. Trade factors are.
    Bar the carbon tax, which is important, the price of energy is set by the price of gas and oil. Which is going up due to economic factors which are out of his control. Competition is working. I have saved money on my bills.[/lucy]

    And guess what you could have saved even more money on your bills if the regulator, who contrary to what some may claim reports to minister ryan, was allowed force ESB cut their prices.
    Just because you got your electricity cheaper with Bord Gais or Airtricity than you did with ESB, does not mean you are getting a good deal when the ESB could give it to you for even less if they were allowed do so.
    How hard is it to understand this freaking concept ? :rolleyes:

    And adding carbon tax to fuel and energy at a time when the country is on it's knees is another stupid decision. :rolleyes:
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    I'm not making any arguement like that.
    I'm saying that the energy stuff was ignored by the media.
    The same media who seem to have completely coloured you opinion on the greens.

    Jeeze f*** I don't need the media, which basically has been in the pocket of the green's partners in power, to tell me what a f*** up the greens have been.
    Funny now we have greens blaming the media like their former masters usually do. :rolleyes:
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    Thats unfair. Most politicians are sanctimonious.
    But you seem more interested in hammering them than actually accepting the facts. I mean you have ignored the points I made about all the stuff he has done and just tried to imply that he made energy prices go up.

    Well has he pushed energy prices down as low as they could go, even with allowing for price of fuel worldwide ?
    No he hasn't so he is failure as minister for energy.
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    So to fit your bill.
    As minister for broadband roll out he was a failure.
    Hopefully the next dail we will have a minister who will focus on improving Three's dongles and ignore silly things like Fuel Poverty, Peak Oil alleviation, climate change, Resource conservation.

    Well if he is so interested in peak oil alleviation and fuel poverty why refuse to contenance nuclear power ?

    From reading your last sentence I take it you are a supporter of the greens because they are going to save the planet, probably save a few stags and you will thus dismiss the fact that in their quest to save the planet they will tax us out of existence.
    You probably thus downplay the fact that their support of ff has wrecked the country economically and probably socially for decades, as we are now tied to the cesspit banking system.

    Koyasan wrote: »
    When? No, I'm serious, when? Was it the so called promise not to go into Government. I remember that differently (http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0907/green.html)

    Their leader led voters to believe they would never support bertie ahern and ff.
    The fact that he conveniently resigned allowing gormless to lead them into such a venture is deceitful.
    Also how come trevor did not resign from the party and refuse to support ahern if he was true to his word ?
    Wasn't gormless telling everyone before the election what unethical people ff were, and then he subsequently backs them ?

    All politicans are decietful to some extent, but these other politicans are not selling themselves as paragons of moral virtue.
    The greens went from being virgin nuns to the hoes of ff.

    And if you want prime example of that why not view the speech eamon ryan gave in the Dáil supporting willie o'dea, a man who lied on a sworn affadivit to the high court.
    That day really showed how much the greens had sold out.


    Saying that the PDs did the exact same.
    Maybe there is truth in symbolism that ff ias like the batering husband that the voters always go back believing the tripe about how they will change.
    Que michaél martin with his bunch of Applegreen flowers. :D
    Koyasan wrote: »
    Was it being the onmly party to have marriage equality in their 2007 manifesto but introducing Civil Partnerships? (Fair point, even if they did say it was a stepping stone) Was it resigning immediately when you found out you did something wrong that you didn't know was wrong (Trevor Sargent)?

    No I don't have a major problem with sargent not resigning immediately for that, nor could I care less about a civil partnership bill.
    I agree with their stand on planning, I agree with stand on hunting and I am from rural background.
    I just don't agree with backing the most incompetent unethical shower of chancers we have ever had governing us.
    :rolleyes:
    Koyasan wrote: »
    I'm tired of hearing the name calling and people making broad statements about the parties in Ireland, but right now it seems 'fashionable' for it to be the Greens, without giving reasons why. (I imagine because people don't want to admit that thay (46.7%) of the population are responsible for FF returning to Government in 2007, not the Greens) You haven't answered the points raised by the other poster.

    Ask anyone around here I have never voted ff, so don't include me in any broad brushstroke of ff voters. :mad::mad:
    Koyasan wrote: »
    Back to the thread, I've heard from friends who canvass for different parties that they notice a big difference from 2007. People are now actually reading and questioning them on election materials and are interested in details, whereas before they used to just take it out of their hands and throw it somewhere. That should make it a healthier campaign. I've never considered Ireland to be a very progressive, socially liberal, environmentally responsible country, and believe that the success of the Greens was part of the fashion at the time. That's changed now and the IT and RTE are reporting less on such issues. I expect their numbers to go down accordingly.

    Yes that is good people are questioning.
    Sadly people only get interested when it affects their pockets negatively.

    As you mentioned too many people voted for the same sh** and it was already obvious in 2007 about the bertie and ff rot.
    So can you then explain why the christ the greens went into power with them ?

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    jmayo wrote: »
    Now anyone that knows anything about broadband will tell you that the idea of using Three or 3 as the broadband provider of choice for this broadband for the masses was a joke in the first place.

    Thats fair enough. Still I'm not defending him at all.
    You'd seem to like me to but I'm not defending his record on Broadband.

    jmayo wrote: »
    And guess what you could have saved even more money on your bills if the regulator, who contrary to what some may claim reports to minister ryan, was allowed force ESB cut their prices.
    Just because you got your electricity cheaper with Bord Gais or Airtricity than you did with ESB, does not mean you are getting a good deal when the ESB could give it to you for even less if they were allowed do so.
    How hard is it to understand this freaking concept ? :rolleyes:

    I understand it much better than you ever will.
    Being that I work in the area. You cannot allow ESB to plunge prices. It will immediately kill off the emergent competition and leave us back in a monopoly. Ergo it is necessary to hold ESB back as they are an established state entity. Soon enough they will be in a level field according to plan. Whats so hard to understand about that?

    jmayo wrote: »
    And adding carbon tax to fuel and energy at a time when the country is on it's knees is another stupid decision. :rolleyes:

    No it isn't. It gives people the kick they need to stop using so much of it.
    Which is what the point is. It also allows an increase in tax revenues. Which is probably necessary right now.

    jmayo wrote: »
    Jeeze f*** I don't need the media which basically has been in the pocket of the green's partners in power to tell me what a f*** up the greens have been.

    Well you seem to have no clue what good they have done. So its either the media or you are just making it up.
    jmayo wrote: »
    Funny now we have greens blaming the media like their former masters usually do. :rolleyes:

    They are?
    Where?

    jmayo wrote: »
    Well has he pushed energy prices down as low as they could go, even with allowing for price of fuel worldwide ?
    No he hasn't so he is failure as minister for energy.

    No.
    Its a commodity he has no control over.
    He cannot control the price of fuel.
    In fact, he can't even control the tax on fuel.
    If you feel that is an adequate metric of his effectiveness as minister for energy then you are wrong.
    jmayo wrote: »

    Well if he is so interested in peak oil alleviation and fuel poverty why refuse to contenance nuclear power ?

    1. It takes a long time to commission a nuclear plant.
    2. Irish people don't want it.
    3. We can't afford it.
    4. Fuel is basically running out already.
    5. Waste disposal is absurdly expensive.

    jmayo wrote: »
    From reading your last sentence I take it you are a supporter of the greens because they are going to save the planet, probably save a few stags and you will thus dismiss the fact that in their quest to save the planet they will tax us out of existence.

    That's just ignorant.
    If you didn't want to debate the matter then you shouldn't have responded.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,189 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    I understand it much better than you ever will.
    Being that I work in the area. You cannot allow ESB to plunge prices. It will immediately kill off the emergent competition and leave us back in a monopoly. Ergo it is necessary to hold ESB back as they are an established state entity. Soon enough they will be in a level field according to plan. Whats so hard to understand about that?

    So in order to reach this level field we have to pay above the odds for electricity ?
    So is your argument we are paying today for prossibly cheaper prices in the future ?

    You do know that electricity costs affect our competitiveness and at a time when we need to compete for every last job we should be trying to cut certain costs.
    Also at a time when people are facing ever more stringent personal economic circumstances, would it not be a good time to not have prices so high ?
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    No it isn't. It gives people the kick they need to stop using so much of it.
    Which is what the point is. It also allows an increase in tax revenues. Which is probably necessary right now.

    So taxing fuel, which has a knock on affect right across the board is good because shure don't we need the extra taxes ?
    Ever think one of the reasons we need extra taxes is because the greens themselves backed a party of never reigning in higb spending ?
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    Well you seem to have no clue what good they have done. So its either the media or you are just making it up.

    I can see some good they have tried to do, but when you look at the bigger picture I just for some reason see bankrupt banks tied to us taxpayers, fleeing developers not paying their dues, incomeptent wasteful politicans and public servants walking away with millions and the IMF. :(:(

    d'Oracle wrote: »
    1. It takes a long time to commission a nuclear plant.
    2. Irish people don't want it.
    3. We can't afford it.
    4. Fuel is basically running out already.
    5. Waste disposal is absurdly expensive.

    Ah shure there is always wind.
    Oh wait, the very people lauding wind energy are probbaly also the ones that will object to the placement of wind farms. :rolleyes:
    BTW is appears it is ok to take nuclear generated electrity over the interconnectors is it not ?
    d'Oracle wrote: »
    That's just ignorant.
    If you didn't want to debate the matter then you shouldn't have responded.

    Why is it ignorant ?
    You are lauding ryan's achivements, yet refuse it now seems to acknowledge the part his and his party's support of ff has played in ladning us where we are.

    I don't blame the greens for the bubble, the planning disasters that were contributory factor in the bubble, the increased public spending of the bertie years.
    But I do blame them for spending more time worrying about banning one stag hunt, not even banning coursing or fox hunts, rather than stopping the NAMA madness as constructed by the ff led government. :mad:
    I blame them for supporting the most inept unresponsible incompetent wasteful arrogant government and leader that we ever had.

    Their legacy will be borne by generations as they leave this country.

    Maybe they will have achieved their aims of making us carbon neutral, as the homes once full of people will be replaced by just parents huddled on dark nights around the wind generator fed flickering fire, trying to connect over substandard ryan provided broadband, in order to talk to their kids and grandkids living in Australia or some such far off place ?

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    jmayo wrote: »
    So in order to reach this level field we have to pay above the odds for electricity ?
    So is your argument we are paying today for prossibly cheaper prices in the future ?

    That doesn't make any sense.
    You are not talking about the same thing you were talking about before.
    ESB were fixed at a higher price while the others were allowed to drop theirs. This was to stimulate competition. It was a good idea.
    If the ESB had been allowed to plunge prices it would have put the others out of competition which in turn would allow them to charge as the wee fit.
    Then you get increasing prices and the regulator becomes an irrelevant office. Waste of money more expensive energy.
    jmayo wrote: »
    You do know that electricity costs affect our competitiveness and at a time when we need to compete for every last job we should be trying to cut certain costs.
    Also at a time when people are facing ever more stringent personal economic circumstances, would it not be a good time to not have prices so high ?

    It does, and the act of opening up the market paves the way to keep energy prices down. The other part is there is huge waste of energy in industry, which should be put right. What you seem to not get is that fuel prices i.e. the price of oil and gas, is high anyway. There really isn't that big a scope to drop prices. Commodity prices and the currency markets see to that.
    jmayo wrote: »
    So taxing fuel, which has a knock on affect right across the board is good because shure don't we need the extra taxes ?

    That is why it was brought in, by the minister for Finance, yes.
    jmayo wrote: »
    Ever think one of the reasons we need extra taxes is because the greens themselves backed a party of never reigning in higb spending ?

    No.
    I do not think that we are ****ed because the the greens held up Fianna fail. I think we are ****ed because in numerous successive elections Fianna Fail were voted in as major party by the people of Ireland. Blaming The greens for wanting to get their work done is naive.


    jmayo wrote: »
    I can see some good they have tried to do, but when you look at the bigger picture I just for some reason see bankrupt banks tied to us taxpayers, fleeing developers not paying their dues, incomeptent wasteful politicans and public servants walking away with millions and the IMF. :(:(

    I can appreciate that. Everybody is angry about this.
    But no party joins government to quit at the first sign of trouble.
    The seeds of the **** we are in were sown before Gormley and Ryan ever got even a sniff of the cabinet. And you didn't see them in druids with seanie or in the galway tent.



    jmayo wrote: »
    Ah shure there is always wind.
    Oh wait, the very people lauding wind energy are probbaly also the ones that will object to the placement of wind farms. :rolleyes:
    BTW is appears it is ok to take nuclear generated electrity over the interconnectors is it not ?

    I'm simply pointing out reasons why nuclear wasn't considered an option.
    I haven't even offered my opinion on it cos I don't believe it is an election issue and its not yet a political one.

    jmayo wrote: »
    Why is it ignorant ?
    You are lauding ryan's achivements, yet refuse it now seems to acknowledge the part his and his party's support of ff has played in ladning us where we are.

    It is ignorant because you a have cast aspersions on my opinions that you had no basis for. The "save a few stags" thing, I never once mentioned that i am a greens supporter or animal rights.
    And why does a greens supporter have to be an animal rights head?
    I am pointing out Ryans achievements and you rubbished me. I simply responded with facts.
    The greens were not ministers responsible for cabinet responsibility and competance.

    jmayo wrote: »
    Maybe they will have achieved their aims of making us carbon neutral, as the homes once full of people will be replaced by just parents huddled on dark nights around the wind generator fed flickering fire, trying to connect over substandard ryan provided broadband, in order to talk to their kids and grandkids living in Australia or some such far off place ?

    ....Don't worry, the horrors we will be putting up with by the time I have grandkids will not be despite what the greens did. Not because of it....
    Peak oil, fuel poverty, climate change. Those things that you don't believe in have the capacity to screw your stuff up more than you could even close to appreciate.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement