Why Do The Green Party Attract Such Animosity?

Scofflaw · 06-07-2010 03:13PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

could have a twist on above

and have a 5000 euro fine

but 4000 of this would be refunded when and if a proper treatment system is in place

@Scofflaw you would like this

transfer of money occurs on the EU level too, I don't see many people in Ireland complaining about receiving more money from EU than giving back, just hope they dont get ideas in Brussels about a Poo Tax (with all the cows we have that be something) or Methane tax or whatever

What we transfer to the EU is largely VAT, generated by businesses, and mostly based in the circum-Dublin urban areas. What we get back from the EU is largely in the form of CAP, which doesn't go back to those areas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Uriel. · 06-07-2010 04:49PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not a case of "pushing through the turf ban", though - it's a case of finally implementing something that should have been implemented 11 years ago. No pushing about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

+1

The Green Party get a very raw deal over the turf cutting issue. An issue that has nothing to do with Green Politics or environmental issue per sé, in the primary. Very few people comprehend that fact or the consequences of not pushing the ban.

Scofflaw · 06-07-2010 05:07PM

Uriel. wrote: »

+1

The Green Party get a very raw deal over the turf cutting issue. An issue that has nothing to do with Green Politics or environmental issue per sé, in the primary. Very few people comprehend that fact or the consequences of not pushing the ban.

I think the Green Party get a lot of the animosity directed at environmental regulation full stop - they "stand for" the "environmental movement" and "environmentalism" in general in the eyes of those objecting to a given piece of environmental legislation, even though protection of the environment is very widely supported amongst the public and political parties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Uriel. · 06-07-2010 05:22PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think the Green Party get a lot of the animosity directed at environmental regulation full stop - they "stand for" the "environmental movement" and "environmentalism" in general in the eyes of those objecting to a given piece of environmental legislation, even though protection of the environment is very widely supported amongst the public and political parties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The turf cutting issue isn't a true Environmental issue though. Certainly not in the sense of sustainable development or water pollution/quality. It's a heritage issue really - preservation of an endangered national/european (global) habitat.

I know it can be very difficult for people to separate those two things though.

Traumadoc · 06-07-2010 11:28PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Does that map factor in the fact that all state vehicles (Garda cars, buses, post office vans, ESB, ministerial cars, etc, etc) are "D" regs, and therefore are taxed via (and providing income to) Dublin local authorities despite being used in other counties and therefore not providing much-needed income to those local authorities, thereby requiring redress from central government ?

I do not think government vehicles pay tax.

Scofflaw · 07-07-2010 03:41AM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I worked in Dublin and here in west, don't forget that people move about for work

Not really of any relevance!

ei.sdraob wrote: »

taxation could be moved more towards the local county level as well
sort of like the states in the US have more local state taxation than federal

anyways thats a whole other subject

but it seems your whole argument for the septic tax revolves around

"Dublin pays for the rest of the country so we need to impose a Poo tax on those boggers" :rolleyes:

Not at all - the argument for paying for a septic tank licence is that the licensing system needs to be paid for, and the licensing system is legally required. The DoE have known they needed to do it since about 2002, but have chosen to fight a legal battle instead - which has now ended with the DoE on the losing end. It hasn't very much to do with the Greens at all.

The point about the way Dublin and its hinterland pays for the rest of the country is simply as a counterpoint to the endless litany of how Dublin punishes the rest of the country, interferes with the rest of the country, etc etc, which is frankly both tedious and false. We in Dublin are taxed to allow people to live in the countryside at a reasonably comparable level of services to the cities - but providing services to dispersed rural dwellers, particularly to those in one-off housing, costs more money per capita than to city dwellers.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

either way its a quite reasonable (but not too harsh) proposal; that targets the polluters, creates jobs and helps the environment

Jebus i am more Green than the Greens here on boards who seem to have thrown the polluter pays principle of theirs out the window causing so much "anonymity" (see thread title)

It's a proposal that misses the point - there's a licensing system to be paid for. Everyone with a septic tank will need a licence, therefore it's reasonable for everyone to pay the licence fee. Inspections and fines are a separate issue.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and instead have exposed their true agenda of making the country people pay because the center of commerce and the country is in Dublin (for a great variety of reasons going a long way back into history), and has nothing to do with helping the environment of course

And that bit is, frankly, silly. Whether Dublin being the centre of commerce is a historical development or not, I pay an extra €2,000 annually in taxes that gets transferred to the country - except that, of course, there's plenty of Dublin that doesn't pay net tax, so actually it's rather more.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob · 07-07-2010 10:04AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a proposal that misses the point - there's a licensing system to be paid for. Everyone with a septic tank will need a licence, therefore it's reasonable for everyone to pay the licence fee. Inspections and fines are a separate issue.

so once again it has nothing to do with protecting the environment but everything to do with keeping bureaucrats employed and taxing more for the sake of it :rolleyes:

i outlined a way in which all septic tanks can be checked for 30 million a year or less helping the environment and solving the issue, thats spare change to the Greens who signed off on NAMA

no thats too bloody practical

since the real agenda of the Greens has been exposed yet again

btw there is already a licence fee to be paid to local councils when new treatment systems are added

Scofflaw wrote: »

And that bit is, frankly, silly. Whether Dublin being the centre of commerce is a historical development or not, I pay an extra €2,000 annually in taxes that gets transferred to the country - except that, of course, there's plenty of Dublin that doesn't pay net tax, so actually it's rather more.

I can bet that me and my company pay alot more tax than you several times over, so dont get me started :rolleyes:

you seem to have a problem with how tax is redistributed, and your answer is more tax
do i need to point out the obvious flaw in your outlook on taxation?

btw this whole septic tank ****e from the greens is just that, ****e, the real agenda for the Greens once again is to kill of the countryside and turn it into and wasteland:
* In 2008 there were 6.7 million cattle, 5.1 million sheep, and 1.5 million pigs in the Republic of Ireland which are of course kept in the countryside
* animals produce 130 times more waste than humans
* animal waste is far more polluting than human
* while human waste goes thru septic tanks, that ****e smell you get being in the countryside for last month or so is **** being spread on fields (to feed city dwellers as well of course)

to summarize animal waste is far far more polluting than human waste

once again the Greens dont really care about the environment

their real agenda is a perverse tax tax tax D4 imposed hippy fluff

Scofflaw wrote: »

We in Dublin are taxed to allow people to live in the countryside at a reasonably comparable level of services to the cities - but providing services to dispersed rural dwellers, particularly to those in one-off housing, costs more money per capita than to city dwellers.

what alot of fluff (i seriously expected better of you), maybe you should get out of Dublin more, people in the countryside pay quite a bit for everything like water (if there happens to be a scheme), ESB extra installation and standing charges, broadband? what broadband, motor taxes which are not really spend on roads

hey how about all of Dublin pays the countryside billions in carbon credits since the countryside provides Dublin with a huge carbon sink of trees, grass and bogs

View · 07-07-2010 12:42PM

What a lot of fuss over something small.

Should all car owners start protesting because they have to pay to have the NCT done on their cars? Is it "anti-motorist" that they have to pay for this instead of being able to get non-car owners to subsidise the cost of the NCT system?

Scofflaw · 07-07-2010 12:56PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so once again it has nothing to do with protecting the environment but everything to do with keeping bureaucrats employed and taxing more for the sake of it :rolleyes:

i outlined a way in which all septic tanks can be checked for 30 million a year or less helping the environment and solving the issue, thats spare change to the Greens who signed off on NAMA

no thats too bloody practical since the real agenda of the Greens has been exposed yet again

I suggest you write to the DoE, since the details of the scheme to be run are not yet settled, and they're running a consultation. Otherwise, you can complain about the scheme that comes in all you like, but it's just wind - you have an idea, share it! Who knows, maybe your idea is better than anything they've come up with in the Department?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

btw there is already a licence fee to be paid to local councils when new treatment systems are added

Let's go over it again. Ireland lost an ECJ judgement, which requires us to license septic tanks - something the government did not previously have any plans to do (indeed, they had plans not to do it).

So this isn't anybody's "agenda" at all.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I can bet that me and my company pay alot more tax than you several times over, so dont get me started :rolleyes:

you seem to have a problem with how tax is redistributed, and your answer is more tax
do i need to point out the obvious flaw in your outlook on taxation?

My answer is not "more taxation", and I don't have a problem with the redistribution of taxation - I have a problem with the people benefiting from that redistribution claiming that they're the ones suffering. If you and your company are paying more tax than me, I congratulate you, but it doesn't change the fact that I personally am paying a very heavy subsidy to rural Ireland, and what I get in return is to be told that I'm some kind of lentil-eating tree-hugger with no right to an opinion.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

btw this whole septic tank ****e from the greens is just that, ****e, the real agenda for the Greens once again is to kill of the countryside and turn it into and wasteland:
* In 2008 there were 6.7 million cattle, 5.1 million sheep, and 1.5 million pigs in the Republic of Ireland which are of course kept in the countryside
* animals produce 130 times more waste than humans
* animal waste is far more polluting than human
* while human waste goes thru septic tanks, that ****e smell you get being in the countryside for last month or so is **** being spread on fields (to feed city dwellers as well of course)

to summarize animal waste is far far more polluting than human waste

No, that's not the case - I've already cited the two expert bodies concerned, whose view is that water pollution in the Irish countryside is equally caused by farm waste and human waste.

Please don't make up "facts" to suit yourself.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

once again the Greens dont really care about the environment

their real agenda is a perverse tax tax tax D4 imposed hippy fluff

I'll say it again, because you don't seem to have got this very basic point - we've been required to license septic tanks. It isn't anybody in the current government's preference to do it, it's the result of losing a court case. Saying, therefore, that it "exposes the Green agenda" is nothing but an indication of the way you feel about the Greens, because this has nothing to do with the Greens except that a Green TD happens to be the current Minister.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what alot of fluff (i seriously expected better of you), maybe you should get out of Dublin more, people in the countryside pay quite a bit for everything like water (if there happens to be a scheme), ESB extra installation and standing charges, broadband? what broadband, motor taxes which are not really spend on roads

Yes, that's right - it costs more to provide those services in the country. More than the country can provide in value-added, basically, which is why those services have to be subsidised from Dublin.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

hey how about all of Dublin pays the countryside billions in carbon credits since the countryside provides Dublin with a huge carbon sink of trees, grass and bogs

That's perfectly reasonable (and will be the partly the case once CAP is reformed), as long as you look after them properly - but I'm prepared to bet that the money will be taken, while the necessary requirements will be complained about.

You've gone on a long diatribe about the "Green agenda" here (as elsewhere), which has been both poorly thought out and factually inaccurate - in some places involving "facts" of your own devising. What is very obvious from it is that you don't like the Greens - you see them as anti-rural D4 hippies - and you don't care to find out whether you're pinning the right "crimes" on them or not. Like several other posts on this thread, it fails to explain why the Greens attract animosity, and is instead just an example of it.

not impressed,
Scofflaw

?Cee?view · 07-07-2010 03:05PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's go over it again. Ireland lost an ECJ judgement, which requires us to license septic tanks - something the government did not previously have any plans to do (indeed, they had plans not to do it).

So this isn't anybody's "agenda" at all.

10 October 2009 - Programme for Government is released. At page 24 it states:

We will introduce a scheme for the licensing and inspection of septic tanks and wastewater treatment systems.

29 October 2009 - the European Court of Justice ruled that Ireland had broken EU law for failing to enact legislation to deal with domestic wastewater from septic tanks and other treatment systems.

Scofflaw · 07-07-2010 03:24PM

churchview wrote: »

10 October 2009 - Programme for Government is released. At page 24 it states:

We will introduce a scheme for the licensing and inspection of septic tanks and wastewater treatment systems.

29 October 2009 - the European Court of Justice ruled that Ireland had broken EU law for failing to enact legislation to deal with domestic wastewater from septic tanks and other treatment systems.

If you're making the point that the Greens decided to score an easy point in their PfG by saying they were going to do something that the Minister would have known was about to happen anyway, then I'd go with the Greens being guilty as charged. That's politics for you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View · 07-07-2010 05:14PM

churchview wrote: »

10 October 2009 - Programme for Government is released. At page 24 it states:

We will introduce a scheme for the licensing and inspection of septic tanks and wastewater treatment systems.

29 October 2009 - the European Court of Justice ruled that Ireland had broken EU law for failing to enact legislation to deal with domestic wastewater from septic tanks and other treatment systems.

If it was in the PfG that means FF agreed to just as much as the Greens, hence it is hard to see how it just a "Green Party" issue (FF wasn't obliged to agree).

Likewise, faced with an ECJ ruling, then there would have needed to be some measure to deal with the issue irrespective of which parties were in Government at the time. Does the ECJ ruling actually say "You must have licensing" or merely "This is an outstanding issue, which you need to fix by some means pronto"?

gbee · 07-07-2010 05:16PM

It's so inconvenient isn't it.

Liam Byrne · 07-07-2010 06:12PM

View wrote: »

Does the ECJ ruling actually say "You must have licensing" or merely "This is an outstanding issue, which you need to fix by some means pronto"?

Good question, especially considering the lies about how the EU and IMF "approved" of the approach to the banking disaster.

dynamick · 07-07-2010 06:35PM

View wrote: »

Does the ECJ ruling actually say "You must have licensing" or merely "This is an outstanding issue, which you need to fix by some means pronto"?

ecj wrote:

In terms of monitoring, the Court found that monitoring systems must involve regular inspections by local authorities of the functioning and maintenance of septic tanks and individual waste water treatment systems. The Court found that Irish local authorities have powers of inspection under various Irish laws, which also set out minimum standards of inspection. However, it argued that these powers are not exercised within a framework of regular checks and inspections at appropriate intervals. The Court rejected any argument that an absence of regular inspections could be justified on the basis of the high number of septic tanks in Ireland.

http://www.iro.ie/documents/EUPolicyReview09-6.pdf

Hating the greens can be a cathartic form of psychological projection. A guy who identifies himself as environmentally friendly may build a house with good insulation and ecotech features. He can look to his recycling habits and feel good about his green credentials. Then along come some green taxes that affect his lifestyle, and he doesn't want to pay them. His identity is now threatened and, at a subconscious level, he feels hypocritical.

In time-honoured fashion, the way to dispel uncomfortable, subconscious feelings is to project them, particularly onto whoever has made you feel this way.

IrishTonyO · 07-07-2010 06:43PM

dynamick wrote: »

http://www.iro.ie/documents/EUPolicyReview09-6.pdf

Hating the greens can be a cathartic form of psychological projection. A guy who identifies himself as environmentally friendly may build a house with good insulation and ecotech features. He can look to his recycling habits and feel good about his green credentials. Then along come some green taxes that affect his lifestyle, and he doesn't want to pay them. His identity is now threatened and, at a subconscious level, he feels hypocritical.

In time-honoured fashion, the way to dispel uncomfortable, subconscious feelings is to project them, particularly onto whoever has made you feel this way.

or the Green Party could just be two-faced, arrogant twats, that have turned their backs on their main principles and deserve all the animosity they get? May be simple, but it rings true for me

ei.sdraob · 07-07-2010 06:45PM

IrishTonyO wrote: »

or the Green Party could just be two-faced, arrogant twats, that have turned their backs on their main principles and deserve all the animosity they get? May be simple, but it rings true for me

such as the polluter pays principle... or integrity ...

Scofflaw · 07-07-2010 06:57PM

IrishTonyO wrote: »

or the Green Party could just be two-faced, arrogant twats, that have turned their backs on their main principles and deserve all the animosity they get? May be simple, but it rings true for me

"Rings true" for quite a lot of people, but that doesn't make it true. The Irish Green Party isn't great - I vote for it in the absence of better alternatives that I find relatively easy to think of, but which resolutely fail to exist - but the charges levelled against them here and elsewhere regularly turn out to be a case of :

1. hate the Greens
2. find some 'reasons' - anything 'environmental' will do.

Hence, I think, the thread. There's a visceral level of dislike which is simply out of all proportion to the impacts of their policies, and which regularly blames them for things which have nothing to do with them - a fine example is the accusation of "green cronyism" levelled at the Greens over the appointment of a Birdwatch Ireland representative to the European Economic and Social Committee:

Greens out-crony Fianna Fáil as dairy sector loses out to birdwatcher on key EU group – Doyle

Fine Gael Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Spokesperson, Andrew Doyle TD, today (Monday) said the Green Party’s biggest achievement in Government is to out-crony Fianna Fáil. Deputy Doyle said Agriculture Minister Brendan Smith must demonstrate some backbone and stand up to the ludicrous decision to replace the ICMSA with a Birdwatch Ireland rep on the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).

“The Greens are continuing their assault on rural Ireland and getting a seat on an EU group for one of their cronies is just an added bonus. It makes no sense to exclude the representatives of the vital dairy sector from this key group, the work of which feeds into EU decisions. The question must be asked: why is the farming pillar the only one to lose a nomination? The Greens are showing they’ve learned a lot in Government – about cronyism. And their coalition hostages, Fianna Fáil, cave every time to avoid facing the people.

“The fact is the ICMSA was so well regarded on the EESC that its representative was appointed Rapporteur for the last European Dairy Report, which is widely respected. Clearly the ICMSA has an important input to make to this EU consultative body and, as a contributor to the economy, has a genuine case to be there. Where is the Agriculture Minister on this? Has Fianna Fáil capitulated completely to the Greens? I am calling on Minister Brendan Smith to demonstrate some hitherto unseen backbone and stand up to this ludicrous decision.”

That's a really splendid piece of utter rubbish, but I'm prepared to bet that people who dislike the Greens would swallow it whole - it contains many of the standard anti-Green elements, such as the "assault on rural Ireland" that posters here have happily trotted out. Fair enough, it now accuses Fianna Fáil of capitulating to the Greens rather than reverse, although the reverse remains equally popular.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne · 07-07-2010 06:59PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hence, I think, the thread. There's a visceral level of dislike which is simply out of all proportion to the impacts of their policies, and which regularly blames them for things which have nothing to do with them

Like ?

1) Going into Government after promising not to
2) Voting in favour of NAMA
3) Voting confidence in Cowen, O'Donoghue & O'Dea
4) Landing us with extra taxes

"out of all proportion" my arse!

Scofflaw · 07-07-2010 07:15PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Like ?

1) Going into Government after promising not to

They did quite a lot of not ruling out any coalition in advance, and then their membership voted for it.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

2) Voting in favour of NAMA

So what?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

3) Voting confidence in Cowen, O'Donoghue & O'Dea

Part of being in government.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

4) Landing us with extra taxes

Tot up the extra taxes, so, and tell me how much you're paying in Green taxes.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"out of all proportion" my arse!

I couldn't possibly comment directly - but, yes, your hatred of them seems frankly weird and out of all proportion. NAMA may or may not work out, but it's a bizarre thing to pin on the Greens - whoever was in government would have had to do something similar, because the position we'd be in would be the same whoever was currently in, as it's a result of the last decade of stupidity. It's not like we got ourselves into a position of needing something like NAMA in the lifetime of this government.

Voting confidence in people like O'Dea and Donoghue was revolting, but no more revolting than any other purely political necessity. I'm sure you're sure that the Greens are only going to get this one run in government in the foreseeable future, yet you also think they should collapse the coalition and terminate their one stab at it.

As to extra taxes - I'm sure that if we were still awash with money, the Greens would no more want to land you with extra taxes than the next party. They'd want to shift the burden about, so that it accords with their policy aims, but if we still had the cash, they'd go for revenue-neutral to avoid irritating voters. However, we're not awash with cash, so they can't.

regards,
Scofflaw

Sand · 07-07-2010 07:25PM

Like ?

1) Going into Government after promising not to
2) Voting in favour of NAMA
3) Voting confidence in Cowen, O'Donoghue & O'Dea
4) Landing us with extra taxes

"out of all proportion" my arse!

All the above sums it up regarding the Greens though I amnt so sure on 4 - extra taxes were inevitable, but the Greens have been hamfisted in economic policy in general.

I dont know why the Greens are so bewildered by the hatred towards them - they burnt their supporters by going into power with Fianna Fail, invited contempt by the sleight of hand by which they justified it to themselves, they spat in the face of the nation by supporting the massive theft that is NAMA, and they have consistently endorsed and supported Fianna Fail at every shameful episode in this government.

What exactly did they expect for their lies, theft and contempt for the will of the people? They were warned repeatedly that they could get out of the government with some respect, or they could be buried at the next election. They chose to be buried electorally - to be wiped out. They should at least have the dignity to die quietly and stop moaning about how unfair it all is. Theyre hanging onto power for dear life, but theyre running out of road. The electorate is waiting for them.

Liam Byrne · 07-07-2010 07:38PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

They did quite a lot of not ruling out any coalition in advance, and then their membership voted for it.

In your opinion. I would not have voted for them if I had thought they would do this.

They therefore completely ignored my wishes, and so have ensured that they will not get my vote again.

Scofflaw wrote: »

So what?

Again, they did not represent me, or the majority of the country.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Part of being in government.

An amazing cop-out! Voting confidence in con-men is not part of being in Government.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Tot up the extra taxes, so, and tell me how much you're paying in Green taxes.

I'll keep you posted as soon as their latest schemes are in place, like water charges and petrol taxes and septic tank charges, although hopefully this fiasco of a government will fall before those can be imposed on us.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Voting confidence in people like O'Dea and Donoghue was revolting, but no more revolting than any other purely political necessity. I'm sure you're sure that the Greens are only going to get this one run in government in the foreseeable future, yet you also think they should collapse the coalition and terminate their one stab at it.

Self-fulfilling prophesy. If they persist in defending corruption and the indefensible, then they will only get one run in government; if they had acted responsibly and ethically, they might have been voted in again.

However, all of their choices have ensured that they won't.

Scofflaw · 07-07-2010 08:00PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In your opinion. I would not have voted for them if I had thought they would do this.

They therefore completely ignored my wishes, and so have ensured that they will not get my vote again.

Fair enough if you voted Green on an ABFF basis - and I'm sure that applies to quite a lot of voters.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Again, they did not represent me, or the majority of the country.

The majority of the country probably know no more about NAMA than they read in the papers - but I'm still not sure there's actually any such thing as a majority against NAMA.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

An amazing cop-out! Voting confidence in con-men is not part of being in Government.

It's certainly part of being in government with Fianna Fáil - and, to be honest, it's probably part of being in any Irish coalition.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'll keep you posted as soon as their latest schemes are in place, like water charges and petrol taxes and septic tank charges, although hopefully this fiasco of a government will fall before those can be imposed on us.

Again, water charges are something we signed up for under the previous government. The petrol charge is about 3-4 c per litre last time I looked, and the septic tank charge hasn't been finalised.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Self-fulfilling prophesy. If they persist in defending corruption and the indefensible, then they will only get one run in government; if they had acted responsibly and ethically, they might have been voted in again.

However, all of their choices have ensured that they won't.

Rubbish. One choice, and one choice alone, cost them the support of about a third of their voters - the decision to go into coalition with Fianna Fáil. Everything since then has largely been a case of articulating the hatred that engendered - if one doesn't object to that, then about as far as one can go is to damn them with faint praise.

regards,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne · 07-07-2010 08:13PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

The majority of the country probably know no more about NAMA than they read in the papers - but I'm still not sure there's actually any such thing as a majority against NAMA.

And I'd be pretty sure that the majority is against it, with that number increasing by the day as more and more of the lies used to sell it to us are exposed.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's certainly part of being in government with Fianna Fáil

And the Greens knew this before they went in with them, so that's no excuse for the inexcusable. In actual fact, it makes them look even worse.

Either you're ethical or you're not. And if you are, then you don't vote confidence in people that don't deserve it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Rubbish. One choice, and one choice alone, cost them the support of about a third of their voters - the decision to go into coalition with Fianna Fáil. Everything since then has largely been a case of articulating the hatred that engendered - if one doesn't object to that, then about as far as one can go is to damn them with faint praise.

I think you do have a point regarding the "original decision", because if that decision had been the correct one, and they had avoided being in bed with FF, then they wouldn't have been in a position to saddle us with NAMA and wouldn't have been in a position to vote confidence in con-men as "part of being in government with FF". So on that basis, yes, you do have a point......they had already proven that their ethics were questionable, and therefore maybe we should not be surprised that they voted confidence in the con-men.

Yet again, however, I'll point out that that hatred is a direct result of the choices that The Greens have made.

They have no-one to blame but themselves.

Macha · 07-07-2010 08:20PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And I'd be pretty sure that the majority is against it, with that number increasing by the day as more and more of the lies used to sell it to us are exposed.

And I'm pretty sure the majority don't understand NAMA. Indeed, most of the arguments I've heard against it both here and in the media are largely based on misinformation. But there's a difference between claiming a majority are against it and you being "pretty sure" that you think a majority might be against it.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And the Greens knew this before they went in with them, so that's no excuse for the inexcusable. In actual fact, it makes them look even worse.

If you look at the seats in the 2007 election, FF were going to get back into power either with Labour or the Greens. That is the reality. If Labour had gone in with them, I'm sure there would be plenty of threads on here about how much everyone hates Labour.

Let's also not forget that after ruling out a coalition with FF, Rabitte did admit that he would be prepared to negotiate a deal with Fianna Fail in the aftermath of the 2007 Election. So I hope you're not planning on voting for Labour either as an ABFF voter!

Liam Byrne · 07-07-2010 08:26PM

taconnol wrote: »

And I'm pretty sure the majority don't understand NAMA. Indeed, most of the arguments I've heard against it both here and in the media are largely based on misinformation. But there's a difference between claiming a majority are against it and you being "pretty sure" that you think a majority might be against it.

The old "ye don't understand it" line.....wasn't the same defence trotted out by Callely re the expense claims ?

We understand that many of us on boards said it was a hair-brained idea that would neither (a) prevent nationalisation (b) get credit flowing nor (c) make a profit.

All 3 of those are coming true, and costing us billions in the process.

So "ye just don't understand it" doesn't ring true.

taconnol wrote: »

If you look at the seats in the 2007 election, FF were going to get back into power either with Labour or the Greens.

You seem pretty sure that Labour would have sold their souls and not chosen FG.

taconnol wrote: »

If Labour had gone in with them, I'm sure there would be plenty of threads on here about how much everyone hates Labour.

Absolutely true; if Labour had gone in with them, I would be disgusted at Labour's lack of ethics, and would never vote for them again.

However, what someone else would do is irrelevant. The Greens made their own choices, and will be judged accordingly.

Macha · 07-07-2010 08:33PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The old "ye don't understand it" line.....wasn't the same defence trotted out by Callely re the expense claims ?

We understand that many of us on boards said it was a hair-brained idea that would neither (a) prevent nationalisation (b) get credit flowing nor (c) make a profit.

All 3 of those are coming true, and costing us billions in the process.

So "ye just don't understand it" doesn't ring true.

My point that most people don't understand NAMA really has nothing to do with the Callealy expense claim but I obviously see why you would want to try and link the two unrelated issues.

I genuinely believe that NAMA was the only option and while I respect people who argue differently, I don't have much time for those whose arguments are based on misinformation. And unfortunately, most of the arguments I have seen, heard and read against NAMA are based on misinformation.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You seem pretty sure that Labour would have sold their souls and not chosen FG.
Absolutely true; if Labour had gone in with them, I would be disgusted at Labour's lack of ethics, and would never vote for them again.

However, what someone else would do is irrelevant. The Greens made their own choices, and will be judged accordingly.

Ahem

Mr Rabbitte said that he was keen to keep Sinn Fein out of power, hinting that he would be prepared to negotiate a deal with Fianna Fail.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1837777.ece

And didn't Labour go into talks with FF after the election about creating a coalition government or does my memory fail me?

Liam Byrne · 07-07-2010 08:56PM

I've read that article, and I cannot see anything to back up the claim of such a "hint".

As for your memory, well I don't remember it but if you can post a link to prove it then I will be disgusted with Pat Rabbitte (whom I was sure was one of the good guys).

However, I will point out - again - that what others might choose to do will only reflect on them, and The Greens made their own choices and will be judged accordingly.

Whether or not Labour would have sold their souls is irrelevant to what The Greens decided to do.

Macha · 07-07-2010 09:19PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've read that article, and I cannot see anything to back up the claim of such a "hint".

The hint is that Rabbitte was suggesting that whatever happened, he couldn't let Sinn Fein into power. And given the result of the election, that meant FF in power, either with Labour or the Greens.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As for your memory, well I don't remember it but if you can post a link to prove it then I will be disgusted with Pat Rabbitte (whom I was sure was one of the good guys).

As the party with the most seats, FF opened negotiations with all prospective partners, ie everyone except Sinn Fein and FG.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/labour-lovebombed-as-bertie-seeks-himself-a-new-bride-685169.html

This is an interesting timeline of what was said and the subtleties of the public statements during the post-election negotiations for the new government. In my opinion, it didn't work out with Labour because Labour were bigger than the Greens and would have required FF to give up too much in terms of cabinet positions.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

However, I will point out - again - that what others might choose to do will only reflect on them, and The Greens made their own choices and will be judged accordingly.

My point is that if you refuse to vote for any party that wouldn't go into power with FF, you're basically left with FG. Labour, Independents, Greens, etc - forget it. They're small and will only ever take office as part of a coalition.

I see FG as pretty much the same as FF but would have obviously preferred FF out of office in 2007 (and earlier). But if the Irish people had voted differently in 2007, it wouldn't have been a FF/Labour vs FF/Greens decision but hey, don't you just love democracy?

View · 07-07-2010 10:20PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

4) Landing us with extra taxes

Seriously, it wouldn't matter who was in government - given how bad the state's finances are, extra taxes are a certainty.

Why Do The Green Party Attract Such Animosity?

Comments