What Irish political party would you like to see disappear and why?

RedPlanet

Granted SF appear militant and socialist but Fascist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasist
Give me a break!:rolleyes:

FG & FF. I think it would be healthier for Irish politics if the two main parties had actual policy rather than just historical differences.

ScottishDanny

I personally don't think 'getting rid of' political parties sounds very healthy but if we're going to bandy around terms like Fascist let remember the original Fascists in Irish politics

Fine Gael was founded on 3 September 1933 following the merger of Cumann na nGaedhael, the Centre Party and the Army Comrades Association, a quasi-fascist group popularly known as the 'Blueshirts'.

Makes you wonder why a 'socialist' party like Labour would cosy up with them? (I would be a trad Labour supporter but not in a coalition with FG).

Then theres the PD's, they won't even put up candidates for the European arliament because they know they've no popular support yet they're in government!

Raskolnikov

The PD's without a doubt for their Nazi-like policies and the erosion of civil liberties. Of course it's not overtly militant and isn't as quick to don the jackboots as traditional fascism; but it is most surely enroaching on Irish political and civil freedoms.

Cronus333

Raskolnikov wrote:

The PD's without a doubt for their Nazi-like policies and the erosion of civil liberties. Of course it's not overtly militant and isn't as quick to don the jackboots as traditional fascism; but it is most surely enroaching on Irish political and civil freedoms.

I'd better tell the membership. We are all convinced we are a liberal party. *slaps forehead* silly us.
I've said it before I'll say it again: the PDs are a liberal party. Don't dismiss them, or indeed any other party, because it suits you to label them with an ideology that even you admit is untrue.

jjbrien

God would people ever leave this blue shirt stuff to bed. The modern FG party is completly diffrent from thoese of 1933. They were diffrent times. Same goes for all the political parties. Most of the people who were blueshirts are dead and so are their ideas.

Raskolnikov

Cronus333 wrote:

I'd better tell the membership. We are all convinced we are a liberal party. *slaps forehead* silly us.
I've said it before I'll say it again: the PDs are a liberal party. Don't dismiss them, or indeed any other party, because it suits you to label them with an ideology that even you admit is untrue.

I never claimed that the PD's were wholly fascist, however; some of their policies are not a million miles apart from each other.

Wiki comes up with its definition of Liberalism, I don't really see how that paralells with the PD political ideal.

Cronus333

Cronus333 wrote:

I'd better tell the membership. We are all convinced we are a liberal party. *slaps forehead* silly us.
I've said it before I'll say it again: the PDs are a liberal party. Don't dismiss them, or indeed any other party, because it suits you to label them with an ideology that even you admit is untrue.

It'd be great if the PDs were. I'd really consider voting for them, but McDowell's actions as Ministers for Justice don't to me seem consistent with someone who considers themselves a social liberal. His continued expansion of the government's sphere of influence seem entirely counter to the basic tenants of liberalism. As long as he remains so influential, I won't be voting for the PDs. How exactly could banning people from using magic mushrooms in the privacy of their own homes be considered liberal?

Economic liberalism alone is not liberalism

samb

Collie D wrote:

I would definitely consider it wrong for a member of the working class to vote PD. But then again, that's what democracy is all about but I can't imagine they get many votes in working class areas, remember one ran for the Dail in my constituency and polled a very small number of votes - can't remember how many but it was pathetically low for a government party.

Wasn't there data publlished recently that said that the voters of the Green's are richest, and not the PD,s as we may have suspected. Perhaps these wealthy Greens have realised that there is more to life than personal wealth and want a healthier society. Perhaps it is only those who aspire to be wealthy that vote PD in hope of achieving that aim.

Malone

Yawn another anti Sinn Fein thread.

Húrin

darkman2 wrote:

A 'policy sheet' on Energy Issues - thats gong to run the country is it. Can you tell me about their economic policy?

Well you said they do nothing but object, I proved you wrong and now you want more?

Okay, but "economic policy" is a vague term. Almost everything is related to economic policy to some degree. What issues are you thinking of?

Deleted User wrote:

What a new an incisive argument.

Let me dust down the 'green are all hippies in sandals with beards who mop up all the ugly chicks' line in rebuttal.

What are the defining differences between FF and FG? It seems that when the one swings left, the other swings right and vice versa. Even still they agree on most issues.

Deleted User wrote:

FG & FF. I think it would be healthier for Irish politics if the two main parties had actual policy rather than just historical differences.

That's what I mean.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

This centrist guff is just a matter of saying, "I don't have a view."

Not really. It's an ideological middle ground.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Spurious,
SF are fascist; they "protect" areas. People vote for them because they support their ideology.

FF, FG and the PDs are not the same. They exist independently because their subtle gradations of neo-liberalism are required by a people who want choice - minor differences - within that overall ideology.

SF are not fascist. I dislike almost everything about them, but at least they put rhetorical emphasis on tackling crime, which is what some other parties, including the Greens, fail to do.

Even calling the PDs neo-liberal is a bit of a stretch. Typically neo-liberals want to get rid of public spending, not increase it.

ScottishDanny wrote:

Makes you wonder why a 'socialist' party like Labour would cosy up with them? (I would be a trad Labour supporter but not in a coalition with FG).

Ancient history. After WWII in Europe anything remotely fascist has generally been political suicide.

Raskolnikov wrote:

The PD's without a doubt for their Nazi-like policies and the erosion of civil liberties.

Ridiculous. You get the Godwin award.

whassupp2

Sinn Féin (and thats without having read any of the previous posts in this thread)

Ray777

I wouldn't like to see any party disappear, but I do think Fianna Fail and the PDs could do with a lengthy stretch in opposition.

Time Magazine

ScottishDanny wrote:

let remember the original Fascists in Irish politics

Makes you wonder why a 'socialist' party like Labour would cosy up with them?

Because the Blueshirts were no more than, as you say, no more than quasi-fascist. Furthermore, they were quasi-fascist; and any historian will accept that they'd lost their extremist stance by the time the true horrors of fascism were realised. The merger with Fine Gael satisfied and silenced the disgusting views of some of the extremsits. Would you consider it more politically prudent to allow them free-reign as a group alone, or to effectively normalise their views within a respectable view? Would that aid you in giving a Fine Gael candidate in 2007 a vote?

You failed to italicise that Fine Gael were formed of a merger of Cumman na nGaedheal and the Centre Party. The Centre Party, you can't really get further from fascism for God's sake (see Earthman's sig if you need explanation). Cumman na nGaedheal were also the party who ensured a strong democracy in this state - to their own obvious detriment - with a Electoral Ammendment Act, 1927. Hardly the Beerhall Putsch now, was it?

So, basically, approximately ten percent of the merger of Fine Gael were quasi-fascist.

Seventy years ago.

OMGZ Hitlers!

Really lads... on my sleeve?

ScottishDanny

Good morning to apologists of fascism everywhere!

Here's what I originally said

if we're going to bandy around terms like Fascist let remember the original Fascists in Irish politics

My point being - the F word is used so much its original meaning is becoming diluted.

Ancient history. After WWII in Europe anything remotely fascist has generally been political suicide.

I don't know if you've noticed but the extreme right is on the rise in Europe right now, though thankfully not here.

So, basically, approximately ten percent of the merger of Fine Gael were quasi-fascist.

What is the safe number of fascists (quasi or otherwise) to have in a party?

That ten percent included O'Duffy as the first leader, who had unsuccessfully attempted a march in Dublin, inspired by Mussolini's Fascist March on Rome when he took power in Italy and interpreted by the government at the time as such and subsequently banned.

For the record, I do not consider the modern FG to be a Fascist organisation, just a centre right party which is why it seems strange to me that they would have a pre-election pact with Labour as they would be ideoligally at odds if they are what they say they are.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

ScottishDanny wrote:

I don't know if you've noticed but the extreme right is on the rise in Europe right now, though thankfully not here.

The venerable Kilroy-Silk springs to mind:p

ScottishDanny

The venerable Kilroy-Silk springs to mind

he deserves his own thread/forum!

Politics from nearly a 100 years ago is irrelevant relative to the here and now.
It's a history discussion.
Ergo this discussion on fascism back then whilst interesting is only a discussion on a different time.

If anybody wants to talk about fascism in todays politics here,talk about it as it exists today or open another thread or the bits of this thread will be moved to a new one and probably moved to the history board.

Thank you all.

Sgt. Sensible

Earthman wrote:

I dont believe in this "class" bull either, we all sit on the same toilet and we can all get up off it and out there and make as much or more money than the next if we put our mind to it.

The toilets in places like Gonzaga and Clongowes are much much nicer than most other schools in the country, otherwise I'd guess that the mummies and daddies of Killiney or wherever wouldn't bother shelling out 4k a year to send their little darlings there.

Jackie laughlin

I don't use the word "fascist" lightly in relation to SF. They are disciplined, have an army which marched in Dublin just a few months ago, undemocratically rule deprived areas, and are authoritarian. I could go on but it's not necessary.

As regards their policies, they will say ANYTHING: socialism in Ireland, "nationalism" in the States.


There is nothing unusual about ideologically opposed parties forming a coalition.

There is a misunderstanding somewhere above about liberalism, neo-liberalism and the PDs. The purpose of neo-liberalism is not to cut public spending but to enrich the ruling classes. Hence an increase in public spending is not contrary to their position as long as the public money goes into private hands. Neo-liberalism is essentially about restoring class power and income differentials which have been eroded. Sit back and watch as inequality returns to the levels of the 1st half of the 20th century or reject this nonsense.

Now 2 things need to be added before the usual myths are posted in response. Poverty is not an absolute but a relative concept. Neo-liberalism is NOT productive: world productivity is a fraction of what it was a few decades ago.

I have to accept but don't like the fact of popular political sentiment in Ireland. If the VAST majority of the Irish people are wedded to neo-liberalism, it is hardly surprising that they will require degrees of choice within that position and marginally different parties to reflect the choice required.

oscarBravo

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

The toilets in places like Gonzaga and Clongowes are much much nicer than most other schools in the country, otherwise I'd guess that the mummies and daddies of Killiney or wherever wouldn't bother shelling out 4k a year to send their little darlings there.

Reading this in the context of your sig is kinda funny.

westtip

Ray777 wrote:

I wouldn't like to see any party disappear, but I do think Fianna Fail and the PDs could do with a lengthy stretch in opposition.

some of them could do with a lengthy stretch in mountjoy - (but mostly thoses in local government).

Húrin

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The purpose of neo-liberalism is not to cut public spending but to enrich the ruling classes. Hence an increase in public spending is not contrary to their position as long as the public money goes into private hands. Neo-liberalism is essentially about restoring class power and income differentials which have been eroded.

Where are you getting this from?

oscarBravo

Malone wrote:

Yawn another anti Sinn Fein thread.

Just spotted this. Leaving aside the fact that, pretty much every party in the country having been proposed for abolition by this point in the thread, seeing it as anti-SF has got to be the most amazing expression of insecurity I've seen in a while, your contribution was less than constructive. Feel free to contribute something worthwhile or stay out of it.

Bateman

After much thought it would have to be FF. The way they have mastered the art of saying everything and saying nothing, pulling in large bulk sectors of all classes of society as they say it, means that if they were to disappear, the landscape would be a lot more defined, people would have to be more consistent on a lot of issues.

I was going to say PDs but they are on the way out anyway IMO.

Jackie laughlin

Jackie laughlin wrote:

world productivity is a fraction of what it was a few decades ago.

Source?

Sgt. Sensible

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

The toilets in places like Gonzaga and Clongowes are much much nicer than most other schools in the country

Source?

Sgt. Sensible

oscarBravo wrote:

Reading this in the context of your sig is kinda funny.

Why?

Aidan1

The purpose of neo-liberalism is not to cut public spending but to enrich the ruling classes

Classic case of confusing 'purpose', with 'effect'. Of course, the fact that liberalism tends to enrich everyone, just at different rates, is often lost on people. Also, 'cutting public spending' is a secondary issue (though a handy by product) of modern neo-liberalism, the real purpose is to drive efficiencies in the public sector and to remove barriers to competition, including freeing up previously closed sections of the market to competition. More to the point, in the recent history of neo-liberalism in Europe, most such Governments have only managed to stop the growth of public spending, rather than actually reduce it.

Much of the socialist ideology espoused in this country stems as much from the politics of begrudgery and envy as from classic marxism/leninism or whatever. Could just as easily be called the "Him down the road has a new car, why didn't I get one!?!" syndrome. All the PDs are suggesting is that, if you are prepared to work hard, then perhaps you may deserve a reward for it. And, moreover, that if you do so, and are thusly incentivised, then perhaps everyone will benefit. Mad idea I know.

It is the de-facto stance of most politics in this state, thanks to the simple fact that, well, it works. Even Labour, after a fashion, have accepted this.

oscarBravo

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Why?

I've got an oblique sense of humour.