Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Green Party disintegration / split

2456789

Comments

  • #2
    Climate change is a serious issue (probably the most serious issue of 21st century, with others arising from it) there is no denying that.

    Absolutely everything should be on the table to solve this issue and leave a livable planet for my kids imho.

    However once again the Green movement (as can be seen by the Greens in Ireland) time and time again, they only want one "true" approach and actively campaign against other approaches. Their approach is only efficiency+wind/solar+electric cars and some Green party members seem tho think that people going living in a "paleo" stone age manner will solve the problem.

    I dont think its such a clear either/or solution to climate change, once again everything should be on table and thrown at the problem, everything:

    efficiency+wind/solar+electric cars
    AND
    nuclear, hydrogen, climate engineering, AI

    Thats where i fundamentally disagree with Greens, they correctly have identified the problem, but they are sticking to only one part of overall solution and actively hostile to science and technology which could help reach zero emmisions faster.

    Kinda reminds me of ideological purity tests we see time and time again left leaning socialist parties. The current Greens are akin to communists with their narrow view of the world, when history has shown that a wider social democratic with capitalism approach is superior to communism.


  • #2


    The problem with CETA appears to be to do with the involvement of the Investor Court System, where governments can be sued for losses incurred as a result of policy making. Now I have no idea how to inform myself fully as to the repercussions of such a trade deal, people on both sides of the argument seem to be so sure that this is a good thing/bad thing.

    As a Green member hanging on by a thread I don't want to jump to criticize this trade agreement, but I'm concerned that Eamon Ran has flipped on this issue all of a sudden.


  • #2


    Oymyakon wrote: »
    As a Green member hanging on by a thread I don't want to jump to criticize this trade agreement, but I'm concerned that Eamon Ran has flipped on this issue all of a sudden.

    Out of curiosity what's the mood been like at recent meetings?

    Have many people have quit in your local organisation?


  • #2


    Oymyakon wrote: »
    The problem with CETA appears to be to do with the involvement of the Investor Court System, where governments can be sued for losses incurred as a result of policy making. Now I have no idea how to inform myself fully as to the repercussions of such a trade deal, people on both sides of the argument seem to be so sure that this is a good thing/bad thing.

    As a Green member hanging on by a thread I don't want to jump to criticize this trade agreement, but I'm concerned that Eamon Ran has flipped on this issue all of a sudden.

    That is certainly the PR that the Green Party is trying to sell to everyone, I agree. However, the truth lies quite far away from what the GP is saying.

    CETA doesn't allow for a State to be sued at all, it simply provides for a tribunal to deal with disputes under CETA which will be resolved in line with WTO dispute resolution principles - on other words, effectively nothing changes from a situation where there was no trade deal at all, and in fact a set tribunal is probably preferable.

    Additionally, the CJEU Advocate General also opined that an award granted through this ICS would not bind the EU or its institutions or any Member State courts as to its findings on EU law and that the ICS would not preclude the courts of Member States from making a preliminary reference to the CJEU after an award has been made. In other words, the autonomy of EU and Member State law is completely intact under the ICS model.

    IMHO this is simply being used by certain GP members as another wedge to be driven into the growing GP divide.


  • #2


    Out of curiosity what's the mood been like at recent meetings?

    Have many people have quit in your local organisation?

    The discussions at meetings have been pretty tame, with no fiery arguments over what's going on at a national level. Occasionally myself and a couple of others chime into the whatsapp with concerns about what's happening in government but that's about it.

    No one has quit as far that I have been made aware of, but the age profile of my constituency group is very much older people or people with families who were generally pro-coalition. I'd be one of the few younger members in the constituency group.

    So I get a contrasting range of views from that group and from Twitter, which seems that every time I look at that site I'm seeing young Greens leaving the party, and severe criticisms of anyone remaining in the party.


  • #2


    Not a member, but Green voter.

    I recognise that a lot of ideological nonsense comes as part of the package when voting for an (ostensibly) environmentally responsible party. However, when I see the likes of McHugh and Bogue I really worry for the core mission of the party. Both seem so immature and unsuited to realities of party politics and the necessary trading of principles for practical achievement. Bogue in particular has struck me as very self-absorbed and grossly naive. I hope those who aligned themselves with the thinking of these characters realise how the mission to improve Ireland's woeful environmental performance will be scuppered if the greens shoot themselves in the foot over culture war issues.


  • #2


    boombang wrote: »
    Not a member, but Green voter.

    I recognise that a lot of ideological nonsense comes as part of the package when voting for an (ostensibly) environmentally responsible party. However, when I see the likes of McHugh and Bogue I really worry for the core mission of the party. Both seem so immature and unsuited to realities of party politics and the necessary trading of principles for practical achievement. Bogue in particular has struck me as very self-absorbed and grossly naive. I hope those who aligned themselves with the thinking of these characters realise how the mission to improve Ireland's woeful environmental performance will be scuppered if the greens shoot themselves in the foot over culture war issues.

    Both of these are gone from the party now.


  • #2


    That is certainly the PR that the Green Party is trying to sell to everyone, I agree. However, the truth lies quite far away from what the GP is saying.

    CETA doesn't allow for a State to be sued at all, it simply provides for a tribunal to deal with disputes under CETA which will be resolved in line with WTO dispute resolution principles - on other words, effectively nothing changes from a situation where there was no trade deal at all, and in fact a set tribunal is probably preferable.

    Additionally, the CJEU Advocate General also opined that an award granted through this ICS would not bind the EU or its institutions or any Member State courts as to its findings on EU law and that the ICS would not preclude the courts of Member States from making a preliminary reference to the CJEU after an award has been made. In other words, the autonomy of EU and Member State law is completely intact under the ICS model.

    IMHO this is simply being used by certain GP members as another wedge to be driven into the growing GP divide.

    Thank you for your insight into this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the original Green Party opposition was on the basis that such trade deals were designed for the corporations and not for the public.

    Genuine question - What do those who oppose to this deal have to gain if the disputes are handled similarly to cases where there is no trade deal in place at all?


  • #2


    Oymyakon wrote: »
    Thank you for your insight into this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the original Green Party opposition was on the basis that such trade deals were designed for the corporations and not for the public.
    Their gripe was over the initial Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), but that has since been replaced with the new ICS tribunal as I outlined above. ISDS is currently used in NAFTA and there doesn't seem to be any issues with it; ICS is even more transparent than ISDS so it should be fine.

    Keep in mind that we already have State-aid rules within the EU and the CETA doesn't on its face implement anything more stringent than we already deal wit under EU State-aid rules. It, to put it probably overly simply, effectively extends State-aid protection.
    Genuine question - What do those who oppose to this deal have to gain if the disputes are handled similarly to cases where there is no trade deal in place at all?
    As far as I can tell: Nothing.


  • #2



    As far as I can tell: Nothing.

    Yeah, I guess that is the frustrating thing, the two sides of the Dáil always tell different tales, and the opposition hot takes that aren't always based on fact get the traction on social media.

    It's tiring that friends and family always call me up for my affiliation with the Green Party in cases like CETA, Nurses pay, Mother & Baby homes etc. Government decisions are never as insidious as opposition make them out to be.


  • #2


    Amirani wrote: »
    Both of these are gone from the party now.

    Aware of this. I'm concerned their thinking and willingness to leave is emblematic of a problem that remains.


  • #2


    Another reason I feel compelled to remain in the Green Party is that I feel like the numerous splits and defections among the left leaning politicians over the years is detrimental to a left majority forming in the Dáil. You get nowhere by jumping ship when things get difficult.


  • #2


    Exactly. What a stupid thing to walk on. If they can't back a deal agreed with a liberal, centre left Government like Trudeau's, who can they back?

    There is nothing left wing about the Canadian Liberal party. They’re old school liberals, progressive on social issues but laissez faire capitalists. I’d imagine there’s a lot they don’t align on with the Greens. But then he Greens went into government with FG, who are much different from the Canadian liberal party.
    I cannot see what is even remotely controversial about it - then again, as we've seen with some of the Greens' opposition to coronavirus restrictions, the Greens only believe in following the science and the facts when it comes to making the lives of motorists miserable:rolleyes:.

    Did it ever occur to you that the only way to change habits is to make current habits onerous?


  • #2
    Brian? wrote: »

    Did it ever occur to you that the only way to change habits is to make current habits onerous?

    Maybe instead of engaging in culture crusade maybe the Green party should concentrate on pragmatic means of dealing with climate change? Sentences like this only give ammunition to those who oppose change

    Trying to “change habits” and abandoning science is a great way to alienate the population at a time when need everyone on board to tackle climate change.


  • #2


    Maybe instead of engaging in culture crusade maybe the Green party should concentrate on pragmatic means of dealing with climate change? Sentences like this only give ammunition to those who oppose change

    Trying to “change habits” and abandoning science is a great way to alienate the population at a time when need everyone on board to tackle climate change.

    But it is a culture crusade. Look over on the motors forum, the sense of victimhood is eye watering. Changing people’s habits is a pragmatic way of tackling climate change. It’s just not the only way. It has to be part of a wider strategy


  • #2


    Brian? wrote: »
    But it is a culture crusade. Look over on the motors forum, the sense of victimhood is eye watering. Changing people’s habits is a pragmatic way of tackling climate change. It’s just not the only way. It has to be part of a wider strategy

    I think the only facet you'll find in the motors forum relevant to victimhood is that people would love to go electric if the charging infrastructure and capabilities of the cars were up to scratch.

    Motors posters are generally pragmatic. If you're not doing high miles then they will scoff at the idea of buying diesel over petrol for example, just for "cheap tax".


  • #2
    Brian? wrote: »
    But it is a culture crusade. Look over on the motors forum, the sense of victimhood is eye watering. Changing people’s habits is a pragmatic way of tackling climate change. It’s just not the only way. It has to be part of a wider strategy

    Terrible example imho

    I would love an electric car and the acceleration they offer, and could charge it for free more or less for half a year of own pv panels

    But the prices for a machine with 10x less parts a normal car are still crazy.

    In time prices would come down but the planet doesn’t have time and motoring is only one small slice of the overall co2 price

    To reinforce what I said earlier the Greens are obsessed with wind and electric cars, but these are only small part of overall answer.

    Pissing people off will make them resentful and resentful people vote against their own interests just look at brexit and trump phenomenon


  • #2


    Terrible example imho

    I would love an electric car and the acceleration they offer, and could charge it for free more or less for half a year of own pv panels

    But the prices for a machine with 10x less parts a normal car are still crazy.

    In time prices would come down but the planet doesn’t have time and motoring is only one small slice of the overall co2 price

    To reinforce what I said earlier the Greens are obsessed with wind and electric cars, but these are only small part of overall answer.

    Pissing people off will make them resentful and resentful people vote against their own interests just look at brexit and trump phenomenon

    Electric cars aren't even that green either. According to companies like Polestar (Volvo), they can take up to 200,000 km of driving before they deliver a net benefit to the planet over buying a conventional petrol engined car, because in manufacturing process, no less than the equivalent of 10 extra tonnes of CO2 are produced. The equivalent of 24 tonnes of CO2 are produced in making a Volvo XC40, whereas for a Polestar 2 (an electric XC40) the equivalent of 34 tonnes of CO2 are produced in its manufacture. Then there is the extra pollution in scrapping a much heavier car, so it could be even more than 200,000 km really. It obviously depends on how electricity is generated, with 100% renewable it would be quicker than this.

    But what's not in dispute is that they weigh a lot more and cost a lot than a conventional car, with nowhere near the level of convenience of a petrol or diesel (despite the delusions of what those on the boards EV and hybrids forum will tell you). Nor can it be disputed that they weigh a lot more, which means more money will need to be spent on roads maintenance (with the negative environmental impact that will bring). For example, a VW Golf weighs around 1400 kg, but a VW ID3 (the new electric VW that's the size of a Golf) weighs 1800 kg - and let's not forget that the ID3 was designed from the outset to be an EV, not just a standard car with some batteries thrown in (as is the case with some of the other popular EVs).

    The other big problem is that in order to have decent range (as in at least 500 km), you need lots of batteries, but batteries are very expensive, not to mention bulky. So, the only way to have this and decent space is to go for a very big and very heavy SUV - let's face it €10k more on something like a big Volvo or BMW SUV so you can the electric version instead of the petrol or diesel version is a far lower percentage jump than say €10k on a Fiesta or Yaris (a diesel BMW X5 is about €90k, a petrol Fiesta is about €20k). Hence why a lot of the big launches of EVs next year are for large SUVs. SUVs are popular anyway because of the higher driving position, better space, and most importantly, social status, and the car makers love them because people will pay a stupid amount of extra money for these questionable benefits, but the Greens dislike them because they think they are bad for the planet and are really unnecessary in the urban jungle. For once in their lives on car related matters, they are right on both fronts.

    Some people absolutely do need them, and that needs to be respected (so I don't want to see them banned), but the vast, vast majority of owners do not need them at all - so oddly enough, as a car enthusiast I would be totally on board with the Greens' desire to make the SUV less popular become a reality. A conventional saloon or estate car is much cheaper to buy (you wouldn't believe the margins on SUVs compared to standard cars so it's no wonder every manufacturer wants to sell them), almost as practical (if you go for an estate), more economical, quieter, cheaper to run, and as any car enthusiast will tell you, a lot faster and much better handling. I simply cannot understand why the damn things are so popular, and I would love to see the return of cars that are better for our planet and a car enthusiast's heart. So, if they really want to do this, bring it on!

    However, as is typical with the Greens', their policies (as evidenced by the forthcoming VRT changes) will achieve exactly the opposite of this.

    I will explain why below. Basically, the new changes focus solely and exclusively on notional CO2 emissions at the tailpipe. The system was changed recently to be reflective of the 'real world' but it seems to be just as removed from reality as the old NEDC cycle. It clobbers any sort of purely combustion engined vehicle, pretends that plug-in hybrids are driven every time with the battery at 100% and that there are zero emissions in electricity generation anywhere in Europe.

    Thus on the WLTP cycle plug-ins and electrics get extremely good CO2 ratings - particularly plug-ins with say more than 60 km of electric range. But then this means we circle back to the point above - you need lots of batteries to do this, and that means you need lots of space, and thus lots of weight. This means we're straight onto big SUVs or luxury saloon and estate cars - because these vehicles are so big, the packaging compromises are minimal - I mean losing say 5 cm of legroom in a big SUV is nothing compared to losing that in say a Yaris. The added height of an SUV pays dividends for plug-in vehicles in particular - compared to a conventional pure ICE car, a plug-in would often lose 150-200 litres of boot space and 20-25 litres of a fuel tank, and weigh 150-200 kg more. In a saloon or estate car, this would typically mean a boot and fuel tank that are 1/3 smaller and 10-15% weight penalty. Whereas in a big SUV, you're losing just 10-15% of the boot space and fuel tank, and because they weight much more to begin with, 150-200 kg more is maybe 5-10% of a weight penalty. So the compromises are far less in an SUV. But SUVs are far less suitable for the urban environment, and obviously there's far more raw materials involved in making these cars in the first place.

    But this is precisely what all the regulations about CO2 tailpipe emissions have achieved. Small hatchbacks and saloons, with pure petrol or diesels are awful planet killers, but heavy luxury saloons and SUVs (which only the wealthy can afford to buy - convenient as a lot of the Greens' voter base is in South County Dublin) are brilliant!

    This in a nutshell is the problem with the Greens. They never think things through - particularly when it comes to cars and transport. They and their supporters are driven by an ideological hatred of the private car and all the freedoms and benefits it brings that they can't see the wood from the trees.

    Of course, making a complete pig's ear of things and shafting the motorist is something they're well used to. They got it catastrophically wrong the last time they were in Government, telling us to buy diesel cars with their toxic nitrous oxide emissions and particulates even though the dogs on the street knew they were bad for our lungs (and don't blame VW for dieselgate - the EU emissions standards at the time allowed diesels to produce over three times as much NOx as petrols). So they would have known (if they bothered to read the relevant EU rules at the time) that diesels were perfectly legally allowed to be more than three times worse for our lungs than the petrol equivalent, but they decided that was OK because the CO2 is lower :rolleyes:. Ironically, they want them banned now that the manufacturers have cleaned them up.

    If they really cared about saving the planet they'd make it cheaper to keep old cars (since the only pollution they create is when they're driven) and they'd tax new cars based on weight and the CO2 impact during the manufacture of the vehicles. They'd also recognise the CO2 from electricity, too.


  • #2


    boombang wrote: »
    Not a member, but Green voter.

    I recognise that a lot of ideological nonsense comes as part of the package when voting for an (ostensibly) environmentally responsible party. However, when I see the likes of McHugh and Bogue I really worry for the core mission of the party. Both seem so immature and unsuited to realities of party politics and the necessary trading of principles for practical achievement. Bogue in particular has struck me as very self-absorbed and grossly naive. I hope those who aligned themselves with the thinking of these characters realise how the mission to improve Ireland's woeful environmental performance will be scuppered if the greens shoot themselves in the foot over culture war issues.

    Bogue and McHugh are both gone and the party is in government, with a significant majority of the party membership backing the coalition. Seems safe to say that the Realos beat the Fundis this time.


  • #2


    To reinforce what I said earlier the Greens are obsessed with wind and electric cars, but these are only small part of overall answer.

    Not in my experience. The party is much more concerned with expanding public transport, walking and cycling. Electric cars are near the bottom of favoured transport options, above fossil fuel powerd cars yes, but still near the bottom of all options.


  • #2


    Maybe instead of engaging in culture crusade maybe the Green party should concentrate on pragmatic means of dealing with climate change?
    Agree.

    I am not a typical Green voter, but I am actually very green. My wife and I only own a car between us (which we don't use often), I grow some of my own veg, we have not flown by air in over a year, we don't buy sh1t we don't need, our electricity bill is reasonable. How about some free seed potatoes, how about some VAT free insulation? Everything seems to be orientated towards punishment rather than encouragement.

    The real question is how we can encourage ordinary people to be more green and the lower their carbon footprint. It seems the Green Party have lost sight of this.


  • #2
    Agree.

    I am not a typical Green voter, but I am actually very green. My wife and I only own a car between us (which we don't use often), I grow some of my own veg, we have not flown by air in over a year, we don't buy sh1t we don't need, our electricity bill is reasonable. How about some free seed potatoes, how about some VAT free insulation? Everything seems to be orientated towards punishment rather than encouragement.

    The real question is how we can encourage ordinary people to be more green and the lower their carbon footprint. It seems the Green Party have lost sight of this.

    There are SEAI grants for insulation, solar , electric cars etc

    But these carrots were not put in place by greens, all they seem to want are more tax sticks

    That just makes people resentful and is counterproductive to environmental aims


  • #2


    The greens have in recent times always effectively been two parties.

    theres the upper middle class types who just want more green policies, delivered however, taxes etc..

    then there was the watermelons, the types like saoirse mchugh who desperately wanted the climate agenda to become the socialist revolution, who have seen the greens as a back door to socialism because pbp etc.. is too obvious to the public.

    the watermelons will leave and form something new , they were at odds with the greens


  • #2


    There's also an animal welfare subgrouping, at least amongst Greens I know; and the old core is probably splittable down the centre - they've definitely got left and right on non environmental social issues for instance


  • #2


    L1011 wrote: »
    There's also an animal welfare subgrouping, at least amongst Greens I know; and the old core is probably splittable down the centre - they've definitely got left and right on non environmental social issues for instance

    You might get splinter groups, but the bulk of the party seems fairly unified, going by the PfG vote anyway.

    The hard core irreconcilables have gone, a few more may go but the danger of a serious split seems to have evaporated.

    The fact that tends to be ignored is that for every member who left in the past year, ten or more have joined.


  • #2


    Another two Green councillors have quite the party, both from

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/another-blow-to-green-party-as-two-prominent-councillors-quit-39985278.html
    The party’s leader on South Dublin County Council Liam Sinclair and his colleague Sophie Nicoullaud both quit the Greens in the last week.

    Both are unhappy with the performance of the party in Government.


  • #2


    That intro line from the article implies that Nicoullaud is also SDCC - she's actually DCC; so its not like its even two councillors that worked together.


  • #2


    I am not sure what the Green Party could have done to keep these people on board. This bit is telling:
    he felt it was inevitable he would resign at some point after the Greens entered government


  • #2


    There was a report in the paper the other day regarding the use of plastics in Ireland. Been an issue for years. Not a peep out of the Greens. Could it be some members are wondering why they are in with FF/FG if they aren't doing good works?


  • #2


    Bowie wrote: »
    There was a report in the paper the other day regarding the use of plastics in Ireland. Been an issue for years. Not a peep out of the Greens. Could it be some members are wondering why they are in with FF/FG if they aren't doing good works?

    Party already published a significant waste reduction strategy as part of its commitments from the PfG. It will take time to implement, but the plan to deal with the problem is in place.


Sign In or Register to comment.