Does Ireland need a new political party?

Biggins

I ask the question "Does Ireland need a new political party?"

As a member of the "Irish Democratic Party" I would like to hear others thoughts as to if they feel they are represented enough by the current parties - do they WANT to remain represented by the already established parties or do they feel a new direction is desirable and that some or all the already existing ones have met their shelf life and should be consigned to history for various reasons?

---

Speaking for myself, I do not feel (and have not for some time, felt) represented by the current main stream parties.
1. I feel they have lost their way.
2. They are not sticking to the supposed core principles on which their party was founded.
3. Some parties were formed for a generation and time now passed.
4. Some parties procedures officially are (to me) lacklustre to say the least in dealing with those 'rotten' within their organisation and appear to be unwilling to make the necessary party constitution changes to punish those involved within.
5. I feel the current lot are not making efforts to bring serious visibility, more clear openness, honestly and accountability to the public that they purport to be standing up for!

For the above reasons (and more) I feel its time for a clean fresh start.
So I ask the above origional question - and finish it off with one more in follow up...

Does anyone else feel the same as I?

---

By the way, The Irish Democratic Party platform document will be official released to the public on Saturday 21 January.

john reilly

new parties, new names, at the end of the day its all about being in power and power corrupts and NO we dont need a new party. dont forget its the taxpayer who funds them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Biggins

john reilly wrote: »

new parties, new names, at the end of the day its all about being in power and power corrupts and NO we dont need a new party. dont forget its the taxpayer who funds them.

Fair enough. Its an opinion.

What if a new party and its internal members came along that was more open, for example: within its constitution stated that it would without question be more open - otherwise it asks that the public NOT support it or its individuals!

What if the taxpayer is not relied on as much, as in the past to be funding such organisations?
In other words, those involved might have to put their money where their mouth is more so?

I'm NOT speaking for any party as such here - but with the above two points alone clarified further later - would you then re-think your own position?

hallelujajordan

Biggins wrote: »

Fair enough. Its an opinion.

What if a new party and its internal members came along that was more open, for example: within its constitution stated that it would without question be more open - otherwise it asks that the public NOT support it or its individuals!

What if the taxpayer is not relied on as much, as in the past to be funding such organisations?
In other words, those involved might have to put their money where their mouth is more so?

I'm NOT speaking for any party as such here - but with the above two points alone clarified further later - would you then re-think your own position?

And if they have no money ? They can't be involved ?

Regarding funding . . I think private funding of political parties is a bad idea. . He who pays the piper, calls the tune . .

The only way to ensure that political parties represent the people rather than funders is to ensure equitable, public funding.

Biggins

hallelujajordan wrote: »

And if they have no money ? They can't be involved ?

Regarding funding . . I think private funding of political parties is a bad idea. . He who pays the piper, calls the tune . .

The only way to ensure that political parties represent the people rather than funders is to ensure equitable, public funding.

There is merit in what you say - there is clearly a debate then of "Should public money be used to support political parties?" - but I won't start that debate here. It should be a full thread in itself and rightly so. Its a big one!

I hope fellow members will just read my first post and share their thoughts extending immediate from the points I have made?

hallelujajordan

My Thoughts on your OP . .

I don't think we need a new political party . . What we need is for lots more people to engage in politics at a party level, and to begin to influence the direction of the parties we have.

A political party is only a product of its membership. If enough people joined Fianna Fail (for example:)) and decided they wanted to change the direction, the philosophy, the constitution of the party, then it would happen.

You could argue that starting from fresh might be a better way to achieve this kind of change but history will show you that the Irish electorate are not that welcoming of new political parties. .

I think engaging people to influence the direction of our current parties might be a more successful route to political reform.

joshrogan

Is this a rehash of the PDs?

Biggins

hallelujajordan wrote: »

My Thoughts on your OP . .

I don't think we need a new political party . . What we need is for lots more people to engage in politics at a party level, and to begin to influence the direction of the parties we have.

A political party is only a product of its membership. If enough people joined Fianna Fail (for example:)) and decided they wanted to change the direction, the philosophy, the constitution of the party, then it would happen.

You could argue that starting from fresh might be a better way to achieve this kind of change but history will show you that the Irish electorate are not that welcoming of new political parties. .

I think engaging people to influence the direction of our current parties might be a more successful route to political reform.

Good thought-out reply and certainly material for individual consideration.

joshrogan wrote: »

Is this a rehash of the PDs?

God, no.

Cardinal Richelieu

The Pirate Party?

Biggins

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

The Pirate Party?

Ooo Arrgh!

(Well someone would have said it sooner or later!)

Ellis Dee

I think we have more than enough political parties.:)

Unless we want to get into really special-focus ones. Like this:



:rolleyes::rolleyes:

ILikeBananas

Like a lot of people on here I'd like to see a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We've enough bloody parties that are fiscally and socially liberal!

Biggins

As I alluded to in point number three in my original post, I feel that the current lot have outlived their usefulness.
They are unwilling to show and carry out change even within their own organisation - well besides what I see as window-dressing.

As Hallelujajordan put it already:

If enough people joined Fianna Fail (for example) and decided they wanted to change the direction, the philosophy, the constitution of the party, then it would happen.

...But it hasn't - and it hasn't for a long time now.
The same applies to the current lot of stoic main parties that are unwilling (I feel) to move with the times and change from ways of the past!

---

I think engaging people to influence the direction of our current parties might be a more successful route to political reform.

Its a fair comment but I feel myself that the general public now see the current lot as unwilling to change deeply and just wish to continue as before - with occasional more window dressing to boot!
So even the task of getting them to engage further now with the present lot - is a serious up-hill task in itself!

Sulmac

Some of the policies on that website look promising, Biggins. I'd agree with a lot of them and wish you the best in future!

I think murphaph got it in one here:

murphaph wrote: »

Personally I would define myself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal but with a firm view that law and order is important to society to enable people feel safe.

I believe government should balance its books like anyone else and not borrow inordinately to fund today's expenditure.

I simply believe it is unfair to burden the next generation with debt (save for infrastructure which will serve them).

I believe in a social safety net that catches people when they fall out of employment, but not one that then proceeds to carry them indefinitely.

I believe in a system of universal health care that is almost free at the point of delivery (almost free means a nominal charge like €5 to see your GP and perhaps a €5 charge on prescriptions, so as to prevent people wasting the doctor's time to get a few painkillers). The exact method is less important to me, so long as it doesn't encourage waste.

I believe that government has an important role to play in regulating financial institutions and should be able to institute legislation to prevent an overheating in the lending market.

I do not feel that any party fits even 50% of my outlook. As for individual TDs? Well, I think the likes of Peter Matthews would be closest.

Importantly, I think any new party (and indeed, the existing ones) need long-term vision, rather than just looking to the next general election. This would involve a massive change in political culture, and wider Irish culture generally, however.

djpbarry

Biggins wrote: »

4. Some parties procedures officially are (to me) lacklustre to say the least in dealing with those 'rotten' within their organisation and appear to be unwilling to make the necessary party constitution changes to punish those involved within.

The reason there are certain undesirables within political parties in Ireland, and indeed within the Dail, is because the electorate tolerates said undesirables. It's all very well changing party procedures and constitutions, but at the end of the day, if people are prepared to elect the likes of Michael Lowry and Mick Wallace, what are we to do?

The problem is the Irish electorate - the politicians they elect are merely a symptom of the problem.

Biggins

djpbarry wrote: »

The reason there are certain undesirables within political parties in Ireland, and indeed within the Dail, is because the electorate tolerates said undesirables. It's all very well changing party procedures and constitutions, but at the end of the day, if people are prepared to elect the likes of Michael Lowry and Mick Wallace, what are we to do?

The problem is the Irish electorate - the politicians they elect are merely a symptom of the problem.

I hear you but if the party still allows them to exist within a party - then they go for election?
Indeed the local people to the persons area vote for them again - but if the first stage was done right - stage two wouldn't/shouldn't(?) happen at all!

If they get elected as independent, thats clear enough, but if they get elected as a member of a party that is possibly in government/opposition, their position also reflects more so in bigger ways on the party, the state and people!

Sulmac wrote: »

...Importantly, I think any new party (and indeed, the existing ones) need long-term vision, rather than just looking to the next general election. This would involve a massive change in political culture, and wider Irish culture generally, however.

Funny (well not really - they are serious individual topics) you should mention the three above.
Within the soon issuing of an extensive platform document, those issues have been extensively addressed in particular.

Biggins, I in no way mean the following as an attack, but going by any previous posts of yours that I've read on these forums I can imagine that the party you have in mind would actually be a quite populist party along the ideological lines of Fine Fail... Against paying the bondholders etc.

How would such a party have resolved the financial crisis in Ireland? Would you be for or against cuts in the dole? etc etc

Unless your party is coming in with a specific agenda then you will be in no better position to enact your policies than any of the mainstream Irish parties are at the moment. If you're just going to say "well, we'd do things differently", then how exactly are you different to any opposition party out there at the moment?

amacachi

ILikeBananas wrote: »

Like a lot of people on here I'd like to see a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We've enough bloody parties that are fiscally and socially liberal!

Just wondering what your definition of fiscally conservative is. Biggins thanked it and I'd also like to know his views. I thought fiscal conservatism traditionally was seen as meaning low-spending, I haven't really gotten the impression that that's what any of the parties or movements around lately have been pushing for.

Benny_Cake

Honestly, I don't really think a lack of political parties is the problem here Biggins. After the last election, out of 166 Dail seats, 133 were taken by the traditional "big 3" parties - and that was in the middle of some of the worst ever economic upheaval that Ireland has ever seen. I know whenever these threads crop up here there are no shortage of people calling for some form of libertarian party to be set up, but it would appear that people here have no appetite for such policies. It would be far more worthwhile to campaign for constitutional change to overhaul the way we run the country, and particularly local government and our electoral system. That said, fair play for making the effort and getting involved, I'm not 100% sure what the Irish Democratic Party stands for but hopefully they'll contribute something.

mikemac1

What happened Amhrán Nua? There were a few posters here with signatures for them
I've had a quick glance at the website and it looks good. Design wise, I haven't read every policy

I don't remember hearing anything about them in the general election. Even the Christian Solidarity Party were more high profile then them
They have no councillors that I know of.


So a new party is starting this month. Are they going to end up the same? Looks like it


Edit, I'm coming across as the hurler on the ditch.
Well done to anyone who wants to put the work in but there have been plenty of tiny liberal parties before with lots of talk but cannot translate it to election success.
And maybe that's a sign of what voters want

ILikeBananas

amacachi wrote: »

Just wondering what your definition of fiscally conservative is. Biggins thanked it and I'd also like to know his views. I thought fiscal conservatism traditionally was seen as meaning low-spending, I haven't really gotten the impression that that's what any of the parties or movements around lately have been pushing for.

My definition of fiscal conservatism would be that there would be an emphasis on balancing the budget. And not in a short-sighted way either. With both the previous and current governments the easy political options have been taken i.e. reducing current expenditure by slashing the capital expenditure budget and putting an embargo on new recruits to the public sector. These are extremely short-sighted policies and will damage the country in the long run.

For me a responsible government should, if given the choice, inject money into capital projects and services as opposed to welfare payments and public sector wages.

KeithAFC

I think the Irish Republic needs leadership, not a new party. What is the policies of that party you are a member of Biggins?

Boulevardier

Conditions at the moment are not entirely unlike those in the mid-1980s when the PDs appeared. FG and Labour are in a government whose popularity is likely to slide in the next 2 or 3 years. FF are widely distrusted by the middle class.

I suspect that this time around, if a new party appears, its views will be akin to those of Marc Coleman, Shane Ross, David Quinn and others of that ilk. Coleman's "National Forum" gives a foretaste of how this might look.

It will be anti-public servant, anti-immigration, pro-low taxes and pro-life.

It will go mainly after the old FF vote.

Biggins

Firstly, some good points and replies.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Biggins, I in no way mean the following as an attack, but going by any previous posts of yours that I've read on these forums I can imagine that the party you have in mind would actually be a quite populist party along the ideological lines of Fine Fail... Against paying the bondholders etc.

How would such a party have resolved the financial crisis in Ireland? Would you be for or against cuts in the dole? etc etc

Unless your party is coming in with a specific agenda then you will be in no better position to enact your policies than any of the mainstream Irish parties are at the moment. If you're just going to say "well, we'd do things differently", then how exactly are you different to any opposition party out there at the moment?

The IDP WILL become across with specific agenda - over 40 pages of it to be exact - and that will only be the first public introduction platform document!
How we are going to try doing things and in some case WILL do things, will be spelled out in the forth coming platform document.
Its only a limited time away, I hope you don't mind waiting.

amacachi wrote: »

Just wondering what your definition of fiscally conservative is. Biggins thanked it and I'd also like to know his views. I thought fiscal conservatism traditionally was seen as meaning low-spending, I haven't really gotten the impression that that's what any of the parties or movements around lately have been pushing for.

To use a definition that can be easily found on the Internet: "Fiscal conservatism is a political term used to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance."
Taking the above into account, the application of the above can be a basis for implementing changes that are tailored to the Irish current state of affairs.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Honestly, I don't really think a lack of political parties is the problem here Biggins. After the last election, out of 166 Dail seats, 133 were taken by the traditional "big 3" parties - and that was in the middle of some of the worst ever economic upheaval that Ireland has ever seen. I know whenever these threads crop up here there are no shortage of people calling for some form of libertarian party to be set up, but it would appear that people here have no appetite for such policies. It would be far more worthwhile to campaign for constitutional change to overhaul the way we run the country, and particularly local government and our electoral system. That said, fair play for making the effort and getting involved, I'm not 100% sure what the Irish Democratic Party stands for but hopefully they'll contribute something.

Your right about the re-election of the 3 big parties.
However I, myself, many a time noted often words to the effect "well there is no party/body out there that I can genuinely say I support..." (or words to that effect) and a lot ended up voting on the day for what they only saw as the lesser of three current (evils?) parties.

As for what it stands for, a brief intro is at www.idp.ie but if you choose to wait just a week or two, you will be informed of definitely more.

mikemac1 wrote: »

What happened Amhrán Nua? There were a few posters here with signatures for them
I've had a quick glance at the website and it looks good. Design wise, I haven't read every policy

I don't remember hearing anything about them in the general election. Even the Christian Solidarity Party were more high profile then them
They have no councillors that I know of.

So a new party is starting this month. Are they going to end up the same? Looks like it

Edit, I'm coming across as the hurler on the ditch.
Well done to anyone who wants to put the work in but there have been plenty of tiny liberal parties before with lots of talk but cannot translate it to election success.
And maybe that's a sign of what voters want

I don't know myself what happened to Amhrán Nua.
I do know that at one referendum time, they continuously sat on the fence for week upon end and refused to even say what their position at the time was on it.
I ended up entering into a thread here on the politics section myself, looking for answer from them but got no answers, only loose, non-specific and regularly off tangent (on purpose?) side issues thrown back out instead.
As for specific details for what they stood for and foresaw in the future, there was little or none of that either.
I even tried conversing with them through their own forum but to no avail.
No answers was forth coming besides which clarified their positions - and I think not just I but many eventually saw them flounder if just from this alone.

For the record, IDP has been going for some time in the background, working away.
Unlike prior "here today - gone tomorrow" parties that have existed and faded away with speed, the IDP has slowly and methodically (and in some areas still is for clarity of some issues) defined its areas/specific policies and what it hopes will not just be vote winning sound-bites that is honestly tiresome and tells the electorate bugger all - but actual very detailed addressing of a lot of areas.

I should also mention that give the state of play with investigation and tribunals into business and people, etc, the IDP has extensively addressed the area of further openness, accountability and repercussions of wayward actions.
These areas of openness and creating greater trust with the electorate will be also forth coming very shortly and its hoped that actually for a real once, your see something really different and possibly worth your real consideration.

john reilly

one of the big things is openess and transperency, but truthfully these arent always the best options

mikemac1

First impressions count and a webpage can be judged in a fraction of a second

Website looks very good, well done to the designer

You've a link to facebook up the top
But put up a link to your twitter account up there too if you have one.

So if you put out a bit of breaking news or some interesting story or document, tweet it out and people will read it that way

That's how I get a lot of stories and what I read
Well stories from sports journalists mainly:)

And you have a home icon.
But let the logo up the top left do the same. When I click the main logo I was expecting to go back to the home page. That's a realy simple thing to sort out

Last thing, the options up the top are all fine
Except when you hit comment and then it seems to shift left
It's confusing, just keep them static and consistent

Just my first impression

Heroditas

I seem to remember a couple of the founders of Amhran Nua posting here and on Politics.ie.
Unfortunately, some of their views on certain issues were more akin to what you would expect to hear on Adrian Kennedy or Joe Duffy.
They got a right roasting from some of the posters and appear to have kept their heads down a bit more.

Biggins

john reilly wrote: »

one of the big things is openess and transperency, but truthfully these arent always the best options

Not always the best option at rare times possibly - however with extreme rare exception if matters cannot be stated publicly (such as matter pertaining to the security of the country) , openness, transparency and honesty should definite be more so the default actions (I feel, as does my fellow IDP members).
So far from my own experience, it seems that for a lot more of the time, the default action of the big three (if not more?) is to say as little as possible - if only for oft times being caught out on a lie!

mikemac1 wrote: »

First impressions count and a webpage can be judged in a fraction of a second

Website looks very good, well done to the designer

You've a link to facebook up the top
But put up a link to your twitter account up there too if you have one.

So if you put out a bit of breaking news or some interesting story or document, tweet it out and people will read it that way

That's how I get a lot of stories and what I read
Well stories from sports journalists mainly:)

And you have a home icon.
But let the logo up the top left do the same. When I click the main logo I was expecting to go back to the home page. That's a realy simple thing to sort out

Thank you for those suggestions.
I will immediately pass them onto the designer of the IDP site.
Much grateful thanks.

P.S.
The IDP Twitter presently is: https://twitter.com/#!/irishdemocrats

mikemac1

There was an extra one I added at the end about the options

I was testing and posting at the same time
When I say testing I mean messing around :cool:

Judgement Day

djpbarry wrote: »

The reason there are certain undesirables within political parties in Ireland, and indeed within the Dail, is because the electorate tolerates said undesirables. It's all very well changing party procedures and constitutions, but at the end of the day, if people are prepared to elect the likes of Michael Lowry and Mick Wallace, what are we to do?

The problem is the Irish electorate - the politicians they elect are merely a symptom of the problem.

Michael Lowry isn't fit to tie Mick Wallace's bootlaces and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. One is a former FG Minister who feathered his own nest by all sorts of interesting means and the other is hard working individual who risked a lot of his own money and lost. Mick Wallace has done a lot for people in Wexford - out of his own pocket - and hence has a great deal of support here. He topped the Poll here in the General Election with 17.5% of the First Preferences, which in itself says a lot about the disillusionment of people with the traditional parties.

A new party - No thanks. I was going to join the Greens when they went into government but when I saw the rapid way that they became indistinguishable from FF I decided not to. At 52 I say a plague on all their houses and I'm off as soon as my kids reach 18.

pablomakaveli

I was a bit cynical at first (Amhran Nua sprang to mind) but a bit more planning and thorough development actually seems to be taking place with this party which is obvious from Biggins comments and the website.

As for the question in the OP yes, yes it does and badly. I dont feel any of the current parties represent me and there doesn't seem to be much difference between them either. In fact it feels like they are more serving themselves than the people as evident with the political dynasties emerging from these parties and constant one-upmanship with their rivals.

If the IDP can avoid falling into this same trap they should do well or at least i hope so anyway.

amacachi

ILikeBananas wrote: »

My definition of fiscal conservatism would be that there would be an emphasis on balancing the budget. And not in a short-sighted way either. With both the previous and current governments the easy political options have been taken i.e. reducing current expenditure by slashing the capital expenditure budget and putting an embargo on new recruits to the public sector. These are extremely short-sighted policies and will damage the country in the long run.

For me a responsible government should, if given the choice, inject money into capital projects and services as opposed to welfare payments and public sector wages.

When you say "given a choice" do you mean an easy choice? What's included in Public sector wages? All of them? Which welfare payments should be cut?

Manach

As a fiscally conservative and social conservative, has the OP tried franchising.
That in a European context Ireland is integrated within the EU. Major decision are the ones made in Brussels, with the Dail rubberstamping them.
So similar parties which have similar policies, electoral influence, and not tainted with Irish historical associations would act as a role model/inspiration.

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

My Thoughts on your OP . .

I don't think we need a new political party . . What we need is for lots more people to engage in politics at a party level, and to begin to influence the direction of the parties we have.

A political party is only a product of its membership. If enough people joined Fianna Fail (for example:)) and decided they wanted to change the direction, the philosophy, the constitution of the party, then it would happen.

You could argue that starting from fresh might be a better way to achieve this kind of change but history will show you that the Irish electorate are not that welcoming of new political parties. .

I think engaging people to influence the direction of our current parties might be a more successful route to political reform.

What have you done to change the direction of FF ?

raymon

To answer the OP I feel new parties are needed.

There will never be a better time with the emerging SF and the pantomime of FF as the only opposition .

However people will be suspicious , and rightly so given the record of the PDs and Greens to align with FF at their most destructive.

I look forward to seeing candidates appear on future ballot papers that are not FF or SF.

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

hallelujajordan wrote: »

My Thoughts on your OP . .

I don't think we need a new political party . . What we need is for lots more people to engage in politics at a party level, and to begin to influence the direction of the parties we have.

A political party is only a product of its membership. If enough people joined Fianna Fail (for example:)) and decided they wanted to change the direction, the philosophy, the constitution of the party, then it would happen.

You could argue that starting from fresh might be a better way to achieve this kind of change but history will show you that the Irish electorate are not that welcoming of new political parties. .

I think engaging people to influence the direction of our current parties might be a more successful route to political reform.

What have you done to change the direction of FF ?

Do you have to derail every thread with this kind of off topic personal attack?

Truth is with work and travel schedule i have had much less time than i would like to engage but that doesn't impact my non-party-political belief that the only way to really bring about reform is to get involved in the process.

I have no time for internet revolutionaries who do nothing other than give out about everyone on bulletin boards !

p1akuw47h5r3it

Ye i think Ireland definitely needs a new political party. Just a question for Biggins, where does the party stand on social issues. Are you socially liberal conservative, a mix of both or what?

Liam Byrne

raymon wrote: »

To answer the OP I feel new parties are needed.

There will never be a better time with the emerging SF and the pantomime of FF as the only opposition .

However people will be suspicious , and rightly so given the record of the PDs and Greens to align with FF at their most destructive.

I look forward to seeing candidates appear on future ballot papers that are not FF or SF.

Agree 100%, but I'd add that with FG & Labour reneging on their election promises it's not just the 2 that you mentioned that should be disbanded or written off as a lost cause.

Sulmac

ILikeBananas wrote: »

My definition of fiscal conservatism would be that there would be an emphasis on balancing the budget.

Just to add to this, fiscal conservatism doesn't necessarily mean that there should be low state-spending and low taxes (although traditionally they are affiliated).

For example, Norway has high state expenditure, but has high taxes and a budget surplus at the same time (and it's not all oil money, the vast bulk of their current spending is funded by general taxation, though of course oil is responsible for a lot of employment and thus income taxes, etc.).

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Do you have to derail every thread with this kind of off topic personal attack? !

You pointed out that people could change a party from within and gave an example of FF .

I was just curious if you had specific examples.

Sorry if I struck a nerve by asking the question.

raymon

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Agree 100%, but I'd add that with FG & Labour reneging on their election promises it's not just the 2 that you mentioned that should be disbanded or written off as a lost cause.

I agree. My point is that there is no opposition at the moment that is credible

RichardAnd

john reilly wrote: »

new parties, new names, at the end of the day its all about being in power and power corrupts and NO we dont need a new party. dont forget its the taxpayer who funds them.

I've never really believed the old adage of "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". In many cases, corrupt leaders were corrupt and self centered individuals before they ever took power. Certainly, some people have gone into power with the best of intentions and ended up becoming the very thing they once despised. However, many rulers, even absolute monarchs, have demonstrated genuine care for their charges and remained upright individuals throughout their tenures.

Such leaders are not the norm but a strong willed and dedicated person can hold power and use it for the greater good.

Biggins

Apologies, I'm currently snowed under in the last hours with work - but I will return shortly to answer some above points/questions asked.

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

Mick Wallace has done a lot for people in Wexford...

Thank you for illustrating my point beautifully.

Wallace is one of the ****tards that got Ireland into it's current mess - he's being chased by ACC Bank for the princely sum of €19 million (I believe his company has bad debts totalling €42 million), which he personally guaranteed, but apparently cannot repay (and seems to think, for some bizarre reason, he shouldn't be pursued for).

He's also been found guilty of failing to pay his construction workers’ pension contributions.

But that's all grand because he's done a bit for Wexford?

Bollocks to that.

hallelujajordan

djpbarry wrote: »

Thank you for illustrating my point beautifully.

Wallace is one of the ****tards that got Ireland into it's current mess - he's being chased by ACC Bank for the princely sum of €19 million (I believe his company has bad debts totalling €42 million), which he personally guaranteed, but apparently cannot repay (and seems to think, for some bizarre reason, he shouldn't be pursued for).

He's also been found guilty of failing to pay his construction workers’ pension contributions.

But that's all grand because he's done a bit for Wexford?

Bollocks to that.

+ 1

There is something more fundamental in Ireland that impacts our selection of politicians. Earlier in the thread Biggins put the responsibility on the political parties for presenting us with a poor selection of candidates..

Biggins wrote:

I hear you but if the party still allows them to exist within a party - then they go for election?
Indeed the local people to the persons area vote for them again - but if the first stage was done right - stage two wouldn't/shouldn't(?) happen at all!

. . but look at some of the non-party candidates that we selected in the most recent election (Lowry, Healy-Rae, Wallace, Ming Flanagan).

If the Irish electorate continue to think locally rather than nationally and if we refuse to engage more closely with the political system then I'm afraid however good they are the Irish Democratic Party will have no impact on the future political landscape.

raymon

Biggins, just been to your website and I want to wish you good luck .

I really think that the new party could do well, just by not being FF, SF , FG or Labour.( especially FF and SF ), and not being left wing extremists.

Your party could easily overtake the likes of FF if it develops a good set of core values and goals.

If people have the choice to vote for the people who ruined our country or the political wing of the IRA , or the IDP then you have a good chance of mopping up the FF and SF vote as an alternative to FG / Labour

Best of luck

Lord TSC

I'm all up for a new party; I have no trust for any of them right now, and my biggest worry is a crazy extreme party will fill the gap that's going to exist as people decide to abandon the main ones.

An alternative, a genuine alternative, is really needed. Not a crazy, extreme party.

*Goes to read the website in hopes of it being good*

Chucky the tree

Ireland needs a party who can actually formulate a decent plan with solid figures to back it up. Not more populist nonsense that seems to be the way for the new Irish democratic Party.

Here's their economics plans

Creating a progressive business environment, especially for SMEs, to nurture future Irish multinationals
Improving the transparency and competitiveness of markets, reducing the cost of red tape, administration and compliance
Ensuring sensible regulation, and promoting open markets by lowering cumbersome barriers to entry
Focusing on the creation of new markets and industries and respecting the role of private enterprise and the right to consumer choice
Managing public finances responsibly and sustainably by balancing the budget and lowering the national debt
Maintaining a high level of international credibility, and striving to improve Ireland's credit rating
Reducing administrative expenditure by abolishing unnecessary "quangos", reducing reliance on consultants, offering online services and streamlining procedures
Building a healthy and well regulated banking system, capable of providing adequate finance to Irish businesses
Improving transport and communications infrastructure

No offense but it looks like it's written my some 14 year old. It actually reminds me of Dylan Haskins campaign, lots of populist stuff but no figures, research or plans on how it will or can be done. I want a new political party but I don't want a new party that will just provide us with the same BS that every other party gives us - populism by the bucket load.

pacquiao

Biggins wrote: »

I ask the question "Does Ireland need a new political party?"

As a member of the "Irish Democratic Party" I would like to hear others thoughts as to if they feel they are represented enough by the current parties - do they WANT to remain represented by the already established parties or do they feel a new direction is desirable and that some or all the already existing ones have met their shelf life and should be consigned to history for various reasons?

---

Speaking for myself, I do not feel (and have not for some time, felt) represented by the current main stream parties.
1. I feel they have lost their way.
2. They are not sticking to the supposed core principles on which their party was founded.
3. Some parties were formed for a generation and time now passed.
4. Some parties procedures officially are (to me) lacklustre to say the least in dealing with those 'rotten' within their organisation and appear to be unwilling to make the necessary party constitution changes to punish those involved within.
5. I feel the current lot are not making efforts to bring serious visibility, more clear openness, honestly and accountability to the public that they purport to be standing up for!

For the above reasons (and more) I feel its time for a clean fresh start.
So I ask the above origional question - and finish it off with one more in follow up...

Does anyone else feel the same as I?

---

By the way, The Irish Democratic Party platform document will be official released to the public on Saturday 21 January.

Have you not heard of the exponential function?

Lord TSC

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Ireland needs a party who can actually formulate a decent plan with solid figures to back it up. Not more populist nonsense that seems to be the way for the new Irish democratic Party.

No offense but it looks like it's written my some 14 year old. It actually reminds me of Dylan Haskins campaign, lots of populist stuff but no figures, research or plans on how it will or can be done. I want a new political party but I don't want a new party that will just provide us with the same BS that every other party gives us - populism by the bucket load.

I hate to say it but I see Chucky's points.

Alot of the party's aims are admirable and I'd love to see them implemented. But where would the money be coming from to bring in all these plans and initatives?

Alot of the stuff there sounds great but I just don't know if any party could bring in such ideas even if they wanted to.

That said, maybe starting out, populist comments is what will draw people in?