Why do we punish the smaller parties, but not the big boys?

gawker

Like alot of people, I've been baffled at the rapid re-emergence of FF in Irish politics. After all that had happened, I figured they'd at least have to rebuild for an election or two and work hard to win back public trust. Credit where it's due to the party from what they've managed thus far, but it's baffling all the same to see the public start to turn in their direction so soon.

Meanwhile, the Greens (I'm a recently-joined member, but will try be balanced here) are stagnant and struggling to get beyond 1/2 percent in the polls. Any mention of them in the media is usually followed up by references to how they'll never be forgiven for propping up that FF government.

Now, we see Labour being destroyed in the media and disappearing in public polls, apparently because they are a party to very unpopular government decisions.

Now, if the Irish electorate are so angry about what happened when things went bust, and are angry as hell at what's being done now with cuts, why are the two main parties in each instance being rewarded with high public support?

I know Labour supporters will have become disheartened and some may not have turned up to vote, but that doesn't account for the massive fall in support in Meath East, for example. It's clear the public at large is very comfortable taking their anger out on junior coalition parties, but why not the two main parties involved in either our demise or our current policies?

Peanut2011

The problem you have is the fact that large parties have bigger following than the small ones obviously, so any loss of votes will hurt them.

Further more, its the small parties that compromise their beliefs and what they stood for in order to stay in the government.

The only thing greens are remembered for was for extra taxes and that they did nothing to stop FF ruining the country. Same as Labour now. If Labour stood up to FG and actually pursued their promises and called out FG on their shortcomings they would have a lot more support.

This way it just looks they sold their own party just to get in to the power and secure nice pensions for themselves.

catallus

Rapid re-emergence? Those boys are buried deep, might be re-electable in 2022.

efb

they sell out their values for a junior ministry

gawker

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Further more, its the small parties that compromise their beliefs and what they stood for in order to stay in the government.

...

This way it just looks they sold their own party just to get in to the power and secure nice pensions for themselves.

On your first point - IIRC both Labour and Fine Gael openly admitted they'd have to do some unpopular things in their manifestos (eg. property tax). They were given a mandate to do so and now Labour are being eaten alive for it. If Labour have compromised their beliefs, does that mean Fine Gael have done what everyone expected them to do?

On the other point about power and pensions, it's a damned if you do thing. If Labour/Greens/PDs had never gone into Government as minority partners, they would never have a chance to implement any of their policies. In that case, people would just be saying all they can do is oppose and complain.

catallus wrote: »

Rapid re-emergence? Those boys are buried deep, might be re-electable in 2022.

I wish that was so but judging by the polls and the Meath East election, they are on the rise and I wouldn't be shocked to see them run FG close in the next election.

catallus

Well an awful lot of that is down to the national media; I see RTE putting FF faces on tv and websites and the Independent putting actual photographs of the FF leadership on page 1 and 2.

I'm saddened by the amount of time they get on RTE radio too.

Sierra Oscar

catallus wrote: »

Well an awful lot of that is down to the national media; I see RTE putting FF faces on tv and websites and the Independent putting actual photographs of the FF leadership on page 1 and 2.

I'm saddened by the amount of time they get on RTE radio too.

Research figures actually suggest that FF has not been receiving a proportionate amount of coverage by RTE since the General Election as compared to other parties.

'RTE News bias favours Labour/SF' - FF Inquiry


Things have changed since that complaint, due to the fact that the findings were collaborated entirely by independent figures. You may not like RTE giving speaking time to FF representatives and the opposition in general, but they are merely fulfilling their obligations as the public broadcaster.

catallus

Ah, ok, an Irish Independent report on an FF inquiry is telling us the truth? get real.

Sierra Oscar

catallus wrote: »

Ah, ok, an Irish Independent report on an FF inquiry is telling us the truth? get real.

Why do you think RTE would have made the changes if they had been fair and balanced in the first place?

Also FYI, the story was not solely reported by the Sunday Independent - it was picked up on thereafter by various other sources. I guess everyone must be in on some conspiracy that I am not aware of.

catallus

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Why do you think RTE would have made the changes if they had been fair and balanced in the first place?

Also FYI, the story was not solely reported by the Sunday Independent - it was picked up on thereafter by various other sources. I guess everyone is in on some conspiracy that I am not aware of.

It seems that you're unaware of a lot of things if you believe that stuff.

Sierra Oscar

catallus wrote: »

It seems that you're unaware of a lot of things if you believe that stuff.

I was not the one insinuating that there is some sort of media / FF conspiracy underway.

It seems that you are finding it troublesome that FF are receiving any airtime at all, despite the party having a mandate and leading the opposition in Dáil Éireann. The media, especially RTE, have an obligation to proportionately represent voices from across the political divide - which they are now trying to do.

catallus

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I was not the one insinuating that there is some sort of media / FF conspiracy underway.

It seems that you are finding it troublesome that FF are receiving any airtime at all, despite the party having a mandate and leading the opposition in Dáil Éireann. The media, especially RTE, have an obligation to proportionately represent voices from across the political divide - which they are now trying to do.

Yes, I find it it troublesome that the party that committed economic and social treason is getting air-time; but that's the point: when you live underwater you have to learn to breathe like a fish. Se la vie, and que sera, sera

Peanut2011

gawker wrote: »

On your first point - IIRC both Labour and Fine Gael openly admitted they'd have to do some unpopular things in their manifestos (eg. property tax). They were given a mandate to do so and now Labour are being eaten alive for it. If Labour have compromised their beliefs, does that mean Fine Gael have done what everyone expected them to do?

See the thing is that both Labour and FG were given a mandate to do what they promised instead of what they are doing, but that is neither here nor there. Labour is being eaten alive because they are unable to do what they stand for. All they are good for now is being the FG's lap dog.

They used to be able to argue, but it seems their time with FG has taken that away from them too. I for one am sick and tired of listening about what they were left by FF and "how many bodies SF is responsible for" every time opposition asks a question. They are most certainly not given the mandate to do that.

gawker wrote: »

On the other point about power and pensions, it's a damned if you do thing. If Labour/Greens/PDs had never gone into Government as minority partners, they would never have a chance to implement any of their policies. In that case, people would just be saying all they can do is oppose and complain.

As I said before if any of the small parties stood up to their partners and showed that they are there to help this nation in time of need and not for personal gain it would be a lot different. A lot of people saw Labour as alternative to FG and FF but after seeing how quick they folded, why would anyone vote for them again??

PD's were a joke for a long time and served as people to take the slack for FF's shortcomings until they disappeared, than Greens took that place. Unfortunately the whole green agenda was to promote something Ireland never had and instead of incentives and making sure people accept it, they started taxing... that is all they are remembered for.


The sad reality is that there is no alternatives out there because of the way the voting as well as the whole Dail is set up. We will never get away from FG or FF in the government.

SF will not get to government any time soon because people are buying in to the FG/Lab spin about the history and all the rest and lets face it, independent vote is always a vote for opposition.

Until some major changes are done in the political set up, there will never be a real change. Until Parish politics have no more say there will never be any change. Until we stop voting in family member after family member there will be no change.....

T runner

gawker wrote: »

Like alot of people, I've been baffled at the rapid re-emergence of FF in Irish politics. After all that had happened, I figured they'd at least have to rebuild for an election or two and work hard to win back public trust. Credit where it's due to the party from what they've managed thus far, but it's baffling all the same to see the public start to turn in their direction so soon.

Meanwhile, the Greens (I'm a recently-joined member, but will try be balanced here) are stagnant and struggling to get beyond 1/2 percent in the polls. Any mention of them in the media is usually followed up by references to how they'll never be forgiven for propping up that FF government.

Now, we see Labour being destroyed in the media and disappearing in public polls, apparently because they are a party to very unpopular government decisions.

Now, if the Irish electorate are so angry about what happened when things went bust, and are angry as hell at what's being done now with cuts, why are the two main parties in each instance being rewarded with high public support?

I know Labour supporters will have become disheartened and some may not have turned up to vote, but that doesn't account for the massive fall in support in Meath East, for example. It's clear the public at large is very comfortable taking their anger out on junior coalition parties, but why not the two main parties involved in either our demise or our current policies?

Id agree that the smaller parties must sacrifice more of their policies to the party with greater numbers. To get more influence in government they often take the minestries that are relevant to their own political ideologies. The Greens took environment. FF didn't have a problem with this as it didnt afect their areas of interest greatly and culled Green power in economic and financial matters. Labour got Social protection, Public expenditure and reform, and education. This does not trouble FG as the budgets are small anyway in recession and labour can only try to spend the budgets in their areas of interest as fairly as possibly. Labour in charge of these portfolio get the blame for the small budgets and cuts.
Ironically the difference that Labour makes in government can never be emphasised: coalition partners will have broadly agreed to be portrayed as a unit and not be seen to be highlighting differences. Thus the smaller party cannot point out their actual contribution and is doomed to be blamed for the totality of government policy over which they have limited influence roughly in proportion to their relative size.

This is especially the case where the politics of the partners are so diverse.
It is actually a reason why a smaller party should never partner a larger very diverse partner. You are guaranteeing policies that you abhor.

With the amount of Power held by cabinet in this country, the temptation is huge for a small partner to take the jump, believing that one term in power with an enemy ideology, and subsequent annihilation.... is better than perrenial impotent opposition. Unfortunately, they may be right.

fly_agaric

gawker wrote: »

Now, if the Irish electorate are so angry about what happened when things went bust, and are angry as hell at what's being done now with cuts, why are the two main parties in each instance being rewarded with high public support?

1. Possibly people that are genuinely angry [or have reason to be angry] either just do not bother to vote at all, or vote for independents or parties considered somewhat "outside the pale"/dangerous by media (SF, socialists etc)

2. The portion of the Irish electorate that does vote consistently is extremely conservative. Probably was a major, major wrench for alot of them to desert FF to the extent that they did in the last election. The bad memories of Cowen/Bertie are fading now, Martin and his hanger-ons will talk a good game + feel everyone's pain [doesn't matter what he actually did when he was a minister in various depts & had some power, who remembers anyway!]. IMO these voters will return to FF in a big way next GE.

3. Media do seem to have antipathy for Labour in govt. IMO. I think a FG/independents govt. was the expected/desired outcome of last election and the large vote for labour was a disappointment!

raymon

The smaller party's voters didn't vote . They stayed in bed.

They made FFs vote look better as a result.

Luckily enough Thomas Byrne still failed.

Grudaire

The voting public don't seem to follow any traditional logic when actually voting.

A massive factor is the combination of inertia and the fact that the largest parties have very strong local structures. A lot of people vote FF or FG because they always have, or they know someone who got something (eg planning permission - or less cynically a pothole filled) off the FF/FG candidate.

antoobrien

Cliste wrote: »

The voting public don't seem to follow any traditional logic when actually voting.

A massive factor is the combination of inertia and the fact that the largest parties have very strong local structures. A lot of people vote FF or FG because they always have, or they know someone who got something (eg planning permission - or less cynically a pothole filled) off the FF/FG candidate.

There's a little bit more to it than that, I think it's that the people know what to expect from FG/LAB/FF because we have seen their records. When they get hit - and they do, FG & Labour were both hit badly over the past 20 years to the point of questioning their viability (which is why I know FF will come back) - they bring forward some new blood and go back to "core values".

I think the problem is perception of where they "get hit", because the government parties have tended to suffer more at local election time than at general election time for some reason in the past 20 or so years. Despite winning 3 successive general elections, FF lost the 2 local elections when things were good (the third was just around when things were going bad and the aftermath of bertie & mahon, so that was always going to be a tough election), when you'd have thought they should have won them with the way things were going nationally.

The smaller parties seem to get hit more becuase they are smaller, but also they are generally aiming at niche areas that can be easily subsumed into the bigger parties. And when they do get in due to their wider appeal it's the "new" policies that tend to go as they try to reward their core vote - the reason that most of the country won't vote for them in the first place.

The greens are typical of this, a small party that were bouyed by policies targeted at the middle classes, but when they got in the real greens appeared - carbon taxes & pushing puppy farms to the top of the list instead of working on the economy, as well as preventing much needed developments in the West and South East.

thecommietommy

catallus wrote: »

Well an awful lot of that is down to the national media; I see RTE putting FF faces on tv and websites and the Independent putting actual photographs of the FF leadership on page 1 and 2.

I'm saddened by the amount of time they get on RTE radio too.

I cannot find the link but here's some info from Politics.ie regarding the Marian Finucane Show "guests" political affiliations on the show from Feb 2011-May 2012. Understandable the number of appearences by FG and Labour as they are in Govt implmenting the policies and therefore invited on to explain them weekly, but check out FF -

Fine Gael: 35
Fianna Fail:19
Labour: 15
Ind/Sp/ULA/PbP: 28
Sinn Féin: 2 !!!!

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Why do you think RTE would have made the changes if they had been fair and balanced in the first place?

Also FYI, the story was not solely reported by the Sunday Independent - it was picked up on thereafter by various other sources. I guess everyone must be in on some conspiracy that I am not aware of.

FF were in govt for 14 years until 2 years ago. In that time they managed to stuff quangos, semi states etc with their corrupt crony's. In my personal experience RTE is propably the biggest cronyist semi state by far, no conspiracy theory to suggest that the producers, researchers, interviewers, various boards supposed to be running it etc are FF to a man and woman.

And let's not bother to mention Independent News Media's toilet papers and Dr Sir Anthony O'Relly's great friendship with FF the ' Republican ' Party :rolleyes:

touts

Labour are suffering because there is a large number of left wing alternatives for the leftist vote. Sinn Fein, Socialist, Socialist Workers, and most independents are directly chasing the labour voter. I would slot the Greens in here as their vote tended to be a sort of left leaning protest voter. When the Greens failed to deliver those voters had plenty of alternatives.

The PDs sank because they drifted too far right and while there were no alternatives in that space on the spectrum there were no voters either. If they had held the middle course that Dessie O'Malley set them on then they would be booming right now. But Harney and then McDowell were two unlikable right wing politicians who set an unlikable right wing agenda. They were like a small ship sailing away from the convoy because they believed they could stand out better in that area of empty open water but when they got there they discovered it was empty because there was a sandbank 1 foot under the surface.

Center-Right voters really only have a choice of Fine Gael and Fianna Fail. Many would prefer to vote for one of those, as bad as they are, than vote for a left wing party. Better to vote for someone whose policies are broken than vote for someone whose policies you fundamentally disagree with. Without a new center-right party then the only alternative for the Fianna Fail & Fine Gael voters is to stay at home (which the low turnout in Meath high undecided on recent polls would seem to indicate many of them are doing).

thecommietommy

touts wrote: »

Labour are suffering because there is a large number of left wing alternatives for the leftist vote. Sinn Fein, Socialist, Socialist Workers, and most independents are directly chasing the labour voter. I would slot the Greens in here as their vote tended to be a sort of left leaning protest voter. When the Greens failed to deliver those voters had plenty of alternatives.

While agreeing with much of what you say, if FF's post election experience is anything to go by, Labour's voters who now appear to have gone to Indo's, SF, ULA will drift back to Labour within a year or two of the next election (which will result in a FF and FG coalition). In opposition Labour will again ' discover ' it's left and FF style come on with a brass neck as if they had nothing to do with the previous mess they are respondcible for. And ofcourse expect the sheep with voting cards to fall completely for it

The PDs sank because they drifted too far right and while there were no alternatives in that space on the spectrum there were no voters either. If they had held the middle course that Dessie O'Malley set them on then they would be booming right now. But Harney and then McDowell were two unlikable right wing politicians who set an unlikable right wing agenda. They were like a small ship sailing away from the convoy because they believed they could stand out better in that area of empty open water but when they got there they discovered it was empty because there was a sandbank 1 foot under the surface.

Center-Right voters really only have a choice of Fine Gael and Fianna Fail. Many would prefer to vote for one of those, as bad as they are, than vote for a left wing party. Better to vote for someone whose policies are broken than vote for someone whose policies you fundamentally disagree with. Without a new center-right party then the only alternative for the Fianna Fail & Fine Gael voters is to stay at home (which the low turnout in Meath high undecided on recent polls would seem to indicate many of them are doing).

" Center-Right " seems to be the new FG and FF buzz word for incompetence and cronyism The PD's were formed more to do with personal bitterness and rivarly than having any real different ideology from FF - or FG for that matter. They were little else but FF without the few nationalist sound bites FF thrown in now and again and in time went back to the old club.

One thing about the cosy center-right club of FG and FF, will Direct Democracy Ireland ( DDI ) do much damage to them in the next local, Euros and General elections ? Hope they, no harm splitting the cosy incompetence and cronyism of Fianna Gael and Fine Fail

Grudaire

antoobrien wrote: »

The smaller parties seem to get hit more becuase they are smaller, but also they are generally aiming at niche areas that can be easily subsumed into the bigger parties. And when they do get in due to their wider appeal it's the "new" policies that tend to go as they try to reward their core vote - the reason that most of the country won't vote for them in the first place.

The greens are typical of this, a small party that were bouyed by policies targeted at the middle classes, but when they got in the real greens appeared - carbon taxes & pushing puppy farms to the top of the list instead of working on the economy, as well as preventing much needed developments in the West and South East.

The thing is that the big parties manage to pretend to make their own. Time and time again FF and FG have managed to say one thing and do another.


And I think you're off the mark on the greens.
Increases in taxation was a necessity when the Greens were in power. (Heck we still haven't managed to balance the damn budget) Green policies would be to change how taxation is done to encourage better behaviour.

Blame FF for the loss of €? from your money
Blame the Greens that it is taxed on your car.

Also - what developments did the greens block?

antoobrien

Cliste wrote: »

The thing is that the big parties manage to pretend to make their own. Time and time again FF and FG have managed to say one thing and do another.


And I think you're off the mark on the greens.
Increases in taxation was a necessity when the Greens were in power. (Heck we still haven't managed to balance the damn budget) Green policies would be to change how taxation is done to encourage better behaviour.

Nah, what they did was punish everything and block things that might help but they were ideologically opposed to, like the incinerator in Dublin. If they wanted to encourage better behaviour they should have put in tax breaks for waste companies that give free recycling services to their customers.

Instead they in pie in the sky projects like electric cars, years before they are anywhere near being commercially viable in order to help their failed policies on wind (that's an economic joke if I've ever seen one, far too unstable to be usable - hence the attempt at providing a battery pool to even pout the generation issues).

Cliste wrote: »

Blame FF for the loss of €? from your money
Blame the Greens that it is taxed on your car.

I blame both for all the extra taxes etc, you can't absolve the greens of the income tax changes any more than you can absolve FF of the carbon taxes on home heating oil, coal etc (which are not officially "revenue raisers", as if it matters when trying to heat the house) - it's not just cars they targeted.

Cliste wrote: »

Also - what developments did the greens block?

Gormley directly interfered with the GCOB & N25 New Ross projects in revenge for failing to get the M3 blocked, despite it being not part of his remit (new roads come under transport, maintaining roads comes under environment because it's a local government function).

I also blame Gormley for failing to start a review of the blanket ban on Nuclear energy in Ireland, based on ignorance and fears about what the old technologies can do and produce, rather than looking at the capabilities of the new technologies. If Ireland is to go green via electricity, we need something a lot more stable than wind, and cheaper (fuel wise) than oil or gas. If technologies like the molten salt reactors (4th generation nuclear technology, ignored earlier as it doesn't breed plutonium) become commercially viable we need to be in a position to use them, especially since our chief base load plant - the coal plant in Tarbert - is nearing the end of it's useful life and will have to be decommissioned in the next 15-20 years (if not sooner).

Grudaire

antoobrien wrote: »

Instead they in pie in the sky projects like electric cars, years before they are anywhere near being commercially viable in order to help their failed policies on wind (that's an economic joke if I've ever seen one, far too unstable to be usable - hence the attempt at providing a battery pool to even pout the generation issues).

antoobrien wrote: »

If Ireland is to go green via electricity, we need something a lot more stable than wind, and cheaper (fuel wise) than oil or gas. If technologies like the molten salt reactors (4th generation nuclear technology, ignored earlier as it doesn't breed plutonium) become commercially viable we need to be in a position to use them, especially since our chief base load plant - the coal plant in Tarbert - is nearing the end of it's useful life and will have to be decommissioned in the next 15-20 years (if not sooner).

You've a logic failure there by claiming that the Greens should be investing in unproven technology... but also not investing in 'unproven' technology.

Nuclear is being discussed elsewhere on boards, and I am sure Captain Midnight would love to discuss it with you.
But seriously - moan about the Greens not bringing about a move to nuclear?! The Greens aren't pro-nuclear, why not bash FF,FG,Labour,SF, every other party for that

antoobrien wrote: »

I blame both for all the extra taxes etc, you can't absolve the greens of the income tax changes any more than you can absolve FF of the carbon taxes on home heating oil, coal etc (which are not officially "revenue raisers", as if it matters when trying to heat the house) - it's not just cars they targeted.

But it's necessary to have extra taxes to fund our governments spending...?

As much as I would like that the economy would work in the way that socialist parties imply it would I know it won't!

Why blame the Greens when the reality is years of bad policies and lax regulations lead to the bubble and bust. Fianna Fáil fueled the bubble and are to blame for our recession and thus taxes now.

antoobrien wrote: »

Gormley directly interfered with the GCOB & N25 New Ross projects in revenge for failing to get the M3 blocked, despite it being not part of his remit (new roads come under transport, maintaining roads comes under environment because it's a local government function).

You'll have to be a bit more specific, don't have knowledge of what you're talking about.

antoobrien

Cliste wrote: »

You've a logic failure there by claiming that the Greens should be investing in unproven technology... but also not investing in 'unproven' technology.

That's not what I said, I said that the review should already be ongoing and if they become commercially feasible that we should be ready. I blame Gormley specifically (not the greens, Ryan wanted it) for killing any prospect of the review by signing the extension to the ban with no debate.

Cliste wrote: »

Nuclear is being discussed elsewhere on boards, and I am sure Captain Midnight would love to discuss it with you.

I know, I've been following one of them.

Cliste wrote: »

But it's necessary to have extra taxes to fund our governments spending...?

As much as I would like that the economy would work in the way that socialist parties imply it would I know it won't!

I never said I thought they were unnecessary - I don't like the idea of having to pay more taxes but my posting history should make it clear that I am not against taxes. I'm just trying to get away from this revisionism that separates the "blame" for tax policies. The greens were part of the government that approved the widening of tax bands, lowering credits etc and FF allowed the greens to impose carbon taxes. I'd say that the revenue wasn't required FF would have fought to water the carbon taxes down a bit.

Cliste wrote: »

Why blame the Greens when the reality is years of bad policies and lax regulations lead to the bubble and bust. Fianna Fáil fueled the bubble and are to blame for our recession and thus taxes now.

I'm not blaming the greens for any of that, I'm specifying the parts that they were culpable for. They are as culpable for the tax band changes as they are the carbon tax changes, but it's conveniently forgotten when FF is a handy scapegoat (the reverse is true for carbon tax).

I also blame Labour and FG in opposition for wanting us to spend more money on their pet projects e.g. the budget day snipes that SW isn't getting more seem to have been forgotten. There's more to the history of the boom and bust than what FF did, or are we forgetting that all those planning permissions were granted under FG/Labour LA coalitions?

Cliste wrote: »

You'll have to be a bit more specific, don't have knowledge of what you're talking about.

He took ABP to court for granting permission for the roads in question, there are threads in roads that deal with them, I'm not going to rehash it here.

ednwireland

labour are getting hammered for selling out pretty much every one of their core election promises, made me sick to listen ruari quinn saying front line services will have to be cut if CP2 isnt implemented (the fact that for many unions outside the main ones the proposals are so wishy washy that you would be mad to sign up to them seems to be irrelevant )
as to the greens they deserved to kicked out of existence for 1) propping up a dead duck government 2) introducing co2 emiisions that was basically designed to prop up the motor trade and not designed to get people to buy cars that produce less co2 accross the board ( i still cant afford an 08 car)

Pepe LeFrits

If Labour are getting crucified for breaking their election promises and toeing FG's centre-right line, then why are their voters jumping to the right to FF and not to the left? It's baffling.

ednwireland

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

If Labour are getting crucified for breaking their election promises and toeing FG's centre-right line, then why are their voters jumping to the right to FF and not to the left? It's baffling.

i always thought FF were slightly left of FG (althought imo they are the same side of the same coin)
its probably down to the lack of any decent alternatives

Grudaire

antoobrien wrote: »

That's not what I said, I said that the review should already be ongoing and if they become commercially feasible that we should be ready. I blame Gormley specifically (not the greens, Ryan wanted it) for killing any prospect of the review by signing the extension to the ban with no debate.

I thought it was more of a debate that Ryan wanted - open up the question of nuclear again, rather than preparation or anything along that line.
Either way Ryan is now the main man in the Greens so maybe you should be more in favour of the Greens :pac:

antoobrien wrote: »

The greens were part of the government that approved the widening of tax bands, lowering credits etc and FF allowed the greens to impose carbon taxes. I'd say that the revenue wasn't required FF would have fought to water the carbon taxes down a bit.

I'm not blaming the greens for any of that, I'm specifying the parts that they were culpable for. They are as culpable for the tax band changes as they are the carbon tax changes, but it's conveniently forgotten when FF is a handy scapegoat (the reverse is true for carbon tax).

It's a fair point, but I think that it needs to be taken in context..

We've had even more taxes since then, the alternative would be a rapid drop in public sector spending. By saying that they are 'culpable' then you are saying that there was a realistic alternative to increasing the tax income.

If the revenue wasn't required then the Greens themselves would have watered down the Carbon taxes as well, if not with lower Carbon taxes then by a reduction in taxes elsewhere.

The key issue is that the revenue was required as a result of FF, FG and Labour policies, not Green policies.

antoobrien wrote: »

There's more to the history of the boom and bust than what FF did, or are we forgetting that all those planning permissions were granted under FG/Labour LA coalitions?

Which is why I really felt it was pity when the independent planning review that the Greens had started when in Government was changed to an internal one by FG and Labour.

I would say that I think had there been a Green influence on planning that a lot of the bad developments would not have happened.

antoobrien

Cliste wrote: »

I thought it was more of a debate that Ryan wanted - open up the question of nuclear again, rather than preparation or anything along that line.

Oh it was, don't get me wrong. It's just that in order to be ready, we need the debate to happen in the first place and gormless crushed any chance of that.

Cliste wrote: »

Either way Ryan is now the main man in the Greens so maybe you should be more in favour of the Greens :pac:

They have too many looney tunes policies to be taken seriously.

Cliste wrote: »

It's a fair point, but I think that it needs to be taken in context..

We've had even more taxes since then, the alternative would be a rapid drop in public sector spending. By saying that they are 'culpable' then you are saying that there was a realistic alternative to increasing the tax income.

I'm not commenting on the necessity of the taxes I'm commenting on who gets the blame. The greens get the full blame for the carbon tax despite their then allies of FF and the remaining PDs (as well as possibly a few independents). The same goes for the income tax rises.

The fact that they both had help and that they were needed for various reasons gets lost in the blame game.

Cliste wrote: »

If the revenue wasn't required then the Greens themselves would have watered down the Carbon taxes as well, if not with lower Carbon taxes then by a reduction in taxes elsewhere.

If it wasn't required as revenue FF would have probably thrown a sweetner to the PS & SW classes.

Cliste wrote: »

The key issue is that the revenue was required as a result of FF, FG and Labour policies, not Green policies.

Oh no they were required because of green policies - don't forget they are of a socialist cant so "spending" is part of their raison d'etre. I hope they go down the Swedish line of getting into silly forms of sexual equality like forcing toymakers to show boy playing with girls dolls and people might realise how silly a lot of the policies are,

Cliste wrote: »

Which is why I really felt it was pity when the independent planning review that the Greens had started when in Government was changed to an internal one by FG and Labour.

Don't bother, I cant tell you the result - the an taisce planning survey attack on rural living on steroids.

Cliste wrote: »

I would say that I think had there been a Green influence on planning that a lot of the bad developments would not have happened.

If the greens had their way nothing but apartment blocks would be built and only in a select few "large enough" locations so that they can keep the countryside pristine for their members, hill walkers, tourists and other people that don't live there.

Grudaire

antoobrien wrote: »

gormless

...

looney tunes policies

Classy :rolleyes:


Either way if you ask me they are by far the best of a bad bunch.

BuilderPlumber

Big or small parties, it serves them right to suffer if they are part of near dictatorial or unjust policies. True, there are 2 parties here guilty and they both deserve not to be reelected (which can alas be said of every current Irish political party).

Where is the common decency among our politicians anymore? These guys can wine and dine and then turn around and implement unemployment and poverty creating cuts to people who were not involved in the madness of our system in the so called Celtic Tiger days.

Labour and this government were elected by the people for change - a change away from cutbacks and self serving arrogance that the people were so sick of in the last government. It is undemocratic that a government goes against the wishes of the people - and thus should be removed from office due to false promise.

The facts are that the country owes billions. BUT those who caused it are not pursued and the rich high paid top public servants are still too well paid. Hardly fair and they cannot sell us their bull**** any longer. The mask is off, the government is a form of non-violent dictatorship repressing the people through fear and coercian like insurance industry does.

_Kaiser_

Cliste wrote: »

Classy :rolleyes:


Either way if you ask me they are by far the best of a bad bunch.

You must be joking..

The Greens did nothing but introduce a raft of new taxes supposedly under the guise of saving the planet but in reality what their most notable legacy (car tax changes) did was create a two-tier taxation system where the same car can have 2 vastly different rates based on the reg plate

This then penalised those who couldn't afford to buy a new car (or more accurately - couldn't get credit for it) by making them pay sometimes over double the CO2 rate, and backfired spectacularly when everyone who could get a new car bought BMW 520d's for €156 tax thus killing the revenue stream (which the current lot have attempted to fix in the usual half-assed manner by hiking it up for everyone rather than reforming/fixing the mess - oh and simultaneously proving the lie for what it is, as if it was truly to promote greener motoring then why penalise those who complied?)

Those who can't afford "greener" cars then are penalised twice as their resale value is hit because it's "not on de cheap tax" the Irish motorist now demands.

It's also why the vast majority of cars now sold are diesel regardless of suitability (modern diesels are meant to be driven, not pottering around the suburbs a few miles a day - it leads to expensive problems.. and makes the 2nd hand market a minefield as a result).

This tax change was nothing to do with saving the planet either. It was an attempt to kick-start the motor "industry" (though to me a bunch of dealers with huge glass showrooms trying to shift overpriced stock does not an industry make) which also ultimately failed given the average age of the national fleet is about 7/8 years old at present.

Oh.. and lets not forget they kept Cowen and co in power long after their sell-by date so they could extract the maximum for themselves from the taxpayer as well.

The Greens and other such fringe groups should be let nowhere near the controls again.

FamousSeamus

FF will always get into power no matter how corrupt, incompetent or stupid they are. They have messed up so much in the past only to be re-elected time and again. The problem is the Irish people themselves, The general public don't vote for political reasons or on who policies they think its best if they vote on family and loyalty lines, all of which stems back to civil war era (civil war mentality vote for him cause my father was helped by his father etc!!).

Small parties (as mentioned earlier) rely on finding a niche and fill it hoping to get the odd votes from elsewhere thus they never really form a credible party that can challenge the top two. Labour could have changed this last election by going into opposition and become the leading party thus removing any chance for FF to define themselves but I have my doubts if this would have happened as people who always voted FF would always return to FF after one or two elections simply because they'd say "well we gave them a chance so we might as well vote for them again, beside my father was help by his uncle so he's legit".

Irish politics will never change, FF and FG will fight for power with FF winning most times only losing for a short period as FG clean up the mess FF created before FF get back in. The small parties will fall in and out of coalitions and get hammered soon after as they'll be blamed for the mistakes of the government. Its a vicious cycle but that the system we have sadly!!

Kinski

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Why do you think RTE would have made the changes if they had been fair and balanced in the first place?

I would argue because a) they lack backbone, and b) they're as much a part of the establishment as FF.

By insisting that the "official" opposition party are accorded the highest profile, we're asking the national broadcaster to help sustain the dominant FF-FG axis, and we end up with the spectacle of two parties so similar a crack of light is just barely visible between them dominating political debate in the media.

thecommietommy

FamousSeamus wrote: »

FF will always get into power no matter how corrupt, incompetent or stupid they are. They have messed up so much in the past only to be re-elected time and again. The problem is the Irish people themselves, The general public don't vote for political reasons or on who policies they think its best if they vote on family and loyalty lines, all of which stems back to civil war era (civil war mentality vote for him cause my father was helped by his father etc!!).

Small parties (as mentioned earlier) rely on finding a niche and fill it hoping to get the odd votes from elsewhere thus they never really form a credible party that can challenge the top two. Labour could have changed this last election by going into opposition and become the leading party thus removing any chance for FF to define themselves but I have my doubts if this would have happened as people who always voted FF would always return to FF after one or two elections simply because they'd say "well we gave them a chance so we might as well vote for them again, beside my father was help by his uncle so he's legit".

Irish politics will never change, FF and FG will fight for power with FF winning most times only losing for a short period as FG clean up the mess FF created before FF get back in. The small parties will fall in and out of coalitions and get hammered soon after as they'll be blamed for the mistakes of the government. Its a vicious cycle but that the system we have sadly!!

Stop attempting to kid yourself. No fan of FF by any means but FG and Labour were calling for less regulation, dropping of stamp duty, more public service spending etc the very policies that wrecked the country. Fianna Gael and Fine Fail, two cheeks of the same ar$e.

PRAF

gawker wrote: »

Like alot of people, I've been baffled at the rapid re-emergence of FF in Irish politics. After all that had happened, I figured they'd at least have to rebuild for an election or two and work hard to win back public trust. Credit where it's due to the party from what they've managed thus far, but it's baffling all the same to see the public start to turn in their direction so soon.

Meanwhile, the Greens (I'm a recently-joined member, but will try be balanced here) are stagnant and struggling to get beyond 1/2 percent in the polls. Any mention of them in the media is usually followed up by references to how they'll never be forgiven for propping up that FF government.

Now, we see Labour being destroyed in the media and disappearing in public polls, apparently because they are a party to very unpopular government decisions.

Now, if the Irish electorate are so angry about what happened when things went bust, and are angry as hell at what's being done now with cuts, why are the two main parties in each instance being rewarded with high public support?

I know Labour supporters will have become disheartened and some may not have turned up to vote, but that doesn't account for the massive fall in support in Meath East, for example. It's clear the public at large is very comfortable taking their anger out on junior coalition parties, but why not the two main parties involved in either our demise or our current policies?

The answer to your question, IMO, is that Irish people vote according to very narrow self interest, tradition, and / or a sense of loyalty to the candidate. Ideology, values, and the greater good cone way down the kist if priorities when there are medical cards to be dished out an potholes to b fixed. The system is fcuked and needs to change.

Chucky the tree

The problem is the Greens main selling point is the environment. It's a nice thing to be concerned about during a boom when everything is going well, but in a recession an financial melt-down situation people don't really give a toss. When a parties policies are listed as the followin it's hardly surprising everyone is avoiding them.

All Green Party policies are based on the founding principles of the Green Party, which are:

o The impact of society on the environment should not be ecologically disruptive.

o Conservation of resources is vital to a sustainable society.

o All political, social and economic decisions should be taken at the lowest effective level.

o Society should be guided by self-reliance and co-operation at all levels.

o As caretakers of the Earth, we have the responsibility to pass it on in a fit and healthy state.

o The need for world peace overrides national and commercial interests.

o The poverty of two-thirds of the world's family demands a redistribution of the world's resources.

It's almost as if these lads don't realise the economic situation we are in.

oscarBravo

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The problem is the Greens main selling point is the environment. It's a nice thing to be concerned about during a boom when everything is going well, but in a recession an financial melt-down situation people don't really give a toss.

Which is fair enough: after all, if we completely destroy the environment during a recession, we can always fix it later. Right?

PRAF

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The problem is the Greens main selling point is the environment. It's a nice thing to be concerned about during a boom when everything is going well, but in a recession an financial melt-down situation people don't really give a toss. When a parties policies are listed as the followin it's hardly surprising everyone is avoiding them.




It's almost as if these lads don't realise the economic situation we are in.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I happen to agree with a lot of green policies. In particular, we could've done with some green policies in the 70s and 80s when our planning system was at its most currupt.
The unfortunate thing for the greens was going into govt at prehaps the worst possible time. They got blamed for all of the economic stuff that was really the fault of FF. In addition, all of their progressive work on planning, the environment, etc. was scoffed at because they were seen to be lunatics for focussing on that stuff when the economy was crashing.

I do hope they manage to rebuild the party because I think they have a lot to contribute in the future.

antoobrien

PRAF wrote: »

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I happen to agree with a lot of green policies. In particular, we could've done with some green policies in the 70s and 80s when our planning system was at its most currupt.
The unfortunate thing for the greens was going into govt at prehaps the worst possible time. They got blamed for all of the economic stuff that was really the fault of FF. In addition, all of their progressive work on planning, the environment, etc. was scoffed at because they were seen to be lunatics for focussing on that stuff when the economy was crashing.

I do hope they manage to rebuild the party because I think they have a lot to contribute in the future.

"Environmental" policies like making trespassing on farmer's land legal and requiring the farmers to take out public liability insurance in case these people hurt themselves are policies the country can do without thanks.

Grudaire

antoobrien wrote: »

"Environmental" policies like making trespassing on farmer's land legal and requiring the farmers to take out public liability insurance in case these people hurt themselves are policies the country can do without thanks.

What are you talking about?

Did the green party change the access laws???

Are you complaining about something that didn't happen now?

antoobrien

Cliste wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Did the green party change the access laws???

Are you complaining about something that didn't happen now?

I'm talking about the laws that they wanted to bring in about giving "hill walkers" access to private lands.

PRAF

antoobrien wrote: »

"Environmental" policies like making trespassing on farmer's land legal and requiring the farmers to take out public liability insurance in case these people hurt themselves are policies the country can do without thanks.

Huh? . Did that actually happen?

antoobrien

PRAF wrote: »

Huh? . Did that actually happen?

No but they wanted it and were actively working on it.

If I was prone to believing conspiracy theories I'd wonder what the business interests of the friends of the green party were as there's a pattern of behaviour there that would be called cronyism if FF or FG were behind it.

Rightwing

gawker wrote: »

Like alot of people, I've been baffled at the rapid re-emergence of FF in Irish politics. After all that had happened, I figured they'd at least have to rebuild for an election or two and work hard to win back public trust. Credit where it's due to the party from what they've managed thus far, but it's baffling all the same to see the public start to turn in their direction so soon.

Meanwhile, the Greens (I'm a recently-joined member, but will try be balanced here) are stagnant and struggling to get beyond 1/2 percent in the polls. Any mention of them in the media is usually followed up by references to how they'll never be forgiven for propping up that FF government.

Now, we see Labour being destroyed in the media and disappearing in public polls, apparently because they are a party to very unpopular government decisions.

Now, if the Irish electorate are so angry about what happened when things went bust, and are angry as hell at what's being done now with cuts, why are the two main parties in each instance being rewarded with high public support?

I know Labour supporters will have become disheartened and some may not have turned up to vote, but that doesn't account for the massive fall in support in Meath East, for example. It's clear the public at large is very comfortable taking their anger out on junior coalition parties, but why not the two main parties involved in either our demise or our current policies?

We do punish the bigger parties, FG will be hammered in the next election.

The reason we don't punish FF is they giveaway things, remember the 'giveaway budgets' ?

It's like 2 parents, 1 gives sweets, and the other doesn't. Who is going to be more popular? That's what FF are about, populism.
Short term it's fine, but it ruins a country.

Grudaire

antoobrien wrote: »

No but they wanted it and were actively working on it.

If I was prone to believing conspiracy theories I'd wonder what the business interests of the friends of the green party were as there's a pattern of behaviour there that would be called cronyism if FF or FG were behind it.

What makes you think that farmers would have needed liability insurance??

You're throwing stones without much of a basis. Given that having walks for people is good for tourism and health I would have thought you might be in favour.


How can you justify complaining about something that didn't happen, for something that would likely not have been in the legislation.
The reason that there is currently such a standoff between landowners and walkers etc is that if someone injures themselves on their land then they can be held liable. It would make a lot of sense for the law to be cleared up and made to actually follow common sense.

PRAF

antoobrien wrote: »

No but they wanted it and were actively working on it.

Do you have any links to that? I don't recall it being in the program for govt at the time. Were they proposing unrestricted access to all private lands in the country? That would be madness.

I hope they were only considering bringing us into line with other similar countries such as Scotland, England and Wales regarding legal access to the countryside (i.e. mountains, rivers, lakes national monuments and land not under cultivation). As I understand it, a Labout TD is planning some bill about that very issue

antoobrien

Cliste wrote: »

What makes you think that farmers would have needed liability insurance??

Because of the way the proposals were structured, it was essentially giving a right of way to everyone who wanted to walk through a field in the country side - with the corresponding right to sue the landowner in the case of injury, hence the need for public liability insurance.

PRAF wrote: »

Do you have any links to that? I don't recall it being in the program for govt at the time. Were they proposing unrestricted access to all private lands in the country? That would be madness.

Unfortunately no, the proposals don't seem to be available. I only remember it because of advice a few of the neighbours got regarding their lands if the proposals ever went ahead.

PRAF wrote: »

I hope they were only considering bringing us into line with other similar countries such as Scotland, England and Wales regarding legal access to the countryside (i.e. mountains, rivers, lakes national monuments and land not under cultivation). As I understand it, a Labout TD is planning some bill about that very issue

Lands not under cultivation includes land that's being rotated but not planted/used, something that the greens and labour either don't understand or don't care about. Giving access to the land at all makes it okay to access it when it is being cultivated, causing problems for farmers when they do attempt to use the land.

Grudaire

antoobrien wrote: »

Because of the way the proposals were structured, it was essentially giving a right of way to everyone who wanted to walk through a field in the country side - with the corresponding right to sue the landowner in the case of injury, hence the need for public liability insurance.

Unfortunately no, the proposals don't seem to be available. I only remember it because of advice a few of the neighbours got regarding their lands if the proposals ever went ahead.

So it's just your word that we're meant to take... and that's based on neighbours advice that they were given about their land...


...


... I think that we can all do better than this for bashing political parties..

antoobrien

Cliste wrote: »

So it's just your word that we're meant to take... and that's based on neighbours advice that they were given about their land...


...


... I think that we can all do better than this for bashing political parties..

There's a dead link to a story from 2004 if you're interested.