New Party: The Social Democrats.

1800

K-9 wrote: »

PS:

Personal posts attacking others will get deleted promptly, so not much point wasting your time making them. Repeat offenders will get bans. Thanks.

The cafe is available for those more interested in that type of thing!

Was my last post really worth deleting? I dont think there was anything personal in there. If people want to pretend this is change and high five each other without opposition thats fine, Im out.

K-9

1800 wrote: »

Was my last post really worth deleting? I dont think there was anything personal in there. If people want to pretend this is change and high five each other without opposition thats fine, Im out.

You probably missed my edit, if a post is deleted we generally delete replies to the deleted post, because if we didn't, there's no point deleting the post in the first place! Or something like that.

Any more queries, pm me rather than raising modding issues on thread.

Thomas_.

1800 wrote: »

Why should I when agree with very little of what the stand for. Donnelly and Muprhy have been decent Independents so far but Shortalls minimum alcohol pricing policy which is now coming into law is idiotic. She jumped ship when she couldnt get her way but she is no different to anyone else in the Labour Party now, a lying opportunist.

Well, as I said, I know very Little about the past of These three People who founded this new party. So, my approach and dealing with it comes from a more neutral angle. As for being an Opportunist, isn´t that what makes many of the average politicians? Without taking an opportunity, one can just go upwards rather the hard way and politics, wherever you look, is some sort of a hard business in many ways. Personally, I wouldn´t take up the efforts most of the TDs have to in order to Keep their seat and get things done. Although most of them are just a part in the bigger picture, they invest much time and energy to serve their People. That is said in fairness and in general terms.

If one TD leaves the Party through which list he or she got elected, well, such things doesn´t go down well among their "former" fellow Party comerades, but I would pay some Attention on the reasonings that brought them to leave the Party. Some fundamental disagreements might be the reason for, some couldn´t follow the Party line because it wasn´t what they stood for and what they could cope with. Plenty of reasons for such a step and of course, one can´t exclude the simple opportunism to make a change for the benefit of oneself. But whether the benefit kicks in after such a step remains to be seen in the light of the next election. That puts such things to the test and parts the personality from the party. So, if one gets re-elected after leaving the party and he gets elected because of his personality than it is indeed a benefit for the candidate himself showing that he made the right decision if the party he was a member of before is on a steady decline in the votes, like the Irish Labour Party appears to be.

Also what sort of political party has 3 members 8 months before an election? It doesnt matter what most people think because they wont b in our constituencies. Hear Shortall now on about equality, progress and the Nordic model. More total bollocks no different to any of the left wing parties we have.

Many things start in small numbers and it´s up the those who started it how they can gain supporters and fellow members to expand and also what kind of policy they are offering the electorate. In a political environment such as it is in the present time in Ireland, where a certain amount of people are fed up with the establishment parties and are looking for something new, more genuine, more closer to the people and - that´s also some point - have no track of any sort linking them with and to corruption, a new party might stand a chance to get a go in elections. Small in numbers now, but they can grow and that they can at the expense of the establishment parties which have often disappointed their voters.

In a democracy, many things are possible as far as they get the backing from the electorate.

Thomas_.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

"Vote for us, at least we're not Syriza"?

Yes the Social Democrats are preferable over Syriza, who are themselves preferable over the Golden Dawn, who would be preferable to the Colonels' Junta, who were preferable over Pincochet, who would have been preferable over Ivan the Terrible, who was preferable over Pol Pot and Hitler!

You can always make the case that a political party is better than another political party in another country, but it's a completely redundant observation since it has no electoral relevance. There are about ten political parties represented in the Dail already, none of which are Syriza.

My remark on Syriza to bring it into this as an example for a new far-left Party was to Show that there is one way to start a new Party with amateurs and another new Party with already serving TDs who have a knowledge how politics works.

FreudianSlippers

1800 wrote: »

So the Labour Party Lite have joined the circus. More Indos who just deserted a sinking ship, who are clearly no different from the rest. That parasite O Riordan will probably jump aboard when he gets the chance. Abolish the water charges and repel the 8th, yawn.

Just a bunch of posh Clare Dalys. Think we've more than enough socially liberal parties in this state.

I'm no fan of the Labour party, but I'd vote for these guys ahead of Renua any day.

Thomas_.

1800 wrote: »

Even if you agree with all they stand for, surely its obvious a party with 3 members 8 months from an election can have no relevance? Where or what is the change here?

In this time of the internet and other facilities like Facebook and twitter, 8 months are a short time indeed, but if one gets it the right way, one can use this time to bring something forward.

efb

This is a party I could vote for.
3 principled politicians

Sam Russell

efb wrote: »

This is a party I could vote for.
3 principled politicians

That is nearly all of the principled politicians in the Dail, and all in one party!

Thomas_.

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is nearly all of the principled politicians in the Dail, and all in one party!

If that is really the case, I could only say "God save Ireland" to that.

Patser

Thomas_. wrote: »

It´s better to have people like these three than to have the likes of Syriza.

Catherine Murphy is one of Ireland's biggest cheerleaders for Syriza, it's just that Paul Murphy and Sinn Fein's profile masks hers.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CathMurphyTD/status/616930139058925569

In.Comparison Donnelly has been a breath of fresh air in the Dáil. A truly smart, literate independent mind.

Do it's a strange mix to see him in with a dogmatic veteran Workers Party/democratic left ex-member

Bannasidhe

Patser wrote: »

Catherine Murphy is one of Ireland's biggest cheerleaders for Syriza, it's just that Paul Murphy and Sinn Fein's profile masks hers.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CathMurphyTD/status/616930139058925569

In.Comparison Donnelly has been a breath of fresh air in the Dáil. A truly smart, literate independent mind.

Do it's a strange mix to see him in with a dogmatic veteran Workers Party/democratic left ex-member

Leaving aside long gone political parties or to but it another way - looking forward not endlessly backwards - is it really so strange to see Donnelly in a mix with a veteran politician who actually refused to play the crony game and left what could have been a very cushy number with a huge pension just for keeping her mouth shut?

It would be great if we could discuss this new political party without resorting to the same tired old kneejerk anti-left/anti-right rhetoric .. is that too much to ask for?

BoJack Horseman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

is it really so strange to see Donnelly in a mix with a veteran politician who actually refused to play the crony game and left what could have been a very cushy number with a huge pension just for keeping her mouth shut?

Shortall & Murphy are decades long politicos.
Do you think they are missing out on a pension somewhere?

Donnelly, being a generic 'government is always wrong' backbencher can fit in with anybody.

Bannasidhe

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Shortall & Murphy are decades long politicos.
Do you think they are missing out on a pension somewhere?

Donnelly, being a generic 'government is always wrong' backbencher can fit in with anybody.

I don't care.

I care about what they are trying to do now and in the future because I sure don't like what any of the main parties are up too and don't trust any of them.

Benny_Cake

Patser wrote: »

Do it's a strange mix to see him in with a dogmatic veteran Workers Party/democratic left ex-member

If Catherine Murphy was that dogmatic she would probably still be in the Workers Party (they still exist, believe it or not). She's been a rare enough breed, an independent who actually has an interest in what happens outside her constituency. Looking at Donnelly and Shortfall, I get a similar impression.

There will be plenty of Labour voters looking for a new home at the next election so they should certainly sweep up a few of those. I live in Murphy's constituency so I'd have probably given her a high preference anyway.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It would be great if we could discuss this new political party without resorting to the same tired old kneejerk anti-left/anti-right rhetoric .. is that too much to ask for?

Nobody is doing that. This thread is probably surprising for its complete absence of ideological flag-waving.

Personally, I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of the new party, because their natural constituency mostly overlaps with Labour. They might as well have called themselves Provisional Labour, or Continuity Labour.

The Labour Party was everyone's friend before it entered government, because it could advance wishy-washy social objectives which it soon found were unable to be implemented. Any moderate left-wing party will face this problem, and will be doomed to seething unpopularity when voters feel abandoned.

If the Social Democrats enter a coalition government, they will fare precisely as badly as every other social democratic party that has entered coalition as a junior partner in Britain and Ireland: near-wipeout.

The only thing that distinguishes the SDs from Labour is that the SDs haven't had an opportunity to be unpopular yet.

I'm saying this as a left voter, by the way.

Bannasidhe

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Nobody is doing that. This thread is probably surprising for its complete absence of ideological flag-waving.

Personally, I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of the new party, because their natural constituency mostly overlaps with Labour. They might as well have called themselves Provisional Labour, or Continuity Labour.

The Labour Party was everyone's friend before it entered government, because it could advance wishy-washy social objectives which it soon found were unable to be implemented. Any moderate left-wing party will face this problem, and will be doomed to seething unpopularity when voters feel abandoned.

If the Social Democrats enter a coalition government, they will fare precisely as badly as every other social democratic party that has entered coalition as a junior partner in Britain and Ireland: near-wipeout.

The only thing that distinguishes the SDs from Labour is that the SDs haven't had an opportunity to be unpopular yet.

I'm saying this as a left voter, by the way.

Labour long abandoned it's constituency - and I say this as an ex-party member - it followed the same path as the UK Labour Party (which I was also once a member of...back when they still had a red flag not a thornless rose) and moved from distinctly left of centre to nudging right of centre.

Before going into government the party was deeply divided and everything opponents to forming a coalition feared has come to pass - indeed, it is worse then feared given it is the LP who are cheer leading for IW and brought in cuts to LPA without providing the promised childcare support. The LP is hemorrhaging membership along with voters.

There is a gap - whether or not the Social Democrats can fill that gap remains to be seen.

Up until now only SF seemed to provide a possible home for those voters but, like myself, many ex-Labourites are not entirely comfortable with SF.

Patser

Benny_Cake wrote: »

If Catherine Murphy was that dogmatic she would probably still be in the Workers Party (they still exist, believe it or not). She's been a rare enough breed, an independent who actually has an interest in what happens outside her constituency. Looking at Donnelly and Shortfall, I get a similar impression.

There will be plenty of Labour voters looking for a new home at the next election so they should certainly sweep up a few of those. I live in Murphy's constituency so I'd have probably given her a high preference anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I'm.curious about this new party too, and will be willing to see what they say will differentiate them from Labour, Sinn Fein etc. Also curious to see do they run other candidates in other constituencies, especially new bloods.

But just to call you up on.one thing. I live in Murphy's constituency now and she's most vocal here about the closing of Maynooth University's swimming pool. She may have interests outside her constituency but her focus is often local issues. (for example her demands about the university's pool, ignores the open to public pool in the Glenroyal hotel)

Sam Russell

The Labour party is a coalition between trade unionists and socialists. The new party will presumably not be pro trade unions (per se).

Good luck to them.

Annasopra

I just don't think Donnelly is genuinely left wing and feel that he is just going along with his because he perceives left wing politics to be more popular and make him more electable.

I mean the guy was elected in 2011 partly based on the fact that he was in talks with Shane Ross at the time.

Sam Russell

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I just don't think Donnelly is genuinely left wing and feel that he is just going along with his because he perceives left wing politics to be more popular and make him more electable.

I mean the guy was elected in 2011 partly based on the fact that he was in talks with Shane Ross at the time.

Does that not say more about Shane Ross than Steven Donnelly?

Annasopra

Sam Russell wrote: »

Does that not say more about Shane Ross than Steven Donnelly?

Perhaps

But honestly how can a party claim to be emulating the Nordic model of social democracy on the one hand and have a blatantly anti tax policy of abolishing water charges on the other?

It's also fascinating how Shortall is abandoning her pro life credentials

Leonard Hofstadter

So they not populists, but then want to get rid of water charges. All three of them were boasting about breaking the law today, well Donnelly said he 'probably would' pay them (though gave no idea when he would do so). If they were serious about not being populist, they wouldn't be doing this. I wouldn't mind but there was a time when I liked Donnelly and wanted to see him as part of a Government (had FG done better in 2011, I would have preferred a coalition with him and like minded independents). I thought he was above this really.

Even though I don't (and never did) like Murphy's political, I always felt she had some level of integrity and wasn't just a Healy Rae or Lowry type of independent, who actually was capable of seeing the bigger picture. However, any politician who advocates law breaking shouldn't be allowed stand for election let alone be even considered as being part of any Government, and she along with Shortall (as well as a lot of the opposition really) are doing exactly that. They're really just the Shinners minus the violence; shameless, populist left wing windbags.

But of course the magic money tree and freebies are very, very appealing to a large section of the Irish electorate (despite the fact that this eventually ends up in disaster and despair as the Greek situation clearly shows) so I'd say they'll pick up a few seats. They should knock a few votes of the Shinners (no bad thing obviously) plus obviously they'll get some votes off ex-Labour voters.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It's also fascinating how Shortall is abandoning her pro life credentials

Pro life credentials?

You mean seeking a gestational limit on terminations?

I wasn't aware that made someone "pro-life" now. There are very few people, I suspect, who would endorse the prospect of late-stage terminations.

Calling Shortall "pro life" seems like a cheap shot and a pointless slur, unless there's a lot more to it than her modest submissions on the abortion legislation.

Sam Russell

captainspeed wrote: »

So they not populists, but then want to get rid of water charges. All three of them were boasting about breaking the law today, well Donnelly said he 'probably would' pay them (though gave no idea when he would do so). If they were serious about not being populist, they wouldn't be doing this. I wouldn't mind but there was a time when I liked Donnelly and wanted to see him as part of a Government (had FG done better in 2011, I would have preferred a coalition with him and like minded independents). I thought he was above this really.

Even though I don't (and never did) like Murphy's political, I always felt she had some level of integrity and wasn't just a Healy Rae or Lowry type of independent, who actually was capable of seeing the bigger picture. However, any politician who advocates law breaking shouldn't be allowed stand for election let alone be even considered as being part of any Government, and she along with Shortall (as well as a lot of the opposition really) are doing exactly that. They're really just the Shinners minus the violence; shameless, populist left wing windbags.

But of course the magic money tree and freebies are very, very appealing to a large section of the Irish electorate (despite the fact that this eventually ends up in disaster and despair as the Greek situation clearly shows) so I'd say they'll pick up a few seats. They should knock a few votes of the Shinners (no bad thing obviously) plus obviously they'll get some votes off ex-Labour voters.

As a state founded by law breakers, I do not think that would fly.

However, I am not sure that being against Irish Water is not a worthy position. It has been set up in such a disastrous way that it is bound to fail, or if it succeeds, it will be sold off. Either way, that is bad.

Annasopra

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Pro life credentials?

You mean seeking a gestational limit on terminations?

I wasn't aware that made someone "pro-life" now. There are very few people, I suspect, who would endorse the prospect of late-stage terminations.

Calling Shortall "pro life" seems like a cheap shot and a pointless slur, unless there's a lot more to it than her modest submissions on the abortion legislation.

Its well known that Shortall is pro life. She opposed x case legislation within the Labour Party for a long time.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its well known that Shortall is pro life. She opposed x case legislation within the Labour Party for a long time.

Yes I've read those rumours on p.ie.

Strangely enough, she didn't oppose the Protection in Life in Pregnancy Act.

Perhaps people on the internet who claim to know her inner mind should revise their observations.

Chimichangas

Looking forward to this new party alright! Just what was needed!

Was just thinking the last week or 2 that all governments are all talk about competitiveness, globalised economy, jobs for people, etc. (which to my mind says more about increasing profits for fatcats, bankers and vested interests), but have stopped talking about improving conditions for the common people, more equality in education, health etc
Look forward to seeing what this new party can do! Always liked the people-centred nordic style!

Thomas_.

Patser wrote: »

Catherine Murphy is one of Ireland's biggest cheerleaders for Syriza, it's just that Paul Murphy and Sinn Fein's profile masks hers.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CathMurphyTD/status/616930139058925569

In.Comparison Donnelly has been a breath of fresh air in the Dáil. A truly smart, literate independent mind.

Do it's a strange mix to see him in with a dogmatic veteran Workers Party/democratic left ex-member

Thanks for pointing that out.

As for Mr Donnelly, I´ve read a short biography about him (on wiki) where his speech in which he addresses Martin Schulz is cited. Interesting Points he raised there.

On the home page of the social democrats there are three videos (linked to YouTube) in which every member of them gives a Statement. That of Mr Donnelly was the more rational one. He comes across as a trustworthy, sincere and serious politician. But he´s also not as Long in politics like his two founding members which, in some ways, makes a difference.

Quin_Dub

As a few others have already pointed out - I think this is a plan to have a shot at governance rather then there being an actual ideological "gap in the market" to fill..

They see the likelihood of there being a minority FG led government made up of a mix of groupings and are making a play based on the fact that negotiation as a block of 3 seats is better than them each doing it individually.

I would disagree with their stance on Irish Water fairly completely - Not saying that IW is working well at this point, but I totally support the idea of everyone paying for water on a usage basis. It should not be funded through taxation.

If their stance on IW is a "red line" issue for them then I don't see the point of their existence...

A block of 3 seats is never going to get into government on that basis as the lead party of government (which will not be SF) will not give in on that...

If they don't plan on going into Government , then what's the point of the new party??

Which makes their stance on IW a purely populist attempt at vote gathering...

None of them are in my constituency so my opinion is moot at this stage , but even if there was a candidate I can't see myself voting for them..

edanto

The "gap in the market" is not ideology. We've long suffered chameleon political parties in Ireland that promised this ideology or that based on their market research. We're sick of that.

The "gap in the market" that the Socdems have identified is credibility. And that scares the establishment (including SF of course).

These three are principled politicians. Genuinely open-minded people. I'd go so far as to say they might even be brave enough to change their mind (the biggest sin in this media politics) based on new evidence.

That is what is different about this group. It's not a left-right thing. Stay away from those terms. They are obsolete.