Irish politics are an ideological void?

brianthebard

the title pretty much explains everything, but do you agree or disagree? Imo none of the main parties (including the greens now) display any strong ideological slant. The only parties that do are small and at the fringes. Do people feel this is an accurate description of Irish politics?

Tim Robbins

brianthebard wrote: »

the title pretty much explains everything, but do you agree or disagree? Imo none of the main parties (including the greens now) display any strong ideological slant. The only parties that do are small and at the fringes. Do people feel this is an accurate description of Irish politics?

Yes there has definetly be a convergence alright. For example, none of parties disagree with low corperate tax, they are all pro - europe, very little difference on the North, when at one time there was a civil war over it.

The main differences is that there slight bends towards their traditional base.

FF: Builders, Developers, tradesmen
FG: Farmers
Labour: Unions
Green: Tree hugers, but I suspect they are going to get wiped out soon. They can no longer take the moral highground. They will always be judged on their performance in government, what did they do that the bog standard FF / FG minister could not or would not do?

It's a pity PDs got wiped out.

SkepticOne

I agree. Ireland has never been an ideological country. Political divisions often have more to do with family loyalty, parochialism, patronage and civil war history.

Sand

Ireland isnt extremely idealogical over economic or social policies...nationalist/cultural policies defined politics in Ireland for decades. Thats passed, but nothing has replaced it yet.

Theres simply nothing to discuss though. Socialism has been discredited. Ultra-Nationalism has been discredited. Semi-Theocracy has been discredited. Liberal democracy a.k.a capitalism is the only deal in town right now. Even self described socialists have come around to accepting free trade, market economy, private enterprise and individual liberty and now merely seek to siphon resources from it to fund state charity as opposed to a paradigm shift.

The Greens are possibly the only party remaining thats hostile to the market economy, but even they are in the midst of a move to accepting the market economy and seeking instead to moderate it.

It may change in the future. But right now, most parties agree on how Ireland should be run - voters can realistically only punish poor management and corruption or more likely, punish politicians who have somehow offended the publics sense of itself as defined by Joe Duffy.

gaf1983

I agree with the assessments of the previous posters.

Is it necessarily a bad thing that there aren't great ideological differences anymore? If both the government and opposition are in agreement about which "deal in town" they want the country to be run along the lines of, should this lead to better governance, as all sides will be striving to get society to reach the same goals, so the only manifesto they can put to the electorate is that they will reach the goals more efficiently than the other side.

DadaKopf

The Greens are possibly the only party remaining thats hostile to the market economy, but even they are in the midst of a move to accepting the market economy and seeking instead to moderate it.

I'd challenge this. I was at the Green convention at the weekend (I was working, I'm not a party member) and, if anything, they haven't thought through their ideology much at all. Talking to party members, they're quite wedded to political and economic liberalism. On energy policy, for example, they advocate deregulation, privatisation and competition as part of their environmental 'solution'. Micro-generation, they say, depends on economic liberalism. When asked about any negative effects arising from such an approach, party members drew a blank.

Ideology is very interesting. An ideology doesn't have to be explicitly there to operate; it often finds itself considered by many as 'common sense'. The elephant in the room.

4Xcut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_law

This is, I believe, the main reason. Especially with parties not wanting to alienate precious voters.

I mean, FF are only in government with a coalition with the Greens, The PDs(both of them) and a few independents.

Then you have FG and Labor. Labor especially don't want to rick voters as they had only 10% in the last election, not a great showing. Although FG have a larger percentage of the electorate, they still don't want to risk becoming a smaller party.

Frankly, its not something that i see changing anytime soon as its too big a risk.

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

Theres simply nothing to discuss though. Socialism has been discredited. Ultra-Nationalism has been discredited. Semi-Theocracy has been discredited. Liberal democracy a.k.a capitalism is the only deal in town right now. Even self described socialists have come around to accepting free trade, market economy, private enterprise and individual liberty and now merely seek to siphon resources from it to fund state charity as opposed to a paradigm shift.

You seem to have a thing against socialism and believe that individualism and socialism can't exist together, which isn't true, but apart from that most of your analysis is quite good.

The reason I posted this thread is mainly because I see the similiarities between parties as a "bad thing". There is no real opposition to what the government is doing at the minute, which means that there is no pressure on the government to try and improve performance. Meanwhile in countries where the main parties are not ideologically different we see a lack of interest from the electorate, sucessive governments following the same policies or looking the same with different figureheads. There isn't a whole lot to seperate the bush years from the clinton years imo. We havent' reached that stage yet, but we are definitely on the way.
Finally if a party/government is not driven by a core ideological cause, whether it be socialism, environmentalism, or whatever, then the country does not move forward but instead follows the same policies and falls in the same traps over and over again, simply because there is no other way to do business.

(this is all coming off the top of my head so apologies if it seems a bit incoherent.)

Sand

You seem to have a thing against socialism and believe that individualism and socialism can't exist together, which isn't true,

Socialism and individualism are opposed. Its not to say that either extreme is preferable, but Id rather err on the side of too much individual freedom as opposed to the totalarian terror of a full blow socialist state. There are mass graves across Europe, Russia, Asia, Africa and South America that would testify to what can go wrong with socialism. Even socialists like George Orwell [ who, unlike the socialist advocates of his time, abhorred totalarianism], who I do admire, would agree with me on that.

The reason I posted this thread is mainly because I see the similiarities between parties as a "bad thing".

I understand what youre saying, but is it really an issue if the basic framework has been agreed [ even unconciously]?

Imagine if you had a socialist and a liberal government trading places every 5 years - youd have forced nationalisations, a socialist driven entrenchment of unions over the public good in the civil service, laws undermining inidividual freedoms and then 5 years later there would be mass privatisation, liberalising law reform, and massive clashes with the unions before the wheel turned and the socialists got back into power.

Sheer chaos in other words. That we basically agree on how we want society to be organised and that we concentrate more on details as opposed to sweeping paradigm shifts is a sign of political maturity. Its a good thing that Irish politics is driven by adjustments and alterations of course as opposed to sweeping revolutions with blood in the streets. It mightnt set pulses racing, but I doubt the victims of Mugabes regime would do anything other than envy us.

brianthebard

Socialism is not about oppressing individuals or setting up dictatorships. The regimes you are talking about are merely dictatorships which claim to be socialist. What you are saying is no different from saying that capitalism is about setting up totalitarian regimes. We've seen it in Italy and other countries, it must be true.

Anyways, ideology does not have to go as far as being extreme left or right wing. If one party believed that education was the key, most vital aspect of a country and vowed to protect that sector whatever was happening in other places, that would be an ideologically driven party. Same for any party that holds up one or two core policies that they see as vital to the parties identity. We don't have that in Ireland, we have parties that say what they think people want to hear-look at the leader debates last year where every party promised to bring down taxes. Look at the way both FF and FG approach crime, europe, the health service, the civil service and so on. None of the main parties offer any real alternatives to how things are done now. And that means that the government can't be called out on something, or shown to be doing things wrong, because the opposition would do it more or less the same.

Belfast

Socialism tends to lead to dictatorship by beauracy.

None of the main parties offer any real alternatives to how things are done now. True no Libertarian party in Ireland. Irish political party are "Populist there my people go i must follow them".
The only thing they disagree on is who get the Mercs.

Irish political parties have run out of ideas other that keep tax low and do not have any idea that might lose votes.

mikemac

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The main differences is that there slight bends towards their traditional base.

FF: Builders, Developers, tradesmen
FG: Farmers

You must be referring to "strong farmers" meaning succussful and prosperous farmers as traditionally they'd be supporters of FG.

Smaller and poorer farmers would be more supportive of FF.

Just pointing it out since you mentioned tradition.
Doesn't realy apply so much anymore

DadaKopf

Socialism tends to lead to dictatorship by beauracy.

It's certainly interesting that socialist MP Tony Benn shifted away from using the 'S-word' to using 'democracy' in its full sense. He thinks proper democracy creates a desire for socialist egalitarianism, and egalitarianism is moribund without proper democracy.

In Ireland, ironically, you have an enormous explosion of a semi-state pseudo-bureaucracy, rather than core civil service, that is much less accountable and controllable than the traditional civil service. All these quangos, nearly 1,000 (no official figures are in existence), take up more public money than the core civil service. The OECD says it's been followed here, but nowhere else in the same way, to let politicians off the hook. Many positions are appointed by Ministers, and the Minister for Finance gets to decide which are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

So if there were an 'ideology' underlying this, one aspect of it is 'jobs for the boys'. The other is a clientelist political culture exhibiting little respect for real democracy. This is within an overall government neoliberal ideology.

Bubs101

Going back to the Original question, the primary reason that Ireland is an ideological void is that the two main parties occupy practically the exact same place on the left right spectrum. Fine Fail are conservatives and Fine Gael have just recently made a move to become Christian democrats and ideologically, they are both central right parties and practically the exact same. This means, that although they may differ on small things for the media, the overall aims of the parties are very similar.

Sinn Fein and the PDs are the most ideologically radical in Ireland. The PDs are/were a far right party and although technichally classed as a republican party like Eta'a, they have shown signs of a far left ideology. The lack of success of these two parties is enough to warn other potentially radical parties, like the Greens, to move towards the middle

Mr Minraise

Bubs101 wrote: »

Sinn Fein and the PDs are the most ideologically radical in Ireland. The PDs are/were a far right party and although technichally classed as a republican party like Eta'a, they have shown signs of a far left ideology. The lack of success of these two parties is enough to warn other potentially radical parties, like the Greens, to move towards the middle

This was true a few years ago but now, even parties such as Sinn Fein are moving towards the centre.

They have done a complete U-turn on all their economic policies. A few years ago they were in favour of extremly high Corporation tax and also increasing personal tax, whislt at the same time taking people out of the tax net. Yet just before the last GE they changed this policy to be inline with the likes of The Pd's etc.

It seems that parties are compromising their ideological beliefs in order to win votes and get into power. A clear example of this is the Greens.

Allthough you can see why parties have to do this to a certain degree, (ie, there's no point having certain ideological ideas if you never get to implement them) its unfair and disloyal to the people that support them.

Bubs101

Mr Minraise wrote: »

This was true a few years ago but now, even parties such as Sinn Fein are moving towards the centre.

They have done a complete U-turn on all their economic policies. A few years ago they were in favour of extremly high Corporation tax and also increasing personal tax, whislt at the same time taking people out of the tax net. Yet just before the last GE they changed this policy to be inline with the likes of The Pd's etc.

If they changed their policies to be in line with the PDs they would be taking an ideological swing from the left to the far right. The PDs are the most ideologically radical of all the parties by a mile. In fairness to Sinn Fein, compromising certain extreme policies of theirs might be viewed as an attempt to legitimize themselves to the voters

Mr Minraise

Bubs101 wrote: »

If they changed their policies to be in line with the PDs they would be taking an ideological swing from the left to the far right. The PDs are the most ideologically radical of all the parties by a mile. In fairness to Sinn Fein, compromising certain extreme policies of theirs might be viewed as an attempt to legitimize themselves to the voters

That was my point.

I dont agree with you that the PD's are far more ideologically radical then FF,FG, SF etc. Allthough they may have a different 'outlook' on things than LB or SF can you point out any major ideological differance in polices?

I think its pretty much plain to see that all Irish poltical parties converge around the centre, granted PD's may be slightly to the right and SF to the left.

Thats the main reason why Irish elections are turning into popularity contests. People cant really vote for the party that they feel will cater for their needs the best so they vote for who they like. Hence the likes of great/effective politions such as Micheal McDowell, who may make unpopular decisions, loose their seats.

Belfast

Ideological politics in a country like Britain is bases on class. working class, middle class, upper class.
Until recently most people in Ireland were peasant class who main interest was in owning land. In the urban setting this is now an interest in owning houses.

Ideological based on class politics therefore has limited appeal in Ireland.

Bubs101

Belfast wrote: »

Ideological politics in a country like Britain is bases on class. working class, middle class, upper class.
Until recently most people in Ireland were peasant class who main interest was in owning land. In the urban setting this is now an interest in owning houses.

Ideological based on class politics therefore has limited appeal in Ireland.

What utter nonsense. The real reason that ireland has no ideological divide in the top two parties at least is because of the divide in the 1930s caused families to vote for either FF or FG and they always voted that way.

Also, I'd be interested to see which party you think represents the working class in England Belfast. The BNP?

Sand

Socialism is not about oppressing individuals or setting up dictatorships. The regimes you are talking about are merely dictatorships which claim to be socialist. What you are saying is no different from saying that capitalism is about setting up totalitarian regimes. We've seen it in Italy and other countries, it must be true.

Property rights - the very cornerstone of individual liberty - are the basis of freedom, in my view. If the citizens of a state are the economic bedrock of the state, then the government must heed their interests and respect and uphold their rights. Otherwise, the "citizens" become the slaves of whatever Party/Bureacratic elite. As socialism undermines and threatens property rights, they also undermine and threaten individual liberty.

Italian facism was simply another aspect of the constant struggle by the few to impose their will over the individual through means of the state. The bull**** justifications for why the individuals rights should be held below the rights of the state were different but the reality was the same. Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and all other "ism's" other than capitalism which undermines the state for its own self interest are all just different aspects of the same struggle, between the individuals and the state. Tyranny of the mob and all that.

None of the main parties offer any real alternatives to how things are done now. And that means that the government can't be called out on something, or shown to be doing things wrong, because the opposition would do it more or less the same.

True, but the parties are merely selling themselves as administrators of a process and approach that the vast majority of people in Ireland already desire. People dont vote for a revolution, they vote for "more of the same, but better".

Hence the likes of great/effective politions such as Micheal McDowell, who may make unpopular decisions, loose their seats.

McDowell was a useful lightning rod for Fianna Fail. They could pretend that the PDs had strongarmed them. That it was all their fault. Completely deny responsibility for government decisions. Bertie Ahern is a class act, denouncing government failures without irony as if he was in the opposition for the past 10 years. Bev Flynn should be taking notes on what having some neck truly means.

Belfast

Bubs101 wrote: »

What utter nonsense. The real reason that ireland has no ideological divide in the top two parties at least is because of the divide in the 1930s caused families to vote for either FF or FG and they always voted that way.

that is part of it as well.

Bubs101 wrote: »

Also, I'd be interested to see which party you think represents the working class in England Belfast. The BNP?

Not sure at any party does any more. Labour has not for a long time.

molloyjh

The parties here represent the views of the people here. Irish people in general aren't that diverse and tend to be relatively centrist from a political viewpoint. That in itself is not a bad thing. And the thought that the parties are going to challenge each other not on idealogies, but on ability is, on the surface, a very positive one.

However it assumes two things. The first is that the politicians are going to work for the people. And second (very much related to the first) that the people will punish a party that do not perform. Party politics as it stands in Ireland at the moment works against that when Mr Murphy down the road is voting FF because they are his party and he's always voted for them, or Ms O'Brien is voting FG because her father did. This bizarre notion of allegiance to a political party in some ways runs contrary to the way in which democracy should be working.

If we can get past this notion of supporting a political party the way we'd support a football team then we could be well on our way. This in itself will help ensure that the parties are working harder for the people and then elections based on ability rather than idealogy could well be a great success. We just have to exercise our power as voters to help make that happen. Sadly we don't seem to be doing that very well at the moment.

o Diablo o

Sand wrote: »

Even self described socialists have come around to accepting free trade, market economy, private enterprise and individual liberty and now merely seek to siphon resources from it to fund state charity as opposed to a paradigm shift.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The Socialist Party stands for public ownership and democratic socialist planning of the key areas of economic activity.
Also, in response to comments about socialism leading to tyranny- the very nature of socialism demands personal freedom, as the idea is that the country be run in a 'bottom up' manner in the interests of common people. As leon trotsky put it, " democracy is the lifeblood of socialism". Totalitarian regimes which claim to be socialist are so only in name and betray the core ideology.

ChocolateSauce

o Diablo o wrote: »

I couldn't disagree with you more. The Socialist Party stands for public ownership and democratic socialist planning of the key areas of economic activity.
Also, in response to comments about socialism leading to tyranny- the very nature of socialism demands personal freedom, as the idea is that the country be run in a 'bottom up' manner in the interests of common people. As leon trotsky put it, " democracy is the lifeblood of socialism". Totalitarian regimes which claim to be socialist are so only in name and betray the core ideology.

That is nonsense. One of the core tenants of personal freedom is the freedom to be enterprising, and ultimately to become richer than most. If you are not free to do this you are not free.

Also, pure democracy is the exact opposite of freedom. Democracy means 50%+1 rules 50%-1. That is why we have laws which curtail democracy at every corner (the modern term is to "protect civil liberties"). Ergo, socialism is mob rule, where the poor steal from the rich.

Not that the rich should have everything either. Moderation is the key to success here.

Kama

Ergo, socialism is mob rule, where the poor steal from the rich.

Ergo, capitalism is elite rule, where the rich steal from the poor?

Neither seems very satisfactory, while the synergy of market-socialism seems a relatively stable synthesis, for all its demerits, crises, and critics. Concentrating argumentatively on a 'pure' robber-baron capitalism or a Communist dictatorship seems an ideological straw-man game.

Old joke comes to mind:

In Capitalism, man exploits his fellow man;
in Communism, the opposite is true.

Moderation is the key to success here.

Working out what 'moderate' means, or redefining it, is the political trick in and of itself, especially in a predominantly centrist system.

Taking the freedom and enterprise argument, if initial conditions due to accumulation mean that the freedom to become rich is significantly constrained, then a fair meritocratic argument can be made for restraining the freedoms of the rich, within a very capitalist-libertarian framework.

Akrasia

Sand wrote: »

Ireland isnt extremely idealogical over economic or social policies...nationalist/cultural policies defined politics in Ireland for decades. Thats passed, but nothing has replaced it yet.

Theres simply nothing to discuss though. Socialism has been discredited. Ultra-Nationalism has been discredited. Semi-Theocracy has been discredited. Liberal democracy a.k.a capitalism is the only deal in town right now. Even self described socialists have come around to accepting free trade, market economy, private enterprise and individual liberty and now merely seek to siphon resources from it to fund state charity as opposed to a paradigm shift.

You mean the free market capitalism that has seen us into a period of massively escalating personal debt, spiraling inflation and the possible collapse of the entire global financial system (or at least thats what would certainly happen if governemnts hadn't been artifically propping up the banks with public money)

Akrasia

gaf1983 wrote: »

I agree with the assessments of the previous posters.

Is it necessarily a bad thing that there aren't great ideological differences anymore? If both the government and opposition are in agreement about which "deal in town" they want the country to be run along the lines of, should this lead to better governance, as all sides will be striving to get society to reach the same goals, so the only manifesto they can put to the electorate is that they will reach the goals more efficiently than the other side.

not exactly, what happens is there is consensus amongst the political parties but they fall out of step with the wishes of the population. The more hegemonic the political system, the more difficult it is for dissenting voices to rise through the ranks and provide a diversity of opinion.

For example, the vast majority of people in America are strongly in favour of universal healthcare, but the vast majority of politicians wouldn't touch the issue with a barge pole (other than fake popullist election promises) because if they make a name for themselves by stirring up this issue they can kiss goodbye to any chance of political advancement.

Politics in a democracy should represent the interests and wishes of the people, not the ideology of a closed shop political elite. (otherwise whats the point?)

Akrasia

Sand wrote: »

Socialism and individualism are opposed. Its not to say that either extreme is preferable, but Id rather err on the side of too much individual freedom as opposed to the totalarian terror of a full blow socialist state.

The ability and willingness to engage in voluntary collective action is an essential part of society, its what allowed our species to dominate the entire planet. Individualism is a flawed concept, that someone can divorce themselves and their interests from the interests of society at large is a major cause of many of the social problems we face today. The fact that businesspeople can so happily seperate morality and ethics from their business decisions and do things in the name of money that they would consider abhorent in their private lives is a good demonstration of this (eg, polluting the environment through their business, while making sure to recycle all their domestic waste, or buying shares in companies that make weapons to be used by child soldiers in south america while privately donating money to their local childrens hospital)

There are mass graves across Europe, Russia, Asia, Africa and South America that would testify to what can go wrong with socialism. Even socialists like George Orwell [ who, unlike the socialist advocates of his time, abhorred totalarianism], who I do admire, would agree with me on that.

Thats what happens when totalitarianism and nationalism and tribalism take over. those massacres happen under capitalism as well as 'socialism' (its just the liberal press tend to downplay the crimes of capitalist states)

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote: »

For example, the vast majority of people in America are strongly in favour of universal healthcare...

Really?

brianthebard

oscarBravo wrote: »

Really?

Yes, apparently so.

In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.

oscarBravo

Wow.

Kama

Democracy wins again! :rolleyes:

iwudluvit

just throwing this out and have only given it the thought required to type this...but are larger populations more idelogically disparate? and smaller more similar?

I mean, percentage-wise and spread wise, all the range of opinions are there in both but in a small village it doesn't do to stick out but in a big city you can find a critical mass of support and go for it. So there's a limiting or widening factor at play.

Kama

Interesting question...not sure. My guess is that a larger population both allows a wider range of expression, and can support more of a fringe.

Apropos of the OP, I earwigged a conversation after a recent lecture on the banking crisis, which I'll quote here...

Capitalism or socialism, Left or Right, these things aren't really relevant anymore. What matters is what works

This seems a succinct summation of the 'post-ideological' position, whether Giddensian 'Third Way' or otherwise. It works very well as rhetoric; who is against 'what works'? Enlightened administration over petty partisan ideological concerns, a pragmatic solutions-based position.

Curious what anyone else thinks; proper order, or a dangerous anti-political movement?

iwudluvit

Kama wrote: »

Interesting question...not sure. My guess is that a larger population both allows a wider range of expression, and can support more of a fringe.

Apropos of the OP, I earwigged a conversation after a recent lecture on the banking crisis, which I'll quote here...



This seems a succinct summation of the 'post-ideological' position, whether Giddensian 'Third Way' or otherwise. It works very well as rhetoric; who is against 'what works'? Enlightened administration over petty partisan ideological concerns, a pragmatic solutions-based position.

Curious what anyone else thinks; proper order, or a dangerous anti-political movement?

I hate when people throw out questions like they are answers. Asking the right clever questions and then walking away thinking you've solved the problem is for charlatans.

Socialism doesn't work at all. What does work most of the time is Capitalism. So that's the answer: the cause of and solution to the problem!

brianthebard

I hate when people ignore the point of another person's answer and just display ignorance of something. If you are asking if the Irish population is too small for many ideologies to flourish, I would say that because all emphasis was put on nationalism for forty or fifty years, and supported by almost all (socialists,land reformers, catholic church) that it became by default the dominant political theory. Add to that the issue with the north, and irish politics were not allowed develop past the point of nationalism, imo.

iwudluvit

brianthebard wrote: »

I hate when people ignore the point of another person's answer and just display ignorance of something..

Jeez, relax. I wasn't haven't a go at Kama. I was talking about the earwigg-ee in the conversation.

I agree with both your responses to the question I asked.

Kama

Hmm, given that the earwig-ee didn't ask a question, and I did, the comment does look more at me. Partially fair comment if it was though, throwaway questions and a quote isn't a well thought out post, mea culpa >.<

But (for me) there isn't ever an 'ideological void'...political nature abhors one; its always filled with something. Fish don't have a word for water, And All That.

Your comment does touch on what gets me about the 'pragmatist' point of view; defining 'what works' already has (ideological?) assumptions. Works how, works for whom, etc.

Socialism doesn't work at all. What does work most of the time is Capitalism. So that's the answer: the cause of and solution to the problem!

The above questions apply in spades. A degree of socialism 'works' for quite a number of people, especially those with a less-privileged position in society, which is an equity-based argument. A fair argument can also be made for it 'working' on efficiency principles, especially in provision of public goods where there are market failures, for example.

To say it doesn't work at all would require some kind of substantiation in the face of a degree of socialism being a part of every advanced capitalist economy on the planet, from Singapore to the US to Denmark...

molloyjh

To be really basic about it, and trying not to veer too far off topic (given we're talking politics rather than economics), the reason capitalism works better overall compared to socialism is because capitalism appeals to human nature far more than socialism does. Sure people can be empathetic and/or sympathetic towards one another, but humanity is essentially an individualist society. So capitalism will always have a broader appeal than socialism.

To tie this in nicely with the political angle though we have to remember that by its very nature capitalism is unfair, discriminatory and unbalanced. This is where the politics comes in. Our politics must ensure that our economics does not adversly affect our society as a whole. The theory of our democratic system is such that the politicians work for the people. This should mean that our politics acts as a balance or a counter to the negative aspects of capitalism. It should be reigning in the excesses of this economic system and ensuring that it works for everybody. Unregulated capitalism can and likely would be very harmful to our society. This has been shown to be the case with the current recession, and that wasn't even completely unregulated. Imagine what could have happened in a fully unregulated society?

The political and economic set-up we have here is (IMO) a far healthier and fairer system to that in the US. Our financial industry is far better regulated (which is key), however we are still a long way from the kind of political and economic balance required to sustain the best possible society we can get. Our politicians are too involved with business here as it stands to give us that level of balance, giving these business people undue advantages. And almost paradoxical to that a lot of our social welfare aspects for example are not as tight and strict as they should be allowing certain people take advantage of that.

If we were to tighten up on areas like these I think we'd have it sussed, but as we all know the political will and public outrage at the issues we have doesn't exist right now and so it won't happen. I don't think Irish politics is an idealogical void as such (I agree with Kama that by definition it probably can't be) but I think we've reached a point of political "stagnation" whereby the drive for improvement is not there and so change isn't top of the agenda. All that being said I'd much prefer to live here than the US. At least we're a little further along the path than they are even if we're not getting any closer to the finish line.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

Concentrating argumentatively on a 'pure' robber-baron capitalism or a Communist dictatorship seems an ideological straw-man game.

This is probably the most apt statement in this thread tbh. Irish politics have been (for the past decade and more) about fine tuning our system and not about overhauling it in its entirety. This doesn't sit well with a sizeable minority on both sides of the political spectrum but the majority seem to vote for this (I've no idea if they'd explicitly state this was their preference but the way people vote can sometimes be more enlightening than the answers they give pollsters).

In a political system where fine tuning is the core dispute, the parties will naturally gravitate to the centre and towards more and more similar solutions (i.e. the solutions that will cause the least amount of hassle to implement). The question shouldn't be why there is an ideological void, it should be why would major parties would form along ideological lines in such a political system. For all the problems that come with inheriting political preference, if the main parties are relatively similar it makes a perverse kind of sense.

turgon

nesf wrote: »

This is probably the most apt statement in this thread tbh. Irish politics have been (for the past decade and more) about fine tuning our system and not about overhauling it in its entirety.

Theres a big difference between overhauling the system and introducing small ideological changes, for example legalizing abortion. Yet there is not party which is so socially liberal.

nesf

turgon wrote: »

Theres a big difference between overhauling the system and introducing small ideological changes, for example legalizing abortion. Yet there is not party which is so socially liberal.

Legalising abortion wouldn't be a small ideological change in this country for parties considering how divisive the issue is here.

iwudluvit

Kama wrote: »

Hmm, given that the earwig-ee didn't ask a question, and I did, the comment does look more at me. Partially fair comment if it was though, throwaway questions and a quote isn't a well thought out post, mea culpa >.<

first point - you said that the question works well as rhetoric - which it does. so I wasn't having a go at your view.

my point is that rhetoric of itself is near enough useless unless it inspires positive action.

iwudluvit

molloyjh wrote: »

... capitalism appeals to human nature far more than socialism does. ..

I wouldn't just say that capitalism 'appeals' to human nature. I would say that it reflects human nature. Also socialism also has this appeal/reflection in the sense that cooperative communities tend to outperform other non-cooperative communities. Overall, it's the mix of both that would provide the best results. A good incentive to capitalism to foster developments and allow individuals to make progress for the good of humanity and a good cooperative system so that the minimum floor of existence is not inhumane.

molloyjh wrote: »

... by its very nature capitalism is unfair, discriminatory and unbalanced. ..

And so is nature itself you could say!

But I don't agree with this at all. Way too strong. Maybe the 'Monty Burns' version of capitalism is. But not capitalism in the main. You could easily argue the other side that socialism forces great people with greater talents to live an average life and is unfair and restricts progress etc. etc. But I would agree with the poster that these rapidly become straw men arguments.

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

In a political system where fine tuning is the core dispute, the parties will naturally gravitate to the centre and towards more and more similar solutions (i.e. the solutions that will cause the least amount of hassle to implement). The question shouldn't be why there is an ideological void, it should be why would major parties would form along ideological lines in such a political system. For all the problems that come with inheriting political preference, if the main parties are relatively similar it makes a perverse kind of sense.

I've been reading Crotty's "Ireland in crisis" and he seems to believe that for the last 150 years all radical elements have been emigrating, thus causing something of an ideological void, in that the people who stayed at home were most at ease with the status quo and wanted the least change, where those who emigrated clearly weren't happy with the state of the country. This is the main reason (in his opinion) why Irish politics have gravitated to the right of centre.

TomRooney

brianthebard wrote: »

the title pretty much explains everything, but do you agree or disagree? Imo none of the main parties (including the greens now) display any strong ideological slant. The only parties that do are small and at the fringes. Do people feel this is an accurate description of Irish politics?

in my opinion there is only one political party that truly stands for the irish people and is ideologicly sound that party is Republican Sinn Fein, not to be confused Provisional sinn fein, RSF have remained faithful to there Republican Principles maybe this is why they have remained on periphery of irish politics because simply ideological reliability and principles are not always profitiable financialy.

<snip>

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

TomRooney wrote: »

in my opinion there is only one political party that truly stands for the irish people

and yet

TomRooney wrote: »

they have remained on periphery of irish politics

Another case of extremists trying to blame the problems in their own views on other people, rather than admitting some home truths. Such as the fact that not that many down south really care about reunification as you would like to think.

TomRooney

turgon wrote: »

and yet



Another case of extremists trying to blame the problems in their own views on other people, rather than admitting some home truths. Such as the fact that not that many down south really care about reunification as you would like to think.

oh so i am extremist because i believe in the right of the irish people to determine there owm future without interference from a foreign country namely britain, i suppose that puts me in the same bag as james connolly, Padraig Pearse, Eamonn ceant, Thomas Clarke, Thomas McDonagh, Sean macDermot and Joseph Plunkett. remember these men ...? i suppose they where all extremists aswell...?

or bobby sands and the rest of the 1981 hunger strikers i suppose they where all mad extremists by your logic...?

for your info in a recent poll 98 percent of people in the 26 countys would like to see a united ireland.

turgon

TomRooney wrote: »

oh so i am extremist because i believe in the right of the irish people to determine there owm future

Pardon me, the use of the word extremist was wrong, I should have used fringe ideologist maybe.

TomRooney wrote: »

for your info in a recent poll 98 percent of people in the 26 countys would like to see a united ireland.

And I bet 0% of them would be willing to pay for it.

And where was this poll taken - ballymun?

TomRooney

turgon wrote: »

Pardon me, the use of the word extremist was wrong, I should have used fringe ideologist maybe.



And I bet 0% of them would be willing to pay for it.

And where was this poll taken - ballymun?

i share the same political outlook as the brave men of 1916, if you consider those men to be fringe ideologists then i am proud to say am such.

also you seem to come across as arrogant and detached from reality with condecending statement like 0% would pay for it, im sure the nation of ireland would not have to realy pay anything at all, and if money is all your worried about it doesnt say much for your principles or lack of.

as for your comment about the poll, i already expalined it was in the 26 countys if you care to actualy read the post, was your reference to "ballymun" supposed to be some sort of slander or another condecending view. i assure you the least educated in ballymun would know alot more about our nation than the likes of your good self.