time for a new party?

ivan087

FF + FG are the same, thinking along the same lines, the only difference relates to 80 years ago.
FF + PD are the same, ruling very comfortably for 10 years.
SF, less said the better.
Labour, a sleeping giant who just wont get their act together, trying to be too mainstream.
Is it time for a new party that will put an end to the FF+FG+PD love in with business and the upper class. Is there a need for a new party that can provide a real alternative and put real energy into social issues such as health, education and the enviornment? a party that isnt conservative. or are we always going to be subject to career politicans?
who would you vote for and why?
can someone tell me the difference in political thinking between FF+FG (minus the civil war)?

Zombrex

ivan087 wrote:

FF + FG are the same, thinking along the same lines, the only difference relates to 80 years ago.
FF + PD are the same, ruling very comfortably for 10 years.
SF, less said the better.
Labour, a sleeping giant who just wont get their act together, trying to be too mainstream.
Is it time for a new party that will put an end to the FF+FG+PD love in with business and the upper class. Is there a need for a new party that can provide a real alternative and put real energy into social issues such as health, education and the enviornment? a party that isnt conservative. or are we always going to be subject to career politicans?
who would you vote for and why?
can someone tell me the difference in political thinking between FF+FG (minus the civil war)?

Sounds like you are talking about Labour (ie more left wing than FF and FG)

Gurgle

I see it like this
- Parties and their election campaigns are funded by political donations
- A party which gets into power owes 'favours' to their sponsors
- Individuals within the party are instructed by the party on how to vote, as party members they are not allowed to vote as they see fit.
- Party acts in the interests of its sponsors, not its voters
Thats not democracy.

On the other hand
- An independant candidate usually runs for election to promote particular issues
- An independant gets votes from people who support their issues
- When it comes to a vote in the Dail, the independants make the decision themselves, based on whether its a 'good thing' they are voting for, or at least something that will benefit their issues

So I'll never vote for any party again, and I'll choose which independants to vote for based on their chosen crusades.

ivan087

well labour do seem like the answer. But when the country is crying out about health, education and other social issues. Why is it that the two conservative parties are always leading? Why isnt labour leading a coalition? We had such an opportunity to make this country much more then it is. We had the opportunity to become another Sweden or Finland. But it has all gone to waste. Money has been thrown into every department, but with no results. I've really become bitter with FF, FG and the PDs. We have wasted the past 10 years. And believe me, come next year we will see FF+PDs back into power. We seem scared to vote for anyone else, to change the direction that we are heading in. Even though every person I talk to on this issue, moans about health care, transport, EVERYTHING to do with this Government, nobody is willing to change.

ivan087

couldnt agree more gurgle. then shouldnt political donations be stopped? is that the route of the problem?
I happen to think the problem is with the actual politicians that are in FF+FG. I think politicans in the PDs, SF, workers and to some degree labour, have a passion, and a belief for what they believe in. Those that are in FF+FG are there because its a career, its what daddy did, they do it for the money. they're not real politicans, they're businessmen and women. they join FF+FG because they know it will lead to power. Those in other, smaller parties, really have to struggle to get their point across. power isnt as immediate.

Dave!

Yeah I agree, I was actually thinking about this recently. Is there strict guidelines on starting political parties, which prevents new ones being started easily? Or are there actually hundreds of parties but they're just so small that you don't hear about them?

There should definitely be a new party with the balls to stick to their guns and use common sense rather than playing it safe and winning the granny votes.

dathi1

well labour do seem like the answer

This is the same party who cast the die with Nice on exclusive uncontrolled immigration with their Union counterparts and now have the cheek to fight for "workers rights" etc.
Civil war politics, neo liberal europhiles and gravy train merchants. FF FG Lab SF and get sick...the greens.

We need a proper Irish National Party who will fight the overpowering encroachment of Brussels and keep controls on our borders. A Free market economy but not to the detriment and living standards of Irish nationals. Some along the lines of Pym Fotyn's Party in Holland.

ivan087

The last thing we need is an irish nationlist party. Inward thinking, nationalist parties are well served by sinn fein. the answer isnt about trying to stop brussals. the EU could be a very good thing, but what we need is more interest in european politics and more democracy in europe (which was outlined in the european constitution, if only more people read it for what it is and not for what they think it might mean.)
i hope we dont go down the same road as the UK. we're a small nation who is dependent on the EU. we should be fighting from the inside, not moaning from the outside.
its funny that those same people that are worried about the influx of latvians and polish are not upset by the number of english, scottish and northern irish that come here to work.

dathi1

or we could go down the same road as...
A country on the north west peripherals of Europe. rain and snow very bad weather. A new IT led market economy..A sizeable polish Immigrant worker force (with controls) and The fastest growing economy 13% last year....where??? Iceland.

Inward thinking, nationalist parties are well served by sinn fein.

The word inward thinking and Irish nationalism is something a europhile hack would come up with. Without nationalism we would still be an appendage of the UK.
Sinn Fein and labour are the same on social policies. Both favour market controls and are pro uncontrolled immigration (despite the window dressing labour rants recently) The EU constitution is a joke and as recent polls have suggested here it would be defeated here too. But of course labour would favour a Nice style rerun...anything to get bums on seats in Brussels. Sure look at rabbit and DeRosssa....Both anti europe anti Maastricht when they were radicals...now big time gravy train merchants.

ivan087

its hard to refute anything that youve said. But countries like norway and iceland still have to follow alot of what the EU says, in order to be in line with most of europe. my argument is that it is better to be debating this in brussals. What has the EU done that is so bad? nothing! honestly, how are we suffering from membership and increased integration? What ithe EU needs is more democracy and less bureaucratic nonsense. I'm not a europhile, but your missing the point that all our IT jobs are mainly from US companys setting up european offices (google, microsoft etc) that are here because of 3 reasons -tax, english speaking and membership of the EU. i havent really heard a good argument for leaving the eu. i might be wrong, but alot of it seems to be just nationalistic nonsense.

John Doe

Depends what you want in your new party. A little country like ours is never going to be able to vary too much from world opinion i.e. US opinion on lots of things. And any new political party will probably end up like the others. What we need is a bloody revolution, after which I can rule over you all with an iron fist.

dathi1

that are here because of 3 reasons -tax, english speaking and membership of the EU. i havent really heard a good argument for leaving the eu. i might be wrong, but alot of it seems to be just nationalistic nonsense.

...now I agree with you on the first bit:

1. tax, The mother of all, reasons (who's trying to curb out 12% corp tax rate??)
2. English Speaking ...Yes
3. membership of the EU I've no problem with that but without a federal Europe (which labour seem to favour.EU constitution etc)
So there's nothing to fear from Nationalism as a matter of fact it can be quite forward looking
I'm not suggesting a Vans Block or LePenn 30s style party just something progressive along the lines of Portyn.

Ok who's joining???? dathi1......Irish national Party enrolling now...:D ..something different for a change

ivan087

ivan087 wrote:

can someone tell me the difference in political thinking between FF+FG (minus the civil war)?

Think you'll find substantial differences in their attitude to the Northern problem. For many in FF, it remains a very important issue.

On the other hand I note the OP doesn't rate it that highly...

Zombrex

dathi1 wrote:

Ok who's joining???? dathi1......Irish national Party enrolling now...:D ..something different for a change

I would avoid calling it the Irish National Party .. kinda brings up images of black people getting knifed at bus stops and marches with slogans like "They took our jobs!" ala South Park ...

Cronus333

Im happy where I am thanks. but good luck anyway!!!

Sand

Youre not going to get any support worth mentioning trying to go left of Labour. Well, not since SFIRA have monopolised the unemployed marxists vote. Talking about the upper classes - what upper classes? The political power, and the cheque book lie with the middle classes. Its is not a question of the working class outnumbering the well off and outvoting them to demand more spending anymore. The middle class are the majority, and increased social spending etc has to be asked, not demanded from them. Labour have come centrist, and SFIRA are trying to follow them somewhat because youre not going to get elected by promising to raise taxes on the middle classes.

As for a nationalist party? The last thing a tiny open economy completely dependant on trade needs is a nationalist party.

dathi1

The middle class are the majority, and increased social spending etc has to be asked, not demanded from them.

This would be the INP motto....we'd cut back heavily on the 500million a year on illegal immigration expenses for a start.(housing, Court cases, Health etc) Not do a Harney (the minister for mushrooms) and confront the Health Unions head on abd streamline the sector to the benefit of everybody.

As for a nationalist party? The last thing a tiny open economy completely dependant on trade needs is a nationalist party.

what...somehow trade and nationalism don't go hand in hand?? India where are ye.
ps: Iceland is quite tiny too.

DublinWriter

ivan087 wrote:

can someone tell me the difference in political thinking between FF+FG (minus the civil war)?

I was thinking about starting a thread on this recently. To me, there isn't a difference between FF and FG, except for the perception that FG are more representitive of the middle-classes and FF go for the populist vote and and prepared to bunny-hop between centre-left and centre-right as the prevailing wind blows.

As for Labour? Don't make me laugh. They lost all their credibility when they went into coalition with FF. Rabbitte is facing a serious backlash from his parties members regarding his recent comments about Polish immigrants.

I think we need a 'true' centerist party here, along the lines of the Lib Dems in the UK.

The appetite for a new party is strong, I remember when the PD's first got going and had their first meeting in Sutton - there were traffic jams of people trying to get access.

I believe that the time is right for some new political party on this Island. People are sick and tired of the same old civil war schisms (FF & FG) with the minor players (Lab and PDs) acting as power brokers.

ISAW

Gurgle wrote:

I see it like this
- Parties and their election campaigns are funded by political donations
- A party which gets into power owes 'favours' to their sponsors
- Individuals within the party are instructed by the party on how to vote, as party members they are not allowed to vote as they see fit.
- Party acts in the interests of its sponsors, not its voters
Thats not democracy.

I dont see it like that at all. I think a system where if you wanted to pass a law everyone in the country who wanted to express an opinion would arrive in Dublin and have their say would be practically impossible. So we have representatives to represent particular areas.

A house of independents carries the same problem as not having the representatives in the first place.
It is in the nature for representative democracies to form parties. They are not mentioned in the constitution. But it is natural for people with braod interests to establish a party. In America it ws the Federalists and the Anti Federalsts which evolved to the Democrats and Republicans. In Britian teh Whigs and the Liberals ...and so on. In Ireland it was the pro Treaty and Antio Treaty that evolved to the the two big parties.


Other commonalities carried over. Much of the base of the anti treaty people were the small farmer and the worker and FF draw more from the working class wheras FG draw more from the large Farmer (indeed they incorporated the Farmers party).

Anyway, only a large group can get a majority. The people who make up that group (TD's) are the DIRECT sponsors of the governemnt. Whether they are bribed, corrupt, freemasons, oups dei or whatever their VOTERS can still remove them should they wish. and it is NOT only in elections that voters count. If constituents have problems any TD would be silly to ignore them.

All party members are NOT constitutionally bound to any party. They can walk away and remain a TD at any time! Indeed independants are bound by their party the "technical group". If they walk away they will lose whip and hence the influence they have at party meetings in setting the agenda and they will lost the time and opportunity to go on the record of the house as this is negotiated with the whips. Tehy will also lose about half the votes they got last time. But they can still walk away.

On the other hand
- An independant candidate usually runs for election to promote particular issues

And Neil Blaney stated that a house of independants would be unworkable.

- An independant gets votes from people who support their issues
- When it comes to a vote in the Dail, the independants make the decision themselves, based on whether its a 'good thing' they are voting for, or at least something that will benefit their issues

You are not talking about independent vortes here you are talking about whipless voting. FF FG etc. all do that in Europe. their parties STILL have policies however.

So I'll never vote for any party again, and I'll choose which independants to vote for based on their chosen crusades.

And you will have no voice at all as the party guy is more likely to be elected or you may have no independent in you constituency.

It isnt all about how people vote or passing laws by the way. Politicians do a lot of talking to public servants and can cut red tape or argue a case for people. The colombia Three case didnt involve passing any laws. Pols can also get and disperse information. for example to constituents or for example in inviting business, cultural groups etc. to address a committee. The also take part in public debate in the media (not necessarily all on government policy).

constitutionus

DublinWriter wrote:

As for Labour? Don't make me laugh. They lost all their credibility when they went into coalition with FF. Rabbitte is facing a serious backlash from his parties members regarding his recent comments about Polish immigrants.

TRUE. i havent forgiven labour for stabbing me in the back in '91. i really dont give a monkeys about rabbittes comments because its pure spin machiene now with an election looming and i WAS leaning towards voting labour because the '91 thing was under spring, then quinn gave bertie the day off in the dail to retain speaking rights over the technical group which put me off em and then Rabbitte, after making a LOT of noise about the bin taxes being double taxation (and they are boys and girls, thats what you pay taxes for, public services:D ) let dermott lacy the LABOUR lord mayor bring em in (not only voted for em, used his CASTING vote to sway it:mad: ) and didnt even pretend to admonish him for it.

labour SHOULD be the party i vote for next time, but the truth is you just cant trust the lying sods:(

dublinwriter wrote:

The appetite for a new party is strong, I remember when the PD's first got going

ya got that right, if memory serves they got 20 seats first time out. if someone else can capitalise on this resentment they'd be king makers at the next election. hell why do you think there are so many independants? its not inconceivable the technical group could shore up an FF gov.:)

ISAW

ivan087 wrote:

couldnt agree more gurgle. then shouldnt political donations be stopped? is that the route of the problem?

You cant tell people they shouldnt support any party. Well you can but you cant force them to keep their own money or effort.

I happen to think the problem is with the actual politicians that are in FF+FG.

And about 75 per cent of the country directly disagrees with you by voting FF and FG! and most of the remaining 25 do not necessarily agree with you either.

I think politicans in the PDs, SF, workers and to some degree labour, have a passion, and a belief for what they believe in. Those that are in FF+FG are there because its a career, its what daddy did, they do it for the money.

Oh so all the others just keep enough to live on and give all their money away because they are so committed? Come on you must be joking?

they're not real politicans, they're businessmen and women.

GP reps have share portfolios - a far sight from where many FF or FG people come from.

SF leader gives a speech to bankers

Lab TDs have big yachts in the garden and membership of Howth and Dun Laoghaire Yacht club.

Yeah right. Like only FF anf FG have these people.

they join FF+FG because they know it will lead to power. Those in other, smaller parties, really have to struggle to get their point across. power isnt as immediate.

Not quite true. They have to struggle to speak in the Dail (unless they are in the technical group). Many independants and GP have safe seats. many many FF people ran once and didnt get in or got in and lost the seat. FF probably retained the seat however with a running mate. One thing you state is true. Power is not alone never immediate for independants ultimatley they have NO POWER. they never get into governemnt. the best they can hope fopr them is for a government to depend on their vote and buy they off by doing a lot for their issues or their constituents. How can you claim that doing that is any better than the "sponsors" you began by slating?

RainyDay

The main reason why I suspect a new party will NOT get off the ground is simply the amount of work that this would take. This kind of thing doesn't happen with few postings on a bulletin board. You'd want to have a core of very committed activists who are prepared to drop everything else and take this on. They would be out 6 nights a week at meetings, and would be spending a couple of hours of their working day on phone calls. It would cost them a fortune in petrol and phone costs. They would probably end up divorced. Any takers for this attractive unpaid role?

A vote for an independent is a gamble. If they end up holding the balance of power (like 1997-2002), they can be very influential. If they don't (like now), they have almost zero influence.

Cork

If a new party put forwar a decent set of policies then they might be a platform for it.

The weakness with Fg and Labour is that they have come up with nothing new.

SF are a joke and the IMC report should be required reading.

There is a good space for a new party.

Fine Gaeler

There is no need for a new party.There is a party out there for everybody.

Fianna Fail cover all positions from the centre-left to the centre-right and will lean one way or another depending on the opinion polls.This has often proven disasterous for Ireland i.e the economic war, the 1977 giveaway budget the disgraceful spending splurge in 2002 followed by 32 stealth taxes.

Fine Gael on the other hand go no further to the left than the very centre and no further right than the centre right.They adopt positions that they believe are right for Ireland in the long-term. They won't fcuk up the economy by introducing measures designed to get them passed the next election.

The other parties need no explanations.

Having two dominant parties largely of the centre has been good for Ireland.It means the majority are represented accurately in both the Government and the opposition.If all we had in opposition was a socialist party and Sinn Fein, those disatisfied with the current FF/PD Government would have no viable alternative.They'd have to re-elect a Government that was wasting their money and dragging the country in a direction they didn't agree with.Having centrists like FG in opposition means a viable government can be built around them.

The same goes in England. The Tories were too far to the right to be taken seriosly until Cameron came along. He moved them closer to the centre, closer to the New Labour model and now they are seen as a workable alternative.Crazy policies adopted for the skae of being different won't get a party into Government.Maturity and a centrist outlook are key for an opposition serious about getting back into Government.

shuushh

This is the same party who cast the die with Nice on exclusive uncontrolled immigration with their Union counterparts and now have the cheek to fight for "workers rights" etc.

yes the pure cheek of fighting for the rights of fellow human beings I mean honestly will someone please control these hypocrites

ronbyrne2005

i think theres enough parties .if irish people really were moving to the left they would be an increase in labours ratings in opinion polls,in reality although irish people shout about childcare healthcare social capital etc its all for selfish reasons,they think the current government will continue to fill their pockets through continued economic growth and the majority are anti immigration so they wont vote for a party like labour.

a new party should be like the lib dems with some high calibre people from private sector with experience of managing things,take the best of all the parties and brand it well and move away from the civil war legacy, parish pump politics and history of corruption nepotism and cronyism.
the policies should focus on the best solutions for the majority of people while protecting minorites/the vunerable and aim to make ireland more egalitarian and the economy sustainable in the long term.policies should cater for enviromental concerns(i dont see need for a stand alone green party) and vested interests shouldnt have much influence.
it only takes a few seats to get into government like the PD's have shown,then from this the party could be built over years to become a dominant one.

dathi1

yes the pure cheek of fighting for the rights of fellow human beings I mean honestly will someone please control these hypocrites

No I dont see the irony :rolleyes: they took away their rights by leading them down the garden path and now claim to be fighting for the very same rights. The labour party my ass.

Fine Gaeler

Fine Gaeler wrote:

They won't fcuk up the economy by introducing measures designed to get them passed the next election.

1982-1987 showed them to be so inept as to be incapable of putting any spin on the figures or putting anything in the bank for a giveaway budget. It's hard to massage facts like doubling the national debt, quarter of a million unemployed, Irish citizens having a higher debt per head than any third world country, over 30,000 a year fleeing the country etc. etc. And that doesn't leave much in the kitty to throw at the voters.

Ah well, I do believe the more recent FG/Labour government did up pensions by £1.50 a week. I guess that was another admirable refusal to buy votes!!

But I agree with the main premise of your post, we have enough parties to cover the bases. The congestion in the centre midfield is because Labour simply won't stay on the left wing...

Cork

Fine Gaeler wrote:

They won't fcuk up the economy by introducing measures designed to get them passed the next election..

Arguements with Labour on the Great Southern Hotels is not a great sign.

Fg and Labour have still to come up with a joint policy platform.

It is taking them long enough.

The_Minister

Fine Gaeler wrote:

Fine Gael on the other hand go no further to the left than the very centre and no further right than the centre right.They adopt positions that they believe are right for Ireland in the long-term. They won't fcuk up the economy by introducing measures designed to get them passed the next election.

bollocks. (FYI Fine Gael are Irelands most conservative elected party. not that there is anything wrong with that)

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

move away from the civil war legacy, parish pump politics and history of corruption nepotism and cronyism.

They won't get elected

Cork wrote:

Arguements with Labour on the Great Southern Hotels is not a great sign.

Fg and Labour have still to come up with a joint policy platform.

It is taking them long enough..

They can't they're just desperate for power. If they come up with anything then Labour votes will desert them. They are too far apart.

constitutionus

dathi1 wrote:

No I dont see the irony :rolleyes: they took away their rights by leading them down the garden path and now claim to be fighting for the very same rights. The labour party my ass.

indeed, im starting to think you could sue the labour party for false advertising. "labour" is the last thing they care about , maybe they should rename themselves " the public sector party":D seems more appropriate