A Dáil with no Green TD's

barclay2

It looks like the Green Party are going to lose all their seats. I don't think anybody will be surprised by that given (a) the economic difficulties that have coincided with their term in office and (b) what has always happened to small parties that enter coalition with Fianna Fáil.

I would like to suggest that a Dáil with a green voice is better than one without a green voice, and that the country will be worse off if the Green party does get wiped out. Before explaining why, it's important to first explain why they don't deserve any disproportionate blame for the country's current situation.

First: the collapse in the public finances resulted from the unsustainable policies of previous Fianna Fáil governments, not the FF-Green government.

Second: poor regulation of the banking system resulted from the policies of previous Fianna Fáil governments, not the FF-Green government.

Third: the Green Party did make a mistake in supporting the blanket banking guarantee. However, there is no reason to think that a government without them would have made a different choice. A different government would have gotten the same advice and likely would have made the same decision - after all, the banking guarantee received widespread support throughout the opposition. As such, it would be odd to punish the greens for a decision that any alternative government would probably have made.

In any event, that is in the past and we need to look ahead. Why would a Dáil with a green voice be better than a Dáil without one?

In Eamonn Ryan, John Gormley, Trevor Sargent, Dan Boyle in the Seanad and one or two others, the Green Party has a nucleus of honest individuals who have been- by the standards of Irish politicians - articulate and forward-thinking on issues that matter a great deal to the future of the country and the quality of life here. Good examples of this include planning laws, the future of IT and Communications Technology (Eamonn Ryan especially), renewable energy and energy efficiency, public transport and transport policy in general. However, the best example has been in an area that is now a significant part of every party's election platform - political reform.

The Greens were proposing political reforms before the recession even began - now every party is prioritizing it. Examples of these early proposals include: a ban on corporate donations to break the link between business and politics; an elected, empowered Mayor for Dublin; strengthening local government so that TD's can focus on national issues instead of local issues; changing the electoral system to promote TD's who prioritize the national interest over constituency/sectional interests.

In addition, I'd like to add a more abstract idea. This country is now suffering the effects of short-termist policies and the excessive influence of sectional interests. Green thinking is ideally suited to changing this, for two reasons: Firstly, it inherently prioritizes the long-term over the short-term; secondly, it inherently favours a broad-minded approach to policy over a sectional approach, since environmentalism is all about minimising external costs. I would personally prefer to have a Dáil that promotes this kind of thinking.

I conclude with 2 questions. Firstly, if you agree with even some of what I have argued here, would you agree that the country will be worse off if we elect a Dáil with no Green TD's? Secondly, if not, why are we better off without them?

Sponge Bob

barclay2 wrote: »

In Eamonn Ryan, Dan Boyle in the Seanad and one or two others, the Green Party has a nucleus of honest individuals

Seeing as you mentioned those two I must say that I found Ryan and Boyle to be among the most duplicitous shortsighted unprincipled and downright useless practitioners of the art of Politics in the last Dáil. Ryans constant lies about Broadband were a perennial lowlight of the last government and as for the Tweetybird and his designer rumours and designer positions the less said the better.

Having either in the next Dáil would sicken me

barclay2

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Seeing as you mentioned those two I must say that I found Ryan and Boyle to be among the most duplicitous shortsighted unprincipled and downright useless practitioners of the art of Politics in the last Dáil.

Having either in the next Dáil would sicken me

Why do you have that opinion of them? By the way, Boyle hasn't been in the Dáil since 2007

DarkJager

No thanks, we're better off without them. Each of their "environmental policies" ends up hitting everybody in the pocket. Carbon taxes, water charges and god knows what would be next if they get back in - a tax on breathing perhaps? Maybe tax conscessions for people who live in straw huts with no electricity or things that might "harm the environment"? Most of us are struggling to make ends meet as it is without Captain ****ing Planet deciding to tax something else and cost us more money.

Keep them out and good riddance.

Godge

John Gormley - articulate and forward-thinking?

With his waste bill he was trying to ensure that one local project didn't go ahead - Ringsend incinerator - and he was doing this without regard to the potential bill he was exposing the state to. He had an arguable point that there was a large bill if it went ahead but his solution was to create a situation where there was a bigger bill if it didn't. The ultimate gombeen local politician in my view.

barclay2

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Ryans constant lies about Broadband were a perennial lowlight of the last government and as for the Tweetybird and his designer rumours and designer positions the less said the better.

Having either in the next Dáil would sicken me

What lies did he tell? Even if there are lies that I'm not aware of, I find it hard to believe that they constitute the lowlight of the last government.

"The less said the better". I disagree, i'd prefer to hear actual criticisms. Please go ahead.

Sponge Bob

barclay2 wrote: »

Why do you have that opinion of them? By the way, Boyle hasn't been in the Dáil since 2007

Because that is all they did for over three years, that and clog up the national media with their inane prattle. My cat used to scratch the sofa every time Eamon Ryan came on the bloody telly.

While I don't mind Gormley and Sergeant so much I did find Gormleys Incinerator NIMBY antics rather amusing. Trevor made a mistake and paid the price honourably, I won't ever hold it against him given the manner and alacrity of his leaving unlike scumbag FFers caught doing a lot worse

But Ryan and Boyle only stand for the next soundbite. Good riddance.

jprender

The Greens should have called time on this Government a long, long time ago.

The fact that they did not, means they will pay a heavy price. Clinging on to power for so long, when most of the population wanted an election, will result in them being obliterated. All their own doing I'm afraid.

mikom

A clean sweep hopefully so that I don't have to look at or hear about the fucktards for the next few years.

Gormley is grasping at straws today with his "don't vote for the independents" plea.
So they probably know they are finished anyway.

sdanseo

Knowing our luck, Sargent may cling on. If there were 5 seats in DN, he'd be my #5 - but I'm not even gonna risk him getting my transfer tbh. Think a lot of people will vote similarly too.

gk5000

Shssh.... don't wake the sympathy vote!

barclay2

Godge wrote: »

John Gormley - articulate and forward-thinking?

With his waste bill he was trying to ensure that one local project didn't go ahead - Ringsend incinerator - and he was doing this without regard to the potential bill he was exposing the state to. He had an arguable point that there was a large bill if it went ahead but his solution was to create a situation where there was a bigger bill if it didn't. The ultimate gombeen local politician in my view.

Whether or not this is the case regarding the waste bill, and I doubt it is (i'll admit I don't know much about that one) it seems odd to call someone "the ultimate gombeen politician" on the basis of one policy. Changing planning laws to prevent corrupt rezoning (central to the property collapse), introduction of water meters to conserve a natural resource, proposing a ban on corporate donations....the acts of a gombeen politician?

gbee

barclay2 wrote: »

I would like to suggest that a Dáil with a green voice is better than one without a green voice,

No. I used to vote Green. Not any more. These guys would cure a head cold by amputating the patient's head.

We are paying much more today in raw taxes with no benefit in kind being in place ~ thanks to the Greens blindly and stubbornly forcing through policies that are aggravating an already bad situation.

I had fully expected the Greens to come out and suspend their policies in light of the current economic upheavals but no, they just want more tax and I could go on and on and on ... spear me please.

Corsendonk

sdonn wrote: »

Knowing our luck, Sargent may cling on. If there were 5 seats in DN, he'd be my #5 - but I'm not even gonna risk him getting my transfer tbh. Think a lot of people will vote similarly too.

Trevor will still get voted in......

mewso

I have never voted Green or understood why they exist. Look at any political party's manifesto and they will have a policy on the Environment where it belongs. We don't need a party based on one area of governance. Good riddance and take FF with ye on the way out.

ejmaztec

barclay2 wrote: »

A different government would have gotten the same advice and likely would have made the same decision

...but the FF/Greens went against the expensive professional advice that they were given?

barclay2

jprender wrote: »

The Greens should have called time on this Government a long, long time ago.

The fact that they did not, means they will pay a heavy price. Clinging on to power for so long, when most of the population wanted an election, will result in them being obliterated. All their own doing I'm afraid.

I don't disagree that that decision will cost them votes. But i'd argue that they had to tread a fine line - if they had pulled out early they'd have been accused of flakiness, not having the guts to see Ireland through tough times etc.

barclay2

ejmaztec wrote: »

...but the FF/Greens went against the expensive professional advice that they were given?

How so? They were advised by the governor of the central bank and the financial regulator to introduce a blanket bank guarantee as far as I know

barclay2

DarkJager wrote: »

No thanks, we're better off without them. Each of their "environmental policies" ends up hitting everybody in the pocket. Carbon taxes, water charges and god knows what would be next if they get back in - a tax on breathing perhaps? Maybe tax conscessions for people who live in straw huts with no electricity or things that might "harm the environment"? Most of us are struggling to make ends meet as it is without Captain ****ing Planet deciding to tax something else and cost us more money.

Keep them out and good riddance.

Without the revenue from carbon taxes, what other tax would you raise or what service would you cut to compensate for it? And why should polluting activities not be taxed?

On water charges - why should wealthy households be allowed to use as much water as they like and have the taxpayer foot the bill? And why should we continue without water charges for the wealthy when charges mean less water is used and therefore less taxpayers money is spent.

barclay2

mewso wrote: »

I have never voted Green or understood why they exist. Look at any political party's manifesto and they will have a policy on the Environment where it belongs. We don't need a party based on one area of governance. Good riddance and take FF with ye on the way out.

I would actually counter by saying that Green politics is inherently less single-policy-oriented than the politics of other parties. A green philosophy means looking at how all policy areas affect each other and the natural context in which they all happen.

Sponge Bob

None of which are good reasons why I should listen to a word Eamon Ryan says about anything. It is a tribute to the overweening intellectual shallowness of the party that they made that yoke a minister.

Cuffe managed to count Ghost estates , the problem is that they were all on a website called ghostestates.com and the divvy **** only had to press print in Firefox and job done. That is what he spent his entire ministerial career doing

Why I would ever want to see these third rate intellects in Irish Politics ever again any more than I want to see McDowell ??

ravensswoop1

I shall miss them. I always had an affection for the Greens. They always brought a great deal of hilarity to dinner time. Gogarty's heroes - the great comics past and present were his forte. Mr Bean,was always reflected in his behaviour and who can forget that wonderful impression he did of the Hollywood master tramp when he appeared in the Dail with an waif. - pure Charlie Chaplin. But the best comedian of all was, of course, Martin Manserg, his Bertie Wooster impressions were masterful. Ahh, sad times ahead. Oh, wait, won't Wee Willy get back in? I've cheered up already.

DarkJager

barclay2 wrote: »

Without the revenue from carbon taxes, what other tax would you raise or what service would you cut to compensate for it? And why should polluting activities not be taxed?

How about the fact that petrol is nearly touching €1.50 a litre now, and nearly 70% of that is Government tax? What gives the green crusaders the right to punish those who use cars and don't cycle bicycles? What about the businesses that are just barely keeping their heads above water because of increased fuel charges? Taxing polluting companies I'd agree with. Extra taxing motorists just because they drive a car is ****ing obscene and one of the reasons I'll be happy to see the Greens annihilated.

On water charges - why should wealthy households be allowed to use as much water as they like and have the taxpayer foot the bill? And why should we continue without water charges for the wealthy when charges mean less water is used and therefore less taxpayers money is spent.

We've done fine without water charges for long before these tree huggers came in to Government, we'll do just as fine long after they are gone.

barclay2

Sponge Bob wrote: »

None of which are good reasons why I should listen to a word Eamon Ryan says about anything. It is a tribute to the overweening intellectual shallowness of the party that they made that yoke a minister.

Cuffe managed to count Ghost estates , the problem is that they were all on a website called ghostestates.com and the divvy **** only had to press print in Firefox and job done. That is what he spent his entire ministerial career doing

Why I would ever want to see these third rate intellects in Irish Politics ever again any more than I want to see McDowell ??

Could you back any of this up with actual evidence or examples? What did Ryan do that was dishonest or untruthful? Simply declaring that all cuffe did was print things off websites isn't the kind of substantial argument I was hoping for - i'd prefer if you support it with reasons, evidence

mikom

barclay2 wrote: »

I would actually counter by saying that Green politics is inherently less single-policy-oriented than the politics of other parties. A green philosophy means looking at how all policy areas affect each other and the natural context in which they all happen.

barclay2

DarkJager wrote: »

How about the fact that petrol is nearly touching €1.50 a litre now, and nearly 70% of that is Government tax? What gives the green crusaders the right to punish those who use cars and don't cycle bicycles? What about the businesses that are just barely keeping their heads above water because of increased fuel charges? Taxing polluting companies I'd agree with. Extra taxing motorists just because they drive a car is ****ing obscene and one of the reasons I'll be happy to see the Greens annihilated.



We've done fine without water charges for long before these tree huggers came in to Government, we'll do just as fine long after they are gone.

I don't see any answers to my questions there. What tax or cut would you introduce to replace the carbon tax? And why is it ok to use taxpayers money to pay for wealthy families to use as much water as they like?

DarkJager

barclay2 wrote: »

I don't see any answers to my questions there. What tax or cut would you introduce to replace the carbon tax? And why is it ok to use taxpayers money to pay for wealthy families to use as much water as they like?

Do you use water? If you do, then what are you talking about? Do poor families not use any water then?

And I'm no economist, but I am a motorist. The fact that €5 of petrol barely gets me 3 litres now is hurting me financially as I have to pump more into it just to do my work. Taxes or cuts anywhere other than a vital source of mobility for a majority of this country should be considered.

Sponge Bob

barclay2 wrote: »

Could you back any of this up with actual evidence or examples? What did Ryan do that was dishonest or untruthful? Simply declaring that all cuffe did was print things off websites isn't the kind of substantial argument I was hoping for - i'd prefer if you support it with reasons, evidence

Cuffe _could have_ .......ah never mind. Here is a summary of Eamon and Ciaráns many many wonderful achievements.

snowstreams

There wasnt any need for carbon taxes really. In all fairness, petrol prices are going to go with or without taxes, thats the worrying point.

barclay2

DarkJager wrote: »

Do you use water? If you do, then what are you talking about? Do poor families not use any water then?

And I'm no economist, but I am a motorist. The fact that €5 of petrol barely gets me 3 litres now is hurting me financially as I have to pump more into it just to do my work. Taxes or cuts anywhere other than a vital source of mobility for a majority of this country should be considered.

Yes i do use water - and I don't think that it's ok that the motoring taxes you hate paying should foot the bill for it.

I believe you hate motoring taxes and that it hurts your pocket. It strikes me as odd, therefore, that you have such an objection to the party that is the biggest supporter of public transport funding, since better public transport means you won't need to rely on your car as much. And governments have to look at the big picture (unlike individuals) - Ireland has international commitments to honour on reducing our reliance on fossil fuels like oil, and cars are one of the biggest users of those fossil fuels. We can't pretend otherwise.

barclay2

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Cuffe _could have_ .......ah never mind. Here is a summary of Eamon and Ciaráns many many wonderful achievements.

Am still waiting for some reasons or evidence to support what you say

Liam Byrne

barclay2 wrote: »

It looks like the Green Party are going to lose all their seats. I don't think anybody will be surprised by that given (a) the economic difficulties that have coincided with their term in office and (b) what has always happened to small parties that enter coalition with Fianna Fáil.

Why did you leave out (c) they voted in favour of some despicable choices that FF proposed, decisions that are unfair and punishing, and so have helped hammer the country through those decisions and (d) they abandoned their "polluter pays" principle completely.

I mean, the poor things.....it's not their fault at all at all, is it ?

Good riddance to them!

Max Powers

barclay2 wrote: »

It looks like the Green Party are going to lose all their seats.

With any luck, they along with FF will be annihalated

aarondoc

no green party in dail? well just made my day

barclay2

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why did you leave out (c) they voted in favour of some despicable choices that FF proposed, decisions that are unfair and punishing, and so have helped hammer the country through those decisions and (d) they abandoned their "polluter pays" principle completely.

I mean, the poor things.....it's not their fault at all at all, is it ?

Good riddance to them!

I'm not sure if you read everything in my intro. I did go onto agree that voting in favour of the banking guarantee was a mistake, but that if any alternative set of parties was in government they would have likely made the same choice - the opposition mostly supported the guarantee after all, and would have listened to the same advice from the central bank and financial regulator if they were in government. As such, it's odd to punish the greens for a policy that any alternative government would have brought in anyway.

More generally, i don't think its fair to simply state they hammered through despicable policies - you need to specify what policies, outline better alternatives and show how those alternatives could be afforded. If you can't do that, then it's not fair to say good riddance to them.

I don't know what you mean when you say they abandoned the polluter pays principle, but would like to hear more if you'll oblige.

DarkJager

barclay2 wrote: »

Yes i do use water - and I don't think that it's ok that the motoring taxes you hate paying should foot the bill for it.

I believe you hate motoring taxes and that it hurts your pocket. It strikes me as odd, therefore, that you have such an objection to the party that is the biggest supporter of public transport funding, since better public transport means you won't need to rely on your car as much. And governments have to look at the big picture (unlike individuals) - Ireland has international commitments to honour on reducing our reliance on fossil fuels like oil, and cars are one of the biggest users of those fossil fuels. We can't pretend otherwise.

Yeah and considering I travel between Cork and Limerick, I'm certainly not going to be using public transport at any stage in a week. If you want to get in to that, public transport is ok in cities or urban areas. For people living outside of those areas it is useless. No amount of funding public transport is going to change the fact that some people must have use of a car.

Its pure fantasy land to even think that any government or entity in this world can do anything to reduce peoples dependance on vehicles. It simply is not going to happen, so why should people be hit in the pocket for something they require by neccesity?

dark crystal

barclay2 wrote: »

I don't see any answers to my questions there. What tax or cut would you introduce to replace the carbon tax? And why is it ok to use taxpayers money to pay for wealthy families to use as much water as they like?

Why do you think we need to replace the carbon tax if it is axed? What environmental problems has it solved exactly?

All it has done is drive the cost of petrol to astronmical proportions, as well as adding approximately €45 to the cost of filling a 1,000 litre oil tank and €40 to the average annual gas bill. I honestly don't see who or what this tax benefits.

As for the water metering, I'm pretty sure wealthy families pay tax as well - therefore, it's their tax money being used just as much as less well off families. Tell me, how have the Irish population managed this long without paying water charges?

Liam Byrne

barclay2 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you read everything in my intro. I did go onto agree that voting in favour of the banking guarantee was a mistake, but that if any alternative set of parties was in government they would have likely made the same choice - the opposition mostly supported the guarantee after all, and would have listened to the same advice from the central bank and financial regulator if they were in government. As such, it's odd to punish the greens for a policy that any alternative government would have brought in anyway.

You mentioned them, but you didn't list them as reasons why The Greens are hated.

And why shouldn't we punish the Greens for doing something that someone else might have done ? Do we not punish a robber on the basis that "someone else would have robbed it anyway" ?

barclay2 wrote: »

More generally, i don't think its fair to simply state they hammered through despicable policies - you need to specify what policies, outline better alternatives and show how those alternatives could be afforded. If you can't do that, then it's not fair to say good riddance to them.

I don't know what you mean when you say they abandoned the polluter pays principle, but would like to hear more if you'll oblige.

I will combine those two into one obvious one - charging EVERYONE for septic tank inspections, instead of inspecting them and getting the inspection system to pay its way by fining those who pollute.

Other examples exist, including helping to ensure that ordinary people are less likely to be able to afford a newer, non-polluting car.

And then there's the support of corruption and voting confidence in the likes of Cowen & Lenihan, not to mention supporting the cynical delaying of by-elections.

If you want more, feel free to ask again.

But the above combined with lumping us with NAMA (via a VERY dodgy reverse-phrasing of the proposal) is enough to make me happy to wave them off in their journey to oblivion.

snowstreams

Is green farming diesel carbon taxed too?
But water metering favoured by fine gael and fianna fail too. Its not just a green idea.

ejmaztec

barclay2 wrote: »

How so? They were advised by the governor of the central bank and the financial regulator to introduce a blanket bank guarantee as far as I know

This is common knowledge to the world and his dog.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0716/banks.html

The Government was warned of the potential cost of a blanket guarantee to the six main banks the day before it was introduced.
International consultants Merrill Lynch warned the Government that the guarantee could cost up to €500bn, which the State could not afford to cover if required.

barclay2

dark crystal wrote: »

Why do you think we need to replace the carbon tax if it is axed? What environmental problems has it solved exactly?

All it has done is drive the cost of petrol to astronmical proportions, as well as adding approximately €45 to the cost of filling a 1,000 litre oil tank and €40 to the average annual gas bill. I honestly don't see who or what this tax benefits.

As for the water metering, I'm pretty sure wealthy families pay tax as well - therefore, it's their tax money being used just as much as less well off families. Tell me, how have the Irish population managed this long without paying water charges?

A carbon tax needs to be replaced if its axed because it is a source of revenue - if we cut off that revenue we need to either raise more elsewhere or spend less elsewhere. Of itself it doesn't "solve" the environmental question of greenhouse emissions - but if well-implemented it corrects a source of market failure where the full cost of an activity is not borne by the person who pays for the activity, but is also shared by the environment and the society that depends on the environment.

On water charges, simply because we haven't had water charges yet doesn't mean we're better off without them. In our current situation, people can waste water and not be penalised for it, and everyone else has to foot the bill. That is unfair, particularly to those on lower incomes. And its wasteful of a natural resource - one which we will have to spread more thinly as our population continues to grow.

dark crystal

barclay2 wrote: »

A carbon tax needs to be replaced if its axed because it is a source of revenue - if we cut off that revenue we need to either raise more elsewhere or spend less elsewhere. Of itself it doesn't "solve" the environmental question of greenhouse emissions - but if well-implemented it corrects a source of market failure where the full cost of an activity is not borne by the person who pays for the activity, but is also shared by the environment and the society that depends on the environment.

On water charges, simply because we haven't had water charges yet doesn't mean we're better off without them. In our current situation, people can waste water and not be penalised for it, and everyone else has to foot the bill. That is unfair, particularly to those on lower incomes. And its wasteful of a natural resource - one which we will have to spread more thinly as our population continues to grow.

Is it correct then to say that the carbon tax has achieved absolutely nothing in terms of reducing carbon emissions and is merely a revenue raising tax? That is to say, motorists won't stop driving their cars and people won't stop heating their homes, so in fact, the Green Party has basically just lumped the people of Ireland with yet another obligatory tax for no discernable reason, other than to penalise them for going about their everyday lives.

As for the water metering, you do realise that it's the families on low incomes who will suffer the most by these charges? Families on lower and middle incomes will use just as much water as those on higher incomes - they, too, have toilets to flush, baths to take, dishes to clean and cars to wash and will pay exactly the same as someone on a much higher salary. As it stands, right now, we are better off without them.

I honestly don't know how much blood the last FF/Greens government thought they could squeeze out of the Irish people, but as far as I'm concerned, they've almost manage to squeeze every last drop from us.

Nobody has a problem helping the environment, but when time and time again, that help seems to take the form of hitting them in the pocket over and over again, it does more harm to the cause than good.

I hope to God, if there's any justice in the world, the Greens lose every seat they had and take time to sit back and reflect on how they helped contribute to the financial desperation heaped upon so many shoulders over the last three years.