Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Green Party wish list.

Options
1…7879818384

Comments

  • Options
    #2402
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    efanton wrote: »
    I see it most Sunday when the local cycling club is out.

    I thought the whole purpose of the Green campaign to spend 370 million was to provide cycle lanes so that cyclists do not have to use the roads amongst traffic.
    Are the cycling lobby now arguing that having provided cyclists with a dedicated cycle lane they should not be required to use it. That they are perfectly safe on the road with the cars and lorries?
    If that's the case why are we building them?

    It was the law that cyclists had to use the cycle paths when provided, but the cycling groups campaigned to have this repealed.
    You would have to wonder do the Greens and the cycling lobby actually know what they want?

    As stated in an earlier post, I am quite happy for the government to spend the money putting cycling lanes in place so that there is a safe space for them, what I simply do not understand is why should we waste that money if cyclists will not use them.

    The thing is there are two cycling groups at play here.
    There are the ones that cycle to work, i.e. the ones that would use cycle lanes.
    Cycling to work if possible is laudable.

    But then there are the very vocal weekend cyclists, the plonkers out on their cycle to work scheme sponsored racers who think they own the roads.
    Usually these are found in places like Wicklow, even during the lockdown in contravention to rules of movement, and they arrogantly think they can travel anyway they want.
    And usually very unfriendly fookers unlike the walkers.
    Some weekends they travel throughout the country for pretend Tour de France events.

    And the ones out pretending they are Stephen Roche on Alpe d'Huez are the ones that refuse to use cycle lanes when available as it cramps their style and God forbid they might have to go over bumps at entrances to driveways or at junctions.

    Out in the country I nearly get out and high five a cyclist I find that is wearing a normal trousers, no garish top and a normal pair of shoes.
    Or if it is some local kids out with their mates as was normal throughout our history.

    BTW I have also found a fair few of the would be Roches and Kellys are found driving BMWs, Audis and Mercs the rest of the week.
    Podge_irl wrote: »
    No, the climate in Ireland is no worse than the likes of the Netherlands.

    I take it you don't live in the West or even holiday here.

    [QUOTE=Podge_irl;113892199]Roads have received the bulk of the transport budget for decades. Also, there are already quite a few roads in Ireland - they are not going to disappear under this plan. There are significantly fewer cycle ways and bus lanes.

    Improving public transport and active travel benefits those who have no choice but no drive as there are fewer cars on the road. It is a win-win.[/QUOTE]

    And how much does the motor car owner contribute to the exchequer year in year out ?
    Hell we would have brilliant roads if it was all always diverted to transport never mind into general funds.


  • Options
    #2403
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,836 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    jmayo wrote: »
    I take it you don't live in the West or even holiday here.

    I take it you don't live in the Netherlands or even holiday there.


  • Options
    #2404
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    I take it you don't live in the Netherlands or even holiday there.

    Nah just been there for work meetings.

    But for instance ...
    Average rainfall in Amsterdam is 805 mm | 31.7 inch.
    Average rainfall in Glways is 1075 mm | 42.3 inch.

    Yes it would be colder in Netherlands but cold isn't the issue.
    The fact that it rains more often and for longer in the likes of Galway.

    In Amsterdam the number of wet days (i.e., days with probability of some rain in that day) is 217 out 365 days per year.
    In Galway the number of wet days is 232 days.

    Now these are all rough estimates garnered from quick google search, but trust me on the amount of rain in the West.


  • Options
    #2405
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,836 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    opinionated3 wrote: »
    What percentage of the countries workers are "no drive"?

    I have no idea. Though its about 2/3 of those who cross the canals into Dublin and the aim is to increase this. Obviously the ratio is likely lower in other cities and lower again in towns around the country.

    No one is banning cars or digging up roads though so I'm not sure I see the relevance.


  • Options
    #2406
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,836 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    jmayo wrote: »
    Nah just been there for work meetings.

    But for instance ...
    Average rainfall in Amsterdam is 805 mm | 31.7 inch.
    Average rainfall in Glways is 1075 mm | 42.3 inch.

    Yes it would be colder in Netherlands but cold isn't the issue.
    The fact that it rains more often and for longer in the likes of Galway.

    In Amsterdam the number of wet days (i.e., days with probability of some rain in that day) is 217 out 365 days per year.
    In Galway the number of wet days is 232 days.

    Now these are all rough estimates garnered from quick google search, but trust me on the amount of rain in the West.

    I am aware it rains in the west. The 7% higher number of wet days is not exactly a large difference. The climate in the Netherlands and Ireland is broadly similar which was my point. Someone asked if our climate was the "elephant in the room" about why active travel solutions would not work in Ireland and the obvious answer is that no, countries with broadly similar climates have a huge proportion of journeys done by active travel.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2407
    JPCN1
    Registered Users Posts: 888 ✭✭✭JPCN1


    opinionated3 wrote: »
    I apologise, I haven't had time to go back through every page on this thread. But is the elephant in the room not our climate? The fact that it pisses rain here an awful lot? I ain't swapping my car for no one. Cycling to work would add twenty mins each way to my commute. On very busy roads. In the rain. No thanks.
    It may be ok in the cities, I'm not sure, I've never lived in one. But out in the country is not going to work, ever, and Eamon Ryan better get used to that idea.

    I would have thought the real elephant in the room is population growth. 83 extra million people annually and yet Eamon Ryan wants to massively increase the population here.


  • Options
    #2408
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    I am aware it rains in the west. The 7% higher number of wet days is not exactly a large difference. The climate in the Netherlands and Ireland is broadly similar which was my point. Someone asked if our climate was the "elephant in the room" about why active travel solutions would not work in Ireland and the obvious answer is that no, countries with broadly similar climates have a huge proportion of journeys done by active travel.

    The fact that Dublin is an uphill cycle home for many commuters may be more of an issue.


  • Options
    #2409
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,217 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The fact that Dublin is an uphill cycle home for many commuters may be more of an issue.

    Put a little electric motor in it. Certainly Dublin would be as dry as Amsterdam.
    If cycling infrastructure was in place, cyclists will come. We're not a unique people.
    It's diff solutions for diff areas. One solution doesn't fit all.


  • Options
    #2410
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    efanton wrote: »
    In the circumstances that I explained a very narrow road where barely two cars can pass, do you not think even two abreast is dangerous especially as there are many bend and you cant see more than a hundred yards ahead most of the time.

    This is actually one of the situations where two abreast is safer, since it discourages dangerous overtaking. You can't safely overtake a cyclist without crossing the centre line, something which is inadvisable on a narrow twisting road. Singling out tends to encourage motorists to try a risky overtaking manouvere whilst also doubling the length of the group they're attempting to overtake.

    All of this is by the by. The money being invested in cycling infrastructure will go into urban areas. The kinds of roads that cycling clubs train on will never be fitted out with cycle lanes.
    efanton wrote: »
    That idiot Shane Ross changed the law.

    It was Leo Varadkar who changed the law when he was minister for transport. Although, he was following through on a recommendation from a report that was delivered while Noel Dempsey was minister for transport.
    efanton wrote: »
    I see little point in investing over a million euro a day on cycle lanes if cyclist have campaigned for the right not to use them, to the extent that a law was repealed in order for them to choose nor to use infrastructure put in place for their benefit and safety.

    Cyclists aren't some sort of homogeneous mass. Some people like cycle lanes, some don't. Even the people who campaign for them will acknowledge that they suit young or inexperienced cyclists the most. So if I'm cycling with my kids to the creche, I may use the cycle lane, but if I'm cycling to work on my own, I'd be on the road.


  • Options
    #2411
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    Chips Lovell wrote: »

    Cyclists aren't some sort of homogeneous mass. Some people like cycle lanes, some don't. Even the people who campaign for them will acknowledge that they suit young or inexperienced cyclists the most. So if I'm cycling with my kids to the creche, I may use the cycle lane, but if I'm cycling to work on my own, I'd be on the road.

    I'm genuinely curious, why do you choose not to use the cycle path?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2412
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    efanton wrote: »
    I'm genuinely curious, why do you choose not to use the cycle path?

    Better surface, you don't lose priority at junctions, etc. In some cases, the road is also safer.


  • Options
    #2413
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    markodaly wrote: »
    Do we have national roads in the country that is only about 3 meters wide?
    News to me!


    Indeed we do
    https://www.google.ie/maps/@52.2151373,-8.6716085,357m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.422047,-9.4024105,619m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

    Those are two stretches I use regularly. You will notice there not even space for a dashed line at the sides of those stretches.

    N52 that you are forced to use if you want to come from Limerick to Birr or athlone

    N80 from Port Laoise up to Birr, although I have heard that in the last year or so they have done a lot of work on this. Havent seen it myself or know how much work has been done but that road was deadly.

    Those I have used a couple of time in the last 2 to 4 years that had stretches that could only be considered boreeens even though they are main national routes. As stated I believe there has been some work done to improve these in the last few years, I havent recently used them.


    i'm sure there are dozens more, I can only speak of the ones I have used


    I agree that decades of bad planning has certainly exasperated this issue, but that alone is not the sole issue. The lack of adequate and basic public transport and cycling infrastructure has also contributed to the problem. It is not correct to state, it all just down to bad planning.


    I agree that although most of it is bad planning, not all of it is.
    But neither was it right to claim that it was solely down to too many cars either.

    This country has a regular census, the government and city councils are well aware of the growth of population, and even more aware that when they approve additional housing that will increase use of roads and public transport.
    The problem with our planning laws is that those making decision do not have to consider 10 or 20 years into the future, nor make provision for population growth. We allow developments to happen far too close to our main arterial routes preventing them from being widened, or being able to include additional public transport in the future.

    That is why this country has to stop fixing issues with the design of roads and public transport retroactively. We allow housing estates, shopping centres etc to be built on roads that are almost at capacity now without ensuring as part of that planning application additional traffic in the future is mitigated against in some way, be that by improving or widening of roads, or improving or ensuring that there this public transport services to these estates and shopping centres.

    To blame it on cars is simply wrong.
    Its a combination of poor planning, not foreseeing the need for space to enable road and public transport to improve and allowing developers to build on any postage stamp sized plot of land they can get their hands on.


  • Options
    #2414
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    Better surface, you don't lose priority at junctions, etc. In some cases, the road is also safer.

    Fair enough. So basically bad planning, poor design and bad implementation.

    Surely the solution for the future here is that the dept of transport meet with the cycling groups and have a public consultation on what needs to change to make these routes safer, and more user friendly so that they are used.

    I have no problem with the concept of a dense interconnected network of cycle paths in our cities, its long over due.
    But surely if we are going to spend hundreds of million on them we need to make sure that once they are built they are properly and fully used. If that means a public enquiry or review (and we know they can be expensive and time consuming), surely that has to be better than building them and then having to rebuild them or fix them in the future.


  • Options
    #2415
    Leonidas BL
    Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


    Anyone that voted for these fools is nothing but a fruitcake


  • Options
    #2416
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,059 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    efanton wrote: »
    Indeed we do

    No. No we do not. Now I know you are bluffing.

    There is no National road in Ireland that is only 3 metres wide.
    To give you context because I am generous and because I think you need it, a hard shoulder on a Dual Carriageway is 2.5 metres wide on its own.

    The N20 is approximately 7 metres wide.

    You are welcome.






    I agree that although most of it is bad planning, not all of it is.

    Another u-turn.

    That is why this country has to stop fixing issues with the design of roads and public transport retroactively. We allow housing estates, shopping centres etc to be built on roads that are almost at capacity now without ensuring as part of that planning application additional traffic in the future is mitigated against in some way, be that by improving or widening of roads, or improving or ensuring that there this public transport services to these estates and shopping centres.

    I agree with you here.
    To blame it on cars is simply wrong.
    Its a combination of poor planning, not foreseeing the need for space to enable road and public transport to improve and allowing developers to build on any postage stamp-sized plot of land they can get their hands on.

    I agree with you here as well.


  • Options
    #2417
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    This is actually one of the situations where two abreast is safer, since it discourages dangerous overtaking. You can't safely overtake a cyclist without crossing the centre line, something which is inadvisable on a narrow twisting road. Singling out tends to encourage motorists to try a risky overtaking manouvere whilst also doubling the length of the group they're attempting to overtake.

    Trust me on this, any cyclist who believes that on a country road is putting their lives at risk.

    While the lycra brigade are out on Sundays so are the boy racers. They will overtake regardless. No point being in the right and in a hospital bead at the same time.

    Also there's those idiots with their oversized brand new SUV's who will insist on sticking to the centre of the road just in case a bramble or overhanging bush scratches their paintwork.
    Even in a car I have to clip the verge on regular occasion because some idiot in another car or SUV is hogging the centre line.

    But as a sensible driver I do find it infuriating to have to follows two cyclist riding abreast for sometimes a mile or two. Even when I can see well ahead of me I still cant overtake because with two cyclists abreast there would not be enough clearance between my car and the cyclist nearest the centre line. Some drivers will get frustrated and overtake anyhow. If cyclists nearest the centre pull in from the centre line when there was a straight stretch knowing there were vehicles behind them they would be far less antagonism towards cyclists.

    I dont think the cyclists realise sometimes that although they think what they are doing is safer it really isnt.


  • Options
    #2418
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    markodaly wrote: »
    No. No we do not. Now I know you are bluffing.

    There is no National road in Ireland that is only 3 metres wide.

    Where did you get the 3 meters from?
    I said roads barely wide enough for two lorries to pass.

    I even gave you aerial views so that you could clearly see that for yourself.

    For most of the N20 there is now a hard shoulder. There is even two lanes in places where there is long hills to mitigate against heavily burdened lorries having to drop gears. That doesnt discount that there are also extremely narrow stretches on all the National roads I listed, and no doubt many more.


  • Options
    #2419
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    efanton wrote: »
    But surely if we are going to spend hundreds of million on them we need to make sure that once they are built they are properly and fully used.

    I think it's important to bear in mind what the end goal is here. It's not to shunt all the cyclists off the road and on to the cycle lane. It's to increase the overall number of people cycling.

    If for example, after ten years, there had been a tenfold increase in the number of people cycling to work or school, and 50 percent of them used cycle lanes where available and 50 percent used the road, that would probably still regarded as win in terms of investment.

    Personally, while there are locations where they are useful, I'm not that big of a fan of wide-scale cycling infrastructure, because I think it sends mixed messages. On the one hand it may encourage novices to start cycling but on the other, it leads people to conclude that cycling is so dangerous that it requires separate infrastructure (it isn't). However, there's lots of other cyclists who'd have a different opinion.

    I'd be more of a fan of re-prioritising existing roads towards bikes and buses.


  • Options
    #2420
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,836 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    efanton wrote: »
    But as a sensible driver I do find it infuriating to have to follows two cyclist riding abreast for sometimes a mile or two. Even when I can see well ahead of me I still cant overtake because with two cyclists abreast there would not be enough clearance between my car and the cyclist nearest the centre line. Some drivers will get frustrated and overtake anyhow. If cyclists nearest the centre pull in from the centre line when there was a straight stretch knowing there were vehicles behind them they would be far less antagonism towards cyclists.

    This makes absolutely no sense. Pull out fully into the opposite lane and overtake the cyclists if it is safe to do so. If it is not safe to do that, then it is not safe to overtake a single cyclist either. After all, clearly there is space for cars coming in the opposite direction to go past the cyclists.

    I think you'll find most cyclists are fully aware of the danger that drivers pose. It is kind of hard to miss it.


    This is all, pretty much, wildly beside the point though. These are not the kind of roads that will be re-prioritised for public transport and active transport.

    What you will definitely see under the Greens is the likes of the temporary measures for Covid 19 in Dublin and other cities being made permanent. And hopefully some better maintenance of the infrastructure that exists.


  • Options
    #2421
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    This makes absolutely no sense. Pull out fully into the opposite lane and overtake the cyclists if it is safe to do so. If it is not safe to do that, then it is not safe to overtake a single cyclist either. After all, clearly there is space for cars coming in the opposite direction to go past the cyclists.


    The road is just wide enough for two lorries to pass. If two cyclist are riding abreast then the mandatory passing distance of 1.5 m is not possible even if the overtaking car is fully in the opposing lane.

    If however there was a single cyclist then keeping the 1.5 metre passing distance is possible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2422
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,836 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    efanton wrote: »
    The road is just wide enough for two lorries to pass. If two cyclist are riding abreast then the mandatory passing distance of 1.5 m is not possible even if the overtaking car is fully in the opposing lane.

    If however there was a single cyclist then keeping the 1.5 metre passing distance is possible.

    1.5m is a recommendation, it is not the law. The law is no "dangerous" overtaking. Being completely in the next lane would not be dangerous.


  • Options
    #2423
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,524 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    efanton wrote: »
    The road is just wide enough for two lorries to pass. If two cyclist are riding abreast then the mandatory passing distance of 1.5 m is not possible even if the overtaking car is fully in the opposing lane.

    If however there was a single cyclist then keeping the 1.5 metre passing distance is possible.

    You really should go and do some research in to this and consider the following topics.

    How often are cyclists actually riding two abreast?
    How often is there insufficient space for a car to overtake them?
    How often is there no opportunity to use the oncoming lane for the car to complete its overtaking maneuver?
    How often do cars observe the 1.5M guideline? (Check out the near misses thread for insight)

    You are being pedantic to a fault in trying to suggest that cyclists are a persistent negative impact on other road users.
    In theory, you must stop while someone is using a zebra crossing and in theory they could be on a zimmer frame and it could take a couple of minutes for them to complete the crossing, in reality, such a scenario hardly ever happens so it is not an issue which needs active consideration.


  • Options
    #2424
    Clarence Boddiker
    Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Clarence Boddiker


    Extremely disturbing to see that our Childrens Minister is an acquaintance and associate of Peter Tatchell, a man who has many times endorsed and advocated sexual relations between children and adults.

    https://twitter.com/greenparty_ie/status/1013045330223489024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1013045330223489024%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html1013045330223489024


  • Options
    #2425
    mgn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,904 ✭✭✭mgn


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    I think it's important to bear in mind what the end goal is here. It's not to shunt all the cyclists off the road and on to the cycle lane. It's to increase the overall number of people cycling.

    If for example, after ten years, there had been a tenfold increase in the number of people cycling to work or school, and 50 percent of them used cycle lanes where available and 50 percent used the road, that would probably still regarded as win in terms of investment.

    Personally, while there are locations where they are useful, I'm not that big of a fan of wide-scale cycling infrastructure, because I think it sends mixed messages. On the one hand it may encourage novices to start cycling but on the other, it leads people to conclude that cycling is so dangerous that it requires separate infrastructure (it isn't). However, there's lots of other cyclists who'd have a different opinion.

    I'd be more of a fan of re-prioritising existing roads towards bikes and buses.

    So you want hundreds of millions spent on cycle lanes and you still want to use the road.

    Typical cyclist, i'm entitled to do what i like,


  • Options
    #2426
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    mgn wrote: »
    So you want hundreds of millions spent on cycle lanes and you still want to use the road.

    Hmmm, noooo. As I said, I'm interested in promoting cycling and I'm not entirely convinced that building an entire parallel infrastructure is required. So if there are cheaper ways of doing it, I'm all for it. Having said that, I'm aware that I'm probably in the minority on that front and most cycling campaigners are in the "Build all the cycle lanes" school, so that may well end up being the way we go.


  • Options
    #2427
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,836 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    Hmmm, noooo. As I said, I'm interested in promoting cycling and I'm not entirely convinced that building an entire parallel infrastructure is required. So if there are cheaper ways of doing it, I'm all for it. Having said that, I'm aware that I'm probably in the minority on that front and most cycling campaigners are in the "Build all the cycle lanes" school, so that may well end up being the way we go.

    I would tend to agree with you but it does seem to be a minority view. I can't stand off road cycle lanes for the most part. They are, however, very important for encouraging cycling among less confident groups and are definitely needed on arterial routes at least if we want to increase the general cycling cohort.


  • Options
    #2428
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,217 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Leonidas BL wrote: »
    Anyone that voted for these fools is nothing but a fruitcake

    That does contribute very positively to the discussion.
    See a lot of shade being thrown Roderic's way. Some seems to be thinly veiled homophobia, esp comments about this being the second gay person in charge of this Dept.
    If all political parties were fully committed to sensible green measures, then the Green Party wouldn't exist and people wouldn't have to fear some of the dafter notions of some of their members.


  • Options
    #2429
    mgn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,904 ✭✭✭mgn


    Water John wrote: »
    That does contribute very positively to the discussion.
    See a lot of shade being thrown Roderic's way. Some seems to be thinly veiled homophobia, esp comments about this being the second gay person in charge of this Dept.
    If all political parties were fully committed to sensible green measures, then the Green Party wouldn't exist and people wouldn't have to fear some of the dafter notions of some of their members.

    Your joking right,

    The Green Party are no better than the Healy- Rays all snouts in the trough, Catherine Martins brother elected to the Senate and Patrick Costello partner now the new Lord Mayor of Dublin.

    Its a joke for a shower of clowns that got less than 7% of the vote.


  • Options
    #2430
    Fuascailteoir
    Registered Users Posts: 605 ✭✭✭Fuascailteoir


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    No, the climate in Ireland is no worse than the likes of the Netherlands.

    You obviously never lived along the coast in Donegal


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2431
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    efanton wrote: »
    ...
    The problem, as the Greens will quickly find out, is that there is a limited amount of money to spend.
    Like kids in a sweet shop with pocket money they will lash their money out on the first things that looks good or tasty, only to realise later in the week they have no money to spend and mam and dad will not give them any more. The same will happen to the Greens, without thinking through their policies, without costing them, they will spend on things that might not necessarily be the best choice and provide best value for money only to realise later when they have had time to actually see what the country really needs, they have no money for it. When they run to FF and FG and ask for more money to spend it will not be there.
    ...
    How many times do people have to be told, that government finances don't work like household finances? There is a gigantic amount of money out there thanks to ECB policies, and the desperation of investors to throw money practitcally anywhere that will generate even a negative interest rate, so long as that interest rate is above the rate they borrowed at...

    Again - government finances do not work like household finances, there are zero comparable analogies between business/personal/household finances, and government finances - stop talking about government finances like they operate that way, learn how they actually work.


Advertisement