would you vote for FF/GREENS?

Judgement Day · 05-02-2011 11:34AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Loving the uppity phrasing!

Care to define "middle of nowhere" ?

County Leitrim?

henryporter · 05-02-2011 01:31PM

femur61 wrote: »

I am curious do majority of Green supporters live in an urban area or rural Ireland?

Poll?

I live in the country in a house that is 150 years old - was also reared in the countryside in a house that is about 100 years old: Both houses were built for people who worked on the land surrounding them. Over the past 20 years FF policy allowed people who had no direct ties to the countryside to build every and anywhere they liked, making the Irish rural landscape one of the poorest in the world as well as undermining the stability of urban development. One of the posters on here is moaning about having no neighbours and having to drive the kids to school, well I'm sorry and I'm sick and tired of people like you who blame someone else for their predicament. The Greens certainly didn't force you to live in the countryside, in fact they are the only party who have battled to enforce a clear policy concerning who should live in the countryside - John Gormley intervened in 3 County Development Plans to stop the muppet FG and FF majority led County Councils from permitting more people to live in rural areas without any direct link or contribution to the land.

What saddens me more is the short memories people seem to have with regard to who got this country into the mess we're in and that you're all going to have a knee jerk reaction to the incumbents as opposed to analysing what exactly happened. In truth successive FF led coalitions between 1997 and 2007 have absolutely destroyed this Country's social and economic fabric. When the Greens joined FF (and don't forget a few independents) we were already collapsing, yet people blame them for the collapse. It was PD directed policy as well as ignorant corrupt Finance Ministers ranging from Bertie Ahern, to Charlie McCreevy and Brian Cowen whose inability to ensure proper banking regulation as well as allowing the entire economy to develop on a building bubble while increasing public expenditure to out of control levels that created our downfall.

The Greens were and are political minnows. They knew that the only way to ever get some changes implemented they would have to make a deal with the devil and even as they made that deal it was prophesied that they would suffer a drubbing at the next election. No matter what they did it has been spun as a disaster or political naivety For me they still have an integrity that none of the others possess and I'm glad there is a Green candidate in my constituency. Personally I don't see any difference between FF, FG and Labour, in fact the smugness being portrayed by both FG and Labour in knowing that their victory is certain is sickening - they actually don't have to do anything or say anything and they will be running this country in a months time with the greatest disclaimer anyone could have; that they can't do anything to fix Ireland because "FF and the Greens made such a balls of it"

NSNO · 05-02-2011 01:47PM

I will vote Green.

I live in Portmarnock in North Dublin which is an area where environmental issues are very important locally to the local economy. The Green Party does tremendous work in the Fingal area working for our local environment and the protection of the North Dublin green belt is a major issue for residents.

I will vote with the aim of a FG led FG/Lab coalition after that.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-02-2011 05:09PM

mgmt wrote: »

You like their carbon taxes?
You like the high cost of your ESB bill cause your subsidising wind power?
You like having to pay twice for can/van insurance?

If it hadn't been a carbon tax it would have been excise duty. And if it hadn't been for the recession we would probably have had to pay the Koyoto fine

ESB price rise was done in a failed attempt to get foreign competition into the market for "competition"

insurance has been dealt with , but a lot of companies have had rules about only using their vehicles to travel to /from home when not on company business. Also you can top up domestic insurance with commerical (this is something you should
do if you are claiming expenses for mileage on your own car BTW)

click_here!!! · 05-02-2011 05:22PM

I checked who the candidates in my constituency were, and there are no Green ones. Perhaps I should run for them... LOL.

We need to have a serious debate in Ireland about long-term issues like the environment, planning, water supply and transport. The fact is that the Greens never forced anyone onto a bike. I'd like to remind you also that politicians from all parties – like Enda Kenny – have been known to like cycling. People who write off the Greens as a shower of hippies don't do anything for anyone. The people who love that type of hyperbole are all middle-aged (perhaps 40-50 years old).

Not that there's anything wrong with being middle-aged, of course. But some one who is 45 today could live in my estimation on average another 30 years (until approx age 75), while someone my age (18) could live until they're 90 (for another 72 years), due to higher life expectancies. That means that on average the young person today will live for about 40 years after the middle-aged person. The Greens seem to be the only party that cares about those extra 40 years.

Personally I don't see any difference between FF, FG and Labour, in fact the smugness being portrayed by both FG and Labour in knowing that their victory is certain is sickening - they actually don;t have to do anything or say anything and they will be running this country in a months time with the greatest disclaimer anyone could have; that they can't do anything to fix Ireland because FF and the Greens made such a balls of it

--agreed.

Seth Brundle · 05-02-2011 07:00PM

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I would give the Greens a vote. I think they have some good policies and I think it's a shame that they finally partook in a government with a partner as horrific as FF.

Their allowed themselves to implement policies regardless of the effect on onthers (e.g. why did they support NAMA again?). They misled the public prior to the last election and sold whatever soul they had then by entering a marriage with the devil.

femur61 wrote: »

Sorry I can choose where I live, beside my family in the community I grew up in I don't my kids to play in the street. I have lived in New York, London, Dublin, I am sick of urban live and want some peace and quiet. When we moved there was no law dictating what we could drive.

Whilst the law on using commercial vehicles has been present for a long time, the fact that Gormless opened his mouth about it, you blame him for implementing it? You presumably knew the score when buying the commercial (if not then maybe reconsider being in business!).
Do you think people should be allowed avoid certain taxes because they live in a quite non urban area? If not then pay your VRT if you want to use thevan for family use!

hsi · 05-02-2011 07:11PM

newby.204 wrote: »

I would have to disagree I don't think the greens have any usefull policies, I think they live in a dreamworld as far as their policies are concerned I don't wish to see them re-elected.

Greens have nice policies, problem is I live in May... So what have the given me in their time in goverment... more tax on petrol making my commute to work more expensive. There is feck all public transport in the west.

So I suppose the metrosexual Dubs will go for the greens. but west of the shannon... they mean nothing.

Judgement Day · 05-02-2011 07:25PM

hsi wrote: »

Greens have nice policies, problem is I live in May... So what have the given me in their time in goverment... more tax on petrol making my commute to work more expensive. There is feck all public transport in the west.

So I suppose the metrosexual Dubs will go for the greens. but west of the shannon... they mean nothing.

I thought that Galway was west of the Shannon?

http://www.niallobrolchain.ie/main/about-niall/

Tarobot · 05-02-2011 07:26PM

kbannon wrote: »

Their allowed themselves to implement policies regardless of the effect on onthers (e.g. why did they support NAMA again?). They misled the public prior to the last election and sold whatever soul they had then by entering a marriage with the devil.

The fact that it was never party policy to rule out any coalition has been rehashed over and over again. And the results of 2007 meant it was going to be FF/Labour or FF/Green.

]It is no surprise that Irish politics is dominated by monoliths like FF & FG when smaller coalition partners are always demonized. What are they supposed to do? Wait another 26 years until they have enough seats to be in power? I shudder at the kind of populist, loony mess a party would have to be in order for that to happen.

hsi wrote: »

Greens have nice policies, problem is I live in May... So what have the given me in their time in goverment... more tax on petrol making my commute to work more expensive. There is feck all public transport in the west.

So I suppose the metrosexual Dubs will go for the greens. but west of the shannon... they mean nothing.

Nice sideswipe at the Civil Partnership Bill.

Oil prices have gone up 150% since 2009. But you're worried about the 2% of the petrol price that is the carbon tax? And why shouldn't you pay for the carbon you emit?

oppenheimer1 · 05-02-2011 07:40PM

newby.204 wrote: »

for the most part the "greens" are from urban centres, where it is very easy to tout cycle to work schemes and public transport as the way forward, getting rid of the awful car..... the reality is public transport in this country is a shambles from the bus to rail services if the greens really wanted to implement long lasting green policies they would see to it that such services were in place before ramming such eco friendly ideology down the publics throat, maybe then green policies would be better received!!!

Its quite logical that the Greens are from urban centres as its far easier to be green in an urban environment. One off housing has destroyed our countryside, where parts of Donegal now look like strung out housing estates. People who don't need to live in the country shouldn't live in the country. Their choice degrades services for all, forcing the rest of us to pay more for poorer quality services.

By right people who do not need to live in the countryside should pay additional taxes that in order that they self fund the costs associated with living there. They should pay more road tax, pay more for their ESB and telephone, pay to get their post if not living within a certain radius of a major urban area and more for their water if on a mains.

People will find that the costs of living in the countryside will become unsustainable as the price of oil rises.

oppenheimer1 · 05-02-2011 07:43PM

hsi wrote: »

Greens have nice policies, problem is I live in May... So what have the given me in their time in goverment... more tax on petrol making my commute to work more expensive. There is feck all public transport in the west.

So I suppose the metrosexual Dubs will go for the greens. but west of the shannon... they mean nothing.

We could have great public transport systems if we could develop the "critical mass" in urban areas. People choosing to live in the back arse of nowhere and depend on their car reduces the countrys ability to attain that critical mass

Liam Byrne · 05-02-2011 08:16PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They should pay more road tax, pay more for their ESB and telephone, pay to get their post if not living within a certain radius of a major urban area and more for their water if on a mains.

In ways we do (although when I say "we" I am closer to a city centre than the sprawling suburbia that has houses piled on top of each other and that requires a car to get to the bus stop).

We pay FAR more in fuel tax (which is the appropriate tax in terms of charging those who use, rather than paying ridiculous taxes for the "privilege" of simply "having" a car).

We pay for phone and ESB installations.

We pay for our own group water schemes (at least until the council takes them over and gets our infrastructure for free).

johngalway · 05-02-2011 08:59PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

I thought that Galway was west of the Shannon?

http://www.niallobrolchain.ie/main/about-niall/

About Niall...

Niall failed to get elected to Dail Eireann so his friends appointed him to the senate. Soon Niall will not be elected again, yet he will have no friends this time. A hat will be passed around NUIG on..........

:pac:

DubTony · 05-02-2011 09:00PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

People who don't need to live in the country shouldn't live in the country. Their choice degrades services for all, forcing the rest of us to pay more for poorer quality services.

By right people who do not need to live in the countryside should pay additional taxes that in order that they self fund the costs associated with living there. They should pay more road tax, pay more for their ESB and telephone, pay to get their post if not living within a certain radius of a major urban area and more for their water if on a mains.
.

We could have great public transport systems if we could develop the "critical mass" in urban areas. People choosing to live in the back arse of nowhere and depend on their car reduces the countrys ability to attain that critical mass

Jesus :rolleyes:

Mr.Micro · 05-02-2011 09:14PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Its quite logical that the Greens are from urban centres as its far easier to be green in an urban environment. One off housing has destroyed our countryside, where parts of Donegal now look like strung out housing estates. People who don't need to live in the country shouldn't live in the country. Their choice degrades services for all, forcing the rest of us to pay more for poorer quality services.

By right people who do not need to live in the countryside should pay additional taxes that in order that they self fund the costs associated with living there. They should pay more road tax, pay more for their ESB and telephone, pay to get their post if not living within a certain radius of a major urban area and more for their water if on a mains.

People will find that the costs of living in the countryside will become unsustainable as the price of oil rises.

So by the same logic urban dwellers should pay massively for food that they do not grow or raise? I thought we lived in a democracy....choices and all that? Struth!

oppenheimer1 · 05-02-2011 09:22PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

So by the same logic urban dwellers should pay massively for food that they do not grow or raise? I thought we lived in a democracy....choices and all that? Struth!

I think you missed the point entirely, which was that urban dwellers subsidise the lifestyle of those that live in the country. Your analogy with food is an incorrect one as the market for food is is urban communities mainly. In fact all food is subsidised by the urban areas (where one finds economic activity) through CAP subsidies.

Those who live close to the source of the food should get it for less as it has a reduced transportation cost. They should pay more for things that have to be brought to them though, like infrastructure.

We do live in a democracy but democracy has nothing to do with not paying for the things you need/use. You're getting the two issues confused.

Mr.Micro · 05-02-2011 09:33PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I think you missed the point entirely, which was that urban dwellers subsidise the lifestyle of those that live in the country. Your analogy with food is an incorrect one as the market for food is is urban communities mainly. In fact all food is subsidised by the urban areas (where one finds economic activity) through CAP subsidies.

Those who live close to the source of the food should get it for less as it has a reduced transportation cost. They should pay more for things that have to be brought to them though, like infrastructure.

We do live in a democracy but democracy has nothing to do with not paying for the things you need/use. You're getting the two issues confused.

My point is the same, without the country side dwellers there is no food. For businesses to operate successfully they need good infrastructure to get such food to their markets, which includes electricity. I cannot see the point in making such things more expensive for rural dwellers who in turn will pass on the increased costs to the urban dwellers.

oppenheimer1 · 05-02-2011 09:39PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

My point is the same, without the country side dwellers there is no food. For businesses to operate successfully they need good infrastructure to get such food to their markets, which includes electricity. I cannot see the point in making such things more expensive for rural dwellers who in turn will pass on the increased costs to the urban dwellers.

Wrong. Without farmers there is no food. How many people that live in the countryside in Ireland are farmers? According to Teagasc there are 130,000 farmers in Ireland...

Mr.Micro · 05-02-2011 09:48PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Wrong. Without farmers there is no food. How many people that live in the countryside in Ireland are farmers? According to Teagasc there are 130,000 farmers in Ireland...

You just cannot penalise people for wanting to live in the countryside....its undemocratic. Ireland is divided enough without creating more camps.

Tarobot · 05-02-2011 09:49PM

There is the argument that the full range of services provided by biodiversity is not fully factored into the current economic system.

So for example, if a person owns a bog that acts as a carbon sink and flood defence for the local area, there is a value in that bog over and above the simple market value of cutting it up and selling it as fuel. I imagine it could be a policy to properly compensate rural dwellers who are effectively the conservators of these important ecosystems for the rest of society.

Regardless, the idea that the Green Party doesn't care about rural dwellers is quite unfair.

oppenheimer1 · 05-02-2011 09:51PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

You just cannot penalise people for wanting to live in the countryside....its undemocratic. Ireland is divided enough without creating more camps.

I never said create camps - just pass on the true cost to rural dwellers the cost of living in the country. If they had to pay for it in general they wouldn't be able to afford it. Money flows from city to country at the moment and the size of the transfers is totally wrong and inappropriate at the moment.

Mr.Micro · 05-02-2011 09:58PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I never said create camps - just pass on the true cost to rural dwellers the cost of living in the country. If they had to pay for it in general they wouldn't be able to afford it. Money flows from city to country at the moment and the size of the transfers is totally wrong and inappropriate at the moment.

I happen to live in the sticks and do not agree with your opinion, but regardless a divide cannot be created where living in the country side will cost a lot more. The reason being that it then becomes the domain of the wealthy. I for one do not find it any cheaper living in the sticks.

manic mailman · 05-02-2011 10:11PM

Pimlico wrote: »

I have never voted FF, so I definitely won't be tempted to change my mind this time around.

I reckon that there is still a lot of people out there though that will swear blind that they won't be voting FF, yet come Election Day they actually will.

This sadly is the truth. If people cannot vote FF out now, we might as well give up hope of them ever gettig kicked out of government. I sincerely hope that the majority of people on the fence don't succumb to voting FF/Green....

oppenheimer1 · 05-02-2011 10:12PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I happen to live in the sticks and do not agree with your opinion, but regardless a divide cannot be created where living in the country side will cost a lot more. The reason being that it then becomes the domain of the wealthy. I for one do not find it any cheaper living in the sticks.

Nor should it be any cheaper - but it should be FAR more expensive. Today we have the farcical situation where rural people complain about the lack of facilities in their local area and the need to travel for things like Cancer care yet their financial contribution doesn't even come close to paying for such things.

Why shouldn't the countryside be the domain of the wealthy. Sure I'd like to live in a house in Foxrock but I can't afford it. Why should the countryside be treated differently?

Seth Brundle · 05-02-2011 10:39PM

Tarobot wrote: »

The fact that it was never party policy to rule out any coalition has been rehashed over and over again. And the results of 2007 meant it was going to be FF/Labour or FF/Green.

]It is no surprise that Irish politics is dominated by monoliths like FF & FG when smaller coalition partners are always demonized. What are they supposed to do? Wait another 26 years until they have enough seats to be in power? I shudder at the kind of populist, loony mess a party would have to be in order for that to happen.

In theory FG/Lab/na Glasrai and some indys could have made the government but they decided to join up with FF despite the crap going on at the time what with Ahern, etc.

Tarobot wrote: »

Oil prices have gone up 150% since 2009. But you're worried about the 2% of the petrol price that is the carbon tax? And why shouldn't you pay for the carbon you emit?

Have a read of this...
Do you think that the 2% carbon tax was the only tax on fuel made by a green supported government?
Also, don't forget that na Glasrai made it more expensive to own an old car here regardless of whether its driven or not. They want people to go out and dump the larger cars and buy brand new ones with micro engines that come with a nice big unnecessary carbon footprint behind them. Not very green IMO!

Mr.Micro · 05-02-2011 10:50PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Nor should it be any cheaper - but it should be FAR more expensive. Today we have the farcical situation where rural people complain about the lack of facilities in their local area and the need to travel for things like Cancer care yet their financial contribution doesn't even come close to paying for such things.

Why shouldn't the countryside be the domain of the wealthy. Sure I'd like to live in a house in Foxrock but I can't afford it. Why should the countryside be treated differently?

What is stopping you living in the countryside then if its so cheap? Foxrock is contrived wealthy area and not relevant to the general countryside.

Average_Joe · 05-02-2011 10:52PM

To be fair they couldnt really have stopped this whole recession ting cud they. The banks were the real problem. But what they did after by cutting the public service pay was a joke. I'l never again vote for them:mad:

johngalway · 05-02-2011 10:57PM

Average_Joe wrote: »

To be fair they couldnt really have stopped this whole recession ting cud they. The banks were the real problem. But what they did after by cutting the public service pay was a joke. I'l never again vote for them:mad:

Fianna Failure certainly could have.

The Greens, grudgingly, I'll give some leeway on that issue. But, they did go in with FF knowing full well what FF are, that is unforgivable, then supported FF through thick and thin to add insult to injury.

Seth Brundle · 05-02-2011 11:02PM

Average_Joe wrote: »

To be fair they couldnt really have stopped this whole recession ting cud they. The banks were the real problem. But what they did after by cutting the public service pay was a joke. I'l never again vote for them:mad:

Maybe they did but I don't recall anyone suggesting that they could have stopped the recession but they could have helped that two years would not be frittered away watching the toxic sudge of Anglo, etc. get worse but doing nothing notable about it. They could have dealt with the issue instead of watching their new friends in FF line their own pockets while the country is getting worse by the day purely so that they could get fur farming banned.

Tarobot · 05-02-2011 11:04PM

kbannon wrote: »

In theory FG/Lab/na Glasrai and some indys could have made the government but they decided to join up with FF despite the crap going on at the time what with Ahern, etc.

And what sort of stability would that have brought? FG/Lab have very different economic philosophies.

kbannon wrote: »

Have a read of this...
Do you think that the 2% carbon tax was the only tax on fuel made by a green supported government?
Also, don't forget that na Glasrai made it more expensive to own an old car here regardless of whether its driven or not. They want people to go out and dump the larger cars and buy brand new ones with micro engines that come with a nice big unnecessary carbon footprint behind them. Not very green IMO!

I never said was the only tax on fuel but I was responding to a comment about carbon tax. On that topic, you didn't answer my question about why you shouldn't pay for the carbon you emit.

If the VRT were changed on pre-2008 cars, I'm pretty sure people would find a reason to complain about that too. The function of the change in VRT was to influence decisions on new purchases to more efficient cars and it succeeded. It was not an incentive to buy a new car - that was the scrappage deal, which was a FF-led scheme and a sop to the motor industry.

would you vote for FF/GREENS?

Comments