Reform Alliance "Monster Meeting" RDS 25th January

edanto

Exactly. And if RA becomes a party, that will invalidate her membership of FG.... which might well burn her bridges. That could be their rationale for 'we're not a party yet', so that they still have a lifeboat.

Anyways, fair play to them trying something new - I guess we'll see how it pans out.

Loafing Oaf

edanto wrote: »

Exactly. And if RA becomes a party, that will invalidate her membership of FG.... which might well burn her bridges. That could be their rationale for 'we're not a party yet', so that they still have a lifeboat.

Anyways, fair play to them trying something new - I guess we'll see how it pans out.

But as long as the RA retain this ambiguity about their status, noone of any substance outside the core group of TDs is going to get on board, as there will be this lingering suspicion that the whole thing is just a gambit in their battle of wits with Enda Kenny, and fundamentally they all just want to get back in with Fine Gael. Billy Timmins's radio interview the other day did nothing to dispel this impression, as the only point on which he seemed interested in differentiating himself from the mother party was abortion. IMO if they are going to take the plunge Lucinda will have to make the call pretty soon, if not at the 'monster meeting' then shortly afterward, or it will be too late to mount a serious challenge at the next GE.

raymon

It turns out that the "Michael McDowell is expected to speak" story is a hoax too.

Those guys in the Irish Independent are such jokers with all those made up stories they write.

They had me fooled.

Nodin

"Senior Independents in Leinster House are set to spurn an invitation to attend the first Reform Alliance conference, dealing a blow to the effort by the dissident Fine Gael group to expand its political base.
TDs Stephen Donnelly and Shane Ross, and Senators Katherine Zappone and and Feargal Quinn, have all said they will not attend the event in Dublin on Saturday week. Neither will they be joining the alliance."

"Former PD leader Michael McDowell has also said he will not attend the conference. "
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/top-independents-spurn-invite-to-first-reform-alliance-conference-1.1654209

I had a hard time imagining Donnelly and Ross joining up with a bunch of social conservatives - evidently so did they.

harryr711

So basically it's now just a meeting of FG TDs and senators who left the parliamentary party over the abortion issue?

trashcan

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Also, Lucinda Creighton has openly admitted that Enda Kenny is the only thing stopping her from being involved in Fine Gael at the minute. She is using the Reform Alliance as a platform to allow her land a top job in Fine Gael when she is inevitably readmitted, because Enda wont be around forever. Lets face it, Lucinda wants to be leader of Fine Gael. She will use any platform necessary to keep her name in the spotlight while outside of the Fine Gael fold.
QUOTE]

Bingo. That's how I see it anyway.

spank_inferno

harryr711 wrote: »

So basically it's now just a meeting of FG TDs and senators who left the parliamentary party over the abortion issue?

That's what it was always going to be.

A fundamentalist Christian political movement was always going to be limited in the amount of established politicians it would attract.
Many that might like too are too beholden to their party.

gandalf

Maybe we should change their name to the Monster Raving Reform Alliance.

Loafing Oaf

trashcan wrote: »

She is using the Reform Alliance as a platform to allow her land a top job in Fine Gael when she is inevitably readmitted, because Enda wont be around forever. Lets face it, Lucinda wants to be leader of Fine Gael. She will use any platform necessary to keep her name in the spotlight while outside of the Fine Gael fold.

This may well be her game, but if it is she is very misguided. FG grassroots like loyal party men and women who keep their heads down and get on with the job, hence Sinon Coveney being a strong favourite to succeed Enda. Even those who sympathised with her stance on abortion will have no time for her monster meetings, Daily Mail columns etc.

IMO the thing for Lucinda to do now is to announce she is not standing at the next GE, go off and have her baby, and hope to come back in ten years, when she'll still be relatively young, but Enda Kenny and controversy over abortion will be long in the past.

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

PD 2.0?

One of the big things about the PDs when they were formed was that they weren't social conservatives when the major parties were and a lot of the public weren't. There's a different dynamic here, this party wants to be more socially conservative than the main parties when that's a minority position in the public. About their only selling point is a hardline stance on abortion maybe?

touts

Is this meeting actually going ahead. All talk of it seems to have disappeared. No one seems to be going to it. No one seems to want to speak at it. Does anyone know how many tickets have been sold for it?

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

One of the big things about the PDs when they were formed was that they weren't social conservatives when the major parties were and a lot of the public weren't. There's a different dynamic here, this party wants to be more socially conservative than the main parties when that's a minority position in the public. About their only selling point is a hardline stance on abortion maybe?

Mm. We've had a series of flashes in the pan based around the abortion issue and a socially conservative response to it.

I think that there's probably a bubble effect at work there, where because so many of the people you meet are of a similar persuasion and equally passionate about the issue, you find it easy to believe that you must have majority or at least widespread support, because most of us find it really very hard to believe that we're in a small minority when it comes to something we feel passionately about - or at least, we feel, surely the only reason we're in a minority is because the majority have been misinformed. It's simply not possible, our minds tell us, that the majority can possibly have actually considered our arguments and still reject them!

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mm. We've had a series of flashes in the pan based around the abortion issue and a socially conservative response to it.

I think that there's probably a bubble effect at work there, where because so many of the people you meet are of a similar persuasion and equally passionate about the issue, you find it easy to believe that you must have majority or at least widespread support, because most of us find it really very hard to believe that we're in a small minority when it comes to something we feel passionately about - or at least, we feel, surely the only reason we're in a minority is because the majority have been misinformed. It's simply not possible, our minds tell us, that the majority can possibly have actually considered our arguments and still reject them!

cordially,
Scofflaw

I've family who got texts and calls about (free) buses up to Dublin for those marches (Legion of Mary members) all the way down in rural parts of Cork. There is a socially conservative element, especially with regard to abortion, but be careful when thinking about sizes and numbers, I've never seen marches organised so well and quickly as these ones. It wasn't a case of having way more supporters than say the anti-property tax crowd but the level of organisation is on a different scale. They scoured every inch of the country for people for those marches. If you did that for most hot-button issues you'd have an intimidating crowd outside the Dáil.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

I've family who got texts and calls about (free) buses up to Dublin for those marches (Legion of Mary members) all the way down in rural parts of Cork. There is a socially conservative element, especially with regard to abortion, but be careful when thinking about sizes and numbers, I've never seen marches organised so well and quickly as these ones. It wasn't a case of having way more supporters than say the anti-property tax crowd but the level of organisation is on a different scale. They scoured every inch of the country for people for those marches. If you did that for most hot-button issues you'd have an intimidating crowd outside the Dáil.

Unfortunately for, say, the anti-property tax people, there isn't any US funding pouring in to buy them organisational capacity. And unfortunately for the anti-abortion crowd, the ability to get their supporters out doesn't increase the number of actual supporters (and their visible display of support is probably off-putting to the more neutral), and so makes little difference at the ballot box, while their own apparent strength and fervour fools them into thinking they're some kind of growing movement or silent majority. All very Tea Partyish, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jmayo

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

This may well be her game, but if it is she is very misguided. FG grassroots like loyal party men and women who keep their heads down and get on with the job, hence Sinon Coveney being a strong favourite to succeed Enda. Even those who sympathised with her stance on abortion will have no time for her monster meetings, Daily Mail columns etc.

IMO the thing for Lucinda to do now is to announce she is not standing at the next GE, go off and have her baby, and hope to come back in ten years, when she'll still be relatively young, but Enda Kenny and controversy over abortion will be long in the past.

I think her chances of ever leading FG have gone.

The likes of Coveney has climbed up the pecking order, hell even Varadker if he could keep his gob shut and then there are new capable looking young guns like Simon Harris coming along.

As it was I can see how she would rub some people up the wrong way.
Then she turned her back on the party and even if she disagreed with the leader she should have stayed loyal to the party.
She didn't and that will never be forgotten by some.

It is the same for most all parties.

Anyway I would never like to see someone so socially conservative in a major position of power in this country again.
It took us long enough to get where we are and away from the church's pulpits.

And this so called quasi party appears to be a majority of those who are socially conservative and fanboys/girls of the vatican.
They will find it hard to lose that tag.

Sierra Oscar

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mm. We've had a series of flashes in the pan based around the abortion issue and a socially conservative response to it.

I think that there's probably a bubble effect at work there, where because so many of the people you meet are of a similar persuasion and equally passionate about the issue, you find it easy to believe that you must have majority or at least widespread support, because most of us find it really very hard to believe that we're in a small minority when it comes to something we feel passionately about - or at least, we feel, surely the only reason we're in a minority is because the majority have been misinformed. It's simply not possible, our minds tell us, that the majority can possibly have actually considered our arguments and still reject them!

cordially,
Scofflaw

I really don't think those that believe abortion should be allowed in limited circumstances, to preserve life, are in the minority. The Iona Institute and similar organizations were warning the government that they would feel the wrath of the electorate if they went ahead with the Protection of Life During Pregnancies Bill. The opinion polls done since then show that government support seems to be holding steady, and SF (who think the bill should have went even further) have seen their support rise somewhat. Fianna Fáil, who could not agree a stance on the issue, have not really seen their support rise since then.

It is not coming up on the doors either for those already canvassing for the local elections.

That is what the likes of Lucinda Creighton are against. Abortion in general is a different issue entirely. I think she is out of step with the majority of the electorate on this issue.

Triangla

Looks like a bunch of rats jumping ship. FG will be decimated in the next General election. I say that as a non-party voter.

Fidelma Healy Eames is a part of this so I say no no no.

She has her own thread here, she represents only one thing I agree with in politics and that is female participation.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82302565

spank_inferno

Triangla wrote: »

Looks like a bunch of rats jumping ship. FG will be decimated in the next General election. I say that as a non-party voter.

Fidelma Healy Eames is a part of this so I say no no no.

She has her own thread here, she represents only one thing I agree with in politics and that is female participation.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82302565

Will FG return fewer seats in 2016.
Yes.... Almost certainly.

Several of their seats were the last seat in a 5-seater, sneaking through on transfers.

Fewer seats next time round plus the usual incumbency backlash will lose these seats.

Its inevitable & hardly a shock to anyone.


Putting my prediction hat on, I will say that the "reform?" Alliance will not exist in 2016.
Timmons is retiring & FHE is just a senator & the others will meekly return to the fold.... Or at worst run as an Ind/FG candidate.

By the next government it will be like this whole opus dei/ reform alliance thing never happened.

Loafing Oaf

spank_inferno wrote: »

Will FG return fewer seats in 2016.
Yes.... Almost certainly.

Several of their seats were the last seat in a 5-seater, sneaking through on transfers.

Fewer seats next time round plus the usual incumbency backlash will lose these seats.

Its inevitable & hardly a shock to anyone.

Plus it's highly unlikely any of the 'abortion rebels' will have a better chance of retaining their seat outside of FG, and I'm sure they know that better than anyone, hence their seeming desperation to get back on board.

raymon

spank_inferno wrote: »

Will FG return fewer seats in 2016.
Yes.... Almost certainly.

Several of their seats were the last seat in a 5-seater, sneaking through on transfers.

Fewer seats next time round plus the usual incumbency backlash will lose these seats.

Its inevitable & hardly a shock to anyone.


Putting my prediction hat on, I will say that the "reform?" Alliance will not exist in 2016.
Timmons is retiring & FHE is just a senator & the others will meekly return to the fold.... Or at worst run as an Ind/FG candidate.

By the next government it will be like this whole opus dei/ reform alliance thing never happened.

Healy Eames and Matthews are gone from FG for sure. They will never be allowed back in , if their kicks in the ar$# out the door are anything to go by.

Sierra Oscar

Who won't be at the RDS meeting

I think this article does a good job of highlighting that those in the RA at the moment are too socially conservative to attract any major support, and that people will take issue with the fact that they are in agreement with FG's economic policies. I don't think they offer much of an alternative.

spank_inferno

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Who won't be at the RDS meeting

I think this article does a good job of highlighting that those in the RA at the moment are too socially conservative to attract any major support, and that people will take issue with the fact that they are in agreement with FG's economic policies. I don't think they offer much of an alternative.

They should rename it "The Monster Eucharistic Meeting ft: Lucinda!"

Loafing Oaf

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Who won't be at the RDS meeting

I think this article does a good job of highlighting that those in the RA at the moment are too socially conservative to attract any major support, and that people will take issue with the fact that they are in agreement with FG's economic policies. I don't think they offer much of an alternative.

I don't see why the likes of Shortall and Halligan should be interested in hooking up with the RA under any circumstance: if they want a new party they should set up one of their own on the left.

Also I think the article misses the fundamental point about why noone else is coming to Lucinda's party: they don't believe the RA are really interested in being a new force in politics and that if Enda only said the word they'd all leap back into the FG fold. Imagine if Stephen Donnelly, say, were to declare Lucinda the new Messiah-ette who would lead us all to the promised land, and six months later she was back in FG, what kind of a pillock he would look.

Chazz Michael Michaels

touts wrote: »

I don't think there is any need or demand for another left party. In fact the Left is overcrowded, split and divided. The left needs fewer parties to unify the vote not more parties.

Lets look at how the parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland) divide left/right

Right:
Party & Elected representatives
Fine Gael 648
Fianna Fáil 444
Christian Solidarity Party 0
Direct Democracy Ireland 0
Catholic Democrats (The National Party) 0

If you consider that Fine Gael and Fianna Fail are now toxic brands people are very unhappy with while Christian Solidarity and Catholic Democrats are not appealing to those on the right who are not strongly christian (contrary to what the left wing media have been spinning recently being right wing is actually defined by economic and social beliefs not on your ability to quote the bible. I'm centre right and I certainly don't believe in any higher power than the one we elect). That leaves Direct Democracy who seem to believe in a mix of swiss style direct democracy and Transcendental Meditation and the Science of Creative Intelligence whatever conspiracy theory you're having yourself. So there is clearly a gap for a party that believes in centre right economic and social policies but not the fundamentalist christian/conspiracy beliefs of the other parties currently positioned in the "right" space. At the moment a right wing voter has to choose between the failed greed of Fianna Fail, the failed incompetence of Fine Gael or the religious fundamentalists. A secular centre right party would pick up a huge vote.

Meanwhile on the left we have:

Party & Elected representatives
Labour Party 278
Sinn Féin 144
Green Party 17
Socialist Party 8
Workers and Unemployed Action Group 8
People Before Profit Alliance 6
United Left 4
Workers' Party 2
South Kerry Independent Alliance 2
éirígí 1
Fís Nua 1
Republican Sinn Féin 1
Communist Party of Ireland 0
Letterkenny Residents Party 0
Seniors Solidarity Party 0
Socialist Workers Party 0
Irish Republican Socialist Party 0
Irish Socialist Network 0
Pirate Party Ireland 0
Republican Sinn Féin 0

And that doesn't include the various left wing independents who also occupy that space. Another Left Wing party would just further dilute that vote. What is needed is a large scale merger and consolidation of left parties NOT another party. Sure some of the parties are just as toxic as Fianna Fail and Fine Gael but there are too many alternatives for a left voter to move to. In the next election it looks like there will be a meltdown of the Labour vote but unlike Fianna Fail and Fine Gael voters the departing Labour voter has a vast array of alternatives to vote for.

As to this Reform Alliance and their Monster meeting. I think it will be interesting to see what the tone is and who the speakers are. Will the catholic fundamentalists rise to the top or will it be a more secular party for both believers and non-believers. Personally I'll be watching with interest and I hope that any party emerging from it will be secular in nature.

This post. All of it.

johnnyskeleton

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Who won't be at the RDS meeting

I think this article does a good job of highlighting that those in the RA at the moment are too socially conservative to attract any major support, and that people will take issue with the fact that they are in agreement with FG's economic policies. I don't think they offer much of an alternative.

Although it begs the question why doesn't Steven Donnelly or someone set up a party based on:
1) electoral and structural reform of the state;
2) anti-corruption;
3) liberal social views;
4) mixed view on austerity, maybe leaning towards cutting ps pay/welfare in favour of a jobs stimulus;
5) against NAMA, bank guarantee and other property price rigging mechanisms.

It seems to be what a lot of people want and there are independent TDs there on a similar basis. Why has the technical group not formed its own party by now?

I suspect the answer is that the technical group provides them the right balance of speaking time and autonomy.

Loafing Oaf

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

This post. All of it.

Really?

A secular centre right party would pick up a huge vote

Well why isn't this happening then?

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Although it begs the question why doesn't Steven Donnelly or someone set up a party based on:
1) electoral and structural reform of the state;
2) anti-corruption;
3) liberal social views;
4) mixed view on austerity, maybe leaning towards cutting ps pay/welfare in favour of a jobs stimulus;
5) against NAMA, bank guarantee and other property price rigging mechanisms.

Because that's really no basis for a party? It's grand for an Independent TD to represent this, but a potential Government party? What does any of the above tell us about their potential views on transport? The EU? Etc. You can't form a party around one principle as much as you'd like, you need to have a position for any potential topic.

That and you're not paying off any particular part of the populus there so I'm not sure where your votes are coming from. Remember the PDs didn't just come in as social liberals, they were also strongly arguing your tax bill (which was rather large at the time) should be smaller. This combination worked quite well with a fair few people, at least until they went into coalition and the ugly part of coalition politics raised its head. :P

Chazz Michael Michaels

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Really?



Well why isn't this happening then?

Yes. Who knows? Maybe adding a few dozen more lefty parties would be better. We definitely need more of those.

Loafing Oaf

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Yes. Who knows?

Very helpful, thanks.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Very helpful, thanks.

No problem.