General Election and Government Formation Megathread (see post #1)

hardybuck wrote: »

What would I have to do, put in an application form and not say anything for 6 months until my probation period has passed?

Should still be able to notice a trend in where people are joining from.

hmmm wrote: »

The 2/3rd is potentially a useful crutch in negotiations.

"We've a high bar to clear, any chance of another concession to our policies"

Unfortunately you do have to know when you've won everything which can be expected, and not sit there moaning when all your policies don't get included. I'm confused as to what the people in the Greens who are voting "no" are after - if getting into government and being able to influence government policies is not what they want, what do they want? A program for government is only theoretical and will change to suit circumstances, sitting around the cabinet table is what matters.

I think we'll know a lot more about the Green membership tomorrow, and I suspect the party won't know until then themselves.

It would appear that there is a group within the membership that are anti-establishment and wouldn't ever support a party being in Government.

hardybuck wrote: »

While your theory sounds reasonable, it requires someone to actually do that analysis and be the gatekeeper.

Given that their membership numbers have grown so aggressively in the last 1-2 years it would appear that there was fairly unfettered access.

Parties usually have a small number (sometimes 1) of membership officer(s); the hypothetical situation of a large number joining from one area would still be noticed.

1. There is no evidence at all, that I am aware of, that there has been any attempt at "branch-stacking" in the Greens. The large growth in membership occurred well before the present situation arise and is fairly clearly attributable to other factors.

2. All minority parties have to decide what their purpose is, and how they can best advance their cause. It is not a given that entering government is the only, or the best, way to do this, especially entering as a minority partner in a multi-party government. An alternative strategy is to act as a ginger group - a party which, by advocating a particular position, can put pressure on the major parties to move towards that position. This strategy can be very successful. Exhibit A: UKIP. Never held office, and their electoral performance has been derisory. But their central policy platform has been achieved.

(Not that I'm comparing the Greens to UKIP generally. Just making the point that if your interest is in securing a particular policy outcome, acting as a ginger group can be an effective strategy.)

3. Not saying that those Greens who vote 'no' are committed to a vision of the Greens as a ginger group. There could be other justifications for such a strategy. The only condition that must be satisfied before you can find such a policy at least worth considering is that you should not be of the view that securing the spoils of office is the only political objective that has any value. And Green members, pretty much by defintion, are not of that view because, if they were, they would have joined FF or FG.

None of which is to say that I would advocate a "no" vote. I think it will be disastrous for the Greens, and probably for the causes that they seek to advance. But Green members could take the opposite view, and the reason for that would not necessasrily be that they are anti-establishment, or opposed to being in government, or that they won't face hard choices. This is itself a very hard choice.

hardybuck wrote: »

I think we'll know a lot more about the Green membership tomorrow, and I suspect the party won't know until then themselves.

It would appear that there is a group within the membership that are anti-establishment and wouldn't ever support a party being in Government.

As is their right surely?

Peregrinus wrote: »

2. All minority parties have to decide what their purpose is, and how they can best advance their cause. It is not a given that entering government is the only, or the best, way to do this, especially entering as a minority partner in a multi-party government.

The only parties I've seen be really successful at this tend to be parties which have an extreme position which becomes moderately acceptable by virtue of having an elected representative. The goal is a mobilisation of the masses to undermine the political system entirely.

The Greens (at least the original Greens who were interested in environmental issues) strike me as a party which need to be in power with the ability to tweak policies in their direction (e.g. redirecting road spending to cycle lanes & walking, 7% emission reductions, renewable incentives). They were unfortunate to get caught up in the 2008 crisis which needed "big" ideas, but in general their best work was done at the detailed policy level.

The newer Greens are full of big ideas ("social housing built by councils and not private builders!", "occupied territories"). That's all very well if you have a reasonable chance of getting a majority, but the ragtag group of left-wing parties saying exactly the same thing have got nowhere pitching exactly the same ideas. The public are interested in these ideas in a general sense, but ultimately whether housing is built by councils or private builders, or whether we import from Israel or not, are issues the public couldn't really give a toss about. The Greens are potentially sacrificing the ability to actually implement real change, and I suspect a lot of the original environmentalist Greens are going to be really frustrated if they are led into the opposition.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

As is their right surely?

Absolutely, but the Parliamentary Party have entered into negotiations with a view towards entering Government. They've recommended to their members that the Green Party enter into Government, while allowing members join who will never agree to such a development.

If you're going to let members with that type of view join, it's probably an oversight to retain a 2/3rds rule that makes getting agreement extremely difficult.

hardybuck wrote: »

Do you honestly not understand how they'll be chaos if we don't have a new Government next week?

Well, there won't be chaos.

Seeing as you think there will be, tell me what chaos will ensue?

hmmm wrote: »

The only parties I've seen be really successful at this tend to be parties which have an extreme position which becomes moderately acceptable by virtue of having an elected representative. The goal is a mobilisation of the masses to undermine the political system entirely.

The Greens (at least the original Greens who were interested in environmental issues) strike me as a party which need to be in power with the ability to tweak policies in their direction (e.g. redirecting road spending to cycle lanes & walking, 7% emission reductions, renewable incentives). They were unfortunate to get caught up in the 2008 crisis which needed "big" ideas, but in general their best work was done at the detailed policy level.

The newer Greens are full of big ideas ("social housing built by councils and not private builders!", "occupied territories"). That's all very well if you have a reasonable chance of getting a majority, but the ragtag group of left-wing parties saying exactly the same thing have got nowhere pitching exactly the same ideas. The public are interested in these ideas in a general sense, but ultimately whether housing is built by councils or private builders, or whether we import from Israel or not, are issues the public couldn't really give a toss about. The Greens are potentially sacrificing the ability to actually implement real change, and I suspect a lot of the original environmentalist Greens are going to be really frustrated if they are led into the opposition.

From reading their statements, a lot of the prominent 'No' advocates see the GP as a general left movement and would weigh not getting their way on homeless, etc, similarly to environmental goals.

I suspect some of the older members of the party and a huge proportion of their voters don't see things this way and will be pretty confused and angry if the GP rejects an agreement that gave them so much in their 'core' policy areas. A fair few people I've talked to that have voted Green don't even realise the party is a solidly left wing one.

Any chance most Green TDs would still go into Govn't if something over 60% voted yes?
Another option is FF will start talks with SF.

Water John wrote: »

Any chance most Green TDs would still go into Govn't if something over 60% voted yes?
Another option is FF will start talks with SF.

No, the party rules require the 2/3 threshold be passed to go into government. If its say 62% in favour, then the party can't go in.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who refused to negotiate with FF in 48?

Coalition is fine when it is done right. The 'we won't talk to 25% of the electorate' haughtyness of the power swap parties is not democracy and is not a proper approach to coalition, which should not be about having domininance.

Michael Martin gave the game away when he (in the opinion of the mainstream media) opened the door to SF, on the night of the election (when projections where saying around 50 seats) what his view of 'coalition' was. It is all about having 'dominance' over smaller parties...the 'mud guards'.

BTW, I still think your contention that 75% voted against SF or 78% voted 'against' FG is nonsense, you cannot extrapolate that from the results.

Yes, coalition is fine when it's done "our way."

Now for another easy sums lesson. Suppose a pub is for sale at €100,000 and there are three interested parties, Leo, Micheàl and Mary Lou. Mary Lou can raise €80,000 and no more. Micheál and Leo can each raise €50,0(00 and decide to pool their money and go 50/50. Any problem with that? If you have I can only say I'm glad you weren't taught sums in the national school by the SOB who taught me.

hotmail.com wrote: »

All the talk is that the Greens will approve going into government, so if that doesn't happen, it will come as a surprise.

Not doubting you but what’s your source on”all the talk”?

feargale wrote: »

Yes, coalition is fine when it's done "our way''.

Coalition is fine when there is mutual respect..not when one dominates the other and uses them like dustmats and whipping boys.

It seems Leo was told this as well as he was fairly confident of it passing earlier today.