FF vs FG?

Ideo

So tell me, what is the difference between FG and FF? I always kind of thought that they were pretty different but somebody said that there isn't much between them but didn't elaborate. I'd be interested to know what the real differences are!

Main difference is FF:Eamonn DeValera FG:Michael Collins

mikemac

Fine Gael didn't exist when Collins was around.
But I get your point anyway.

Dirk Gently

Ideo wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what the real differences are!

FF are in government

Mr.Micro

ones bad the other is worse

The_Minister

Both are centre-orientated populist parties. FG is right of centre, FF is ever so slightly left of centre (depending where you put the centre.

FG has a little flavor of Christian Democrat about it too.

Also, certain FG members want to rejoin the commonwealth, something that no FF'er would ever consider.

Aside from that very little.

Both have a myth associated with them selves.

Time Magazine

The_Minister wrote: »

Also, certain FG members want to rejoin the commonwealth, something that no FF'er would ever consider.

Sure? Positive?

The_Minister

Ibid wrote: »

Sure? Positive?

I stand corrected. Wow. You learn something new every day

Crash

never knew o cuiv was one who wanted to rejoin the commonwealth - interesting.

Jackie laughlin

It is tiresome how often people say that FF and FG are identical and that the only thing separating them is their origins in the first half of the 20th century. It is true that they have much in common but Irish people's voting demonstrates a desire to keep both parties separate. One easy guide to the difference is to look to their respective groups in the European Parliament where members sit not as national reps but in ideological groups.

Dirk Gently

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

One easy guide to the difference is to look to their respective groups in the European Parliament where members sit not as national reps but in ideological groups.

Seriously Jackie those Euro groups don't really mean a whole lot with regards to modern Irish party political ideology. Neither FF or FG have any major ideology, and neither does the labour party despite the socialist sounding language. It is a fair criticism to say there is not much to choose between the main parties, save some subtle differances that even politically minded people mention only in passing. FF are populists and labour and FG are inferior populists playing catchup on FF.

The PD's could lay claim to an ideology but they're not a major party.

Your points in the other thread are valid regarding the various parties but the differances are a lot more watered down than you make out.

A lack of ideology is not neccessarily a bad thing as ideology can be blinding but having the 3 biggest parties in the land display little obvious differance in direction is a bad thing. Take a step back from the party spin and ask yourself truely if the choice is healthy for people of differing views.

CerebralCortex

The way I see it is that FF and FG are ying and yang. There almost symbiotic. My impression from the last general election is that FF masterfully exploited FG's need/lust to make FF out to be bad guys and how they could do it better. I think it would serve FG better to be more constructive and provide level headed solutions as opposed to criticisms(which is all I hear from them).

I remember talking to a FG'er on Shop street in Galway and all he had to say essentially was that we're not FF.

Akrasia

FF are bad, FG are probably worse. (policy wise, forget about the corruption that seems to strike FF to its core) Its a lot like Labour vs Tory in the U.K. The Tories sometimes seem like the better option than labour but that's only because they're in opposition, if they were actually in power, they'd make the same mistakes and screw the people just as much, if not more.

Party politics only leads to one outcome, the slimiest guy wins. The party that can promise the most before an election will probably win, it doesn't matter whether or not the promises are genuine or not.

Time Magazine

Akrasia wrote: »

FF are bad, FG are probably worse.

Factual analysis at its most insightful, eh Akrasia?

Akrasia

Ibid wrote: »

Factual analysis at its most insightful, eh Akrasia?

well its from my own personal experiences dealing with YFG in student politics. FG are a little bit more right wing than FF (the width of a human hair) and both parties are perfectly willing to lie cheat and spin in order to gain political advantage.

I trust neither party, and because of this, electoral politics in Ireland is a total waste of time. (no matter what happens in an election, it's going to be either a FF or FG led government.)

Sigh.
This thread and that other one.
I sense the same thing.
1.The electorate have no right to hold an opinion
2.my(not mine,the poster's) opinion is king because well I'm omnipitent or something in terms of my views always being right and everyone else is wrong.
3.The electorate are wrong and I am right
4.We live in some sort of stepford wives scenario where the FF/FG big wigs are the equivalent of the men and the robot women are the voters.
Theres only a few that haven't been converted yet.
Save us akrasia,I beg of thee....

<wait...processing...I shouldn't have been able to say the above...I'm brainwashed like most of the electorate you see...we're all mindless...theres something wrong with the programme...processing...please wait...>

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote: »

Sigh.
This thread and that other one.
I sense the same thing.
1.The electorate have no right to hold an opinion
2.my(not mine,the poster's) opinion is king because well I'm omnipitent or something in terms of my views always being right and everyone else is wrong.
3.The electorate are wrong and I am right
4.We live in some sort of stepford wives scenario where the FF/FG big wigs are the equivalent of the men and the robot women are the voters.
Theres only a few that haven't been converted yet.
Save us akrasia,I beg of thee....

<wait...processing...I shouldn't have been able to say the above...I'm brainwashed like most of the electorate you see...we're all mindless...theres something wrong with the programme...processing...please wait...>

nice rant.

Might be a little bit more accurate if anywhere near the majority of Irish people were actively engaged in politics. The majority of Irish people don't follow politics very closely. The fact that politics in Ireland is so stagnant contributes to this fact, and it also sustains the stagnation. People are forced to vote based on a choice between different sets of lies, spin and 'optimistic projections'

As long as politics is boring and as long as politicians consistently lie and deceive, people won't pay much attention to it, As long as people don't pay attention to it, politics will be boring. Politicians consistently rank amongst the least trusted and respected professions. A choice between FF and FG is just as meaningful as a choice between Liverpool and Manchester United. Its all about marketing, spin, emotion, tradition.... in the end, both teams play the exact same game.

You can dress it up whatever way you like akrasia but in a nutshell what you are saying is you are right and the circa 60% that usually vote are mostly wrong.

Thats one hell of a leap conclusions wise.I can see why it has to be a leap obviously because it's a sweeping assumption about peoples voting intentions with no ground beneath it.

Sleepy

Tristrame wrote: »

Sigh.
This thread and that other one.
I sense the same thing.
1.The electorate have no right to hold an opinion
2.my(not mine,the poster's) opinion is king because well I'm omnipitent or something in terms of my views always being right and everyone else is wrong.
3.The electorate are wrong and I am right
4.We live in some sort of stepford wives scenario where the FF/FG big wigs are the equivalent of the men and the robot women are the voters.
Theres only a few that haven't been converted yet.
Save us akrasia,I beg of thee....

<wait...processing...I shouldn't have been able to say the above...I'm brainwashed like most of the electorate you see...we're all mindless...theres something wrong with the programme...processing...please wait...>

1. Do you believe that the majority of the electorate do actually hold an opinion? bonus question: what percentage of that electorat hold an educated opinion?
2. As you referenced my post, where do you think I'm wrong?
3. The electorate aren't given a chance to be right.
4. We live in a system whereby voters are encouraged to vote out of pure and utter self-interest rather than for the form of governance/government they feel will do the best job for the country as a whole.

Tristrame, what's your point? That things aren't perfect so just go with the best option? That there's no point in chasing a perfect system of governance? I see you pissing all over others ideas without really giving your own if you'll forgive the lack of eloquence of the expression.

Sleepy

Tristrame wrote: »

You can dress it up whatever way you like akrasia but in a nutshell what you are saying is you are right and the circa 60% that usually vote are mostly wrong.

Thats one hell of a leap conclusions wise.I can see why it has to be a leap obviously because it's a sweeping assumption about peoples voting intentions with no ground beneath it.

Not to fight akrasia's battles for him/her but aren't the electorate broadly in agreement with him/her? That FF are bad but FG are worse? That seemed to be the rational espoused by anyone I knew voting FF who wasn't doing so simply because mammy and daddy were...

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote: »

You can dress it up whatever way you like akrasia but in a nutshell what you are saying is you are right and the circa 60% that usually vote are mostly wrong.

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying?

First of all, it is a complete fallacy to suggest that the people who usually vote do so for the reasons that the politicians claim afterwards. The reasons why people vote are as numerous as the votes cast.
What is true, and I have no doubt would be confirmed if a study were to be carried out, is that a large proportion of the voters are poorly informed. The majority base their decisions on the propaganda of the different parties, the vast majority of which is not worth the paper its printed in terms of accuracy and reliability. Others vote based on personal relationships (the fellah down the road), and access to power for local reasons (voting for a minister regardless of whether they like his/her policies or not because of the additional resources a sitting minister can bring to the area)



This is not a value judgement. It's not particularly their fault for using the easiest available information to make their decision. It is a systemic failure that such information is a minefield of bias, spin, lies, misinformation, inaccurate forecasts, blatant bribery and scaremongering.
Its also not particularly their fault that in this particular version of the game, the outcomes are limited to either a choice between FF or FG with a sideshow to decide who the coalition partners would be)

Thats one hell of a leap conclusions wise.I can see why it has to be a leap obviously because it's a sweeping assumption about peoples voting intentions with no ground beneath it.

No its not. The differences between FF and FG are about similar to the differences between Liverpool and Man UTD. The personalities are different, there are historical and family ties to the different clubs, they play a slightly different strategy but abide by exactly the same rules and with the same objective. Even though they are essentially the same, there can be huge rivalries between the different supporters, and the players rarely transfer between the two teams.

There are lots of fair weather supporters of Man Utd and Liverpool that follow them when times are good, but their real strength is in the die hard base who will fill the stadium week in week out for no reason other than loyalty tradition and some kind of shared identity

Again I must enquire akrasia as to this seemingly omnipitent knowledge you have of voters en masse to make your sweeping statements about them ?

Sleepy my point is simple.A person can vote for whatever party/person they like thats democracy.It's the way it should be.
Of course things aren't perfect.
If you are looking for perfection or even something 60% there you'll not get it.
You can keep espousing it of course.
Without espousing it,we'd probably not get 30% there.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote: »

Again I must enquire akrasia as to this seemingly omnipitent knowledge you have of voters en masse to make your sweeping statements about them ?

My "sweeping statement" is that voters vote for different reasons. Are you suggesting that this is untrue? perhaps they're all controlled by a giant brain?

Sleepy my point is simple.A person can vote for whatever party/person they like thats democracy.It's the way it should be.

That's a form of democracy, it's not 'Democracy'. And it is a highly corrupted form of democracy. There is nothing to force the elected representatives to actually represent the people who voted for them after the election. There is no mechanism for liars to be recalled. Every politician in Clare promised to protect Ennis Hospital and secure investment for Shannon. The government representatives in the constituency have done nothing to honour those promises and there is nothing the electorate can do about it.

Of course things aren't perfect.

very far from perfect. There is a virus in the system. It needs to be reformed, but the people who benefit from the corruptions in the system are the only people who have the power to make the necessary reforms, and that would be like turkeys voting for christmas.

jmayo

Akrasia wrote: »

FF are bad, FG are probably worse. (policy wise, forget about the corruption that seems to strike FF to its core) Its a lot like Labour vs Tory in the U.K. The Tories sometimes seem like the better option than labour but that's only because they're in opposition, if they were actually in power, they'd make the same mistakes and screw the people just as much, if not more.

To quote a movie, "FF's greatest trick is convincing the electorate that FG would be even worse".

IMO the problem with Irish politics is that it can often boil down to what the local polician does for me.
The politicans have helped create a system where you need to get a politican to intercede on your behalf, with the civil service - civil establishment, to get what you deserve in the first place.
They have made themselves indispensable and thus the electorate believe they are beholden to them.

That is one reason idiots like Cullen, Flynn, Ellis get elected.

Another, but deminishing reason is the old party lines.
My grandad was a Dev man so I will be one also. This does have merit because in the past these people managed to get state jobs and state related contracts, the jobs for the boys scenario.

The last two elections have seen greed become a factor.
Young voters believe that the gravy train will stop if they don't keep FF in power. After all they were the party that gave us the gravy train and they make sure the great never ending construction boom will continue and benefit us all, well some of us more than others :rolleyes:
Actually we should thank Alan Dukes's tallaght strategy, CJH government finally getting things right circa 1987, IDA devlopment strategy, decreased corporation tax and the availability of cheap credit for the gravy train but bertie baffoon seems to have cornered the credit.

But until we put the greater national interest first and decide to truly reward a government for it's ineptness, by ignoring them at the polls, then we will be stuck with the same shower.

BTW I did not vote for the current shower of liars and chancers so it is not my fault

akrasia doen't like peoples decisions in the ballot box in a nutshell.

As regards failures in nimbyism,there is something the local electorate can do,they can realise that there are 26 counties governed by the Dáil not just one.The other 25 counties have an equal right to claim for some taxpayers money.
It's the job of the elected government to make an attempt at the share out infrastructurally.
Some win,some lose from the far from bottomless purse.
Thats an inevitability.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote: »

akrasia doen't like peoples decisions in the ballot box in a nutshell.

I can speak for myself thank you very much.

I object to the corrupt system far more than the decisions made by voters.

I also object to the 'everything's fine jack' attitude that you are displaying. There are serious serious failings in our political system, many of which have obvious solutions that are never ever put before the people to vote on.

Agent Smith

Akrasia wrote: »

There are serious serious failings in our political system, many of which have obvious solutions that are never ever put before the people to vote on.

Discuss...

Akrasia

agent smith wrote: »

Discuss...

Very first and most important issue. Recallable representatives. There is no mechanism in Ireland whereby an elected official can be recalled by his/her electorate should he/she betray the trust or wishes of those he/she was supposed to represent.

Second, election manifestos should be given the status of legal contracts enforcable by the courts. Why should the public have to vote on manifestos and election promises when there is absolutely nothing to prevent politicians from breaking those promises as soon as they are elected.

moe_sizlak

both parties are centre right although some FF voters like to think of there party as being for the little guy and of being centre left

there are personality differences though , while im generalising , ff are cute hoors who while crooked get the job done , fg are preppy strictly by the book honest to god nice boys who due to there puritan streak dont have the killer instinct that there FF counterparts have , while fg are more conservative on some issues , there also more pluralist than ff on the national question although that has changed lately

all in all there are subtle differences but not much difference on general policy

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

I object to the corrupt system

If it were that corrupt,you could never vote anyone out.
You see, it's you thats saying it's corrupt.
It's your opinion.
What I'm saying is how can you say your opinion applies to everyone else.

I also object to the 'everything's fine jack' attitude that you are displaying.

I wouldn't say I'm saying everything is fine,I believe I said it's like many other things when looking for perfection,we're about 60% there.

There are serious serious failings in our political system, many of which have obvious solutions that are never ever put before the people to vote on.

Examples?

Very first and most important issue. Recallable representatives. There is no mechanism in Ireland whereby an elected official can be recalled by his/her electorate should he/she betray the trust or wishes of those he/she was supposed to represent.

Fine in theory,impossible/unworkable/unwieldy in practice.
You'd get no decisions made,nothing done.

Second, election manifestos should be given the status of legal contracts enforcable by the courts. Why should the public have to vote on manifestos and election promises when there is absolutely nothing to prevent politicians from breaking those promises as soon as they are elected.

Wishy washy idealism and unworkable as circumstances can change many times within a 5 year term.
That and when a "new" party enters government and look at the figures properly they often have to prioritise their wishes in order of feasibility
Manifesto's are never presented as fait complit's in a STV system where no party can get a majority.At best they are a list of desires parties agree with.

Jackie laughlin

So, let's get this right. There is no significant difference between Ireland's political parties. They are all liars. Nothing can be done. Everything is spin and marketing. Handy, very handy! Now all the cynic has to do is growl at everything.

The problem is that politics in Ireland is relatively free of corruption. (Calm yourself! I said "relatively".) There is significant - if not considerable -difference between the parties.

Having said this, there is no sensible argument for revolutionary change. Those of us who disagree with with our neo-liberal, anti-egalitarian society are reformers. That is to say we favour the parliamentary route and gradual change. (No, not necessarily slow - just gradual as opposed to revolutionary.) This tends to limit the policy options. Those options are further limited when a party seeks mass support as there is no future in alienating a huge slice of the electorate. The "problem" is further compounded in Ireland where the vast majority are ideologically of like mind and find the differences between the two major parties to be sufficient choice.

We live in an unjust society and we really can do without the peddlars of despair and their sanctimonious desire to pretend that they are political virgins awaiting super suitor.

Cynicism is considered cool right now. It ought to be ruthlessly challenged. On second thoughts, perhaps it should be treated with contempt and allowed to wither.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote: »

Fine in theory,impossible/unworkable/unwieldy in practice.
You'd get no decisions made,nothing done.

Don't be silly, there are mechanisms in many countries to recall governments or representatives if they are seen to be acting against the wishes of their electorate. Venezuela is one example, Chavez fought and won a recall referendum a few years ago and you can not possibly say that no decusions are ever made in Caracas

Wishy washy idealism and unworkable

Your opinion, not fact

as circumstances can change many times within a 5 year term.
That and when a "new" party enters government and look at the figures properly they often have to prioritise their wishes in order of feasibility
Manifesto's are never presented as fait complit's in a STV system where no party can get a majority.At best they are a list of desires parties agree with.

Well let them have their pdesires and goals, but let them express them in realistic terms that take into account of changing circumstances.

What we have now is anything goes auction politics. Individuals are subordinate to the party whip. FF representatives can claim they will fight for shannon, and then vote with the governemnt against their constituents. If manifestos were a legally binding contract then FF TDs in Clare for example, would be legally obligated to vote in favour of Shannon Airport and against threats to Ennis hospital. This would improve democracy because it would give opposition parties leeway to call for votes that would otherwise fail because of the government whip. It would force representatives to actually represent their communities.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Don't be silly, there are mechanisms in many countries to recall governments or representatives if they are seen to be acting against the wishes of their electorate. Venezuela is one example, Chavez fought and won a recall referendum a few years ago and you can not possibly say that no decusions are ever made in Caracas
Your opinion, not fact

You have to go that far and take that extreme example of a country to hold up this "ideal" you are espousing ?
Any other examples in the western world besides Venezuala.
Who are the many?

Well let them have their pdesires and goals, but let them express them in realistic terms that take into account of changing circumstances.

I'm afraid life doesn't work like that in the real world.
theres a thing called negotiation-you know where a union wants a 10% hike and eventually settles for.

What we have now is anything goes auction politics. Individuals are subordinate to the party whip. FF representatives can claim they will fight for shannon, and then vote with the governemnt against their constituents.

Remember what I said in my last post regarding 1 county out of 26 and the reasonable sharing out of whats available?

If manifestos were a legally binding contract then FF TDs in Clare for example, would be legally obligated to vote in favour of Shannon Airport and against threats to Ennis hospital.

You know we don't have oil don't you?Revenue hasn't found a bottomless purse.

This would improve democracy because it would give opposition parties leeway to call for votes that would otherwise fail because of the government whip. It would force representatives to actually represent their communities.

Again,you'd have nothing done in that sort of a set up as the money would run out fast.
Replace it with higher taxes? Yes that would get you elected alright (I don't think...)

Your opinion, not fact

It is a fact that you are espousing an idealism here.It is my opinion that your idealism is advocating a wishy washy,unrealistic,unworkable solution.
It's effectively a dressed up version of this - Fine in a book but not so fine when you make the mess that would ensue a reality,every county local community for itself,peace,harmony and no selfishness and flowers in everyones hair.
Now theres an unlikely reality.
Yes thats my opinion.

nesf

Sleepy wrote: »

bonus question: what percentage of that electorat hold an educated opinion?

Define educated. Normally when people use it it's a synonym for "an opinion like mine".

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote: »

You have to go that far and take that extreme example of a country to hold up this "ideal" you are espousing ?
Any other examples in the western world besides Venezuala.

What makes venezuela an extreme country? That's a pretty biased view. But if you must know, Several U.S. states have a facility for recall elections (it's been blocked at federal level because, well, its not in their interest to allow true democracy)

I'm afraid life doesn't work like that in the real world.
theres a thing called negotiation-you know where a union wants a 10% hike and eventually settles for.
Remember what I said in my last post regarding 1 county out of 26 and the reasonable sharing out of whats available? You know we don't have oil don't you?Revenue hasn't found a bottomless purse.Again,you'd have nothing done in that sort of a set up as the money would run out fast.

I know we don't have oil, but the FF government in the last election seemed to think we had something better, a magical economy based on selling each other property at ever increasing prices, that would never collapse and allow us to provide for our wildest dreams and still cut taxes. They cheated the public by ramping up expenditure before the election to make it seem as though we were doing better than we were, and followed the election with immediate cut backs. That is the current system.

Replace it with higher taxes? Yes that would get you elected alright (I don't think...)

It might if you were campaigning for better services including a tax increase against opponents who campaigned for lower taxes and cuts in public services.

Currently we have a ludicrous situation where it is impossible to get elected if you tell the truth, because your opponents will promise the same things you promise plus 10% and with a pledge to cut taxes. If manifestos were binding, the first election might be full of lies and deceipt, but as soon as people are removed from office for deception, the next election would be more honest and realistic. (as opposed to the current system that encourages more and more wild promises and more dirty tricks and negative campaigning)

It is a fact that you are espousing an idealism here.It is my opinion that your idealism is advocating a wishy washy,unrealistic,unworkable solution.

Excuse me, I put forward two very simple and concrete proposals. It is far from idealism. It is your opinion that it is idealism In my opinion it is minimal reform. Perhaps your imagination is so limited that recall elections and forbidding politicans from lying to us at elections seems totally fantastic to you. It would be idealism to hope that politicians will just tell the truth on their own, but I'm not that naive.

It's effectively a dressed up version of this - Fine in a book but not so fine when you make the mess that would ensue a reality,every county local community for itself,peace,harmony and no selfishness and flowers in everyones hair.
Now theres an unlikely reality.
Yes thats my opinion.

no its not. Its nothing like anarchism. It is a simple reform that should be common sense to anyone who believes that politicians should represent the people and not themselves.

Dirk Gently

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Cynicism is considered cool right now. It ought to be ruthlessly challenged.

How are Labour "ruthlessly challenging" cynicism. Whether or not you like to admit it there is not a whole lot to choose between the big parties, even labour jumped on the unrealistic tax cut fiasco last election. Populist politics at its best as any casual observor knew we would be entering a new economic phase (downturn) and the tax cut was sheer headline grabbing on everyones part. I see Joan Bruton recently had a go at cowan as he pulled back from cutting the tax rate but it would have been FG/LAB pulling back had they been in government. All the parties based their policy on unrealistic economic projections.

The only clear point of differance was the co-location issue something which I'm sure was labour pushed as opposed to FG pushed. On that point fair play but I don't see a whole lot of other differances. Perhaps you could list a few?

Your dismissal of the point as simply being Cynicism is a kop out and smacks of someone on the inside of a party machine rathar than a view from the outside. If there is a differance perhaps the partys involved should clearly outline them so as to educate people like me. Another fear I have is that even the luke warm differances will evaporate should labour ever leave the security of the opposition bench.

Either there is only one way forward, on which all major partys agree or there is a differance in approach. which is it? How sure are you a labour lead government would counter neo liberalism despite what you may wish yourself.

apologies to the OP but if there is a mainstream choice out there I think Labour might be the only of the 3 candidates slightly different to FF / FG. I don't see enough differance between FF/FG to merit two seperate parties except for family tribalism and FF sleaze. FG courted to the left a little recently but only to compromise with a labour pact IMO.

nesf

Akrasia wrote: »

It might if you were campaigning for better services including a tax increase against opponents who campaigned for lower taxes and cuts in public services.

No party who has gone down that road in recent years has done well to be fair. There just hasn't been a left wing in the Irish electorate recently tbh. Whether it's down to a lack of a viable left wing party or whatever is open to debate.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

What makes venezuela an extreme country? That's a pretty biased view.

Ireland and Venuezala are like chalk and cheese.There are lots of extremes there you wouldn't find here.

But if you must know, Several U.S. states have a facility for recall elections (it's been blocked at federal level because, well, its not in their interest to allow true democracy)

Thats mostly for representatives that commit felonies.Though I must admit I had forgotten the California case that led to Arnies election.It's very very rare that a desire like that has been realised there.The reason I'd be against that and the swiss model,I've already expressed in the other thread.
Any T.D convicted of a crime here that involves 6 months or more afaik loses their seat automatically.

I know we don't have oil, but the FF government in the last election seemed to think we had something better, a magical economy based on selling each other property at ever increasing prices, that would never collapse and allow us to provide for our wildest dreams and still cut taxes. They cheated the public by ramping up expenditure before the election to make it seem as though we were doing better than we were, and followed the election with immediate cut backs. That is the current system.

Thats a bit presumptious again I think.Housing was what 10-15% of the employment force at it's height.Secondly it assumes again that people are too thick to analyise things for themselves properly.

It might if you were campaigning for better services including a tax increase against opponents who campaigned for lower taxes and cuts in public services.

Doubt it to be honest.

Currently we have a ludicrous situation where it is impossible to get elected if you tell the truth, because your opponents will promise the same things you promise plus 10% and with a pledge to cut taxes. If manifestos were binding, the first election might be full of lies and deceipt, but as soon as people are removed from office for deception, the next election would be more honest and realistic. (as opposed to the current system that encourages more and more wild promises and more dirty tricks and negative campaigning)

I think you've a grave misunderstanding of the human pyschic.
People are selfish,they always want more,thats why politicians pander to their needs.
It goes back to the wages bargaining point,the people usually pick what will they think end up best for them

Excuse me, I put forward two very simple and concrete proposals. It is far from idealism. It is your opinion that it is idealism In my opinion it is minimal reform. Perhaps your imagination is so limited that recall elections and forbidding politicans from lying to us at elections seems totally fantastic to you. It would be idealism to hope that politicians will just tell the truth on their own, but I'm not that naive.

Firstly,it's not a lie to state something in a manifesto and not impliment it in government,lets get that bit straight.
A manifesto is a statement of platform,it's a to do list or rather a like to do list at best.
Secondly,what you are proposing is the very essence of idealism as you are espousing something that assumes people will always agree to perfection for everybody.
Thats impossible as everybodies idea of perfect is different.
Hence I predict a logjam.

no its not. Its nothing like anarchism. It is a simple reform that should be common sense to anyone who believes that politicians should represent the people and not themselves.

It's not your full blown anarchy model,I'll grant you but the recall idea rests on a manifesto not being what it actually is .
Your supposition that T.D's are elected to do XY and Z for their constituency falls due to this being a collective nation of many constituencies where a compromise evolves due to the share out of resources across the whole nation and prioritisation ie the lack of a bottomless purse.
Your notions regarding how that would work relies on a similar principal to what you espoused in your anarchism explained thread.

How you can say politicians don't represent people is beyond me given that they spend a lot of time at their local clinics as it is.

Akrasia

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1910843409637960957&q=the+ministry+of+truth&total=1142&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I'll have a look at those when I've a bit of time akrasia.
Thanks for posting them

Jackie laughlin

Clown Bag,
I'm a member of the Labour Party. I'm certainly not on the inside of a party machine, as you put it.

For many years I held the view that FF and FG were essentially the same. My mistake was that I was viewing them from the perspective of a complete outsider. When I tried to put myself in the position of someone who was likely to vote for either of them, what for me were subtle or fairly insignificant differences became clear and real differences. In other words, if I were conservative or liberal - and that accounts for the vast majority in Ireland - I would look at them differently and see them as alternatives. In truth this should have dawned on me a lot sooner as I often expressed preferences between them as I worked my way down ballot papers.

There is little confidence on the left and no stomach for offering a radical alternative; in the present climate of right-wing consensus it would be electoral suicide. Take a look at the tenor of the criticism on Boards. Leaving aside the cynics, many contributors want better management of the economy or even a benevolent dictator. There isn't the slightest sign of a desire for radical alternatives. Indeed many contributors seem to be cross that a few FFers have been caught with briefcases and/or envelopes of money and had this not been the case FF would be perfectly acceptable.

Dirk Gently

Akrasia wrote: »

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1910843409637960957&q=the+ministry+of+truth&total=1142&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

how many actually voted for it in the end?

nesf

Akrasia wrote: »

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1910843409637960957&q=the+ministry+of+truth&total=1142&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

That's a real can of worms.

Sleepy

nesf wrote: »

Define educated. Normally when people use it it's a synonym for "an opinion like mine".

An educated voter wouldn't vote in a TD for local reasons.
An educated voter would understand basic economics and understand when they're being lied to.

Unless of course they're greedy, self-serving and short-sighted (but educated) voters...

nesf

Sleepy wrote: »

An educated voter wouldn't vote in a TD for local reasons.

Why would an educated voter do that? Surely local reasons are very important when you're voting for a backbencher. People are self-interested, you can't expect them to not vote for people that will help them.

Jackie laughlin

Nesf,
Sleepy is largely correct. The "constituency services" offered in Ireland are almost completely bogus. Ignorant (There's no other word.) voters opt for someone who "is active in the locality". This usually means someone who collects complaints, writes lots of letters and pretends that his or her efforts have had results.

nesf

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Nesf,
Sleepy is largely correct. The "constituency services" offered in Ireland are almost completely bogus. Ignorant (There's no other word.) voters opt for someone who "is active in the locality". This usually means someone who collects complaints, writes lots of letters and pretends that his or her efforts have had results.

I interpreted "local reasons" as including (but not limited to) actual active decent local politicians who improve conditions within their constituency.

Sleepy

Actually nesf, I expect them to vote for people who'll help all of us.

We have local government to handle local government. It seems we also have TD's to handle local government. Which unfortunately leaves us with nobody to run the bloody country.

nesf

Sleepy wrote: »

Actually nesf, I expect them to vote for people who'll help all of us.

You just want them to vote for the same reasons you do, which is understandable but isn't what I'd call "educated".

Sleepy wrote: »

We have local government to handle local government. It seems we also have TD's to handle local government. Which unfortunately leaves us with nobody to run the bloody country.

Except that TDs can't ignore national issues because they impact on the local concerns (assuming that they are mainly concerned with local issues), so presumably said TDs would run the bloody country since ignoring it would hurt them locally.

When you get down to it the people elect TDs to represent their interests and honestly, for the vast majority of us those interests mainly concern us and our immediate surroundings.

Sleepy

So you don't see TD's running around doing CC's work as a conflict of interest?

e.g. Willie O' Dea's involvement in the Shannon Heathrow link isn't time he should be focusing on his role as minister for defence?

Out of interest what would you call casting an educated vote? Because I fail to see how voting for someone because mammy and daddy do or because he's the nice chap who owns the pub down the road can be considered an educated voter.

nesf

Sleepy wrote: »

So you don't see TD's running around doing CC's work as a conflict of interest?

Can there ever not be a conflict of interest?

Sleepy wrote: »

Out of interest what would you call casting an educated vote?

I'd question whether the term is ever really meaningful.


You seem to be thinking in terms of abstract ideals here rather than politics tbh.