Green Party response to yesterdays announcements

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
Hello Miclin,

Thanks for taking the time to post your views on the Green Party and its contribution to the current government. I too am a Green supporter, unfortunately I am adamantly opposed to FF, so once the Greens made the collective decision to get into bed with FF in 2007 I withdrew my support, because the party I supported had let me down.

There is no point in giving any credence to Sargent's decision to stand down as leader of the Greens to enable him to keep his word. That's just semantics bolstered up by a junior ministry sop to salve his conscious.

While in government, the Greens have managed to destroy the long term future of the party and become an organisation of ridicule. The support that the Greens require to be elected comes from other political parties, not first preferences. It has no support now outside urban Ireland and no votes from its traditional independent base.

Of course, no one could have foreseen the true extent of our economic crisis, but all along the Greens have toed the FF line on all financial policy decisions. It's plain that the decisions made have been erroneous, and yet the Greens, who have effectively held the balance of power for the last 18 months, have not used the nuclear option to make any alterations that showed a desire to favour the taxpayer over the bankers.

To make one relevant example, on the night of the bank guarantee scheme we had the usual big two parties perfectly happy to vote together gambling the entire nation on the roulette wheel, whilst the more independent and left-wing parties like Labour and SF voted against it. What position would the Greens have taken had they not been in government? Why did Gormley agree to the guarantee scheme as he wiped the sleep drool from his mouth in the early hours of that morning without thinking things through Well, simply because at that stage the Greens parliamentary party had already whored themselves off to power, at all costs.

So when the Greens get slaughtered in the next GE and we lose all but one or two of our seats, will we be able to say that the whole process will have been worthwhile? The answer of course is a resounding no. Rather than use their ability to bring down the government, play the highest poker games and bring about genuine reform, the Greens have been given various sops from the high table to keep them on board. Some of these sops have been worthwhile, and there have been flashes of what-could-have-been if the party had more backbone. But at this stage, it's too late.

The Greens went into government to change the political system, the political system ended up changing the Greens. That's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of people who have always voted Green.

This month, for the first time I will be joining the Green party as a member. I do this, because after the May GE, I want to be able to go to the next convention and exercise my vote and get rid of the people who brought us into power and achieved so little.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
 


zeleneye

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
529
This month, for the first time I will be joining the Green party as a member. I do this, because after the May GE, I want to be able to go to the next convention and exercise my vote and get rid of the people who brought us into power and achieved so little.
If you are a green, you are certainly better off inside, trying to influence the party: that has always been my view.

I opposed entry into this government and criticised the decision, I have been opposed to the key economic decisions taken by this government and the Green Party's acquiescence to those decisions. So, why have I not (like others) left the party? Because I am green and take the view I am better off inside trying to exert whatever little influence I can (such as by voting in conventions). There is certainly no other political party in Ireland that represents me and I hope there will be good people left to rebuild the Green party after the electoral wipe-out.

For me, yesterday's announcements just confirm the extent of the failure of the political and economic orthodoxy in Ireland for the past 15 years (to which the Greens were formerly one of a few critical voices). I find the political intransigence in Ireland far more shocking than the figures on the extent of the hole we are in: according to this week's poll, half the electorate still wants to vote for the two centre-right parties that espoused this orthodoxy and which are politically responsible for the mess we are in.
 

miclin

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
62
Miclin, is it true that the Greens are going to pull out next March when they don't get the Lord Mayor and by-elections?

That's what I heard anyway.
I can't see how the government can last past the by-elections. I think there is currently a majority of just two. So three extra opposition seats would be the end. (I may have that wrong - anyone?) It won't be that simple of course and a deal may be made with some rebel FFs or independents.

I presume that the mayoral election will be held on the same day as the by-elections.

Malbekh said:
I too am a Green supporter, unfortunately I am adamantly opposed to FF, so once the Greens made the collective decision to get into bed with FF in 2007 I withdrew my support, because the party I supported had let me down.
I think a lot of green voters feel the same as you. For me, my hatred of Fianna Fáil is far smaller than my desire to get green legislation implemented. More than 80% of the party members felt the same way in 2007 and in 2009 which is why the greens are in with FF. My involvement in local politics (just as a hack - I have never run for office) has shown me that FG has not covered themselves in glory over the past decade. All the standard rezoning shenanigans have been going on in FG led councils and it's very hard to tell FG apart from FF. Check out this guy's history. John Bailey (Irish politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia From my point of view there is no ideological or ethical difference between the two parties as existed in the 1980s.

Malbekh said:
There is no point in giving any credence to Sargent's decision to stand down as leader of the Greens to enable him to keep his word. That's just semantics bolstered up by a junior ministry sop to salve his conscious.
I think many people would agree with you. Sargent made his announcement after the National Executive had decided not to rule out any party for coalition prior to an election. So when I heard his announcement I knew what it meant, that he wouldn't lead a party in coalition with FF. As an aside, Sargent is one of the most decent selfless people I've ever met. He has had the same cost to his personal life that politics brings to anyone but when he was faced with the choice of sitting at the cabinet table and running a multi-billion euro ministry in exchange for going back on his word, he declined.

Malbekh said:
While in government, the Greens have managed to destroy the long term future of the party and become an organisation of ridicule. The support that the Greens require to be elected comes from other political parties, not first preferences. It has no support now outside urban Ireland and no votes from its traditional independent base.
More importantly, many green policies have been legislated for that will stay in place for the future. From my point of view, my loyalty is to the policies above the party.

Malbekh said:
To make one relevant example, on the night of the bank guarantee scheme we had the usual big two parties perfectly happy to vote together gambling the entire nation on the roulette wheel, whilst the more independent and left-wing parties like Labour and SF voted against it. What position would the Greens have taken had they not been in government?
To a large extent, this is irrelevant. The Greens could not have stopped the guarantee once it had the backing of FF and FG. It is not clear even now that the guarantee was a mistake relative to the other options. What would the cost of nationalising all banks have been?

Malbekh said:
So when the Greens get slaughtered in the next GE and we lose all but one or two of our seats, will we be able to say that the whole process will have been worthwhile?
Yes. The green party's raison d'etre is not power for the sake of power. It is power in order to implement policies no matter how unpopular those policies are. The greens have far overachieved on the policy front compared to what I thought possible when I originally voted to enter government. Far more was achieved in the past 3 years than in the previous 20 years in opposition. All the TDs are happy to lose their seats and be hated in return for this.

I've already typed long posts on the achievements in government so I'm not going to repeat them. It's the weekend now and time to get off the computer.

Malbekh said:
This month, for the first time I will be joining the Green party as a member.
Welcome! It's only 20 euro to join so it's odd to hold very strong opinions on the nature of the green party and not bother joining it when it is the party whose membership has the greatest say in its policies. Also dissent and debate are welomed and there is a diversity of opinion across the party on many issues.
 

goosebump

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
4,940
It's plain that the decisions made have been erroneous, and yet the Greens, who have effectively held the balance of power for the last 18 months, have not used the nuclear option to make any alterations that showed a desire to favour the taxpayer over the bankers.
No, its not plain to see that the decisions have been erroneous. The only way it would be plain to see that would be if you had a time machine and go back and make other decisions, and then compare the consequences. Your view is that because things are bad, they couldn't have been any worse, whereas in fact, there is every likelihood they could have been worse.

To make one relevant example, on the night of the bank guarantee scheme we had the usual big two parties perfectly happy to vote together gambling the entire nation on the roulette wheel, whilst the more independent and left-wing parties like Labour and SF voted against it. What position would the Greens have taken had they not been in government? Why did Gormley agree to the guarantee scheme as he wiped the sleep drool from his mouth in the early hours of that morning without thinking things through Well, simply because at that stage the Greens parliamentary party had already whored themselves off to power, at all costs.
The Guarantee is meaningless in terms of our current predicament. The requirement to recapitalise Anglo and INBS has nothing to do with the Guarantee. This has been explained countless times.

The Guarantee is just a legislative act to prop up short term liquidity in the banks. If it were withdrawn, we'd still have to fix Anglo. If the Guarantee was cast in stone, Eamon Gilmore would not be telling the media he's going to renegotiate with the bondholders.
 

charley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
1,247
Is it true that Gormley has been moving most of his house contents to his other home in Berlin and that he will leave Ireland hours after an election is called?
 

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
No, its not plain to see that the decisions have been erroneous. The only way it would be plain to see that would be if you had a time machine and go back and make other decisions, and then compare the consequences. Your view is that because things are bad, they couldn't have been any worse, whereas in fact, there is every likelihood they could have been worse.



The Guarantee is meaningless in terms of our current predicament. The requirement to recapitalise Anglo and INBS has nothing to do with the Guarantee. This has been explained countless times.

The Guarantee is just a legislative act to prop up short term liquidity in the banks. If it were withdrawn, we'd still have to fix Anglo. If the Guarantee was cast in stone, Eamon Gilmore would not be telling the media he's going to renegotiate with the bondholders.
You just don't get it goose do you. The Bank Guarantee Scheme is the beginning and end of everything in terms of our financial system. It may well have been set up to deal with short term liquidity, but in the end it's dealing with long term insolvency. Once you give a blanket guarantee, you have to live with it. Once set in motion, there was no going back.

You are not addressing the topic I have raised, and that is, if the Greens were not in government, they, along with Labour and SF would have voted against it.
 

goosebump

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
4,940
You just don't get it goose do you. The Bank Guarantee Scheme is the beginning and end of everything in terms of our financial system. It may well have been set up to deal with short term liquidity, but in the end it's dealing with long term insolvency. Once you give a blanket guarantee, you have to live with it. Once set in motion, there was no going back.
It isn't. That's just a media narrative that lends well to the view that there was some conspiracy afoot on the night of Sep 30 2008.

There is nothing to prevent the Government reneging on or renegotiating the debt covered by the Guarantee.

The Guarantee is a legislative act. It can be reversed in an afternoon in the Dail.

Even Brian Lucey recognises this:

Pull the plug on taxpayer involvement in Anglo bailout - The Irish Times - Thu, Sep 02, 2010

"Some subordinated debt has been (voluntarily) renegotiated, but there remains some €2.5 billion of subordinated debt in Anglo. This should now absorb the next €2.5 billion of losses. It is unfortunate that the Government has guaranteed some of this, but this is a legislative act and can be unwound."

The recapitalisation of Anglo stems from the general EU consensus that no EU bank should be allowed to fail, in that the EC and ECB do not want to risk a Lehman's type contagion in the eurozone banking system.

There is an implicit 'Guarantee' of this nature in every EU state.

BBC NEWS | Business | European banks rescue plan agreed

This was announced 2 weeks after our Guarantee. We had to get in ahead of the pact because we were on the edge of the cliff on the night of Sep 30.

Lenihan explained this several times during the week. The media just don't want to know.


I don't know what the GP would have done had they been in Opposition. I presume that would have opposed it, but in Opposition you have to fufil the role of Opposition, while in Government, you have to do what you believe is in the best interests of the country.
 

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,404
You just don't get it goose do you. The Bank Guarantee Scheme is the beginning and end of everything in terms of our financial system. It may well have been set up to deal with short term liquidity, but in the end it's dealing with long term insolvency. Once you give a blanket guarantee, you have to live with it. Once set in motion, there was no going back.

[\QUOTE]

+1

Does not see it at all.


There is nothing to prevent the Government reneging on or renegotiating the debt covered by the Guarantee.

The Guarantee is a legislative act. It can be reversed in an afternoon in the Dail.
Oh dear, I would advise extreme caution in reneging on any contract during its term.
 

carlovian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
6,571
Miclin - appreciate the balaanced response.

Cant agree with your optimistic view but then you wont agree with my pessimistic outlook !

I genuinely hope that your view is correct but im very worried about the effect of 4 devestating budgets on the domestic economy.
 

soubresauts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
3,370
... Sargent made his announcement after the National Executive had decided not to rule out any party for coalition prior to an election. So when I heard his announcement I knew what it meant, that he wouldn't lead a party in coalition with FF. As an aside, Sargent is one of the most decent selfless people I've ever met. He has had the same cost to his personal life that politics brings to anyone but when he was faced with the choice of sitting at the cabinet table and running a multi-billion euro ministry in exchange for going back on his word, he declined.
It's amazing that the Greens are still peddling this myth about Sargent "keeping his word". Trevor Sargent promised that he wouldn't lead his party into government with Fianna Fáil, but he did precisely that. It was only after he had led his party into government with FF that he resigned.

More importantly, many green policies have been legislated for that will stay in place for the future. From my point of view, my loyalty is to the policies above the party.
Many green policies? Your interpretation of the meaning of "many" is laughable. Greens' "loyalty" means nothing any more. Loyalty to principles would be something, but the Greens abandoned their principles more than three years ago.

For example, the Greens' sixth founding principle states:
The need for world peace overrides national and commercial interests.​
There is no way that can be reconciled with what is going on in Shannon Airport.

Perhaps most telling of all is the Greens' eagerness to embrace the sort of downright dishonesty that has characterized Fianna Fáil for many years. Sheer, blatant dishonesty.

... Also dissent and debate are welomed and there is a diversity of opinion across the party on many issues.
Ha! Just don't mention the dishonesty, or Shannon, or Basic Income, or fluoridation, or a hundred other issues that Gormley & co cannot bear to hear about.
 

spidermom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
9,148
Last edited:
Last edited:
"Nice"...(can't think of a better word...sorry) to see genuine debate between alternate views of the greens participation in this administration.

In retrospect its a awful pity you went in in 2007 and you will be punished for it!!
There will, of course, be those who say it was your one real opportunity!!!!!
Unfortunately it backfired!
You went in with FF and you thought it would be enough to get your core principles through.
It will not be!
 

wexfordman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
7,760
I reckon a lot of the votes which the greens got last time round were due to :-

Protest against the main parties
Transfers to the greens "sure their harmless, I'll give em a vote"
Genuine die hard greens

I doubt anyone will see the greens as "harmless" anymore !!
 

miclin

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
62
It's amazing that the Greens are still peddling this myth about Sargent "keeping his word". Trevor Sargent promised that he wouldn't lead his party into government with Fianna Fáil, but he did precisely that. It was only after he had led his party into government with FF that he resigned.
Here's a TV interview given by Trevor Sargent a month before the election in 2007 where he clearly states that he will serve in cabinet should the greens form a coalition with FF but he would resign as leader. And that's what he did.
RT.ie Media Player: Sargent: Greens will be 'King Makers'

For example, the Greens' sixth founding principle states:
The need for world peace overrides national and commercial interests.​
There is no way that can be reconciled with what is going on in Shannon Airport.
I can reconcile it. For the second gulf war, Shannon entered a commercial agreement to refuel planes sending troops to a conflict that lacked a UN mandate - this was wrong. By 2007, the post war peace keeping operations in Iraq were mandated by several UN resolutions. While I opposed the invasion of Iraq - and marched against it, I had no problem supporting the presence of western troops in Iraq while the postwar chaos years continued.

Perhaps most telling of all is the Greens' eagerness to embrace the sort of downright dishonesty that has characterized Fianna Fáil for many years. Sheer, blatant dishonesty.
This is more an insult than an argument. In my dealings with the Green representatives I've found them to be very honest and straightforward.

Basic Income
I don't think that a Basic Income was a policy in the 2007 manifesto. In general, Irish welfare payments are very generous and in many case more than double the amounts payable in the countries we are asking to lend us the money to run our welfare system.

fluoridation
The manifesto commitment was to:
set up an independent study into the total fluoride intake of the Irish population, as called for by the Oireachtas Health Committee, and if the study shows excess levels we will stop the current fluoridation of drinking water
This is a multi-year scientific study that is underway and results are expected in 2012.
 

soubresauts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
3,370
Here's a TV interview given by Trevor Sargent a month before the election in 2007 where he clearly states that he will serve in cabinet should the greens form a coalition with FF but he would resign as leader. And that's what he did.
RT.ie Media Player: Sargent: Greens will be 'King Makers'
That's not the point. My point was that, contrary to his word, he led the party into government with FF. Only after that (the negotiations with FF, the PfG, and the fatal vote by GP members) did he resign.

I can reconcile it [GP principle with US military Shannon]. For the second gulf war, Shannon entered a commercial agreement to refuel planes sending troops to a conflict that lacked a UN mandate - this was wrong. By 2007, the post war peace keeping operations in Iraq were mandated by several UN resolutions. While I opposed the invasion of Iraq - and marched against it, I had no problem supporting the presence of western troops in Iraq while the postwar chaos years continued.
Ah, so the wars (Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever else they bomb) are really over, peace reigns, and we should help those nice Americans who are really doing their best even though they seem to kill rather a lot of those nasty dark-skinned people who are good for nothing except growing the magic commodity (opium).

This is more an insult than an argument [Greens' dishonesty]. In my dealings with the Green representatives I've found them to be very honest and straightforward.
See my sig for the first of many examples.

I don't think that a Basic Income was a policy in the 2007 manifesto. In general, Irish welfare payments are very generous and in many case more than double the amounts payable in the countries we are asking to lend us the money to run our welfare system.
I don't care about the 2007 manifesto, which was a betrayal of several Green principles and policies. Basic Income means a total reform of the welfare system. Why do the Greens not believe in their policies any more?

About fluoridation:
The manifesto commitment was to:This is a multi-year scientific study that is underway and results are expected in 2012.
The idea of that is to keep fluoridation going at all costs -- an utter betrayal of Green principles and policies, as well as of medical science and common justice. Compare what Gormley wrote when he was honest about the issue.

Anyway, how do you know the "scientific study" is underway, and what makes you think there will be results next year? Did you find that info in the public domain?

How can there be a scientific study when there is not one person in the HSE who is an expert on fluoride?

Why can't people be told the truth about what's being forced down their throats? Why are the Greens collaborating in the fluoridation cover-up? Why did the Greens change their policy on fluoridation last year (bringing it into line with FF requirements)?
 

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
So, two years after the financial and economic crisis hits these shores and now Eamon Ryan thinks it's a good idea to get cross-party support for economic solutions to this country's needs. A Tallaght II strategy would be a good thing for this country as we can all work together in unity, harmony and love as we right the wrongs of the previous administration.

Is Eamon Ryan an enlightened being transcending party politics for the good of the nation?

Or....

Is Eamon Ryan a grubby self-serving political hack who has one desire, and that is to stay in power as long as possible.

You decide!
 

Chrisco

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
3,822
b) We should have saved AIB an BoI and let anglo sink.
I'm not sure this was possible given that the EU prohibits governments from preferring some companies over others during an industry bailout. Anglo would have had a case under eu state aid rules and I can't see how they would have lost.
Miclin,

I appreciate your posts, but this is pure nonsense. Anglo, being insolvent, would have had no case.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom