Village Magazine hint at yet another new political party

timmyntc

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No it wouldn't - there are plenty of far more likely scenarios than yours; Yours comes across of wanting something to be the case rather than it being the most likely scenario. What you're proposing here goes beyond non-hierarchial - it's not even democratic.



I'd agree. You need the kind of leadership that can step back while still maintaining order and direction.

For the record, I don't think this party will get very far based on hat I've read either - I just think that the idea that people are even talking about them is because of fear of more rational moderate left wing ideaoloiges gaining support that want and need to push in with these guys, and THIS is where the Steve Bannon comparison comes in.

I'd welcome a proper moderate left wing party - but from the proposed leaks it doesnt look like these are it.
I just dont see why those folders would be included if they werent applicable to the party. And it does fit in with the left-wing shaking things up to want to abolish hierarchy or have a flatter hierarchy in the party. It's a nice idea in theory, but unless you have a party full of exceptions to the rule, left wing TDs tend to not be great at compromise. So if you dont have a hierarchy to keep them in check, it would be chaos.

It'll be interesting to see what comes out of this anyways thats for sure

I hope this comes to pass. New left-wing parties add to the merriment of the country, and we need some cheering up. There will be lots of fanfare upon launching, loads of tweets, enthusiasm will be off the charts. This will soon descend into infighting, accusations of not being ideologically pure enough, pulling up old tweets, the inevitable split, and a move to set up something even more populist and theoretical.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

timmyntc wrote: »

I'd welcome a proper moderate left wing party - but from the proposed leaks it doesnt look like these are it.
I just dont see why those folders would be included if they werent applicable to the party. And it does fit in with the left-wing shaking things up to want to abolish hierarchy or have a flatter hierarchy in the party. It's a nice idea in theory, but unless you have a party full of exceptions to the rule, left wing TDs tend to not be great at compromise. So if you dont have a hierarchy to keep them in check, it would be chaos.

It'll be interesting to see what comes out of this anyways thats for sure

Pretty much agree with you here with the exception of the bit in bold: left wing does not mean abolishing hierarchy.

Eric Cartman

dam099 wrote: »

Never mind rural Ireland, I would think most of urban Ireland are fond of an odd drop of milk or otherwise consume dairy products too.

Like with the peat they really have a disconnect about where this stuff comes from.

Theres a fair few in south dublin who’d vote to ban dairy farming because of emissions who drink oat milk thats made and shipped from latvia

dam099

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Like with the peat they really have a disconnect about where this stuff comes from.

Theres a fair few in south dublin who’d vote to ban dairy farming because of emissions who drink oat milk thats made and shipped from latvia

I would agree with much of what's happening on the peat. I think its correct that subsidised industrial scale harvesting of an inefficient high CO2 producing fuel is being stopped.

I wouldn't be totally opposed to small scale harvesting by locals with Turbary rights for there own personal household's use though. There are less polluting ways they could heat but their contribution is probably so minimal I dont see the harm being significant enough to warrant the heavy handed approach.

blanch152

dam099 wrote: »

I would agree with much of what's happening on the peat. I think its correct that subsidised industrial scale harvesting of an inefficient high CO2 producing fuel is being stopped.

I wouldn't be totally opposed to small scale harvesting by locals with Turbary rights for there own personal household's use though. There are less polluting ways they could heat but their contribution is probably so minimal I dont see the harm being significant enough to warrant the heavy handed approach.

In principle I agree with you. However two points arise.

(1) An alternative to peat is needed for our horticulture industry.
(2) Turbary rights can be as damaging or more so, as they are often in marginal areas with particularly rare flora

Eric Cartman

dam099 wrote: »

I would agree with much of what's happening on the peat. I think its correct that subsidised industrial scale harvesting of an inefficient high CO2 producing fuel is being stopped.

I wouldn't be totally opposed to small scale harvesting by locals with Turbary rights for there own personal household's use though. There are less polluting ways they could heat but their contribution is probably so minimal I dont see the harm being significant enough to warrant the heavy handed approach.

I would definitely agree with the second part. I think the first is a bit premature , perhaps in another decade, but I think locals with turnery rights will be burning turf after I'm dead and buried and I don't believe they should be stopped.

Bubbaclaus

Poor Paddy Cosgrave having a back and forth with a fake profile pretending to be the Taoiseach's partner. I'd say he knows well it's fake too, but the people responding are lapping it up.

That's twitter for you.

crossman47

awec wrote: »

A party cannot have no opinion on abortion if it wants to be taken seriously.

It can now. That debate is over.

PunkIPA

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Poor Paddy Cosgrave having a back and forth with a fake profile pretending to be the Taoiseach's partner. I'd say he knows well it's fake too, but the people responding are lapping it up.

That's twitter for you.

I think that might actually be a real profile. I vaguely remember seeing the tweet about Leo standing up at the time the Village piece was published and there were some like to that account and it was only following MOT's account.

For the record, the quote in the account's bio is a Peep Show reference (or also Point Break).

Bubbaclaus

PunkIPA wrote: »

I think that might actually be a real profile. I vaguely remember seeing the tweet about Leo standing up at the time the Village piece was published and there were some like to that account and it was only following MOT's account.

For the record, the quote in the account's bio is a Peep Show reference (or also Point Break).

His tweets certainly read like a fake account, but perhaps not!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

crossman47 wrote: »

It can now. That debate is over.

Nearly three-quarters of a million voters who voted against abortion in the referendum - and that's a sizeable chunk of the electorate - would disagree with you here. And any party needs to be aware of a demographic of that size.

Bubbaclaus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nearly three-quarters of a million voters who voted against abortion in the referendum - and that's a sizeable chunk of the electorate - would disagree with you here. And any party needs to be aware of a demographic of that size.

I fully respect those individuals rights not to have an abortion

L1011

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nearly three-quarters of a million voters who voted against abortion in the referendum - and that's a sizeable chunk of the electorate - would disagree with you here. And any party needs to be aware of a demographic of that size.

They didn't all go vote for Aontú in either May '19 or Feb '20 though.

After the SSM referendum we were told there'd be some huge shift to a conservative party from the No side, which didn't happen.

Bubbaclaus

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Poor Paddy Cosgrave having a back and forth with a fake profile pretending to be the Taoiseach's partner. I'd say he knows well it's fake too, but the people responding are lapping it up.

That's twitter for you.

He's really nasty. Gunning for a private citizen, even bringing pictures of his brother into it. He's aggrieved because the doc (or whoever handles that account) answered him back and now he's publicly digging trying to hurt him.

Is he OK? Seriously like?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

L1011 wrote: »

They didn't all go vote for Aontú in either May '19 or Feb '20 though.

After the SSM referendum we were told there'd be some huge shift to a conservative party from the No side, which didn't happen.

They don't all have to.

The poimt was that a prty can't have no opinion on abrtion, not on SSM.

PunkIPA

Deleted User wrote: »

He's really nasty. Gunning for a private citizen, even bringing pictures of his brother into it. He's aggrieved because the doc (or whoever handles that account) answered him back and now he's publicly digging trying to hurt him.

Is he OK? Seriously like?

Incredibly cheap, spiteful, and childish behaviour indeed. He comes across as a bully and a troll on Twitter.

Bringing the family members of politicians into the public discourse is absolutely shameful behaviour.

Gregor Samsa

Cosgrave seems to believe that continuous, shotgun tweeting is eventually going to bring down the establishment, and then his followers will instantly hoist him on their shoulders and triumphantly install him a Taoiseach, and he'll get free WiFi in the RDS for life.

Anyway, any more word on our new Party? Scotland just got one too:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/26/alex-salmond-launches-new-independence-focused-political-party-alba

Amirani

PunkIPA wrote: »

Incredibly cheap, spiteful, and childish behaviour indeed. He comes across as a bully and a troll on Twitter.

Bringing the family members of politicians into the public discourse is absolutely shameful behaviour.

Family members of a politician's boyfriend even. Horrible person is Cosgrave.

I'm not sure all is well with Paddy tbh. No one carries around that much anger without there being something deeper going on.

Hotblack Desiato

crossman47 wrote: »

It can now. That debate is over.

It's far from over. There is no constitutional right to abortion so a future conservative government could ban it. More realistically, there is a review of the legislation starting soon and a lot of people including me think it is far too restrictive.

Renua tried the "neutral on abortion" thing but it was a farce, all of the TDs they inherited had been kicked out of FG over opposition to the bare minimum legislation to stop women dying - nothing like the abortion legislation we have now.

Nobody was fooled by their "neutral on abortion" stance and the vast majority of members and activists who joined them were emphatically anti-choice. Which is fair enough. But their party should have had the guts to endorse the stance everyone knew they held anyway.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not sure all is well with Paddy tbh. No one carries around that much anger without there being something deeper going on.

Wife may have left him. She's in Donegal the last while. Or they're breaking restrictions. He's inviting that kind of speculation the way he's flying.

crossman47

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

. More realistically, there is a review of the legislation starting soon and a lot of people including me think it is far too restrictive.

R.

That must be a joke. Its more or less abortion on demand. I don't like the current law but I know there is no turning back so I feel a party's stance on abortion is irrelevant now.

People might have voted Renua but they know they are Sinners in disguise.

Gregor Samsa

crossman47 wrote: »

People might have voted Renua but they know they are Sinners in disguise.

I think you might be mixing up Renua (Lucinda Creighton , ex FG) with Aontú (Peadar Tóibín, ex SF)

crossman47

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I think you might be mixing up Renua (Lucinda Creighton , ex FG) with Aontú (Peadar Tóibín, ex SF)

Sorry, you're right.

Coillte_Bhoy

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's far from over. There is no constitutional right to abortion so a future conservative government could ban it. More realistically, there is a review of the legislation starting soon and a lot of people including me think it is far too restrictive.

Renua tried the "neutral on abortion" thing but it was a farce, all of the TDs they inherited had been kicked out of FG over opposition to the bare minimum legislation to stop women dying - nothing like the abortion legislation we have now.

Nobody was fooled by their "neutral on abortion" stance and the vast majority of members and activists who joined them were emphatically anti-choice. Which is fair enough. But their party should have had the guts to endorse the stance everyone knew they held anyway.

Renua are virulently anti abortion

happyoutscan

Donald Trump wrote: »

A red-green party?

They'll do great at the start, get on a roll, win all their preliminary matches, build their hopes up and throw it away in the final.

Mayo

As someone from Mayo I find this extremely ****ing insulting correct.

PunkIPA

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Renua are virulently anti abortion

Renua 1.0 adopted a neutral position whereby individual members would not be whipped to vote one way or the other. Among their candidates in 2016, many were pro-choice. Eddie Hobbs was the founding President (although not a candidate). He was on the record at the launch as being pro-choice. The break down was roughly 50/50 among candidates, although all the prominent ex-FG members were pro-life.

After the party failed to win seats, there was a mass exodus of the ex-FG types, and with them a lot of the centre-right supporters.

Renua 1.0's biggest problem, in a funny way, was that it was too successfully unsuccessful in the 2016 election. It got c.3% of the vote and was thus entitled to significant State funding for the next five years.

The problem is that the lunatics took over the asylum and it warped into Renua 2.0 which is a hardcore conservative party with zero prospect of electoral success.

Thankfully the money taps have now been turned off and I would be shocked to see it compete in an election at any level after the next GE. It's doubtful whether it will even have the funds to do that.

Hotblack Desiato

crossman47 wrote: »

That must be a joke.

Why?

Its more or less abortion on demand.

It IS abortion on demand (which you obviously think is something bad.) But only up to 12 weeks. In practice GPs don't want to know if 10 weeks or over due to liability issues, so you are then reliant on maternity hospitals, half of which are still not properly set up to deliver the abortion services which have been legal for over two years now.

It's pretty easy to go over the 12 weeks if you have irregular or no periods (such as a failing contraceptive implant) before realising you are pregnant.

Then there's the whole "is a fatal anomaly really fatal enough" thing which leaves Irish couples in tragic situations still having to seek terminations in Britain. You are pretty screwed if attending a hospital like Kilkenny where all of the ob/gyn consultants are anti-choice.

Then there are serious disabilities. I don't know why this is so taboo here. I've asked before whether anyone against abortion on grounds of disability would, if doing IVF with genetic screening, implant an embryo they knew to have Down's syndrome. Never once got an answer - which I think speaks for itself.

I don't like the current law but I know there is no turning back so I feel a party's stance on abortion is irrelevant now.

Far from it, because any future government can make our abortion law more restrictive or even make it illegal altogether.

People might have voted Renua but they know they are Sinners in disguise.

I assume you meant "Shinner"
Renua's TDs were all ex-FG and all lost their seats at the next election.
If you meant Aontu, that's a one man band and electorally irrelevant.