To Force an Immediate Removal from Power

ProVox

(I'm not really one for writing or posting, I usually keep my opinions to myself, partly because I'm not sure of my facts and don't wish to bring the wrath of the internet down upon me and partly because I can never concentrate long enough to finish a coherent thought and end-up being disappointed with what I wrote.
I was just motivated to put finger to key because I feel the timing is right for something to be done and I wanted to add my [ever decreasing in value] two cents)

So it would seem the people are tired of corruption and incompetence. I'm with you.

I'm tired of suffering the results of a failing system, crumbling under the lack of foresight inherent in a Neo-Liberal influenced society. I'm tired of the system being so self-protecting that there's very little we can do about it until the Government decide themselves to call an election.

Exactly how many people do we need to immediately force a dissolution of our government and a complete overhaul of the system, to protect each and every person rather than big-business and private investors?

In times of economic crisis like this, surely we can see a need for insuring that each person can afford to live above the poverty line, for protecting jobs rather than protecting profits.

I can only see a future for a leftist/Marxist-run government, I can't understand how any other system could even be considered at a time like this. I would through my hat in with the Socialist Party/SWP/People Before Profit Alliance etc, and I'd love with every fiber of my body to be part of a movement to get us there.

The founding fathers of our country (e.g. Connolly) wanted a Socialist Republic, they'd be sickened now to see how our free-state has developed.
Privatising hospitals, refusal to Nationalise banks while giving them 8billion from our taxes, ignoring the opinions of the masses with recasting Nice and Lisbon referendums.
Would a march of 500,000 be enough to force these bastards from power?
Can we do it?

Sign-up here if you agree with me.
Please feel free to tear into me now if you wish, I'l be laughing when left comes right again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zynks

We need a lot of change, I agree that far. The direction you are pointing to is not the way forward in my view.

ProVox

I'd like to see something happen along the lines of a complete restructure of govt. I think maybe a system where there's an election every year, both local and general, so we have a bit more transparency and accountability.

When I say I see only a solution in a leftist/marxist govt, its because I think that with the global political climate we need to be more self-reliant and self-focused.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Raven.

ProVox wrote: »

When I say I see only a solution in a leftist/marxist govt, its because I think that with the global political climate we need to be more self-reliant and self-focused.

I would think that a 'leftist/marxist' government is more likely to do the opposite i.e. nanny state :rolleyes:!!

drunkmonkey

The Raven. wrote: »

I would think that a 'leftist/marxist' government is more likely to do the opposite i.e. nanny state :rolleyes:!!

the day they killed happy hour was the day we became a nanny state...

were not far off a semi marxist state, all were missing is the excellent public transport and a world class health service...

We could learn a thing or two from Fidel Castro:pac:

peasant

Marxist you say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf2GVBjvlGA

I don't think so.

(sounds better in Russian anyway )

ejmaztec

Can't we just have a class action suit and sue the government for negligence? We'd probably have to import a judge though.

Iwasfrozen

I'm with you on this, I want to see a Socilist run Ireland.Corporate greed has blackened this country for to long and with the scandle of the Anglo Irish "Gloden Circle" unfolding by the day, there has never been a better time.
See socialistparty.net for more info.

BroomBurner

Having an election every year will completely destory the country. One year doesn't give a party enough time to get things done and to deal with the aftermath. Can you imagine what would happen if one party got in one year, brought about changes, the next year someone else got in and changed those?

It would be anarchy. There could be people going to prison one year for something that they wouldn't have been imprisoned for under a different government.

It would also leave government open to even more corruption as they will buy elections more and more.

Iwasfrozen

But if the Goverment is doing a good job and the people are content then it won't be voted out.
But having the option of voting out our leders in one year will make sure the last few months won't be repeted.

BroomBurner

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But if the Goverment is doing a good job and the people are content then it won't be voted out.
But having the option of voting out our leders in one year will make sure the last few months won't be repeted.

It won't at all though. It will make them more corrupt. They will be more inclined to ensure certain groups of public were kept happy, i.e. farmers, banker, public sector workers, developers, etc. in order to keep being voted in.

Government would then be less about governing and more about winning votes year after year. It would fail. It would also fail as people would not be as inclined to vote again and again, the usual apathy will set in.

Iwasfrozen

It won't at all though. It will make them more corrupt. They will be more inclined to ensure certain groups of public were kept happy, i.e. farmers, public sector workers, developers, etc. in order to keep being voted in.

Is it not the Goverments job to make sure that Farmers, Public Sector Workers and Developers. (e.g the majority of the population) are happy ?

Government would then be less about governing and more about winning votes year after year. It would fail. It would also fail as people would not be as inclined to vote again and again, the usual apathy will set in.

What you call winning votes I call keeping the people happy, so Yes the Goverment will win votes.
What do you think the Goverment dose for five years in the current system ?
This system will ensure the Goverment works only for the betterment of the people and not some stuffy bourgeoisie in a suit and Bank Office.

ParkRunner

Maybe if we had a number of candidates (experts in their area) for each ministerial role and voted for who should be the minister for finance, education, health, social and family affairs etc we would get better policy and decision making by the leaders. They could be appointed for a term of 4 years with a maximum of 2 terms, like the US President. There are far too many decisions taken in my opinion in the interests of ensuring a political party gets re-elected rather than for the good of society.

BroomBurner

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Is it not the Goverments job to make sure that Farmers, Public Sector Workers and Developers. (e.g the majority of the population) are happy ?

What you call winning votes I call keeping the people happy, so Yes the Goverment will win votes.
What do you think the Goverment dose for five years in the current system ?
This system will ensure the Goverment works only for the betterment of the people and not some stuffy bourgeoisie in a suit and Bank Office.

There is a difference between winning votes and governing a country. Sometimes, hard decisions have to be made that will not be accepted by certain groups. For instance, the EU are reducing the number of pesticides that can be used for agriculture. Now this can only be a positive thing for the environment and for people's health (not consuming food and/or water doused in chemicals). However, the farmers are up in arms as it will mean they won't be able to just use easy and cheap (ish) chemical pesticides.

Can you imagine the scale of the mess that would come out of that if we had to re-vote the government in every year? It would be a disaster.

I can see where you're coming from, but it's just not practical.

EF, I agree with that system of voting for who you think would be good at doing that minister's role. The one problem with that is that if you decided to vote a transport figure in to be the Minister of Transportation, then they will come with a lot of industry baggage. It could work though, if they had full disclosure about every candidates history and noted contacts.

Iwasfrozen

There is a difference between winning votes and governing a country. Sometimes, hard decisions have to be made that will not be accepted by certain groups. For instance, the EU are reducing the number of pesticides that can be used for agriculture. Now this can only be a positive thing for the environment and for people's health (not consuming food and/or water doused in chemicals). However, the farmers are up in arms as it will mean they won't be able to just use easy and cheap (ish) chemical pesticides.

Yes of course the Farmers will be up in arms, but by offering grants to farmers that are subject to claw-back should they break the rules for pesticides is a far better way of preventing voter discontent.
Coming in with a sledge hammer and telling the already struggling Farmers "you can't do this any more" only shows how out of touch the people in Brussels are with the working class.

BroomBurner

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes of course the Farmers will be up in arms, but by offering grants to farmers that are subject to claw-back should they break the rules for pesticides is a far better way of preventing voter discontent.
Coming in with a sledge hammer and telling the already struggling Farmers "you can't do this any more" only shows how out of touch the people in Brussels are with the working class.

So sticking on point, any new legislation that comes in to force, if it is not acceptable by a division of society, they will receive grants for it? That would be really costly for an annual government. Especially if the next year they get voted out and the grants go and the chemicals are brought back in, then the year after it all changes.

An annual government is just unworkable.

old boy

why should the muckers have so much of a say, they are in a (wlll looked after) minority,

Iwasfrozen

So sticking on point, any new legislation that comes in to force, if it is not acceptable by a division of society, they will receive grants for it? That would be really costly for an annual government. Especially if the next year they get voted out and the grants go and the chemicals are brought back in, then the year after it all changes.

An annual government is just unworkable.

I'm sorry, I didn't explain properly, no the Government won't offer any "new" grants but just add extra clauses to the massive amount of grants Farmers already get.
And I don't think its fair to say an Annual Government is unworkable, look at the Swiss model that can (and often do) overturn any law passed by the Government. This often means 3 or 4 votes a year on laws and the like. The Government knows any of their decisions can be over turned and so only do what is popular with the people.

BroomBurner

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm sorry, I didn't explain properly, no the Government won't offer any "new" grants but just add extra clauses to the massive amount of grants Farmers already get.
And I don't think its fair to say an Annual Government is unworkable, look at the Swiss model that can (and often do) overturn any law passed by the Government. This often means 3 or 4 votes a year on laws and the like. The Government knows any of their decisions can be over turned and so only do what is popular with the people.

Are they voting on legislation though, or for a new government each time?

Iwasfrozen

Legislation, but your main argument was that the Government will not force any "hard decisions" for fear of upsetting the crowd. The Swiss Government must negate "hard decisions " for fear the crowd will over rule them.
Basically I used the Swiss model as an example to prove a Nation can be run without "hard decisions".

ParkRunner

BroomBurner wrote: »

EF, I agree with that system of voting for who you think would be good at doing that minister's role. The one problem with that is that if you decided to vote a transport figure in to be the Minister of Transportation, then they will come with a lot of industry baggage. It could work though, if they had full disclosure about every candidates history and noted contacts.

It would take a fairly major re-working of the constitution but could be worth the effort.

Iwasfrozen

It would take a fairly major re-working of the constitution but could be worth the effort.

I would support that.

BroomBurner

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Legislation, but your main argument was that the Government will not force any "hard decisions" for fear of upsetting the crowd. The Swiss Government must negate "hard decisions " for fear the crowd will over rule them.
Basically I used the Swiss model as an example to prove a Nation can be run without "hard decisions".

They are not the same thing!! Of course you could have votes on legislation, we already do in the form of referenda, they're just not done as often.

You can't liken voting on legislation every year to voting an entire government every year!!

is_that_so

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm sorry, I didn't explain properly, no the Government won't offer any "new" grants but just add extra clauses to the massive amount of grants Farmers already get.
And I don't think its fair to say an Annual Government is unworkable, look at the Swiss model that can (and often do) overturn any law passed by the Government. This often means 3 or 4 votes a year on laws and the like. The Government knows any of their decisions can be over turned and so only do what is popular with the people.

Referenda, they have lots of them and we are lousy at them. It would also make any long-term planning a nightmare and subject a government to the whims of the public.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Legislation, but your main argument was that the Government will not force any "hard decisions" for fear of upsetting the crowd. The Swiss Government must negate "hard decisions " for fear the crowd will over rule them.
Basically I used the Swiss model as an example to prove a Nation can be run without "hard decisions".

They have lots and lots of money and pay high taxes.


As for the original proposal, tbh it is really not workable at all for so many reasons.

There is no easy answer

Whoever we get will be burdened with the mess we are in and there is only gueseswork as to when we might get out of it. A completely inexperienced, albeit, idealogically-driven government is not at all what we want. Even the great socialist experiment that is China is foundering like the rest of us.

We are politically conservative

Much as some posters may draw comfort from the general left-leaning tendencies here or the fact that so many "comrades" were on the march yesterday, the vast majority of voters do not vote for the left.

Marxism is dogmatic

Aside from the truly annoying need call every one comrade, Marxism does not allow for flexibility and it doesn't work. Invariably it places too much power in in the centre which can make it extremely unresponsive and rigid.

Daroxtar

ProVox wrote: »

I'm tired of suffering the results of a failing system, crumbling under the lack of foresight inherent in a Neo-Liberal influenced society....

I can only see a future for a leftist/Marxist-run government, I can't understand how any other system could even be considered at a time like this...

The founding fathers of our country (e.g. Connolly) wanted a Socialist Republic, they'd be sickened now to see how our free-state has developed.

The founding fathers of this country lived in a time before marxism had been tested. If they saw it in action i doubt very much they would have gone down that road. If they saw it in operation and still wanted it then i doubt they would ever have become the founding fathers.
If we want true social reform we will have to come up with something completely different from what has gone before and thats pretty unlikely so we will just have to make do with what we have and adapt the current systems slightly to suit current requirements.. better the devil you know and all that

Pride Fighter

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We are at the end of a neo-liberal age. It has failed. Ireland is fucked, the US is fucked. We need a centre-left government to fix the problems of this nation, similar to Roosevelt's government of the 30's.

ProVox

is_that_so wrote: »

Marxism is dogmatic

Aside from the truly annoying need call every one comrade, Marxism does not allow for flexibility and it doesn't work. Invariably it places too much power in in the centre which can make it extremely unresponsive and rigid.

The Marxism we've seen through history was bastardized, not reflective true leftist beliefs. True Socialism would allow for evolution of practices depending on current circumstances, especially with more regular elections and referendums.

On the point that yearly elections would cause more hassle and result in anarchistic flip-flops in policy, is that not just one potential outcome of true democracy?
If we had a truly democratic society wouldn't the 120,000+ voices of yesterday and the general drop in approval shame the govt into resignation? If they cared for the country it would, or if we actually had a true democratic country.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Daroxtar

Pride Fighter wrote: »

We are at the end of a neo-liberal age. It has failed. Ireland is fucked, the US is fucked.

The neo cons, not the neo liberals fkd the US, and everyone else.