Coalition deal breaker for the Greens

[Eddiepops]

I've seen a lot of talk lately about the issue of what various parties would demand for their participation in the next government, what issues are 'deal-breakers' for them. Usually it consists of implementation of key policies or granting of ministerial posts.

I was wondering what Greens (and others) thought the deal breaker for the Greens should be?

Personally I think the implementation of dramatic carbon emission reduction strategies should be our cornerstone, and we should state so publicly well in advance of the election. I think the public are awake to the catastrophic danger that climate change poses and will appreciate the party adhering to one if its core values. I know we're already in the EETS but we've failed to adhere to even the 13% increase in emissions that agreement allowed us and are now liable for fines in the billions of euro, making such a stipulation easy to sell.

Such proposals could include agressively pursuing international agreement of climate change prevention, the implementation of a carbon tax, a move towards green taxation, pursuit of renewables, etc

[Salthill]

Fair play to the Greens here for starting this thread. The 'absolute bottom line' for different parties should be explained before the election. Coalitions require compromise and you can't expect everything to be done, but the public need some guide.

The proposal mentioned seems reasonable as well. What about waste? WOuld you accept FG's demand for lower fuel prices and the reduction of VRT? Both would increase damaging activity.

Any chance of the FG and Lab posters doing the same?

[SPN]

Fair play to the Greens here for starting this thread. The 'absolute bottom line' for different parties should be explained before the election. Coalitions require compromise and you can't expect everything to be done, but the public need some guide.

The proposal mentioned seems reasonable as well. What about waste? WOuld you accept FG's demand for lower fuel prices and the reduction of VRT? Both would increase damaging activity.

Any chance of the FG and Lab posters doing the same?

When did FG come out with this stupidity?

Last I heard on the subject of VRT was Inda on Q&A when he said (to the effect) that anyone proposing reduction/removal of VRT should specify what they are proposing to replace it with.

VRT brings in too much money to be removed, and if it was removed it would only mean bigger margins for the importers and dealers, not massive price reductions for punters (as Eddie Hobbs proved).

VRT is a tax on people with money to spend on a luxury item, and it also keeps a lid on the profitability of the motor trade. Whatever is proposed to replace it should be aimed at these people and not at ordinary taxpayers.

Going back On Topic: The Greens will have some non-negotiables in the area of Energy, Waste, Health, Education, Transport and Agriculture.

There will be nothing that grates with FG or Labour on a policy level, but the priority the Greens will want given to certain matters will be important.

There are a number of remedial actions that need to be taken as soon as the kleptocracy is given the boot. Focusing the minds of the institutionalised in FG and Lab on these issues will be critical to the success of the next Government.

[BarryW]

When did FG come out with this stupidity?

Last I heard on the subject of VRT was Inda on Q&A when he said (to the effect) that anyone proposing reduction/removal of VRT should specify what they are proposing to replace it with

I'm not sure what you're thinking of here.

But on the broader point:

FG in Government will establish a system of energy efficiency labelling for vehicles and reward those that are awarded a higher rating with a reduced rate of VRT. Similarly, vehicles with a lower rate of efficiency will be penalised with a higher rate of VRT. They operate a similar system of motor tax (not VRT though) in some of the Nordic countries

It was all in the renewable energy policy - which is on our website

[Salthill]

The Greens will have some non-negotiables in the area of Energy, Waste, Health, Education, Transport and Agriculture.

There will be nothing that grates with FG or Labour on a policy level, but the priority the Greens will want given to certain matters will be important.

What are those non-negotiables?

On VRT, I have a reference for where an FG spokesman called for VRT to be slashed. I wrote it down because it amazed me as being completely irresponsible - I think it was in response to Eddie Hobbe's attack on VRT. I'll try and get it and post it tomorrow.

On fuel, increases in electricity and gas have been condemned by FG as 'stealth taxes' and Phil HOgan announced today that they would base their campaign next year on attacking such increases which he defines as being controlled by government because of the regulator. Similarly Richard Bruton has attacked the extra money the state is generating in revenue because of the rising oil price and called it another stealth tax. BarryW has confirmed elsewhere that FG condemning these things means they are against them and want them removed.

Bottom line here is that FG does not accept the need to make these things more expensive for the consumer - the entire premise of carbon taxes (which I think are a great idea, but will have little impact by themselves)

[BarryW]

BarryW has confirmed elsewhere that FG condemning these things means they are against them and want them removed

Err.....since when do I speak on behalf of Fine Gael?!

Rockofcashel may like to speak on behalf of the Irish people from time to time, but most people (including myself) speak on this site on behalf of their own selves

[SPN]

Going backwards through the points raised:

Carbon Taxes: These will make things CHEAPER for the consumer because the consumer gets to choose what to purchase based on price. With the FFailure system the consumer will pay the fines and Roadstone will make the profit.

Phil Hogan is an ar$e! He hasn't got a clue. He is in the Michael Lowry FFailure wannabe wing of FG.

If anyone has a copy of the Eddie Hobbs programme on VRT, I'd love to get confirmation of the numbers in the examples he provided. My strong memory is that the difference in price was less than the VRT charged by Revenue.

BarryW: An energy efficiency rating system for vehicles is a nonsense! All you have to do is put a carbon tax on the fuel and you are home. The CO2 based taxation system in the UK is a complete farce!

[BarryW]

BarryW: An energy efficiency rating system for vehicles is a nonsense!

Why?

[rockofcashel]

well for one.. its bloody unwieldy. It will require a new level of administration with people having to register certificates for every single car bought, to make sure it fits into a particular emission category.

And I thought FG was against any more levels of beauracracy.

Putting a "carbon tax" onto the price of petrol and diesel is simple. Just increase the level of taxation already taken. The suppliers still fill out the same forms, just hand over an extra amount to the government.

Unfortunately, FG cannot do this, because thats their definition of a "stealth tax" or a straight up tax, and despite the smartness of such a tax, FG are frightened of their lives of telling anybody, anywhere, that they are going to increase any tax.

Personally, If I were Minister for Finance, I'd also consider getting rid of Motor taxation, and moving the taxation to the price of fuel.

Much more progressive. The more petrol you buy, the more driving you do, the more time you are on the road, the more tax you pay for using them. Viola. (and again, a saving in collection, by not needing a whole motor taxation department)

[gobshite]

Much more progressive. The more petrol you buy, the more driving you do, the more time you are on the road, the more tax you pay for using them. Viola. (and again, a saving in collection, by not needing a whole motor taxation department)

A progressive tax is one which affects people with higher incomes rather than people with lower. Under a system where the petrol is taxed a mother who drives her kids to school every day, picks up the shopping etc. will be hit much harder for tax than somebody who has two cars and only keeps one for leisure purposes, i.e. a sports car.