Green Party 8/13 not to win a seat. Why?

Yillan

I'm surprised that the Green Party are so poorly considered in this election. I understand that people are putting all the emphasis on getting in a government that will concentrate on economic issues, but reading through the Green's achievements in government over their term and listening to John Gormally talk about reducing the number of TDs and other changes to the way the Dail is run has made me stop and think.

I am not an environment nut by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think that their manifesto is something that the government would benefit from. Having three greens in the Dáil would be better than having another three Fine Gael/Fail clones which in the end just end up as votes on a page arguing over the small print in issues designed to drive a wedge between the two parties. A diversity in the Dáil would mean that topics will be examined from other perspectives and the presence of a party like the Greens will bring a clear-headedness that would not be possible when the only parties in government are engaged in oneupmanship and undercutting each other, rather than making any real changes. The Greens are nice and secular aswell which I like. They do not pander to the large Irish Catholic voter group, which may well answer my original question.

I am not a Green and I am not decided whether or not I will vote Niall O'Brolchain No.1 on the 25th February, but I can't really understand how the Greens are tipped to win no seats, whereas Fine Fail are backed to win more than 30.

2 further additions I'd like to make are that A Green Party has worked extremely well for Germany and also that The Green Party do not accept any corporate donations, which is commendable and should mean that there is never a conflict of interest where they are concerned. They seem to be a very ambitious party with intelligent young members that Ireland have simply failed to embrace.

Zubeneschamali

Yillan wrote: »

I can't really understand how the Greens are tipped to win no seats, whereas Fine Fail are backed to win more than 30.

The established parties, FF, FG and, Labour all have a core of support, people who got their politics at home as children from their parents. These people only vote for their party.

The Greens are new, and don't.

astrofool

The policies they did implement got implemented fairly badly (VRT changes, bulb bans), they increased tax on fuels without offering alternatives (failed to get any foothold on CIE/Dublin bus), their leader was revealed to be a NIMBY regarding the incinerator, they fell foul of cronyism by having a plan to replace their minister for no good reason, and they were made a laughing stock by announcing an election date (January) and then renegging on it almost a week later (allowing FF to stuff as many positions as possible with cronies, and allow them time to sort out their leadership issues).

They propped up a deeply hated and incompetent government that ruined the country's finances in order to get through legislation on hunting and dog breeding.

Anything more needed?

Sponge Bob

Because everybody hates them !!

Bottle_of_Smoke

They should have pulled the plug sooner but to be fair they really have been unfairly scapegoated. The real damage was done before they got into office.

I think they have a lot of sensible ideas, and I think their term in government will have been a learning experience.

Ideally I'd like it if they get a few seats and form a coalition with FG in the next government

ei.sdraob

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

but to be fair they really have been unfairly scapegoated.

No they have not, they could have pulled out at many major junctions in the last few years triggering an election, instead they kept supporting FF as they dug a deeper hole for us.

No the Greens deserve to be annihilated as are FF, both parties are toxic and have nothing good to offer the electorate but more lies and bull****.

Corsendonk

Green voters in the last election were swing voters who will vote independent most likely this time round. That said I do think they might get 1-3 TDs in GE11, Trevor Sargent should get the final seat in Dublin North.

Paparazzo

Lots of people used them as a protest vote. Not any more. All they seemed to do was increase taxes on green issues and not give alternatives. Not to mention going into coalition with FF when they said they wouldn't.

Gael

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The established parties, FF, FG and, Labour all have a core of support, people who got their politics at home as children from their parents. These people only vote for their party.

The Greens are new, and don't.

You gotta love it! Almost thirty years in existence and they're considered a "new" party. I'm not poking fun at you, Zubeneschamali, BTW; just emphasising how ridiculous political mentalities can be sometimes.

Scofflaw

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The established parties, FF, FG and, Labour all have a core of support, people who got their politics at home as children from their parents. These people only vote for their party.

The Greens are new, and don't.

Speaking as a Green core voter, I would have to say they do have a core vote. I think you mean they don't have a 'traditional' vote in the sense that there is probably no household in which voting Green is considered part of their traditional values and identity.

While that's true, there is certainly a core vote of people who prefer the Greens over every other party - and whose support for the Greens is considered just as purblind and irrational as support for other parties is considered by those who dislike those parties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke

ei.sdraob wrote: »

No they have not, they could have pulled out at many major junctions in the last few years triggering an election, instead they kept supporting FF as they dug a deeper hole for us.

Hate when posters do this. I acknowleged your premise here by saying they should have pulled the plug earlier but you just cut this out when quoting me.

No the Greens deserve to be annihilated as are FF, both parties are toxic and have nothing good to offer the electorate but more lies and bull****.

The way I see it they only had 6 TDs, not much pwer to do anything. Had that been 6 independents or PDs or whatever we'd still be in the same mess now.

ei.sdraob

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The way I see it they only had 6 TDs, not much pwer to do anything. Had that been 6 independents or PDs or whatever we'd still be in the same mess now.

Dublin TDs driving a national agenda based on Dublin needs/ way of life
another reason for them to go
their politics have shown to be everything they said they would oppose, Gormley being a prime example.

And dont get me started on that Green joke we had as mayor here in Galway running now, he did hos best to cripple the city, i would love to see this ****er cycle from western distributor out to the factories in the east.

ciaranmac

Well as someone who was a party member for over half my life I think I can explain why the Greens are in trouble now. I supported the party going in to government because I felt it would be worth it, though it would be bad for the party electorally it would allow us to actually implement things that we had been shouting about for years. I started to have doubts when I saw the programme for government though - it was even less than I had conditioned myself to expect from FF. More so when I realised the last minute decisions Dick Roche made as minister to press ahead with the incinerator in Dublin and the motorway through Tara valley.

Over the three and a bit years that the party was in government there was a definite pattern that FF got most of what they wanted, even stuff outside the programme such as the bank guarantee, while the things that the Green Party wanted were either stalled or watered down. I quit the party last year because I lost patience that it could get anything meaningful done as part of such a disastrous government. For example corporate donations, the party is making a big deal of not accepting money from big business. It was party policy for many years to make corporate donations illegal - which anyone who believes in democracy should agree with - and on principle the party never accepted such donations. In government we should have made it a priority to ban them, so to me it's a bit rich to whine about it now. That's just one example.

I'm enjoying now being a floating voter, it's almost like a luxury since I always voted green before.

Ray Burkes Pension

The Greens are seen as having propped up this disaster of a FF government and are suffering. Strangely Lowry and Healy-Rae, who did the exact same thing, are guaranteed to get seats.

Scofflaw

ciaranmac wrote: »

Well as someone who was a party member for over half my life I think I can explain why the Greens are in trouble now. I supported the party going in to government because I felt it would be worth it, though it would be bad for the party electorally it would allow us to actually implement things that we had been shouting about for years. I started to have doubts when I saw the programme for government though - it was even less than I had conditioned myself to expect from FF. More so when I realised the last minute decisions Dick Roche made as minister to press ahead with the incinerator in Dublin and the motorway through Tara valley.

Over the three and a bit years that the party was in government there was a definite pattern that FF got most of what they wanted, even stuff outside the programme such as the bank guarantee, while the things that the Green Party wanted were either stalled or watered down. I quit the party last year because I lost patience that it could get anything meaningful done as part of such a disastrous government. For example corporate donations, the party is making a big deal of not accepting money from big business. It was party policy for many years to make corporate donations illegal - which anyone who believes in democracy should agree with - and on principle the party never accepted such donations. In government we should have made it a priority to ban them, so to me it's a bit rich to whine about it now. That's just one example.

I'm enjoying now being a floating voter, it's almost like a luxury since I always voted green before.

I'd say, overall, that the Greens have lost a third of their core support in the last couple of years, without really gaining any new support. They've lost far larger numbers of floating voters, and they may well be transfer-repellent as "part of the government".

I wouldn't, myself, consider their achievements in government irrelevant, and I don't think they're all that trivial for a first-time minority coalition party partnered with a much larger party whose development philosophy is the polar opposite.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bamboozle

Sargent will win his seat, he certainly deserves to, a man of integrity, something that has been in short supply in Dail Eireann.

Zubeneschamali

bamboozle wrote: »

Sargent will win his seat, he certainly deserves to, a man of integrity, something that has been in short supply in Dail Eireann.

Paddy power today:

James Reilly (FG) 1/14
Brendan Ryan (Lab) 1/9
Clare Daly (Soc) 2/7
Michael Kennedy (FF) 8/11
Darragh O'Brien (FF) 11/10
Trevor Sargent (Green) 6/4
Tom Kelleher (Lab) 7/4
Alan Farrell (FG) 9/1
Mark Harrold (Ind) 10/1

ednwireland

bamboozle wrote: »

Sargent will win his seat, he certainly deserves to, a man of integrity, something that has been in short supply in Dail Eireann.

this is the same integrity that meant he told people he wouldnt go into power with FF, the resigns, to allow party to go into power with ff and takes a junior minister position , some integrity

Orion

ednwireland wrote: »

this is the same integrity that meant he told people he wouldnt go into power with FF, the resigns, to allow party to go into power with ff and takes a junior minister position , some integrity

He actually said he wouldn't lead the party into coalition and he didn't.

Of all the greens he is the only one I consider to have any integrity left. I would like to see him returned. I would equally take great pleasure in gormley and gogarty losing their seats.

mayotom

Yillan wrote: »

I'm surprised that the Green Party are so poorly considered in this election.I understand that people are putting all the emphasis on getting in a government that will concentrate on economic issues, but reading through the Green's achievements in government over their term and listening to John Gormally talk about reducing the number of TDs and other changes to the way the Dail is run has made me stop and think.

The Greens achivements!, are you joking?

They have achieved nothing apart from letting down the people who voted for them in 2007, they became FF instantly and did everything they were asked, they had the chance long ago to bring down the government, when that was what the people wanted, they didn't listen. They failed to implement even a fraction of what they promised and joined FF on wasting money left right and centre, the bicycle scheme was a joke, retailers had a bonanza and now the country has expensive bikes gathering dust in every garden shed. meanwhile the ministers try to show they are green while cycling to work while their ministerial Toyota Prius is driven behind them, while the Prius has higher emissions than the diesel Audi/Mercs of the other ministers.

to me the GREENS ARE A JOKE

ixtlan

ciaranmac wrote: »

Over the three and a bit years that the party was in government there was a definite pattern that FF got most of what they wanted, even stuff outside the programme such as the bank guarantee, while the things that the Green Party wanted were either stalled or watered down.

I'm sure that is true... but the reality is that as a small party that is always going to be the way. You always will have to compromise on your ideals, aspirations and policies. The alternative is to remain in opposition until such time as you have an overall majority, which may never happen.

So, you choose as a small party. Stay in permanent opposition as a party of protest, or compromise and lose lots of your protest vote, to get something done, make some change, even if it is small. In the 2007 election, it was not the Green party's fault that FF got close to a majority vote from the electorate. Also not their fault that there was no other viable government (since FG would not deal with SF). It was going to be FF no matter what, and it was their only chance to have some influence on policy. You may think that what they got was not worth going into government. That's a subjective view. Objectively though it's clear that it was that small influence or none at all.

Ironically, I now wonder if it's possible for the protest section of the party, Patrica McKenna et al, to retake control and go back into protest mode for the next 20 years, assuming there is a disastrous election, as expected... That would be a pity I think.

Ix.

steelcityblues

bamboozle wrote: »

Sargent will win his seat, he certainly deserves to, a man of integrity, something that has been in short supply in Dail Eireann.

A man of integrity would have walked away from the party once it became clear they were only FF's lackeys.

urbanachiever1

The Green party seems to suffer from being judged with a higher set of moral and ethical standards than other political parties. I am amazed to see the level of hatred directed toward the Green Party when someone like Michael Lowry is, I read, assured of a seat in the next Dail.

johngalway

I'll happily dance on their political grave.

They've done nothing good for the country. A wishy washy push on organic farming which utterly failed. Heaping cost onto anyone who uses fuel with carbon taxes. Outlawing stag hunting and generally being anti rural out of sheer arrogance with a mix of ignorance. Bleating on about parish pump politics with Gormless trying every trick in the book to rid his constituency of an incinerator, hypocrite.

Dance, dance, dance. Good riddance.

LostinBlanch

OP first of all apologies for the length of this reply. It was meant to be shorter but I felt I couldn't stop. :P

Speaking as an ex core voter, I would have forgiven them for their "incompetence" in being led by the nose by FF. But they are the only party I've ever seen going into negotiations to form a government who accepted even less than FF promised in their manifesto while trying to steal some of the Green's clothes. Eamon Ryan's comment on RTE about not wanting to wash FF's faces showed that they were willing to give up all their principles in order to enjoy the trappings of power.

This was proved to be most accurate in Dick Roche's signing off on the M3 motorway through Tara the day before Gormley was to take office. A nice big f*ck you from FF that set the tone for what was to come. Gormley rolled over and had his belly tickled by FF and the papers who said how "mature" the Greens were and how they have finally grown up and are ready to be in government. IMO at the very least they could have done was draw a line in the sand and say that Tara wasn't for sale. After all, I'm concerned that it only benefitted one major developer or a group of developers who own lands around the Blundellstown interchange, which were rezoned from agricultural to industrial land increasing the price of those lands. IMO Bertie wouldn't have put his FF mudguard at risk for that small deal. Unless he or some of his cronies were in on it - but that would only be groundless speculation, so without proof I would discount that.

RE the Sargent integrity comments. He managed to pull a conjob of Bertie proportions with his jesuitical comments about not leading the greens into government with FF during the election, and get away with people not calling him on it. I can understand that they didn't want to align themselves to a junior role in a rainbow coalition in the eyes of voters before election day. They were trying to get as many 1st preferences as possible while looking to hoover up as many transfers from FG & Lab as possible. It worked for them, they were seen as a "safe" transfer by FG & Lab voters which got them over the line and helped get them increase their number of seats. His (forced) resignation as minister was spun as principled by the greens. But what did they say when Bobby Molloy was forced to resign after interfering in the judicial process (as Sargent did) but this time in favour of a man accused of raping his 10 year old daughter in 2002 IIRC? Was that a principled action in their view?

Now the Greens under Sargent always portrayed themselves as the closest thing Ireland had to a "clean hands" anti corruption party. Voters were used to this as this was one of the main policies from their inception. I'm sure if those who voted for them knew that Sargent and Gormely were contemplating propping up FF theywouldn't hav got the votes they did. FF smile and call such actions a stroke, everyone else would term it blatant dishonesty in order to prop up FF, the party they had since their inception derided as being corrupt and untrustworthy.,So in effect by propping up FF they became willing corruption enablers in much the same way that the Vatican were guilty of being paedophile enablers by their activities. It worked in that they fooled those voters who believed what they said in the past, and they increased their number of seats, but in they eyes of people who voted for them, they got their seats by lying. Lying by omission maybe, but still lying.

The last party to do that was Labour after the 1992 election and the electorate waited in the long grass for them. Despite the fact that they were participants in the most effective government that I can remember- the rainbow coalition. Previously in the 80's we had the crap FG/Lab coalitions and corrupt Haughey ones. Afterwards the squander our future generations money Bertie ones. In the 1997 election Labour were eviscerated and the "Spring tide" went out. That's why I'd put a few quid on them not getting any seats, and I don't think that anyone who cares about the corruption and cronyism that led us to where we are would shed a tear for them, and their platinum pensions with 80,000 euro payoffs when they won't get elected. I mean compare the amount of times the Greens mentioned the FF tent at the Galway Races pre 2007 and post 2007. What was it that made it suddenly so cosher? :cool:

Of course this is before Gormely et al became willing accomplices in settign up NAMA (before propping up Anglo that is, but we didn't know the extent of that at the time). Up to that point I would have forgiven the Greens and voted for them again if they didn't vote that through. But they did, and all for the paltry price of a ban on mink farming . .. and we know how many FF votes are in mink farming! :rolleyes:

But they stood foursqare behind Cowen and Lenihan while they destroyed watever economy we had left. They voted for things that even died in the wool FF backbenchers baulked at. They deserve to be held to account for what they voted for in ther time in office. Any whining about being unfairly scapegoated and compared to independents that they previously derided as corruption enablers ignores the facts that I have set out above.

Anyway, I hope the above hasn't bored you, but maybe given you food for thought before you cast your vote whatever way you do.

Yours sadly

LIB

PS I knew that things were going to be bad when they decided to prop up Bertie and Cowen - but I never imagined that they would ever get so bad. It's not something I take any pleasure out of saying I told you so. In fact I'd much prefer to have been wrong.

PPS I can't say much about O'Brollchain as I never met him. He never was at any party meetings I was at. But it's been a while since I was in Galway. I would point you to Pat Fitzpatrick a stalwart Galway Green and former candidate in the 97 election. The last time I saw him was on RTE news in 2009 I think when he was asking "when did we (the green party) become the developers bitches?" I can't remember seeing O'Brollchains answer.

Seth Brundle

Macros42 wrote: »

He actually said he wouldn't lead the party into coalition and he didn't.

Yeah - it was just like Dessie Connell's Mental Reservation nonsense!

LostinBlanch

ixtlan wrote: »

I'm sure that is true... but the reality is that as a small party that is always going to be the way. You always will have to compromise on your ideals, aspirations and policies. The alternative is to remain in opposition until such time as you have an overall majority, which may never happen.

So, you choose as a small party. Stay in permanent opposition as a party of protest, or compromise and lose lots of your protest vote, to get something done, make some change, even if it is small. In the 2007 election, it was not the Green party's fault that FF got close to a majority vote from the electorate. Also not their fault that there was no other viable government (since FG would not deal with SF). It was going to be FF no matter what, and it was their only chance to have some influence on policy. You may think that what they got was not worth going into government. That's a subjective view. Objectively though it's clear that it was that small influence or none at all.

Ironically, I now wonder if it's possible for the protest section of the party, Patrica McKenna et al, to retake control and go back into protest mode for the next 20 years, assuming there is a disastrous election, as expected... That would be a pity I think.

Ix.

Now this gets to me big time. This whole were small party so we can't expect much sh*te. Independents like Jackie Healy Rea and Lowry can name their price while a party of 6 TDs can get damn all. More spin to hide their incompetence at negotiating.

The Greens were there when they voted through NAMA and the Anglo guarantee and they deserve to hang for that as much as FF. It's a consequence of their actions that we all have to pay for.

As for the derisive comments about the protest section of the party - do they have a section that protests anymore? :rolleyes: This goes back to a philosophical argument about whether it is more important to get "green" policies implemented as a pressure group or get in power as in Gormely 2007. The Greens up until 2007 and were lairy about power and careerism. So much so that they had specific policies about the amount of time members could be TDs as there was the feeling that they could be institutionalised and have Stockholm syndrome. This was ditched as party policy before 2007 IIRC I wonder why?

Getting back to the pressure group / political party debate. Well take the ban on smoky coal in Dublin in 1990. This was Green party policy for years before Mary Harney stole it for the PDs and implemented it. Who cares that she is remembered for it? This was a Green Party policy that was implemented, does it matter that it was done by Harney or Roger Garland?

LostinBlanch

kbannon wrote: »

Yeah - it was just like Dessie Connell's Mental Reservation nonsense!

I agree, though you said it in less words that I did

Tarobot

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Now this gets to me big time. This whole were small party so we can't expect much sh*te. Independents like Jackie Healy Rea and Lowry can name their price while a party of 6 TDs can get f*ck all? B*ll*cks, absolute b*ll*cks. More spin to hide their incompetence at negotiating.

Nonsense - the Greens got lots of things through.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

The Greens were there when they voted through NAMA and the Anglo guarantee and they deserve to hang for that as much as corrupt FF. It's a consequence of their actions that we all have to pay for.

How many times does it have to be repeated that the arithmetic in 2007 meant it was FF + Labour or FF + Greens? I have yet to be shown any evidence that an alternative was politically viable. Anyway, the Anglo guarantee was supported by Patrick Honohan in his report and as Gormley said this morning on the radio, any other government would have done the same if they had the same information available.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

As for the derisive comments about the protest section of the party - do they have a section that protests anymore? :rolleyes: This goes back to a philosophical argument about whether it is more important to get "green" policies implemented as a pressure group or get in power as in Gormely 2007. The Greens up until 2007 and were lairy about power and careerism. So much so that they had specific policies about the amount of time members could be TDs as there was the feeling that they could be institutionalised and have Stockholm syndrome. This was ditched as party policy before 2007 IIRC I wonder why?

I've never heard of this policy - can you link to it?

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Getting back to the pressure group / political party debate. Well take the ban on smoky coal in Dublin in 1990. This was Green party policy for years before Mary Harney stole it for the PDs and implemented it. Who cares that she is remembered for it? This was a Green Party policy that was implemented, does it matter that it was done by Harney or Roger Garland?

Absolutely agree - but the environmental policies of the main political parties are pathetic. Look at the environmental politics of other mainstream political parties in Europe and they are much, much stronger. If the Greens push the agenda into other parties' manifestos then they will have fulfilled part of their brief, as far as I'm concerned.

johnmcdnl

because the last thing that anyone wants today is more carbon taxes and the likes...

people in 07 would have been more inclined to vote green because at that stage ireland was doing pretty good and people felt that the environmental was an important issue


OP - how many times have you considered the environmental issues when deciding who to vote for???

and most other people here and across Ireland are the same - they don't care - they're more worried about their jobs...



oh and the fact that they were in coalition with FF won't help will it

Tarobot

The economy is not separate from the environment. The economy exists within the environment, as does society and everything else we care about.