new political party?

celtictiger32 · 26-04-2012 4:38pm #1

just curious, most people seem to have problems with certain or all political parties. if a new party rose from the ashes what would make you vote for them? or in other words what would you want from your ideal party?

hopefully we can avoid the "they're all the same" lines that usually pop up

BOHtox · 26-04-2012 5:00pm

celtictiger32 wrote: »

just curious, most people seem to have problems with certain or all political parties. if a new party rose from the ashes what would make you vote for them? or in other words what would you want from your ideal party?

hopefully we can avoid the "they're all the same" lines that usually pop up

I'd vote for a Libertarian party if they were a proper entity with Libertarian principles and with a good structure.

I think there's room for a new party too. The vote for the independents and socialists is just a protest vote. I don't think that many people are actually socialists. Also, Workers and Unemployed Action Group. That's not an ideology of anyone again it's just a protest vote. A solid Libertarian structure could probably pick up around 6 seats in its first year if done correctly

celtictiger32 · 26-04-2012 5:13pm

BOHtox wrote: »

I'd vote for a Libertarian party if they were a proper entity with Libertarian principles and with a good structure.

I think there's room for a new party too. The vote for the independents and socialists is just a protest vote. I don't think that many people are actually socialists. Also, Workers and Unemployed Action Group. That's not an ideology of anyone again it's just a protest vote. A solid Libertarian structure could probably pick up around 6 seats in its first year if done correctly

what kind of libertarian principles? i know its impossible to create a party that would support everyones views but im curious to see what comes up without pigeon holeing them to left or right etc.

Permabear · 26-04-2012 5:59pm

This post has been deleted.

celtictiger32 · 26-04-2012 6:09pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

when you say the space vacated by the pds did you mean those with similar policies or.. ??

Permabear · 26-04-2012 6:15pm

This post has been deleted.

cml387 · 26-04-2012 6:19pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Add Anti immigration and it might get a lot of support,scarily.

BOHtox · 26-04-2012 10:39pm

celtictiger32 wrote: »

what kind of libertarian principles? i know its impossible to create a party that would support everyones views but im curious to see what comes up without pigeon holeing them to left or right etc.

Right of Fine Gael economically, left on Fine Gael socially.

firemansam4 · 29-04-2012 1:12am

I would like to see a party with some of the imagination and forward thinking of the green party - In my view one of the biggest challenges going to be facing this country over the next few decades is going to be our over reliant dependence on fossil fuels, none of the main stream parties have really given any serious thought on this matter.
The problem with the Green party is that they lost all credibility when they propped up FF in government, they brought in carbon taxes which made sense from a green perspective but it hurt the poorest people in the country who have no means to really change there fuel usage, IMO this tax did the green party no favors what so ever.
Add to that some of the policies they seemed more concerned about when in government like stag hunting etc, not saying i'm for stag hunting - quite the contrary, but there is far more pressing issues that should have been on there agenda than this.

Another thing I would really like to see changed as a whole to the way politics is done in this country is to separate local politics from national politics. How does it make sense that there are politicians canvasing for a general election, who are making promises and trying to attract votes from voters on local issues?
ie... vote for me and I will keep that garda station open or I will make sure that the pot holes are fixed on such and such road etc. How can this be in the national interest?
General elections should be all about national parties and issues and local issues should be kept separate.

boynesider · 01-05-2012 12:43am

There can be as many parties as you like, Ireland always has and always will elect a broadly centrist government. What matters to the majority of ordinary people when it comes to the polls is the individuals, not some ideological bent or radical shift in direction for the country.

Pride Fighter · 01-05-2012 12:51am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is because taxes have been constantly coming down. In 1976 the tax rate on the upper bracket was 77%, it is now 41%. In fact such erosion of the tax-base, by neo-liberals such as the PD's aided and abetted the crisis.

I'd like to see a party advocate more taxes, about 50%, in order to close the deficit, invest in infrastructure and public services. The neoliberal right has been wrecking nations since Reagan, we need to fight back against them.

BOHtox · 01-05-2012 1:05am

Pride Fighter wrote: »

That is because taxes have been constantly coming down. In 1976 the tax rate on the upper bracket was 77%, it is now 41%. In fact such erosion of the tax-base, by neo-liberals such as the PD's aided and abetted the crisis.

I'd like to see a party advocate more taxes, about 50%, in order to close the deficit, invest in infrastructure and public services. The neoliberal right has been wrecking nations since Reagan, we need to fight back against them.

50% more taxes? Jesus wept.
The middle classes for instance already pay 41% on top rate of income tax, the USC, PRSI, a new household tax and a water charge. Added to that Capital gains tax, VAT, DIRT, Stamp Duty, Capital Acquisitions tax, excise duty, VRT, motor tax, an air travel tax.
Am I missing some? probably so...
What more taxes do you want? Who will be spending money if they are being taxed so much? we need to cut and reduce tax not increase spending and increase tax!

Pride Fighter · 01-05-2012 1:11am

BOHtox wrote: »

50% more taxes? Jesus wept.
The middle classes for instance already pay 41% on top rate of income tax, the USC, PRSI, a new household tax and a water charge. Added to that Capital gains tax, VAT, DIRT, Stamp Duty, Capital Acquisitions tax, excise duty, VRT, motor tax, an air travel tax.
Am I missing some? probably so...
What more taxes do you want? Who will be spending money if they are being taxes so much? we need to cut and reduce tax not increase spending and increase tax!

I never said we should increase spending. Just advocated taxing to close the deficit gap, the investment would be small, and not on top of general government spending to be loaned out to SME's to create jobs. That would have the effect of cutting the Social Welfare bill by putting people back to work.

I'd prefer more taxes, between 93 and 97 the upper rate of tax was 48% and many more jobs were created then than now. Unless you'd prefer less taxes and more than the current one in seven people out of work?

Therefore, there is a correlation, with more taxes meaning more jobs are created than less taxes which in turn creates fewer jobs.

BOHtox · 01-05-2012 1:26am

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I never said we should increase spending.

Yes you did say that.

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I'd like to see a party advocate more taxes, about 50%, in order to close the deficit, invest in infrastructure and public services.

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Just advocated taxing to close the deficit gap, the investment would be small, and not on top of general government spending to be loaned out to SME's to create jobs. That would have the effect of cutting the Social Welfare bill by putting people back to work.

Banks loan to SME's; not the government! The social welfare bill would be reduced by cutting regulation on the supply side. There is way too much regulation. Businesses would love to hire one or two extra workers but simply can't because there is so much difficulty with regulation etc. THe risk of this is doing it wrong and facing a fine or going to court.

My local football team, just a small Leinster Senior cup team or something, used to do microwavable pizzas. They hired an extra bar man. They had 3 barmen to deal with the demand. The microwave or the oven or whatever in which it was cooked, was too far away from a sink so they could no longer make them. Barman now unemployed. Now there was a sink in the kitchen but Health and Safety couldn't allow it. Nanny state regulation is crippling small business in this country!

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I'd prefer more taxes, between 93 and 97 the upper rate of tax was 48% and many more jobs were created then than now. Unless you'd prefer less taxes and more than the current one in seven people out of work?

Therefore, there is a correlation, with more taxes meaning more jobs are created than less taxes which in turn creates fewer jobs.

Again, nanny state regulation has since come in. Income tax coming down is just a coincidence. There's more immigrants in this country now, can we blame them for the lack of job creation? no!

Less taxes = more disposable income = more spending = businesses making more money as demand for goods is higher = more staff to deal with extra demand!

Suryavarman · 01-05-2012 1:27am

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I never said we should increase spending. Just advocated taxing to close the deficit gap, the investment would be small, and not on top of general government spending to be loaned out to SME's to create jobs. That would have the effect of cutting the Social Welfare bill by putting people back to work.

I'd prefer more taxes, between 93 and 97 the upper rate of tax was 48% and many more jobs were created then than now. Unless you'd prefer less taxes and more than the current one in seven people out of work?

Therefore, there is a correlation, with more taxes meaning more jobs are created than less taxes which in turn creates fewer jobs.

And in the 80's we had sky high taxes and we had a lost decade. Trying to find a correlation using only two data points is beyond ridiculous.

It's beyond me how you could think that high taxes create jobs. Higher taxes mean that people will stop working past a certain point. High taxes mean the private sector has less money than the public sector, meaning a more inefficient and slower growing economy. High taxes will also cause more people to find ways around paying taxes meaning less revenue. Just look at Britain where they recently cut the 50% rate of tax back to 45% because it wasn't raising any revenue.

Chuck Stone · 01-05-2012 1:39am

I'd be interested as to what part of state intervention in the economy would be prioritised for the chop by a libertarian party.

Stop funding 3rd level education?

Stop granting corporate status?

Do away with limited liability?

What about patent and copyright protection?

Would a libertarian party remove entry barriers to the protected professions?

I mean, from a libertarian perspective the state's only role should be to enforce contracts and protect property.

Isn't it?

Pride Fighter · 01-05-2012 2:39am

BOHtox wrote: »

Yes you did say that.

That is my quote and quite clearly I did not.

Pride Fighter wrote: »

That is because taxes have been constantly coming down. In 1976 the tax rate on the upper bracket was 77%, it is now 41%. In fact such erosion of the tax-base, by neo-liberals such as the PD's aided and abetted the crisis.

I'd like to see a party advocate more taxes, about 50%, in order to close the deficit, invest in infrastructure and public services. The neoliberal right has been wrecking nations since Reagan, we need to fight back against them.

Pride Fighter · 01-05-2012 2:47am

Suryavarman wrote: »

Trying to find a correlation using only two data points is beyond ridiculous.

I agree. So lets look over the past 60 years.

It's beyond me how you could think that high taxes create jobs. Higher taxes mean that people will stop working past a certain point. High taxes mean the private sector has less money than the public sector, meaning a more inefficient and slower growing economy.

Here is evidence to show higher taxes means higher economic growth and lower unemployment rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_economic_expansion#Global_economic_climate

That link should show a table. Average global economic growth between 1945-1979 was 4.8%. Taxes were a lot higher then, the US even had a 90% rate of tax for its highest bracket between the early 50's and mid 70's. From 1979 to 2009 average global growth was 3.2% when they had less taxes.

Unemployment was lower in the US, UK, France and Germany when they had higher taxes. Who would have thought it?

BOHtox · 01-05-2012 8:14am

Pride Fighter wrote: »

That is my quote and quite clearly I did not.

"invest" - that is increasing spending.

celtictiger32 · 01-05-2012 2:39pm

BOHtox wrote: »

My local football team, just a small Leinster Senior cup team or something, used to do microwavable pizzas. They hired an extra bar man. They had 3 barmen to deal with the demand. The microwave or the oven or whatever in which it was cooked, was too far away from a sink so they could no longer make them. Barman now unemployed. Now there was a sink in the kitchen but Health and Safety couldn't allow it. Nanny state regulation is crippling small business in this country!

agree totally, nanny state regulations and political correctness is ruining society as a whole

comeback_kid · 01-05-2012 2:45pm

celtictiger32 wrote: »

agree totally, nanny state regulations and political correctness is ruining society as a whole

next thing we know , it wil start ruining this site

Suryavarman · 01-05-2012 4:30pm

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I agree. So lets look over the past 60 years.

Here is evidence to show higher taxes means higher economic growth and lower unemployment rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_economic_expansion#Global_economic_climate

That link should show a table. Average global economic growth between 1945-1979 was 4.8%. Taxes were a lot higher then, the US even had a 90% rate of tax for its highest bracket between the early 50's and mid 70's. From 1979 to 2009 average global growth was 3.2% when they had less taxes.

Unemployment was lower in the US, UK, France and Germany when they had higher taxes. Who would have thought it?

Working off the figures here government revenue as a percentage of GDP averaged 17.72% between 1950-2010, 18.12% between 1950-1959 and 17.53% between 1960-1969. In the fifties US real GDP per capita increased by 1.85% per year. In the sixties US real GDP per capita increased by 3.32% per year. Although, working off the figures here the average unemployment rate in the fifties was 4.5% vs 4.8% for the sixties.

As for Germany and France, they were so far behind the US in GDP per capita at the end of the war it is no surprise that they could manage low unemployment or high economic growth.

You've also failed to give me a reason why higher taxes would cause low unemployment or a better economy. If you can't do that then all the correlations you point out are meaningless.

dtf · 03-05-2012 9:10am

IMO this is the problem with talk of a new political party. From a quick glance at the first page of this thread, I have seen one poster wanting a new party to fill the void left by the PDs, another calling for a party that will reflect Green issues and another for a party that will raise taxes in order to bridge the deficit.
Most would like to see a new political party, but it seems that the views of what that party should actually stand for are very wide.

lkdsl · 03-05-2012 9:34am

@dtf - you hit the nail on the head!

I, too, would like my own personal political party. But it wouldn't be based on ideology of left or right. I would like:
1. Economically right of centre. Where the private sector works well, it works very well and should be encouraged to get on with it.
2. Excellent regulation in sectors where market-based economics leads (or could lead) to excess e.g. banking, food safety, standard setting, etc.
3. A progressive taxation system that generates sufficient revenue without clobbering initiative and endeavour.
4. User pays principle applied to most resources (water, waste, energy) with externalities included in the pricing (carbon, waste, tobacco, alcohol, etc.)
5. Redistributive and welfare that actually works. As it is, some who don't need help receive it while some who desperately need it do not. That is shameful on both counts.
6. State involvement only in those areas which would otherwise not work effectively - national grid, gas distribution, railway lines and roads, education, health (probably), regulation
7. Liberal in everything else - if it is not specifically involved, it's none of the state's business (our bedrooms, back gardens, etc.).

Anyone with me?

Lockstep · 03-05-2012 1:51pm

lkdsl wrote: »

@dtf - you hit the nail on the head!

I, too, would like my own personal political party. But it wouldn't be based on ideology of left or right. I would like:
1. Economically right of centre. Where the private sector works well, it works very well and should be encouraged to get on with it.
2. Excellent regulation in sectors where market-based economics leads (or could lead) to excess e.g. banking, food safety, standard setting, etc.
3. A progressive taxation system that generates sufficient revenue without clobbering initiative and endeavour.
4. User pays principle applied to most resources (water, waste, energy) with externalities included in the pricing (carbon, waste, tobacco, alcohol, etc.)
5. Redistributive and welfare that actually works. As it is, some who don't need help receive it while some who desperately need it do not. That is shameful on both counts.
6. State involvement only in those areas which would otherwise not work effectively - national grid, gas distribution, railway lines and roads, education, health (probably), regulation
7. Liberal in everything else - if it is not specifically involved, it's none of the state's business (our bedrooms, back gardens, etc.).

Anyone with me?

The problem here is that these are truisms: you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't want State involvement only where the market fails/ excellent regulation/progressive taxation that doesn't stifle innovation/welfare that isn't wasteful and so on.

OS119 · 03-05-2012 2:19pm

dtf wrote: »

...Most would like to see a new political party...

there was a new party - Amrahn Nua i think they called themselves, came on here looking for engagement, had a website with general principles, and then vanished without trace.

ok, so they looked to me to be a bit of a mish-mash, and they got a bit shirty with people who mentioned that some of their stuff was a bit illogical/badly thought-out - but it was all mainstream stuff, nothing about war with France or the compusory eating of Asparagus.

new party, mainstream ideas, and lots of public engagement yet they disappeared off the face of the earth - i'm not sure this 'the people want more choice' line is really true...

lkdsl · 03-05-2012 3:29pm

Lockstep wrote: »

The problem here is that these are truisms: you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't want State involvement only where the market fails/ excellent regulation/progressive taxation that doesn't stifle innovation/welfare that isn't wasteful and so on.

Ok. So that's two people for starters. LOL

What shall we call our new party?

KarmaBaby · 03-05-2012 3:37pm

The only void in Irish politics now as it stands is a Fascist Party and Stalinist Party. Actually, both exist but have no real support base to build on. I don't think a Maoist party would ever develop here but you never know. They're still quite popular in the middle east.

The idea that a "Libertarian" party would cover some part of Ireland's political landscape which Fianna Fail/Labour/Sinn Fein wouldn't already is complete and utter fantasy since such a party would essentially be yet another pro market-capitalism party pretending to be socially "left" while at the same time being corporately funded. i.e. Another populist party that forever dances around the ever moving political centre, inevitably shifting to the right and creating another political vacuum on the left which the SF the ULA is currently filling.

Lockstep · 03-05-2012 4:26pm

lkdsl wrote: »

Ok. So that's two people for starters. LOL

What shall we call our new party?

These are ideas rather than policies.

Both Fine Gael and Sinn Fein would see their policies as achieving everything you advocate but go about it very differently.

Suryavarman · 03-05-2012 5:32pm

KarmaBaby wrote: »

The only void in Irish politics now as it stands is a Fascist Party and Stalinist Party. Actually, both exist but have no real support base to build on. I don't think a Maoist party would ever develop here but you never know. They're still quite popular in the middle east.

Ireland has a fascist party?

What's the difference between a Maoist party and a Stalinist one?

The idea that a "Libertarian" party would cover some part of Ireland's political landscape which Fianna Fail/Labour/Sinn Fein wouldn't already is complete and utter fantasy since such a party would essentially be yet another pro market-capitalism party pretending to be socially "left" while at the same time being corporately funded. i.e. Another populist party that forever dances around the ever moving political centre, inevitably shifting to the right and creating another political vacuum on the left which the SF the ULA is currently filling.

How does a party pretend to be socially left?

Endless Nameless · 03-05-2012 11:54pm

dtf:

I don't see why there couldn't be new parties formed to represent those three wants. It would be better for democracy to have a more diverse spectrum of policy-driven parties, and having different ideologies voiced on the national stage.

new political party?

Comments