Reboot Ireland - Regional Meetings prior to full party launch

Brian Shanahan

For Reals wrote: »

It's funny they sell themselves like that but from what I've seen so far they are a splinter FG and not so much new or nua. I believe they'll garner a few votes by those caught up in the PR, but it'll be straight in bed with FG first opportunity.

As long as FG go hardline anti-abort, don't forget their one "principle" valuing a clump of cells over the life of a grown woman*.

*Not that if Lucinda wanted or needed an abortion she'd be the first person on the next plane to John Lennon International.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As someone who might be persuaded to vote for a small party with a low tax mandate,1 liberal views2 and with a strong transparency / anti corruption morality3, i see nothing in this party that would make me vote for them!

1 Low tax mandate simply means that the rich will have to pay less tax than currently (even if that means the government is giving them money). Us plebs will still have to pay through the nose on everything.
2 That's the first time that I've seen a hardline anti-abortion group called liberal. Trust me this renua crowd will be hardline catholic.
3 Yeah, and if they're that, I'm making sweet, sweet love to Osama bin Laden. None of the renua crowd want transparency or accountability in politics, because it'll hurt them.

johnnyskeleton

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

1 Low tax mandate simply means that the rich will have to pay less tax than currently (even if that means the government is giving them money). Us plebs will still have to pay through the nose on everything.

At marginal rates of over 50% above c. 32k, I dont think reducing tax only benefits "the rich". Surely a system whereby everybody pays a reasonable amount is better than the current system whereby some people pay no tax and other people pay a huge marginal rate.

2 That's the first time that I've seen a hardline anti-abortion group called liberal. Trust me this renua crowd will be hardline catholic.

I agree, but thats how they are marketing themselves, even if it is not reflective of the reality.

3 Yeah, and if they're that, I'm making sweet, sweet love to Osama bin Laden. None of the renua crowd want transparency or accountability in politics, because it'll hurt them.

Well lets see what they produce on that front but again, my point is that there is a big difference between what they say they are and what people see them as (the latter, in my view, being closer to reality).

conorh91

the groutch wrote: »

Lots of waffly and vague soundbites, nothing of substance to convince anyone to vote for them,

Yeah, it's so odd. They've had a long time to prepare policies and specifics, but it seems all they've been doing is meeting with graphic designers and brand strategists. Renua looks sleek and shiny, but it has absolutely nothing behind it.

Perhaps Terence Flanagan's embarrassing cock-up wasn't only his nerves: Paul Bradford pretty much admitted to a different RTE journo that the party presently has no specific policies, they'll be working on them over the coming weeks and months.

What kind of messing is this? They need to show a bit of cop on, start pulling their weight, or they'll get nowhere. Creighton is an able politician but she can't carry this motley band of chancers all by herself. Right now, Renua is basically Lucinda Creighton and a lot of hangers-on who appear to be doing very little work.

RainyDay

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

At marginal rates of over 50% above c. 32k, I dont think reducing tax only benefits "the rich". Surely a system whereby everybody pays a reasonable amount is better than the current system whereby some people pay no tax and other people pay a huge marginal rate.

Income tax is not the only tax. There is no-one in the country who pays no tax.

goose2005

touts wrote: »

I don't think they are on speaking terms with the teachers

"Education

RENUA believes in pursuing the fundamental reform of our Education system as a priority. Citizens rather than trade unions must decide the future of our country.
"

Aren't trade unions made up of citizens?

Calina

goose2005 wrote: »

Aren't trade unions made up of citizens?

Yes but more to the point, they seem to be suggesting that people who know about teaching and education probably shouldn't be involved because they are in trade unions?

Iranoutofideas

For Reals wrote: »

It's funny they sell themselves like that but from what I've seen so far they are a splinter FG and not so much new or nua. I believe they'll garner a few votes by those caught up in the PR, but it'll be straight in bed with FG first opportunity.

Might not be clear from my post but that was what I was trying to get across. I haven't seen anything to suggest that they are not just a bunch of spoofers like everyone else and that Renua is just a Lucinda Creighton vehicle and little else.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Leaving a gap for a parody page which is absolutely spot on, IMO:

https://m.facebook.com/renuaireland

Everything about this has been an absolute car crash to watch. As someone who might be persuaded to vote for a small party with a low tax mandate, liberal views and with a strong transparency / anti corruption morality, i see nothing in this party that would make me vote for them!

Exactly. The incompetance is so stark it would make you think it deliberate. Something really half-assed about the whole thing.

Brian Shanahan

goose2005 wrote: »

Aren't trade unions made up of citizens?

In the right-wing nirvana the workers will never be able to organise to collectively bargain or agitate for better pay and conditions. Of course banning employers from organising or passing on of information of "malcontents and shirkers" would be an unpardonable infringement of human rights.

Safehands

conorh91 wrote: »

Yeah, it's so odd. They've had a long time to prepare policies and specifics, but it seems all they've been doing is meeting with graphic designers and brand strategists. Renua looks sleek and shiny, but it has absolutely nothing behind it.

Perhaps Terence Flanagan's embarrassing cock-up wasn't only his nerves: Paul Bradford pretty much admitted to a different RTE journo that the party presently has no specific policies, they'll be working on them over the coming weeks and months.

What kind of messing is this? They need to show a bit of cop on, start pulling their weight, or they'll get nowhere. Creighton is an able politician but she can't carry this motley band of chancers all by herself. Right now, Renua is basically Lucinda Creighton and a lot of hangers-on who appear to be doing very little work.

One would have to question that whole Terence Flanagan fiasco. On any embarrassment scale it was off the charts. Why would any party leaders allow a guy like that go on air on the launch day of their new party? He could not have done more damage to the party if he had planned a scuppering campaign with a roomful of Fine Gael advisors. Lucinda Creighton must have had some inkling that he was capable of a meltdown like that. Did she prep him before going on air or was he drafted into the party an hour before the show without knowing what was going on?
Imagine asking anyone to put a number one beside his name in an election. It is unthinkable.

Steodonn

Calina wrote: »

Yes but more to the point, they seem to be suggesting that people who know about teaching and education probably shouldn't be involved because they are in trade unions?

A former FF minister say the same thing to one of my classes once

nice_guy80

goose2005 wrote: »

Aren't trade unions made up of citizens?

I'd vote for them if they just abolished the teaching council

conorh91

Safehands wrote: »

He could not have done more damage to the party if he had planned a scuppering campaign with a roomful of Fine Gael advisors.

The guy is said to have had a panic attack. Although I'd seriously question the suitability for membership of the Houses of the Oireachtas of a person prone to anxiety of this nature, I think most Irish people take a more tempered approach.

Nobody doubts it was a car-crash interview, but as is often said, Irish people love an underdog. I've heard expressions of sympathy for Flanagan from people whom I'd suggest wouldn't give him the time of day, under normal circumstances.

Safehands

conorh91 wrote: »

The guy is said to have had a panic attack. Although I'd seriously question the suitability for membership of the Houses of the Oireachtas of a person prone to anxiety of this nature, I think most Irish people take a more tempered approach.
Nobody doubts it was a car-crash interview, but as is often said, Irish people love an underdog. I've heard expressions of sympathy for Flanagan from people whom I'd suggest wouldn't give him the time of day, under normal circumstances.

Under normal circumstances I would say that I have sympathy for him. This is a man we are expected to vote for. He is an experienced TD. Public speaking is part of his life. Even then, he could have turned this in his favour. If he had come back on the next day and explained that he was knackered, had a cold or even that he had a totally inexplicable brain freeze. He did none of these things. He has basically gone into hiding. This incident should make us all wonder about the judgement of Lucinda and her new party.

I of course have sympathy for him, in just the same was as I couldn't watch McIlroy when he blew up at the Masters 4 years ago.

It was a choke, he had a nightmare, move on really.

gandalf

I wouldn't condemn a new party because one member had a bad day at the office. So far I agree with the policies as they are shaping out. Obviously the proof will be in the details. I'll be heading to the AGM and at this stage will probably join them. I am not a fan of Hobbs or Creighton but there is more to this bunch than just them and if they are half way sincere in what they are saying they are hoping to achieve then they will be a breath of fresh air on a very stagnant political pool. This time last year I didn't have a clue who I would have voted for in the next GE. Now at least it does appear I have an option.

Hotblack Desiato

Safehands wrote: »

He did none of these things. He has basically gone into hiding. This incident should make us all wonder about the judgement of Lucinda and her new party.

Voting against the PLDP Bill tells me everything I need to know about their judgement.

Brian Shanahan

gandalf wrote: »

So far I agree with the policies as they are shaping out. Obviously the proof will be in the details.

What policies? Aside from the prioritising of the "life" of a clump of cells over that of an adult woman, all they have is vague and meaningless platitudes.

There is nothing this party has anybody could be capable of agreeing with.

gandalf

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What policies? Aside from the prioritising of the "life" of a clump of cells over that of an adult woman, all they have is vague and meaningless platitudes.

There is nothing this party has anybody could be capable of agreeing with.

Actually bar letting individuals make their own minds up you mean.

And obviously there is nothing that you agree with.

From my perspective coming from a strongly pro choice stance I agree with everything they are saying regarding the economy and reform and providing they stick to their guns on matters of conscience then I am very comfortable getting involved with them.

Brian Shanahan

gandalf wrote: »

Actually bar letting individuals make their own minds up you mean.

No when it comes to abortion they'll either keep up the Iona line or they'll break their principles. That is why they are being so coy on it.

And obviously there is nothing that you agree with.

Aside from their anti-abortion "principle", which anybody willing to engage their brain and not listen to an iron-age fairy tale for their morality would be pro-choice on, they literally have nothing to go on. They have no principles, they have sound-bites; they have no policies, they have vague platitudes; they have no programme for what they would do if they entered government, they have a handwavy formula of "elect us and everything will return to 1950's Ireland except the economy which will magically become the strongest in Europe."

gandalf

Brian considering they aren't fully formed yet they won't have fully formed policies. I am interested in joining them and helping to form policy. If they do turn out to be a bunch towing the Iona line as you say then god help them because people like me will disembowel them from within.

My interest in them is they are saying the right things from my perspective from a reform agenda. Reform of the Political Institutions of the state and reform of Public Service.

That's what I want. I don't care about Baby Jebus and his hatred of ovaries etc. I want to ensure that we are a nation get value for our Tax Monies. something that is not happening at the moment and I am willing to let a new party get up and running before I start condemning them.

Calina

gandalf wrote: »

Brian considering they aren't fully formed yet they won't have fully formed policies. I am interested in joining them and helping to form policy. If they do turn out to be a bunch towing the Iona line as you say then god help them because people like me will disembowel them from within.

My interest in them is they are saying the right things from my perspective from a reform agenda. Reform of the Political Institutions of the state and reform of Public Service.

That's what I want. I don't care about Baby Jebus and his hatred of ovaries etc. I want to ensure that we are a nation get value for our Tax Monies. something that is not happening at the moment and I am willing to let a new party get up and running before I start condemning them.

ReNua exists only because the current leader is completely anti-abortion and any TDs they have, that's pretty much why they are members as well.

They didn't leave FG for any reasons linked to reform agendas; that's window dressing which was added later. If there hadn't been a vote for a protection of life in pregnancy which remotely made it possible for suicidal women to get abortions, you'd be voting for Lucinda Creighton, member of FG.

Quin_Dub

Calina wrote: »

ReNua exists only because the current leader is completely anti-abortion and any TDs they have, that's pretty much why they are members as well.

They didn't leave FG for any reasons linked to reform agendas; that's window dressing which was added later. If there hadn't been a vote for a protection of life in pregnancy which remotely made it possible for suicidal women to get abortions, you'd be voting for Lucinda Creighton, member of FG.

Exactly - The reason the party exists is because Lucinda et al didn't want to vote with the whip in the Protection of life in Pregnancy bill.

The reform stuff is populist guff hiding their ultra Catholic right wing roots..

desertcircus

gandalf wrote: »

I wouldn't condemn a new party because one member had a bad day at the office. So far I agree with the policies as they are shaping out. Obviously the proof will be in the details. I'll be heading to the AGM and at this stage will probably join them. I am not a fan of Hobbs or Creighton but there is more to this bunch than just them and if they are half way sincere in what they are saying they are hoping to achieve then they will be a breath of fresh air on a very stagnant political pool. This time last year I didn't have a clue who I would have voted for in the next GE. Now at least it does appear I have an option.

What are they hoping to achieve? We have no clear idea of their policies at all, and while a brand new party can be forgiven a certain lack of specificity, Renua hasn't even explained what its guiding basis is. So far, this is a party with three TDs, all of whom are FG except anti-abortion, and a party president who disagrees with them on abortion. There's no evidence that they're offering anything new, and it's beyond ludicrous for a party of three TDs to claim they want an end to business as usual when one of their three TDs inherited his seat from his retiring father and the most notable thing another had done before now was plagiarise someone else's speech. Even if I thought Eddie Hobbs was right about the public sector (and I don't), I'd have absolutely no faith in Renua to do anything about it.

gandalf

Calina wrote: »

ReNua exists only because the current leader is completely anti-abortion and any TDs they have, that's pretty much why they are members as well.

They didn't leave FG for any reasons linked to reform agendas; that's window dressing which was added later. If there hadn't been a vote for a protection of life in pregnancy which remotely made it possible for suicidal women to get abortions, you'd be voting for Lucinda Creighton, member of FG.

Have you attended any of the meetings Calina?

They may have walked for the reasons you have put up there and I don't dispute those in any ways at all. However I do dispute you saying that the reform agenda is window dressing. It most certainly isn't.

At the meeting I attended very little time was given to the few anti-choicers from the crowdthat attempted to bring the abortion debate to the fore. It was made clear that issue was one of conscience and the party did not wield the whip on those type of issues.

The vast majority of the meeting was spent on presenting the agenda around reform and the vast majority of the interaction focused on that as well.

If they have a secret anti-choice agenda for the whole party and the reform agenda is only "window dressing" then they are lining themselves up for a world of pain given the opinions exhibited by the attendees and potential new members that attended those meetings.

Now did you attend one of the meetings or are you basing your assertions on second hand information.

RainyDay

gandalf wrote: »

My interest in them is they are saying the right things from my perspective from a reform agenda. Reform of the Political Institutions of the state and reform of Public Service.

What things are you talking about here? All I've seen from their months of naval gazing and (apparently) thousands of volunteer hours is

"Our intent is to develop a concept of public service that rewards excellence, openness and transparency. Public servants are the citizens who build the state. Success and reform enhances their lives as much as those of the private sector."

which seems to be some sort of facile attempt to appeal to the public servants that Eddie has spent the last ten years dissing. I heard one of them talking about encouraging 'risk taking and entrepreneurialism' in the public service. Have they any real idea what this means? Do they really, really want public servants to be taking risks with public money, or with people's lives. There is a pretty good reason why public service is often risk-averse - because it is serious business. When you get it wrong, people die. Is there any evidence or research behind their ideas of reform, or is it another round of McCreevy 'back of the envelope' reforms?

Calina

gandalf wrote: »

Have you attended any of the meetings Calina?

They may have walked for the reasons you have put up there and I don't dispute those in any ways at all. However I do dispute you saying that the reform agenda is window dressing. It most certainly isn't.

At the meeting I attended very little time was given to the few anti-choicers from the crowdthat attempted to bring the abortion debate to the fore. It was made clear that issue was one of conscience and the party did not wield the whip on those type of issues.

The vast majority of the meeting was spent on presenting the agenda around reform and the vast majority of the interaction focused on that as well.

If they have a secret anti-choice agenda for the whole party and the reform agenda is only "window dressing" then they are lining themselves up for a world of pain given the opinions exhibited by the attendees and potential new members that attended those meetings.

Now did you attend one of the meetings or are you basing your assertions on second hand information.

I'm basing my assertions on the content of their website gandalf. And the fact that they had the guts of 8 weeks to ensure they had their social media ducks in a row (and didn't). And the fact that they have Eddie Hobbs on board.

But most of all I'm basing my assertions on the fact this political party only exists because Lucinda Creighton wants to prevent women from having abortions even if they are suicidal.

With all due respect, a political party whose core values are reform would not have been born under the circumstances ReNua was born under if their core values were reform.

There is no way I can trust this party to act in my best interests since the mere fact of their existence is to prevent me making grown up decisions.

Now, I'm not going to set foot in any of their meetings because I'm not interested in a party that was set up to facilitate a bunch of people who don't trust women. There's no merit in claiming something is a matter for conscience when it is the reason the party was set up. Put simply, you might think you can change that party from within but I think that's naive. Get Lucinda Creighton to have the guts to say that when something is a matter of conscience, it's a matter of conscience for all women, and not just the Dail members of ReNua and I might take the party seriously on its "conscience" argument.

But right now, it's easy to say something is a matter of conscience when you're all in the party for the same reason, which is to ensure it's only a matter of conscience for yourselves. For the rest of us, it's just against the law and that's the way the original members of the party would like to keep it thanks.

The reform stuff was added later. It really doesn't matter what gets said at the meetings, because it is not and never was the raison d'etre for the party in the first place.

desertcircus

gandalf wrote: »

Have you attended any of the meetings Calina?

They may have walked for the reasons you have put up there and I don't dispute those in any ways at all. However I do dispute you saying that the reform agenda is window dressing. It most certainly isn't.

...

The vast majority of the meeting was spent on presenting the agenda around reform and the vast majority of the interaction focused on that as well.

If they have a secret anti-choice agenda for the whole party and the reform agenda is only "window dressing" then they are lining themselves up for a world of pain given the opinions exhibited by the attendees and potential new members that attended those meetings.

Given all these meetings and discussions on reform, why is there virtually zero information on what they'd reform, or how they'd reform it?