[celtictiger32]

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]

Originally Posted by celtictiger32

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]

Originally Posted by BOHtox

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]

The space vacated by the PDs is the obvious place for a new party to arise. We have a crowded centre-ground with Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, and Labour divided more by their personalities and histories than by policy. We have a crowded and fractured far-left with Sinn Féin, the ULA, and multiple small socialist parties. But we have no party to the right of Fine Gael economically. And hence:

• We have no party opposed to the Croke Park Agreement
• We have no party opposed to sky-high social welfare rates
• We have no party opposed to the idea of borrowing ever more money
• We have no party opposed to constantly increasing taxes
• We have no party that believes that economic growth should be generated by the private sector, rather than by government policy

Any party that moves into this area will thus pick up significant support, I believe.

[celtictiger32]

Originally Posted by Permabear

The space vacated by the PDs is the obvious place for a new party to arise. We have a crowded centre-ground with Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, and Labour divided more by their personalities and histories than by policy. We have a crowded and fractured far-left with Sinn Féin, the ULA, and multiple small socialist parties. But we have no party to the right of Fine Gael economically. And hence:

• We have no party opposed to the Croke Park Agreement
• We have no party opposed to sky-high social welfare rates
• We have no party opposed to the idea of borrowing ever more money
• We have no party opposed to constantly increasing taxes
• We have no party that believes that economic growth should be generated by the private sector, rather than by government policy

Any party that moves into this area will thus pick up significant support, I believe.

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

[Permabear]

Originally Posted by celtictiger32

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

I mean a party that broadly adopts the same economically and socially liberal stance.

I'm not arguing for a carbon copy of the PDs, because a lot of people became disillusioned with the party during its final years, when it essentially became Fianna Fáil Lite.

[cml387]

Originally Posted by Permabear

The space vacated by the PDs is the obvious place for a new party to arise. We have a crowded centre-ground with Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, and Labour divided more by their personalities and histories than by policy. We have a crowded and fractured far-left with Sinn Féin, the ULA, and multiple small socialist parties. But we have no party to the right of Fine Gael economically. And hence:

• We have no party opposed to the Croke Park Agreement
• We have no party opposed to sky-high social welfare rates
• We have no party opposed to the idea of borrowing ever more money
• We have no party opposed to constantly increasing taxes
• We have no party that believes that economic growth should be generated by the private sector, rather than by government policy

Any party that moves into this area will thus pick up significant support, I believe.

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

[BOHtox]

Originally Posted by celtictiger32

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Permabear

[*]We have no party opposed to constantly increasing taxes

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]

Originally Posted by Pride Fighter

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]

Originally Posted by BOHtox

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]

Originally Posted by Pride Fighter

I never said we should increase spending.

Yes you did say that.

Originally Posted by Pride Fighter

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

Originally Posted by Pride Fighter

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!

Originally Posted by Pride Fighter

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]

Originally Posted by Pride Fighter

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.