Aaragon

I got the feeling that the problems manifesting in the Green Party have been brewing for a long time. If I am correctly informed there has been a steady haemorrhaging of people going back at least 5 years. To my admittedly outside observation it seemed to be a divide between those who believe in principles first and those who believe that getting elected is the prime consideration. That I assume would now translates into those who think they should walk and those who think political power is the prime consideration. There were all sorts of grumblings about control and placements within the party. Unfortunately at the time I didn't take much notice, but this could be the surfacing of an older problem.

Whatever the way of it I think they are in trouble.

Art wrote:

...Three Irish Children have died as a result of not getting the MMR since she started sowing fear for her own selfish political reasons. She should be in jail. ...

That's definitely not fair. I wouldn't charge her with sowing fear. I would rate her as a victim of the fear caused by the inability of the authorities worldwide to demonstrate that the vaccination programs are all safe for all children, and if not, to identify which vaccines are not safe for which children. I would also take issue with the idea that she's taking this stance for selfish political reasons. She may or may not be a halfwit, but it is unfair to deny that she genuinely doesn't trust the medical establishment on the vaccines issue. To my mind that is as much their problem as hers. She should be in jail? For what? Asking questions? Physicians, heal thyselves.

Squire wrote:

I got the feeling that the problems manifesting in the Green Party have been brewing for a long time. If I am correctly informed there has been a steady haemorrhaging of people going back at least 5 years.

The membership stands at about 2,000 currently. It was 1,500 in 2006 I think. So while people viewed as key players have moved on, new players have come in. That seems like a natural progression for any organisation to me, and prevents staleness.

Squire wrote:

To my admittedly outside observation it seemed to be a divide between those who believe in principles first and those who believe that getting elected is the prime consideration.

It is a bit harsh to say some think getting elected is the prime consideration. If such people do exist they are the ones leaving the party so they can secure a seat as an independent.
I think there are some, like myself, who feel that to make progress on your stated policies you have a) learn to comprimise (if Northern Ireland taught us nothing it is this) and b) that you are usually more effective in government that out.

Cochrane says Maher is gone now too. I wouldn't have thought the Green have that many reps that they could afford to be losing 2 in one week? According to this they've only 18. Will they have any come the autumn? At what point will the leadership accept that the decision to go in with FF was catastrophic? 20 years of building a party to throw it all away on 2 short years at the top table. For what? A ban on lightbulbs? It's a goddamned pity.

eoinmn wrote:

Squire wrote:

I got the feeling that the problems manifesting in the Green Party have been brewing for a long time. If I am correctly informed there has been a steady haemorrhaging of people going back at least 5 years.

The membership stands at about 2,000 currently. It was 1,500 in 2006 I think. So while people viewed as key players have moved on, new players have come in. That seems like a natural progression for any organisation to me, and prevents staleness.

Squire wrote:

To my admittedly outside observation it seemed to be a divide between those who believe in principles first and those who believe that getting elected is the prime consideration.

It is a bit harsh to say some think getting elected is the prime consideration. If such people do exist they are the ones leaving the party so they can secure a seat as an independent.
I think there are some, like myself, who feel that to make progress on your stated policies you have a) learn to comprimise (if Northern Ireland taught us nothing it is this) and b) that you are usually more effective in government that out.

The Green Party is not only making the decision since the last election whether or not to go into government, but is also effectively deciding who the main Party of Government is. That is a completely different and much more important decision, in my view. The Green Party made a judgement that a "wish list" of expenditure on Green projects would be the main determinant of supporting a Fianna Fail government. Unfortunately, by supporting a profligate government, the Green Party has helped to ensure that a lot of Green measures will be unaffordable. In the mean time, it is very difficult to get information on the bigger strategic objectives, like the switch needed to local renewable sources. I have emailed the Energy Minister 3 times for basic information on this and can get nothing back.

The Greens have had some very damaging moments, and one of them was the emergency budget, where it was clear that no work had been done over the summer and a back of an envelope job gave us the car park levy measure - unimplementable, not thought through, and abandoned last week.
At the same time, we are getting no big programme for a shift to renewables, the single most important thing they could be working on, in my opinion.

Oh have they abandoned the carpark levy now? That was a complete nonsense anyway the loopholes so that basically everyone could get around it had already been worked out.

cactus flower wrote:

eoinmn wrote:

I think there are some, like myself, who feel that to make progress on your stated policies you have a) learn to comprimise (if Northern Ireland taught us nothing it is this) and b) that you are usually more effective in government that out.

The Green Party is not only making the decision since the last election whether or not to go into government, but is also effectively deciding who the main Party of Government is.

That descison was made in May 2007 by the electorate. At the time the Greens entered government Trevor Sargent made it very clear that they were disappointed that Enda Kenny couldn't make a deal with Sinn Fein. But that was Kenny's fault, not the Green Party's.

cactus flower wrote:

That is a completely different and much more important decision, in my view.

If the Greens were to pull out of government now, Fianna Fail, the independants and the ex-PDs would limp on without them. It would not bring FG to power.

cactus flower wrote:

The Green Party made a judgement that a "wish list" of expenditure on Green projects would be the main determinant of supporting a Fianna Fail government.

Or indeed any government, FF or FG/Lab.

cactus flower wrote:

Unfortunately, by supporting a profligate government, the Green Party has helped to ensure that a lot of Green measures will be unaffordable.

Usually I hear that the Greens are supporting too many cutbacks, not that the government is profligate.

cactus flower wrote:

In the mean time, it is very difficult to get information on the bigger strategic objectives, like the switch needed to local renewable sources. I have emailed the Energy Minister 3 times for basic information on this and can get nothing back.

I'm sorry to hear you haven't had a reply. No doubt if he were in opposition he'd have the time to reply for all the good it would do. What I'm saying is that this is not a reflection on wether the party should be in coalition government or not.

cactus flower wrote:

The Greens have had some very damaging moments, and one of them was the emergency budget, where it was clear that no work had been done over the summer and a back of an envelope job gave us the car park levy measure - unimplementable, not thought through, and abandoned last week.

Was the levy abandoned? I hadn't heard that.
The budget was badly rushed by FF and the PDs too, not just the Greens.

cactus flower wrote:

At the same time, we are getting no big programme for a shift to renewables

Except that we are.
26m was given to towards wave power research. We're practically the only government in the world spending money on this. At the same time, money is being spent on the more important work of energy conservation and efficiency. That's not as sexy as solar panels but it is effective.

coc wrote:

At what point will the leadership accept that the decision to go in with FF was catastrophic?

It wasn't the leaderships decision. The ordinary members voted for it.
There will be the National Convention in about 5 weeks time and perhaps then the ordinary members will decide to pull out of coalition government.

And I really wish Patricia McKenna would stop this sniping from the sidelines at the party "leadership" when it could be argued that she is part of the party leadership.
And she applauds those who leave the party while remaining herself.
I have always felt she turned off centrist/moderate voters, but with her constant attacks at the party now she must be turning off more voters than ever. If she really wants to stay in the party why keep damaging it?

eoinmn wrote:

coc wrote:

At what point will the leadership accept that the decision to go in with FF was catastrophic?

It wasn't the leaderships decision. The ordinary members voted for it.
There will be the National Convention in about 5 weeks time and perhaps then the ordinary members will decide to pull out of coalition government.

I didn't state otherwise. From the inside, do you sense a pullout is a realistic possibility as a result of this Convention?

You are probably right that a Green pullout wouldn't lead to an immediate election, but the FF/PD Government couldn't last more than a few months. Local, euros and by-elections would put them out of their misery.

coc wrote:

I didn't state otherwise. From the inside, do you sense a pullout is a realistic possibility as a result of this Convention?

I haven't heard specific talk about it, but I've no doubt its a possibility.

eoinmn

I am an outsider but I have met a number of people who have left that party. They all struck me as very capable and 'down to earth' in a good way. What they had to say about the party was not at all flattering. I took it as angst, but kept hearing the same tale. Some of these people held office in the party and resigned some just did not renew their membership. I think it would be prudent to listen to some of these people and see if there is indeed substance in their grievances.

Yes you are going to have a turnover of members in any such organisation, but it strikes me that the people you are losing are of a calibre that you can't afford to lose and the rate is such that although new people are joining you are working overtime to basically stand still. 2000 in all of Ireland must mean you are thin on the ground.

cactus flower wrote:

The Green Party is not only making the decision since the last election whether or not to go into government, but is also effectively deciding who the main Party of Government is. That is a completely different and much more important decision, in my view. The Green Party made a judgement that a "wish list" of expenditure on Green projects would be the main determinant of supporting a Fianna Fail government. Unfortunately, by supporting a profligate government, the Green Party has helped to ensure that a lot of Green measures will be unaffordable. In the mean time, it is very difficult to get information on the bigger strategic objectives, like the switch needed to local renewable sources. I have emailed the Energy Minister 3 times for basic information on this and can get nothing back.

Oh come on Cactus, you know that is unfair. Even I know that following the last election that there was not the numbers to have a FG, Labour, Green alternative.

They had to give it a go. However what they did wrong IMO is not lay down some ground rules for engagement. When Gormley found there was a fast one pulled regarding the Tara road contract he should have been raising hell. If you don't then you get walked on. You are seen as weak and alas good will is abused. What they lack is an ability at mud wrestling.

Squire wrote:

I think it would be prudent to listen to some of these people and see if there is indeed substance in their grievances.

Ok, that's good advice.

Squire wrote:

2000 in all of Ireland must mean you are thin on the ground.

It was always so for the GP though. Indeed it mystified the PDs who had 3 times the membership but couldn't translate that into votes.

Art wrote:

Some more people need to leave the Green party. For example Patricia McKenna is a half-wit who is the reason I could never vote Green. She continues to put Irish children's lives at risk with her anti-MMR campaign.

What anti-MMR campaign? (I'd be interested in such a campaign.)

Quote :

Three Irish Children have died as a result of not getting the MMR since she started sowing fear for her own selfish political reasons.

Is that a fact? Do give us a link, Art.

Quote :

... She should be in jail.

If people like McKenna continue in the Green party, I believe it is time to start another Green party. Why should party containing anti-science half wits own the Green brand?

The Green brand! That's a good one. In fact your post was just hilarious, Art.

Until early 2007, the Green Party was a vaccination-sceptic party. That was stated clearly in its health policy, promoted assiduously by the long-time health spokesperson, John Gormley. For what was claimed to be a scientific reason (but wasn't really), the party then decided to be pro-vaccination.

Art, I think you should seek out authoritative medical opinion about vaccination. For example, Dr Bernadine Healy, who used to head America's highest authority of medical science. See what she was saying last year.

Patricia McKenna didn't vaccinate her children. That is her right. I and many other people think she made the right decision. We don't trust any vaccines. We think we're right, and we think we have science on our side. What science do you have on your side, Art?

Squire wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The Green Party is not only making the decision since the last election whether or not to go into government, but is also effectively deciding who the main Party of Government is. That is a completely different and much more important decision, in my view. The Green Party made a judgement that a "wish list" of expenditure on Green projects would be the main determinant of supporting a Fianna Fail government. Unfortunately, by supporting a profligate government, the Green Party has helped to ensure that a lot of Green measures will be unaffordable. In the mean time, it is very difficult to get information on the bigger strategic objectives, like the switch needed to local renewable sources. I have emailed the Energy Minister 3 times for basic information on this and can get nothing back.

Oh come on Cactus, you know that is unfair. Even I know that following the last election that there was not the numbers to have a FG, Labour, Green alternative.

They had to give it a go. However what they did wrong IMO is not lay down some ground rules for engagement. When Gormley found there was a fast one pulled regarding the Tara road contract he should have been raising hell. If you don't then you get walked on. You are seen as weak and alas good will is abused. What they lack is an ability at mud wrestling.

Well a bit unfair maybe, the Green Party leadership brings it out in me . They have given comfort and succour to FF in a period when they should have been galvanised into action. If the Green Party had pulled out over either the medical cards for the elderly, the education cuts or the Bank Guarantee, there is a fair chance that the Government would have had to call a General Election.

Is there any precedent for having a GE, EP and LEs all on the same day?

This distinction drawn between the pragmatic 'realists' and the 'idealists' is all very self-satisfied on the part of those 'realists', but not, in my view, true. I can't actually see what has been achieved by this 'realism' in government that is of great value or wouldn't have been done anyway by FF on their own given their need to be making token 'environment' gestures. Lagging is a bit thicker now, but is that worth losing all moral authority (propping up the conman Ahern etc.) for? I'd love for the 'realists' in the Green Party to detail what exactly has been achieved that wouldn't have happened anyway, and how much better off the country is than if the 'idealist' harping from the sidelines approach has prevailed....

toxic avenger wrote:

This distinction drawn between the pragmatic 'realists' and the 'idealists' is all very self-satisfied on the part of those 'realists', but not, in my view, true. I can't actually see what has been achieved by this 'realism' in government that is of great value or wouldn't have been done anyway by FF on their own given their need to be making token 'environment' gestures. Lagging is a bit thicker now, but is that worth losing all moral authority (propping up the conman Ahern etc.) for? I'd love for the 'realists' in the Green Party to detail what exactly has been achieved that wouldn't have happened anyway, and how much better off the country is than if the 'idealist' harping from the sidelines approach has prevailed....

Personally I think that the Greens-in-Government have set the bar so low that it is quite possible that more may have been done if they had stayed out of office and campaigned from opposition.

cactus flower wrote:

Well a bit unfair maybe, the Green Party leadership brings it out in me . They have given comfort and succour to FF in a period when they should have been galvanised into action. If the Green Party had pulled out over either the medical cards for the elderly, the education cuts or the Bank Guarantee, there is a fair chance that the Government would have had to call a General Election.

Is there any precedent for having a GE, EP and LEs all on the same day?

I also have had a very low opinion of the current leadership of the Green Party (Irish). I am not well up on what their programme for government actually was but think they should have walked on various occasions. They didn't drive a hard enough bargain with FF in the first place and the bluff that FF could limp on with Independents should have been called. They needed to assert themselves then. In Ireland they have been given good opportunity but have failed miserably to capitalise on it. Compare them to these few councillors in Kirklees.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gsNbcpWIZV0

There is no comparison. I am not exactly left wing but I can understand where that lot in Huddersfield are coming from and respect their approach and intent. They strike me as good practical people, feet on ground representing the interests of the average person. Back in Ireland what exactly are they?

Elsewhere I find the wider 'Green Agenda' simply means pointless regulation, poorly implemented and jobs for the boys rather than sensible practical measures. The number of people employed pushing this agenda and with interests in it is something that gets insufficient attention.

3 election on the one day, would be a long count.

You are most certainly correct, Squire. The problem began at the poor bargain when they entered Government.

Patricia McKenna really gets on my nerves though. She is a publicity whore who will do anything to get herself on television, whether that is celebrity ice skating or celebrity hotel working. She is our George Galloway. Add into that she wants to court Libertas one day and then maintain herself as a leading Green the next day and you notice her complete lack of credibility.

Patricia McKenna is not really my sort of politician, soap box politics just does not appeal to me. I like good practical types. However I think she says exactly what she thinks and that I respect. I would be inclined to trust what she says, I may not agree with it and I may think her views ill considered, but I would rather someone who spoke their mind than someone who tells you what they think you want to hear. .