Time for a new political party?

Julesie

Right, no beating around the bush...

I think the time is ripe in Ireland for a new political party. A party elected with a mandate to drag us out of our current downward economic spiral, stabalise the nation's finances and set about a long term plan of prudent economic expansion. No other ulterior motive attached.... not socialist, not repulican, no religious affiliation, etc.

I’ll hold my hand up and say I am guilty of having been politically apathetic in the past, so much so I haven't even voted in the previous General Elections. Being 100% honest I just couldn't see the reason. As a young graduate there was no connection between my views, values and beliefs and that of the candidates standing in my constituency. At the time I didn't particularly care because times were good and more of the same was all that was required.

But now that the times ain’t so good and we are looking for some inventiveness, momentum and fresh ideas, these stale parties have been found wanting. The fact is we have two incredibly centrist parties with minute differences in policy. The one issue that divided them when they were formed (Irish Treaty) is no longer of relevance to the daily lives of the vast majority of Irish people and certainly not something to be focused on in this time of economic meltdown. If a general election was called in the morning I don’t believe we would be seeing the dawn of a New Ireland if Fine Gael came to power. Be honest, hands up who has had the thought, "FF are appalling but is the alternative of an Enda Kenny led FG government really any more appealing".

I don’t subscribe to the “Let’s Blame the Government for all ills” newsletter. But I do feel a change is needed from our current state. We have to remember that “The Government” is not some nameless, faceless entity, it consists of real people, people who for whatever reason have been elected by this nation. People who are supposed to represent Irish society and act collectively in our best interests. But right now I don’t feel represented, and I don’t feel our best interests are being looked after. Whether that’s because a lack of desire or a lack of ability or most likely a combination of the two.

Widesweeping changes are required across the board and we need a government that is elected with that clear mandate. I don’t believe FF or FG would take the hard decisions needed to turn this situation around. They have too much invested. Who is going to stand up and put their head above the parapet when it means they will likely lose their seat/ministry/government?

I think with enough ground support and momentum this could be the time for a real new viable alternative to form.

What do you think?


p.s. I’m not looking for the role of Party Leader, my oratory skills are shocking! ;-)

Sleepy

In essence I agree but a new party just isn't enough. We need a new political system. Search the forum for my suggestion of a 'turkey party'.

P. Breathnach

Is this new party to have any policies?

wylo

You see the problem with politics is once a new party becomes remotely successful it loses all its ideals.
There is no point in a new party in Irish Politics unless it can give an absolute guarantee that it will NOT join with any other party so it can get elected.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055489152&highlight=new+political+party

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055482177&highlight=new+political+party

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055466641&highlight=new+political+party

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055451390&highlight=new+political+party

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055402905&highlight=new+political+party

SeaFields

I would also be more in favour of a new political system. I think the concept of party politics is outdated. I believe the individual that I give my No. 1 to should vote for what they believe is right for his/her constituents (i.e. me) rather than simply towing the party line.

However asking those who are in power for a new system that would challenge the very power they grasp so tightly would be a no win situation. Therefore one would have to fight the battle on their own terms.

Yes, a new party could be right on the money at the moment. Certainly how long this present government can survive with the sliding economy could provide an opening for a party with the clear mandate you talk of. The Dáil is stale at the moment with the pissin contest between the government and opposition frustrating, annoying and downright discourteous to those families and individuals struggling to survive in the present climate. Perhaps that new mandate could be borne in the very medium where it was first brought up - technology, communications and energy. There are certainly a lot of highly ambitious, educated and qualified individuals around at the moment with a lot of time on their hands. Lets start banging heads together.

p.s. I didn't vote in the last election either. My name was taken off the register for no good reason and was told I was too late when i tried to fix it. Funny how that happened to a lot of typically non-FF voting young people. A debate for another day...

futurehope

I agree, The Republic needs a new party - but it must be truly NEW! The very first thing it must write into it's constitution is that THE PARTY rejects and opposes any aspiration towards a UNITED IRELAND. Anything less than this would be more of the same 'green mist' nonsense that has dragged The Republic down for too long, damaged it's relationship with it's nearest neighbour and natural ally, The UK, and made it a laughing stock world wide. Any new party that didn't bight this bullet would not be truly new, only a variation on the same tired old theme.

spank_inferno

We had a party for a while back that broke away from old civil war politics.

They favoured lower personal taxation, & lower tax on employment.
They worked for greater rights for citizens in the workplace and with their dealings with the state. They espoused less involvement by the state in the lives of its citizens.

They believed in a womans right to chose if she wanted to have an abortion. And for people to be able to divorce.

They were Irelands first true "liberal" party

To effect change they went into coalitions with Fianna Fail.... somehow they began to lose the PR battle and eventually fell apart. disappearing off the face of the earth in 2008

I am legend, they were the PD's

Julesie

spank_inferno wrote: »

We had a party for a while back that broke away from old civil war politics.

I am legend, they were the PD's

Spank, I agree with you the PD's are definitely the party that have come closest to the type of party I am imagining. Unfortunately they did not garner the critical mass needed to survive the lure of a coalition.

I don't think this new party movement would work as a slow burn movement, where the number of seats won, aims to start small and build up. To really get a viable alternative off the ground there would need to be a groundswell of support for the idea and for that in itself to force the calling of General Election.

The plan would have to be that there is no compromise and defection to the requests of our traditional lobby groups, as naive and idealogical as that sounds.

As for policies, I am not looking to muddy this with my own personal political wishlist but at a high level I would see its ultimate goal as promoting a economically prosperous Ireland. That would be achieved through:

• The proactive aquisition of foreign direct investment and importantly a strong focus on indigenous enterprise. That is not meant to imply any form of protectionism (no return of Guaranteed Irish) but rather real incentives for new start up companies.
• A low and sound taxation system (i.e not relying on stamp duty to plug holes in deficits) in order to stimulate growth and prevent a brain drain akin to that experienced in the 1980's.
• "Value for Money". That's value for the money spent, on the health sector, on building projects, on tribunals, on the justice system, on social welfare, etc.

Honestly, I don't pretend to have all the answers but I do feel that the time is right for such a movement. Hell we could call it the "Common Sense Brigade" because for the large part that is what is required.

Breezer

Julesie wrote: »

No other ulterior motive attached.... not socialist, not repulican, no religious affiliation, etc.

The fact is we have two incredibly centrist parties with minute differences in policy.

So basically you want a centrist party, but you're sick of centrist parties? Have you looked at any of FG's recent policy announcements? Some radically different stuff in there. Whether you agree with it or not is a separate issue.

I don’t believe FF or FG would take the hard decisions needed to turn this situation around. They have too much invested. Who is going to stand up and put their head above the parapet when it means they will likely lose their seat/ministry/government?

To give just two examples, FG has been calling for tax hikes for quite a long time, in addition to public service reform which would inevitably lead to some job losses. People don't like tax or job losses, but that's the party's stated policy nonetheless.

spank_inferno wrote:

We had a party for a while back that broke away from old civil war politics.

They favoured lower personal taxation, & lower tax on employment.
They worked for greater rights for citizens in the workplace and with their dealings with the state. They espoused less involvement by the state in the lives of its citizens.

They believed in a womans right to chose if she wanted to have an abortion. And for people to be able to divorce.

They were Irelands first true "liberal" party

To effect change they went into coalitions with Fianna Fail.... somehow they began to lose the PR battle and eventually fell apart. disappearing off the face of the earth in 2008

I am legend, they were the PD's

We now need higher taxes if the country is to keep its head above water. Less involvement by the state in the lives of its citizens (particularly those citizens sitting on the boards of banks) is part of what got us into this mess. Abortion and divorce, while you may agree with them, are hardly the neutral, agenda-free policies the OP is talking about. We do not need another liberal party right now.

hobochris

just out of curiosity I how do you set up a new party? where do you register it? etc...

I'm Exactly the same as the OP and agree 100%.. We need a party to lead for the better of the country not one that's only true goal is to stay in power so they can retain their privileged lifestyles.

Personally I believe that politician's should be like the doctors, teachers, and the garda who got into their professions to make a difference not reap the benefits (sadly their isn't as many of these as their once was ).

It should not be about benefits of the position, politicians a should get a reasonable salary(not huge as it currently is) and the making a difference should be reward in itself.

Lockstep

Julesie wrote: »

Spank, I agree with you the PD's are definitely the party that have come closest to the type of party I am imagining. Unfortunately they did not garner the critical mass needed to survive the lure of a coalition.

How do you propose to garner this mass support?
Parties gaining support from the outset isn't that hard in Ireland (Clann na Poblacta and the PDs both gained 14 seats quickly) but it's extremely hard to pull it off in the long run.

Julesie wrote: »

I don't think this new party movement would work as a slow burn movement, where the number of seats won, aims to start small and build up. To really get a viable alternative off the ground there would need to be a groundswell of support for the idea and for that in itself to force the calling of General Election.

That is how most small political parties attempt. We already have a lot of tiny parties in Ireland.

Julesie wrote: »

The plan would have to be that there is no compromise and defection to the requests of our traditional lobby groups, as naive and idealogical as that sounds.

Where will this parties funding come from then?
Labour has the trade unions for example and they have a say at our conferences.
Parties have to compromise. It's standard in politics.

Julesie wrote: »

As for policies, I am not looking to muddy this with my own personal political wishlist but at a high level I would see its ultimate goal as promoting a economically prosperous Ireland.

That is a goal of almost every political party. The difference is how they go about it.

Julesie wrote: »

That would be achieved through:

• The proactive aquisition of foreign direct investment and importantly a strong focus on indigenous enterprise. That is not meant to imply any form of protectionism (no return of Guaranteed Irish) but rather real incentives for new start up companies.
• A low and sound taxation system (i.e not relying on stamp duty to plug holes in deficits) in order to stimulate growth and prevent a brain drain akin to that experienced in the 1980's.
• "Value for Money". That's value for the money spent, on the health sector, on building projects, on tribunals, on the justice system, on social welfare, etc.

THose all sound great in theory but attracting foreign investment, value for money and low taxation are all things nearly every political party espouses. (although the definition of low taxation differs from party to party)

You'd need to have much more detail than that to be honest. THe economy shouldn;t be made important for itself, it has to have benefits for the electorate or they won't give a damn if the economy is looking great but they're still not getting a share.

Julesie wrote: »

Honestly, I don't pretend to have all the answers but I do feel that the time is right for such a movement. Hell we could call it the "Common Sense Brigade" because for the large part that is what is required.

Your definition of common sense. It may not be the same as the electorates.


I'm always interested to see people advocate a new political party, but I prefer it when they actually state what their policies would be rather than just complaining about the status quo.

Can'tseeme

futurehope wrote: »

I agree, The Republic needs a new party - but it must be truly NEW! The very first thing it must write into it's constitution is that THE PARTY rejects and opposes any aspiration towards a UNITED IRELAND. Anything less than this would be more of the same 'green mist' nonsense that has dragged The Republic down for too long, damaged it's relationship with it's nearest neighbour and natural ally, The UK, and made it a laughing stock world wide. Any new party that didn't bight this bullet would not be truly new, only a variation on the same tired old theme.

Ever wondered why the border counties are the poorest in Ireland?:rolleyes:

Julesie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'm always interested to see people advocate a new political party, but I prefer it when they actually state what their policies would be rather than just complaining about the status quo.

Just to make it clear my question was whether or not people felt that this was the time a new policital party could make it in Ireland. Not whether people felt like joining Peoples Front of Julesia.

Like I said in my previous post, I don't claim to have all the answers or have some detailed policy manifesto gathering dust in my room waiting to be sprung upon the expectant masses. But I do feel like now is the time that like minded people could get together and put together those details. Work through the issues and come up with logical, sensible and practical suggestions as to what could be implemented. It should be a collaborative process because I assume when people mention they want a change in political system they aren't referring to the installation of a supreme dictator.

Do you think Fianna Fail were wondering about where the money for their marketing spend would come from when they formed in 1926? Or James Connolly was worried if he would secure the Kildare North seat when founding Labour? I genuinely don't mean to be facetious with the above comments but more just impress the point that you can't let all of the potential obstacles stop you from even trying to succeed.

If a small group of people got togther and gave a new party a name, an identity, a high level agenda they could use that to gain publicity and in effect market research the country to find out what it is the Irish public want from a new political party. Afterall the government is meant to be representative of just that, the Irish public. I think sometimes we are worried that asking "the public" what it wants is a bit like asking a child about the running of a school. No homework and play games all day! I think we have to give ourselves a bit more credit than that.

Lockstep

Julesie wrote: »

Like I said in my previous post, I don't claim to have all the answers or have some detailed policy manifesto gathering dust in my room waiting to be sprung upon the expectant masses. But I do feel like now is the time that like minded people could get together and put together those details. Work through the issues and come up with logical, sensible and practical suggestions as to what could be implemented. It should be a collaborative process because I assume when people mention they want a change in political system they aren't referring to the installation of a supreme dictator.

Well, you would need to have more ideas than just starting a new political party for the sake of it.
WOuld it not be a better idea to join a party which appeals to you and seek to change it back to it's original intentions?

Julesie wrote: »

Do you think Fianna Fail were wondering about where the money for their marketing spend would come from when they formed in 1926? Or James Connolly was worried if he would secure the Kildare North seat when founding Labour? I genuinely don't mean to be facetious with the above comments but more just impress the point that you can't let all of the potential obstacles stop you from even trying to succeed.

Well, FF started over the Treaty and with an end to partition in mind.
And Labour started as the political wing of the trade union movement with the view of enacting a socialist Ireland.
They had a definiate agenda.
Not just being slightly unhappy with the way things were. I'm not trying to demean your thoughts but if you want to attract people to a political party they need much more tangible goals as nearly every party claims to be challenging the status quo.

Julesie wrote: »

If a small group of people got togther and gave a new party a name, an identity, a high level agenda they could use that to gain publicity and in effect market research the country to find out what it is the Irish public want from a new political party. Afterall the government is meant to be representative of just that, the Irish public. I think sometimes we are worried that asking "the public" what it wants is a bit like asking a child about the running of a school. No homework and play games all day! I think we have to give ourselves a bit more credit than that.

Where would the funding for this party come from?
It's all well and good establishing a new party, PR;STV means Ireland is more lenient on new partys than most other countrys but if you lack clear cut policies you won't get anywhere.

Starting a party that is founded on purely what the Irish people think rather than any real ideas won't really do much good. That's populism, it'll quickly die when the Irish people change their minds or else turn into a party that tries to be all things to all people.

Julesie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

WOuld it not be a better idea to join a party which appeals to you and seek to change it back to it's original intentions?

I can't really agree that that would be easier or even the preferred option. For a start I think this would be about starting afresh with a party that has no historical baggage of the past (be it corruption, failed coalitions, poorly executed policies, etc.) Also unless you mean reforming either FF or FG you are looking at a purely minority party which could only achieve power through coalition. The one sure fire way to depart from your principles.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Well, FF started over the Treaty and with an end to partition in mind.
And Labour started as the political wing of the trade union movement with the view of enacting a socialist Ireland.
They had a definiate agenda.

I think making Ireland solvent is a pretty tangible goal and I also think there are a lot of people that are more than "slightly unhappy" with the way things currently are.

Lockstep

Julesie wrote: »

I can't really agree that that would be easier or even the preferred option. For a start I think this would be about starting afresh with a party that has no historical baggage of the past (be it corruption, failed coalitions, poorly executed policies, etc.) Also unless you mean reforming either FF or FG you are looking at a purely minority party which could only achieve power through coalition. The one sure fire way to depart from your principles.

Starting a completely new party would be extremely hard to get off the ground and would likely split voters. You've admitted you don't really have a coherent manifesto.

You seem to think Ireland is split between FF and FG and refer to minority parties. Why would your party succeed where all other minority parties have failed? So far, your way of going about it have all been the same as pretty much every other small party.

Julesie wrote: »

I think making Ireland solvent is a pretty tangible goal and I also think there are a lot of people that are more than "slightly unhappy" with the way things currently are.

If making Ireland solvent is your be-all-end-all then you're in for a rough time.
Being in government relies on far more than just looking at the economy. You need to have policies on a far wider range of issues than just "it;s the economy stupid" You also need to state exactly how you'd go about it.

Sure there are people who are unhappy with the way things are but do you think you can;
1) Harness what they want
2) Get them to vote for you.
3) Deliver on it
4) Avoid the pitfalls of vested interests.

Labour and FF both had clear cut goals and were living in extremely turbulent times. They also lived in far more militant times than a party today could be.

Soldie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Being in government relies on far more than just looking at the economy. You need to have policies on a far wider range of issues than just "it;s the economy stupid" You also need to state exactly how you'd go about it.

Why?

Lockstep

Soldie wrote: »

Why?

Because running a country involves far more issues than the economy?

Soldie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Because running a country involves far more issues than the economy?

Allow me to be more specific, why does being in government require you to 'have policies on a far wider range of issues'? What do you consider to be the limits of government?

Lockstep

Soldie wrote: »

Allow me to be more specific, why does being in government require you to 'have policies on a far wider range of issues'?

Because once you are in power, you will be expected to have a stance on a wide range of issues such as;
Where do we stand on separation of powers?
How do we feel about Tort reform?
Should we provide free healthcare?
Should we join NATO?

Do you honestly think the electorate will want a government who has no stance on anything except the economy?

Soldie wrote: »

What do you consider to be the limits of government?

Definetely beyond a single issue platform.
GIven that nearly every political party claims it's way will make the economy better, a party which has no other issues will fall by the wayside.

Julesie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Starting a completely new party would be extremely hard to get off the ground and would likely split voters. You've admitted you don't really have a coherent manifesto.

I feel as though we are not really hearing each other here.

Again, this thread is about the viability of a new party breaking into the irish political duocracy, not the viability of my own personal political thinkings. At the present time there is no party, hence no manifesto (coherent or otherwise).

My point is that I believe that a relatively small group of people coming together to create this hypothetical party and its related policies and manifesto could have a dramatic impact on the irish political landscape.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Why would your party succeed where all other minority parties have failed? So far, your way of going about it have all been the same as pretty much every other small party.

In short because this movement would go for a big bang approach. It would not try to target niche segments of the population (Greens, Socialist party, Labour (to a lesser extent)). I will freely admit that this was probably the thinking behind the PDs at their inception but just because they failed in the past does not mean that a future attempt would not succeed. The key would be getting public support for the idea of change. Hell we have seen it work to amazing effect in the states.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Where would the funding for this party come from?

To be cliched, "Where there's a will there's a way". If this got off the ground through initial volunteer based effort and free publicity and it was actually embraced by the public then I do not believe financing would be the primary issue. Again not to harp on about the US but in all honesty in Jan 2007 would you not have declared Barack crazy for announcing his run for president against the political and financial giant that was Hillary Clinton?

Soldie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Because once you are in power, you will be expected to have a stance on a wide range of issues such as;
Where do we stand on separation of powers?
How do we feel about Tort reform?
Should we provide free healthcare?
Should we join NATO?

Do you honestly think the electorate will want a government who has no stance on anything except the economy?


Definetely beyond a single issue platform.
GIven that nearly every political party claims it's way will make the economy better, a party which has no other issues will fall by the wayside.

It seems as though there is still a misunderstanding here. I'm not talking about the economy - I'm talking about your claim that the government needs policies on a wide range of issues. Why? What about those of us who, for example, don't think the government should regulate the opening hours of pubs or when we can buy alcohol or where we can smoke or how much we pay people or otherwise. The list is endless. Your implication is that the government should have policies on loads of issues, and I find that type of thinking to be worrying.

Lockstep

Julesie wrote: »

I feel as though we are not really hearing each other here.

Again, this thread is about the viability of a new party breaking into the irish political duocracy, not the viability of my own personal political thinkings. At the present time there is no party, hence no manifesto (coherent or otherwise).

Could a new party break into Irish politics?
Of course it could, we have a PR;STV system which is lenient on small parties.
The question is, what does the party stand for? That is what makes or breaks a party.

Could a new communist party get in?
No probably not.
Could a centrist party?
Possibly.

Julesie wrote: »

My point is that I believe that a relatively small group of people coming together to create this hypothetical party and its related policies and manifesto could have a dramatic impact on the irish political landscape.

Yes, there is no doubt that theoretically, a new party could break onto the stage.
But the question lies in whether it would be voted in, this requires the party releasing it's goals and policies.

Julesie wrote: »

In short because this movement would go for a big bang approach. It would not try to target niche segments of the population (Greens, Socialist party, Labour (to a lesser extent)). I will freely admit that this was probably the thinking behind the PDs at their inception but just because they failed in the past does not mean that a future attempt would not succeed. The key would be getting public support for the idea of change. Hell we have seen it work to amazing effect in the states.

YEt again, the parties you mention all claim to represent the interests of the majority, even the Socialists.
It's all well and good to say what you;re saying but they've been tried by parties before.
How exactly would a party make this vast impact on the electorate; what's new about it?

Julesie wrote: »

To be cliched, "Where there's a will there's a way". If this got off the ground through initial volunteer based effort and free publicity and it was actually embraced by the public then I do not believe financing would be the primary issue. Again not to harp on about the US but in all honesty in Jan 2007 would you not have declared Barack crazy for announcing his run for president against the political and financial giant that was Hillary Clinton?

Obama was still part of the Democratic political machine and was viewed as favorable (for example) by the unions. He was high profile and seen as a good investment. At the end of the day, he was part of one of America's two biggest parties.

A very different case to a previously unknown party suddenly jumping onto the political arena in Ireland.

P. Breathnach

What a waste of time: discussing a political party without a political position (but maybe something like the PDs, gawdhelpusall).

Save time. Buy a few crates of beer and have a real party.

Lockstep

Soldie wrote: »

It seems as though there is still a misunderstanding here. I'm not talking about the economy - I'm talking about your claim that the government needs policies on a wide range of issues. Why?

Yes, the government does need to have a stance on issues and policies.
These are limitless but still require the electorate to know what the government will do once it's in.

Soldie wrote: »

What about those of us who, for example, don't think the government should regulate the opening hours of pubs or when we can buy alcohol or where we can smoke or how much we pay people or otherwise. The list is endless. Your implication is that the government should have policies on loads of issues, and I find that type of thinking to be worrying.

?
You assume having a policy requires intervention.

My point wasn;t that the government needs to have draconian laws on everything. But it will have to have a public stance on it.

If you have two parties,
one of whom has a manifesto so the electorate know what they are getting, with a stance on everything from the second Lisbon Treaty, plans for the economy to a non-interventionist stance on welfare.

The other says nothing about what it will do in power except for it's plans on the economy. It is a complete wild card as regards to the country .

Who is more likely to be voted in?

Soldie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

If you have two parties,
one of whom has a manifesto so the electorate know what they are getting, with a stance on everything from the second Lisbon Treaty, plans for the economy to a non-interventionist stance on welfare.

The other says nothing about what it will do in power except for it's plans on the economy. It is a complete wild card as regards to the country .

Who is more likely to be voted in?

I genuinely struggle to see where this ambiguity is coming from. I'm certainly not suggesting that a mysterious party that has no stance on anything can expect to be voted in - that's simply ludicrous. In claiming that being in government requires having a wide range policies (which you later called 'limitless'), the implications are that those in government have a carte blanche to form policies on countless issues. My point is that it's not necessarily the government's responsibility to have policies on absolutely everything. I'd happily vote for a party that promised more social and economic freedom, along the lines of 'do what you want, so long as you don't encroach on other people's ability to do the same'.

Lockstep

Soldie wrote: »

I genuinely struggle to see where this ambiguity is coming from.

Same here mate.

Soldie wrote: »

I'm certainly not suggesting that a mysterious party that has no stance on anything can expect to be voted in - that's simply ludicrous. In claiming that being in government requires having a wide range policies (which you later called 'limitless'), the implications are that those in government have a carte blanche to form policies on countless issues.

RIght, and non-intervention is a policy.

My point was; that a party needs to have a policy on a wide range of issues.
You seem to assume that means they must put implement rules and regulations. They don't. They do need to have a stance on it though, be it intervention or non-intervention.

Soldie wrote: »

My point is that it's not necessarily the government's responsibility to have policies on absolutely everything. I'd happily vote for a party that promised more social and economic freedom, along the lines of 'do what you want, so long as you don't encroach on other people's ability to do the same'.

Yes, and economic/social freedom are still policies.

Let's say the party writes out it's manifesto; it would need to be more clear than just writing down MIll's Liberty Principle. It would need to say where it stands on issues as the interpretation of 'do what you want, so long as you don't encroach on other people's ability to do the same' would vary from person to person.

My original point was that the OP would need a party with a stance on far more issues than just the economy. You asked why it needs to have policies on far more issues than just the economy.
I'd say a government needs policies on everything. Whether that equates into laws is another matter.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I would like to see it but I just don't see it happening.

I think the only thing that would get this going would be for TDs in office to leave FF/FG/Labour and start a new party.

Otherwise it would be very difficult for a new party to get local TDs backing. People want some sort of record when they vote(yet strangley it doesn't seem to matter what that record is)

So another related question - who would you like to see plucked from the current government to form the backbone of this new party?

Problems I can already see looming are Labour TDs probably fancy their chances in the next election so they're unlikely to move. Same with Fine Gael. Fianna Fail dissidents would probably be the most enthusiastic and I don't fancy their chances.

Perhaps if Labour got a massive surge in votes in the next GE; which I wouldn't rule out given Fianna Fail voters distaste of Enda Kenny and the latest paramilitary activities harming a possible Sinn Fein surge - they could be the main party in power. This could end or at least damage the civil war politics that have dominated the state and lead to FG and other TDs looking toward a new party

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not really, a policy need not be a precursor of legislation.
A party could have a policy of no taxes and would not need to enact leglisation when in office for this.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This depends on the issue. Although the government would need to be in power to enact the legislation for this enumeration in the first place (unless it was done through a Constitutional amendment)

I'd still say that a party needs stances on issues, even if it's a commitment not to interfere with it.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry, my original phrase was poorly worded.
I should have said; "commitments to economic/social freedoms are still policies."