Blame the Greens for some things, but don’t blame them in the wrong

IT has been another bad week for the public perception of the Green Party’s behaviour in power. It must have been made worse for those in the party by the fact that the latest blow involved getting the blame for something it hadn’t actually done.

The newspaper headlines screaming that party leader John Gormley – in his role as minister for the environment – was enforcing a new higher rate of motor tax for commercial vehicles that are used occasionally by their drivers/owners for personal use has done significant damage to the already reeling party.

The public reaction to the idea was one of fury – or at least from those who would be affected by such a move. It didn’t matter that the story had been spun in a misleading way, that there was no new tax being proposed or introduced and that the Department of the Environment – apparently unknown to its minister – had merely issued a document reminding local authorities of a long-in-place but rarely enforced law: it has always been the case that a car-user paid the higher rate of motor tax if a commercial vehicle was used for personal reasons (There are also benefit-in-kind rules relating to income tax because of the realisation that commercial cars and vans are used in this way).

The rules were brought in previously by a Fianna Fáil minister but have proven difficult to enforce. But here Gormley was getting blamed wrongly for another apparent Green attack on motorists, even though there wasn’t a new one.

It was intriguing that this got much more airtime and newspaper space – and hysterical reaction – than an idea floated directly by Fianna Fáil Transport Minister Noel Dempsey last Sunday. In an interview with The Sunday Business Post he proposed the possible introduction of a single motor tax that would be levied by way of increased levies on diesel/petrol prices. That would raise prices of a litre from an average of about €1.35 to about €2.35, according to the AA.

It might actually be a good “green” idea – in that it would tax consumption/usage rather than ownership of a vehicle – but it would be highly controversial with those who have no option but to use their cars regularly and who do not have a public transport option available to them.

As I discovered in covering the suggestion on The Last Word on Monday it got some negative reaction from the public, but not nearly as much as the apparent threat of taxing the commercial vehicles did. And when Gormley’s colleague Eamon Ryan came into The Last Word studio later on Tuesday calmly to explain that the commercial motor tax issue was not a new one and that the Greens were not a “tax and hurt” party, the reaction via phone, text and tweet was immediate and fiercely negative towards the party.

There is a lot of voter dislike of the Greens. How much of it is fair is a moot point. There is a convenient caricature of the Greens as a bunch who seek to reduce our standards of living and of wanting to circumscribe our behaviour by making us live the way they would like everyone, not just their supporters, to live.

There are some people determined to portray the Greens as a threat to some sort of idyllic Irish rural way of life that apparently exists. They are being portrayed as close to fascists in apparently wanting to end hunting, shooting, fishing, puppy farms, etc. The narrative goes that they won’t allow a man to do anything on his own land, including build on it, or to drive to and from it.

As it happens the Greens have reasonably well thought out and grounded positions on many issues, such as environmental reforms, an excellent record on planning and a progressive approach towards individual rights.

The initial deal they got on going into Bertie Ahern’s Fianna Fáil-led government in 2007 was not a particularly good one so it was no surprise last year when the Greens demanded legislative changes in relation to stag hunting, dog breeding and various planning issues as part of its price for continuing to support the Government. All of the fuss, particularly from Fianna Fáil backbenchers when it came to implementing legislation, was nonsense given that it had all been agreed between the two parties.

The Greens can hardly be damned for taking the one opportunity that may ever be presented to them to implement policies that are green.

However, it seems they are not going to be able to escape the consequences of two major decisions: the act itself of entering coalition with Fianna Fáil and the continued and vocal support for controversial economic measures such as the bank guarantee, the establishment of NAMA and the various cuts to public spending.

Going into government with FF was a dangerous gamble because it was something they had promised not to do and it appalled those who voted for them.

Nor can the Greens escape responsibility for their share in the decision-making process in dealing with the economic crisis. Their ministers actively agreed to the introduction of the bank guarantee in September 2008 and cannot escape the collective responsibility of that decision.

The Greens have actively supported and defended NAMA and the provision of tens of billions of euro of state capital for basket cases like Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide. It is no longer a case of using the Bart Simpson defence of “it was like this when we got here”. Now there are decisions and actions they have to account for. That’s fair enough. But to blame them for things they haven’t done, or to attribute to them ambitions for radical change that are not part of the programme for government, is not particularly fair.

The bulk of the problems facing this country were caused by Fianna Fáil and the defunct Progressive Democrats. Then again politics is not exactly fair, especially when you are in power during bad times.

FIANNA Fáil TD Chris Andrews wants Taoiseach Brian Cowen to introduce a state-sponsored honours that would recognise the contribution to society of those who are judged to have done good. It is a nice idea in theory but in practice it would be a nightmare to operate. He is not proposing the creation of an equivalent to knighthoods and peerages as happens in Britain but something akin to awards in republics such as the USA or France.

I don’t think it is an idea can work. Any group set up, even under the auspices of the president of the day who could probably do with a bit more work to justify the salary and accommodation, would be likely to be subjected to all sorts of pressure to give awards to people whose egos would demand that they get them. The experience in other countries is of politicians influencing the distribution of titles and rewards in return for money for themselves or their parties. We don’t need another avenue for corruption.

Nor do I like the idea of tax exiles, for example, being rewarded for “services” to the country, even if they make useful and welcome donations to charities in Ireland. I imagine that during the days of the economic boom there would have been many property developers and bankers who would have been given such awards for “services to entrepreneurship”. I’d bet that Seán FitzPatrick would have received one when Anglo-Irish Bank was in his pomp. Can you imagine the fuss if it was necessary now to strip him of a state “medal of honour” or some such sort of official award? There are People of the Year awards and the like operated by the private sector and that is where they should remain.