New Political Parties

Kama

There'd been a load of people over the last while talking about establishing new political parties, due to the perceived failure of our party-political system etc.

I was wondering if any of them were off the ground yet, or what stage they were at, and what policy or ideology they have?

The_Minister

To be frank, most new parties will never get off the ground and will quickly fade out.

Most others will die when they are asked what's new about them and they basically describe Fine Gael ("but better").

Those few left will fail utterly when people realise that while their members are more than willing to complain about things and shoot out slogans, they have no practical ideas for improving things, and are really only venting. You see this allot when they say "the health service is a disgrace" but when you try to discuss its running it turns out they don't actually understand it.

At the end, even among those who set up and get going, you would be lucky to get one that will last past their first election.

There are several non-party organisations that have been set up in recent times (like The Liberals ) to try and lobby for change, but most of the above applies to them too.

TheCandystripes

its stupid in a country of 4 milion that u need 300 people to form a party.

The_Minister

TheCandystripes wrote: »

its stupid in a country of 4 milion that u need 300 people to form a party.

Do you think it should be more or less.

imme

I think it's unlikely that a new pol party would have much success in the current climate, it would be squeezed by the established parties. The PD's in the 1987 election made a massive impression, winning 14 seats. Not to compare them to Labour, because they were after a different vote, but Labour won just 12 seats in 1987. In elections after 1987, their first election, the PD's were up and down, a good next a bad election. At the other end of the spectrum there've been smaller sized/individual attempts to win seats. Jim Kemmy in Limerick, Declan Bree in Sligo. Both joined or re-joined Labour. Democratic Left, former Workers Party-Sinn Féin went on to join Labour, but the augmented Labour didn't show that the sum of the parts was more than the parts. Over the years there've parties come and go Clann na Talmhan, Clann na Poblachta. Today there are small groups trying to launch on the left, People Before Profit, Éirigí, Socialist Party. I think it's unlikely that they'll make any major inroads in the next few Oireachtases.

Mario007

I was trying to get something going, i even did some research to produce tangible policies etc, but it's really a lot of work. i mean i don't expect to be finished the preparatory phase until next summer...but then again thats because i'm a student and don't enjoy having lots of money so i gotta do everything on my own in my spare time:D

The_Minister

Mario007 wrote: »

I was trying to get something going, i even did some research to produce tangible policies etc, but it's really a lot of work. i mean i don't expect to be finished the preparatory phase until next summer...but then again thats because i'm a student and don't enjoy having lots of money so i gotta do everything on my own in my spare time:D

What kind of party?

TheCandystripes

right wing. im a fan of marios proposals.

imme

TheCandystripes wrote: »

right wing. im a fan of marios proposals.

lol
what were his proposals

Mario007

The_Minister wrote: »

What kind of party?

i'd say it was a right-wing party. There are four fundamental pillars involved:

1.Reform of political system- this would be done through introducing technocracy, which works in many countries and i believe it would be beneficial here.
2.Reform of Social welfare and tax system- this is to do with negative income tax theory. It would make the system much fairer, give more incentive to people to work and create more jobs(as it allows a drop in minimum wage)
3. School reform- i'm not entirely sure about this one yet. I know that our schools must be reformed, but I must figure out if it's the teaching standard or the system that is to blame and make a suitable suggestion to change it. So on this point I'm still conducting research
4. European Integration- this meant support for Lisbon back when I thought of it, but it also includes bringing european matters closer to the people by being more active in european agenda. I have created a little pro-european organization for teenagers back when i was in secondary school with my friends and we tried to bring people from the EU down to our school so that people would have more idea about it. That would be something which i would envisage a separate platform in the party would do.

-as i said it's not too concrete and not a final draft either...it's just my working ideas. The first two are well researched and thought about, the next two need more work and I would also think there needs to be more policy to a party than just 4 points.

imme

Mario007 wrote: »

i'd say it was a right-wing party. There are four fundamental pillars involved:

1.Reform of political system- this would be done through introducing technocracy, which works in many countries and i believe it would be beneficial here.

when I read this first I read theocracy.

The_Minister

Mario007 wrote: »

1.Reform of political system- this would be done through introducing technocracy, which works in many countries and i believe it would be beneficial here..

What countries?

The_Minister

Mario007 wrote: »

2.Reform of Social welfare and tax system- this is to do with negative income tax theory. It would make the system much fairer, give more incentive to people to work and create more jobs(as it allows a drop in minimum wage)

You mean as outlined here: http://conductunbecoming.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/negativetax/

Mario007

TheCandystripes wrote: »

right wing. im a fan of marios proposals.

haha thanks:D ya you don't see many right wing parties around these days:D

The_Minister wrote: »

What countries?

italy, czech republic for example=> both countries are prime examples of turbulent politics when a government is never really stable. thats why in 1995 in italy, 1998 and 2009 in czech republic they tried to go along with the government of experts to last till the next elections and those governments have done better than the political ones. it's just a shame that they resort back to political nominee governments afterwards

The_Minister wrote: »

You mean as outlined here: http://conductunbecoming.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/negativetax/

something along those lines, though i'd prefer a bit of a different approach with flat tax rate, like the one outlined in wikipedia which is more of what friedman proposed than the blog entry you quoted, i think

The Negative Income Tax (NIT) which Milton Friedman proposed in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom is a type of flat tax. The basic idea is the same as a flat tax with personal deductions, except that when deductions exceed income, the taxable income is allowed to become negative rather than being set to zero. The flat tax rate is then applied to the resulting "negative income," resulting in a "negative income tax" the government owes the household, unlike the usual "positive" income tax, which the household owes the government.
For example, let the flat rate be 20%, and let the deductions be $20,000 per adult and $7,000 per dependent. Under such a system, a family of four making $54,000 a year would owe no tax. A family of four making $74,000 a year would owe tax amounting to 0.2(74,000-54,000) = $4,000, as under a flat tax with deductions. But families of four earning less than $54,000 per year would owe a "negative" amount of tax (that is, it would receive money from the government). E.g., if it earned $34,000 a year, it would receive a check for $4,000.
The NIT is intended to replace not just the USA's income tax, but also many benefits low income American households receive, such as food stamps and Medicaid. The NIT is designed to avoid the welfare trap—effective high marginal tax rates arising from the rules reducing benefits as market income rises. An objection to the NIT is that it is welfare without a work requirement. Those who would owe negative tax would be receiving a form of welfare without having to make a try to obtain employment. This is essentially a moral objection based on the Puritan work ethic; the advocates of negative tax agree that this would happen, but do not consider it as a problem. Another objection is that the NIT subsidizes industries employing low cost labor, but this objection can also be made against current systems of benefits for the working poor.

imme

Mario007 wrote: »

italy, czech republic for example=> both countries are prime examples of turbulent politics when a government is never really stable. thats why in 1995 in italy, 1998 and 2009 in czech republic they tried to go along with the government of experts to last till the next elections and those governments have done better than the political ones. it's just a shame that they resort back to political nominee governments afterwards

interesting enough about the Lamberto Dini government in Italy in '95. I remember him being called a technocrat at the time. I don't know that his government could be described as a technocracy. The ideas of technocracy seem very 1930's, ie fascist tendencies, corporatsist state.

Mario007

imme wrote: »

interesting enough about the Lamberto Dini government in Italy in '95. I remember him being called a technocrat at the time. I don't know that his government could be described as a technocracy. The ideas of technocracy seem very 1930's, ie fascist tendencies, corporatsist state.

ya true, thats the problem when you mention the term, people usually think you're leaning towards the fascist tendencies or plato's republic. i suppose a cabinet of experts would be a better term to be using. i've done quite a lot of research on it, and described how it could work here in ireland in my blog(in my sig-just don't mind the posts about negative income tax there...i didnt know what i was on about when i was writing those), but i really believe it could work and we would benefit from that kind of a system

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

imme

Mario007 wrote: »

ya true, thats the problem when you mention the term, people usually think you're leaning towards the fascist tendencies or plato's republic. i suppose a cabinet of experts would be a better term to be using. i've done quite a lot of research on it, and described how it could work here in ireland in my blog(in my sig-just don't mind the posts about negative income tax there...i didnt know what i was on about when i was writing those), but i really believe it could work and we would benefit from that kind of a system

the Czech government that you speak of in 1998 was run by Milos Zeman, he seems to be quite a guy:
"Dirt, scum, amateurs, liars, idiots, prostitutes are the terms Mr Zeman frequently used to describe journalists. A chain-smoker and a man particularly fond of the Czech herbal liqueur Becherovka, Milos Zeman did not seem to mind being shown on TV with a glass or a cigarette in his hand. The media themselves never thought twice when they had a chance to show Milos Zeman in his ill-fitting suit dozing off in the parliament or making a passionate speech with a thick ball of spittle sitting on his lip".
Was his government filled with technocrats?, Zmean himself was a career politician, he doesn't seem to have been much of a technocrat.

Mario007

imme wrote: »

the Czech government that you speak of in 1998 was run by Milos Zeman, he seems to be quite a guy:
"Dirt, scum, amateurs, liars, idiots, prostitutes are the terms Mr Zeman frequently used to describe journalists. A chain-smoker and a man particularly fond of the Czech herbal liqueur Becherovka, Milos Zeman did not seem to mind being shown on TV with a glass or a cigarette in his hand. The media themselves never thought twice when they had a chance to show Milos Zeman in his ill-fitting suit dozing off in the parliament or making a passionate speech with a thick ball of spittle sitting on his lip".
Was his government filled with technocrats?, Zmean himself was a career politician, he doesn't seem to have been much of a technocrat.

no sorry i got the year wrong it was 1997 with Josef Tosovsky, Zeman was of course a carreer politician

imme

Mario007 wrote: »

no sorry i got the year wrong it was 1997 with Josef Tosovsky, Zeman was of course a carreer politician

the guy led a caretaker government for 7-months. He's a central banker/technocrat, but was his government a technocracy?

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well in fairness most people seem to be happy with the status quo although maybe it is because nothing else has come along.

Personally I'm pretty happy with most of Mario's ideas in this thread.

Mario007

imme wrote: »

the guy led a caretaker government for 7-months. He's a central banker/technocrat, but was his government a technocracy?

it was in essence, as it consisted of experts rather than politicians. indeed in the polls at the time people actually shown quite a big trust in the government. same thing is happening now with fischer when his government gets an approval rating of around 55% whereas topolanek got only 20% and the same with paroubek beforehand.

Mario007

thebman wrote: »

Well in fairness most people seem to be happy with the status quo although maybe it is because nothing else has come along.

Personally I'm pretty happy with most of Mario's ideas in this thread.

thanks:) getting comments like that is an incentive to keep on working on the party in my spare time and get it together as soon as possible:)

imme

Mario007 wrote: »

it was in essence, as it consisted of experts rather than politicians. indeed in the polls at the time people actually shown quite a big trust in the government. same thing is happening now with fischer when his government gets an approval rating of around 55% whereas topolanek got only 20% and the same with paroubek beforehand.

from the examples you give, Italy & Czech Republic (short-lived minority governments) they were not created by people who said "I know, let's form a technocratic government". They were almost accidents or collisions of events that led to their formation. Can you plan for a technocratic government. Would you form a party?

Mario007

imme wrote: »

from the examples you give, Italy & Czech Republic (short-lived minority governments) they were not created by people who said "I know, let's form a technocratic government". They were almost accidents or collisions of events that led to their formation. Can you plan for a technocratic government. Would you form a party?

i agree, they are mostly emergency governments created to avoid a massive political crisis, yet they seem to be working much better then the governments filled with politicians.
if we were to have one in Ireland it would indeed have to the people to say 'let's form a technocratic government' as it would require a change to the constitution.
you can plan for technocratic government, as the Dail is still controlled by politicians that are democratically elected. However the cabinet is one of experts in their field

imme

@Mario007, was the Lamberto Dini government in Italy from 1995 a technocratic one, or was it a government headed by a technocrat. Was his government composed of members of parliament? Were these technocrats?

Surely when you discount Berlusconi there can't have been many more technocrats in parliament then?:D

Mario007

imme wrote: »

@Mario007, was the Lamberto Dini government in Italy from 1995 a technocratic one, or was it a government headed by a technocrat. Was his government composed of members of parliament? Were these technocrats?

Surely when you discount Berlusconi there can't have been many more technocrats in parliament then?:D

Dini's government was, in essence, technocratic though Dini himself was a politician. I think it was the first time technocracy was actually used as a form of government, though I'm open to correction on that point.
In most European countries the government doesn't have to be formed from members of parliament, they are simply nominees, and if a member of the parliament is nominated to the government he looses his seat in the parliament. Thus a technocratic government doesn't need a parliament filled with technocrats. In fact that would actually lead back to the present situation actually

SLUSK

Why not a Pirate Party like the rest of Europe?

imme

Mario007 wrote: »

Dini's government was, in essence, technocratic though Dini himself was a politician. I think it was the (1) first time technocracy was actually used as a form of government, though I'm open to correction on that point.
(2) In most European countries the government doesn't have to be formed from members of parliament, they are simply nominees, and if a member of the parliament is nominated to the government he looses his seat in the parliament. Thus a technocratic government doesn't need a parliament filled with technocrats. In fact that would actually lead back to the present situation actually

(1) The Franco governments (which included Opus Dei members) of 1957 could be described as a technocratic government.
(2) some European countries.

Kama

SLUSK there is a Pirate Party of Ireland.