Are you in a Political Party?

Seth Brundle

In continuation of a thread here...

PH01

I expect to see the Greens, SF and Labour polling well here.

dahamsta

The last option and the first are directly related.

adam

invincibleirish

could the two threads be like merged or something?

Seth Brundle

Actually, I wonder if those who are in political parties would post their reasons for joining the party.
Not trying to sound like a moderator but can we not let this become a slagging match - just post your reasons and not criticise other peoples reasons.
Was it for personal advancement, interest, both or what?

napalm@night

Yelo im not in a party but am considering a life in Politics but my family has no political background id be leaning towards fine a gael im 18 and am heading into 6th year i've been thinking about contacting our local fine a gael man but i dont want to seem like an idot when i call up and say i want to be a politican and was thinking about say leaving it till i was in college and joining a students union...but im not sure if thats the best idea either any body got any advice or ideas?

invincibleirish

i dunno,considering they claimed to have got 8,000 new members in the last few months*,i dunno if they would be able to talk to ya amid all the crowds heaving to join.








*quit laughing down the back,its true!enda said so himself!!!

Éomer of Rohan

Socialist Party - since socialism is the only real alternative, the best system and since the SP is the only party to advocate socialism (SWP, CPI, WP, IRSP - don't make me laugh).

Sarky

I'm curious:

Are parties less likely to actually listen to what their conjstituents want, or would they try to do everything an independant would do?

Are parties more concerned with votes than independants? Do both put the same effort into listening and acting?

Éomer of Rohan

Are parties less likely to actually listen to what their conjstituents want, or would they try to do everything an independant would do?

I can only define this in terms of the socialist party and independent candidates since it is the first sign of wisdom only to speak of that which you know. The SP (Joe Higgins TD in the South) have a structure which is unique to socialists; they follow socialist ideals - ideals which are manifested in the program laid out every year by all members of the socialist party in Drogheda at the National Conference (which is in August this year by the way) - and they follow this rigidly. Marxist doctrine and the SP interpretation thereof are all that the SP listens to - material dialectic and marxist theory is applied to each problem that the working class can bring along - and in this way problems are tackled, for the benefit of the working people - and the SP doesn't rely on corporate donations therefore in this respect they are a powerful voice against the rampant corruption in the Dail.

Are parties more concerned with votes than independants? Do both put the same effort into listening and acting?

Socialism cannot be defined in terms of partisan politics - it is a method of thought - and to vote for a socialist candidate is to endorse that method of thought; generally the people who vote socialist are socialists or are looking for an alternative and want to build a mass movement - something the SP esp in the North are very effective at (cf Anti-War movement, anti-water charges, anti-sectarianist marches)

invincibleirish

again may i play devils advocate,but thru continous reading of indymedia,apparently swp(socialist worker party) have a larger membership then the socialist party that eomar is in,so surely they "advocate socialism" more no?


p.s. i thought you guys were forming an alliance?

invincibleirish

hmmm,9 people in a party,impressive-ish....

sceptre

Originally posted by invincibleirish
again may i play devils advocate,but thru continous reading of indymedia,apparently swp(socialist worker party) have a larger membership then the socialist party that eomar is in,so surely they "advocate socialism" more no?

I suspect (though I don't know a great deal about either party) that the socialist party would say that what the SWP stands for isn't really socialism.

invincibleirish

yes,its all "peoples front of judea" vs "judean peoples front" is'nt it?

Turnip

material dialectic and marxist theory is applied to each problem that the working class can bring along

There's 'working class' people out there that understand funny jargon like 'material dialectic'?

Originally posted by invincibleirish
yes,its all "peoples front of judea" vs "judean peoples front" is'nt it?

That's the way of Irish party politics. PDs, FF and FG have no significant ideological differences and they should merge. But they deal with the differences that they do have properly instead of indulging in the amusing public squabbling that lefty parties do.

invincibleirish

material dialectic and marxist theory is applied to each problem that the working class can bring along

ahem,*blushes*,i understand it.

That's the way of Irish party politics. PDs, FF and FG have no significant ideological differences and they should merge. But they deal with the differences that they do have properly instead of indulging in the amusing public squabbling that lefty parties do

yeah i know, but its similar to jpf v pfj because the 3 main lefty parties(swp,sp&wp) combined membership is still smaller then say someone like the pds for example.

invincibleirish

man,you must go and post at http://www.ogra.ie/discuss/ ,i've already made my more militant personality felt there. also thats a great(if rather cynical)dissertation on irelands parties.

sceptre

Originally posted by invincibleirish
yes,its all "peoples front of judea" vs "judean peoples front" is'nt it?

Absolutely. Applies to Irish politics in general.

Fianna/Fine whatever, progressive/permissive this and that, slightly left with a mere trace of green. Anyone whose major difference comes down to "we're everything the other shower aren't and let's remember what happened to 80 years ago" can go and shag off. At least the PDs have an economic philosophy, even if they neither understand it fully nor follow it fully. That's enough that you realise you can't trust them though. The other two main parties seem to seek direction by osmosis.

Fianna Fail have a mafia attitude that the state holds legitimacy only when they're rubber-stamping what the civil service tells them to implement, the last time they had an idea of how international finance or economics worked was around 1958. There are people in this country who will vote FF till the day they die, even when the people they're putting into power turn out to be the most corrupt group of thieving knackers since the Vikings were having a bit of a tiff with some chap from Clare in 1014. Leaving aside the rampant corrupt nature of Fianna Fail, they're failing to raise personal taxes in a time when the state of the economy clearly requires it (in order to slow down the economy if you're into Neo-classical economics (like the PDs think they are) or to splurge on government spending (if you rub yourself and think of JM Keynes)) and taking so many ill-understood economic principles from the PDs that they've no idea what they're doing and are just letting the civil service run the country. Which is good sometimes, bad most times and they're getting paid to do less than nothing most of the time and to make things worse when they do come out of coma-land for a few days.

Fine Gael have a lack of direction so horrific that it compares to how Fianna Fail run countries. They understood economics throughout the 1980s though and I give them 100 retro points for that. Retro points don't count for my vote though and Enda Kenny is doing the best impression of a caretaker leader since William Hague. When you hit a stage where you have to form focus groups to find out what your party stands for you may as well go home. Fg's raison 'etre essentially disappeared in the late 20s. They won the civil war and most of the pro-Treaty crowd moved on to considering other things - most of them in different parties or outside politics altogether. The anti-Treaty side never lost their focus and started sucking up votes by all means necessary (but see the previous paragraph for complaining about that shower)

Labour's major problem seems to be the internal debate every election time as to whether they stay a left-centerist party or strafe right to go after the trendy vote. They never make up their mind properly - when they form a coalition they seem to leave whatever brains they had to start with at the door (which worked out pretty well in the 80s but didn't work before or since)

The PDs. Ah, the PDs. We all thought it was funny to call them the Permissive Desocrats as I remember. Turned out that we were wrong. There are two types of PD voters. Trendy types who won't vote for FF any more but can't quite abandon Grandaddy who ran arms down Abbey Street for the Volunteers. They don't quite understand how this high finance stuff works but, well, Donogh sorted out the education didn't he? Then you've got the type that used to be called yuppies. Most of these vote Green (see below) but the ones that think they understand the multiplier (but actually don't) vote PD. They also fail to understand that monetarism never worked, that the Thatcher policies in Britain in the mid-80s (they they're following) created half a generation of people who were hungry when they were young and read the Sun when they got older and that neo-laissez-faire economics (Neo-Classical remixed by DJ Friedman) in a small economy can't work. Oh, I forgot. Last election we had two other groups: one large, one small. The large group thought that the PDs would be a good watchdog in protecting the celtic tiger (or at least the myth) and that's worked out perfectly well of course for all of us. The second group, small as they were, voted for the PDs because the leader was a woman. That's it, nothing else - "I voted for her because she's a woman." Which makes sense. Just as much sense as the watchdog idea. Actually, no, it makes even less sense.

The greens have that (again) eternal problem as to whether they should adopt the Gandhi or Malcolm X solution to saving the world. Again they suffer from the same problem as Labour except that they're coming from the other direction - the middle-class vote is assured, the question is how much they give away to gain seats.

The parties to the left of Labour (all that space and so few parties, even with the regular splits) suffer from a few problems: all the power-hungry types went to Labour in the hopes of buying a Passat with the councillors salary (relax lads - you lost nothing) and they're so far to the left that very few are going to vote for them. The trendy liberals who never go to Mass are propping up the Labour vote after getting over the bishops warning them about the Red menace - they're not going to be voting Marxist any time soon. it's just not going to happen for you guys - a land where people take what they need and contribute what they can and be happy together is a wonderful idea but I don't think of it as Utopia for no reason. A thesis will always create an anthithesis, even if that repressed "we need more" anthithesis is only populated with Liam Lawlors.

And then there's the shinners. Not the schtickies - the shinners. Because you see, there's a difference in marxist philosophy that made all the difference in 1970-odd when Gerry Adams wasn't allowed into the Ard Fheis and later went on to be Leader anyway. Bombing Brits became the deciding socialist philosophy that made the difference forever in the end (it's why I've not put them in with the Left parties - Joe Higgins doesn't organise knee-capping of a Sunday AFAIK). These days they pick up the usual wackos with half a pound of semtex in the basement, and some normal people - urbanites who won't vote FF (because they've made a mess you see) and can't vote FG (because they're traitors apparently and wear shirts of the blue variety)

Obviously all Dail-represented parties have quite a few competent members, may have a few competent councillors and some even have competent TDs (FF have at least one, FG have at least two, Labour at least two, Greens more than one, I'm sure I can think of someone from the PDs if you give me a week)

Can anyone sane even identify with these people though? Unless of course you're the great-grandniece of someone famous (which makes no sense at all obviously), grew up "within the party" (what are you, some kind of pea living in the pod?) or are the kind of schitzophrenic who manages to agree with most of the philosophies of almost any of the parties above, what would possess you to sign on the dotted line? A bribe?

I don't agree with Eomar's philosophy but I can really respect the guy. Stands on his principles and all that and can defend his own position competently in the face of opposition. That's something I can respect.

Meanwhile, idiots standing up in public, coming into my living room or posting on boards willing to defend their own bunch of idiots to the death even when people are poking holes large enough to drive a tank through and that even a five-year-old with half a working brain can spot, that's a different story. You're going to get yours, even if I have to do it myself. It's annoying. No really, it's really blimmin annoying.

invincibleirish

im a tad confused,i read the above post then posted the link to ogra,yet its the otherway around?must be technical heebeegeebies...........