What can we do?

lostexpectation

karen3212 wrote: »

Honestly, if you don't think you'd be a persuasive politician, then I think if you want to do good, start by talking to the people in your area. If people are interested in what you want to change, set up a charity and work away from there.

tbh arrange your affairs so as that all the doe you'd pay in taxes go instead to you and your good work. That's the only suggestions I have for you.

don't set up a charity, or maybe karen meant an ngo, set up ro join a community group, set something up to sort any probs or improve the life of people in your area,your peers, with your community.

djpbarry

Tristrame wrote: »

If eejits are willing to pay one fifty for a cup of tea then by God us Irish will charge it and Two fifty if we thought we'd get away with it...

I'm not going to dispute that - I couldn't agree more in fact. As you say, the reason the cost of living is so high in this country is because people have far too much money to throw around.

Tristrame wrote: »

Even I realise that the billions needed for infrastructure should be spent in the major centres first and that we've only started having the resources to spend in the last decade unlike other countries.

But it's not being spent in the major centres, it's being spent in the major centre, i.e. Dublin. What worries me is that it is not being spent wisely and the funds will dry up (to some degree) eventually. In fact, that point has already been reached. I'm not even going to get started on the actual project management...

Tristrame wrote: »

Catch up takes a long time,it's unrealistic to expect everything now.

Catch up should not take that long - we are only a small country after all. Infrastructural projects in this country take an inordinate length of time to complete compared to other countries. For example, the Øresund Bridge between Sweden and Denmark was completed in 4 years. Compare that to the farcical situation that presently exists in relation to the M50 in Dublin - 22 years on and it's still not finished.

nesf

djpbarry wrote: »

But it's not being spent in the major centres, it's being spent in the major centre, i.e. Dublin.

In fairness, the infrastructure has improved outside of Dublin. A very large chuck of the funds are spent in Dublin but then, a stupidly large proportion of the population live/work there.

djpbarry

nesf wrote: »

In fairness, the infrastructure has improved outside of Dublin.

I'm not saying it hasn't improved, what I'm saying is most of the big infrastructural spending is spent in and around Dublin and that has to change.

nesf wrote: »

A very large chuck of the funds are spent in Dublin but then, a stupidly large proportion of the population live/work there.

But if more money was invested in the likes of Cork and Galway then the population would not be so heavily skewed towards the East coast.

Ah Cork has a super dooper road structure,the lynch tunnell,the Kinsale fly over,a superb ring road,a branty new airport terminal and lots lots more.Thats tonnes of investment
They don't have a Dart or a Luas but not many centres with circa 200,000 people in their catchment area do.Theres a super dual carriage way from Limerick almost to the Galway border.

I agree regarding the inordinate length of time it takes to get projects going.
Sometimes,I'd just like to go into the offices where these things are organised and see what pen pushing goes on...

nesf

djpbarry wrote: »

But if more money was invested in the likes of Cork and Galway then the population would not be so heavily skewed towards the East coast.

Perhaps but it's hard to justify not fixing the current issues on the east coast tbh.

Sleepy

saibhne wrote: »

Well that's it in a nut shell - just give your input, Act. Stop blaming others (Political parties etc..) for the woes of society - in a democracy we are all responsible for the state of the nation it's not a "them and us scenario" it's just "us" at the end of the day so we must all strive firstly on an individual basis to do the best we can to make society something we can live with.

Not everyone does this but if you have identified the problem then you have no option than to confront it in real terms or else let it grate away at you. I was once very anti-political, thinking much like your self that the party system we enjoy is corrupt and ineffective - and it is, but I came to the conclusion that it's the only system we have. You have to play the game your way or let the game play you.

My frustration like yours boiled over and I eventually joined a political party to see if there was anything that could be done from the inside, to my surprise I found it very satisfying and feel I have since been directly part of a few small victories for my conscience. You don't need charisma or money, god knows I lack plenty of each but if you have an honest desire to effect positive change, energy to dedicate to it and a lot of patience then you have all you need.

Sleepy do what you can - that's all you can do.

If there was a political party I identified with, I'd join it. Unfortunately for me, such a party doesn't exist.

I think the most frustrating part of our situation is that most of the steps to a working democracy are blatantly obvious - reduced no's of TD's etc.

nesf

Sleepy wrote: »

If there was a political party I identified with, I'd join it. Unfortunately for me, such a party doesn't exist.

It's rare that people can identify completely with a party. Normally you have to compromise on it.

SeanW

The first thing, for sure - is to never cast a vote for the PDs again. Whatever libertarian good government credentials they may have had in the past, today, they're nothing more than a neo-con, authoritarian-right version of FF. They were the only party contesting my constituency not to get a mention on my ballot paper this election just gone.

The second thing you could do would be to join and campaign for the party you identified the most with. In my case, were I so inclined, that would be Fine Gael, but I'd never vote for them in the Euro elections because they're part of the right wing European Peoples Party.

Sleepy

nesf wrote: »

It's rare that people can identify completely with a party. Normally you have to compromise on it.

While I understand that, I just can't see the point in joining an organisation I'd agree with on maybe half their manifesto without a realistic chance of convincing the rest of the party where they were going wrong.

nesf

Sleepy wrote: »

While I understand that, I just can't see the point in joining an organisation I'd agree with on maybe half their manifesto without a realistic chance of convincing the rest of the party where they were going wrong.

Politics is all about trade-offs. You never get exactly what you want, even if you're heading the party. All you can do is look at your local candidates and weigh them according to a balance between their positions, the party's positions and what you view to be important local and national issues. Assuming you're not willing/planning on running yourself.

Sleepy

I suppose that's the crux of it nesf, there are some things I'm not prepared to trade e.g. I'm not prepared to be involved with a party that tolerates corruption / terrorism, is funded by unions or property developers etc.


And of the remaining parties, I can't see any of them supporting the issues that would be most important to me i.e. restructuring of our political system to minimize/eradicate the 'parish pump' nonsense, actively pursuing a secular state, facing down the public sector unions to allow the necessary changes in our state services etc.

Jackie laughlin

It must be a wonderful feeling to think that no political party is good enough or has an absolute match for one's political views. Anyone could take up this essentially cynical position.

Speaking of which, let's return to the "Cyincs Guide to Political Parties" outlined above and offer a different and honest perspective:

FF: This sees itself as not so much a party and more a national movement. It has been mildly leftist in the past on industrial policy but has been consistently neo-liberal in recent decades. It has strong links to some business sectors and a very poor record on corruption. It has a record of conservatism on social issues. It enjoys more support than any other party in every single social category including trade unionists.

FG: This party has an honourable tradition of constitutionalism. It was for many decades conservative in both economic and social policy. More recently it has become more progressive. It is however more liberal than socialist.

Lab: This is a party founded to be the political wing of the unions in the early 20th century. It has become a mainstream social democratic party, favouring a mixed economy and liberal social policy. Many of its members are socialists.

PDs: This was founded to be a liberal party. It is liberal in both economic and social policy. It believes in competition and privatisation as remedies for most problems.

Greens: This is a relatively young party which sees the environment as the primary concern of policy. It is finding it difficult in government to maintain a separate identity.

SF: This is a party struggling to put its violent past behind it and to create an identity as a completely constitutional party. It is not yet clear what form of nationalism it will adopt. It organises on working class estates and often adopts socialist positions.


There's an abundance of choice there for anyone. However, if one is a cynic, a perpetual moan, or incapable of making common cause with people of broadly similar views, then nothing will ever do. Such a person might found a new party and then resign at the first sign of disagreement.

CerebralCortex

Mick86 wrote: »

Pretty self explanatory. If you are that unhappy with the country move on to someplace else.

I hate when people say that because its not really a solution. I sure there'd be a lot of moving about if it were the only solution.

Sleepy

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

It must be a wonderful feeling to think that no political party is good enough or has an absolute match for one's political views. Anyone could take up this essentially cynical position.

Speaking of which, let's return to the "Cyincs Guide to Political Parties" outlined above and offer a different and honest perspective:

FF: This sees itself as not so much a party and more a national movement. It has been mildly leftist in the past on industrial policy but has been consistently neo-liberal in recent decades. It has strong links to some business sectors and a very poor record on corruption. It has a record of conservatism on social issues. It enjoys more support than any other party in every single social category including trade unionists.

FG: This party has an honourable tradition of constitutionalism. It was for many decades conservative in both economic and social policy. More recently it has become more progressive. It is however more liberal than socialist.

Lab: This is a party founded to be the political wing of the unions in the early 20th century. It has become a mainstream social democratic party, favouring a mixed economy and liberal social policy. Many of its members are socialists.

PDs: This was founded to be a liberal party. It is liberal in both economic and social policy. It believes in competition and privatisation as remedies for most problems.

Greens: This is a relatively young party which sees the environment as the primary concern of policy. It is finding it difficult in government to maintain a separate identity.

SF: This is a party struggling to put its violent past behind it and to create an identity as a completely constitutional party. It is not yet clear what form of nationalism it will adopt. It organises on working class estates and often adopts socialist positions.


There's an abundance of choice there for anyone. However, if one is a cynic, a perpetual moan, or incapable of making common cause with people of broadly similar views, then nothing will ever do. Such a person might found a new party and then resign at the first sign of disagreement.

That's an incredibly sanctimonious post Jackie Laughlin and one that seems more designed to take a swing at me than contribute anything to the conversation.

An abundance of choice? At first glance when compared to the US or the UK this might seem the case, though in our oligarchical system is it really any more worthwhile to vote for the minor parties than it is to vote Nader in the US?

I don't consider a refusal to deal with the corrupt, the inept or the criminal being incapable of making common cause with people of broadly similar views. I consider it having a moral conscience.

Does it sound like I think it's a wonderful feeling?

How could anyone fail to be cynical about Irish politics?

DadaKopf

I think jackielaughlin's post is fairly accurate. I might be a bit more critical of the Labour description. In the Irish party system, it does tend to function as a party that regulates (and therefore apologises for) present neoliberalism. That said, as a Labour supporter, it best matches my convictions in terms of what's out there, and the Labour Party Conference had the sense of renewed purpose about the historical, present and future role of a 'democratic socialist' party. It's a campaigning party. Incidentally, Labour is the oldest party in the country.

growler

Sleepy wrote: »

That's an incredibly sanctimonious post Jackie Laughlin and one that seems more designed to take a swing at me than contribute anything to the conversation.

An abundance of choice? ?

I agree its hard not to be cynical about irish politics but the amount of political party choices available to you is clear, there *should* be one that most closely matches your personal politics, if there was less choice you would , more than likely, find it even harder to find a party to align yourself with.

Ultimately, its easier to change something from within than without, there will always be differences of opinion, working through those disagreements to reach a consensus / compromise underpins democracy, if you are so unwilling to adapt or compromise then only dictatorship remains an option for you.

Like yourself the hypocrisy, corruption and blatant mismangement of the country really pish me off, however on my return to ireland next year I intend to join a party to attempt to influence its direction, if enough people did the same change would come (for better or for worse).

Jackie laughlin

Sleepy,
I have just used the word "sanctimonious" in another thread to describe the kind of person who wants to maintain their political virginity until the perfect suitor worthy of their support comes along. I certainly did react strongly to your dismissal of the entire party system. It was misinformed and utterly cynical.

As a socialist it is a strange feeling for me to be defending political opponents. However, I guess reason and democracy come before particular political perspectives. Apart from a tiny number of FG people, political corruption is confined to FF. Even within FF it is not at a level comparible with most of the world. In short politics in Ireland is comparively honest. (I'm taking the conventional line on corruption here: that a favour has to be linked to a payment. I treat business contributions to parties and politicians as an anti democratic exercise of power intended to create an economy in which a particular fraction of capital can flourish.) The Irish ruling elite is certainly not inept. It has presided over the accumulation of enormous riches, opened up glaring inequalities, and delivered gross salaries and extras to a layer of well-suited, self-serving spongers. This is the outcome of neo-liberal policies. The broad support for these policies is reflected at Boards.ie.

In short, there is no need for the high minded to become involved with the corrupt, criminal or inept. In Ireland that kind of company would have to be sought out. Politics is social morality. Pretending that no one is pure enough to warrant support is bourgeois indifference and certainly not a moral standpoint.

edanto

In fairness, while I empathise with your frustration Sleepy, I have to point out that you're part of the political system here, with your vote and all. So if you want to change it, get involved.

Hell, even if you temporarily aligned yourself with one political party to support one local cause or something - the only remedy for your frustration is for you to take action.

It's bitter, but it's true. And I suspect that you know it.

Sleepy

It's just not enough edanto. If my only option is to join a party that supports a ton of things I don't like in order to maybe get one thing I do like passed that's a pretty poor return.

Jackie laughlin

Sleepy,
Is that really the calculation facing you? Perhaps you might favour most policies or the political perspective of a party but have difficulty with one or two items.

May I ask you what is your overall political perspective?

Sleepy

I took that political compass test to give you a general idea:

Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

Personally, I believe the state owes each citizen a proper education, proper healthcare, safety (from crime, fire etc. as well as social support should they fall on hard times) but that ultimately people are responsible for their own actions, prosperity and success in life.

I believe democracy is flawed but the best form of governance available to us, that we don't have democracy in Ireland but oligarchy in it's place.

I believe the secondary school sylabus should incorporate life skills such as driving licence, parenting, safe sex etc. as well as economics, politics and sociology and philosophy. That it shouldn't force Irish on students. That highly sought after college places should incorporate interviews to judge candidate suitability as well as simple examination points.

I believe public representatives should reflect the best of society and be held to higher standard than the rest of us, not afforded liberties the rest of us would be jailed for. I support almost any effort to ensure this is the case up to and including capital punishment for corruption.

I'm pro-choice, pro-legalisation of marijuana and other lower category drugs, pro-secularism, anti-protectionism, anti-monopoly, anti-beaurocracy, anti-nationalism.

Never going to sum up all my political beliefs in a single post but that should give you some idea.

Sleepy

Jackie, I see your argument, however even were my views 50% represented by a party in this country, what's the point?

I can't abide by either of the larger parties and there's no point to the smaller ones.

sovtek

Sleepy wrote: »

I can't abide by either of the larger parties and there's no point to the smaller ones.

I disagree Sleepy. This is a slow and painful process no matter how you look at it (unless you go the violent revolution route...with the inherent hazards and questionable moral implications).
I think these guys might be something you are looking for. There seems a lot more elbow room in their party.

Sleepy

A thinly disguised socialist workers party?

Yeah, they've got the power to change things :rolleyes:

EDIT: as a firm supporter of the Bin Tax I don't think I'd be welcome anyway!

sovtek

Sleepy wrote: »

A thinly disguised socialist workers party?

Yeah, they've got the power to change things :rolleyes:

EDIT: as a firm supporter of the Bin Tax I don't think I'd be welcome anyway!

I've a few experiences with the SWP at anti-war protests. I find them quite annoying. This sounds a lot different to me. It's several grassroots campaigns joined together. I'm not a staunch opponent of the bin tax, only how it was implemented.

Jackie laughlin

Sleepy,
When you say that "the state owes each citizen a proper education, proper healthcare, safety (from crime, fire etc. as well as social support should they fall on hard times)", it is contradictory then to say "people are responsible for their own actions, prosperity and success in life." OK, you did qualify with "ultimately". I would say that any person's success or prosperity is determined by the collective effort of others. Would you limit state involvement to education, health and safety?

I too think that, as in many countries, philosophy should be taught in schools. I favour the Irish language; it shouldn't be "forced" any more than any other subject.

College applicants were interviewed by some colleges until it became too slow and costly. I don't know that it was any fairer or if the selections were any better. My view is that everyone attaining a university entrance standard should have the opportunity to take a liberal humanities degree and that places on courses with limited availability should be allocated by lottery. However, the basic standard would need attention as many of those now reaching 3rd level are virtually illiterate.

Public representatives are not afforded liberties for which the rest of us would be jailed. The problem is that a small number of corrupt politicians have not broken any law or cannot be proven to have broken the law. Corruption should be more liberally defined and be punished harshly; the corrupt and the corrupters should be imprisoned.

Capital punishment is barbaric.

Bureaucracy is our guarantee of equal and fair treatment by the state.

There is certainly nothing wrong with cultural nationalism.

In short, I think you would have little difficulty finding a party to support.

djpbarry

Sleepy,

Might I ask why you find it necessary to align yourself with one particular party? Do you view this as necessary in order to partake in the democratic process?

Sleepy

Jackie, if you'll forgive me I'll come back to your points later, in a bit of a rush so only have time for a quick post.

djpbarry - how would you propose having any influence without being a member of a party? I see the amnesty link in your sig, am I to surmise you feel that lobby groups are a better way of influencing politics than one's vote? I'd agree to a certain extent, however, in the political climate I've grown up with and live with in Ireland, the lobby groups that are listened to by Irish governments don't tend to be as noble of purpose as Amnesty.

Jackie laughlin

Sleepy,
No problem but don't post tomorrow if you are hungover. You'll be all cantankerous and wanting to flog or hang a hospital porter!

Djp,
Politics by pressure group is pluralism/polyarchy and favours the strong over the weak. Those with sufficient funds to campaign, win. Some - like Amnesty - are virtuous many are not. We are heading in that direction and it is not a good idea.