Country Before Party

Zynks

I wanted this to be survey, but it doesn't seem to be an option.

My point: I feel that many, if not most, Irish politicians put party interests ahead of the country's on a regular basis. When I vote, I choose a person I feel represents my views best, and not necessarily the party.

Of course, going more extreme, I would like to vote directly on who runs the country also, but that is another story.

I have been wondering how could this 'party power' be reduced. One idea is that votes at the Dail became anonymous, so there could be no party control over TDs following their orders.

What do you think about this? Do you like the current party-centric system?

starbelgrade

Zynks wrote: »

Do you like the current party-centric system?

Personally I prefer dictatorship, ruled by me, of course.

Liam Byrne

Zynks wrote: »

I have been wondering how could this 'party power' be reduced. One idea is that votes at the Dail became anonymous, so there could be no party control over TDs following their orders.

What do you think about this? Do you like the current party-centric system?

I'd be right behind you with this concept; the amount of people who say one thing to their electorate and then do a u-turn as soon as "the party" votes is crazy - often completely against their morals and the wishes of the people who voted for them.

While it might be more difficult to "govern" if there's an "each to their own" policy, the fact remains that even that couldn't be any worse than the ****e that FF have landed us in.

That said, it would also require politicians who are thinking beyond their chances at the next election and actually WANT what's good for the country, and those are few and far between....

mikemac

Many TD's may as well have stayed as councillors.
It's not entirely their fault, if you are a backbencher your only job is to obey the party whip at all times. Don't do this and your chances of getting along may be finished. And you know the locals want a minister for the area!

So your local candidate may promise they will save the local hospital and they may genuinely do their best.
But if they are told to vote another way they will do it.
You don't hear of many rebels.

Maybe a reason why independents do well often times

nesf

It's a problem in party politics in general rather than an Irish problem to be honest about it. There's plenty of bitching and complaining about it from the early days of representative democracy if you feel like reading up on it.

View

Zynks wrote: »

I wanted this to be survey, but it doesn't seem to be an option.

My point: I feel that many, if not most, Irish politicians put party interests ahead of the country's on a regular basis. When I vote, I choose a person I feel represents my views best, and not necessarily the party.

Of course, going more extreme, I would like to vote directly on who runs the country also, but that is another story.

I have been wondering how could this 'party power' be reduced. One idea is that votes at the Dail became anonymous, so there could be no party control over TDs following their orders.

What do you think about this? Do you like the current party-centric system?

Realistically, there is little chance of the party-centric system being reduced much less eliminated entirely. Offhand, I can't think of any democracy that operates without political parties. There are, I suspect, good reasons for that.

At its simplest, it may just be that it is easier to compete in elections as part of a team rather than as an individual. Also, as parliamentiarians the range of topics that Parliaments have to deal with is diverse, hence, the need for Party Spokesmen on particular topics. It isn't realistic for an individual to be a domain expert in all the topics that could arise before a Parliament. In addition, when faced with deciding on issues, people/politicans will tend towards particular "points" on the ideological spectrum. As such, it makes sense for politicans to form a party based either loosely or broadly on particular ideological views about issues and present themselves as a party to the electorate - this is, in effect, branding at work.

Lastly, if you don't mind me saying so, your attitude of "When I vote, I choose a person I feel represents my views best, and not necessarily the party", is actually counter-productive. Politicans tend to vote the party line in almost all cases. As such, it is much more important to choose the party that most closely represents the policies you'd like to see pursued and vote accordingly, rather than politican X over Y. True, politican X may well be a better person than politican Y but, since the party as a collective will decide how they will all vote, both X and Y will tend to vote the exact same way all the time.

Liam Byrne

View wrote: »

Lastly, if you don't mind me saying so, your attitude of "When I vote, I choose a person I feel represents my views best, and not necessarily the party", is actually counter-productive.

I wouldn't agree, really, but you're entitled to your opinion. In my view this is just a symptom; you've already indicated why this goes wrong; because people are to scared to vote ethically with their conscience rather than towing the party line.

Then again, if they're that spineless you shouldn't be voting for them.

View wrote: »

Politicans tend to vote the party line in almost all cases.

Unfortunately true.

View wrote: »

As such, it is much more important to choose the party that most closely represents the policies you'd like to see pursued and vote accordingly, rather than politican X over Y.

I see three problems with this.

1) There is no party that represents what I would like to see pursued.
2) Parties promise anything to get elected, and then renege on it as soon as they can; think FF with "zero tolerance on crime", "Aer Lingus v Shannon", the PDs with "we'll be the watchdog for FF" and The Greens with "we'll protect Tara and Shannon"; and that's just a few examples off the top of my head!
3) There is no party with underlying strong ethics, as demonstrated by the John O'Donoghue fiasco; even on the off-chance they DO deliver one or two promises, as soon as they see an "out" they shaft the public and look after their buddies!!

View wrote: »

True, politican X may well be a better person than politican Y but, since the party as a collective will decide how they will all vote, both X and Y will tend to vote the exact same way all the time.

The Borg from Star Trek comes to mind.......resistance is futile....you will enter the party untainted, with great ideas and a social conscience, but once in there you will be assimilated.

paddyland

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The Borg from Star Trek comes to mind.......resistance is futile....you will enter the party untainted, with great ideas and a social conscience, but once in there you will be assimilated.

Speaking of which, hasn't George Lee been very quiet lately...?

ninty9er

Liam Byrne wrote: »

as soon as they see an "out" they shaft the public and look after their buddies!!

This irks me! Who exactly do you imagine these "buddies" are? If you're going to talk builders and developers, you should go canvassing for FF or FG, you'll soon find out that we're not beloved of these people.

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

This irks me! Who exactly do you imagine these "buddies" are? If you're going to talk builders and developers, you should go canvassing for FF or FG, you'll soon find out that we're not beloved of these people.

I'd say questions to Ahern about his dodgy finances, or questions to O'Donoghue about his royalty-sized bills, "irk" them too; but it doesn't mean that the questions aren't relevant.

Did FF have multiple TDs who colluded and subverted planning processes and those TDs got corrupt payments from developers?

Yes or No ?

Every barrel has one or two bad apples, but FF have had FAR TOO MANY in this aspect.

So - again - yes or no to the above ?

ninty9er

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'd say questions to Ahern about his dodgy finances, or questions to O'Donoghue about his royalty-sized bills, "irk" them too; but it doesn't mean that the questions aren't relevant.

Did FF have multiple TDs who colluded and subverted planning processes and those TDs got corrupt payments from developers?

Yes or No ?

Every barrel has one or two bad apples, but FF have had FAR TOO MANY in this aspect.

So - again - yes or no to the above ?

Liam Lawlor:yes, Ray Burke: yes, Charlie Haughey: yes, probably a handful of current FF TDs, probably a handful of current FG TDs, probably a Labour TD or 2 in their time.

The past is an indicator, but we don't live there anymore.

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

Liam Lawlor:yes, Ray Burke: yes, Charlie Haughey: yes, probably a handful of current FF TDs, probably a handful of current FG TDs, probably a Labour TD or 2 in their time.

The past is an indicator, but we don't live there anymore.

If you're going to say "probably" in relation to FG and Labour TDs, then I'd say it's safe to say "more than likely" Ahern, too.

And before you say it, that's not libellious or anything, because there's more evidence re Ahern than there is about the one's YOU'RE saying "probably" about.

So we have 3 definite yesses (all not just "members", but TOP members) as well as a few more "probably" & "more than likely" (again, including top members)

If FF had EVEN ONCE weeded out the scum, I'd say they were ridding themselves of this; but since they didn't, the converse of the thread title - "Party before Country" DEFINITELY applies.

Just like SF and their views on murder, etc, FF need to rid themselves of their scum before the whole party can emerge from the cesspit.

And screwing the country in order to pay a bunch off idiotic gamblers (aka banks, developers, etc) is just hammering home the association.

I've said it before when you accused me of being an "FF hater"; the hate came BECAUSE of their actions and decisions. If they can prove that they've changed, and that "the past is the past", then great!

But giving Haughey a state funeral, allowing Bertie choose his own exit, excusing O'Donoghue's excesses with our money, etc....proves 100% that they haven't.

So no - "the past" is still VERY MUCH ALIVE.

ninty9er

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If you're going to say "probably" in relation to FG and Labour TDs, then I'd say it's safe to say "more than likely" Ahern, too.

And before you say it, that's not libellious or anything, because there's more evidence re Ahern than there is about the one's YOU'RE saying "probably" about.

So we have 3 definite yesses (all not just "members", but TOP members) as well as a few more "probably" & "more than likely" (again, including top members)

If FF had EVEN ONCE weeded out the scum, I'd say they were ridding themselves of this; but since they didn't, the converse of the thread title - "Party before Country" DEFINITELY applies.

Just like SF and their views on murder, etc, FF need to rid themselves of their scum before the whole party can emerge from the cesspit.

And screwing the country in order to pay a bunch off idiotic gamblers (aka banks, developers, etc) is just hammering home the association.

I've said it before when you accused me of being an "FF hater"; the hate came BECAUSE of their actions and decisions. If they can prove that they've changed, and that "the past is the past", then great!

But giving Haughey a state funeral, allowing Bertie choose his own exit, excusing O'Donoghue's excesses with our money, etc....proves 100% that they haven't.

So no - "the past" is still VERY MUCH ALIVE.

There's nothing I can object to massively there. I'll disagree in principle until findings have been reached in relation to politicians.

You can also take heart in the fact my mother had to shut me up from abusing the television when Haughey's funeral was on the news. I personally know someone who called him a "legend" on the news that day and he also felt my ire.

thebman

It comes down to if you lay down with dogs you'll get flee's.

FF have in many cases had high publicity instances of having corrupt members and have defended them publicly and never say what they have done is wrong.

If you do that even if your the most honest man alive you'll appear like your hiding something yourself.

Its time the good people in FF fooked off and left the corrupt to show the public what and how they really are.

Party policies are essentially branding and a marketing effort and FF is a tainted brand. The past number of years and the years for the foreseeable future are the equivalent of FF's very own Supersize Me movie. McDonalds survived but Supersize Me went away quite quickly, the economy will be poor and the corrupt remembered for many more years than a single movie as it will continue to directly impact on peoples lifes.

Liam Byrne

Credit where credit's due on your last comments, ninty9er........if the likes of you can reform the party from the inside, then fair play!

Best of luck!

View

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I wouldn't agree, really, but you're entitled to your opinion. In my view this is just a symptom; you've already indicated why this goes wrong; because people are to scared to vote ethically with their conscience rather than towing the party line.

I don't get the impression that "...people are to scared to vote ethically with their conscience rather than towing the party line". Rather I'd say they choose to vote the party line, because even if they disagree with a decision taken by their party, there will be other decisions where they believe that their view will hold sway within the party. As such, they choose to seek to influence decisions from within, rather than fail to influence from without.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I see three problems with this.

1) There is no party that represents what I would like to see pursued.
2) Parties promise anything to get elected, ...

Well, I'd have thought that point 2 should contradict point 1, in most cases. Realistically, I doubt you'll ever find a party that 100% agrees with our personal views on everything. Indeed, we should be very scared were that the case, as that only tends to happen if people are afraid of their lives when we are around!

Alternatively, if you really can't find a party that represents your views you are free to form a new one. If your view are reasonable/mainstream, you shoud presumably do okay vote wise.

That said, I'd say, you'll find it tough going as - offhand - I only see one major gap in the "ideological" market in Irish politics (If you look at the EP, for instance, Irish parties seem to slot fairly easily into self-choosen European political parties). And, I'd have my doubts about anyone filling that "missing" gap here anytime soon.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

3) There is no party with underlying strong ethics,


....you will enter the party untainted, with great ideas and a social conscience, but once in there you will be assimilated.

I don't disagree with this but I would say that no one - in any profession - is likely to survive it, if they don't make some compromises as they go along. The obvious question though is "How much compromise?" is acceptable.

For instance, if you could do a deal with a party you actively dislike but manage to change something you regard as very important in return, you may well have compromised but you may also have succeeded at the same time. It is a judgement call as to whether that is a right or a wrong thing to do...

Lastly, and I hate to say it, I just don't think the electorate and the political voting system is very supportive of high-minded principles. I suspect you'd find that if there were a clear connection between strong ethical stands and getting lots of votes, most politicans would strongly support high standards.

As it is, it tends to be the lower your ethical standards, the more people want to vote for you. That doesn't encourage the rest of the politicans to act ethically as they'll get little reward from the electorate for doing so.

Zynks

View wrote: »

Lastly, if you don't mind me saying so, your attitude of "When I vote, I choose a person I feel represents my views best, and not necessarily the party", is actually counter-productive. Politicans tend to vote the party line in almost all cases. As such, it is much more important to choose the party that most closely represents the policies you'd like to see pursued and vote accordingly, rather than politican X over Y. True, politican X may well be a better person than politican Y but, since the party as a collective will decide how they will all vote, both X and Y will tend to vote the exact same way all the time.

That is all and well when the economy is doing well and it is really easy to appear to be doing a good job. The problem is that now we need someone with cojones, and you might, with some luck, find a few individuals in different parties that may have what it takes. However, to find a full party with competence and strength of character required is simply an impossibility, as you seem to agree in your later post.

Liam Byrne

View wrote: »

I don't get the impression that "...people are to scared to vote ethically with their conscience rather than towing the party line". Rather I'd say they choose to vote the party line, because even if they disagree with a decision taken by their party, there will be other decisions where they believe that their view will hold sway within the party. As such, they choose to seek to influence decisions from within, rather than fail to influence from without.

Fair enough for smaller issues, but on bigger ones - and ones that the people they're supposed to represent have a specific view on - this is a sell-out.

View wrote: »

Well, I'd have thought that point 2 should contradict point 1, in most cases.

No, and I'll tell you why. One of the things I detest in life is the type of person who promises the sun, moon and stars in order to get what they want, and then do a complete u-turn.

So anyone who does this doesn't "represent my views", regardless of which view (before or after the u-turn) would end up "representing" me by default.

View wrote: »

Alternatively, if you really can't find a party that represents your views you are free to form a new one. If your view are reasonable/mainstream, you shoud presumably do okay vote wise.

Oh, I'd say they're fairly mainstream and representative; zero tolerance for corruption and crime, social fairness without handouts, comfortable basic standard of living without worry (anyone who wants extra or luxuries can fend for themselves).

View wrote: »

I don't disagree with this but I would say that no one - in any profession - is likely to survive it, if they don't make some compromises as they go along. The obvious question though is "How much compromise?" is acceptable.

"We'll implement zero tolerance" becoming "we won't bother" is NOT "compromise".

"We want to save Tara" becoming "we couldn't be arsed" is NOT "compromise".

While your point is fair enough in isolation, it's the extreme behaviour of Irish politicians that make it unacceptable; compromising on NAMA in order to cheer about getting fox-farming banned and the like.

View wrote: »

For instance, if you could do a deal with a party you actively dislike but manage to change something you regard as very important in return, you may well have compromised but you may also have succeeded at the same time. It is a judgement call as to whether that is a right or a wrong thing to do...

Yup, not objecting to Ahern in order to get a new tax on lightbulbs; not objecting to bailing out banks in order to get extra taxes on cars and septic tanks; not objecting to having taxpayers foot the bill for every sick sort of high-level corruption in this (now sorry excuse for a) country and shafting them with every additional possible tax while disgraced former taoisigh live it up, writing books, promoting their books in Cork or flying off to Dubai while being paid BY US!!!!

The bottom line is that if a party doesn't stand up against this **** - and watching FF clap O'Donoghue and wax lyrical about how "great" he was, or watching Ahern waste our cash on a state funeral for the scum Haughey, and give a speech at it is 100% sickening **** - then no amount of tiny gains is even remotely relevant.

View wrote: »

Lastly, and I hate to say it, I just don't think the electorate and the political voting system is very supportive of high-minded principles. I suspect you'd find that if there were a clear connection between strong ethical stands and getting lots of votes, most politicans would strongly support high standards.

Unfortunately true. The fact that Ahern and FF got back in last time around proves this.

So yes, there's a lot of idiotic voters out there, and that's sickening too!

View wrote: »

As it is, it tends to be the lower your ethical standards, the more people want to vote for you. That doesn't encourage the rest of the politicans to act ethically as they'll get little reward from the electorate for doing so.

I don't need "encouragement" to act ethically; I'd do so anyway.

View

Zynks wrote: »

That is all and well when the economy is doing well and it is really easy to appear to be doing a good job. The problem is that now we need someone with cojones, and you might, with some luck, find a few individuals in different parties that may have what it takes. However, to find a full party with competence and strength of character required is simply an impossibility, as you seem to agree in your later post.

Parties, by definition, are going to reflect the society that votes for them. Most political parties will compromise on positions under normal circumstances as such is the nature of democratic politics. As it is, our electoral system, unlike let's say, the FPTP system, tends to "punish" people who take hard-line and/or principled stands. Let's face it, the electorate here don't like confrontation, if at all possible.

View

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Fair enough for smaller issues, but on bigger ones - and ones that the people they're supposed to represent have a specific view on - this is a sell-out.

Again, I disagree. Remember we chose Representatives - that is to say we are supposed to be choose the party (and person) who most closely represent our personal views. However, once elected, the party has the obligation to act according to what it believes is right and/or expedient.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"We'll implement zero tolerance" becoming "we won't bother" is NOT "compromise".

"We want to save Tara" becoming "we couldn't be arsed" is NOT "compromise".

While your point is fair enough in isolation, it's the extreme behaviour of Irish politicians that make it unacceptable; compromising on NAMA in order to cheer about getting fox-farming banned and the like.

I don't agree that the behaviour of Irish politicans is extreme in this regard. The reality is that worldwide all parties making the transition from opposition to Government jetison policies which can't be implmented easily (or at all). This happens even when they win overall majorities. In our (semi-permanent coalition) system, you are going to get even more such compromises. Obviously, the parties need to choose what they are going to stick with carefully...

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yup, not objecting to Ahern in order to get a new tax on lightbulbs; not objecting to bailing out banks in order to get extra taxes on cars and septic tanks; not objecting to having taxpayers foot the bill for every sick sort of high-level corruption in this (now sorry excuse for a) country and shafting them with every additional possible tax while disgraced former taoisigh live it up, writing books, promoting their books in Cork or flying off to Dubai while being paid BY US!!!!

The bottom line is that if a party doesn't stand up against this **** - and watching FF clap O'Donoghue and wax lyrical about how "great" he was, or watching Ahern waste our cash on a state funeral for the scum Haughey, and give a speech at it is 100% sickening **** - then no amount of tiny gains is even remotely relevant.

Again, this is a matter of perspective. The Greens - rightly or wrongly - believe that climate change is the #1 political issue. As such, to them, implementing climate change measures trumps the other points you make. Obviously, we don't have to agree with their assesments but that is up to them and their electorate in a few years time.

As it is, there are certain issues I'd personally put up with a lot of cr*p for. For instance, reforming political party financing is worth the pain, as it reduces the room for political corruption. That again is a judgement call...

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't need "encouragement" to act ethically; I'd do so anyway.

Fair enough but not all people think like that.

Sand

I agree that we would be better served if TDs votes could not be tracked. I know the argument for making it public but:

- It stops lobby groups from threatening politicians: US democracy is greatly harmed by the power of lobbyists, which is far, far greater than the power of the average voter. Secret voting would eliminate the power lobbyists have entirely.

- It allows politicians to do the right thing for the nation whilst appeasing their local base. A politician can play for the crowds, and then make the correct, smart, non populist choice in the vote. An example would be this December budget - Labour could do the whole song and dance routine for the trade union wing, and then vote for a harsh budget knowing every single one of them couldnt be caught out and targeted by the trade unions for political attacks.

- Also helps reduce bribery. Sure, that TD is taking your money. But how do you *know* he is doing his end and isnt just laughing all the way to the bank?

Ireland needs reform right down to its roots though: eliminate the toothless talking shop of the Seanad, introduce a list system to break the parish politics, eliminate county councils and devolve real local government to regional assemblies, prevent sitting TDs from serving as Ministers so that the government is formed from either experts or at the very least politicians who are willing to sacrifice their seats to serve in the government.

Liam Byrne

View wrote: »

Again, I disagree. Remember we chose Representatives - that is to say we are supposed to be choose the party (and person) who most closely represent our personal views.

:
:

The reality is that worldwide all parties making the transition from opposition to Government jetison policies which can't be implmented easily (or at all).

So hang on; how the hell are we supposed to choose parties based on what they say they'll do if they're arbitrarily going to ditch those immediately after the election.

Let them say what they are actually prepared to do - no more, no less, and maybe THEN we'll have some honesty and realism that we can base our vote on.

View wrote: »

Again, this is a matter of perspective. The Greens - rightly or wrongly - believe that climate change is the #1 political issue. As such, to them, implementing climate change measures trumps the other points you make.

So you're perfectly OK with them promising that Tara would be saved and that the Yanks would be stopped from abusing Shannon, and promising that they'd save us from another few years of corrupt and inept government by refusing to go in with FF, only to u-turn on all 3 within days ?

And you reckon that that's OK, because it happens other places too ?

A lie is a lie.

View wrote: »

Fair enough but not all people think like that.

Unfortunately true; but while I'm not paying most people's wages, I am paying the shower in Leinster House, so I expect a return (and the ability to have a life) for my money.

View

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So hang on; how the hell are we supposed to choose parties based on what they say they'll do if they're arbitrarily going to ditch those immediately after the election.

Ideally, the parties would explicitly prioritise their policies in advance but I don't think this will ever happen. I don't think they just "arbitrarily" abandon policies - rather it is a case of what can you get through particularly in a coalition government.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Let them say what they are actually prepared to do - no more, no less, and maybe THEN we'll have some honesty and realism that we can base our vote on.

A fair point but the institutions of Government and/or pre-existing commitments, budgetary and otherwise, also shape what can be done in practice. Promising, "We'll do more-or-less what the Government is doing" is not a vote winner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you're perfectly OK with them promising that Tara would be saved and that the Yanks would be stopped from abusing Shannon, and promising that they'd save us from another few years of corrupt and inept government by refusing to go in with FF, only to u-turn on all 3 within days ?

I didn't say it was okay or not. In my opinion, you probably should try to avoid making such promises in the first place if you know there is little chance of ever getting them implemented. That said, the Greens have obviously decided these issues are less important than the ones they did prioritise.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And you reckon that that's OK, because it happens other places too ?

A lie is a lie.

True but such is life. I don't like it but I'll live with it.

I used to vote once from the top down on the basis that I was picking out the best party/person for the role. Now, I also vote from the bottom up on the basis that I want the people I reckon could potentially cause the most damage way down the voting order.

Liam Byrne

View wrote: »

Promising, "We'll do more-or-less what the Government is doing" is not a vote winner

At the moment I'd say it's more like the political version of something Ahern might suggest!!!

Zynks

View wrote: »

Parties, by definition, are going to reflect the society that votes for them. Most political parties will compromise on positions under normal circumstances as such is the nature of democratic politics. As it is, our electoral system, unlike let's say, the FPTP system, tends to "punish" people who take hard-line and/or principled stands. Let's face it, the electorate here don't like confrontation, if at all possible.

From your views so far I take it that you see the same issues and failures of the current system, and in general you don't seem to like it, though you are "willing to live with it". What I am not sure is what are your views (whether they are likely to succeed or not) about the value of secret voting at the Dail (?)

View

Zynks wrote: »

From your views so far I take it that you see the same issues and failures of the current system, and in general you don't seem to like it, though you are "willing to live with it".

Please don't get me wrong. I don't think the current system is perfect by any means. I'd happily change the voting system used in elections, would transfer huge amounts of power from central Government to local Government etc.

I do think there is a major problem in Ireland in that people don't hold their politicians to account for how they vote. Hence, to a large extent, it is largely a voter problem why politicians can get away with doing U-turns on a regular basis. There seems to be a disconnect in how people vote. The classic example of this would be everyone voted for "PD style" tax cuts but demanded "Labour style" health services and don't seem to get that the taxes being cut pay for stuff like the health services etc.

Zynks wrote: »

What I am not sure is what are your views (whether they are likely to succeed or not) about the value of secret voting at the Dail (?)

It is an interesting idea. In theory, it would lessen the power of the whips although it could be circumvented by a policy of "Show me your ballot". My fear about it would be that we'd have a serious issue, such as the budget, which would fail in the secret ballot system, and after that every TD would claim to have voted against the proposition (as being identified with an unpopular budget which failed wouldn't exactly be a vote winning strategy).

paddyland

View wrote: »

I do think there is a major problem in Ireland in that people don't hold their politicians to account for how they vote. Hence, to a large extent, it is largely a voter problem why politicians can get away with doing U-turns on a regular basis. There seems to be a disconnect in how people vote. The classic example of this would be everyone voted for "PD style" tax cuts but demanded "Labour style" health services and don't seem to get that the taxes being cut pay for stuff like the health services etc.

This is one of the crucial, central problems. The parties of the right, the PDs, and the parties of the left, Labour, never have a chance to gain ground, as in the middle we have this huge, festering, glutonous party called FF, who are neither right nor left, but all the worst elements of both.

In their greed for power at all costs (and this is a power not centred on any right or left philosophy, but purely on greed for it's own sake, and self aggrandisement at the expense of their neighbours) they are willing to promise the unsustainable, i.e. low tax and enormously expensive public services. This appeared to work for ten years or more of Bertieism, but ultimately, it was bound to fail, with the cataclysmic results we see now.

The problem is that the general majority of voters have very simplistic voting patterns. They naturally want the low taxes of the right, and the high public services of the left, and under normal conditions, should make that choice between the two democratically. However, the balance is skewed by this central party offering both together, no matter how unrealistic or unsustainable. The general voting public will vote for the snake oil every time.

In this way the very existence of FF, as an unprincipled, non-idealogical party, promising all things to all men and being none at all, undermines the whole, natural political process. It distracts what should be the natural divide to right and left, and draws support away in a tangential and utterly futile direction. In fundamental reality, FF today is not a political party at all, but a boy's club. Join us, and you can be better than your neighbour. There is no left and right, only the self.

FG suffer from this to a certain degree too, with the disadvantage of being less adept at playing the 'game.' The sole contribution of FG is to compete with FF for the position of unprincipled power broker, rather than a true commitment to either left or right. The result is a competition every four years between FF and FG, two parties who engage in unprincipled fire sale electioneering, on a platform of unsustainable low tax high service economics. The natural parties of the right and left become mere sideshows, in fact the only truly idealogical parties.

MG

Country before party. I agree provided it doesn't cost me any votes.

jmayo

paddyland wrote: »

Speaking of which, hasn't George Lee been very quiet lately...?

Watch out for next week, himself and Bruton will be busy.

ninty9er wrote: »

This irks me! Who exactly do you imagine these "buddies" are? If you're going to talk builders and developers, you should go canvassing for FF or FG, you'll soon find out that we're not beloved of these people.

He's alive, he's alive
Ah come on I would have hoped you would have seen the light whilst you were awya formthe politics forum.
FF were so inbed with the developers and the bankers at the very top.
McNamara, McKillen, Ronan, Mulryan, Dunne, Kelly to name but a few were very well connected with ff.
Notice how some got invites to bertie's speeches, some ended up on state boards and most were tent visitors.

Of course at local level most of the councillors from all the main parties were falling ar** over heels to look after the local develoeprs/builders, but ff made it a national strategy for the economy and thus we are now here :mad:

ninty9er wrote: »

Liam Lawlor:yes, Ray Burke: yes, Charlie Haughey: yes, probably a handful of current FF TDs, probably a handful of current FG TDs, probably a Labour TD or 2 in their time.

The past is an indicator, but we don't live there anymore.

As another poster mentioned have you noticed how these were very very high ranking people within the party.
A taoiseach and a top minister.

BTW you have forgotten to mention the ones who have very questionable dodgy dealings hanging over them.
On this list you have padraig flynn, bertie ahern, frank fahey, michael woods, john ellis, denis foley.

No we don't live in the past, but I recall bertie claiming something similar when he mouthed off about ethics out the side of his mouth after haughey's revelations had come out.

The only thing that has really changed is that the ones doing the buying off haven't the cash or the economic reason to slip a few quid to the willing helpful politicans.

Oh and the reason that the builders and developers are now no longer friendly is that they see themselves being cast adrift by the politicans they thought they had bought.
Remember paddy kelly's outburst on radio about this ?
He actually complained that ff were not remembering their friends.

Zynks

jmayo wrote: »

BTW you have forgotten to mention the ones who have very questionable dodgy dealings hanging over them.
On this list you have padraig flynn, bertie ahern, frank fahey, michael woods, john ellis, denis foley.

One more for the list: Albert Reynolds http://www.tribune.ie/article/2000/jan/30/mespil-revisited/?q=