Reform Alliance "Monster Meeting" RDS 25th January

Sierra Oscar

Who won't be at the RDS meeting

I think this article does a good job of highlighting that those in the RA at the moment are too socially conservative to attract any major support, and that people will take issue with the fact that they are in agreement with FG's economic policies. I don't think they offer much of an alternative.

spank_inferno

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Who won't be at the RDS meeting

I think this article does a good job of highlighting that those in the RA at the moment are too socially conservative to attract any major support, and that people will take issue with the fact that they are in agreement with FG's economic policies. I don't think they offer much of an alternative.

They should rename it "The Monster Eucharistic Meeting ft: Lucinda!"

Loafing Oaf

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Who won't be at the RDS meeting

I think this article does a good job of highlighting that those in the RA at the moment are too socially conservative to attract any major support, and that people will take issue with the fact that they are in agreement with FG's economic policies. I don't think they offer much of an alternative.

I don't see why the likes of Shortall and Halligan should be interested in hooking up with the RA under any circumstance: if they want a new party they should set up one of their own on the left.

Also I think the article misses the fundamental point about why noone else is coming to Lucinda's party: they don't believe the RA are really interested in being a new force in politics and that if Enda only said the word they'd all leap back into the FG fold. Imagine if Stephen Donnelly, say, were to declare Lucinda the new Messiah-ette who would lead us all to the promised land, and six months later she was back in FG, what kind of a pillock he would look.

Chazz Michael Michaels

touts wrote: »

I don't think there is any need or demand for another left party. In fact the Left is overcrowded, split and divided. The left needs fewer parties to unify the vote not more parties.

Lets look at how the parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland) divide left/right

Right:
Party & Elected representatives
Fine Gael 648
Fianna Fáil 444
Christian Solidarity Party 0
Direct Democracy Ireland 0
Catholic Democrats (The National Party) 0

If you consider that Fine Gael and Fianna Fail are now toxic brands people are very unhappy with while Christian Solidarity and Catholic Democrats are not appealing to those on the right who are not strongly christian (contrary to what the left wing media have been spinning recently being right wing is actually defined by economic and social beliefs not on your ability to quote the bible. I'm centre right and I certainly don't believe in any higher power than the one we elect). That leaves Direct Democracy who seem to believe in a mix of swiss style direct democracy and Transcendental Meditation and the Science of Creative Intelligence whatever conspiracy theory you're having yourself. So there is clearly a gap for a party that believes in centre right economic and social policies but not the fundamentalist christian/conspiracy beliefs of the other parties currently positioned in the "right" space. At the moment a right wing voter has to choose between the failed greed of Fianna Fail, the failed incompetence of Fine Gael or the religious fundamentalists. A secular centre right party would pick up a huge vote.

Meanwhile on the left we have:

Party & Elected representatives
Labour Party 278
Sinn Féin 144
Green Party 17
Socialist Party 8
Workers and Unemployed Action Group 8
People Before Profit Alliance 6
United Left 4
Workers' Party 2
South Kerry Independent Alliance 2
éirígí 1
Fís Nua 1
Republican Sinn Féin 1
Communist Party of Ireland 0
Letterkenny Residents Party 0
Seniors Solidarity Party 0
Socialist Workers Party 0
Irish Republican Socialist Party 0
Irish Socialist Network 0
Pirate Party Ireland 0
Republican Sinn Féin 0

And that doesn't include the various left wing independents who also occupy that space. Another Left Wing party would just further dilute that vote. What is needed is a large scale merger and consolidation of left parties NOT another party. Sure some of the parties are just as toxic as Fianna Fail and Fine Gael but there are too many alternatives for a left voter to move to. In the next election it looks like there will be a meltdown of the Labour vote but unlike Fianna Fail and Fine Gael voters the departing Labour voter has a vast array of alternatives to vote for.

As to this Reform Alliance and their Monster meeting. I think it will be interesting to see what the tone is and who the speakers are. Will the catholic fundamentalists rise to the top or will it be a more secular party for both believers and non-believers. Personally I'll be watching with interest and I hope that any party emerging from it will be secular in nature.

This post. All of it.

johnnyskeleton

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Who won't be at the RDS meeting

I think this article does a good job of highlighting that those in the RA at the moment are too socially conservative to attract any major support, and that people will take issue with the fact that they are in agreement with FG's economic policies. I don't think they offer much of an alternative.

Although it begs the question why doesn't Steven Donnelly or someone set up a party based on:
1) electoral and structural reform of the state;
2) anti-corruption;
3) liberal social views;
4) mixed view on austerity, maybe leaning towards cutting ps pay/welfare in favour of a jobs stimulus;
5) against NAMA, bank guarantee and other property price rigging mechanisms.

It seems to be what a lot of people want and there are independent TDs there on a similar basis. Why has the technical group not formed its own party by now?

I suspect the answer is that the technical group provides them the right balance of speaking time and autonomy.

Loafing Oaf

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

This post. All of it.

Really?

A secular centre right party would pick up a huge vote

Well why isn't this happening then?

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Although it begs the question why doesn't Steven Donnelly or someone set up a party based on:
1) electoral and structural reform of the state;
2) anti-corruption;
3) liberal social views;
4) mixed view on austerity, maybe leaning towards cutting ps pay/welfare in favour of a jobs stimulus;
5) against NAMA, bank guarantee and other property price rigging mechanisms.

Because that's really no basis for a party? It's grand for an Independent TD to represent this, but a potential Government party? What does any of the above tell us about their potential views on transport? The EU? Etc. You can't form a party around one principle as much as you'd like, you need to have a position for any potential topic.

That and you're not paying off any particular part of the populus there so I'm not sure where your votes are coming from. Remember the PDs didn't just come in as social liberals, they were also strongly arguing your tax bill (which was rather large at the time) should be smaller. This combination worked quite well with a fair few people, at least until they went into coalition and the ugly part of coalition politics raised its head. :P

Chazz Michael Michaels

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Really?



Well why isn't this happening then?

Yes. Who knows? Maybe adding a few dozen more lefty parties would be better. We definitely need more of those.

Loafing Oaf

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Yes. Who knows?

Very helpful, thanks.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Very helpful, thanks.

No problem.

nesf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well why isn't this happening then?

There's already two established centre right parties and Labour bleed off some of this vote as well by not being "too" left wing for the last decade and more. If Labour went harder on the 70s left wing rhetoric and FG harder on the Bible you'd have a large vacuum in the centre (which is pretty much why FF is there and why both Labour and FG do neither of these things these days).

Is there a secular centre right vote? Definitely. The thing is those people are already voting for parties and might not change to a new one that fast so a fresh faced centre right party might die in its infancy despite there actually being a vote out there for it because it'd be so difficult for it to distinguish itself from its competitors for those voters.

It's much easier for a hard left or hard right party to distinguish themselves from the larger parties but since there are much fewer votes on the hard left and hard right this isn't their main problem.

Sierra Oscar

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Although it begs the question why doesn't Steven Donnelly or someone set up a party based on:
1) electoral and structural reform of the state;
2) anti-corruption;
3) liberal social views;
4) mixed view on austerity, maybe leaning towards cutting ps pay/welfare in favour of a jobs stimulus;
5) against NAMA, bank guarantee and other property price rigging mechanisms.

It seems to be what a lot of people want and there are independent TDs there on a similar basis. Why has the technical group not formed its own party by now?

I suspect the answer is that the technical group provides them the right balance of speaking time and autonomy.

Stephen Donnelly has already said publicly that it is very difficult to setup a new party, and would be far easier instead to work within one of the existing parties to bring about reform.

I would think he does not have the appetite to setup a new party. Wouldn't surprise me to see him join one of the already existing political party down the line.

Loafing Oaf

nesf wrote: »

There's already two established centre right parties and Labour bleed off some of this vote as well by not being "too" left wing for the last decade and more. If Labour went harder on the 70s left wing rhetoric and FG harder on the Bible you'd have a large vacuum in the centre (which is pretty much why FF is there and why both Labour and FG do neither of these things these days).

Is there a secular centre right vote? Definitely. The thing is those people are already voting for parties and might not change to a new one that fast so a fresh faced centre right party might die in its infancy despite there actually being a vote out there for it because it'd be so difficult for it to distinguish itself from its competitors for those voters.

It's much easier for a hard left or hard right party to distinguish themselves from the larger parties but since there are much fewer votes on the hard left and hard right this isn't their main problem.

In my view democracy is fairly effectively self-correcting. If there really was this vast reservoir of potential support for a party to the right of FF and FG, someone would have come forward to cater for it.

Case in point, John McGuirk, one of the most prominent media right-wing ideologues, stood for 'New Vision' in the last GE in Cavan Monaghan, and came in third last on 2.5% of first preferences. I remain to be convinced anyone else would do much better on that sort of ticket, despite all the media chatter.

nesf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

In my view democracy is fairly effectively self-correcting. If there really was this vast reservoir of potential support for a party to the right of FF and FG, someone would have come forward to cater for it.

Case in point, John McGuirk, one of the most prominent media right-wing ideologues, stood for 'New Vision' in the last GE in Cavan Monaghan, and came in third last on 2.5% of first preferences. I remain to be convinced anyone else would do much better on that sort of ticket, despite all the media chatter.

Define "to the right of FF and FG" to begin with. Do you mean more fiscally liberal? Sure these people exist but they're not one coherent group, some will be socially conservative, some will be social liberals and you probably have smaller elements like anarcho-greens in there too. If you mean more socially conservative then the same problem exists.

As you go further to the left or right of centre the problem continually becomes that the voting bloc becomes more and more fractured and you're dividing a smaller and smaller pie.

johnnyskeleton

nesf wrote: »

Because that's really no basis for a party? It's grand for an Independent TD to represent this, but a potential Government party? What does any of the above tell us about their potential views on transport? The EU? Etc. You can't form a party around one principle as much as you'd like, you need to have a position for any potential topic.

That and you're not paying off any particular part of the populus there so I'm not sure where your votes are coming from. Remember the PDs didn't just come in as social liberals, they were also strongly arguing your tax bill (which was rather large at the time) should be smaller. This combination worked quite well with a fair few people, at least until they went into coalition and the ugly part of coalition politics raised its head. :P

Hey, I'm not here to set up a manifesto or anything, but those are the basic issues going.

If you want the dum dum version:

Socially liberal economically middle.

johnnyskeleton

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Stephen Donnelly has already said publicly that it is very difficult to setup a new party, and would be far easier instead to work within one of the existing parties to bring about reform.

I would think he does not have the appetite to setup a new party. Wouldn't surprise me to see him join one of the already existing political party down the line.

Well then, perhaps that is why he isn't interested in attending the reform alliance meeting.

Loafing Oaf

nesf wrote: »

Define "to the right of FF and FG" to begin with. Do you mean more fiscally liberal? Sure these people exist but they're not one coherent group.

Primarily this, especially people in SMEs who are getting crucified by the tax system. Seems like these people will just keep voting for FF or FG, or Lowry-type independents, come hell or high water...

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Hey, I'm not here to set up a manifesto or anything, but those are the basic issues going.

If you want the dum dum version:

Socially liberal economically middle.

It wasn't aimed at you personally, just a comment that you need a much broader manifesto than that to form a party. Sure you can sell the anti-corruption line in Interviews but you'll be skewered if you don't have broad coherent policies when you're actually coming up to an election.

nesf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Primarily this, especially people in SMEs who are getting crucified by the tax system. Seems like these people will just keep voting for FF or FG, or Lowry-type independents, come hell or high water...

Yeah but SME owners vary from red blooded Marxists to people who sleep with Hayek under the pillow. You might get them interested in "lower taxes for smalll business" and then lose half of them as soon as you open your mouth on social issues or discuss tax treatment of multinationals.

SME owners vote across the spectrum, I would put money on a majority of them being on the right economically but I'm not sure how big a majority this would be. It's not that unusual to meet a small business owner who has pretty strong views on social responsibility (i.e. their issue isn't so much that you tax them but that you spend the taxes poorly).

Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking all SME owners are in ISME or the SFA. They're very much not.

Loafing Oaf

nesf wrote: »

I would put money on a majority of them being on the right economically but I'm not sure how big a majority this would be.

But even if you just took that majority, surely there should be enough votes to support a PD/GP-size party, if most of them voted according to their economic self-interest. But it seems like it's an insurmountable challenge to persuade them to do that...

nesf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But even if you just took that majority, surely there should be enough votes to support a PD/GP-size party, if most of them voted according to their economic self-interest. But it seems like it's an insurmountable challenge to persuade them to do that...

Note, I said right economically, I didn't say a word about their social views. They're not a coherent group simply because they are SME owners! That's just one aspect of them as voters. They could be Republicans, Conservative Catholics, Libertarians, Very Centrist Socially, Greens or whatever other category you want. They could be young 20 somethings thinking about future kids and needing a house or 50 somethings more worried about their kids college prospects and healthcare for themselves. Are they rural folk or urban? Dublin or any other city?

Really, you can't just take one "tag" like "SME owner" and get any kind of coherent group from this. What you need to do is figure out roughly what the most common other "tags" attach to this group and try and take a large slice out of it but it's problematic and usually much simpler to target better spread "tags" like parents, pensioners or whatever because you don't want to paint yourself into a corner where your core vote doesn't exist in half the country to any great extent (SF's current biggest hurdle).

raymon

Im taking this poll with a grain of salt. It is interesting none the less. It was conducted in Lucinda's constituency.

Good news for Lucinda , Quinn , Murphy and Andrews.

Terrible news for FF being bottom of the barrel here, showing that the recent poll showing FF unpopular in Dublin and more unpopular amongst younger people to be about right.

Creighton 26, Quinn 19, Murphy 15, Andrews (SF) 15, Humphreys 10, O'Callaghan (FF) 8, Flynn (ind) 8

https://twitter.com/patleahysbp/statuses/425273026578374656

Loafing Oaf

raymon wrote: »

Im taking this poll with a grain of salt. It is interesting none the less. It was conducted in Lucinda's constituency.

Good news for Lucinda , Quinn , Murphy and Andrews.

Terrible news for FF being bottom of the barrel here, showing that the recent poll showing FF unpopular in Dublin and more unpopular amongst younger people to be about right.

Creighton 26, Quinn 19, Murphy 15, Andrews (SF) 15, Humphreys 10, O'Callaghan (FF) 8, Flynn (ind) 8

https://twitter.com/patleahysbp/statuses/425273026578374656

Re FF, the Andrews situation makes this constituency unique, so I wouldn't give up hope of a revival in Dublin yet if I was them. Possibly also they need a higher profile candidate than O'Callaghan, I hear Peter Matthews is looking for a political home and he isn't too fussy what jersey he wears.:p

As regards Lucinda, I thought she'd struggle to hold her seat outside of FG, but this kind of nixes that. Although of course her numbers will fall away after FG pick their second candidate. She may conclude on the basis of this that her best chance of reelection is to ditch the RA and run as a pure in on the basis of her personal popularity in the constituency, as Denis Naughten seems intent on doing.

Sierra Oscar

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Re FF, the Andrews situation makes this constituency unique, so I wouldn't give up hope of a revival in Dublin yet if I was them.

Ruairi Quinn won't be standing in the next election either so that sort of makes the poll pointless (and is the reason why the full poll was not reported on in the Sunday papers, just the Lucinda bit).

Scofflaw

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Ruairi Quinn won't be standing in the next election either so that sort of makes the poll pointless (and is the reason why the full poll was not reported on in the Sunday papers, just the Lucinda bit).

And Ruari's popularity has never transferred to Oisin. Labour would need to run a high profile candidate to keep DSE liberals on board. Otherwise I'd say those votes will go to Andrews.

cordially,
Scofflaw

touts

Mattie McGrath is thinking of joining the Reform Alliance. He has a long history of being "Prepared to consider anything" to retain his seat. Leaving FF to run as an independent, rejoining FF, leaving again to run as an independent, joining the technical group. And now it seems joining the Reform Alliance.

If Mattie joins the Reform Alliance they are doomed. His small town, me first, just get through the next election, political outlook represents the root of everything they should be trying to reform.

http://www.thejournal.ie/mattie-mcgrath-reform-alliance-1275076-Jan2014/

spank_inferno

True.

When you are already seen as the political wing of Opus Dei, adding the King of parish-pump-politics does nothing for your cred in the eyes of the masses.

Boulevardier

I'm not sure I gree with that, Scofflaw.

Ruari's machine will get behind Oisin, who is very popular in the leafier areas of DBS. If Oisin holds his council seat in May he is odds on to be a Dail candidate in 2016, unless of course he joins the bench.

If Oisin were not to run, then Ivana Bacik probably would run in his place and battle it out with Humphreys for what will probably be 1 Labour seat.

I do not see the worthy burghers of Rathgar going Andrew's way at this stage.

Scofflaw

Boulevardier wrote: »

I'm not sure I gree with that, Scofflaw.

Ruari's machine will get behind Oisin, who is very popular in the leafier areas of DBS. If Oisin holds his council seat in May he is odds on to be a Dail candidate in 2016, unless of course he joins the bench.

I don't doubt that, but I'm not sure Oisin has what it takes. Certainly I'm a long-term Quinn voter (#2 once there was a Green candidate, #1 before that), and Oisin so far has done absolutely nothing to make me likely to vote for him. His performance in DL in 2007 was pretty dismal.

Boulevardier wrote: »

If Oisin were not to run, then Ivana Bacik probably would run in his place and battle it out with Humphreys for what will probably be 1 Labour seat.

I do not see the worthy burghers of Rathgar going Andrew's way at this stage.

Ivana Bacik I'd probably transfer my Quinn vote to. Humphreys I think only got in on the wash in 2011 - I don't see him getting in again.

Creighton/Bacik would be an interesting faceoff.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Creighton/Bacik would be an interesting faceoff.

That'd be good television, even if I dislike both of them.

spank_inferno

Today is the day!

Anyone going?

Chazz Michael Michaels

spank_inferno wrote: »

Today is the day!

Anyone going?

Can't. I'm eating crushed glass today.

touts

spank_inferno wrote: »

Today is the day!

Anyone going?

I went out of cursity and to be honest the existing parties have nothing to fear. There are some interesting and serious suggeations coming fron the floor (centralised IT in health to store all health records of a patient, splitting dept of health in two like finance was, having 5 ministers appointed from taoiseach's nominees. list system, hold senate elections on same day as dail elections etc). You can debate the merits of the proposals but there are some people here with ideas for reform. But there seem to be an equal number of extremists (freemasons run the country, women arent able for politics, flouride is a conspiracy to poison us).

Walking around at lunch deliberately tuning into conversations some things I heard. "Ronan Mullen and his rosary brigade will kill this before it gets started" vs "Olivia O'Leary is clearly pro abortion and it is a disgrace that she was even left into the building" Or "There are too many ex Fianna Fail people here looking for a way back in". vs "This place is like a Fine Gael lifeboat. They are running everything". Or "Its all dubs speaking. If you have a country accent you get booed". vs "who gives a **** about all these small country hospitals".

There are a lot of angry people around here and I cant see the Reform Alliance pulling them together into a single party. Maybe a couple of small parties will emerge but nothing to worry the established parties.

Nodin

....apparently Ronan Mullen is there, which rather underlines the sentiment expressed in post 78.

Silentcorner

To pull a body of people (who are politically motivated to attend a meeting such as this) with numerous different issues ranging from local to regional to national issues together requires somebody of real pedigree, intellect, integrity, talent and charisma, I simply cannot see this movement providing that person.

I think if this republic is to reform from top to bottom we need to dig deeper, these politicians are not the only problem, our people need a greater understanding of themselves, what makes us as people behave the way we do, we are a great nation but we have not figured ourselves out yet, we haven't figured out how to protect ourselves from our weaknesses.

Ronan|Raven

Fidelma Healy Eames in among the bunch. If ever there was someone who summed up all that is wrong with politics in this country it is her.

touts

Ok I'm back home after it. I have to say the panels were very good. Tom McGuirk and David McWilliams were the stars with Philip Blond and Alison Cowzer close behind. I felt the health discussion lacked a strong chair (June Shannon was very out of her depth given the experience of the panel and the emotive topic).

It was hard to see anything coming out of it. Olivia O'Leary made a good point on the need for a Kamikaze party that would ride the current wave of discontent into power and force through the changes. But it's hard to see any of the current TDs, including the reform alliance TDs, voting that through. Turkey's and Christmas sprung to mind. What is needed is a party led by Tom McGuirk and David McWilliams not Lucinda and the lads. In fact if you were to take the panels and drop them in the cabinet you would get a generally great set of ministers.

There were some good suggestions from the floor but the format meant most were left hanging without being properly outlined and debated. There were also some spine shuddering moments. Freemasons, Flouride, citizens party, women not being able for politics etc all came up showing there were quite of the conspiracy theory forum floating around. The most telling moment was when Olivia O'Leary clearly angered some people with a thinly veiled pro-choice opening to her speech. Then when it was thrown open to the floor the biggest cheer (cheering, applause, thumping the floor) was for some old lad who said the biggest problem in politics was Fine Gael going back on its promise and legislating for abortion. About 80% of the room cheered and the other 20% of us started looking for an exit. It is the one issue that united the most of the people and I fear any party that emerges will be a predominantly catholic ethos issue party. They won't be able to agree on other topics.

Demographic wise it was mainly male, mainly in the 55+ age group and based on dress code I would say mainly middle class professionals. From the accents etc I would say most were from from Dublin (to be expected I suppose). Sure there were exceptions to that but that was the majority.

Tom McGuirk and David McWilliams! Destiny is calling....... Unfortunately Tom and David can't come to the phone right now, this is Lucinda can I take a message?

RobertKK

touts wrote: »

Ok I'm back home after it. I have to say the panels were very good. Tom McGuirk and David McWilliams were the stars with Philip Blond and Alison Cowzer close behind. I felt the health discussion lacked a strong chair (June Shannon was very out of her depth given the experience of the panel and the emotive topic).

It was hard to see anything coming out of it. Olivia O'Leary made a good point on the need for a Kamikaze party that would ride the current wave of discontent into power and force through the changes. But it's hard to see any of the current TDs, including the reform alliance TDs, voting that through. Turkey's and Christmas sprung to mind. What is needed is a party led by Tom McGuirk and David McWilliams not Lucinda and the lads. In fact if you were to take the panels and drop them in the cabinet you would get a generally great set of ministers.

There were some good suggestions from the floor but the format meant most were left hanging without being properly outlined and debated. There were also some spine shuddering moments. Freemasons, Flouride, citizens party, women not being able for politics etc all came up showing there were quite of the conspiracy theory forum floating around. The most telling moment was when Olivia O'Leary clearly angered some people with a thinly veiled pro-choice opening to her speech. Then when it was thrown open to the floor the biggest cheer (cheering, applause, thumping the floor) was for some old lad who said the biggest problem in politics was Fine Gael going back on its promise and legislating for abortion. About 80% of the room cheered and the other 20% of us started looking for an exit. It is the one issue that united the most of the people and I fear any party that emerges will be a predominantly catholic ethos issue party. They won't be able to agree on other topics.

Demographic wise it was mainly male, mainly in the 55+ age group and based on dress code I would say mainly middle class professionals. From the accents etc I would say most were from from Dublin (to be expected I suppose). Sure there were exceptions to that but that was the majority.

Tom McGuirk and David McWilliams! Destiny is calling....... Unfortunately Tom and David can't come to the phone right now, this is Lucinda can I take a message?

They should form the Christian democrats, given FG aren't what they say on the tin.

greenketchup

touts wrote: »

Ok I'm back home after it. I have to say the panels were very good. Tom McGuirk and David McWilliams were the stars with Philip Blond and Alison Cowzer close behind. I felt the health discussion lacked a strong chair (June Shannon was very out of her depth given the experience of the panel and the emotive topic).

It was hard to see anything coming out of it. Olivia O'Leary made a good point on the need for a Kamikaze party that would ride the current wave of discontent into power and force through the changes. But it's hard to see any of the current TDs, including the reform alliance TDs, voting that through. Turkey's and Christmas sprung to mind. What is needed is a party led by Tom McGuirk and David McWilliams not Lucinda and the lads. In fact if you were to take the panels and drop them in the cabinet you would get a generally great set of ministers.

There were some good suggestions from the floor but the format meant most were left hanging without being properly outlined and debated. There were also some spine shuddering moments. Freemasons, Flouride, citizens party, women not being able for politics etc all came up showing there were quite of the conspiracy theory forum floating around. The most telling moment was when Olivia O'Leary clearly angered some people with a thinly veiled pro-choice opening to her speech. Then when it was thrown open to the floor the biggest cheer (cheering, applause, thumping the floor) was for some old lad who said the biggest problem in politics was Fine Gael going back on its promise and legislating for abortion. About 80% of the room cheered and the other 20% of us started looking for an exit. It is the one issue that united the most of the people and I fear any party that emerges will be a predominantly catholic ethos issue party. They won't be able to agree on other topics.

Demographic wise it was mainly male, mainly in the 55+ age group and based on dress code I would say mainly middle class professionals. From the accents etc I would say most were from from Dublin (to be expected I suppose). Sure there were excepti5ons to that but that was the majority.

Tom McGuirk and David McWilliams! Destiny is calling....... Unfortunately Tom and David can't come to the phone right now, this is Lucinda can I take a message?

Pretty much sums it up I think. I went out of curiosity really, I usually like David McWilliams, he really does like the sound of his own voice though. Quite impressed by Alison Cowzer, Phillip Blond and Dr Molloy.

Id vote for the speakers not for that group of politicians, I was in that 20% looking at the door. As someone who has never been to anything political before, it had a whiff of a publicity stunt off it I think.

I actually found the foot stomping etc a bit disturbing, strange day.

Birroc

Reform Alliance, listen up...if you are to gain any credibility you will have to drop Healy Eames and smartish.
She combines all the worst practices and traits of a bad Irish politician with utter STUPIDITY. You have already lost the Galway vote methinks.

K-9

Reform Alliance seems a bit of a misnomer then going by the reaction of 80% of the audience. Repeal Alliance would be more apt.

road_high

Birroc wrote: »

Reform Alliance, listen up...if you are to gain any credibility you will have to drop Healy Eames and smartish.
She combines all the worst practices and traits of a bad Irish politician with utter STUPIDITY. You have already lost the Galway vote methinks.

She represents everything that is wrong with Irish politics in one person. Corrupt, self-centred/serving, out of touch, irrelevant ego-maniac that nobody even voted for or elected (I understand she squirmed her way into the Seanad for some unknown reason).
If she represents "reform" then I'll take the status-quo all day long thanks.

road_high

Reform Alliance = Lucinda Creighton clambering for her seat to keep her snout in the trough.

road_high

Nodin wrote: »

....apparently Ronan Mullen is there, which rather underlines the sentiment expressed in post 78.

I actually laughed to myself reading that he was there. He "represents" such a narrow minority of the broader Irish society, to call him "Reform" in any sense is a complete joke. This really is going no-where.

Instead of reform, what the likes of him and his views (which he is perfectly entitled to have btw) would like to do is transport us back to the 1950s with no divorce, no gay marriage or any forward thinking societal realities.

Reekwind

I'm not sure if anyone read it, but I thought that Paul Howard nailed it in the IT the other week:

"Well, Lucinda and her cohorts are talking about how they’re going to fill a void in Irish politics. Because middle-class, conservative Catholics have never had their voice heard, have they?"

RobertKK

road_high wrote: »

Reform Alliance = Lucinda Creighton clambering for her seat to keep her snout in the trough.

I think you got her wrong, she was a minister so had her snout in the trough. FG sent out messages to the prolife groups before the election telling them they would not legislate for abortion so the prolife groups would endorse FG.
All the ones with their snouts in the trough are in the FG parliamentary party.

Lucinda Creighton lost her ministerial job, for endorsing a pre-election promise.
All we have now is FG who are a bunch of liars in government, as Pat Rabbite said, you tell lies to get elected, sure thats what you do, this passes as democracy...

RobertKK

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm not sure if anyone read it, but I thought that Paul Howard nailed it in the IT the other week:

"Well, Lucinda and her cohorts are talking about how they’re going to fill a void in Irish politics. Because middle-class, conservative Catholics have never had their voice heard, have they?"

I think hell would freeze over before the IT endorses Lucinda given they have no problem with killing the unborn.

spank_inferno

RobertKK wrote: »

I think hell would freeze over before the IT endorses Lucinda given they have no problem with killing the unborn.

Ooooh-k

Danger Will Robinson.

Sierra Oscar

RobertKK wrote: »

I think you got her wrong, she was a minister so had her snout in the trough. FG sent out messages to the prolife groups before the election telling them they would not legislate for abortion so the prolife groups would endorse FG.

I think this is does a good job of illustrating why the Reform Alliance is quickly going nowhere.

The TD's behind it only left FG in the first place due to disagreements over the Protection of Life During Pregnancies Bill, which the vast majority of Irish people continue to support. If the RA continues to be dominated by the ultra conservative pro-lifers then it will forever only appeal to a small segment of the electorate. It is time for the old school conservatives to recognize that life is moving on with or without them.

Lucinda had no problem, and still has no problem, with the economic policies that the government are pursuing. Those that are unhappy with politics at the moment want an alternative to the economic and social policies that this government is pursuing. They are not only fixated on the one issue of abortion that many of the people at today's conference seemed to be only interested in.

Also, lol at Lucinda trying to claim that she has some sort of moral backbone over the abortion issue. Does anyone else remember her from her time in TCD? She has led many a (nasty) pro-choice campaign back in her student days. Of course that all had to change when she decided to build her career around the Dublin South East constituency when she wanted to appeal to the conservative FG vote in that area. She will do anything to secure her seat and procure a few extra votes.

road_high

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm not sure if anyone read it, but I thought that Paul Howard nailed it in the IT the other week:

"Well, Lucinda and her cohorts are talking about how they’re going to fill a void in Irish politics. Because middle-class, conservative Catholics have never had their voice heard, have they?"

Lucinda has really made herself irrelevant to the masses. Outside the lunny, Catholic appose everything brigade that is. Cannot see this gaining any traction, especially after today. What I can see Lucinda running as an Independent on the above platform (and to keep her fat TD salary, of course ). Overtime she may drift back to FG even. Especially if Kenny was gone she could be seen to save face by going back to the mothership without him at the helm.