A right wing party

The Corinthian

COYW wrote: »

Your lecturer told you that FF were right wing? He was wrong, and you can take the bucket loads of money they pumped into health, tax cuts they gave to every man and his dog and the obscene welfare increases, including the brilliant xmas bonus, among countless other things, as proof that he or she is wrong. No right wing party would have done any of that.

While the other policies you describe could be described as 'left' wing, tax cuts tend to be a neo-liberal or 'right' wing policy. Which of course adds further confusion because it cites liberalism as being 'right' wing.

There term right wing is grossly misused and misunderstood in this country. I get the feeling that many see it as another term to describe a party that is unpopular.

Pretty much.

View

COYW wrote: »

you can take the bucket loads of money they pumped into health, tax cuts they gave to every man and his dog and the obscene welfare increases, including the brilliant xmas bonus, among countless other things, as proof that he or she is wrong. No right wing party would have done any of that.

Right wing parties routinely follow policies such as the above (or equally stupid comparable ones). They are just as prone as left wing ones in engaging in short term populist polices which have a nasty habit of blowing up in the electorates' faces a few years later.

Bad economic governance is just that - neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on it.

murphaph

We need to distinguish between "right wing" (a la the BNP) and "conservative". A conservative government wouldn't generally oversee large increases in welfare etc. "Conservative" can be further dissected into fiscal/social conservatism. To me it's a shame the PDs sold their souls to the devil and went in with FF. They were originally a fiscally conservative but socially liberal party. They should have stuck to their founding principles and let nature take its course.

Billy86

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

This country could do with a good dose of Thatcherism right now.

Weakening the position of the trade unions is the first and most important step we need to take. Wouldn't take long, I'd have them bankrupt in six months. Once they're gone we can start reducing the pay of the utility companies and PS properly.

Yeah, because Thatcherism just did absolute wonders for the economies of Britain's former mining towns and the country in general...

No economy could ever use 'a good dose of Thatcherism'. Ever. It's a proven failure of epic and deadly proportions.

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Nothing to do with desperation btw....

I spent nearly 10 years trying to work with trade unions in the UK - the print unions. I've walked past the picket lines in Wapping, scum of the earth every one of them. You couldn't negotiate with them you just had to by-pass them and get to where you want to go without them.

Remember at all times, trade unions are parasites - they feed on their host until it's dead. Then they move on to their next host.

If anyone can tell me different I'll be impressed!

While I do agree that trade unions can be unreasonable and counter productive, unfortunately the exact same can be said of employers. If this were not the case, there would be no need for trade unions.

digzy wrote: »

Lowry is another example. We all know what he is. I was chatting to a guy who'd be Fianna Fáil yet was full of praise for Lowry in getting funding for the improvements made to the local GAA pitch:rolleyes: it's ironic that people vote in guys like Lowry and Wallace yet bemoan 'the state' of the country

And here is exactly the issue that needs to be tackled. It's not so much an issue of left vs right or ideology as it is sheer competence. We have far, far too many politicians who simply do not have the slightest clue about what they are supposed to be doing, despite having fixed all those holes in the road. They could be Nazis, they could be Stalinists, they could be anything in between... but they will still fail for the same reason: incompetence and lack of qualifications.

green_bow wrote: »

that's a laugh , quoting your college lecturer

the vast majority of university academics in this country are to the left of joe Higgins

So... what you are saying is, the more educated someone is, the more they tend to lean to the left? Which would also imply that the less educated is, the more likely they are to lean to the right? Interesting.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote: »

While the other policies you describe could be described as 'left' wing, tax cuts tend to be a neo-liberal or 'right' wing policy. Which of course adds further confusion because it cites liberalism as being 'right' wing.

If tax cuts are right wing, but public spending increases left wing, was Bertie the perfect centrist?

nesf

COYW wrote: »

Erm, a tiny part of a FF government which blindly pumped into our economic black holes, health etc. Not my idea of right wing.

This is actually where my faith in people falls down. There are two things to remember here, no minor coalition partner ever gets their way on the vast majority of issues, so no FF/PD Government is going to be right wing economically similar to how no FG/Lab Government will be left wing in general. It's impossible. However, no party on the Opposition benches has ever managed to get one of their policies enacted (unless stolen because it was popular).

So, if you're a small party but you want to enact change in the State (which one assumes is why you stood for office) then what exactly are you supposed to do?

Icepick

We need a party capable of economic and social reforms, so definitely not conservatives.

The Corinthian

Billy86 wrote: »

No economy could ever use 'a good dose of Thatcherism'. Ever. It's a proven failure of epic and deadly proportions.

It's not actually, at least not in any serious or objective academic circles. Before you criticize Thatcherism, you should consider the British economy prior to her coming to power in 1979; a complete basket-case, at the mercies of the whims of the trade unions, commonly seen as the 'sick man of Europe' and finally capped off by the infamous Winter of Discontent in 1978/9.

Like it or not, by 1985, the UK economy was transformed for the better. This is not to say that Thatcherism did not also result in social upheaval and cost also, but if you're old enough to remember what preceded it, any medicine to what preceded Thatcherism was bound to have a cost.

To call it a "proven failure of epic and deadly proportions" is to ignore not only that, but also that it has endured long after Thatcher and even the conservatives left office. That Labour did not reverse it, would point to it not being such a failure - and in reality, the only people who tend to consider it so are those who are on the far left of the political spectrum, so I'd hardly consider their opinion as reliable.

nesf wrote: »

If tax cuts are right wing, but public spending increases left wing, was Bertie the perfect centrist?

That's kind of my point. Left and right are not so clear cut, so many of the kids here (and I used the term 'kids' on purpose) spouting on about a party or politician being left or right wing, are basing their opinion on a wishful need to ascribe labels. I noticed this in college many years ago; this desperate need to belong to one ideology or another, to be able to ascribe a label to oneself and others - even if such labels no longer really work or fit.

This is especially true of Ireland, where our historical past has meant that left and right wing have been very blurred, and we never really fit the more international model of left and right.

Icepick wrote: »

We need a party capable of economic and social reforms, so definitely not conservatives.

Thatcher was conservative and capable of economic and social reforms. So is what you really mean is capable of economic and social reforms you prefer?

nesf

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's kind of my point. Left and right are not so clear cut, so many of the kids here (and I used the term 'kids' on purpose) spouting on about a party or politician being left or right wing, are basing their opinion on a wishful need to ascribe labels. I noticed this in college many years ago; this desperate need to belong to one ideology or another, to be able to ascribe a label to oneself and others - even if such labels no longer really work or fit.

Indeed, I was mostly trying to mock calling the Bertie Governments consistently anything other than either populist, or more correctly/pedantically, clientelist. As you pointed out earlier, it was rather hard during the boom to be in a group that wasn't getting some kind of hand-out from him, even if you didn't actually realise where it was coming from.

View

nesf wrote: »

So, if you're a small party but you want to enact change in the State (which one assumes is why you stood for office) then what exactly are you supposed to do?

Well, you ultimately have two choices:
1) You can remain "pure" and sanctimonious - on the Opposition benches - and get none of your policies implemented (a position that will earn you high praise on the Internet but usually not at the ballot box), or,
2) You cross the floor and go into government where you'll discover half your polices are unimplementable in reality and, of the other half, you'll be reduced to picking a half dozen and - with a clossal effort - struggle to get them implemented. Problem with that is, as the Greens discovered, you get little credit from most of the electorate for achieving something but will pick up huge blame for the more unpopular policies of your coalition parties. True, you'll have achieved more than most people in getting some policies implemented but that won't cut it with voters outraged that you didn't implement all your policies - with no compromises - within a month of assuming office.

nesf

View wrote: »

Well, you ultimately have two choices:
1) You can remain "pure" and sanctimonious - on the Opposition benches - and get none of your policies implemented (a position that will earn you high praise on the Internet but usually not at the ballot box), or,
2) You cross the floor and go into government where you'll discover half your polices are unimplementable in reality and, of the other half, you'll be reduced to picking a half dozen and - with a clossal effort - struggle to get them implemented. Problem with that is, as the Greens discovered, you get little credit from most of the electorate for achieving something but will pick up huge blame for the more unpopular policies of your coalition parties. True, you'll have achieved more than most people in getting some policies implemented but that won't cut it with voters outraged that you didn't implement all your policies - with no compromises - within a month of assuming office.

Yeah, what bothers me is that year after year, despite many a Labour coalition, people are still shocked and surprised by #2.

View

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, what bothers me is that year after year, despite many a Labour coalition, people are still shocked and surprised by #2.

I honestly suspect it is because people don't understand the origins of Labour which was set up as a trade unionist (organised Labour) party not some sort of Communism lLite party. They are not there to be radical revolutionaries and it seems to be MASSIVE wishful thinking by some people to assume they are.

nesf

View wrote: »

I honestly suspect it is because people don't understand the origins of Labour which was set up as a trade unionist (organised Labour) party not some sort of Communism lLite party. They are not there to be radical revolutionaries and it seems to be MASSIVE wishful thinking by some people to assume they are.

Oh, its leadership is from a trade unionist background is it? :P

View

nesf wrote: »

Oh, its leadership is from a trade unionist background is it? :P

No that is not what I said.

Rather I said the party was set up (100+ years ago) to advance the interests of organised Labour - its initial title was the Irish Trade Union Congress (&?) Labour Party which got shortened for obvious reasons.

nesf

View wrote: »

No that is not what I said.

Rather I said the party was set up (100+ years ago) to advance the interests of organised Labour - its initial title was the Irish Trade Union Congress (&?) Labour Party which got shortened for obvious reasons.

Did I disagree? No, I'm merely pointing out what the party was founded on and what the current leadership are like are not necessarily the same thing. This isn't a dig, the same can be said about pretty much every party older than 20 or 30 years that has had to go into power and make compromised on their ideology.