The need for a RADICAL political party?

Noobsaibot21

Dont know if they qualify as radical but a party in Britain called UKIP seem to have some good ideas in the vault. Their leader pretty much 'pwns' (for want of a better term) Barrosso and Brown in the european parliament regularly with honest to goodness truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-owgAjsoNk

Not trying to resurrect the Lisbon debate but it's more about how he comes across. He was also on Question time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0VULvPSFzM - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7LTRKixUfk - Part 2

Not sure how their party stands on all aspects but they do have some good points regarding the EU and the majority of policies and ideas i've heard from them look sound. Admitedly, they are UKIP uploaded vids but still.

Spiritoftheseventies

Every party wants to have influence. And to have influence they have to compromise. Look at the greens.

gandalf

No what we need are one of the existing parties to make some hard decisions and start to govern the country like its a country and not based on parish pump county council politics. Until that happens any new party will just follow the mould that is already set. We the public have a role to play in this as well, people need to realise that a TD is not someone you contact to get potholes filled or for the local GAA team to get new changing rooms. We all basically need to mature politically. Unfortunately the cynic in me says we still aren't at this point.

Eliot Rosewater

Over a third of Irelands budget goes on direct social welfare spending. It has gotten completely out of hand. There is a core group of people who will oppose welfare cuts no matter what, even if those cuts are in line with the cost of living. Welfare increased werent instituted for this reason: they were brought in to "buy" elections. Yet cutting welfare rates is hurting the "vulnerable". The person who first said that word should get it trademarked, he'd make a mint.

Welfare has gotten out of control in this country and has parted ways with what welfare should be. Welfare should be a very very limited safety net. Because the principal problem is that once you introduce a safety net people will automatically jump on it. Welfare policy erodes (and has eroded) personal responsibility. In Ireland this has been quite serious from what I can see.

Example: Like it or not, the Irish government rewards certain parenting decisions. The decision to have a child is rewarded with cash. The decision to split with your partner is rewarded with cash. Once you give people a reward for something, doing that something becomes a whole lot easier. If the last factor in someones decision to have a child is government money, I would not have confidence in that parent.

I think we need to reevaluate our social welfare spending. I think that a lot of payments can be cut. I think most can be reduced. How about we introduce some personal responsibility?

(And before you respond, don't forget about private charities. If we cut welfare there will still be safety nets.)

Thats what I call radical!

southsiderosie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

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"

I think perhaps what makes Ireland different from other European countries is that there was never really a mass movement of disenfranchised urban workers + exploited rural labor to form a leftist/hard left movement at the turn of the last century. At that time, despite labor strife in Dublin and Belfast, the biggest question in Irish politics was independence. In countries like Spain and Italy, peasant/worker movements were growing and quite powerful, and these groups - especially in Spain - still play a role in national politics today. There are stark differences between the PSOE and the PP for example, and when the Spanish change governments, there are significant policy shifts, especially around church-state relations and government spending. Whereas Labour has always been the third wheel in Irish politics, so it's harder to draw clear policy boundaries, since they have never been able to form their own government.

I think this is why I don't see Ireland as having a "left" in the same way as other European countries do - Irish Labour is always the bridesmaid, never the bride. Because of this, I think it is hard to differentiate Labour from FF or FG a lot of the time: by forming coalition governments, it seems like their agenda gets muddied or swamped by virtue of being the smaller party. And despite their policy positions, which are quite progressive, they are politically constrained by their electoral weakness, so actual political outcomes in Ireland seem well to the right of most other European countries.

Anyway, that's my two cents from an outsider's perspective.

Truthrevolution

We do need to establish a radical political movement, both in this country and internationally that will stand for the same principals.In this new age of globalism left and right wing are just opposite sides of the same coin.What we need is a an organisation that will stand for peoples rights,freedoms and a fair and just society.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

O I think we were all victims of whatever successs they had.

southsiderosie

Truthrevolution wrote: »

We do need to establish a radical political movement, both in this country and internationally that will stand for the same principals.In this new age of globalism left and right wing are just opposite sides of the same coin.What we need is a an organisation that will stand for peoples rights,freedoms and a fair and just society.

OK, what exactly would that look like? I'm being serious.

Truthrevolution

southsiderosie wrote: »

OK, what exactly would that look like? I'm being serious.

Heres one particular movement which will give you a fair idea of what im talking about http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/

djpbarry

Noobsaibot21 wrote: »

Dont know if they qualify as radical but a party in Britain called UKIP seem to have some good ideas in the vault.
...
Not sure how their party stands on all aspects but they do have some good points regarding the EU...

The UKIP’s “EU policy” entails campaigning for the UK’s withdrawal – I’m not sure that constitutes a policy as such. But anyway, I’m not sure that could be considered a good idea, particularly from Ireland’s perspective.

trapsagenius

An extreme left or right party in Ireland will never win a large number of seats in the Dail for the simple reason we use a PR system of voting .All parties need to appeal to people across the political spectrum which keeps them from straying too far from the centre.

irishh_bob

trapsagenius wrote: »

An extreme left or right party in Ireland will never win a large number of seats in the Dail for the simple reason we use a PR system of voting .All parties need to appeal to people across the political spectrum which keeps them from straying too far from the centre.

an extreme right or left party is unlikely to ever gain much traction because irish people are overwhelmingly centrist and moderete , we are a deeply unidealogical nation

evercloserunion

southsiderosie wrote: »

OK, what exactly would that look like? I'm being serious.

Some nutjobs in Russia pulled this out of their arses between vodka sessions.

Lockstep

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think perhaps what makes Ireland different from other European countries is that there was never really a mass movement of disenfranchised urban workers + exploited rural labor to form a leftist/hard left movement at the turn of the last century. At that time, despite labor strife in Dublin and Belfast, the biggest question in Irish politics was independence. In countries like Spain and Italy, peasant/worker movements were growing and quite powerful, and these groups - especially in Spain - still play a role in national politics today. There are stark differences between the PSOE and the PP for example, and when the Spanish change governments, there are significant policy shifts, especially around church-state relations and government spending. Whereas Labour has always been the third wheel in Irish politics, so it's harder to draw clear policy boundaries, since they have never been able to form their own government.

You're wrong there Rosie, we had such problems with exploited rural workers that agrarian violence was extremely common (gangs like Captain Moonlight and the Whiteboys), Labour itself has it's roots in the disenfranchised urban workers and initially got support from rural areas (especially from landless laborers) before Fianna Fáil embarked on their social programs; their moral conservatism appealed to the rural people a lot more so Labour lost sway.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think this is why I don't see Ireland as having a "left" in the same way as other European countries do - Irish Labour is always the bridesmaid, never the bride. Because of this, I think it is hard to differentiate Labour from FF or FG a lot of the time: by forming coalition governments, it seems like their agenda gets muddied or swamped by virtue of being the smaller party. And despite their policy positions, which are quite progressive, they are politically constrained by their electoral weakness, so actual political outcomes in Ireland seem well to the right of most other European countries.Anyway, that's my two cents from an outsider's perspective.

The same can be said of pretty much any state with multile parties (aside from First Past the Post); Belgium, Denmark the Netherlands etc ; none the parties can form majority governments and are required to form coalitions with single party governments extremely rare.

Amhran Nua

Red_Marauder wrote: »

We need a banking system, and we can't let our banks fail.

The two concepts are not interdependent.

DogmaticLefty

Lol. More internet pie-in-the-sky stuff about new political parties.

FFers must laugh smugly and joke in the bar about these kind of threads.

Amhran Nua

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Lol. More internet pie-in-the-sky stuff about new political parties.

I was chatting with Garath O'Callaghan on the breakfast show last week, among others, so its not just the internet.

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

FFers must laugh smugly and joke in the bar about these kind of threads.

First they laugh at you, and all that.

gandalf

The only type of party or movement thats needed is one for radical reform.

Ideas like the following.

• Abolish the Seanad
• Reduce the number of TD's to 100
• Limit TD's to 3 terms
• Bring in a list system of voting so people only vote for parties and policies
• Make it illegal for TD's to get involved in local/planning/ or personal representations to the Public Service
• Allow the government appoint ministers from outside the political spectrum with expertise in Finance or Foreign affairs for example when needed
• Reduce and Merge County Councils
• Make Councillors full time and give them more powers
• Streamline and Centralise Administrative Functions with in the public service
• Bring proper modern work practices in place in the Public Service

That will do for a start.

Amhran Nua

deadtiger wrote: »

The only type of party or movement thats needed is one for radical reform.

Ideas like the following.

• Abolish the Seanad
• Reduce the number of TD's to 100
• Limit TD's to 3 terms
• Bring in a list system of voting so people only vote for parties and policies
• Make it illegal for TD's to get involved in local/planning/ or personal representations to the Public Service
• Allow the government appoint ministers from outside the political spectrum with expertise in Finance or Foreign affairs for example when needed
• Reduce and Merge County Councils
• Make Councillors full time and give them more powers
• Streamline and Centralise Administrative Functions with in the public service
• Bring proper modern work practices in place in the Public Service

That will do for a start.

All already in our policies, except the bringing in of ministers from outside the political spectrum, that one hit a wall for various reasons.

gandalf

Amhran Nua wrote: »

All already in our policies, except the bringing in of ministers from outside the political spectrum, that one hit a wall for various reasons.

Well the facility is there to allow them be brought from the Seanad, with the Seanad gone this would just be the next logical step.

Its something that happens in US politics and it gives the government and the country the option to bring in expertise that is outside the political spectrum in times of crisis like we have now.

FionnMatthew

Yes, I think we need a radical party.

Fortunately, all it would take for a party to be radical in this country (or most Western democracies) is that it would:

• have as its main reason for existing that it would govern, rather than merely persist.
• attract public figures who are motivated by the need to actually change something about the organization of our country, rather than merely have a successful political career.
• generate policies that are motivated by their substance, rather than the need for a sail to ride the wind of public opinion into government.

I don't currently vote, because, although our present parties are not identical in terms of the anodyne policy complexes they sleepwalk through, they are identical in terms of the sort of party they are.

We are so used to this dysfunctional attempt at democracy that we don't expect our parties to be anything. The word "politics" has a dual meaning as a result: on the one hand, it means "the profession devoted to governing and to political affairs. " On the other negative hand it means "social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power." Simply because of the conduct of those who are supposed to satisfy the first definition we get the second. The most radical thing a party could do is have a genuinely political agenda.

Well, here are some policies that would induce me to take a stake in national politics:

1. A constitutional reform initiative driven by the need for secularization, as the start of wholesale law reform on the same goals.
2. The secularization of the school system.
3. Educational reform which places an emphasis on preparing children for intellectual life, rather than just a career.
4. Radical restructuring of our political system, so as to favour behaviour that results in good governance, rather than hackism.
5. Constitutional and law reform on freedom of speech.
6. An end to economic discrimination against singles, the childless and those couples not formally recognized by the state as 'married.'
7. Legalization of abortion, euthanasia.
8. Radical and effective ecological policy: dispense with bull**** about carbon emissions... linked to
9. Emulation of flagship European cities in terms of systematic, effective public transport, and
10. development.
11. Contingency plans for relocating our urban centres away from the Antarctic displacement floodzone, and other existential risks.
12. National revocation of the recognition of corporate law in its present form.
13. Wholesale, and radical opposition to the current trajectory of intellectual property law reform, and advocacy of a more liberal and progressive, minimalistic IP law, if needs be at the expense of private business.
14. A media regulation strategy, underpinned by the professionalization of journalism: the drafting of a code of ethics for journalism which contributes to the role and responsibility of the media as an organ of public good. Restrictions on media monopolies and perhaps aggressive anti-corporate media regulation.
15. A minimum intellectual qualification for full citizenship/suffrage.

I could go on but I won't.

Amhran Nua

deadtiger wrote: »

Well the facility is there to allow them be brought from the Seanad, with the Seanad gone this would just be the next logical step.

Its something that happens in US politics and it gives the government and the country the option to bring in expertise that is outside the political spectrum in times of crisis like we have now.

We have a thread on it here, unlike any other party our decision making process is transparent as much as possible. Maybe we should give Mr Lee a buzz.

gandalf

Oh believe me I have been close to joining you but I haven't been convinced yet. I was considering getting involved with FG locally but after this and unless they address the credibility issue at the head of the organisation I won't be going that direction. I have come to the conclusion that there is no point standing on the sidelines and ranting every now and then. The time has come to stand up and be counted.

(for the record I used to be a member of Labour back in the 1990's but unless they stand away from the unions I won't be voting for them again.)

Flamed Diving

Truthrevolution wrote: »

Heres one particular movement which will give you a fair idea of what im talking about http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/

From this link:

WE MUST NOT BE LIKE CATS
One of the most profound differences between dogs and cats is that cats focus on effects while dogs focus on causes. If you toss a pebble at a cat, it will look at the pebble. If you toss it at a dog, it will look at you.

djpbarry

Vivisection wrote: »

• Radical and effective ecological policy: dispense with bull**** about carbon emissions...
  ...
• A minimum intellectual qualification for full citizenship/suffrage.

Dispense with science, but demand ‘minimum intellectual standards’ from the electorate? Hmm....

Red_Marauder

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Originally Posted by Red_Marauder
We need a banking system, and we can't let our banks fail.

The two concepts are not interdependent.

Well... that's why I use the conjunction "and"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FionnMatthew

djpbarry wrote: »

Dispense with science, but demand ‘minimum intellectual standards’ from the electorate? Hmm....

I don't dispute the science. I challenge the notion that piddling quotas and carbon taxes do anything but provide enough of a 'green' front to let governments pretend they're taking the environment seriously. I envision that we ought to be perfectly free to talk about carbon emissions, so long as the talk is not bull****. Unfortunately, bull**** is precisely what we most of us require of our politicians, and they deliver well.

The sorts of drastic measures I'm talking about include reducing the basic impetus to carbon emissions. Mandatory population reduction. etc.

djpbarry

Vivisection wrote: »

I don't dispute the science.

Fair enough - I misinterpreted.

Vivisection wrote: »

The sorts of drastic measures I'm talking about include reducing the basic impetus to carbon emissions. Mandatory population reduction. etc.

Ah, that old chestnut.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Only if I get to form a Moocher party in return.