Is Ireland right-wing or left-wing?

Qualitymark

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes because it will encourage people to move to wealthy areas.

Oh, really? I'd love to move to Sandycove - can you tell me how I can do this? I'm not awfully rich, unfortunately.

philologos

dfx- wrote: »

Socially religious and conservative, right wing for me..

Socially conservative != right wing
Socially liberal != left

Left and right refer to economics only.

folan

Qualitymark wrote: »

If locals are responsible for their local area, wouldn't that mean high local taxes? Or would it mean that wealthy areas get better services? Is this a good thing, really?

it would. and it would also ensure that local areas are able to use available funds to them for the services which are most vital to them. it rewards people who invest in their local area. it rewards people who get involved in their local are.

9959

Fine Gael. Right-Wing. Always were, always will be.

Fianna Fail. Right-Wing. Always were, always will be, don't believe all that guff about the party of the peasants.

Labour. Centrist. With a few left-wing, back-benchers.

Sinn Fein. Perceived as being Left-wing, but their 'raison d'être' is a united Ireland by fair means or foul, any which way, right-wing, left-wing, military-wing.
A heady mix of populist sloganeering, left-wing rhetoric and Brits-Out atavism.
Not socialism, but Right-Wing, 'NATIONAL SOCIALISM'.

golden lane

people who have to give are right wing....

people who want are left wing....

gbee

I posted right wing by accident. Dyslectic I guess.

We have a right wing socialist policy but jackbooted by left wing policy makers.

[edit] Reading other replies I don't know the difference anymore.

Qualitymark

folan wrote: »

it would. and it would also ensure that local areas are able to use available funds to them for the services which are most vital to them. it rewards people who invest in their local area. it rewards people who get involved in their local are.

This sounds great, *if* there's a mixture of rich and poor in any area. But while, for instance, many Ballymun people do enormous amounts of work for their area, cutting this area off from central funding and expecting it to fund itself, when it has a high level of unemployment and underpaid work, seems to doom the area to a downward spiral of deprivation.

On the other hand, Foxrock, where most of the inhabitants have been able to move there and buy expensive houses or pay expensive rents because they're highly paid - and then their children reap the advantage of living in a section where they are surrounded by educated people, and of going to schools where the best teachers are hired...

Well, you see the possible disadvantages of turning local areas into little Alamos? It sounds to me like the grain of a good idea - I love the thought of local involvement being rewarded, and of there being more local control - but economies of scale that work so well in big capitalist companies also work pretty well in the sharing of funding.

There's the problem of wastage through inefficiency and stupidity and overblown bureaucracy - but solving that is a separate question.

Shenshen

philologos wrote: »

Socially conservative != right wing
Socially liberal != left

Left and right refer to economics only.

Common usage of the phrase appears to contradict you there :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Left or right wing describes positions on the economy, society, the environment, and nationalism.

philologos

Shenshen wrote: »

Common usage of the phrase appears to contradict you there :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Left or right wing describes positions on the economy, society, the environment, and nationalism.

One can be right wing and liberal, and left wing and conservative. On the political spectrum there are two axes, not one.

Shenshen

philologos wrote: »

One can be right wing and liberal, and left wing and conservative. On the political spectrum there are two axes, not one.

Four, actually.
You can be economically left or right.
You can be socially left or right.
You can be national/patriotic left or right.
And you can be left or right on matters of the environment.

To take an extreme example, Hitler was economically left, socially right and nationalistic right. Not entirely sure about his views on the environment, but given his love of nature etc, I'd suspect left.

folan

Qualitymark wrote: »

This sounds great, *if* there's a mixture of rich and poor in any area. But while, for instance, many Ballymun people do enormous amounts of work for their area, cutting this area off from central funding and expecting it to fund itself, when it has a high level of unemployment and underpaid work, seems to doom the area to a downward spiral of deprivation.

On the other hand, Foxrock, where most of the inhabitants have been able to move there and buy expensive houses or pay expensive rents because they're highly paid - and then their children reap the advantage of living in a section where they are surrounded by educated people, and of going to schools where the best teachers are hired...

Well, you see the possible disadvantages of turning local areas into little Alamos? It sounds to me like the grain of a good idea - I love the thought of local involvement being rewarded, and of there being more local control - but economies of scale that work so well in big capitalist companies also work pretty well in the sharing of funding.

There's the problem of wastage through inefficiency and stupidity and overblown bureaucracy - but solving that is a separate question.

this happens now. the better schools are already in richer areas. thats not going to change, and Foxrock tax has been used for Ballymun schools for years. put the onus on Ballymun to solve their problems. Give them help, definatly, but Im not going to pretend i can solve it. Ive driven through ballymun, why should I be left to fix their problems when no one knows them better than them. let them decide where to use their allocation. let them figure out how to decrease their unemployment rate? they will know what the underlying problem is in the area. too many people trained in an under performing industry? use the funds for further training or skills conversion. local people know what their local issues are.

hooradiation

mikemac1 wrote: »

I hope Degsy joins this thread

Actually, where has he gone, not seen him around in a long while

The script that generated his terrible posts finally crapped out.

Qualitymark

folan wrote: »

let them decide where to use their allocation. let them figure out how to decrease their unemployment rate? they will know what the underlying problem is in the area. too many people trained in an under performing industry? use the funds for further training or skills conversion. local people know what their local issues are.

Folan, this is all good. However, you've failed to take one thing into account: Ireland's shyness about social divisions. I worked for a little while in an area including the East Point Business Park. Local university graduates were too shy to seek work there - "that's not for the likes of us". We need mixed areas more than we need divided areas (in my opinion).

folan

Qualitymark wrote: »

Folan, this is all good. However, you've failed to take one thing into account: Ireland's shyness about social divisions. I worked for a little while in an area including the East Point Business Park. Local university graduates were too shy to seek work there - "that's not for the likes of us". We need mixed areas more than we need divided areas (in my opinion).

first time being shy has been used as an excuse.

I don't accept it as a valid one though.

as I said before, it exists this way now, and it shouldn't be allowed to continue.

Qualitymark

folan wrote: »

first time being shy has been used as an excuse.

I don't accept it as a valid one though.

as I said before, it exists this way now, and it shouldn't be allowed to continue.

Absolutely agree. Social borders should be crossed - people should give each other a hand from either side. Tragic thing is, Ireland was going that way: poor people were getting an education, the networks of skill & work were growing wider and deeper. Now they're narrowing again, and daddy's friends from the sailing club are getting Johnny a job, while much-brighter Jimmy gets a job raking leaves outside, if he's lucky.

Snickers Man

Are we Flufflebums or Mugglewumps?

You might as well pose the question in those terms because, like left- and right-wing they mean whatever the questioner chooses them to mean.

Left and right wing are, at this stage, just terms of abuse that people with entrenched attitudes like to throw at each other.

What does right-wing mean?

At the risk of somebody calling "Godwin's Law" let me just ask two related questions:

1) Was Adolf Hitler right wing?
2) Is Mitt Romney right wing?


If you answered yes to both of those, as I suspect many people would, then answer this: what have either of those two gentlemen got in common?

Romney is an avowed capitalist; Hitler despised capitalism and wanted to expunge it from the earth.

Romney believes in individual freedom and responsbility; Hitler demanded loyalty and duty to the state as represented by his party and his Fuhrerprinzip as the first duty of the citizen.

Romney opposes welfare spending and believes it is an individual's duty to provide for their own health care; Hitler maintained and strengthened an already considerable welfare state, providing generous incentives for families to have more children, excellent state-funded education and health programmes and sumptuous paid holidays for workers as part of his "Strength through Joy" initiative.

Hitler was a genocidal antisemite; Romney is a passionate and determined supporter of Israel.

Romney believes in freedom; Hitler was a socialist. The clue is in the name of his party the German National SOCIALIST WORKER'S party.

So if right wing means anything, where do those two men overlap?

I think you're all a bunch of Flufflebums.

Shenshen

Snickers Man wrote: »

Are we Flufflebums or Mugglewumps?

You might as well pose the question in those terms because, like left- and right-wing they mean whatever the questioner chooses them to mean.

Left and right wing are, at this stage, just terms of abuse that people with entrenched attitudes like to throw at each other.

What does right-wing mean?

At the risk of somebody calling "Godwin's Law" let me just ask two related questions:

1) Was Adolf Hitler right wing?
2) Is Mitt Romney right wing?


If you answered yes to both of those, as I suspect many people would, then answer this: what have either of those two gentlemen got in common?

Romney is an avowed capitalist; Hitler despised capitalism and wanted to expunge it from the earth.

Romney believes in individual freedom and responsbility; Hitler demanded loyalty and duty to the state as represented by his party and his Fuhrerprinzip as the first duty of the citizen.

Romney opposes welfare spending and believes it is an individual's duty to provide for their own health care; Hitler maintained and strengthened an already considerable welfare state, providing generous incentives for families to have more children, excellent state-funded education and health programmes and sumptuous paid holidays for workers as part of his "Strength through Joy" initiative.

Hitler was a genocidal antisemite; Romney is a passionate and determined supporter of Israel.

Romney believes in freedom; Hitler was a socialist. The clue is in the name of his party the German National SOCIALIST WORKER'S party.

So if right wing means anything, where do those two men overlap?

I think you're all a bunch of Flufflebums.

So you figured out that while Hitler is generally labelled right wing, his views on the economy were actually left. Well done.

And Romney's views don't allign to that, since he is right wing no matter which sector you look at : economy, society, nationalism, the lot.

Qualitymark

Snickers Man wrote: »

I think you're all a bunch of Flufflebums.

Outed! Yes, I'm a paid-up member of the Flufflebums; march me away to the camps straightaway.

I'd agree with Shenshen that Hitler was economically left, socially right and nationalistic right.

His radically reformist solution to the social welfare problem (murdering people) suggests that he trended to the right, though.

folan

Snickers Man wrote: »

At the risk of somebody calling "Godwin's Law"

Shenshen wrote: »

To take an extreme example, Hitler was economically left, socially right and nationalistic right. Not entirely sure about his views on the environment, but given his love of nature etc, I'd suspect left.

sorry, but you were well beaten to it by Shenshen.

Seaneh

9959 wrote: »

Not socialism, but Right-Wing, 'NATIONAL SOCIALISM'.

That didn't take long...

dingdingdingding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shenshen

folan wrote: »

sorry, but you were well beaten to it by Shenshen.

Is it still a Godwin if no-one calls it, though?






I'll go sit in a forest wating for a tree to fall over, now. Or try and calp just one hand.

BOHtox

We have a marginal tax rate of over 50%, we own our banks, we borrow mass amounts of money, this money goes to very high welfare payments, we don't encourage competition and when a company fails we bail them out. We have a huge government, large public sector and any competition in areas such as transport, health and education is discouraged. FG are moving it slightly to the right but there's no doubt we're left wing!

Seaneh

folan wrote: »

sorry, but you were well beaten to it by Shenshen.

Who was in turn beaten to it by the poster I quoted above.

folan

Shenshen wrote: »

I'll go sit in a forest wating for a tree to fall over, now. Or try and calp just one hand.

if theres noone there to observe the tree falling, how could it have fallen at all?

Remmy

The west wing. Now that was a great show.

folan

Seaneh wrote: »

Who was in turn beaten to it by the poster I quoted above.

will keep a better eye on it in future!

Shenshen

folan wrote: »

if theres noone there to observe the tree falling, how could it have fallen at all?

I think the question in this thread needs to be did it fall to the left or to the right?

Qualitymark

Not trying to thread-creep - I don't want this to become another dull debate on the rights and wrongs of social welfare - but the reasons we have a huge social welfare bill in Ireland at the moment are because a lot of jobs have ceased to exist; a lot of self-employed people no longer have work because there aren't job-employed people with money to buy their services; and mass emigration of the young means that the ratio of dependent old to working young has tipped out of balance.

But please, please, let's keep to the point of whether ireland and Irish people *are* right- or left-wing generally, rather than how they *should* be.

Shenshen

BOHtox wrote: »

We have a marginal tax rate of over 50%, we own our banks, we borrow mass amounts of money, this money goes to very high welfare payments, we don't encourage competition and when a company fails we bail them out. We have a huge government, large public sector and any competition in areas such as transport, health and education is discouraged. FG are moving it slightly to the right but there's no doubt we're left wing!

By comparison, our corporation tax is one of the lowest in Europe, while our welfare entitlements are less than half that of some EU countries (European average welfare spending is 27%, Ireland spent just over 18% in 2009, which has been cut substantially since then), the education is mostly in the hands of the church or other organisations on which the governments seems to have little enough influence.
Civil rights lag behind the rest of Europe, and environmentalism is in its infancy here at best.

No doubt we're right wing.

Snickers Man

Shenshen wrote: »

So you figured out that while Hitler is generally labelled right wing, his views on the economy were actually left. Well done.

.

No. I worked out a long time ago that the two terms, which date back to the seating arrangements in a revolutionary council more than 200 years ago, don't mean anything any more and survive only as terms of abuse.

Catch up, you Mugglewump.