taintabird wrote: » What's your suggestion ? fact people have mortgages fact they need to pay for them fact people need to eat fact it isn't possible for every one to live five minutes from work or relocate. The greens don't seem to have any ides how difficult it is for a large number of people struggling to mack ends meet in this country at the moment. They were instigators of a lot of extra expense on people and I hope it wont be forgotten on election day
johno2 wrote: » Despite what you'd like to believe, the people with the expensive mortgages are precisely the people that caused this economic problem. They fueled the bubble. I was sent mortgage application forms that I never asked for by 2 different banks, one which I didn't even have an account with. I knew I couldn't afford the repayments so I used the forms to light the fire. Fact! People were greedy. Fact! They bragged to each other about how well their property portfolios were doing. (I overheard young 20-somethings doing this) Fact! Other people are not responsible for the dilemma your choices put you in. Fact! We can pull out of this, and avoid a repeat performance if we stop denying the real reasons behind it. Fact! You're looking for a scapegoat so you don't have to look inwards and acknowledge that you played a part in this mess. Fact! The Green Party policies require an upfront cost to implement them, but they will pay for themselves in the long run and continue to benefit everyone after they have been paid off. johno
yeahme wrote: » http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arbpu1xKAow Right im off for now but will leave you with this. The exended version is a lot better by the way. But I think he gets his point across fairly well.
The Mad Hatter wrote: » You're right, we should all stop listening to the scientists and take the word of the comedian. As to whether I'll vote Green, they're pretty much the only party taking environmental issues seriously, but I'm beginning to lose hope that politics - particularly the politics of small countries - can make any real difference. With the amount of spin put out there by fake-science organisations set up by big polluters, it's little wonder the science is doubted by less informed people, but that does cause significant problems for any government trying to legislate for environmental causes. I'm glad the Green Party got a chance to do that here, but the global impact of their work will be small. It won't make any great difference until China and the US get their act together. To be honest, though, I've all but given up on voting on environmental issues. If I lived in a larger country that had more impact, then maybe, but here it seems almost pointless, so on an issue like this we must necessarily be a country that hops on the bandwagon rather than the country that gets it rolling. I've also abandoned the notion of voting economically. The suggestion of renegotiating the IMF deal doesn't seem feasible to me: even if it were to take place, it would be a token gesture and wouldn't make any real difference. So that means I'll pretty much only be voting on social issues, which at least makes my job easy.
The Mad Hatter wrote: » Thank you very much for the considered responses Tarobot and barclay2. I'm not going to reply point-by-point as I don't disagree on any particular points that you both have made. For me it's really a case of prioritising, not between environmental issues and economic ones (as I don't think any party has any real means to lead us out of the economic mire we're in right now), but between environmental issues and social ones. I've also seen so much ineffectiveness and weak-handedness in climate legislation in particular internationally that I've become rather cynical about the whole process working politically. I certainly understand the "lead by example" argument, and it's something that we've successfully done before on small but important matters (smoking in public areas and plastic bags). But I think serious climate legislation requires a much stronger push than these things because it's far more complex than simply banning something or taxing it, and would require a great deal more public support. I will probably include a high preference (not first) for the Green candidate in my constituency (I quite like the suggestions of changes to the political system in their manifesto, if nothing else), but in my constituency in particular he doesn't stand a snowflake's chance in Hell, in the middle of Summer, on a particularly balmy day.
barclay2 wrote: » I would argue that environmental and social issues are not unconnected either, but i won't go on at length about it. Two quick examples: quality public transport, an environmental/economic issue, is also a social issue. Car-dependent societies disadvantage those who can't afford a car. town planning, an aspect of environmental/economic policy, is also an aspect of social policy - green areas and youth facilities facilitate social inclusion and can discourage anti-social behaviour.
Just on the issue of your local green candidate having a snowflake's chance in hell - don't let that stop you voting for him/her. If you agree with them more than other people, you should vote for them. If they do get very few other votes, then they'll be eliminated after the first count and your second preference will be redistributed to your next preferred candidate.
vaalea wrote: » social aspect is huge in green party, but it's big on sustainable growth and support of community/small business/etc... as said already it all ties in together you have checked out http://vote.greenparty.ie/vision ? Economy, Community, Sustainability.
Seweryn wrote: » Bio fuel production in Ireland......To cut the story short, it simply means that the PPO(pure plant oil) is now over €1.50 per litre after the new levies, taxes and fees are pumped into the price of the Bio-Fuel, which makes no sense at all for anyone to buy it as motor fuel. It is not the end of the story. If no one is going to buy if from now on, the local producers and all their employees will be soon signing on the Dole. And the Government will have to borrow more money to pay the unemployed people their benefits instead of supporting local businesses. By doing this, the Government also "promotes" usage of fossil fuels. How green is that I have no idea :mad:.
hinault wrote: » By the end of next weekend hopefully the Greens will be a footnote in parliamentary history. They put party before country. Just like their coalition partners.
barclay2 wrote: » If they had left government so that someone else could put through difficult legislation, THAT would have been party before country.
barclay2 wrote: » I'm guessing this is in reference to staying in government for, some would argue, too long. Correct me if i'm wrong on that, you didn't support your claim with any specifics. They stayed in government until they could help put through a piece of legislation they felt was necessary for the country - even though they knew it would make them even more unpopular. And THEN they left government to face electoral destruction. Saying that is "party before country" puts the truth exactly backwards. If they had left government so that someone else could put through difficult legislation, THAT would have been party before country. You may also have meant their original decision to enter coalition with FF. They entered government with a party that had just been given a uniquely strong mandate to govern. Furthermore, they and the whole country knew that entering government with FF has historically been a self-damaging political decision for small parties in Ireland - and they did it anyway. They did it because they wanted to fight for policies that they felt were too important to leave until the next election. Leaving those policies until the next election would have been politically wise for them - it would have been party before country - but they chose the far more demanding job of going into government. A costly political decision for them, yes. Party before country, no.
johno2 wrote: » I agree with you on the first 2 points, especially the first one. Due to EU legislation and international treaties (Kyoto) all parties are now beginning to take the message that the greens have been pushing for 30 years on board. It was their inexperience in high level politics that destroyed them in the popularity stakes. Bertie stitched them up really well after the last election. He knew that unpopular policies would have to be implemented by the 2007 government and most of them were a perfect fit for the green party. He even had 6 independents on board which meant the greens didn't have the votes to get FF out of government during the first year of government if they started to get cold feet about FF policies. After that first year I think they may have begun to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Apart from the stag hunting and the dog breeding bills, nearly everything else was pretty much going to happen in some form or another anyway. It was always going to have a financial cost attached to it because it's easier to mess up the environment than it is to protect it. Bertie knew this and figured he'd let the ignorant masses put the blame on the greens instead of FF. I can honestly say I saw a backlash coming against the greens less than a month after the last election, and that was before the full extent of the economic situation became clear. I'll be voting for my local Green candidate, I have to thank the greens for finally opening up some business opportunities that allow me to work in a field that I have always wanted to. Until they had their time in government there was acres of red tape and a sickening resistance from the bureaucrats to any business idea that was remotely green. Now we have good recycling centers in all major towns, smart meters to allow export of electricity back into the grid, organic certification for farms, grants to improve the energy efficiency of houses and businesses, proper incentives to drive energy efficient vehicles and water metering is well advanced (but may yet be killed off). Most of this would have happened anyway but I think it would have been to a much lower standard if the GP weren't involved. johno
Adrian009 wrote: » It was Fianna Fail, not the Greens, that caused this enconomic meltdown. So, I am still thinking of giving them a vote, but they had better stick to their principles from now on. Let the last few years be a wake up call, because they are in the last-chance saloon.
hinault wrote: » The Cabinet is collectively responsible. The Greens were members of the cabinet that prepared the legislation for the bank guarantee and NAMA. And then voted for the bank guarantee and NAMA. You want to have your cake and eat it.
Adrian009 wrote: » Fianna Fail will not have any share of my election cake. I'm still thinking about voting for the Greens or not.
hinault wrote: » Refusing to accept that the Greens were part of the Cabinet that enacted the bank guarantee and NAMA, is trying to have your cake and eat it. It is of course up to you to vote whatever way you choose. But lets be clear a vote for the Greens is a vote for the failed economic policies of the last administration who have taken this country back to the 1980's.
hinault wrote: » But lets be clear a vote for the Greens is a vote for the failed economic policies of the last administration who have taken this country back to the 1980's.
hinault wrote: » With all due respect that is all baloney. If FF had a uniquely strong mandate they would have had an overall majority and would not need to go in to coalition. The Greens were members of the government. A government of collective responsibility remember. They voted through the Bank Guarantee. They voted through NAMA legislation. They even stood up in the Dail in support of Willie O'Dea - even after O'Dea had tried to defame a Limerick City Councillor. I welcome the political extinction of the Green Party.
hinault wrote: » Refusing to accept that the Greens were part of the Cabinet that enacted the bank guarantee and NAMA, is trying to have your cake and eat it. It is of course up to you to vote whatever way you choose.But lets be clear a vote for the Greens is a vote for the failed economic policies of the last administration who have taken this country back to the 1980's.
Tarobot wrote: » The banking guarantee was vindicated by Patrick Honohan's report. NAMA has yet to prove to be the complete disaster most people are predicting. The failed economic policies you're referring to were laid back in the early 2000s by Fianna Fail and the PDs. It was in 2002/3 that the housing bubble really took off and covered up the other parts of our economy that weren't performing. It was late 2007 that the veil was finally lifted on what state our economy was really in. Do we really have that poor a grasp of economic cycles? Blaming the Greens for the economic crisis is like blaming firefighters for a fire because they were the last ones at the scene.
hinault wrote: » :D:D I don't know many firefighters who pour oil (voting for the bank guarantee) on the fire (economic implosion). The party that you appear to support were central to the decision to socialise what were/are private bank debts. Party before country.
Tarobot wrote: » I'm not sure why you think things would have been any different with another party in power. FG supported the guarantee as did Sinn Fein. The breadth of the guarantee was a mistake, of course, but the decision was made on the information available at the time. The lack of regulatory oversight, again the result of FF and PD policy, meant the government had to take the banks on their word. And now we know they were lying. I'd also remind you that the banking guarantee is only 50% of our problem. The other major problem is our public deficit and if you look at what the other parties were saying in 2007, it was spend, baby, spend. Actually, the Green Party had the most realistic forecast of economic growth out of all the 2007 manifestos. Meh, don't worry about the facts though.
Actually, the Green Party had the most realistic forecast of economic growth out of all the 2007 manifestos
