The PD's are kaput

lostexpectation · 08-11-2008 5:43pm #1

spreading the good news from p.ie which has it the amendment to continue the party failed at 160 to 201 votes.

even des o'malley said there no point, just diminishing returns.

Avns1s · 08-11-2008 5:48pm

Haven't heard the news but it's back into FF then I spose, not that they were ever really that out of FF anyway. Mind you there isn't much to be reabsorbed.

Well that just leaves the greens to be "diminished" by their association with FF

ninty9er · 08-11-2008 6:01pm

Avns1s wrote: »

Haven't heard the news but it's back into FF then I spose, not that they were ever really that out of FF anyway. Mind you there isn't much to be reabsorbed.

Well that just leaves the greens to be "diminished" by their association with FF

The 4 in the Oireachtas may go "back" to FF, but there's a whole body of people who are original FG members and even more that were never a member of any other political party.

I don't reckon our grassroots would have Cannon.

Nodin · 08-11-2008 6:03pm

Can't say I'm either suprised or particularily unhappy.

Caoimhín · 08-11-2008 6:04pm

So long, Good-bye....

AIR-AUSSIE · 08-11-2008 6:05pm

Thanks to be fu(k

Tricity Bendix · 08-11-2008 8:05pm

This makes me sad. Given that coalition governments are now the norm, we will have the choice of Labour, The Greens, or Sinn Fein. which really just makes me despair.

ninty9er · 08-11-2008 8:32pm

b.ie curious wrote: »

This makes me sad. Given that coalition governments are now the norm.....

That part is the problem, not the parties. Why can't Irish people ever make a clear decision collectively.

Time Magazine · 08-11-2008 9:22pm

ninty9er wrote: »

That part is the problem, not the parties. Why can't Irish people ever make a clear decision collectively.

Because a large proportion of them will vote FF regardless.

Darragh29 · 08-11-2008 9:22pm

Cheerio cheerio cheerio.....

Seth Brundle · 08-11-2008 10:18pm

Darragh29 wrote: »

Cheerio cheerio cheerio.....

+1000

Biggins · 08-11-2008 11:14pm

They gone? No loss.
Can we dump "Harness Harney" with them too now?

CSC · 08-11-2008 11:18pm

For a small party they have had a serious impact on Irish politics.

heyjude · 08-11-2008 11:18pm

Looks like the Greens are getting the blame for every unpopular government policy from now then, till they get decimated in the next election :rolleyes:

dresden8 · 09-11-2008 12:16am

heyjude wrote: »

Looks like the Greens are getting the blame for every unpopular government policy from now then, till they get decimated in the next election :rolleyes:

Well, that is their job. FF didn't bring them in to save the planet.

ninty9er · 09-11-2008 12:34am

CSC wrote: »

For a small party they have had a serious impact on Irish politics.

This is true. Whatever you think about the PDs and wishing them gone.

They are the only party that had implementable "different" ideas from the big 3.

FF/FG and Lab jumped on the low tax bandwagon. At least they gave us that.

dresden8 · 09-11-2008 9:58am

When you say low tax I suppose you mean indirect taxes, taxes which impact on the lower paid disproportionately.

gandalf · 09-11-2008 11:45am

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Now we need Harney to do the decent thing and stand down as Minister for Health, she no longer has a mandate.

irish_bob · 09-11-2008 11:53am

gandalf wrote: »

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Now we need Harney to do the decent thing and stand down as Minister for Health, she no longer has a mandate.

she was voted in by her constituents at the last election plus she was minister for health going into the last election , how has she no mandate

SwirlsAllAround · 09-11-2008 12:00pm

irish_bob wrote: »

she was voted in by her constituents at the last election plus she was minister for health going into the last election , how has she no mandate

Yeah, in practice she does still have a mandate.... but if we were to hold an election tomorrow, or the general public could vote on a no-confidence motion, I would like to think things would be different.

It's very likely that former PDs will launch a new party.

The_Minister · 09-11-2008 2:13pm

Obviously I think the Progressive Democrats were great (liberal party ftw!), and I think that we are all worse off without them.
When everyone starts running back to hirer taxes, you'll miss us:pac:

Avns1s wrote: »

Haven't heard the news but it's back into FF then I spose, not that they were ever really that out of FF anyway. Mind you there isn't much to be reabsorbed.

Pretty much no-one of the ordinary members are going to FF.
Harney will stay an independant, Cannon will go to FG, Grealish may go FF or he may not, and the same with O'Malley.

I mean, jokes over, party is over, surely you realise that the whole PDs = FF was just electoral spin from the opposition, to try and reduce our vote, and force FF to take more of the blame for unpopular policies?
It was never actually true.

The_Minister · 09-11-2008 2:17pm

SwirlsAllAround wrote: »

It's very likely that former PDs will launch a new party.

The YPDs have a mandate to set up a new liberal party if the main party shuts down.

It was in the same meeting as they voted to kick out Noel Grealish.

turgon · 09-11-2008 3:19pm

irish_bob wrote: »

she was voted in by her constituents at the last election plus she was minister for health going into the last election , how has she no mandate

By your logic, just because someone has been voted in by their constituents they have a national mandate to be a minister. Do you thus invisage 166 ministers?

GrahamThomas · 09-11-2008 4:35pm

The_Minister wrote: »

The YPDs have a mandate to set up a new liberal party if the main party shuts down.

It was in the same meeting as they voted to kick out Noel Grealish.

So the former YPD's might be setting up an all new national youth liberal party? Or would it just be the YPD's Version 2.0 with the same faces & policies? Could be an interesting prospect....

ninty9er · 09-11-2008 4:37pm

GrahamThomas wrote: »

So the former YPD's might be setting up an all new national youth liberal party? Or would it just be the YPD's Version 2.0 with the same faces & policies? Could be an interesting prospect....

:eek::eek:

The YPDs tend to be a lot more right wing than their government counterparts.

The PDs served a purpose of setting a new agenda. Once everyone else adopted it the need for the party that brought it evaporated.

The_Minister · 09-11-2008 4:47pm

Except that agenda was f*cked out the window in the last bufget when they taxed put a levy on the minimum wage. We aren't even cold yet, and everyone is trying to run back to high taxes.

Also, the YPDs support drug legalisation and stuff like that, 99er, so I wouldn't call them raging righties.

GrahamThomas · 09-11-2008 4:50pm

ninty9er wrote: »

:eek::eek:

The YPDs tend to be a lot more right wing than their government counterparts.

The PDs served a purpose of setting a new agenda. Once everyone else adopted it the need for the party that brought it evaporated.

Well I've never exactly seen eye-to-eye with the YPD's (putting it mildly), which is why I was wondering if this new venture would be just more of the same or if they would have some new blood and perhaps more genuinely liberal policies.

The_Minister · 09-11-2008 5:08pm

GrahamThomas wrote: »

Well I've never exactly seen eye-to-eye with the YPD's (putting it mildly), which is why I was wondering if this new venture would be just more of the same or if they would have some new blood and perhaps more genuinely liberal policies.

The YPDs have always been fairly liberal, what policies are you referring to?

Dob74 · 09-11-2008 5:36pm

What is to become of the money and assets of the PDs? Are the senior members going to steal and give them to FF & FG?

ninty9er · 09-11-2008 5:39pm

Dob74 wrote: »

What is to become of the money and assets of the PDs? Are the senior members going to steal and give them to FF & FG?

It's probably all owed to the banks.

The_Minister · 09-11-2008 5:40pm

Dob74 wrote: »

What is to become of the money and assets of the PDs? Are the senior members going to steal and give them to FF & FG?

Don't forget Labour.

Tricity Bendix · 09-11-2008 7:28pm

Dob74 wrote: »

What is to become of the money and assets of the PDs? Are the senior members going to steal and give them to FF & FG?

That money legally belongs to the Progressive Democrats. Grealish and O'Malley have no right to take it to Fianna Fail when they make the jump. A lot of money will be spent on stuff like legal advice on how to wind down and on redundency packages for HQ staff, I think some of it will go a farewell party, and anything left over will be going to charity.

turgon wrote:

By your logic, just because someone has been voted in by their constituents they have a national mandate to be a minister. Do you thus invisage 166 ministers?

The truth of the matter is that any of the 166 TDs can be picked to become a minister. Even the senators can become ministers. The 'national mandate to be a minister' comes from the Taoiseach, not from the people. Nobody voted for Dempsey or O'Dea to be ministers. They received a mandate from the people to represent their constituencies, not to be ministers.

Dob74 · 09-11-2008 9:26pm

b.ie curious wrote: »

That money legally belongs to the Progressive Democrats. Grealish and O'Malley have no right to take it to Fianna Fail when they make the jump. A lot of money will be spent on stuff like legal advice on how to wind down and on redundency packages for HQ staff, I think some of it will go a farewell party, and anything left over will be going to charity.

I hope this is the case but winding down the party is wide open for corruption. The winding down of company's is rife with dodgy deals and selling assets cheap to those in the know. Why doesn't the party's money and assets go to the people who want to keep the party going? The leaders all have jobs lined up for themselves and are leaving there supporters with nothing. When Rabbite & Co. left the Workers Party they did not destory it like the selfish leaders of the PDs are doing. But than again selfishness is a core princple of the PDs.

Cannon ran for the leadership only last year and he is now destorying the party!! Why did he bother running for the leader if he was planning to do this? The party that was to bring high standards in high places have clearly failed like their laissez-faire economic policy's. Now everyone in the country has to gaurantee the banks who are still being run by the idiots who got us into this mess. We have a banking regulator who doesnt feel obligated to REGULATE. This is down to the idiology of the government who didnt want to interfere in the markets.

Cullen managed to get into the cabinet dispute being incompetent. So I guess there is plenty hope for Grealish, Cannon and O'Malley no matter what their intelligence.
Stoke politics at its best. Long live the greed of the celtic tiger.

Darragh29 · 09-11-2008 9:27pm

b.ie curious wrote: »

That money legally belongs to the Progressive Democrats. Grealish and O'Malley have no right to take it to Fianna Fail when they make the jump. A lot of money will be spent on stuff like legal advice on how to wind down and on redundency packages for HQ staff, I think some of it will go a farewell party, and anything left over will be going to charity.

The truth of the matter is that any of the 166 TDs can be picked to become a minister. Even the senators can become ministers. The 'national mandate to be a minister' comes from the Taoiseach, not from the people. Nobody voted for Dempsey or O'Dea to be ministers. They received a mandate from the people to represent their constituencies, not to be ministers.

I don't remember a single voter giving Biffo a mandate to be Taoiseacht either...

ninty9er · 09-11-2008 9:40pm

Darragh29 wrote: »

I don't remember a single voter giving Biffo a mandate to be Taoiseacht either...

No Taoiseach has ever gotten a mandate from the people. The Dáil mandates a Taoiseach.

Seth Brundle · 09-11-2008 10:30pm

b.ie curious wrote: »

A lot of money will be spent on stuff like legal advice on how to wind down and on redundency packages for HQ staff, I think some of it will go a farewell party, and anything left over will be going to charity.

is there a kind of irony in that the last act of the PDs is to help the less fortunate?

CSC · 09-11-2008 10:49pm

What has happened to Michael McDowell? Is he still involved in politics?

The_Minister · 10-11-2008 12:27am

kbannon wrote: »

is there a kind of irony in that the last act of the PDs is to help the less fortunate?

You are talking about the party that brought in the first minimum wage and set it at the highest level in Europe, thereby incentivising people to get off social welfare and start to work.
The party that pushed the foreign aid cause even when it wasn't as popular.

Liam Byrne · 10-11-2008 1:03am

Dob74 wrote: »

What is to become of the money and assets of the PDs?

Well don't expect the PDs to be asking where money came from / goes to.......based on recent experience, it seems they prefer not to know.....

Nodin · 10-11-2008 8:44am

CSC wrote: »

What has happened to Michael McDowell? Is he still involved in politics?

No, hes gone back to Law, thank the Jaysus. Presumably he counts as a PD asset, if he hasn't paid them the money back for those constituency surveys yet....

Permabear · 10-11-2008 11:38am

This post has been deleted.

Dob74 · 10-11-2008 1:31pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The problem with the finanical crisis for Ireland. Is yes this country is the size Kentucky but they where not paying 50 million an arce for land in Kentucky. Having lived in the states for ten years it was easy to see that we are being ripped off for housing and land. The central bank did nothing about it, except allow larger and larger loans to given out. We can blame global conditions all we like but turth of the matter is the banks lost the run of themselves and the government did nothing to stop them. Who knows who new what but we are in dip sh;t. We have borrowed 200 billion privately from outside of this country. The PDs are not to blame for the whole mess but certainly a laisse-faire idiology did not help the matter.

Permabear · 10-11-2008 1:46pm

This post has been deleted.

turgon · 10-11-2008 2:19pm

b.ie curious wrote: »

The truth of the matter is that any of the 166 TDs can be picked to become a minister. Even the senators can become ministers. The 'national mandate to be a minister' comes from the Taoiseach, not from the people.

Yes but the Taoiseach wouldnt be there unless people believed in the policies of he and his party. Brian Cowen is Taoseach because so many people gave a mandate to his party, ie they determined that his policies would be most desirable. In effect saying they would like him and his fellows to run the country.

You seem to be saying that TD's are voted on regional issues alone. I think its well known that most people vote by party, ie national issues.

ninty9er wrote: »

No Taoiseach has ever gotten a mandate from the people.

Kinda ridulous statement tbh. People voted for FF in the 30's because they wanted Dev to implement the FF policies.

oscarBravo · 10-11-2008 2:26pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Assuming that you're an advocate of laissez-faire, what about the ordinary punters whose life savings would evaporate in the event of bank collapses?

Dob74 · 10-11-2008 2:31pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We definately will lose choice in the next election. The middle classes needs a party to stand up for them. The leadership of the PDs have looked out for number one and sold themselves cheap. At least Harney for all her faults wont jump into another political party.

cavedave · 10-11-2008 2:36pm

The_Minister

Also, the YPDs support drug legalisation and stuff like that, 99er, so I wouldn't call them raging righties.

Would they be classed as libertarian then? (as opposed to liberal)

The pd's put forward an ideological viewpoint. One that was rejected by the Irish voters. But they seem to have much less in common with FF than FG do.

oscarBravo

Assuming that you're an advocate of laissez-faire, what about the ordinary punters whose life savings would evaporate in the event of bank collapses?

That already happens to share holdings/savings when companies collapse. The government could insist all deposits are insured without them having to be the ones who do the insuring.

oscarBravo · 10-11-2008 2:40pm

cavedave wrote: »

That already happens to share holdings/savings when companies collapse.

Those are investments, and they are understood to carry risk. Bank deposits are supposed to be risk-free. If they are perceived as risky, then people will have little choice but to hold their savings in cash, which pretty much defeats much of the purpose of having banks.

The government could insist all deposits are insured without them having to be the ones who do the insuring.

If the government don't, who will? Who guarantees the liquidity of the insurance companies, especially in a laissez-faire system?

cavedave · 10-11-2008 2:46pm

Bank deposits are supposed to be risk-free. If they are perceived as risky, then people will have little choice but to hold their savings in cash, which pretty much defeats much of the purpose of having banks.

Bank deposits are not always risk free. People have lost money they have had deposited in banks for as long as there has been banks. It is up to people to decide what level of risk they are willing to take. Some institutions take in valuables and charge a fee for keeping them (as opposed to interest for the right to lend them out again).

If the government don't, who will? Who guarantees the liquidity of the insurance companies, especially in a laissez-faire system?

Who guarantees the sun will rise tomorrow? Not the government. There is somethings they should guarantee and some they should not. And it is up to the people to decide if bank deposits are one they should. Even the fairly laissez-faire American government insure small depositors money in banks. But not all governments have to do this.

oscarBravo · 10-11-2008 2:57pm

cavedave wrote: »

Bank deposits are not always risk free. People have lost money they have had deposited in banks for as long as there has been banks.

This is a good thing, how?

It is up to people to decide what level of risk they are willing to take.

True - and it doesn't make any difference whatsoever to the wider economy if tens of thousands of people suddenly lose their entire life savings, right? There are no wider negative consequences whatsoever to runs on banks, are there?

Some institutions take in valuables and charge a fee for keeping them (as opposed to interest for the right to lend them out again).

What do you suppose would happen to the economy if all interest-paying banks switched to fee-charging banks instead?

Who guarantees the sun will rise tomorrow? Not the government.

Straw man.

There is somethings they should guarantee and some they should not. And it is up to the people to decide if bank deposits are one they should.

As one of "the people" I'm fairly happy with the idea that my meagre deposits are guaranteed.

Even the fairly laissez-faire American government insure small depositors money in banks. But not all governments have to do this.

Sure, but it gets away from my main point, which is that advocates of laissez-faire don't seem to want to discuss the actual consequences, at the individual saver level, of the policies they espouse.

cavedave · 10-11-2008 3:07pm

This is getting away from a discussion on the PD's. As far as I know they never supported a removal of government protection of deposits.

It might be worth noting that relying on the government to protect your savings is fairly unwise. Governments can default on their debts, this happens fairly commonly. Governments can inflate their way out of problems in a way that destroys all your savings. Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe. Even if all your deposts have a 100% government protection if they are running the printing presses so there is hyperinflation your savings are of no value anyway.

The PD's are kaput

Comments