Do we need an Irish version of the Lib Dems?

axer

mycroft wrote:

Woosh, and once again we're in the how, and not the why....

Believe it or believe it not i'm not trying to sell them - all I'm pointing out is that there is another party that is growing and should be given a chance to see can they grow big enough to challenge FF & FG as it would take a new party a long time to grow too (probably longer).

mycroft

axer wrote:

Believe it or believe it not i'm not trying to sell them -

I don't believe you I think you are trying to sell them

all I'm pointing out is that there is another party that is growing and should be given a chance to see can they grow big enough to challenge FF & FG as it would take a new party a long time to grow too (probably longer).

:rolleyes:

So we should support SF not because of their policy or their nefariouis supporters but because of the possibility that they might grow into a sizable opposition.

Well, I'm sold.

Wow
A thread about the need for a party like the lib dems ( a social democratic party ) becomes a tit for tat on how SF (an extreme left wing socialist party ) could or could not be that third force.

Where can I start? Well the fact that the Lib Dems and SF are poles apart in terms of extremism with their policies-yup theres a good start.

I want to see absolutely no more talk of Sinn Féin in this thread when the topic is about an Irish version of the Lib dems-posts that do will be automatically binned as being completely off topic and thread hijacking.

Anyone that wants to discuss SF can open a new thread

ssh

Ahem...

So we're asking if Ireland needs a socially liberal, economically liberal and (by all accounts) ethical party? I'd probably vote for them.

The PD's would at least aspire to fit that description, but I think that whatever elements of those ideals that did exist have been thoroughly eroded through their participation in coalition governments.

I would assume that nothing would prevent this from happening again with a new party?

is_that_so

ssh wrote:

Ahem...

So we're asking if Ireland needs a socially liberal, economically liberal and (by all accounts) ethical party? I'd probably vote for them.

The PD's would at least aspire to fit that description, but I think that whatever elements of those ideals that did exist have been thoroughly eroded through their participation in coalition governments.

I would assume that nothing would prevent this from happening again with a new party?

There is always a difficulty in starting up a new party. What about the SDLP ? They are similar to the Lib Dems in approach and maybe their model might be better suited to Ireland. They might have more of an appeal in this jurisdiction.

monument

[NOTE: not talking about SF here; just about abortion in the context of a leftwing liberals, and leftwing liberal party...]

mycroft wrote:

take abortion for example it's right on left of centre down side supporters are pro choice while the fanatical northerners aren't.

I don’t think it’s that simple…

Without getting too much into a philosophy debate [as I know more then a few people here think politics has nothing to do with such], abortion isn’t a clear argument between people of the “left” and the “right” - “fanatical”, or not. Although, the apparent leftwing liberals who believe it has are normally surprisingly authoritarian on the subject.

It’s usually a matter of when one thinks the second human life starts to have the right to exist. Even if the opposite/fanatical/extreme views [‘at conception the human has rights’ or ‘only at birth the child has rights’] were taken, from the point of the taker of such views, both could be consider as thinking/acting ‘liberal’ [for the woman or the young human], and the “fanatical” nature, or not, of such views is subjective.

Anyway what is - if any - the Lib Dem's party line on abortion? I’d imagine (correct me here, if I’m wrong) that it’s one of the issues that split the party.

netwhizkid wrote:

I always thought the Greens were similiar to the Lib Dems anyway. What we need is an end to Civil War politics.

Hmm… the Greens are my closed likeminded party here, while the Lib Dems are in the UK.

mycroft

monument wrote:

Without getting too much into a philosophy debate [as I know more then a few people here think politics has nothing to do with such],

Cute.

abortion isn’t a clear argument between people of the “left” and the “right” - “fanatical”, or not. Although, the apparent leftwing liberals who believe it has are normally surprisingly authoritarian on the subject.

It’s usually a matter of when one thinks the second human life starts to have the right to exist. Even if the opposite/fanatical/extreme views [‘at conception the human has rights’ or ‘only at birth the child has rights’] were taken, from the point of the taker of such views, both could be consider as thinking/acting ‘liberal’ [for the woman or the young human], and the “fanatical” nature, or not, of such views is subjective.

Anyway what is - if any - the Lib Dem's party line on abortion? I’d imagine (correct me here, if I’m wrong) that it’s one of the issues that split the party.

And it's one of things that usually splits a left wing liberal party to a degree, however you'll rarely find someone objecting to a womans right to choose, for herself.

However the abortion issue raised above isn't as simple for our friends in the north, they're trying to marry the trendy leftwing set down south, with their entrenched religious dogmatic supporters up north, abortion is an example of an issue which the clash is just so extreme, that "well we'll just agree to disagree" won't pass mustard, hence;

So, for example, motions from radical branches in the Republic calling on the party to support abortion rights for women will be voted down with a collective show of hands from delegates under IRA army instruction.

from here

I know the above is straying perilously off topic, but the Lib Dem mantel is one SF would like to garner (down south at least) and one only needs to examine the two worlds they're trying to inhabit to see that it's a farcial two faced cyncial stance the party are trying to employ.

Which is an extreme example of the dilemea facing any party in Ireland, while socially progressive legislation (divorce for example) is supported in the urban areas, while rejected in rural areas, so while such an issue may pass a referendum, many parties need to tow a more conservative base to ensure their success. This means parties like the Greens, PDs and Labour draw their support from urban groups, while down the country your politics are often what you inherited from your father.

The only possible form I could see a genuine new politcal party similar to the lib dems is a greens/labour coalition, this party as party of a majority coalition with a smaller FG is just about the only government I would stomach voting for.

rsynnott

axer wrote:

We have Sinn Fein who are making great progress in the Republic.

Well, progress in a certain direction, yep I wasn't aware that it was LibDem policy to blow up random people to achieve their goals, tho.

Pinochet

there are many shades of red. the more ways to split the left the better!

AngelofFire

I`ve always questioned the PDs liberal creditentials, particularily with Mcdowell presiding over the deparment of justice. This is a man who gained the apporval of the KKK, supported a ''less than lethal'' weapons conference, and used a disproportionate amount of security at protests.

Sand

TBH the PDs are the closest to the Lib Dems that we have in Ireland.

FG and FF are beyond politics - the Blueshirts are lying down with Labour FFS, simply to ensure they wont be confused with FF. The Greens simply reject the possiblity of ever entering government in case it would mean they would have to take responsibility for decision making instead of criticising it. SFIRA arent even a political party in the commonly understood sense.

McDowell will always have my respect for taking on SFIRAs corruption when everyone else was lining up to suck Gerrys dick. I remember he was ridiculed for his attacks on the provos on the last election, he had the last laugh when it suddenly became fashionable to "discover" what SFIRA was up to. He more than anyone else in this Republic stood up for liberal democratic principles. The PDs stand head and shoulders above practically every party in this country, that we get the government we deserve has never been more proven in the support for the FF boyos as opposed to the PDs.

AngelofFire

True, but you dont have to be socially liberal to stand up for liberal democratic principles, lots of conservative parties pride themselves in that sort of thing. The PDs and the Lib Dems are the opposite in many ways, the PDs support the war in Iraq, whilst the Lib Dems are opposed. The Lib Dems are in favour of tax increases for those on high income, something that the PDs are emphatically against. Also i think that there is a difference between claiming to stand up for Liberal democratic principles and being Liberal, George Bush likes to offer us rhetoric about how much he loves liberal democratic principles, ye he is one of of the most ilLiberal US presidents we`ve seen in a long time, particularily with regard to abortion, contraception, and stem cell research.

Sand

The PDs and the Lib Dems are the opposite in many ways, the PDs support the war in Iraq, whilst the Lib Dems are opposed. The Lib Dems are in favour of tax increases for those on high income, something that the PDs are emphatically against.

For the first you maybe have to consider whether its more liberal democratic to support a war that deposes a dictatorship or to reject a war on the basis of protecting a system of international law that legitimises such dictatorships. Thats a subjective decision - there is no "right" answer.

For the second I think youre confusing liberal democratic with socialism.

Also i think that there is a difference between claiming to stand up for Liberal democratic principles and being Liberal, George Bush likes to offer us rhetoric about how much he loves liberal democratic principles, ye he is one of of the most ilLiberal US presidents we`ve seen in a long time, particularily with regard to abortion, contraception, and stem cell research.

Well with regards to the much maligned George Bush, with regards to contraception Im not aware of anything suitably draconian in his stance, nor with stem cell research - only that he opposes funding it with *federal* taxes, which is fair enough when you consider that at the very least a sizable segment of his federal voters find it disagreeable. With abortion, if one is interested in liberal democracy one has to consider, if the woman has rights to her own body, does the child have any rights even if it is unborn? Do the fathers have any rights to decide whether their children should be born or not? If they dont have any right to decide whether their children are born, do they have any obligation to provide for the upkeep of their children, which they have no say in the existence of?

I dont know - my opinion on abortion is not settled in any sense. What I certainly share with George Bush is an abhorrence for the Democrat championed partial birth abortions, which I trust you'll allow is possible to oppose without being a foaming Christian evangalist. Perhaps women, with their championed independance should employ a wide variety of contraception prior to enterntaining abortion in their family planning plans.

rsynnott

Sand wrote:

For the first you maybe have to consider whether its more liberal democratic to support a war that deposes a dictatorship or to reject a war on the basis of protecting a system of international law that legitimises such dictatorships. Thats a subjective decision - there is no "right" answer.

It's not quite that simple; you're making the assumption that the Saddam-less Iraq will become a democratic paradise. Looking at the region's history, that looks like wishful thinking; look how things have already gotten so much worse for women in Iraq. There are rulers a lot worse than Saddam in that region of the world, and there's no reason to suppose that Iraq won't opt for something similar.

Sand wrote:

Well with regards to the much maligned George Bush, with regards to contraception Im not aware of anything suitably draconian in his stance,

He opposes education wrt safe sex, instead preferring education about abstinence. We live in a world where that approach won't work.

Sand wrote:

nor with stem cell research - only that he opposes funding it with *federal* taxes, which is fair enough when you consider that at the very least a sizable segment of his federal voters find it disagreeable.

A ban on federal funding is the kiss of death for any research project; the big public labs can't afford to touch it, and any further development will be done corporately (and therefore semi-secretly and concentrating only on products to fit a marketplace) or not at all. It isn't actually reasonable to say that a sizable segment of federal voters find it disagreeable; only a tiny, tiny fraction have even a vague idea what it is; the others just know it's something scary involving material from aborted babies. In any case, America has been quite happy to fund atomic bomb research, and germ warfare research, despite considerable public opposition. And they were right to do so; both projects had considerable civilian applications and have saved many thousands of lives. Here, Bush is imposing his views, and the views of the more extreme members of his party, on a system that has been traditionally unmaligned by the government.

Sand wrote:

With abortion, if one is interested in liberal democracy one has to consider, if the woman has rights to her own body, does the child have any rights even if it is unborn? Do the fathers have any rights to decide whether their children should be born or not? If they dont have any right to decide whether their children are born, do they have any obligation to provide for the upkeep of their children, which they have no say in the existence of?

Not going to get into this, as the arguments have been made a thousand times. I'm personally pro-choice (and therefore allegedly anti-life), and I believe that both parents have an obligation to provide for the upbringing of the child, in general.

Sand wrote:

Perhaps women, with their championed independance should employ a wide variety of contraception prior to enterntaining abortion in their family planning plans.

But Bush isn't a fan of that, and is certainly not a fan of educating about it, or providing funding for education programmes, supply of contraception to sex workers, and so on.

AngelofFire

For the first you maybe have to consider whether its more liberal democratic to support a war that deposes a dictatorship or to reject a war on the basis of protecting a system of international law that legitimises such dictatorships. Thats a subjective decision - there is no "right" answer

I dont believe that america went to war because it was concerned about dictatorship, considering that in the past they have backed more dicatatorships in the past than i can count on both hands, including saddamm hussain back in the 1980s

A Dub in Glasgo

To suggest that the PDs are the nearest thing to the Lib Dems is stretching credibility to snapping point. Unreal

Cork

I think we need an alternative party that will put forward an alternative range of policies. We are not getting this.

This is essential for democracy.

toiletduck

AngelofFire wrote:

the PDs support the war in Iraq, whilst the Lib Dems are opposed.

i wasn't aware the PD's supported the war, did they?

AngelofFire

I certianly dont see the PDs protesting against the use of shannon airport by the US army, anyone who supports the use of shannon in my opinion is condoning what america are using it for.