The need for a RADICAL political party?

imme

Are our existing political parties too centrist.
Does Ireland need a radical political party.

Shea O'Meara

I'd settle for an honest competent one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

Perhaps we could use a fascist party like the other European nations have? You know, to balance out the left ones

nesf

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Perhaps we could use a fascist party like the other European nations have? You know, to balance out the left ones

We've had a couple, they've just never managed to get a TD or Councillor elected. :pac:

imme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not radical in a pejorative sense, but I was thinking radical in a political sense, in the best traditions of the French and British political sense, historically. Are our existing 'big' political parties too centrist, too comfortable with status quo.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But are they really viable? One thing I find interesting about Irish politics is that there really isn't a coherent left. Labour seems more like the Democrats in the US (but even less organized) rather than a socialist party in a continental European sense. And there doesn't seem to be much policy difference between the parties at all. Labour is closer to the unions, but that's about it...and FF reps were the original architects of social partnership, no?

I wouldn't say that Ireland needs a radical left, but it would be interesting if there was actually an electorally viable leftist party with clearly defined policies vis-a-vis FF and FG.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

View

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's largely as a result of the voting systems used. The US and UK FPTP seems to encourage "Punch-n-Judy" politics with their being a tendency to despise anyone who would be willing to accept a compromise solutions. That said, it should be pointed out that the parties there are in many ways "coalitions" in their own rights rather than distinct parties/groups that you can vote for based on their policies.

imme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not looking to restrict this thread DF. I wanted to start the thread as broad as poss so as not to restrict debate/ideas.

From one angle, the soundbite of Michael McDowell that "The PD's need to be radical or redundant" springs to mind in terms of radical politics. Well McDowell and some of his faithful would have seen the PD's as radical. Some others wouldn't have seen them as radical.

From an historical point of analysis the term 'radical' is more associated with anti-monarchy and/or left-wing politics and the push for a more liberal society.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

imme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Liberalism is not antithetical to left-wing politics imo.

Maybe you're going all the way down the spectrum by bringing communism into the discussion this early.


The PD's were established in 1986, they advocated radical policies at the time. Prior to their establishment Garrett Fitzgerald of FG set about his 'constitutional crusade' to address some of the social issues you raised. Were the PD's following Fitzgerald in their radicalism in regard to social issues?

Liam Byrne

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't view any of that as "amiss".

"A fairer Ireland" should be something that EVERYONE wants. And if people are being crucified and can barely survive because of FF taxing us to pay the bankers, then tax cuts are required.

Why ANYONE would have ANY extremist policies is beyond me (unless, of course, those policies suit their own vested interests and give them more at the expense of everyone else, in which case it's understandable but unacceptable).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

imme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

my goodness DF, you're all over this thread:D lol
I'll hang off for a while DF and see if anyone else has any other ideas. I'll be back later.

Shea O'Meara

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Surely you're confusing Communism and Socialism with the dictatorships which use the names but don't follow the philosophy?
In their true form you can't get more liberal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

southsiderosie wrote: »

But are they really viable? One thing I find interesting about Irish politics is that there really isn't a coherent left. Labour seems more like the Democrats in the US (but even less organized) rather than a socialist party in a continental European sense. And there doesn't seem to be much policy difference between the parties at all. Labour is closer to the unions, but that's about it...and FF reps were the original architects of social partnership, no?

I wouldn't say that Ireland needs a radical left, but it would be interesting if there was actually an electorally viable leftist party with clearly defined policies vis-a-vis FF and FG.

Completely disagree there Rosie, Labour are far more left wing than the Democrats, and even more so than most Socialist (centre-left) European politics.
Would also disagree that the three main parties are the same. There's pretty clear differences between FF/FG/Labour (look at the banking crisis for example)

I really dislike the way so many Irish people claim that the three parties are the same.( Not directed at you here, speaking generally) THere are clear differences and it seems many Irish people are too lazy to look for the differences and rather content themselves with "Ah sure they're all the same"

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are being somewhat misleading here DF: Labour were pushing for tax cuts for middle income earners in the 2007 election (which I'm assuming is the tax cut you are referring to)
LIkewise, FG are with the EPP in Europe, so a moderate welfare state combined with generally liberal economic policies is perfectly compatible with Christian Democracy.

Would also disagree that Labour/Conservative are really at odds (New Labour for example) and hell, look how many Rockefeller Republicans/Blue Dog Democrats there are.

Shea O'Meara

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wish I knew...I'd move there tomorrow. My point is any right wing person or party can claim to be for the people, a socialist even communist. That doesn't make it so. Didn't Bertie announce he was a Socialist? You can't therefore use Ahern as a template for Socialism just because he labeled himself as such.

Nice to see it's business as usual in the health department:
http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/17169236/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you just listen to soundbites you'll never hear any difference. This applies to pretty much every party around the globe.
Every party claims that its policies will kickstart the economy, give everyone access to medical care, provide the best education etc etc.
The differences only occur if you look at the policies.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are misquoting them there; decrease the standard rate of tax (by a hefty 2%) along with reform the public sector, scrapping colocation in the health service, caps on tax breaks for jobs outside of principle occupations, moving managerial staff from the overmanaged HSE to the undermanaged education sector (where admin work is done by seniority, not managerial expertise)
etc.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Our welfare state is pretty moderate mate in fairness; nothing as gargantuan as France, Belgium or Norway. Children's allowance is stopped at a younger age, there's no fully tax funded public healthcare system,
The problem with the Irish spending bill is it's efficiency and mass of bloated things like Quangos. Spending =/= the services provided.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Seriously? The Democrats are fairly right wing by European standards (look at the problems they're going through within their own party just to bring about mandated private insurance, let alone socialised medicine)

There's a big difference between polarisation and actual policy differences (if you are arguing that American personalities matter more then I fully agree, stands to reason really given the amount they spend on elections, making candidate personality more important)
Then again, we're saved from having as much of a mess of smear campaigns and gutter politics.

Red_Marauder

No we don't need more radical political parties.
We need to start getting real on the economy. I'm sick of walking down the street and seeing advertisements for one of those many far-left, "people before profit", "government are protecting bankers" posters that rely on simplistic, childlike arguments to further their radicalism.

We do not need radicalism. We need a centrist government with a level head for international business and we as a society need to get a grip on things. We need a banking system, and we can't let our banks fail.

Radicals are always complaining about Tracey from Donaghmede not getting anything from the bailout. Well, she has to sit tight, because if the banks fail then Tracey from Donaghmede might as well stay in bed and not bother going to work tomorrow because her employer won't be able to stay in business and help her pay her mortgage.

Has anyone else completely given up on opening their mouths in taxis? I'm really tired of that dead radicalist rhetoric, "where's my NAMA?" The point of NAMA is to get the banks back operating and investing (albeit abroad and in international bonds, that is inevitable) and then to help get SMEs and other businesses back on their feet.
It's a trickle down effect to people like Tracey in Donaghmede. But no, she doesn't get a NAMA.

I would be totally opposed to any form of radicalism right now where it has any possible impact upon our future economic growth. We need to respond to international demands in the short term, so that we can thing about 'radicalism' in terms of social change in the longterm.

But for now, radicalism is not going to get us anywhere. When you're in a hole, you don't keep digging.

evercloserunion

southsiderosie wrote: »

But are they really viable? One thing I find interesting about Irish politics is that there really isn't a coherent left. Labour seems more like the Democrats in the US (but even less organized) rather than a socialist party in a continental European sense. And there doesn't seem to be much policy difference between the parties at all. Labour is closer to the unions, but that's about it...and FF reps were the original architects of social partnership, no?

I wouldn't say that Ireland needs a radical left, but it would be interesting if there was actually an electorally viable leftist party with clearly defined policies vis-a-vis FF and FG.

The problem is that the unions have been cosy with FF, leaving Labour out in the cold. Now that social partnership has ended the unions might come crawling back to Labour but Labour (rightfully) have reservations about it and could go the way of New Labour. That said, Labour have gone left in the past while, pushing nationalisation of the banks and defending public sector workers. But it's not just about taking left-wing positions on certain policy issues, they also have to look at transforming themselves into big contenders for government.

The big problem IMO is populism. there is no left-right divide, partially because of the civil war (thankfully becoming a thing of the past) and partially because every party will promise you whatever you want to get your vote. FF were of course the masters at this until it blew up in their faces. Now both the opposition parties are promising to take us away from that kind of thing but both of them are guilty of it themselves, I think FG moreso. If there is to be a shift away from populism and towards a more stable ideological left-right divide it has to be structural. No point in two of the three main parties taking coherent ideological positions if the third party is going to promise everything to everyone. But then the uncomfortable truth is that there probably isn't room for three main parties in Irish politics.

Re the need for a far left party, we have that in the Socialist Party. In reality there are loads of them out there but the SP are the most popular and most serious of them. Joe Higgins will probably get back into the Dáil next GE, and a couple of others like Clare Daly have a good chance too. But parliamentary politics have never been the major pre-occupation of radical parties like the SP. Their presence is felt on the ground through marches, protests, public meetings etc. Of course you could definitely argue that they have to step up their game in that area.

As for a far right party, you can forget it. Ireland is not racist enough for that, our experience with immigration has been very positive and I think there is still a collective memory of the old days of mass emigration when the US and other countries took us in.

View

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is what the FF/PD governments did over the last number of years. And both the PDs in their hey-day and FF more recently are paid up members of the Liberals at EU level.

donegalfella wrote: »

If we had a moderate welfare state, we'd be doing quite well. In fact we have a gargantuan welfare state that consumes two-thirds of total tax revenue. There's nothing "moderate" about it.

From memory, the state spends roughly a quarter of its budget on each of: Health, Education, Social Welfare and "Everything else". Which of these would you classify as being "Welfare State" (whether moderate or otherwise)?

Wheely

Thread seems to have gone off-topic. For my money's worth, I'd agree with Rosie. And on my understanding of the word radical, no Ireland does not need a radical party.

imme

Wheely wrote: »

Thread seems to have gone off-topic. For my money's worth, I'd agree with Rosie. And on my understanding of the word radical, no Ireland does not need a radical party.

Yes and no, re the off topic point. It's the nature of some threads that they go off topic I guess.
Maybe has to do with the posters as well, I don't know.

bob50

evercloserunion wrote: »

The problem is that the unions have been cosy with FF, leaving Labour out in the cold. Now that social partnership has ended the unions might come crawling back to Labour but Labour (rightfully) have reservations about it and could go the way of New Labour. That said, Labour have gone left in the past while, pushing nationalisation of the banks and defending public sector workers. But it's not just about taking left-wing positions on certain policy issues, they also have to look at transforming themselves into big contenders for government.

The big problem IMO is populism. there is no left-right divide, partially because of the civil war (thankfully becoming a thing of the past) and partially because every party will promise you whatever you want to get your vote. FF were of course the masters at this until it blew up in their faces. Now both the opposition parties are promising to take us away from that kind of thing but both of them are guilty of it themselves, I think FG moreso. If there is to be a shift away from populism and towards a more stable ideological left-right divide it has to be structural. No point in two of the three main parties taking coherent ideological positions if the third party is going to promise everything to everyone. But then the uncomfortable truth is that there probably isn't room for three main parties in Irish politics.

Re the need for a far left party, we have that in the Socialist Party. In reality there are loads of them out there but the SP are the most popular and most serious of them. Joe Higgins will probably get back into the Dáil next GE, and a couple of others like Clare Daly have a good chance too. But parliamentary politics have never been the major pre-occupation of radical parties like the SP. Their presence is felt on the ground through marches, protests, public meetings etc. Of course you could definitely argue that they have to step up their game in that area.

As for a far right party, you can forget it. Ireland is not racist enough for that, our experience with immigration has been very positive and I think there is still a collective memory of the old days of mass emigration when the US and other countries took us in.

Cant agree with you that we dont need a far right party IMO we certailey do I think irish people are really fed fed up with the immigrants that we presently have both working and if not claiming dole etc. this country can ill afford to pay for these immigrants even if they are from the enlarged eu

I know the media here would not like to hear this, with their liberal views. But there is an opening for a right wing party now to get established in this country. like other european countries there right wing parties are getting stronger ie Germany France

I know its not pc to say this but i for one would vote for a right wing candiate as immgration needs to be controlled in this country

View

Wheely wrote: »

Thread seems to have gone off-topic. For my money's worth, I'd agree with Rosie. And on my understanding of the word radical, no Ireland does not need a radical party.

To my mind, it largely depends on what is meant by "radical". Offhand, I'd normally think of it in the sense of radically different policies. That though raises the question of what those radically different policies would be...

Alternatively, we could be "radical" and change our politicans by substituting Tweedledum for Tweedledee, altough this is more or less what we do currently.

Then again, we could use it in the original sense from the French revolution where the post-revolution parliament was divided between the conservatives (who favoured the king and his traditional powers), the liberals (who favoured liberal change in the direction of modern style monarchies) and the radicals (who favoured getting rid of the monarchy and most of the traditional systems). There the radicals gained the upperhand and let the guillotine take over. That sort of radicalism might be quite popular here given the whole NAMA debacle.

Wheely

View wrote: »

To my mind, it largely depends on what is meant by "radical". Offhand, I'd normally think of it in the sense of radically different policies. That though raises the question of what those radically different policies would be...

Alternatively, we could be "radical" and change our politicans by substituting Tweedledum for Tweedledee, altough this is more or less what we do currently.

Then again, we could use it in the original sense from the French revolution where the post-revolution parliament was divided between the conservatives (who favoured the king and his traditional powers), the liberals (who favoured liberal change in the direction of modern style monarchies) and the radicals (who favoured getting rid of the monarchy and most of the traditional systems). There the radicals gained the upperhand and let the guillotine take over. That sort of radicalism might be quite popular here given the whole NAMA debacle.

I dunno. I would be in favour of some changes to the system. But if you're equating radical with something akin to replacing the monarchy with a republic, then again no. The system needs to change, yes but nothing as radical as that. So still no, I wouldn't be in favour of a radical party in Ireland.