Joe Higgins - Personality v Policies

PopeBuckfastXVI

Something I've noticed from a few people in this forum is that they say they don't like Joe Higgins' policies, but respect him as a person, and would therefore give him a preference, above the likes of MLM.

I just wonder if Higgins is elected, won't he (correctly) read that as a mandate to pursue his policies, and if people are taking that into account when voting for his personality?

Not my constituency so I've no major interest, but thought it might make for an interesting discussion, anyone any thoughts?

P. Breathnach

It might simply be the "least-worst" criterion. People might dislike his policies (as I do) and have some respect for him as a person (as I do) but have an even worse view of what Mary Lou represents.

Here in NW, I am close to filling my ballot paper from the bottom up.

sink

I see it another way. I may not agree with a politician but if they are honest and bring a rational level head, they make a vital contribution to the debate by looking at it from different angles and broadening it. They help to strengthen the position they are arguing against by virtue of providing decent opposition. Joe makes a good sparring partner for any classical liberal free marketeer, people like him keep us sharp.

nesf

It's a least worst thing. The third seat is going to Eoin Ryan, Mary Lou or Joe Higgins. Many people would put Joe at the top of that list if given the choice. He might not be their ideal candidate but he's the best they'll get given the circumstances.

View

In terms of the EP's political groups, the choice for the third seat in Dublin looks like it will come down to:

Candidate|Ideology|EP Group - European Political Party
Ryan|(Free Market) Liberal|ALDE - ELDR
McDonald|Communist|GUE/NGL - GUE
Higgins|(Probably Communist *)|(Probably GUE *)


* The details of who Higgins might sit with is an educated guess on my part. I think it is safe to assume that given a choice between sitting with the PES (which contains mainstream socialist parties like Labour) and the GUE - United European Left (which contains the Communist parties), that he'd chose the latter. Needless to say, I don't think Joe would be in a rush to join any of the more right wing parties.

kevteljeur

I'm in that boat of not entirely agreeing with Joe Higgins' views on a number of issues, but... Damn it, he's honest and intelligent, and I'd like someone in there that listens and that I can respect.

Pretty stuck for who to vote for, to be honest. There isn't a wealth of good choice.


.

MrMatisse

sink wrote: »

I see it another way. I may not agree with a politician but if they are honest and bring a rational level head, they make a vital contribution to the debate by looking at it from different angles and broadening it. They help to strengthen the position they are arguing against by virtue of providing decent opposition. Joe makes a good sparring partner for any classical liberal free marketeer, people like him keep us sharp.

I think this is why a lot of people will be voting for Joe

dinky earnshaw

Whats the point of voting on policies anyway polictians change them at the drop of a hat for power ie the greens. I think Higgins is honest and will stick to his Ideals regardless of circumstances if only you could say that about the rest of them it would make voting so much easier.

turgon

I really dislike Higgins' policies, but at least he probably would attend EP more than Mary Lou. That is an aspect of personality that must be rewarded I suppose.

damonjewel

View wrote: »

In terms of the EP's political groups, the choice for the third seat in Dublin looks like it will come down to:

Candidate|Ideology|EP Group - European Political Party
Ryan|(Free Market) Liberal|ALDE - ELDR
McDonald|Communist|GUE/NGL - GUE
Higgins|(Probably Communist *)|(Probably GUE *)


* The details of who Higgins might sit with is an educated guess on my part. I think it is safe to assume that given a choice between sitting with the PES (which contains mainstream socialist parties like Labour) and the GUE - United European Left (which contains the Communist parties), that he'd chose the latter. Needless to say, I don't think Joe would be in a rush to join any of the more right wing parties.

I would tend to disagree with his affiliation, the Socialist Party sprang from the Militant group which was exiled by the Labour party. The militants where very Trotsky orientated and where as much against the centralised soviet style communism as they were against capitalism. A good amount of the GUE parties would probably still hold this soviet style communism to heart. And hence would probably deter Joe Higgins from joining them, however conversely socialist parties have become more centrist, and also the Irish labour party may possibly have some kind of veto on him for joining PES.

I think that Joe Higgins, despite his politics, has a strong appeal to voters. He is idealistic, and willing to pay the price for his opinions. I think as a personality he has more to offer than MLM

ixtlan

sink wrote: »

I see it another way. I may not agree with a politician but if they are honest and bring a rational level head, they make a vital contribution to the debate by looking at it from different angles and broadening it. They help to strengthen the position they are arguing against by virtue of providing decent opposition. Joe makes a good sparring partner for any classical liberal free marketeer, people like him keep us sharp.

I agree with this but with reservations. Since I'm in Cork I don't need to worry but...

No doubt Joe is honest, but does he really bring a rational level head to the table? If I imagine him in Europe I know he would be fighting against the capitalist system, which is fine. However while Labour for example would seek to curb the worst excesses of the system while keeping it alive as the least worst option, Joe would surely refuse to agree to anything unless he could stand full behind it. Therefore while Labour could succeed in pulling policies to the left and compromise, Joe would be unable to sign off on any deal unless the outcome was a far-left success. Surely he would quickly get a reputation as incredibly idealistic but impossible to negotiate with. I mean what is the point in negotiating/listening to Joe if he is never going to agree with the outcome?

Am I unfair? Can Joe compromise?

It would be a tough call for me whether Joe or MLM was worse. Joe, definitely the more honest, sincere, idealistic candidate, but could he function as an MEP? Would he just be the voice of complaint against everything the EU did. Against everything bad they do, and against everything that was not good enough.

Ix

PopeBuckfastXVI

Does anyone know if Joe is for the EU, or against it?

Like does he see the EU as a good thing, in that it unites the people of Europe, thereby allowing the spread of socialism/communism on a continental scale, traditional international Socialism.

Or does he see the EU as just a capitalist enabler, which should be destroyed?

For me Pro/Anti EU trumps most other considerations when it comes to MEP's (save for pro EU racists etc.). So even though I'm very angry with FF I'd still give them a preference ahead of SF who are anti EU.

lostexpectation

the idea that mary lou is a communist? hahahaha

markopantelic

I gave Joe 2nd Pref today, even though I would be more of a yes to lisbon guy.

View

lostexpectation wrote: »

the idea that mary lou is a communist? hahahaha

As an MEP, she has just spent the past 5 years as a member of the "European United Left/Nordic Green Left" (GUE/NGL) group in the EP. As can be seen here, 6 of the member parties in that Group actually contain the word Communist (or Kommunist) in their title. Others that don't are "strongly associated" with that philosophy - e.g. Die Linke (from Germany) was co-founded by the PDS, the direct successor to the SED that ran the old DDR (you know the guys the brought you the Berlin Wall, the Stasis etc).

I'd personally credit both Mary-Lou and Sinn Fein as an organisation with enough intelligence to spot both the political background of their sister parties and their political ideology. It is hard to believe they would be stupid enough to miss something so obvious...

damonjewel

View wrote: »

As an MEP, she has just spent the past 5 years as a member of the "European United Left/Nordic Green Left" (GUE/NGL) group in the EP. As can be seen here, 6 of the member parties in that Group actually contain the word Communist (or Kommunist) in their title. Others that don't are "strongly associated" with that philosophy - e.g. Die Linke (from Germany) was co-founded by the PDS, the direct successor to the SED that ran the old DDR (you know the guys the brought you the Berlin Wall, the Stasis etc).

I'd personally credit both Mary-Lou and Sinn Fein as an organisation with enough intelligence to spot both the political background of their sister parties and their political ideology. It is hard to believe they would be stupid enough to miss something so obvious...

Maybe so, but I think the poster was just pointing out that MLM is no Rosa Luxemburg.

Actually on that point I'd wonder how Sinn Fein's GUE comrades would react to MLM's eulogising fascist sympathiser Sean Russell.

Hydrosylator

View wrote: »

In terms of the EP's political groups, the choice for the third seat in Dublin looks like it will come down to:

Candidate|Ideology|EP Group - European Political Party
Ryan|(Free Market) Liberal|ALDE - ELDR
McDonald|Communist|GUE/NGL - GUE
Higgins|(Probably Communist *)|(Probably GUE *)


* The details of who Higgins might sit with is an educated guess on my part. I think it is safe to assume that given a choice between sitting with the PES (which contains mainstream socialist parties like Labour) and the GUE - United European Left (which contains the Communist parties), that he'd chose the latter. Needless to say, I don't think Joe would be in a rush to join any of the more right wing parties.

I can see where you're coming from but he says this on his site:
" Joe Higgins would try to form a real socialist bloc in the European Parliament with MEPs elected from other countries that are genuine activists/socialists."

Which suggests he doesn't consider the current groups adequate to achieve his goals in Europe, and would be an independent.

Also, the strong anti-Maastricht stance of GUE is a bit impractical. While the Socialists oppose the Lisbon Treaty, we don't try and revoke ratified treaties.

View

View wrote: »

In terms of the EP's political groups, the choice for the third seat in Dublin looks like it will come down to:

Candidate|Ideology|EP Group - European Political Party
Ryan|(Free Market) Liberal|ALDE - ELDR
McDonald|Communist|GUE/NGL - GUE
Higgins|(Probably Communist *)|(Probably GUE *)


* The details of who Higgins might sit with is an educated guess on my part. I think it is safe to assume that given a choice between sitting with the PES (which contains mainstream socialist parties like Labour) and the GUE - United European Left (which contains the Communist parties), that he'd chose the latter. Needless to say, I don't think Joe would be in a rush to join any of the more right wing parties.

Just to update this. In an article in today's Irish Times, the following comment appears in the middle of the article:

... Mr Higgins, ... later told The Irish Times he would be joining the European United Left group in the parliament. “I don’t much like the name. It sounds like that sticky stuff on the ground ,” he confided.

The European United Left (or GUE to use the French initials) consists largely of the Communist parties in the EP.

As such, from the perspective of politics in the European Parliament, the net effect of replacing Mary-Lou with Joe H, is essentially zero.

conchubhar1

well he is a socialist - she was a sinn féin candidate
different policies and outlooks

but just because they will sit in the same group - they are the same? pfff

View

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well he is a socialist - she was a sinn féin candidate
different policies and outlooks

but just because they will sit in the same group - they are the same? pfff

Voting in the EP takes place largely (but not exclusively) along ideological/party lines. In approx. 85-90% of votes, the typical MEP together with the fellow MEPs of his/her EP Group or Party votes the "Party line" .

In the next Parliament as fellow MEPs in the GUE/NGL group, Joe H and SF's Barbara de Brun can be reasonably expected to vote the same way in most circumstances.

As such, it is the overall policies of the GUE/NGL group that (mainly) count at the end of the day.

conchubhar1

yes

but calling de brún or mary lou communist - is ignorant, stupid and downright wrong and misinformed

it is a overly large jump - come on and cop on

View

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes

but calling de brún or mary lou communist - is ignorant, stupid and downright wrong and misinformed

it is a overly large jump - come on and cop on

I was actually referring in the original post to the overall ideology of the GUE/NGL group in the EP since a party/group ideology is typically the deciding factor in how a party/group votes on an issue which is what counts in EP terms.

As for ML and BdB, they spent 5 years in the EP voluntarily being members of GUE/NGL (aka the Communists) and voluntarily voting the party line in 85-90% of EP votes. How, therefore, is it wrong or misinformed to use the shorthand "Communist" in relation to either their EP parliamentary group or their primary voting "ideology"? Does voting a particular way not give a clear signal of what a person's belief are? Does voluntarily being a member of a particular Parliamentary group not do so?

Offhand, I can't see how anyone could describe them as being Christian Democrats (aka EPP), (Free Market) Liberals, Greens or even (main stream) Socialist if they don't vote with those groups/parties or even sit with them.

conchubhar1

i am aware of where they sit

calling them communists is not right or accurate.

dress it up in whatever you want, its slander of those two meps (well one now)


''The GUE/NGL Group in the European Parliament is, at present, made up of forty-one MEPs from seventeen political parties in thirteen European countries (GUE/NGL parties received almost 9 million votes in the June 2004 European elections).''

17 political parties, ah but they are all ''communist'' right?

feckin oversimplifying

yes the majority, fairly sure, are members of a communist party. to call either sinn féin a communist because they sit in that group if wrong
simply wrong

PopeBuckfastXVI

You lie down with dogs...

conchubhar1

you lie down with dogs... you lie down with dogs

there was no ''fleas'' caught - neither of them are communist

PopeBuckfastXVI

So what is SF's ideology then?

Let's see, they're Socialists, they're Nationalists, they're militant.

Aha! Got it... they're Militant National-Socialists.

Yikes... that is pretty much as far from Communism as you can get alirght!

conchubhar1

militant?
since when?

nationalists yes, full co operators in the eu yes

socialistic in outlook and policy - but not a socialist party per-se

---

by the by - isnt there or wasnt there talk of sinn féin moving groups?

when does this get decided?
barosso was re elected again? no? so if so i would imagine the parliment should be up soon

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

militant?
since when?

nationalists yes, full co operators in the eu yes

socialistic in outlook and policy - but not a socialist party per-se

What are they if not Socialist?

For 100 years now Sinn Féin has been to the forefront of bringing about change in Ireland. Republicans and Socialists from Constance Markievicz, James Connolly and Liam Mellows to Bobby Sands, Mairéad Farrell and Joe Cahill have brought us closer to our goal of Irish unity and independence. Today’s generation of republicans continue that work.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/about-sf

Militant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Road_bombing

View

conchubhar1 wrote: »

''The GUE/NGL Group in the European Parliament is, at present, made up of forty-one MEPs from seventeen political parties in thirteen European countries (GUE/NGL parties received almost 9 million votes in the June 2004 European elections).''

17 political parties, ah but they are all ''communist'' right?

Of the 41 MEPs in GUE/NGL in the last EP, 21 were members of parties that contain the word Communist in their titles. 6 others (the German ones) were members of "Die Linke" which is a direct successor to the SED which ran the DDR (The SED called themselves "Socialists" but let's not pretend they were anything but Communists). 8 belonged to parties that - while they don't contain the word communist in their titles - Wikipedia (yes, a dreadful source I know) either identifies as being communist or having been once been named Communist or formed from a merger with a communist party (The latter two cases having typically happened post 1990 for some strange reason!)

That's 35 with either direct or indirect links. When one excludes the 3 members of Nordic Green-Left Alliance, that just leaves 1 other Danish MEP and the 2 SF MEPs.

As such, I think the shorthand "Communist" to describe the group is fairly accurate. I'd presume that both ML and BdB could have noticed the background of their fellow MEPs - I'd personally credit them with that much intelligence.

oscarBravo

This isn't a Sinn Féin thread. Don't go there.

conchubhar1

con mark and connoly were members of the modern day sinn féin?

no they were not - they draw on them as i said they arent socialist per-se they do have a socialist outlook and standpoint in respects

IRA is not sinn féin

maybe its the irish that is throwing you of (it means oursleves alone) and is just a party name

it does have some secret hoodwink meaning of terrorist group or IRA

earlier in sinn féins history it had links to the IRA but that was before a fairly major split...... so a different party in many respects
there is no link - say it all you want

find me proof that any current mp, mla or mep was innvolved in any attack
or indeed the one you mentioned there