Squaring The Circle


Neasa Hourigan (top left with Green Party Leader Eamon Ryan), has said the Programme for Government does not do enough in terms of housing and deprivation.

One of five Green TDs chosen by her party to steer programme-for-government talks, she said she was unable “to square the circle” of reducing the deficit and allowing tax breaks while investing in climate action and services over the five weeks of talks between the three parties.

…Explaining her position, Ms Hourigan said: “We worked really, really hard over the last few weeks, and did our best to get as good a deal as we could. Now it is for the members to decide.

Myself personally, I have concerns on housing, around the provision of public housing, affordability and the idea that public land should remain in public hands.”

Green Party negotiators at odds over merits of goverment deal (Irish Times)

Yesterday: Losing Saoirse


Last night.


Sponsored Link

23 thoughts on “Squaring The Circle

  1. class wario

    the condescension referenced in that tweet is the direct end result of years and years of this narrative of being ‘in power’ being the be all end all goal as opposed to contriving to do anything worthwhile in that position. the same people are probably moaning then after 4-5 years about govt. pensions or whatever too lol. see also: seeing parties making terrible decision after terrible decision in government being preferable to not being in govt but wanting to make good decisions.

  2. Joe Small

    Ideology is great sometimes but Government is about a continuous set of compromises. The Greens have had an enormous influence on this draft Programme for Government despite having just 12 TDs. If the party and its member can’t see this as a massive opportunity to implement their agenda then they may as well pack it in. Its unlikely to get a better opportunity after the next election.

    1. Darren

      Considering that transfers from SF voters to green politicians was the significant reason… and not climate priorities … that they ended up with double figures it is rly not that bright a light to allow dim. The fervent reality is change and the current statutory force us without genuine intent or proven capacity. That’s no light to flow at all

  3. Shane Duffy

    The body language of closing your eyes when speaking suggests that you are either lying or don’t believe what you’re saying. There’s a lot of it going on here.

  4. Ghost of Yep

    She is exactly right. Even with the current economic constraints from this year you start to cross out a lot that is in the Programme. It’s not going to get any better any time soon. Supporting a government with the 2 parties who have been failures at what they have now promised in the past again, and now with no money, her concerns are well placed IMO.

  5. Jonickal

    Neasa was on the negotiating team. You cannot successfully conclude a negotiation and then once you’re outside start criticising it. Well you can actually, but it makes you look ridiculous.

    As Joe Small rightly says above “Ideology is great sometimes but Government is about a continuous set of compromises.”

    1. Boj

      It was the negotiations which were ridiculous here. Keep the pantomime going! When oh when will we evolve past all of this crap!

        1. Boj

          Democracy I feel, is the act of everyone getting a say in how their country is run. That has happened, months ago. These backroom negotiations and hoodwinking excludes voters and hides the truth of what is really going on.

          1. Cian

            And we elected 160 TDs to form a government and run the country.
            Some of these 160 TDs are doing their job and trying to form a government. Some TDs are doing absolutely nothing. And other TDs are just giving out about those in the first group.

          2. Boj

            Factually correct as always Cian, nice one. It’s the behind closed doors I have problem with. Why not negotiate openly, what’s to be hidden? Maybe I should submit a FOI request for more info..oh wait.

          3. Rob_G

            You raise an interesting point – but I think if it was all hashed out in public, no one would be willing to lose face and be the first to concede any part of their electoral platform. So no-one would compromise on anything, and no agreement would be reached on anything.

      1. Jonickal

        Do you know how a negotiation works? If you can’t reach an agreement at least one party will walk out. There’s no point throwing your toys out of the pram AFTER reaching an agreement.

        1. Boj

          Eh…no…I dont know how negotiations work…duh! I agree with you btw. Your last sentence is completely correct. My point is that these little back scratching secret negotiations are an insult to so called democracy.

      2. Vanessanelle

        BOJ is right

        Those negotiation teams were a con
        as if Leo and Mehall hadn’t already sorted it out between them

        Just look at the composition of the FF lobby
        Sacret Heart t’night
        I wouldn’t have Anne Rabbit organise the lotto syndicate ffs
        And as for Jack Chambers – you couldn’t send him out to get a sliced pan without him coming back with an excuse and tall tale for why he used the money to light candles, when in fact he bought blackjacks and fruit salads for himself

  6. GiggidyGoo

    ‘…………….those issues weren’t taken care of in the PfG………..’

    That little phrase tells the true story. The greens negotiated a sell-out. Let’s see if they can get their 2/3 in favour. The media will of course play its part is trying to do that.

    1. Joe Small

      All negotiations are a sell-out. Its the nature of compromise. If one party doesn’t have a majority, then there are negotiations whereby people will have to compromise. Governing is a messy, dirty business, full of grey areas. Its not for the faint hearted. Its much easier to remain ideologically pure and in opposition achieving nothing.

  7. Vanessanelle

    when you vote to abstain
    unless its on a matter where are a Conflict of Interest is present
    or a process issue
    which doesn’t apply here,

    With the possible exception of Francie Duffy, as he is married to the challenger to the current leader,although I could argue that it also contradicts his own political independence and free will, and fails his constituents;

    Is a vote of cowardice
    By recording abstentions they got a vote of 9 Yes’ and zero Nos

    Not a good look for any Political Party who wants to be taken seriously

    I would go further and say that any voter that votes for a TD who opts to abstain from decisions, for reasons not qualified by Conflict of Interest, then they might as well have elected a leaky septic tank for all the good they do, and for damage that may need to be cleaned up after them in the years ahead.

    1. Cian

      Well said – it’s something I hadn’t really though about before – but you make a very good point.

      1. Vanessanelle

        Well you, and everyone else, should have thought of it before

        If the recent press-the-button gate didn’t awaken ye, just look back at the Áras 2018 race between the Councils

        Count the abstentions there, and plenty were witnessed on live streams, and the galleries open to all

        All under Party Whip orders – pretty much
        And at local Council level where decisions are made that have the capacity to directly and immediately impact the local voter.

        Cork City Council is a great example to use here, as PbP representatives literally filibustered the entire session and consumed a significant portion of the process for themselves, and when it came to voting they abstained.
        Cork City Council went on to nominate Joan Freeman – 14 votes alongside 11 Abstentions.
        And if measured against Cork City’s Referendum Returns that same May, using Cork NS and Cork SC, (64% and 68.8% Tá btw) it was a complete betrayal of both the Voter and the massive consensus of both those City Constituencies. The hypocrisy of PbP to not even vote No against Joan Freeman is worth flagging again, however thankfully the most obnoxious speakers that day didn’t get returned in LE2019.

        And with all due respect, there was a quare few around here had loads ta’ say about how many of these public representatives exercised their voting privilege at the time.
        And I can speak from personal experience.

        Democratic procedures and the consequences of actions or non action, should never be treated as disposable or a pick and choose when it suits.

        The outcomes are always a permanent record.

    2. Otis Blue

      It’s ‘amateur hour’ stuff from the Greens. It’s like they’ve only woken up and figured how out Government actually works. They’ve really wasted their negotiation if they thought that a PfG was a wish list of ideas whose implementation didn’t depend on overarching principles, values, assumptions, costs and more besides. Bit late to be crying about all of that now.

      She and others should remember that decisions are made by those who turn up.

  8. Joe

    The Greenwash party are really being taken for idiots by FFG. Are they really that stupid? The PfG alludes to “biogenic methane” as a way for dodging reducing the national herd to keep the farmers happy. Of course there is no such thing as “biogenic methane”. Methane is a gas and can’t be split into genic or non-genic one way or the other. All Greenwash so Eamon Ryan can get his ministerial pension and suck in the party minions. Hopefully enough Greens won’t be taken for a ride by the leadership and see through the sham nonsense.


Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link