I've just been canvassed!

Einhard

Opened the door just now to two Socialist Party/ULA canvassers. Now, I have no intention of giving them my vote, and I told them so at the outset, but they were willing to talk for a bit, and respond to my interrogation, so fair play. I might completely disagree with them on matters of policy, but I do admire their conviction and integrity.

However, I'm slightly concerned about their reactions to my questions about nationalistation. I asked whether they would seek to bring large, successful companies into state ownership, and they pretty enthusiastically replied that they would. As if no sane person could object to such a plan. They also stated that they would support small enterprise, and leave that in private hands.

When I put it to them that, 50 years ago, the likes of Dunnes and Glanbia were small businesses, run by enterprising entrpeneurs, and that the prospect of nationalisation would act as a disincentive to all future entrepeneurs, they were stumped. They waffled on about making business democratic, and protecting workers' rights. I pointed out that they could protect those rights without trampling all over the rights of others.

I also asked what they would do about the more recalcitrant business owners, who mightn't wish to see the product of their hard work confiscated by the state. To which their basic reply was Tough. They'd be forced to hand over their businesses.

I have to say I was slightly disturbed by all this. The two canvassers were extremely pleasant and engaging, but what they were enthusiastically advocating was the abolition of rights of ownership, and the forcible seizure by a covetous state of private property and possessions. To tell the truth, it sent a little shiver down my spine. Not so much the rhetoric which I'm used to, but the fact that it was being espoused on my doorstep by two ordinary, enthusiastic canvassers.

Needless to say, any party which seeks to forcibly seize the property and possessions of citizens is not going to get my vote.

Anyone else have the same type of encounter with Socialist canvassers?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pete M.

Well you did say at the outset that you wouldn't have your mind changed.

And they just ended up saying what you may expect of a typical Irish socialist, but at least they engaged well and were able to spell out what they would 'in an ideal' world, like to see happen.

Einhard wrote: »

I also asked what they would do about the more recalcitrant business owners, who mightn't wish to see the product of their hard work confiscated by the state. To which their basic reply was Tough. They'd be forced to hand over their businesses.

Lots of businesses have gone to the wall in recent times and the last government just seemed to say Tough to not only them, but everyone else in the bleeding country, whether they liked it or not.

Einhard wrote: »

Needless to say, any party which seeks to forcibly seize the futures and hopes of citizens is not going to get my vote.

FYP

Einhard wrote: »

Anyone else have the same type of encounter with Socialist canvassers?

I may be one of Them soon, so anyone who meets me will have had

looksee

Pete M. wrote: »

Well you did say at the outset that you wouldn't have your mind changed.

And they just ended up saying what you may expect of a typical Irish socialist, but at least they engaged well and were able to spell out what they would 'in an ideal' world, like to see happen.

Lots of businesses have gone to the wall in recent times and the last government just seemed to say Tough to not only them, but everyone else in the bleeding country, whether they liked it or not.

FYP

I may be one of Them soon, so anyone who meets me will have had

Are you suggesting you will be a Socialist canvasser? Because you don't seem to ha ve a very useful response to the specific questions. Your point about the government saying 'tough' to businesses going to the wall doesn't seem particularly relevant to the OP's points.

If I have misunderstood you, I apologise, but if you are Socialist your actual response would be interesting.

Pete M.

looksee wrote: »

Are you suggesting you will be a Socialist canvasser?

Yes, I'm suggesting that I may be. Depending on circumstance.

looksee wrote: »

Because you don't seem to ha ve a very useful response to the specific questions. Your point about the government saying 'tough' to businesses going to the wall doesn't seem particularly relevant to the OP's points.

If the question is what would I say when asked of Nationalisation, then I would say that I wouldn't not agree with all large, successful companies being nationalised, but I would like to see the nationalisation of certain key resources and utilities maintained and protected.

These canvassers merely said what they would idealistically like to see occur for there to be a socialist utopia realised.
Maybe they should have been more vague or subtle.
I reckon if some of the more eager FG or FF candidates outlined what they'd ideally like to see, it'd give me the heebeegeebees.

Although when posed with a difficult question, I've heard of a local FG canvasser who told the person to ring the office in the morning for an answer on economic policy :rolleyes:
If it's not understood by the canvasser, the idea ain't much good on the doorsteps now is it?

What more realistic socialists may say could well be that with the acceptance that this ideal state will not be realised overnight and that even to lend to the current brand of Irish politics a little more of the 'Ideal' is another step closer.

Why not campaign for protection of ordinary workers in the face of the massive financial meltdown that we're all paying for?

As for the comment about businesses going to the wall, the OP said:

Einhard wrote: »

I also asked what they would do about the more recalcitrant business owners, who mightn't wish to see the product of their hard work confiscated by the state. To which their basic reply was Tough. They'd be forced to hand over their businesses.

And my reply was meant to mean that one has to accept that there have been tough times in the past and that without doubt there will be again on the future. I would like to see companies being happy to hand over a fair amount to continue to do good business in the country.
With the right balance and policy, we could well make it very worthwhile for anyone, indigenous or otherwise, to run a business in our great l'il country.
Socialism today isn't about a return to the Soviet nightmare or Cuban paranoia, but about wresting some of the wealth, which we all help to create btw, away from the Plutocracy.

looksee wrote: »

If I have misunderstood you, I apologise, but if you are Socialist your actual response would be interesting.

Ah now, don't be apologising.

I'll have to toughen up if I'm going door to door eh?

Pete M.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Give me the taxi fair up to Donegal and I'll canvass you personally:D

I am not so blithe nor do I possess any evangelic zeal and when you invite me in for a nice cup of tea, I'll leave the dogma at the door.

You'd be well chilled by the time I left

thetonynator

Does anyone know of any socialist/ula candidates that have a decent chance of election other than joe higgins?

CoalBucket

thetonynator wrote: »

Does anyone know of any socialist/ula candidates that have a decent chance of election other than joe higgins?

Mick Barry in Cork North Central has a decent chance. He has worked extremely hard over the years in working class areas, which the northside is mainly made up of, and IMO is set to run very close if not get over the line.

I'm not in favour of his policies but in fairness to him he calls it like he see's it. Having followed what goes on in Cork City Council he would be a breath of fresh air to the Dail, he doesn't stand on ceremony .

Pete M.

To the best of my knowledge, Declan Bree (Sligo-Leitrim) will also declare as a ULA candidate soon and has a decent enough chance.

And @thetonynator: What about Conor McLiam in Carlow-Kilkenny?

LeixlipRed

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Laughed out loud at "the right to succeed in business"

At the expense of others is it? No one in the ULA is advocating removing people's right to private property btw either. Also, here are a list of rights I would regard as much more fundamental than "the right to succeed in business":

-the right to shelter for everyone
-the right to free access to water
-the right to universal education access
-the right to universal healthcare
-the right to no restriction on movement of people
-the right of a woman to not freeze to death in her house because the council turned off her heating

People's priorities are upside down. You want to make profits while people sleep on the streets.

Chucky the tree

Why do you think people should get free access to water?

Einhard

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Laughed out loud at "the right to succeed in business"

At the expense of others is it?

Jesus Christ, why do people like you always try and foster division where none need necessarily exist?? I've worked for several large companies over the years, and they didn't exploit me, or succeed at my expense. You should seriously tone down this disdain, and what appears to be hatred, for people who are successful in business.

No one in the ULA is advocating removing people's right to private property btw either.

Well yes, they are. As I mentioned in my OP, the ULA canvassers were enthusiastic about the fact that, were they in government, they would seize large businesses from their owners and nationalise them. That shows not only a disdain for property rights, but for any other conceivable right one can think of. The right to nt have the government seize what's yours is a pretty basic one IMO.

Also, here are a list of rights I would regard as much more fundamental than "the right to succeed in business":

-the right to shelter for everyone
-the right to free access to water
-the right to universal education access
-the right to universal healthcare
-the right to no restriction on movement of people
-the right of a woman to not freeze to death in her house because the council turned off her heating

And none of that is incompatible with private enterprise, as you and your divisive ideology would have us believe.

People's priorities are upside down. You want to make profits while people sleep on the streets.

I want people to make profits, sure. My dad is a small business man, worked hard all his life to make a success of what he started. And you begrudge him that. You'd like to take it from him were he to make more of a success out of it. Ensuring there are no homeless people does not necessitate the seizure of private enterprise, and the trampling into the ground of those who seek to improve their lot through enterprise. The Irish people aren't ready to become kulaks just yet Comrade.

LeixlipRed

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Why do you think people should get free access to water?

:eek: Well, I do believe water is the basis of all life on this planet, without you'll die. Need I go on? Also, the UN recently declared access to water a basic human right.

LeixlipRed

Einhard wrote: »

Jesus Christ, why do people like you always try and foster division where none need necessarily exist?? I've worked for several large companies over the years, and they didn't exploit me, or succeed at my expense. You should seriously tone down this disdain, and what appears to be hatred, for people who are successful in business.



Well yes, they are. As I mentioned in my OP, the ULA canvassers were enthusiastic about the fact that, were they in government, they would seize large businesses from their owners and nationalise them. That shows not only a disdain for property rights, but for any other conceivable right one can think of. The right to nt have the government seize what's yours is a pretty basic one IMO.



And none of that is incompatible with private enterprise, as you and your divisive ideology would have us believe.



I want people to make profits, sure. My dad is a small business man, worked hard all his life to make a success of what he started. And you begrudge him that. You'd like to take it from him were he to make more of a success out of it. Ensuring there are no homeless people does not necessitate the seizure of private enterprise, and the trampling into the ground of those who seek to improve their lot through enterprise. The Irish people aren't ready to become kulaks just yet Comrade.

Richard Bruton's suggestion the other evening that we should concentrate our resources on privatising the water system (along with others) because it was a "commercial concern", that's not incompatible is it?

Yes, we'd nationalise the means of production, remove property from large business and MNCs. We won't remove property from people like your dad or any private citizen however.

The quests for profit lead to boom and bust cycles and the suppression of the working class which in turn creates issues like homelessness, etc,. I'm not saying your dad causes people to be homeless, I'm saying capitalism in general does. An egalitarian society and capitalism are incompatible in my opinion.

Chucky the tree

LeixlipRed wrote: »

:eek: Well, I do believe water is the basis of all life on this planet, without you'll die. Need I go on? Also, the UN recently declared access to water a basic human right.

You'll die without food as well, should that not be free then as well?

LeixlipRed

Yes, the basics should be as well. Did you think I was going to answer no to that? When water charges are re-introduced here people will be denied access to water if their account goes into arrears. That, in my opinion, is a measure of the society we live in today.

Einhard

Pete M. wrote: »

Well you did say at the outset that you wouldn't have your mind changed.

And they just ended up saying what you may expect of a typical Irish socialist, but at least they engaged well and were able to spell out what they would 'in an ideal' world, like to see happen.

LOL, you managed to respond in quite a length fashion without addressing any of my points. You'll make a great politician yet!:D

And it's not so much an impossible ideal they're chasing, but rather what they'd like to see implemented were they to achieve enough votes. The forcible seizure of private enterprise and property by the state doesn;t strike me as a Utopian idyll to be honest.

Pete M. wrote: »

These canvassers merely said what they would idealistically like to see occur for there to be a socialist utopia realised.
Maybe they should have been more vague or subtle.

Ah, so they shouldn't have told me what they really felt? Massaged their message a bit eh?! Wow, you really are a pro at this whole politics game!:D

I reckon if some of the more eager FG or FF candidates outlined what they'd ideally like to see, it'd give me the heebeegeebees.

FF do give me the heebeegeebees (harder word to type than it looks!)- that's why I've never voted for them!

Even so, I don;t think FF or FG advocate the forcible seizure of property and businesses.

Although when posed with a difficult question, I've heard of a local FG canvasser who told the person to ring the office in the morning for an answer on economic policy :rolleyes:
If it's not understood by the canvasser, the idea ain't much good on the doorsteps now is it?

LOl, that's exactly what these canvassers did!! Told me to ring the candidate in the morning! I nearly would just to arge with him!

What more realistic socialists may say could well be that with the acceptance that this ideal state will not be realised overnight and that even to lend to the current brand of Irish politics a little more of the 'Ideal' is another step closer.

But a state where the government can unilaterally seize property, and trample on rights, isn't "ideal" IMO. Some socialists seem to think that rights are great until they apply to business people, and anyone with a bit of spare change hanging about.

Why not campaign for protection of ordinary workers in the face of the massive financial meltdown that we're all paying for?

Great. Do it. No problem with that.

Socialism today isn't about a return to the Soviet nightmare or Cuban paranoia, but about wresting some of the wealth, which we all help to create btw, away from the Plutocracy

This can be done through less invasive methods than seizing property and thrashing the rights of entire sections of the community.

Pete M. wrote: »

And @thetonynator: What about Conor McLiam in Carlow-Kilkenny?

That's who my canvassers were advocating on behalf of. Seems like a genuine fellow, and of course one has to sympathise on the death of his wife, but, having heard what he stands for, I hope the only way he gets into Dail Eireann is on the official tour!

Einhard

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Yes, we'd nationalise the means of production, remove property from large business and MNCs. We won't remove property from people like your dad or any private citizen however.

Ah I see. So you'd only seize property from my dad once he made a success of it? Or, should he leave it to me, and I manage to position the company as a market leader- then you'd come along and forcibly take it from me? How lovely. And should I refuse to hand over what's mine? What then?

jimmycrackcorm

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You'll die without food as well, should that not be free then as well?

While we're at we might as well have free transport, Sky tv and underwear.
The billionaires can pay for it.

Chucky the tree

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Yes, the basics should be as well. Did you think I was going to answer no to that? When water charges are re-introduced here people will be denied access to water if their account goes into arrears. That, in my opinion, is a measure of the society we live in today.

I had a feeling you'd say yes. So what's on this free food menu? Steaks and oysters I hope. But seriously, how would this free food work? One meal a day for everyone?

jimmycrackcorm

If water is free then why shouldn't electricity and heating be free also? Surely in a modern society these are also basic necessities?

Pete M.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If water is free then why shouldn't electricity and heating be free also? Surely in a modern society these are also basic necessities?

And shur they could be, depending on how people's taxes were managed

At the end of the day, it's what you mean by free.

None of those things are truly free.

From each according to their ability. To each according to their need.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreeCheese4All

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Laughed out loud at "the right to succeed in business"

Why? If someone is willing to take a huge risk, put their own livelihood on the line and create some jobs in the process is that such a bad thing?

I did all of that a few years ago. Left a nice cushy 9 to 5. Paid well. Took a massive risk to open a small business and so far have taken 4 people off the dole. I'm not earning half what I was earning when I was working for someone else.

If there was the possibility of my business moving to state ownership in a few years down the line then there is no way I would have taken the risk I did.

This is where the socialist ideal fails. If people like me don't start up businesses, then the dole queue would be much greater than it is now. Where does the money come from then to pay for public services?

NWPat

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

For the sake of balance, water that is sold for profit rather than supplied as a service is not always safe. See this example from the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-11720343

Lockstep

Einhard wrote: »

Anyone else have the same type of encounter with Socialist canvassers?

A Socialist canvasser but not canvassing for the Socialist party; they were canvassing for a left wing Independant as no Socialist Party candidate was running.
Friend of mine was also running for election and his house was canvassed by a SPer, his wife answered the door who let them know that as it was another candidates house. Their daughter runs up to the door (she was 3 and liked talking to strangers) and says "I'm a big girl" to the canvasser. Their response:
"Well, it's a good thing you're not big enough to vote for your daddy, isn't it?"


Certainly wouldn't apply that to the SP as a whole but I found this specific lack of social skills/politeness to be pretty offputting.

mgmt

NWPat wrote: »

For the sake of balance, water that is sold for profit rather than supplied as a service is not always safe. See this example from the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-11720343

How clean is Galway's public water supply???

The threat of litigation ensures quality in both public and private water supplies.

serfboard

LeixlipRed wrote: »

When water charges are re-introduced here people will be denied access to water if their account goes into arrears.

No they won't because everyone will have a free allocation. Just like pensioners have a free allocation of electricity.

What it will do is to prevent wastage of water - like what has been happneing recently with idiots leaving their taps running all night, resulting in everyone else being cut off. That's what free water enables.

And by the way, I don't think that water should be privatised - just that people should pay for it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

NWPat

May have been before privatisation but was still being charged for and it was not safe, it poisoned people. The world bank has an agenda and as machiavelli might have said of them, they would say that wouldn't they.
You could also replace the word poor for non-capitalist, and that realy is the point.

Yawns