Looking for a home...

mrcricket

I am an idealogical P.D and former member of Fianna Fáil. Resigning from Fianna Fáil was akin to "coming out of the closet" really finding myself etc etc

The question is where do I do now? Can people see a P.D variant cropping up? Will Irish political culture allow for another party?

IrishTonyO

mrcricket wrote: »

I am an idealogical P.D and former member of Fianna Fáil. Resigning from Fianna Fáil was akin to "coming out of the closet" really finding myself etc etc

The question is where do I do now? Can people see a P.D variant cropping up? Will Irish political culture allow for another party?

A new party maybe like the PDs were at the start, but hopefully not the later years when they had basically just re-merged into FF

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

NSNO

While I would be somewhere between the so-called "economically illiterate left" and the centre and would be opposed to the majority of PD-esque, classically liberal policies of a new Liberal/Libertarian party I would wholeheartedly welcome a new party of that bent.

Mainly for my aversion to oft-cite 'Civil War divide' of FF/FG. Their populist ramblings are fuelled mainly by a desire to:

A) Be in power

and/or

For the other party not to be in power

But if neither A or B are possible then:

C) Keep myself and as many of my close friends and family members in jobs.

So while I wouldn't agree with the policies of a new liberal-right party, it's hard to imagine how the creation of one wouldn't be beneficial to the Irish political system.

Oh and first post! Hope that made sense :rolleyes:

Eliot Rosewater

I wonder whatever happened to The Liberals. Clearly they took a lot of liberty with their definition of "coming soon".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Coillte_Bhoy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You don't agree with left wing economic political thought which is fair enough so why keep sniping at it claiming it to be illitertae because let's face it right wing free market unregulated capitalism has hardly been a glowing succes has it?

Eliot Rosewater

Is "liberalism" a debased brand? A term that once stood for small government seems to have been stolen by/attached to supporters of big government policy in the States, and now this tendency is starting to exert itself in Ireland.

Perhaps it's a concerted effort by those against smaller government to establish a news-speak situation whereby supporters of economic liberalism can't even talk about their own beliefs for lack of words to describe them!!

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

You don't agree with left wing economic political thought which is fair enough so why keep sniping at it claiming it to be illitertae because let's face it right wing free market unregulated capitalism has hardly been a glowing succes has it?

€60 billion a year spending, €27 billion budget deficit, targeted incentives for construction, poor quality services, too-low interest rates: all blamed on economic liberalism which advocates smaller government.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

NSNO

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But then someone comes along and confuses it by introducing the Social spectrum!

eg. Labour are economic social democrats, but socially liberal. Fine Gael are (generally) economically liberal (confusingly also known as fiscally conservative) but socially conservative.

I think I managed to confuse myself there!

Valmont

NSNO wrote: »

Fine Gael are (generally) economically liberal (confusingly also known as fiscally conservative)

The massive list of freebies outlined in their 2007 election manifesto would suggest otherwise!

NSNO

Valmont wrote: »

The massive list of freebies outlined in their 2007 election manifesto would suggest otherwise!

When you have members of Fianna Fáil calling themselves socialists then you have to come to the conclusion that the entire political system have become firm followers of the ideology of "Incompetence"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't see any reference to the fact that a significant proportion of the high taxes are being caused by bailing out irresponsible and "economically illiterate" capitalists.

whatawaster

Does Regan-like deregulation of financial systems, banks and economies go hand in hand with being a liberal? Because that's the last thing we need

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jimmycrackcorm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, of course you know the taxes that will be imposed by the coming Labour / FG coalition.....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SkepticOne

mrcricket wrote: »

I am an idealogical P.D and former member of Fianna Fáil. Resigning from Fianna Fáil was akin to "coming out of the closet" really finding myself etc etc

The question is where do I do now? Can people see a P.D variant cropping up? Will Irish political culture allow for another party?

I think the way you might see an economically right-wing party emerge is in response to a Labour government taking power.

Former Finance minister Charlie McCreavy, although a populist FFer, is associated with free market thinking in Ireland and light-touch regulation. The prevailing opinion now is that there needs to be more regulation in Irish business, not less, particularly in banking. This is one of the reasons why Labour is doing well at the moment and may well lead the next government. The capitalist model in a lot of people's eyes has been discredited.

So the next stage would be a Labour-led coalition. Whilst economic liberals might not like this, it would mark the first departure from civil war politics. If there's going to be an economically liberal party, it is going to be in response to this Labour-led government. I don't think it is realistic to expect it to happen before then.

The_Minister

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I wonder whatever happened to The Liberals. Clearly they took a lot of liberty with their definition of "coming soon".

We are actually having a debate on Tuesday with guest speakers including Dick Roche, Michael McDowell, Ruairí Quinn and Dan Boyle.

You are all (of course) welcome to come.

Annasopra

The_Minister wrote: »

We are actually having a debate on Tuesday with guest speakers including Dick Roche, Michael McDowell, Ruairí Quinn and Dan Boyle.

You are all (of course) welcome to come.

where? what? when?

Eliot Rosewater

The Liberals Committee Meeting
Thursday, 10 June 2010 at 19:00
Bewley's Hotel, Ballsbridge

Facebook page.

The Liberals are hosting a debate in the Thomas Prior Hall, Tuesday 29th June 2010 at 7pm. We have a great line up of speakers. All welcome.

http://twitter.com/liberalsociety

I won't make it (I'm from Cork bai), but cheers anyway for the heads up.

bryanw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The Liberals Committee Meeting
Thursday, 10 June 2010 at 19:00
Bewley's Hotel, Ballsbridge

According to their Facebook page.

I won't make it (I'm from Cork bai), but cheers anyway for the heads up!

Well the 10th of June is gone.

But... Liberals Twitter has details.

Eliot Rosewater

There's a lot to be said for thinking before posting.

Anyone going so?

I'll be interested to see what The Liberals have in mind for themselves.

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The most economically illiterate theory of political economy is Libertarianism in my opinion. The whole thing is predicated on people being fundamentally decent to each other (in all your posts there's talk of efficient private charities stepping in to help the less well off etc).

The_Minister

Facebook page for Event

Basically, the motion for the debate is that "This House believes that the Oireachtas is in dire need of reform".

Speakers confirmed so far are :
Minister of State for European Affairs Dick Roche TD,
Former Minister for Finance Ruairí Quinn TD,
Former Tánaiste Michael McDowell,
Senator Dan Boyle, Deputy Leader of the Seanad.

It will take place on the 29th of June in the Thomas Prior Hall in Bewleys Hotel in Ballsbridge.
The event will take place from 7pm to around 8:45pm.

We are recording the whole thing and it will be up on Youtube.

bryanw

The_Minister wrote: »

We are recording the whole thing and it will be up on Youtube.

Gasp! Now nobody will go!

imme

Some posters on here seem to have jumped to the conclusion that the poster wants to vote for a 'liberal' party.

The OP was a member of FF, are they a 'liberal' party?
The OP says he was an ideological PD (whatever that means?/ if so why didn't he join the PD's?)

were the PD's a 'liberal' party? If posters say they were what made them so. I'd say they weren't very active on the social issues that usually define 'liberalism'.
Maybe poster aren't classifying the PD's as 'liberal' on social issues, purely supposed 'liberal' economic policies.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, that's what you've been claiming everywhere on boards.....that they're required.

Mind you, all of your posts seem to overlook the fact that when you add in stealth taxes and fees to privatised companies for basic services that were previously part of the public service (bin charges, etc) Ireland is a pretty high-tax economy already.

cavedave

donegalfella
The PDs supported a liberal stance on many other social issues such as divorce, abortion, decriminalizing homosexuality, and so on. Their goal was to give more power to individual choice, and less to church and state.

The banning of selling many drugs without much evidence as to their harm does not strike me as being very socially or economically liberal. Take magic Mushrooms banned under Mary Harney because one man on three different drugs tragically died.

This is not the place to get into a drugs debate but my understanding is that banning drugs is not a classically liberal position.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The_Minister

bryanw wrote: »

Gasp! Now nobody will go!

I would imagine the speakers would be filmed most.

bryanw

The_Minister wrote: »

I would imagine the speakers would be filmed most.

Was thinking more along the lines of... if it'll be on YouTube, why would anyone turn up if they can watch it at their leisure.

imme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They were the most right-wing party in the country since the Cosgrave/O`Higgins days of the Cumann na nGaedhal government at the time of the foundation of the state.

Were the PD`s effective in promulgating laws in reagard to any of these social issues that you mention. No, I think not.
De-criminalisation of homosexuality - Maire Geoghan Quinn, FF/Labour government

Intro of Divorce - Mervyn Taylor, FG/Labour/DL government
Condoms available to married couples by prescription - CJ Haughey, FF government

Availability of condoms in vending machines - John O`Connell, FF government

They might have claimed to have been a socially liberal party, but they shopuld be measured in this regard by their achievements.

Of the PD`s, from encyclopaedia Britannica (made me laugh)
"conservative political party founded as a result of a split within Ireland’s major party, Fianna Fáil."

sceptre

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't recall that view from the primary government party during referendum campaigns on (prohibition of) abortion or (removal of prohibition of) divorce in either 1983 or 1986. Not so much from the secondary government party either. The main opposition party at the time was rather more conservative and opposed the government on both occasions (in favour of one amendment and against the other) but would also maintain that black was white (and frequently did) if the then government said it was black. Correlation, as you of course know, isn't causation - needs more than just more cowbell.

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Divorce - originally floated by FG in the 1980s, rejected by the people, not introduced during early 90s while PDs were in power, FG came back to power in 1994 and carried the Divorce referendum. Hardly a PD policy is it?

Abortion - come on, the PDs were against the 2002 referendum and if they were for abortion at any stage then why didn't they have another referendum? After all, they had no problems with several Nice/Lisbon referenda (link).

Decriminalising homosexuality? That was all David Norris' brainchild and for the PDs to take credit for that is laughable.

More power to individual choice, and less to church and state? yet they presided over governments which increased the size of the state, introduced the smoking ban (which, while minor, is nevertheless the quntissential unnecessary government interference in private enterprise) wrote a blank cheque for the church's payout for sexual abuse, provided a ridiculous guarantee for bank debt, introduced criminal offences of effectively guilt by association and many other things besides.

And as for immigration, they were about as socially liberal on immigration as cecil rhodes charing a joint UKIP/KKK meeting.

Oh sure they might have talked about being socially and econmically liberal but in government they were socially conservative and economically spendthrift. In the end they were worse than FF for parish pump political favouritism.

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What a load of old cobblers. You can buy contraceptives because in 1971 a lady called Mary McGee sued the government and won. The great Mr. Justice Walsh had something to do with it as well.

cavedave

johnnyskeleton

What a load of old cobblers. You can buy contraceptives because in 1971 a lady called Mary McGee sued the government and won. The great Mr. Justice Walsh had something to do with it as well.

Wasn't someone jailed for selling condoms in the Virgin Megastore in the early 90's (4m35sec into video)?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What a load of old cobblers. You can buy contraceptives because in 1971 a lady called Mary McGee sued the government and won. The great Mr. Justice Walsh had something to do with it as well.

The McGee ruling (which overturned section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (1935), which banned the sale of contraception and importing without a licence here) was that there was a right to marital privacy which included a right to use contraceptives. Hence when the government finally got around to legislating for it in 1978 with the Health (Family Planning) Act, you could buy contraceptives from your pharmacist if you brought a prescription from your doctor (you didn't have to be married but you had to have your doctor's approval). From 1985, you could buy contraceptives without a prescription but only from designated places, principally pharmacies. From 1993 they were legally sold pretty much wherever a vending machine could be shoved for the first time. The virgin megastore affair was in 1991 or so (or at least I'm pretty sure that was the year half my class were playing bouncy balloons on the train back from the Young Scientist exhibition after stopping off at Aston Quay). Various stages then - the requirements of the McGee judgement were more than covered by the 1978 Act.

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Condoms made available for sale generally in March 1985, PDs created in December 1985.

You're right, the legalisation of condoms had nothing to do with the McGee case, nor had it anything to do with the FG/Lab government who passed the legislation, but it was all due to the PD's progressive attitudes towards contraception (and their amazing ability to travel backwards in time).

So the point you are making is that the PDs somehow gave us the innovation of vending machine condoms instead of having to go all the way to the pharmacy. Well thank christ for that.

Sceptre has very helpfully pointed out that it was 1993 when they were permitted in vending machines. FF/Lab were the government at that time.

So in addition to the time travel ability, they can also control the minds of more economically illiterate people who are in government at the time.

Seriously, you deride Labour, and to a lesser extent FG and FF and praise PDs. But all the achievements you attribute to the PDs are more correctly attributable to the other parties, in particular Labour and FG.

The PDs were all talk but when in power they didn't do a whole lot except bloat the HSE. Sure Mary Harney all but admitted that in the programme on Monday night.

So while left wing people stand for social liberalism and increased public service (for a reasonable price), the PDs talk about social liberalism but take socially conservative decisions, and they talk about decreasing public spending but then increase it (without any thought as to efficiency).

In the light of all of that, how can you justify your stance that the PDs have somehow brought about radical changes from an unproductive Ireland enamoured to the State to an efficient liberal modern society?

That RTE programme has given me real insight into the PDs - at the time they collapsed it was widely said that the other parties became too much like them and they ceased to stand out. The RTE programme shows the reality - the PDs only talked big and at heart they were just a poor man's FF.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Refused to support opposition is hardly the same thing as what you claimed earlier, that the introduction of contraceptives is somehow attributable to the PDs. Logically, opposing or failing to oppose is a reaction to another person's action, and if you want to give someone credit then give it to the government whose action brought it about.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Available in licenced pharamcies is generally available. You are placing way too much emphasis on the sale of condoms in vending machines in my opinion. Kinda like the inventor of extra-flammable bras taking credit for the whole feminist movement.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the legislation is from 1993.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OK. It would have been different if the PDs were in government in 2004 then? Better yet, it would have been better if a PD were the Minister for Health in December, 2004, when the health boards were merged. They would have brooked no nonsense when it came to making cuts.

It's a pity that there wasn't a PD minister for health then. Oh the irony is getting ironyier.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wikipedia on breakup of Telecom Eireann. First line:

Due to EU laws requiring the opening up of the Irish telecommunications market, Telecom Éireann was privatised, this was very controversial and subject to much debate. The process began in 1995, and by July 1999 the government had disposed of virtually all of its shareholding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eircom#Privatisation

Honestly, you're fighting a losing battle if you believe the PDs didn't have huge impact on the economy and social values in Ireland, particularly between 1985 and 2002. Even their ideological opponents in the documentary acknowledged as much.

Such is the accepted wisdom in political circles alright. But what exactly did they do? I mean, as opposed to things that other people or institutions did and they said "Oh, that's a good idea, we support that"?

There would be no reason for the Left to rant splenetically about the PDs if the party had achieved nothing.

Yes there is. They stand for ultra conservative immigration policies for one thing, and that is a serious gripe on the left. They also threaten to cut social welfare, health, education etc which stirrs comment from the left. But they only talk about such cuts, they in fact increase spending because they are as much into pork barrell politics as FF. Members of the PDs themselves admitted that in the documentary.

sceptre

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not usually in the habit of stating something as fact unless it is:) Though obviously I'm as prone to the same level of mistake when stating something as fact as anyone else like me. (bleh, re-reading that, it sounds a bit egotistical, sure you know what I mean)

The article refers to the previous year - the law in force from 1992 (see the Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act 1992, passed in July 1992). The article manages to say that of course, then makes passing reference to the newer bill winding its way through the oireachtas at that point that would legalise vending machine sale, without mentioning it. That's journalists for you...

(I have the memory advantage that I was 18 in 1993 - every 18 year old in the country at the time noticed when vending machine sale became legal as most of them were terrified to buy the things from a real person, presumably because someone would know they were having sex and investing in advance (personally I'm not sure why that would embarrass anyone that age or any other age but I'm not that Catholic)).

You'll be wanting to read the Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act 1993, which legalised condom sale by vending machine. Passed in June 1993.


I'm still not convinced on that correlation vs causation thing when it came to the move in morality btw but no-one's addressed it since I mentioned it up the page so perhaps no-one else is either.

johnnyskeleton

sceptre wrote: »

I'm still not convinced on that correlation vs causation thing when it came to the move in morality btw but no-one's addressed it since I mentioned it up the page so perhaps no-one else is either.

As an aside, I believe that these social changes are not spearheaded by the politicians etc but rather the politicians are simply putting into force what society already feels. The exception being, for example, abortion referenda which were run despite facing likely defeat. Again, however, no party has shown any real leadership or taken any firm stance on abortion because they know it will loose them votes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry, I misread you. When you said:

The PDs never claimed to be classical liberals or libertarians. But that does not mean that they were not socially liberal. When they emerged in the mid-1980s, there was general consensus among the main parties that the state should run the economy, while the Church should dictate moral issues. The PDs challenged that consensus by agitating for socially and economically liberal stances on issues such as contraception, divorce, airline deregulation, and so on. The fact that you can now buy condoms from a vending machine in a pub, or fly all around Europe at bargain prices on a budget airline, is the legacy of the PDs' successes during that era. In 1985, an airline ticket from Dublin to London cost in excess of IR£500, and the government was trying to pass legislation to imprison anyone who tried to undercut that price.

I thought you meant that the PDs made a difference in attidudes in the state and brought about a change in the consensus by arguing for contraception, divorce, airline deregulation and so on and that this is their legacay. What you actually said was much more limited i.e. all that the PDs actually changed was that you could buy condoms in vending machines and airline tickets were reduced because of their de-regulation.

Well on the latter point surely the EU and Ryanair had more to play in the reduction of the cost of airplane tickets than the PDs? So the only thing that the PDs have done is condom machines in the jacks?

Hmmm....I think on that basis that their contribution to the social changes in the last 30 years was minimal.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's a pity that in this twee image he never goes to another village or even into Galway for a day. If he is afraid of what his da will think of him, then obviously his desire to have sex with his girlfriend isn't all that great, is it?

So the PDs great liberalisation of Ireland (which, as I said above, they didn't even do as they weren't in power at the time) was to allow kids in small villages whose father knows the local chemist to buy condoms without having to travel to the next village over or (perish the though) visit the nearest city?

donegalfella wrote: »

Can we see an example of these "ultra-conservative immigration policies," please?

The Constitutional Referendum and the absence of any right of a non-eea spouse of an Irish citizen to assert a right to remain in the country are both the legacy of McDowell SC PD TD.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Irlandese

mrcricket wrote: »

I am an idealogical P.D and former member of Fianna Fáil. Resigning from Fianna Fáil was akin to "coming out of the closet" really finding myself etc etc

The question is where do I do now? Can people see a P.D variant cropping up? Will Irish political culture allow for another party?

No country for young people !
Would Irish people be willing to work for a political movement for altruistic reasons? Or do most ex party members or new "wanna-be" party members normally seek a similar nest to the standard parties, with the usual perks?
What we really need are lots and olots of altruistic, "somewhat experienced in life" as opposed to experienced in the feeding trough of "old politics" people, with new and healthy views. I liked the old German Green Party ideals where no party member was allowed to sit for more than one term in any position of political power, to combat the inevitable corruption, that we know so well.
Political experience, a-la-Irish politics only serves to inform parasitical people to do what O'Dea and O Reilly and so many if not all of the others have been doing for years. We need ethics and morality more than the highly dubious, almost universally identical political philosophies or well packaged, PR polished and totally insincere gobbldy gook that we have been served for years by the "political caste.
If one really wants a new country, where young people have a future and some hope, the choices are very few and do not include supporting any of the established parties or their sick caste system. A movement for young people to only vote for new candidates and a one-term rule for all, would more than revolutionsie the country, it might just give it back to the people.