Reform Alliance - The New PDs

harryr711

It looks increasingly likely that the Reform Alliance will become a new political party in a similar mould to the PDs, drawing on members of FG and FF, but conservative rather than liberal.

The big question is will they garner much support. Drawing of members of FG and FF, and independents of similar persuasion, they're hardly a shift away from the status quo. Their conservative views are unlikely to appeal to younger and more liberal voters. Conservative voters may prefer to stay with established parties, rather than a party consisting of politicians who have thrown their toys out of the pram instead of attempting to reform from within.

There is also the question of their political stability, given they were formed after breaking the FG party whip on what was, let's be honest, not the greatest political issue of our time. Would they fragment if they have a party whip? Would anything get done if they don't have a party whip?

hmmm

The PDs were economically conservative and relatively socially liberal* and in many ways ahead of their time (which is now), the "Reform Alliance" will be nothing more than a reactionary Catholic party if it does form. Tea Party leader tries to become Tea-seach is the headlines I predict.

We could still do with the PDs.

* with a strong law & order bent, but whatever you do in your own bedroom is your business.

bcmf

There is a huge void in Ireland for a new political party BUT the Reform Alliance is not the "party" to fill that void.

Plus given the huge restrictions ,mainly financial, imposed by the existing parties that a potential new party faces it is more likely that they will become a Dail 'society' rather then a new party unless they are prepared to dig deep into their own pockets.

COYW

bcmf wrote: »

There is a huge void in Ireland for a new political party BUT the Reform Alliance is not the "party" to fill that void.

Yes, we need a new party based on 'truth' politics here but people are not ready for that brand of politics, despite the protestations over the current political system. People will still vote for the TD who sorts out their medical card, helps them with planning permission or their housing application and the like. If TDs stopped helping people out with the above and just concentrated on legislation for the country as a whole, as they should, they wouldn't hold onto their seat for very long.

I think this party will take a chunk of the support and I will certainly watch them with interest. Despite the fact that I did not agree with Lucinda Creighton's stance on abortion, I really admire the fact that she held strong on her pre-election view on abortion. We need more of this kind of attitude in politics in this country. Far too many politicians promise one thing and do the opposite when they get into power.

People will vote for anyone who is not part of the established parties. Look at the rise in support for Independent TDs and SF over the past few years. Neither of these groups ooze talent, with the exception of a few of the Independents but people are voting for them because they are not part of the established parties.

There is the major issue of funding for this party. Starting a new party in this country is very difficult and expensive.

Manach

If more level heads in FG prevail this alliance can be re-integrated into their fold as a counterbalance to the denormalising euro-secularists. Creighton from what I've seen has the capacity to face up to hostile questioning about economic matters from the public, instead of indulging in staged events and insisting on removing non-positive crowd interactions as per Kenny.

bcmf

COYW wrote: »

Yes, we need a new party based on 'truth' politics here but people are not ready for that brand of politics, despite the protestations over the current political system. People will still vote for the TD who sorts out their medical card, helps them with planning permission or their housing application and the like. If TDs stopped helping people out with the above and just concentrated on legislation for the country as a whole, as they should, they wouldn't hold onto their seat for very long.

Indeed. I think the next GE will be very interetsting with the possibilty of a rainbow coalition,despite the utterances if FG and FF never cohabiting, with Labour going the way of the Greens unless they can manage a major rabbit out of the hat trick. I believe they have burned too many bridges.
Creighton Matthews et al are only a slighly different shade of FG and really offer only a very minor skewed version FG.
Where they will fit in IF THEY MANAGE TO FUND a new party I really dont know.

johnnyskeleton

hmmm wrote: »

The PDs were economically conservative and relatively socially liberal* and in many ways ahead of their time (which is now), the "Reform Alliance" will be nothing more than a reactionary Catholic party if it does form. Tea Party leader tries to become Tea-seach is the headlines I predict.

We could still do with the PDs.

* with a strong law & order bent, but whatever you do in your own bedroom is your business.

I hate this revisionism of the PDs. They were just as populist and spendthrift as FF and did nothing to curb spending. Mary Harney, for example, was responsible for the massive increase in spending on the HSE while McDowells big economic baby was reducing stamp duty in a vain attempt to prop up the ailing property boom. The only thing that separated them from FF is that they were mad to privatise state bodies. They were happy to take credit for any economically sound policy even if they didn't introduce it eg low corporation tax, while distancing themselves from the mess ups like eircom privatisation.

As for their socially liberal policies, their big claim to be socially liberal in areas such as contraception and divorce. However, it was the Supreme Court and Later a FF government who brought about legalised contraception, and the rainbow coalition brought in divorce.

Of course, they make the illusory argument that other parties adopted these policies because of the PDs being in opposition, but in reality a political party should be judged by what it does, not by what it allegedly makes others do.

In reality, des o malley was just as corrupt as the rest of FF when he broke away, and he realised that he could do better pork barrel politics in his new party. Thus any policy that sounds popular is claimed as PD and everything else is old politics. Success has a thousand fathers but failure is an orphan should be the PDs motto.

So let's not pretend that the idealised image of the PDs was anywhere close to reality. Sure, it would be great to have had a party that actually stood for all those things, but I'm still waiting and to be honest the reform alliance sounds more like the real PDs than the idealised PDs.

Palmach

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I but I'm still waiting and to be honest the reform alliance sounds more like the real PDs than the idealised PDs.

If they are like the real PDs they'd get my vote and my support.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In reality, des o malley was just as corrupt as the rest of FF .

That is one hell of a claim, anything to back it up with.
I would be no fan of O'Malley but that doesn't mean I would be happy to see him defamed.

Nodin

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

That is one hell of a claim, anything to back it up with.
I would be no fan of O'Malley but that doesn't mean I would be happy to see him defamed.

Indeed. I've never heard that O'Malley was corrupt, and I'm not exactly in his corner.

Podgerz

I would like to think of them of the Tea Party of FG rather than the PD's. They dont have any real economic difference/ problem with the FG party; in a similar fashion that the tea Party is split on moral issues from the Republican Party in the US but still very much influential on Republican issues

murphaph

hmmm wrote: »

The PDs were economically conservative and relatively socially liberal* and in many ways ahead of their time (which is now), the "Reform Alliance" will be nothing more than a reactionary Catholic party if it does form. Tea Party leader tries to become Tea-seach is the headlines I predict.

We could still do with the PDs.

* with a strong law & order bent, but whatever you do in your own bedroom is your business.

Agreed. Sadly the PD's sealed their own fate by getting into bed with FF and not getting out when Bertie began his giveaway budgets. I would vote for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party and the PDs were that (once), but they didn't stick to their principles. If they had walked out on FF back then they might have been able to make a triumphant return as the saviours of Ireland, but they don't even exist any more to be able to do it.

It's a real shame for me that there's no such party out there. I can't believe that there aren't at least a sizable minority of people who can't see that we need to start balancing the budget but at the same time allowing people the freedoms they are entitled to.

Surely Ireland has changed enough that a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party that stuck to those principles could garner decent support, even outside South Dublin!

johnnyskeleton

Nodin wrote: »

Indeed. I've never heard that O'Malley was corrupt, and I'm not exactly in his corner.

Not corrupt in the taking bribes sense, but corrupt in the sense of not really believing in his stated ideals and focussing on pork barrel politics.

johnnyskeleton

murphaph wrote: »

Agreed. Sadly the PD's sealed their own fate by getting into bed with FF and not getting out when Bertie began his giveaway budgets.

Jesus, you'd think that they hadn't been in government with FF before, or that they magically dropped out of the sky instead of being a breakaway FF lite.

I would vote for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party and the PDs were that (once), but they didn't stick to their principles.

Can you give me a few examples of this type of policy that they actually implemented. Sure they talked a good game, but what did they actually do?

Surely Ireland has changed enough that a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party that stuck to those principles could garner decent support, even outside South Dublin!

The Irish electorate only understands pork barrel politics, unfortunately. I suppose I can't really blame the PDs when that is what the people wanted.

murphaph

I'm not a PD fanboy. I just wish there was a party that did what the claimed to do.

johnnyskeleton

murphaph wrote: »

I'm not a PD fanboy. I just wish there was a party that did what the claimed to do.

As do I. Which is why I despise the historical revision of the PDs

Nodin

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not corrupt in the taking bribes sense, but corrupt in the sense of not really believing in his stated ideals and focussing on pork barrel politics.

Tbh, you're using a loaded word. 'Typical Parish Pump' etc etc would be sufficient.

johnnyskeleton

Nodin wrote: »

Tbh, you're using a loaded word. 'Typical Parish Pump' etc etc would be sufficient.

Fine. Don't selectively quote me and you'll see I was referring to pork barrel politics.

Manach

[QUOTE=johnnyskeleton;87000437 pork barrel politics.[/QUOTE]
From the political science books as an FYI, in the Irish context it is now as 'Clientelism'

ardmacha

The country does not need half baked ideology or liberalism just to appear trendy, it above all needs a responsible party that has enough respect for the voter not to lie to them and some interest in the future of the country.

johnnyskeleton

Manach wrote: »

From the political science books as an FYI, in the Irish context it is now as 'Clientelism'

I would consider them slightly different things. Pork barrel politics is keeping the local hospital open ie disproportionate public spending for the benefit of ones constituents. Clientelism is the system whereby if you need a passport hurried up or your girlfriend not deported your local td sends a letter / fixed it on your behalf, ie favours for individuals one at a time.

Nodin

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Fine. Don't selectively quote me and you'll see I was referring to pork barrel politics.

I didn't selectively quote you. The use of such a loaded word distorted whatever it was you were trying to say.

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not corrupt in the taking bribes sense, but corrupt in the sense of not really believing in his stated ideals and focussing on pork barrel politics.

I think you mean: "Not corrupt and I used the word in a way completely at odds with what it normally means in a political debate." If you think looking after the constituency is corrupt or are mentally bundling it into the same category as TDs taking bribes then I worry for you, really.

johnnyskeleton

nesf wrote: »

I think you mean: "Not corrupt and I used the word in a way completely at odds with what it normally means in a political debate." If you think looking after the constituency is corrupt or are mentally bundling it into the same category as TDs taking bribes then I worry for you, really.

Corrupt as in dishonest or lacking integrity or changing ones started political ideals for short term political gain. The PDs always claimed that they were different and more honest but in reality they were not. Hence the use of the word and if you look at it in context you'd realise that. I note no one has addressed the substance of what I have said, just focused on one word that I used.

I don't think looking after a constituency is corrupt if that's what you say you are going to do aka Jackie Healy Rae, disagreeable though he was, but it is corrupt in my view to sell yourself as an honest politician who is going to make changes for the good of the country then spend most of your time looking after the parish.

Nowhere did I mention bribery until people objected to my use of the word corrupt.

jank

cor·rupt
/kəˈrəpt/
Adjective
Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
Verb
Cause to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

Maybe you should have used better English than so that people would not have misinterpreted what you meant.

spank_inferno

As a former PD member there is nothing pd-ish about thr RA.

they are more opus-dei than progressive democrat.

The PDs were and are to this day Irelands only liberal party.

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Corrupt as in dishonest or lacking integrity or changing ones started political ideals for short term political gain. The PDs always claimed that they were different and more honest but in reality they were not. Hence the use of the word and if you look at it in context you'd realise that. I note no one has addressed the substance of what I have said, just focused on one word that I used.

I don't think looking after a constituency is corrupt if that's what you say you are going to do aka Jackie Healy Rae, disagreeable though he was, but it is corrupt in my view to sell yourself as an honest politician who is going to make changes for the good of the country then spend most of your time looking after the parish.

Nowhere did I mention bribery until people objected to my use of the word corrupt.

Corrupt has a very specific meaning in politics. If you say X is corrupt everyone will automatically read that as "X is on the take." People misuse the word all the time for effect. That doesn't mean it's changed meaning.

BlutendeRabe

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-drennan/alliance-identifies-key-candidates-to-join-a-newstyle-political-party-29655524.html

They don't seem to have any credible electoral base for survival - I'm talking about councillors and party supporters here.
Attracting high profile supporters and candidates rarely tends to work (George Lee and Peter Mathews anyone?).
Also as mentioned before, their ideology is entirely unattractive. They're more like the Tories than the PDs. For all their faults (and believe me they were many) the PDs were pretty socially liberal.

COYW

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

For all their faults (and believe me they were many) the PDs were pretty socially liberal.

You do realize that a section of the voting Irish public, like any modern society, is conservative in nature? No party in this country caters for that vote. The Dail is flooded with TDs who are socially liberal.

If we want change and diversity in politics in this country, then a party which is socially conservative provides us with that.

BlutendeRabe

COYW wrote: »

You do realize that a section of the voting Irish public, like any modern society, is conservative in nature? No party in this country caters for that vote. The Dail is flooded with TDs who are socially liberal.

If we want change and diversity in politics in this country, then a party which is socially conservative provides us with that.

Explicitly socially conservative parties havn't performed well in the polls. Just look at the Christian Solidarity Party if you believe me. How about the Catholic Democrats or Muintir na hEireann.
People who would hold social conservative views votes either FG or FF. Besides its a fairly small section overall at this stage.

COYW

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

People who would hold social conservative views votes either FG or FF. Besides its a fairly small section overall at this stage.

Well they won't from now on. FF introduced divorce, FG legislated for abortion. No true social conservative would vote for either of them on those grounds alone. FF and FG are as socially liberally as Labour, SF and the rest. The likes of the CSP haven't got the political experience or know-how to perform on the national stage. This group of TDs, potential new party, are wise to the ways of the political world.

Nodin

COYW wrote: »

Well they won't from now on. FF introduced divorce, FG legislated for abortion. No true social conservative would vote for either of them on those grounds alone. FF and FG are as socially liberally as Labour, SF and the rest. The likes of the CSP haven't got the political experience or know-how to perform on the national stage. This group of TDs, potential new party, are wise to the ways of the political world.

.....it was FG for divorce.

Nodin

COYW wrote: »

If we want change and diversity in politics in this country, then a party which is socially conservative provides us with that.

I think they'd provide reversal more so.

COYW

Nodin wrote: »

I think they'd provide reversal more so.

Like it or not, that wouldn't be a bad thing in the eyes of a section of the population, the older generation in particular.

Jeez, I always remember divorce as something FF introduced under their watch. Good oul John Bruton it was, you are correct. I recall Garret Fitz's initial referendum in 1986. FF have blurred my view of the 90s.

johnnyskeleton

nesf wrote: »

Corrupt has a very specific meaning in politics. If you say X is corrupt everyone will automatically read that as "X is on the take." People misuse the word all the time for effect. That doesn't mean it's changed meaning.

So, nothing on the substance of what I was saying, just a debate on semantics?

Nodin

COYW wrote: »

Like it or not, that wouldn't be a bad thing in the eyes of a section of the population, the older generation in particular.

Jeez, I always remember divorce as something FF introduced under their watch. Good oul John Bruton it was, you are correct. I recall Garret Fitz's initial referendum in 1986. FF have blurred my view of the 90s.

....well if you threw a stick into Irish history since independence, odds are you'd hit an FF government, so you can't be blamed for that.

Nodin

COYW wrote: »

Like it or not, that wouldn't be a bad thing in the eyes of a section of the population, the older generation in particular.

...however, unlike some opposing economic view points, the fact is that we've actually tried social conservatism, and it was less than pleasant. It's a failed ideology.

K-9

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So, nothing on the substance of what I was saying, just a debate on semantics?

O'Malley never struck me as a parish pump type politician, maybe you've some examples to prove whatever point you are trying to make on this thread?

As to the Reform Alliance, I don't see how much support they will gather in what seems to me to be a conservative social attitude of defending the current status quo, even Kenny and FG u-turned on that as regards abortion.

johnnyskeleton

K-9 wrote: »

O'Malley never struck me as a parish pump type politician, maybe you've some examples to prove whatever point you are trying to make on this thread?

As to the Reform Alliance, I don't see how much support they will gather in what seems to me to be a conservative social attitude of defending the current status quo, even Kenny and FG u-turned on that as regards abortion.

The point being that the PDs talked a big game but were ultimately no different to the other parties. I can't see the Reform Alliance being anything significantly different.

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So, nothing on the substance of what I was saying, just a debate on semantics?

It's hardly semantics. Calling someone in politics corrupt is very serious.

goose2005

What exactly are they planning to reform? Did they just pick two words out of a hat (like "Progressive Democrats")?

K-9

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The point being that the PDs talked a big game but were ultimately no different to the other parties. I can't see the Reform Alliance being anything significantly different.

I think when O'Malley left that was the start of the downfall. FG and FF adopted the same low tax policies that made the PD's so successful initially, and as you say they weren't that different in the end.

Once McCreevy left Government it didn't seem they had that much influence on power, Ahern discovered "socialism" and barring private/public enterprise schemes, I can't remember anything else the PD's achieved after that. McDowell and his cafe bar idea and suggesting slashing stamp duty to keep the bubble going, and the Minister whose name escape me introducing decentralisation, all failures.

BOHtox

There's definitely a gap in the demand for a party to the right of Fine Gael economically and to the left of them socially

spank_inferno

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The point being that the PDs talked a big game but were ultimately no different to the other parties.

Correction:
The other parties took on the PDs position.... Thus making them less relevent.

The PDs did not become like anyone else.... The rest gravitated towards them.

nesf

spank_inferno wrote: »

Correction:
The other parties took on the PDs position.... Thus making them less relevent.

The PDs did not become like anyone else.... The rest gravitated towards them.

This. I've a feeling that Johnny is under 30 and doesn't remember what politics was like when the PDs arose. The social conservatism and fiscal inflexibility of the time were so very different to what we have today and what we have today in terms of both to some extent come from FF, FG and to a lesser extent Labour stealing the PDs clothes after seeing the PDs have a good election.

The PDs were certainly not angels and certainly didn't do no harm but the idea that they never stood for anything of substance is worryingly revisionist or ignorant depending on who's saying it.

Palmach

spank_inferno wrote: »

Correction:
The other parties took on the PDs position.... Thus making them less relevent.

The PDs did not become like anyone else.... The rest gravitated towards them.

Correct. No one outside of the loony left now talks about 70% tax which we had before the PDs arrived. I also remeber being fleeced by Aer Lingus and Telecom Eireann once upon a time. It would be unthinkable now to have such a closed shop.

Mykola

Lucinda is odd, She is only 30 ish but she dresses like a 60 year old and she married a 60 year old too.

goose2005

Mykola wrote: »

Lucinda is odd, She is only 30 ish but she dresses like a 60 year old and she married a 60 year old too.

33, 49

Palmach

Mykola wrote: »

Lucinda is odd, She is only 30 ish but she dresses like a 60 year old and she married a 60 year old too.

And the relevance of this is?

nesf

Palmach wrote: »

And the relevance of this is?

Random dig at a politician? This is the Politics forum after all.

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

Random dig at a politician? This is the Politics forum after all.

....bit haberdashery and lifestyle focused to qualify though.