Where is Irish politics lacking, on the political spectrum?

Flamed Diving

Hello everyone,

I was thinking about the next general election the other day, wondering which party I would hand my vote to. I know that I want Fianna Fail out, if not for their conduct over the last thirty years, then simply to allow someone different run the country, for once. So if I want FF out for the latter reason, I should want to pick a party that is truly different to FF. A party that I could say are truly set apart from the old guard. So, I sat there and thought about it. Who are the potentials?

Fine Gael? - Well, aren't they just the same thing? They are both centre right, liberally conservative parties who happen to disagree on a 1922 treaty without which only one party would exist

Labour? - Well, some years ago one could have counted Labour as a centre left party and a genuine escape from the FF/FG circle. But now?

Greens? - Now, this truly would have been the vote to escape to. We know what happened to that.

Radical right? - The PD's are gone. Nothing remains.

Sinn Fein - Not a hope. I would sooner vote FF.

So, that's just leaves the Socialist party, right? Or to vote for an independent who will just crawl into bed with FF/FG. Despite the fact that I think the Socialist party are a bunch of hair-brained, economic illiterates; part of me is giving them a little consideration, simply because they offer some credible alternative.

How ****ed are things in this country when someone like me has to do that?

Overheal

Well regrettably times have changed, and frankly it may be ripe for a new Generation to form a newer political party that will represent that Rightwing Gap etc. that you speak of.

Too often I hear about "We dont have a Party for that" well ****ing make one. You know as an Irishman you're 50x more likely right out of the gate to get to an important position than your American Counterpart? Think about it. Just apply yourselves.

Village needs a mechanic> Mechanic sets up shop.

Ireland needs a Party to represent the unrepresented > Form that Party.

imme

You forgot the Independents F_D.:p
You paint a very bleak picture.
Will you go all the way down the ballot paper?

ei.sdraob

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hello everyone,

I was thinking about the next general election the other day, wondering which party I would hand my vote to. I know that I want Fianna Fail out, if not for their conduct over the last thirty years, then simply to allow someone different run the country, for once. So if I want FF out for the latter reason, I should want to pick a party that is truly different to FF. A party that I could say are truly set apart from the old guard. So, I sat there and thought about it. Who are the potentials?

Fine Gael? - Well, aren't they just the same thing? They are both centre right, liberally conservative parties who happen to disagree on a 1922 treaty without which only one party would exist

Labour? - Well, some years ago one could have counted Labour as a centre left party and a genuine escape from the FF/FG circle. But now?

Greens? - Now, this truly would have been the vote to escape to. We know what happened to that.

Radical right? - The PD's are gone. Nothing remains.

Sinn Fein - Not a hope. I would sooner vote FF.

So, that's just leaves the Socialist party, right? Or to vote for an independent who will just crawl into bed with FF/FG. Despite the fact that I think the Socialist party are a bunch of hair-brained, economic illiterates; part of me is giving them a little consideration, simply because they offer some credible alternative.

How ****ed are things in this country when someone like me has to do that?

My thoughts exactly

come the election day it will be a matter of picking the least worst option out of an utterly bad bunch

there really is a lot of room for new party(ies) to spring up (like them AN people here )

what im really afraid is of some far right or far left groups coming along and playing on peoples anger and disillusionment

Flamed Diving

imme wrote: »

You forgot the Independents F_D.:p
You paint a very bleak picture.
Will you go all the way down the ballot paper?

I didn't, and no I won't.

In fairness, my picture is simply a mirror.

Eliot Rosewater

One has to admit that the lack of an economically right wing party is slightly ironical given that one of the tenets of that idealogy is a belief in the ability of individuals to be proactive.

I say that as a liberal, by the way.

I wonder if a replacement for the PDs will emerge in the near future.

imme

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

One has to admit that the lack of an economically right wing party is slightly ironical given that one of the tenets of that idealogy is a belief in the ability of individuals to be proactive.

I say that as a liberal, by the way.

I wonder if a replacement for the PDs will emerge in the near future.

Does a party that is right wing economically esit already?
How right wing do you mean? (That's for another thread I guess)

The PD's didn't come out of nowhere, they were a product of their time, a product of the prevailing political conditions. In so many ways they were not a new party. They took candidates (for the most part) from FF and Votes (for the most part) from FG.

Flamed Diving

Would a truly libertarian party to good for Irish politics? I mean there is literally nothing to the right of the FF/FG circle of mediocrity...

FlashGordon1969

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hello everyone,

I was thinking about the next general election the other day, wondering which party I would hand my vote to. I know that I want Fianna Fail out, if not for their conduct over the last thirty years, then simply to allow someone different run the country, for once. So if I want FF out for the latter reason, I should want to pick a party that is truly different to FF. A party that I could say are truly set apart from the old guard. So, I sat there and thought about it. Who are the potentials?

Fine Gael? - Well, aren't they just the same thing? They are both centre right, liberally conservative parties who happen to disagree on a 1922 treaty without which only one party would exist

Labour? - Well, some years ago one could have counted Labour as a centre left party and a genuine escape from the FF/FG circle. But now?

Greens? - Now, this truly would have been the vote to escape to. We know what happened to that.

Radical right? - The PD's are gone. Nothing remains.

Sinn Fein - Not a hope. I would sooner vote FF.


Your analysis of Fine Gael is very simplistic-non existent really. Have you ever looked up Fine Gael policy on say for example Health? Are you aware that Richard Bruton opposed Property tax breaks that have lead us now to have 300,000 excess houses? That FG opposed Benchmarking that there is now so much complaint about? I presume you have done some reserch yourself??

Diairist

we may not get the govt we want but it will be the one we deserve. Bloody democracy...

Flamed Diving

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hello everyone,

I was thinking about the next general election the other day, wondering which party I would hand my vote to. I know that I want Fianna Fail out, if not for their conduct over the last thirty years, then simply to allow someone different run the country, for once. So if I want FF out for the latter reason, I should want to pick a party that is truly different to FF. A party that I could say are truly set apart from the old guard. So, I sat there and thought about it. Who are the potentials?

Fine Gael? - Well, aren't they just the same thing? They are both centre right, liberally conservative parties who happen to disagree on a 1922 treaty without which only one party would exist

Labour? - Well, some years ago one could have counted Labour as a centre left party and a genuine escape from the FF/FG circle. But now?

Greens? - Now, this truly would have been the vote to escape to. We know what happened to that.

Radical right? - The PD's are gone. Nothing remains.

Sinn Fein - Not a hope. I would sooner vote FF.


Your analysis of Fine Gael is very simplistic-non existent really. Have you ever looked up Fine Gael policy on say for example Health? Are you aware that Richard Bruton opposed Property tax breaks that have lead us now to have 300,000 excess houses? That FG opposed Benchmarking that there is now so much complaint about? I presume you have done some reserch yourself??

Could people refrain from listing the bad decisions that FG has made in response to this? I'm simply interested in why one party is distiniguished from the other in ideological terms, not sporadic decisions. Most of you seem to have grasped that, though.

Thanks.

GuanYin

Without knowing a great amount about your political parties, I'll admit, it does amuse me when I see things like

Flamed Diving wrote:

Fine Gael? - Well, aren't they just the same thing?

written about opposition parties when things are bad and people are looking for excuses to continue voting for the same party.

The appropriate answer is: No, they're not just the same, for one thing they AREN'T the guys who just spent the last decade screwing your country up, that alone is a pretty big difference if you ask me.

Flamed Diving

GuanYin wrote: »

Without knowing a great amount about your political parties, I'll admit, it does amuse me when I see things like


written about opposition parties when things are bad and people are looking for excuses to continue voting for the same party.

The appropriate answer is: No, they're not just the same, for one thing they AREN'T the guys who just spent the last decade screwing your country up, that alone is a pretty big difference if you ask me.

So if they are identical, like I suggest, they are very likely to just screw the country up again.

Wow. Logic.

imme

Flamed Diving wrote: »

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

Could people refrain from listing the bad decisions that FG has made in response to this? I'm simply interested in why one party is distiniguished from the other in ideological terms, not sporadic decisions. Most of you seem to have grasped that, though.

Thanks.

you started this thread looking for someone to vote for other than FF. You seem to be very vary to stray from that path, are you addicted to FF.

"Can I still stroke the monsters back"- Patrick Kavanagh

Are you interested in alternatives F_D? or just posting for the heck of it.

GuanYin

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So if they are identical, like I suggest, they are very likely to just screw the country up again.

Wow. Logic.

If you're talking logic, you'd now that causal events are linked through specific individual interactions. As the individuals are different between the two parties, it would be illogical to suggest that the same conclusions on policy, and even more importantly, policy implementation, would be reached. You're making huge conjectures on a rather faulty premise, so you're not being even slightly logical in your appraisals.

The same can be said of US politics, two parties, similar in almost all respects, it would be very easy to look back through the history books, blind to who was in power and guess accurately who was in the white house any year.

So, erm, yes, Logic.

Flamed Diving

imme wrote: »

you started this thread looking for someone to vote for other than FF. You seem to be very vary to stray from that path, are you addicted to FF.

"Can I still stroke the monsters back"- Patrick Kavanagh

Are you interested in alternatives F_D? or just posting for the heck of it.

I am wondering if people are simply disillusioned with the amorphous nature of our main political parties, and if they wanted to chat about this. I liked the turn this thread was taking when people started talking about potential future parties that could plug the gaps. I really don't need the opinion of strangers to tell me what way to vote, there are literally hundreds of threads doing just that.

Flamed Diving

GuanYin wrote: »

If you're talking logic, you'd now that causal events are linked through specific individual interactions. As the individuals are different between the two parties, it would be illogical to suggest that the same conclusions on policy, and even more importantly, policy implementation, would be reached. You're making huge conjectures on a rather faulty premise, so you're not being even slightly logical in your appraisals.

The same can be said of US politics, two parties, similar in almost all respects, it would be very easy to look back through the history books, blind to who was in power and guess accurately who was in the white house any year.

So, erm, yes, Logic.

Thanks.

imme

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I am wondering if people are simply disillusioned with the amorphous nature of our main political parties, and if they wanted to chat about this. I liked the turn this thread was taking when people started talking about potential future parties that could plug the gaps. I really don't need the opinion of strangers to tell me what way to vote, there are literally hundreds of threads doing just that.

well why didn't you introduce the thread like that then, I mean really:mad:


Does Ireland need a niche party or a new departure.

Flamed Diving

imme wrote: »

well why didn't you introduce the thread like that then, I mean really:mad:


Does Ireland need a niche party or a new departure.

I would like to see a proper libertarian party. One that would have called for AIB/BOI/Anglo to drop in a 'non-loony' way.

imme

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I would like to see a proper libertarian party. One that would have called for AIB/BOI/Anglo to drop in a 'non-loony' way.

Have you an international model for this Libertarian party of which you speak.

'Non-Loony' is this an allusion to the Labour Party?

Flamed Diving

imme wrote: »

Have you an international model for this Libertarian party of which you speak.

'Non-Loony' is this an allusion to the Labour Party?

No, I'm just speaking in broad terms using the word libertarian to describe a party who would stand for private property rights (including ones right to labour earnings) and the rights of personal choice (including euthanasia, abortion and all those sticky issues). Basically they would focus on the freedom of the individual (which could of course clash with the abortion one) and seek to minimise the states role in the individuals life, that sort of thing.

I'd imagine this group taking some style of Austrian School stance, definitely a von Hayek flavour anyway.

The Labour Party wanted to nationalise the banks, if I am not mistaken. This hypothetical Libertarian party would be completely against that. They would want the banks to vanish, begone, but would not be stupid enough to follow a policy that would destroy everyones savings. Then again, maybe they would...

imme

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, I'm just speaking in broad terms using the word libertarian to describe a party who would stand for private property rights (including ones right to labour earnings) and the rights of personal choice (including euthanasia, abortion and all those sticky issues). Basically they would focus on the freedom of the individual (which could of course clash with the abortion one) and seek to minimise the states role in the individuals life, that sort of thing.

I'd imagine this group taking some style of Austrian School stance, definitely a von Hayek flavour anyway.

The Labour Party wanted to nationalise the banks, if I am not mistaken. This hypothetical Libertarian party would be completely against that. They would want the banks to vanish, begone, but would not be stupid enough to follow a policy that would destroy everyones savings. Then again, maybe they would...

the right to private property, do we live in the USSR or something?


This party sounds like it's going to be very broad with a number of different wings to it. A broad church if you like. It would be at odds with itself if you want it to do all of the above. It sounds like a bit of Republicianism from the US, a bit of the French Gaullists, a bit of this and a bit of that.

Who were the loonys you were referring to then?

Flamed Diving

imme wrote: »

the right to private property, do we live in the USSR or something?


This party sounds like it's going to be very broad with a number of different wings to it. A broad church if you like. It would be at odds with itself if you want it to do all of the above. It sounds like a bit of Republicianism from the US, a bit of the French Gaullists, a bit of this and a bit of that.

Who were the loonys you were referring to then?

No, although we do live in a society where the state takes a considerable amount of our property from us every week/month. Libertarians would see themselves as protecting our rights from this theft. Although a minimum is required for a state to function, it could easily be argued that the Irish state is dipping its fingers in where they are not wanted and overspending. This level of thinking should be obvious. I'm not really a libertarian yet I can argue from their POV, yet you are completely blind to it. Read some of the literature from this field.

Secondly, and in fact, lastly. Why do I need to be defending this idea from you? I mean, even if I was presenting my thesis for a new vision in Irish politics, do you think I have the brevity to be able to express an entire charter and manifesto in a single forum post? If someone does ever create such a party, I suggest you get in contact with them to provide your freshman-level insight.

As for the loonys, that one dies with me! :pac:

southsiderosie

The main reason why I don't see libertarianism catching on like wildfire anywhere (well except maybe amongst young male college students) is that as much as people like to bitch and moan about government, people loooooove their entitlement programs. Hence ridiculous comments in the US like "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

My interest in the "gap" in Irish politics runs in the other direction: why doesn't Ireland have a strong left? Labour is center-left, and although Sinn Fein is ostensibly socialist, they don't seem to be a politically viable party at a national level within the Republic. Has Labour even cracked the 30% mark in a national election?

My guess is this is in part due to the fact that 1) the Republic never really had the kind of industrial development that led to the emergence of a urban working class, which generally forms the backbone of European socialist or far-left parties and 2) historically a lot of issues that in other circumstances would be framed as "class conflict" were in Ireland's case about colonialism. And, yes, I am just pulling this out of my ass, so if anyone has any references or knows of any good books on why Ireland never developed a political left, please share.

Sleepy

The Competent Party

imme

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, although we do live in a society where the state takes a considerable amount of our property (1) from us every week/month. Libertarians would see themselves as protecting our rights from this theft (2). Although a minimum is required for a state to function, it could easily be argued that the Irish state is dipping its fingers in where they are not wanted and overspending. This level of thinking should be obvious. I'm not really a libertarian yet I can argue from their POV, yet you are completely blind to it. (3) Read some of the literature from this field.

Secondly, and in fact, lastly. Why do I need to be defending this idea from you? (4) I mean, even if I was presenting my thesis for a new vision in Irish politics, do you think I have the brevity to be able to express an entire charter and manifesto in a single forum post? If someone does ever create such a party, I suggest you get in contact with them to provide your (5) freshman-level insight.

As for the loonys, that one dies with me! :pac:

(1) ok, so you're anti state involvement in society or do you believe in a thing called society.

(2) theft? will this new libertarian party also be advocating the right to bear arms?

(3) why do you feel the need to put people down/talk down to people? How do you know what I know of libertarianism.

(4) again with the personalisation, you don't even know me.

(5) and again with the put downs, it must be doing something for you I guess.:rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

imme wrote: »

(1) ok, so you're anti state involvement in society or do you believe in a thing called society.

(2) theft? will this new libertarian party also be advocating the right to bear arms?

(3) why do you feel the need to put people down/talk down to people? How do you know what I know of libertarianism.

(4) again with the personalisation, you don't even know me.

(5) and again with the put downs, it must be doing something for you I guess.:rolleyes:

1) No, read my post properly
2) I don't care. Go read libertarian literature. I picked this slant completely at random. It could have been any political leaning and yet you treated it as if I was a die-hard fan. I told you this and yet you continue. I'm actually laughing.
3) I don't, I just got the impression you don't know much on the subject
4) What are you talking about?
5) Ah, finally an actual relevant remark! And again, it's just an observation.

Canis

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, I'm just speaking in broad terms using the word libertarian to describe a party who would stand for private property rights (including ones right to labour earnings) and the rights of personal choice (including euthanasia, abortion and all those sticky issues). Basically they would focus on the freedom of the individual (which could of course clash with the abortion one) and seek to minimise the states role in the individuals life, that sort of thing.

I'd imagine this group taking some style of Austrian School stance, definitely a von Hayek flavour anyway.

The Labour Party wanted to nationalise the banks, if I am not mistaken. This hypothetical Libertarian party would be completely against that. They would want the banks to vanish, begone, but would not be stupid enough to follow a policy that would destroy everyones savings. Then again, maybe they would...

Instead of following ideologies which seem to take us down very dark roads why not just call for a party which consists of highly intelligent people who make judgments with common sense rather than loony ideology like Libertarianism, Communism etc.?

A teacher of mine used to say: "The only trouble with common sense is that it's not that common."

A First World society without banks… there is an idea that needs copy writing case it be robbed. :rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

Canis wrote: »

Instead of following ideologies which seem to take us down very dark roads why not just call for a party which consists of highly intelligent people who make judgments with common sense rather than loony ideology like Libertarianism, Communism etc.?

A teacher of mine used to say: "The only trouble with common sense is that it's not that common."

A First World society without banks… there is an idea that needs copy writing case it be robbed. :rolleyes:

Another victim fails to read thread properly shocka.

imme

Flamed Diving wrote: »

1) No, read my post properly
2) I don't care. Go read libertarian literature. I picked this slant completely at random. It could have been any political leaning and yet you treated it as if I was a die-hard fan. I told you this and yet you continue. I'm actually laughing.
3) I don't, I just got the impression you don't know much on the subject
4) What are you talking about?
5) Ah, finally an actual relevant remark! And again, it's just an observation.

You started this thread saying 'can I vote for anyone other than FF'. You've since changed the title, as I suggested would be appropriate.

Might be an idea for you to read what other posters write, just an observation.;)

imme

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Another victim fails to read thread properly shocka.

a victim, are you looking for victims Flamed.

Canis

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Another victim fails to read thread properly shocka.

Non sequitir.

Flamed Diving

imme wrote: »

You started this thread saying 'can I vote for anyone other than FF'. You've since changed the title, as I suggested would be appropriate.

Might be an idea for you to read what other posters write, just an observation.;)

Well considering Canis' contribution above it would seem that I am rather too good at playing Devil's Advocate.

To the Christianity forum!

Flamed Diving

Canis wrote: »

Non sequitir.

I'm not a libertarian, Canis. You are arguing with an apparition.

Flamed Diving

imme wrote: »

a victim, are you looking for victims Flamed.

No, they are merely impaling themselves upon my scabbard.

imme

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, they are merely impaling themselves upon my scabbard.

yeah right:rolleyes: *exhales*

Flamed Diving

imme wrote: »

yeah right:rolleyes: *exhales*

Yu-uh.

Anyway, this thread is soo yesterday. I'm outy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

southsiderosie wrote: »

people loooooove their entitlement programs.

Yeah that is one of the major issues. The problem is that, in a word, Government benefits are concentrated while Governments costs are diluted. Consider the roads scheme. The State decides to build a new road costing €200 million in Waterford. The cost per person in the State is roughly €50. €50 is relatively low in terms of peoples wages, so everyone outside of Waterford is apathetic. They don't really care. However to the people in Waterford its a very big deal. The Government are giving us €200 million!

And that is the fundamental problem with tax based spending and rationality. People call for huge spending programs because there is an illusion that such programs are cost-free. The costs are spread so thinly per person that it doesn't annoy anyone, yet the benefits are so thickly applied to one area/interest group that there are a hell of a lot of people impressed. Hence, a net voter increase. Hence, the kind of populist policies that have landed us with a budget deficit.

I'd be interested in hearing Flamed Divings or Donegalfellas definition of Libertarianism, in particular where is the cut off point between being a libertarian and being a liberal.

southsiderosie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok, is there a real-world example of this? Because a lot of the literature I've read on small countries that are economically dynamic and open to international trade and markets note that they almost by default have to have a generous state and social welfare system to buffer their citizens from swings in market forces. The Netherlands would be a good example of this. However, the Netherlands would also be an example of a country that is relatively libertarian when it comes to social issues (well, unless you are a Muslim woman, but I digress). Is there a country that does both - that is to say, are both economically and socially liberal?[/QUOTE]

Valmont

I suppose a good example of a libertarian group would be the Republican Liberty Caucus. They are only a faction of the Republican party but still a little less zany than the libertarian party itself. It gives a good idea of the sort of policies such a party may pursue in Ireland though I fear we have gone to far to the left to turn back. After all, the 'Youth Against Dole Cuts' facebook page is still growing.

southsiderosie

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Yeah that is one of the major issues. The problem is that, in a word, Government benefits are concentrated while Governments costs are diluted. Consider the roads scheme. The State decides to build a new road costing €200 million in Waterford. The cost per person in the State is roughly €50. €50 is relatively low in terms of peoples wages, so everyone outside of Waterford is apathetic. They don't really care. However to the people in Waterford its a very big deal. The Government are giving us €200 million!

I think the problem you are describing is in part because of the structure of the Irish state. In a federal system, there are clearer lines about who is paying for what and where that money comes from. And when it comes to social spending and costs in the US, it is pretty clear that we are all paying for social security and Medicare because it is stamped onto your pay stubs and tax forms...sooooooo much money that I'll never see again...

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

And that is the fundamental problem with tax based spending and rationality. People call for huge spending programs because there is an illusion that such programs are cost-free. The costs are spread so thinly per person that it doesn't annoy anyone, yet the benefits are so thickly applied to one area/interest group that there are a hell of a lot of people impressed. Hence, a net voter increase. Hence, the kind of populist policies that have landed us with a budget deficit.

There is an interesting book by Andrea Campbell on the creation of social security in the US. Basically, her argument is that the program created its own interest group that didn't previously exist; she was able to show that seniors, and especially poor seniors were not as actively engaged in politics and lobbying before social security became law. Others have shown this as well: when government social programs are established, and done so in a way that legitimates recipients (i.e. "you worked your whole life so here is your reward" in the case of social security), they create their own interest groups that fight to expand benefits and prevent cutbacks, making retrenchment difficult, if not impossible. In the case of elderly in the US, they vote more than any other group, constantly push for expanded Medicare coverage, and yet are more likely to vote Republican and against tax increases. I guess this is a long way of saying that I agree; when government starts handing large sums of money to certain groups, they are oftentimes creating a monster that may eventually swallow the entire system.

FlashGordon1969

Flamed Diving wrote: »

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

Could people refrain from listing the bad decisions that FG has made in response to this? I'm simply interested in why one party is distiniguished from the other in ideological terms, not sporadic decisions. Most of you seem to have grasped that, though.

Thanks.

The quote above is not from me but the original starter of this thread-they have been mixed up somehow


My response:

Read what I wrote again-FG attacked the property tax breaks that added greatly to this crisis. 'Bad decisions FG made'?? (your quote)They also highlighted the over dependence on property generated tax revenue. If you are asking for opinion please at least read it properly. I also asked you if you bothered to look at FG policies on anything? Terms such as right and left are now defunct All Parties who want power must move to the centre now. Have been since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Ever hear of the Third way? FG represent integrity and doing the right thing. Perhaps that doesn't fit into your need for a box to put them in, but I personally think it has great value. Judge a party by its performance. Do you judge people by what they say or do??
There will be no new viable parties at the next election and thus any talks of them are pure fantasy. We face more and more cut backs-whoever is in power, so dont waste time on fantasy notions of new parties.Punish those who caused this crisis.

Flamed Diving

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Yeah that is one of the major issues. The problem is that, in a word, Government benefits are concentrated while Governments costs are diluted. Consider the roads scheme. The State decides to build a new road costing €200 million in Waterford. The cost per person in the State is roughly €50. €50 is relatively low in terms of peoples wages, so everyone outside of Waterford is apathetic. They don't really care. However to the people in Waterford its a very big deal. The Government are giving us €200 million!

And that is the fundamental problem with tax based spending and rationality. People call for huge spending programs because there is an illusion that such programs are cost-free. The costs are spread so thinly per person that it doesn't annoy anyone, yet the benefits are so thickly applied to one area/interest group that there are a hell of a lot of people impressed. Hence, a net voter increase. Hence, the kind of populist policies that have landed us with a budget deficit.

I'd be interested in hearing Flamed Divings or Donegalfellas definition of Libertarianism, in particular where is the cut off point between being a libertarian and being a liberal.

Wow, what a difference a few different posters can make! Anyway, I don't really understand your question, for I believe that one can be a leftie, and be liberal. Then again, I don't use the American political definition of the word.

Flamed Diving

southsiderosie wrote: »

Ok, is there a real-world example of this? Because a lot of the literature I've read on small countries that are economically dynamic and open to international trade and markets note that they almost by default have to have a generous state and social welfare system to buffer their citizens from swings in market forces. The Netherlands would be a good example of this. However, the Netherlands would also be an example of a country that is relatively libertarian when it comes to social issues (well, unless you are a Muslim woman, but I digress). Is there a country that does both - that is to say, are both economically and socially liberal?

I thought that the Netherlands healthcare system was pseudo-private?

Flamed Diving

Valmont wrote: »

I suppose a good example of a libertarian group would be the Republican Liberty Caucus. They are only a faction of the Republican party but still a little less zany than the libertarian party itself. It gives a good idea of the sort of policies such a party may pursue in Ireland though I fear we have gone to far to the left to turn back. After all, the 'Youth Against Dole Cuts' facebook page is still growing.

I presume the final line was in jest? :P

Flamed Diving

FlashGordon1969 wrote: »

The quote above is not from me but the original starter of this thread-they have been mixed up somehow


My response:

Read what I wrote again-FG attacked the property tax breaks that added greatly to this crisis. 'Bad decisions FG made'?? (your quote)They also highlighted the over dependence on property generated tax revenue. If you are asking for opinion please at least read it properly. I also asked you if you bothered to look at FG policies on anything? Terms such as right and left are now defunct All Parties who want power must move to the centre now. Have been since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Ever hear of the Third way? FG represent integrity and doing the right thing. Perhaps that doesn't fit into your need for a box to put them in, but I personally think it has great value. Judge a party by its performance. Do you judge people by what they say or do??
There will be no new viable parties at the next election and thus any talks of them are pure fantasy. We face more and more cut backs-whoever is in power, so dont waste time on fantasy notions of new parties.Punish those who caused this crisis.

Ok, i am going to be blunt.

I am not interested in your views on FG. Ok?


P.S. The abbreviation of your name is a dead giveaway.

Lockstep

southsiderosie wrote: »

The main reason why I don't see libertarianism catching on like wildfire anywhere (well except maybe amongst young male college students) is that as much as people like to bitch and moan about government, people loooooove their entitlement programs. Hence ridiculous comments in the US like "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

My interest in the "gap" in Irish politics runs in the other direction: why doesn't Ireland have a strong left? Labour is center-left, and although Sinn Fein is ostensibly socialist, they don't seem to be a politically viable party at a national level within the Republic. Has Labour even cracked the 30% mark in a national election?

My guess is this is in part due to the fact that 1) the Republic never really had the kind of industrial development that led to the emergence of a urban working class, which generally forms the backbone of European socialist or far-left parties and 2) historically a lot of issues that in other circumstances would be framed as "class conflict" were in Ireland's case about colonialism. And, yes, I am just pulling this out of my ass, so if anyone has any references or knows of any good books on why Ireland never developed a political left, please share.

A historical reason is that while Labour developed out of the trade union movement and initially saw gains amongst both urban workers and landless rural peasants, Fianna Fáil quickly emerged with an economically left-wing, socially conservative program in the 30s which was much more amenable.

From the history books though, it is usually claimed that Labour relegated themselves by not contesting the first election.

FlashGordon1969

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ok, i am going to be blunt.

I am not interested in your views on FG. Ok?


P.S. The abbreviation of your name is a dead giveaway.

Believe it or not I never set my name up to be an abbreviation of anything! This discussion is quite pointless as you have made no effort to look up various policies from any party. I despair of our youth that they show such an utter lack of initiative:rolleyes: I am an Fg supporter because they have a social democratic basis (I actually read policies) and secondly they are the one party that will rid us of FF-the party that has created the worst performing economy in the developed world but you are not into annoying facts so I bid you good day young man.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Flamed Diving

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Plus for a move towards true secular democracy. They could count a number of A&A citizens on board for that move.