General election 2020 (8 Viewers)

[Lili Marlene]

Some teacher/union debacle in the ahern era. Apparently ahern sorted it by pitting the public against the teachers and owning the press, which made it really hard for the teachers to warn people what gouger he was. I get it and all but to state the very obvious for the bots, I'm not sure FG have ever been less of an opposition to FF as they are this week.

God, this crap?

When students struck back: During the 2001 teachers' strike, students took to the streets

I remember it being a welcome break in the usual drudgery. Of course, in retrospect at least half of the students were on the side of the death squads. I can't even remember what my own take on it was at the time, i'd like to think it was right-on but who knows.

 

[egg_]

B: Is environmentally concious, but untill told to do stuff, ideally by the govt there will be no self direction. That includes googling a train time instead of driving across the country.

Given how things went during the pandemic, Leo going on telly and just telling people to cop on would probably do more for the environment than anything the greens might come up with

 

[Cormcolash]

Taxes would surely be much more acceptable if they were designed to effectively tax wealth, instead of putting the vast majority of the tax regime on the people who are least able to afford it.
Lets see how the upcoming carbon tax works out, will it

a) apply to everyone in the country so that basically everyone is paying more for emissions etc from big industry with no actual effect on emission reduction because of the fact that it's not actually going to stop people driving to work having the heat on in winter charging their phones having the tele on standby etc

or

b) be applied to big industry and the actual primary sources of emissions in such a way that it takes into account actual carbon footprint caused by individual companies firms etc

I wonder which of these 2 options the FFGG government would go for, what a mystery.

 

[IFF]

May 2019:
Bryan Dobson asks: “Other parties might be eying you up [for future coalitions], so what would be your advice to colleagues if the Green Party were to be wooed again?”

Ciaran Cuffe: “Well, don’t go into government when a recession is about to kick in.”

June 2020
Greens: lets go into government when a recession has hit

 

[egg_]

no actual effect on emission reduction

I wouldn't be so sure about that. People were way more careful about electricity/petrol use in the 80s than they are now, because that shit was expensive (and everyone had less money, I guess)

 

[hermie]

May 2019:
Bryan Dobson asks: “Other parties might be eying you up [for future coalitions], so what would be your advice to colleagues if the Green Party were to be wooed again?”

Ciaran Cuffe: “Well, don’t go into government when a recession is about to kick in.”

June 2020
Greens: lets go into government when a recession has hit

The Greens aren't like any other parties, they have 10 years to achieve their main aims. Every year that progress is stalled these targets become exponentially more difficult. They still might reject the idea of going into government - as a two-thirds of members have to agree to go into bed with FFG - but if they don't I don't actually see what their point is in existing at all.

 

[ann post]

The Greens aren't like any other parties, they have 10 years to achieve their main aims. Every year that progress is stalled these targets become exponentially more difficult. They still might reject the idea of going into government - as a two-thirds of members have to agree to go into bed with FFG - but if they don't I don't actually see what their point is in existing at all.

Its kind more like 8.5 years when you factor in A: stupid fucking virus time B: everyone twerking on their car bonnet on a ryanair flight to wish.com #pennieshun for six months because we all deserve it because we've had to live like our grandparents which is awful. #upthera.

 

[Cormcolash]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. People were way more careful about electricity/petrol use in the 80s than they are now, because that shit was expensive (and everyone had less money, I guess)

Sure, but the way I've interpreted it as being put is of some kind of 'flat tax per head' in the same manner they were trying to put water charges across, i.e you're all paying this amount and it doesn't matter a fuck how much you actually use

 

[egg_]

Oh, well that'd be shit indeed, but the carbon tax is per tonne of carbon emitted, and it just gets added onto the price of fossil fuels - at least if I understand it right that's how it's being applied at the minute

 

[magicbastarder]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. People were way more careful about electricity/petrol use in the 80s than they are now, because that shit was expensive (and everyone had less money, I guess)

it's seen as a boast now to leave your immersion on all the time.

(and also i have heard people claim on more than a few occasions that you're better off leaving the immersion on. and they usually aren't easily convinced otherwise)

 

[Cormcolash]

Which would increase energy bills for everybody despite the fact that much more fossil fuel consumption goes towards industry. Energy generation makes up a large proportion of emissions and more of that energy is used for industrial purposes than anything else.
So until we stop using fossil fuel for energy generation (which we should be doing except hey guess what we're fucking shit because 'it would cost money'), we get to pay a bit extra for Facebook and co. running their offices. Lovely.

 

[egg_]

I don't really get what you're saying. If my electricity bill is EUR1k a year and facebook's is EUR10M, and the carbon tax puts the price up 10% - I get that it'll cost me 100 quid extra a year, but I don't get how I'm paying some of facebook's EUR1M bill

 

[magicbastarder]

random question - is there a term for an organisation whose ideal goal would be the negation of their need to exist?

a charity would obviously fall into this category, and several political parties too.

 

[Cormcolash]

I don't really get what you're saying. If my electricity bill is EUR1k a year and facebook's is EUR10M, and the carbon tax puts the price up 10% - I get that it'll cost me 100 quid extra a year, but I don't get how I'm paying some of facebook's EUR1M bill

Because if Facebook's emissions are 90% and your emissions are 10%, then if fossil fuel prices go up by 10%, then 9% of that is due to Facebook. Therefore, to be fair you should be paying an extra 1% per year, 10 quid, whilst Facebook should be paying for all the rest of that increase, because it's their emissions that are causing it, not yours.

 

[egg_]

You're mixing up your percentages.

If my emissions are 10% of the total emissions, and prices go up by 10%, then yes I'll expect to pay an extra 1% of the current total that gets paid. That's not going to be 10 quid though - the 1000/year number in my example above is unrelated to the 90%/10% thing you're talking about

Here's my example worked out in another way

I pay 1000/year
FB pays 10000000/year

My percentage of the total amount used = 0.01
FB's percentage of the total amount used = 99.99

Carbon tax adds 10% to the cost

I pay 100 extra
FB pays 1000000 extra

Total amount extra paid = 1000100

Percentage of total extra paid by me = 0.01
Percentage of total extra paid by FB = 99.99

 

[magicbastarder]

your emissions are 10%, then if fossil fuel prices go up by 10%, ...Therefore, to be fair you should be paying an extra 1% per year

10% of 10% *is* 1% though?

 

[Cormcolash]

You're mixing up your percentages.

If my emissions are 10% of the total emissions, and prices go up by 10%, then yes I'll expect to pay an extra 1% of the current total that gets paid. That's not going to be 10 quid though - the 1000/year number in my example above is unrelated to the 90%/10% thing you're talking about

Here's my example worked out in another way

I pay 1000/year
FB pays 10000000/year

My percentage of the total amount used = 0.01
FB's percentage of the total amount used = 99.99

Carbon tax adds 10% to the cost

I pay 100 extra
FB pays 1000000 extra

Total amount extra paid = 1000100

Percentage of total extra paid by me = 0.01
Percentage of total extra paid by FB = 99.99

Yeah okay fair, I wasn't paying much attention to my numbers earlier, but my real point is that the reason the rise is as much as 10% is because of Facebook and co. i.e my point is that actually you should be paying based on a percentage of what the residential rise would cause to carbon tax, which is much less than what the rise is when Facebook and co. are added in, because guess what they're not people and you are. (point being that you can theoretically 'control' emissions from your home, whereas you can't control what industry is doing) See? You've actually hit on the same problem with the flat tax treating business and individual alike, just from the other direction.

 

[ann post]

random question - is there a term for an organisation whose ideal goal would be the negation of their need to exist?

a charity would obviously fall into this category, and several political parties too.

I also would like to know this.

 

[egg_]

See? You've actually hit on the same problem with the flat tax treating business and individual alike, just from the other direction.

I don't think it's a problem, and it's not a flat tax. You pay a tax proportional to the amount of carbon you emit. Emit less carbon, pay less tax. Simples

 

[magicbastarder]

it is a flat tax - a flat tax is not one where everyone pays the same amount, but one where everyone pays the same rate.