Why doesn't Ireland have conservatives?

Permabear · 08-09-2008 12:10am #1

This post has been deleted.

heyjude · 08-09-2008 12:40am

I think you really mean that there is no large right wing party, rather than conservative, as on many issues Fianna Fail are extremely conservative, they just aren't philosophically right wing on economic issues, they are just economically populist.

Many of the right wing economic policies of the past 10 years were driven by the PDs rather than FF. Fianna Fail just stands for whatever it takes to get re-elected. But on issues such as contraception, divorce and other moral or ethical issues, they would be by far the most conservative party,but if right wing economic policies gained majority support, Fianna Fail would soon become their biggest advocate.

And before someone says that FF are a conservative party and have been following a wholly right wing economic plan for the past twenty years, I would point out that a true right wing party would never have allowed the public sector to get so big and bloated.

As for referring to the 'liberalism of Fianna Fail' well I am amazed. Do you remember which partys' TDs objected when the prospect of gay marriage was mentioned ? Yes, the 'liberals' of Fianna Fail.

As for whether I'd want a conservative party in Ireland, I don't know, I can't see such a party ever emerging, as rightist policies that gain popularity are seized by FF and FG, who then gain power and revert to type and don't implement them. Irish politicians within the main two parties, in general seem to lack core beliefs and principles, which allows them to stand for everything and nothing and the fact that we keep re-electing them suggests we like our politics like that. A party that has core principles that are non-negotiable and who want to change things on a mega scale, would upset too many people and would never gain power.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 2:37am

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian · 08-09-2008 9:45am

You really have to read up more on what conservatism really is (hint: it's in the name). Ireland has long had both conservative and liberal wings to her politics; it's just that they are a particularly Irish version of conservative and liberal and should not be confused with conservative and liberal ideologies elsewhere.

Irish conservatism has tended in the past to be socially and economically authoritarian - that is, socially favouring Roman Catholic morality and economically the State control that was the basis of much of Irish industry up until the late eighties / early nineties.

Of course, that is not really the case any more as things have moved on. State control of the economy and a return to De Valeran moral values would only be advocated by cranks. On which note...

Anyone who has a canary reading your list is wasting their time. Your wish list is little more than that as it really would not stand up to a hell of a lot of economic scrutiny. Cut tax in one place and you'll need to increase it elsewhere to make up the shortfall, and at the very least your list has not attempted to balance the books. As for leaving the EU, I still wonder at the sheer idiocy of some who suggest that it would result in our becoming the new Switzerland or Norway, without actually having much of a clue about how these countries work.

In short, there's little point in having a canary over something as amusing as your list.

nesf · 08-09-2008 9:59am

Eh, why on earth do you believe that?

O'Morris · 08-09-2008 11:09am

So name a politician in the conservative wing of Fianna Fail or Fine Gael then.

humberklog · 08-09-2008 11:27am

And be replaced with Depression? Isolation? Starvation?

daithicarr · 08-09-2008 11:51am

thats a daft list, the social problems which would arise would be immense, it would create a massive imbalance in the standard of living and would only really benefit the mega wealthy and corporations. probably why no such party exists. sod all people would vote for that lunacy.

humberklog · 08-09-2008 12:05pm

Suggested name for this brave new world's brand of politics? A Utopian Idiocracy.

sink · 08-09-2008 12:35pm

I found many holes in your ideology but this is the main one. Do you realise the amount of social tension these reforms would create? The country would virtually explode with social unrest. There would be national strikes everywhere and more than likely rioting. The Irish economy would be crippled and we would all suffer financially.

I would consider myself fiscally conservative but above all else I am a realist. What you espouse to is delusional if you really think it will have a positive effect. Working people are a vital component of any economy and they really need to be looked after from a purely economical point of view as industrial action and labour disputes often cost industry more than any government tax.

daithicarr · 08-09-2008 1:03pm

the phasing out of old age pensions ? what do we do with all the starving homeless old people ?

the massive reduction in taxs would leave the government with no revenue for basic services needed for a state to function.

how do we afford things like police, prisons, roads, parks etc.

should it all be Privatized? you have to give the police your credit card number before they respond to a crime and then charge you on type of crime commited and number of perpetrators ?

how will any of this be a benefit to anyone but those already incredibly wealthy?

gaf1983 · 08-09-2008 1:06pm

Surely this is already in place? Although I do agree that it could be more efficient. How? I have no idea.

DadaKopf · 08-09-2008 1:13pm

Fine Gael is lumped in with the Christian Democrat bloc in Europe. That puts them in a 'conservative' mould in the context of continental politics. Opinions differ about FG's ideological dispositions, but typically they paternalistic, pro-law-and-order, economically liberal, pro-small state, are associated (though by no means exclusively) with large land-holders. This casts them as a conservative party inasmuch as you can actually compare Irish parties with those in Europe.

By comparison, FF is populist, meaning policies change to maximise the likelihood of holding onto power and political allegiance is focused on a prominent 'leader'. Ironic considering FG's dabblings with fascism in the 1930s (accounting in part for their paternalistic tendencies).

nesf · 08-09-2008 1:58pm

God damn blueshirts the lot of them!

Permabear · 08-09-2008 2:49pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 2:55pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 3:00pm

This post has been deleted.

nesf · 08-09-2008 3:04pm

Um, such an adjustment wouldn't happen quickly, or even for many many years depending on global market conditions, so what would you do in the mean time where services have been cut to pieces and you had massive unrest over the huge inequalities that would be present with your policies, in the short run?

This is before even considering what damage withdrawing from the Euro would do to our export markets considering how much we export to the Continent.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 3:14pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 3:31pm

This post has been deleted.

nesf · 08-09-2008 3:33pm

Eh, sure but when talking about policy you have to weigh up all the sides of it so you have to consider situations where a global downturn reduced the size of the global FDI pool for Ireland to draw on and not just discuss what you'd like to happen. You also have to factor in that a lot of other countries, with lower cost bases than ours, could compete on tax levels. You then have to look at whether you'll get a big enough increase in FDI to compensate for the much lower tax take etc.

Sure but what do you do with all those people you've just kicked off the Dole if there isn't enough work to employ all of them? Have them begging on the street with their families in tow? I personally view the whole welfare state thing as a necessary evil that needs to find a balance between helping the worst off and limiting the amount of free riders versus your view where we draw a hard line and expect people to somehow find work (and I assume housing since I imagine council estates would be gotten rid of too?).

What are these drawbacks that you're saying would be outweighed?

sink · 08-09-2008 3:34pm

Ever heard of structural unemployment?

The point is most adults will only look after themselves. The interests of overall society will take a back seat to individual special interest.

Government is required to build infrastructure as capital investments from private industry for long term projects with little or no direct benefit would be very thin on the ground. Areas which are vital to the future economic health of the nation such as transport, information & communications technology, education, science and research.

A good example of such an area would be education. Without government support many families from poorer background would not be able to afford a good education for their children all the way to third level. The result of which a large section of the population would be under preforming and impoverished hurting the overall economy which in turn will create massive social issues and negative effects will snowball. Private industry would not be willing to provide funds for such a massive undertaking without any clear direct benefit.

You can see this already taking place in areas of the US where less than one in ten go to third level education. Second order effects are rampant crime and social degradation. These areas are like economic black holes where they suck resources from the rest of the economy whilst contributing nothing.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 3:46pm

This post has been deleted.

daithicarr · 08-09-2008 3:46pm

privately run does not necessarily mean value for money. one good example is childcare in ireland, ireland has some of the most expensive childcare in Europe and its almost entierly private. childcare is a very important social service, children are needed as future workers, the more parents that can work the better for the economy, however its prohibitively expensive, because those that provide the service are able to charge a high price and make massive profits . its not Cost effective.

surely it would be better to find a balanced approach between public sector and private sector.

humberklog · 08-09-2008 3:50pm

[/LIST]Why college graduates? Wouldn't that be shedding all these high end jobs this newly formed Idiocracy would somehow create? And any college graduate? I can see them doing cart wheels from Nigeria to Somalia in jubilation. Perhaps part of our economy could be in assisting the internet service providers to these countries? As there's gonna be an even bigger boom in dodgy-web-degrees.
Who will run this glorious hands across africa immigration device as we've reduced our civil service? Private immigration company? Could be a few jobs for the newly immigrated boys there. Lord knows they're qualified enough. But luckily the natives won't be able to kick up too much as for one; they won't be represented by unions, won't be able to halt themselves being under cut and won't be able to afford the dosh for the bus fare to make in to protest.
As for an end to state controlled education probably just as well do that as our education will be rendered insignificant. A third from TCD(with expectations of reasonable wage) is no match for a 2/1 from the university of Mombaso on-line.

nesf · 08-09-2008 3:54pm

There isn't an infinite pool of FDI to draw from. There is a point where cutting rates will decrease tax take simply because the increase in FDI investment won't compensate for the loss from existing FDI. Also, there's a trade off, we don't need to have an incredibly low corporation tax rate to attract business we just need one of the lowest corporation tax rates. More than cutting our rate in half when we're already one of the lowest mightn't be the best option. Just a thought.

With your tax cuts you won't be able to pay for welfare, eduction etc until there's been a large increase in employment to compensate from it. Honestly, I don't see the reason for getting rid of welfare if you're suggesting huge tax cuts, the tax cuts themselves should encourage a lot of people off welfare, reducing the draw on it. You have to find money to pay for all the services while the labour market adjusts though, which could involve running really big deficits which could be problematic if there's any delay in the pick up in employment (which could happen). Labour markets aren't like currency markets, they don't adjust suddenly to changing conditions and they tend to be a lot more "sticky".

Permabear · 08-09-2008 4:00pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 4:07pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 4:20pm

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen · 08-09-2008 4:24pm

I must admit, I am beging to lean towards your views

but what about trade ?
How do you see leaving the eu as benifical to our economy ?
Personally leaving the eu is the only point I disagree with.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 4:27pm

This post has been deleted.

sink · 08-09-2008 4:28pm

Liaise-fair capitalism only looks out for direct financial interests. Not all of societies interest provide direct financial reward to the investors. Lacking any financial reward private investors are not going to provide funds.

Is that not more of an argument for electing a competent government?

I'm not talking about the 'talented individuals' as they will be more than capable of looking after themselves. Unfortunately they are a minority. I'm talking about people from impoverished backgrounds who are not self motivated. If you ignore these people they will turn to less than reputable pursuits sucking up resources such as policing which will have to be paid for by your tax receipts while these individuals contribute nothing to the overall economy. Like a black hole they will suck resources while not giving anything in return and they will spread like cancer.

It's not only young people but older people who have become structurally unemployed due to their industry no longer being economically viable. A lot of these people will not be seen as a worthy investment and will not receive retraining becoming long term unemployed also becoming a drain on society.

Again another argument for electing competent representatives who will tackle the unions and reform the education sector. Unfortunately we continue to vote for populist governments with little vision.

Or ferment revolution. My point is that not all of societies concerns revolve directly around the economy. If you completely neglect social issues and rely on a purely market orientated approach to everything you will create 'economic black holes' as the prevention of / solution to these 'black holes' has no direct benefit to the investor. Instead the economic benefits/negatives are second and third order effects.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 4:33pm

This post has been deleted.

jmayo · 08-09-2008 4:34pm

I heard ould Maggie has lost her faculties but I didn't know she had starting posting on boards.
Privatise everything and the free market will take of it.

You might have a degree, but not much common sense if you think all your tenents would magically turn us into some free market, full employment, great infrastructure, low tax country with little effects on the majority of people.
You appear to have almost a Pol Pot view of changing the whole of society to reach your ideal.

Look at UK where privatisation of services has occurred.
Rail and water infrastructure has had no major investments. The systems will need major overhaul and private companies are refusing to do it unless they saddle customers with huge charges or get money from government.
Some services just should be provided and controlled by the state.
Leaving the EU would be another castrophic move and leave us out in the cold and we don't have the natural resources of Norway nor the historic industries of Switzerland.

Just because we have had cr** politicans and bad leadership over last 10 odd years doesn't mean we should hand everything over to the Eircoms of this world.
Eircom has been a private company for a number of years, actually since atime before broadband appeared I believe, and look at what a job it has done at rolling out broadband to the country.
Childcare is a very good example of how the private sector providing a service doesn't work.

PS who paid for your education?
Was it totally taxpayer funded or just partially, because using your criteria I would like my contribution returned

Iwasfrozen · 08-09-2008 4:36pm

@donegalfella I still don't get how you plan to benifite Ireland by leaving the eu and alienating all of our main exporters.

nesf · 08-09-2008 4:40pm

It's not zero-sum but treating FDI as a big pool that we can ever draw from is unrealistic. It's dependent on a multitude of factors, some outside our control like tax law in other countries discouraging the basing of profits abroad.

I'm all for lower taxes in theory, I'm just sceptical of how easy it will be to massively reduce the public sector like you want to do. Or how any political party here could manage it. They've some bloody powerful unions in fairness.

But, and here's a tricky problem, in a representative democracy we're pretty much stuck with what the people elect. So if the people want a platform of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor the people will elect such politicians.

Can that ever happen here though with the consent of the people? Don't get me wrong, I've as many problems with unions crying out for cost of living increases as the next fiscal conservative but I can't see exactly how you're going to achieve what you want.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 4:49pm

This post has been deleted.

daithicarr · 08-09-2008 4:53pm

I don’t see how leaving the EU and opening up to anyone with a degree will benefit us, most of the large multinationals and FDI come to Ireland because we have access to the European market, that would disappear if we left , attracting skilled workers to fill short term gaps in the workforce is a good idea, but open to anyone with a degree?
Those tax cuts proposed would probably leave the government with less than a quarter of its current income, that’s less than 10 billion euros a year to run a state.
Sure the public sector is wasteful in Ireland, but would reform not be a better option and try and get value for money. The private sector by its very nature tries to make a profit , so our schools, hospitals, prisons etc would be run on the basis of generating a profit for their owners.
If there is no union representation companies will be able to dictate terms, and will pay their workers as little as possible. Private education will mean that a large section of society wont be able to afford it, with no state pensions and a very restricted social welfare there will be a huge disenfranchised underclass created.
In a downturn in the economy people will be laid off as the economy restructures itself, how are they expected to survive and pay for their family’s health and education and other necessity’s on a 6 months greatly reduced dole.
It will create a massive gap between those who have and those who have not and will most likely result in a massive increase in crime, those people will need to do something to survive.
Sure if people are unemployed they can retrain, but how do they do that, who is going to pay for it? The government , they have no money under this system, why would the private sector. A bank wont lend a person who’s skills have become obsolete and is unemployed any money.
These services are there for a reason, its to help people in need , not everyone availing of these things are lazy spongers , not everyone can have a high paid job , some one needs to do the manual low skilled low paid jobs.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 4:58pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 5:13pm

This post has been deleted.

Dirk Gently · 08-09-2008 5:19pm

Actually they were built by slaves desperate workers, working literally to death in a lot of cases. They were poorly paid, had no access to health care and lived on the railway land as it progressed and in a lot of cases spent what little wages they had on food and rent directly back to their slave master employer. The land was either provided by the state or forcibly taken bought from families who thought that their right to private property was guaranteed.

Like it or not this is the backward vision you project for the modern day. You talk of a Victorian system that would make mr grandgrind himself cry out for social reform and flowers on the wall . Just as people now generally accept that high taxes do not stimulate growth and have a negative effect, I thought that people like yourself were also economic dinosaurs. American economics degree? sounds about right tbh.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 5:22pm

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen · 08-09-2008 5:30pm

In terms of economices, we didn't, I do agree with you on every thing else though.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 5:49pm

This post has been deleted.

sink · 08-09-2008 5:53pm

Take two economists from Princeton and ask them as simple question about the economy and you will get two different answers. Just because you have a very good qualification does not necessarily mean the economic theories you follow are correct. I must admit I am not an economist so debating the intricacies of economics is a little out of my depth. I have however read material on Post-Keynesian economics and modern theories on wealth accumulation and the polarisation of wealth in advanced economies leading to inflation and eventually stagnation. These theories seem to contradict your views and they are written by doctorates from universities such as Princeton, Harvard and the London school of economics.

Permabear · 08-09-2008 6:06pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 08-09-2008 6:19pm

The point you and all AynRandians studiously avoid is that not all adults can look after themselves.

Maybe - if you can afford private insurance, and you can get cover, and your health insurer doesn't go to lengths to avoid paying out.

What happens to people who are not motivated or self-reliant? The ones who just don't get themselves organised to set up a private pension? The ones who make unwise investment decisions?

When their pension fund, if they have one, stops paying out - do you let them starve and freeze?

If you can afford it. Not everyone is enamoured of the idea that only the rich can afford quality healthcare.

Plus, it depends on the public healthcare system. I haven't heard too many complaints about the quality of public healthcare in (say) Canada or Denmark.

Like it is in the US?

Right, people below the poverty line in the US don't turn to crime, because they have cars, TVs and designer clothes. Gotcha. That's why the US has such a low prison population, right?

Permabear · 08-09-2008 6:42pm

This post has been deleted.

jmayo · 08-09-2008 7:00pm

Well it will be transformational alright, I give you that :rolleyes:

You might be the other pole of the ideological divide from Mr Pot but your ideas would end up having the same disastrous effects on a country.

As pointed out by another poster you cannot compare 19th century railroad development with 21st century rail networks.
In the 19th century the railroads were built, in the case of America by stealing the land from the inhabitants and affecitvely using cheap immigrant labour with no concern for working conditions.
Perhaps your US education has you hankering for the days when cheap Irish and Chinese labourers were dispensible at the whims of their betters ?
Also rail was the new method of transporting goods and people across distances. Today we have things called cars and aeroplanes which railroad investors have to compete against in order to earn returns on investment.

You seem to view a country purely in economic terms, with the great notion that if left to private enterprise everything will be solved.
With your logic if someone happens to fall through illness or bad luck then tough.
Would you just let people die if they could not afford private health insurance ?

Permabear · 08-09-2008 7:13pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 08-09-2008 7:22pm

Sure. Before we had government-run social programs, nobody starved, right?

That's not an answer to the question.

Because they made unwise investment decisions, or because their pension company went bust. What happens to them then?

Do you?

Nope. If you've got a point to make, make it. Oh, and read the forum rules.

And the other three-quarters of the prison population?

Why doesn't Ireland have conservatives?

Comments