New Political Party

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liberalsociety

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm also curious to know how a political system can uphold the "fundamental value" of "civility"? How can one legislate for civility—and against vulgarity and offensiveness—without abridging the right to free expression that is at the heart of liberal philosophy?

You cannot legislate for civility, but you can educate people. This is nothing new, in many countries civics is taught in primary and secondary level education to a higher standard than it is in Ireland. Huge emphasis is placed on civic responsibility.

I'm also curious as to how government would ensure that "no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity"?

This is an ideal to which liberals strive towards; obtaining it is not a given, but to do nothing is worse. That is a form of social laissez-faire.

I'd note that you can't make people educated—you can take a horse to water, etc.—any more than you can stop people from becoming conformists.

People are free to conform, what we advocate against is forcing people to conform, which occurs in less democratic societies; perhaps you should talk to many of the migrants who have come to Ireland in recent years who grew up in the former soviet union, or Eastern Europe.

I'd also note that in a meritocratic society, such as the Liberal Society says it supports, anyone who is unwilling to study or work hard has a reasonably good chance of ending up poor. Is that okay?

Life and circumstance visit misfortune, Poverty is not a crime. This has nothing to do with meritocracy

Would you accept that we will always have poverty, ignorance, and conformity—because history teaches us that a great many people will always be unmotivated, sheeplike, and stupid?

What is your point here? There will always be people who are ambitious, self-centered and conceited also. So what?

We advocate meritocracy for those who are prepared and are willing to succeed; we reject the philosophy where connection or family relationship gives preferential option to those less qualified, particularly where this occurs in state appointments, or in positions paid for out of the public purse.

Fair enough. But I would argue that the right of individuals to develop their talents to the full should include the right to retain the proceeds of those talents.

You won't hear any argument from me on this; so long as you pay your fair share towards public services from which you derive a benefit. And don't tell me you don't - that point should be born in mind next time you turn on the tap!

In our current system, anyone who is creative, talented, entrepreneurial, and driven is forced to pay marginal tax rates many times higher than his or her untalented, uncreative, lazy peers, because that is what our politicians deem to be "fair."Does the Liberal Society support that or oppose it?

There are more than a few lazy, untalented and uncreative people who inveigle their way into public office / appointment, and are unjustly enriched to the detriment of talented, creative and diligent individuals. I know more than a few who are struggling for lack of opportunity, who if circumstances were better could and would make a better contribution to society. There is enormous waste of tax payers money in the public sector (that does not mean it does not occur in the private sector, for example the CEO of Company awarding himself $160 million in a bonus is wasteful, or private companies acting in a concerted fashion artificially raise prices in their sector to the detriment of the public at large. Irish governments, and Fianna Fail in particular have disproportionately taxed PAYE middle incomes to buy votes from the less privileged. There is nothing new about this, the Roman Senate had this down to a fine art two thousand years ago!

Yes, but "all citizens" don't want to attain these ideals. Look at the vast numbers who can't be bothered even to vote, even when their polling station is a stone's throw from their front door.

Freedom to vote or not to vote comes down to individual choice; I have always believed, and this is a personal view, that there should be a box on the electoral ballot which says "none of the above".

When we say "all citizens" it must be understood in the context of providing opportunity for "all", inevitably there will be those who choose not to, we cannot force people to do something not can we be selective to the point of affording opportunity to "some citizens"

Many couldn't give a hoot about contributing to their communities—and a great many deliberately act against the interest of their communities through crime, anti-social behavior, alcoholism, domestic abuse, and so on.

I am well versed in criminal law and criminal minds having practiced in the area and lectured on the subject for ten years; we are not seeking some utopia which is impossible, but it is possible to reduce the incidences of crime and the effects on society.

If the Liberal Society genuinely believes in smaller government, why not argue for putting services into private hands? The free-market system has a proven track record of delivering efficiency, quality, innovation, and cost-effectiveness; government-provided services are almost always inefficient, costly, shoddy, and stagnant.

I don't disagree, but not all public service provision is bad in the same way that not all private enterprise is good. The Irish State has proven itself to be pretty appalling in the provision of services; other countries have been more successful. It really depends on what they are providing and to who. Remember private enterprise can be less than virtuous, remember Enron? And look what happened to Eircom when it was privatised! Don't forget Anglo-Irish was a private bank that destroyed itself and has caused considerable harm to the public.

The term "free market" is a misnomer, there is no such thing as the "free-market". All markets are subject to some form of regulation or oversight whether it is lawful or unlawful, (even the black market is unfree, bizarre as that may seem!) or oversight.

If the Liberal Society simultaneously believes in "merit" and "fairness," does that mean it supports equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcome?

Equality of opportunity

If Sarah and Jane both have the same opportunity to attend school, but Jane slacks off while Sarah studies, and Jane has unprotected causal sex while Sarah works on her maths homework, and Jane drops out of secondary school pregnant and welfare dependent while Sarah goes on to university and a successful professional career, is that "fair"?

Its life and it happens. Sarah gets cervical cancer and ends up in a public ward irrespective of the fact she paid private medical insurance, and in the bed beside her is Jane with the same ailment. The outcome is the same.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mario007

Hey all, sorry i didnt actually read the whole thread(i gave up after the first three pages) but did anyone mention a more capitalistic party? cos lets face it there is none in ireland and a party on the right is actually really needed in this state. Just look what all the social benefits over the last 10 years have led us into...
I'll be a first year student next year and i was thinking of actually starting a society as such, cos i wanted to join some political society but really can't find one that fits....FG-too much populism, Labour- actually managed to beat FG in populism, and is socialist(enough said), FF- ya right...., SF-they sit with communist in the European parliament, i mean come on...

So like three months ago i was thinking of trying to set up a society in ucc when i'll eventually become the student there, with my friends we kinda started this youth organization aimed at European issue, like integrating other EU citizens in their countries and getting young people more interested in European issues, but now i'm thinking of maybe starting up something of a more capitalist-thinking-dominated movement even outside the university spectrum that would still concentrate on the EU issues but would also try to show to the politicians the disagreement of people with the Welfare State that we had here during the boom when everyone kinda lost any care in the word thanks to so many financial bonuses provided by the state...or something along those lines, still working on the project...

would anyone be thinking along the same lines and be interested?

The_Minister

donegalfella - I think you're confusing liberal with libertarian.

Most liberals want to retain some social services, and don't like people starving in the same country as them.

From what I've read of your posts, on this and on other threads, we would probably be the closest group to you, but i won't pretend that we want the abolition of welfare, a flat tax, or social darwinism.
We would be liberals, in every sense of the word, but we don't seek a return to 1800's England.

liberalsociety

I may not have the time this evening to answer all your queries, so bear with me if I do this in stages.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The education system needs an overhaul, by European standards (and I am not talking about the UK here) it is poor. You have to make a start somewhere and the education system is the best place, if you merely throw up your hands and do nothing than you will achieve nothing.

I do know the history of these nations—but I'm curious why you think that this agenda item is important in today's Ireland? With the power of the Church virtually broken, who is trying to force us to conform nowadays? Do we have Soviet commies waiting in the wings?

You are providing an antithesis for the sake of antithesis. You can do better than that.

My point is that social inequality is inevitable in any free, liberal society. Some will rise; others will fall. I don't think liberals should shy away from that reality, or try to paper it over with rhetoric about "fairness" and "equality."

We never said that social inequality does not or will not exist, but we are enlightened enough to reduce its incidence.

I agree with this. But do you advocate meritocracy for those who are idle and irresponsible?

Most certainly not

If you don't believe that lesser qualified people with family connections should be feeding from the public trough, would you afford that privilege to a group such as the long-term unemployed?

In the category of the long-term unemployed are people who people through physical and mental disability who cannot work or find it next to impossible to get work, would you suggest we let them starve?

Of course, I drink water, although I don't agree that the State should be providing it.

Why not? It works very well as it is. Have a look at what has happened in our nearest neighbour since water was privatised. A disaster!

I'd prefer to pay only for the things I use, rather than being forced to contribute to every State program, service, and bank bailout whether I avail of it—or approve of it—or not.

No one ever said society doesn't have a cost. As I mentioned in my previous post, the banking sector (private just in case you forgot) have got all of us into serious trouble. I studied Banking as part of my postgraduate in Business and we came very close to a systemic collapse last September; the ramifications of which had it occured would have been akin to the Great Crash of 1929.

But many of the people who "inveigle" their way into public office are elected to serve by the voters.

The majority of those who are appointed to state boards and Quangos are not. I wrote about the cost of these in the Irish Times nearly two years ago

You can't stop them from standing for office, surely?

Let them stand and be damned, the electorate took out a lot of these guys in the recent local elections. This contagion will spread, the days of the dynasties are coming to an end.

If the electorate vote for Untalented Joe because he's the son and grandson of former TDs, who are you to stop them?

This is the type of spin that certain politicians have been putting out there for years; you don't need to do their dirty work for them. Use your brains Dynasties Destroy Democracy, and if you don't believe me ask how a very good female candidate in Dublin Central (Fianna Fail) seems to be hindered at every step by a certain family political machine. And if you want a good example of how much damage dynasties can do, take a look at what the Bush clan. Actually lets bring this closer to home, how many of the present government come from political dynasties.... are they any good? I think the electorate will vote with their feet.

I agree. But most liberals would argue for a radical downsizing of the public sector, privatizing wherever possible. I personally believe that the public sector should be eliminated entirely, although I accept that my views are on the extreme side here.

I suspect outside a college laboratory it would fail spectacularly



Surely employee remuneration or distribution of resources in a privately owned company is no concern of the public?

It's the concern of shareholders and investors now who have lost their pensions. Its also the concern of the public who have to bail out organisations these people have destroyed and whose pension funds they have looted. More particularly the pension funds who have lost our shirts. Despite what Gordon Gecko said, greed is not good! These executives are not the owners they are gangsters.



You'll find that such "cartel" arrangements are generally unstable and short-lived, such is the incentive to "cheat."



But surely the answer is to make the tax burden more equitable across the board? Why not remove all payroll taxes and tax only consumption? Or how about a flat tax wth the same rate for everyone?

OK, I am not averse to this, but if you are on a low income, and remember not everyone scales the lofty heights, how are they going to afford consumer items which increase 200% plus when you remove income tax and place it on ordinary goods and services. This is the sort of nonsense pedaled by right-wing Americans who don't live in the real world.

Given how well-versed you are in the area, you surely know that governments effectively fund and promote criminality through social welfare. In Maryland, USA, the NAACP has concluded that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today." Academic researchers have drawn similar conclusions. The obvious conclusion is this: The less we ask people to take responsibility for themselves, and the more we incentivize indolence, fecklessness, and reproductive irresponsibility the more crime we produce.

I used to live in Bethesda, Maryland and it is one of the more civilized states in America. Academic research must be taken with a pinch of salt, especially when it is commissioned and you don't know who is paying for it. Remember he who pays the piper calls the tune, even in academia.





Which countries?



The Enron case does not say anything about private enterprise as a whole. "That brown dog bit my child, therefore all brown dogs are vicious and should be put down" is not a valid argument.

Oh come on... you can do better than that. Enron is but one example, there are lots more.



Was privatization the problem here? Or did the problems stem from Eircom's prior incarnation as a state-sponsored monopoly?

It had one of the best phone networks in Europe before privatisation, I know because Siemens and Erricson installed much of it... its what happened afterwards is the key.... ever wondered why Broadband is so bad in Ireland, the new owners did fu*k all.

Anglo-Irish is causing harm to the public only because our government is propping it up with public funds. Which it should not be doing.

Try telling that to the guys who are lending the state money, then watch pop goes the whesal as they refuse to fund us if you screw them over by letting Anglo-Irish fail.

The idea that supporters of free markets advocate a lawless free-for-all is the real misunderstanding here. Nobody is arguing that companies should operate outside the law, although many of us do believe that markets should be allowed to operate freely, without unwarranted government regulation of employment, wages, prices, etc.

As an employment lawyer, I can tell you without that protection you would see a viciousness that you could not imagine. Read my articles in the Commercial Law Practitioner on Commercial considerations in bullying, stress and harassment in the workplace, published by Thomson Reuters. I will give you some insight into what goes on in the workplace.

tolosenc

The_Minister wrote: »

donegalfella - I think you're confusing liberal with libertarian.

Most liberals want to retain some social services, and don't like people starving in the same country as them.

From what I've read of your posts, on this and on other threads, we would probably be the closest group to you, but i won't pretend that we want the abolition of welfare, a flat tax, or social darwinism.
We would be liberals, in every sense of the word, but we don't seek a return to 1800's England.

I think the confusion here is that people who identify themselves as Liberals, aren't Liberals in the fullest sense of the word.

Take, for example, the Lib Dems in the UK. They are liberal on social issues, but tend to support a somewhat more socialist economic policy. From my experience, most self-identified Liberals are social libertarians, but very much rooted in the economic left, whereas actual liberals would be socially liberatrian as well as rooted in the economic right.

The_Minister

I would be on the economic right - small government, limited welfare, low taxes - but most people draw a distinction between the extremes of these ideas, the complete abandonment of those less vulnerable and the more measured approach that most modern liberals take, which is to stop people falling below a certain level, even if they aren't able to make it on their own.

cabinteelytom

daragh.king wrote: »

Hi all,
I just feel that for too long now teachers and lawyers have been running the country.

Yesterday's Independent (13-6-09), front page ,'Fury over pension perk for Minister' , sheds a little light on this phenomenon; Government by teachers.

Batt O'Keefe Education Minister- 'for 13 years while he was serving as a TD the taxpayer was funding two public sector pensions for Mr O'Keeefe-one as a Dail Deputy and one as a teacher.' He is 'now reaping the benefits (12,000 pa after tax), on top of his 200,000 Euro-a-year salary.'
Comment: I suppose to attract scarce persons with this level of talent one has to pay a competitive rate.Other Cabinet members collecting teaching pensions are Govt Chief Whip Pat Carey, and 'Foreign Affairs Minister Michael Martin [ I'm beginning to have my doubts about the talent comment]... Social Welfare minister Mary Hanafin and Transport Minister Noel Dempsey also stand to receive a teaching pension on top of their TD and Ministerial pension.' [I'll withdraw the scarce comment as well.]
The Independent acidly adds, 'Mr Martin is refusing to quit his teaching post he has not worked in for for 20 years because he is worried about losing his job as a minister and TD.' [We do like the Foreign Minister of our neutral country to be a cautious, unconfident individual, and not give up the day job.]

Comment: Journalists Aine Kerr and Fionnan Sheahan have done a great job here, but the headline rather overstates the vigour of debate in our democracy; as not a single person is named by the journalists as being 'angry' because of these double pension schemes! Could that be because opposition TDs also benefit by the same rules (eg Independent TD Finian McGrath also collects a pension)?
But someone is losing out when a TD occupies, nominally, a public service position. I expect, someone else is deprived of a proper job ('in case Minister Martin returns' like Rip Van Winkle) , and the public is deprived of a proper service.
And are we a little closer to understanding why so many teachers chose to become TDs?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was actually going to start a discussion on this because of an incident yesterday that happened in the city. I was in a small park in the early evening, and on the otherside was a youngish couple who were getting intimate enough. This drunk man appears at one end of the park and, after flinging his beer bottle in a violent manner into a bush he proceeded to come towards the couple. He got literally within 5cm of the girls face and was just screaming about how she was teasing everyone and to get out. A lot more vulgarly like that, of course.

Do your really think this maniac with a can of beer in his back pocket was going to drink that, chastise a few more people, head home, sober up and head in for a nice day of work monday morning? I think not.

My point is this: this guy is more than likely being paid for by the state to **** his life away on drugs and drink with no sense of personal responsibility, and that is negatively impacting everyone who comes in his path. And the bigger tragedy is half the reason he is being paid so much is because the government decided to buy votes by building up social welfare.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liberalsociety

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe Fine Gael are getting some ideas from us, but we are not the same, thankfully.

Fine Gael do not believe in a directly elected executive - we do.
Fine Gael don't want greater separation of powers - we do
Fine Gael want to retain the Seanad - we don't
Fine Gael don't want stonger parliamentary oversight - we do.
Fine Gael do not believe in term limits - we do
Fine Gael don't want single seat constituencies - we do.
Fine Gael do not believe all public appointments should be open to free competition - we do!

The point is we have a different vision for Ireland, where the head of the government is directly elected by the people; the executive is separate from the legislature. The legislature has greater powers of oversight to compel witnesses, to confirm or reject executive appointments, and the power to impeach the executive where necessary. We believe in a unicameral legislature that is not controlled by an executive whip. We believe that all appointments to state boards, quasi-non governmental organisations should not be in the gift of political patronage but open to free competition and parliamentary oversight; we reject political patronage as a means of advancement in favour of merit. In the knowledge economy it is what you know not who you know.

A change will do you good.

liberalsociety

Ahh sh1t, I have just lost a whole reply to donegalfella... which took me ages. I had to log in again and lost it all. F**k:mad:

zing zong

To the OP

while i agree with what you are saying, there are some things to think about

the reason that there are so many "teachers and solicitors" voted is because the people voted for them,

if the people took an active interest, this wouldnt be the case, its a shame alot of people make up their mind literally on the day of the vote, based on where the candidate is from (the voters area) what party (brand recognition) and sadly on the ****ing poster of the candidate (nice smile etc)

all pretty pathetic, but there you go

while a call for a new party (or parties) is a great idea, why not get behind some of the smaller parties that are there right now and doing great things? (im talking the Labour party, not the green party)

turgon

Now that a comparison between FG and Liberals has been made, why is the Liberals a think tank and not a party in it own right? How does it intend to achieve its "manifesto"?

I really dont want to derail this thread by discussing the Liberals policies just there...but a few questions. Why single seat constituencies? And if you want separation of power why abolish the seaned?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The_Minister

liberalsociety wrote: »

Ahh sh1t, I have just lost a whole reply to donegalfella... which took me ages. I had to log in again and lost it all. F**k:mad:

I know that pain.
Always copy a really long post, just in case the internet decides to be a little bitch.

lefronde

turgon wrote: »

Now that a comparison between FG and Liberals has been made, why is the Liberals a think tank and not a party in it own right? How does it intend to achieve its "manifesto"?

I really dont want to derail this thread by discussing the Liberals policies just there...but a few questions. Why single seat constituencies? And if you want separation of power why abolish the seaned?[/quote]

Separation of powers relates to the division of power between the executive, legislature and the judiciary with each acting as a check and balance on the other. Under our constitution we have an imperfect separation of powers which allows the executive disproportionate control over the legislature. This has resulted in a huge growth of executive power (bigger public service, more quangos, etc) and a dimunition of legislative oversight and executive accountability to the legislature. Many of our failures over the last seven years have been systemic: failures in governance, lack of accountability and transparency. The Seanad is an upper house, in many ways it is a throwback to that division which used to exist between the Crown (executive) Lords and Commons (the Lords would not sit with the commons). We don't need if we have a proper separation of powers, and we will save money.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

lefronde

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Our view and it is not unreasonable many of current difficulties stem from institutional and systemic failures in governance. Many of the parties preach change but won't practice it; consequently you will have musical chairs in the next election, and all you will have is a change of personnel in the transient government, but all the time the permanent government (the state bureaucracy) remains the same and until they are slimmed down and held to account; any new government will be making the same mistakes.

In terms of economics, much of this is determined by international economic cycles especially in an open economy as ours. Inevitably the economic climate will improve, but again unless you reform the state bureaucracy and the institutions of state, the same problems will resurface.

The average person indeed cares more about his job, his children's education and the prices at the petrol pumps. Those are the things which effect him on a daily basis, but the real question is why the average person doesn't look more carefully at the system which governs him?

lefronde

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is no quick fix, I am not necessarily suggesting the American model is the right one, but there are serious institutional problems which can redressed by rebalancing the imperfect separation of powers we currently have.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liberalsociety

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What you are describing is the hallmark of peasant cultures everywhere; it is not uniquely Irish; it happens in Britain, in Germany, in France (France being an excellent example here) The notion of "the cute hoor" being a uniquely Irish phenomenon is laughable; but some people are stupid enough to think it is a throwback to British rule (utter crap) and the Irish are the only "cute hoors" in Europe.

What you are describing is a sub-cultural practice more apparent in rural areas and stemming from subsistence agriculture.

MG

I find the concept of a liberal think tank interesting but I do have a question for the liberals. The manifesto/principles set out in this thread are very general yet there also seem to be very specific policies.....single seater constituencies for example. Can you provide a few more of these more specific policies e.g. policy on minimum wage, private health care/insurance, education fees, social partnership, to name a few off the top of my head.

I think there might be a bit of interest in this but a little more info might help people understand if they are aligned with your ideals.

The_Minister

MG wrote: »

I find the concept of a liberal think tank interesting but I do have a question for the liberals. The manifesto/principles set out in this thread are very general yet there also seem to be very specific policies.....single seater constituencies for example. Can you provide a few more of these more specific policies e.g. policy on minimum wage, private health care/insurance, education fees, social partnership, to name a few off the top of my head.

I think there might be a bit of interest in this but a little more info might help people understand if they are aligned with your ideals.

The first thing that I would say (sorry for only getting back to you know, just saw this), is that the think tank is just developing now, and will continue to develop for years. This will never be a finished project, but a continuous evolution.
We have policies, but those policies are open to rational debate, one of the most important factors of a liberal group. No one policy is set in stone, and better ideas, or good arguments against any policy will be listened to. I don't mean this in a FF/FG/Lab....lets face it, all the parties way. I'm not talking about chucking out any unpopular policy, but instead being open to reconsidering our views. The trick is always to change your mind for the right reason.
The second thing to understand is that currently the groups focus is on good governance. The political structures in Ireland are a disgrace. They are set up to protect the current established parties, and the current established policies, and to retard any changes in policy. The way we elect people, the small constituencies, the rules on party funding, the way decisions are made, the people we choose to be ministers etc.

This country cannot be fixed until our government is reformed.

Morpheus

I love your policy on defence:

Defence
To meet the changing needs and requirements of the twenty first century, the Defence forces of the Republic of Ireland must be reconstituted.Defence is a changing priority in the light of the benign security situation in Western Europe in the recent past and for the foreseeable future, although it cannot be neglected, as new challenges have arisen. To retool the armed forces to effectively face these challenges makes sense on many levels.

* The reduction of the main force of the army, with many of their duties being given to a new branch of the Gardaí, whose purpose is to deal with escalated security situations.
* The enhancement of the naval and air forces, with an emphasis on modern equipment which reduces labour costs after a capital investment. Modern aircraft for example can be replaced by unmanned drones at a tenth of the cost of a normal fighter plane.
* The army will be reformed and composed of two battalions of highly trained special forces soldiers, equipped with the best training and equipment available.
* As always the emphasis will be on Irish neutrality.
* Amhrán Nua is opposed to NATO membership or uninspected extraordinary rendition flights on Irish soil.

Was this written as an essay by someone in primary school?