New Party: The Social Democrats.

Quin_Dub

edanto wrote: »

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.

How is saying that they'd abolish IW and put metering on hold if they get into Government "credible"?? - There's not a chance in hell of them being able to deliver on that.

That statement is Populism , pure and simple.

I agree that they appear to be principled , honest people (although I would not vote for Murphy or Shortall personally , Donnelly is someone that might have attracted my interest as an independent but not now however).

Any party claiming that they will "Scrap Irish Water" if they get into government is, to be frank lying to their voters as none of them have the remotest chance of being the largest grouping in Government and the 2 parties that might be the largest party (FG & FF) will absolutely categorically not countenance getting rid of Irish Water or the direct payment for Water so any statement on that front is populist vote gathering.

Bannasidhe

Quin_Dub wrote: »

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..

It says a lot about the state of Irish politics when we cannot believe that everyone involved is in it simply and only 'for a shot a governance'.

One the one hand of course they are - that's the point after all - but your statement implies that they will do anything to get that shot which is not necessarily the case. I can understand that cynicism as that has been what we are used to in the past - that does not mean it is the only way. It just means that Irish politics is dysfunctional.


Shortall, for example, was 'in governance', she could have stayed 'in governance' if she had just kept her mouth shut and played the game. She didn't - she resigned on a point of principle. So if her only desire is to be in government why did she resign from the government?

As for a block of three seat never going to get into government - how many PDs were there in government there at the end of the FF/PD/GP coalition? A block of 2 if I recall correctly.

As for IW - I have no issue paying for water usage directly although I do think this places a pro-rata heavier burden on those on lower incomes - but hey, the unemployed don't need to shower everyday eh as it's not like they have jobs to go to...

My issue is that we are already paying for it through taxation and now we are being required to also pay for it directly - one or t'udder - not both. That is simply unacceptable.

What is also unacceptable is political parties running and winning based on a particular manifesto which gets chucked out the window as soon as they get in power. I am sure I am not the only person who is sick of that... and before anyone says 'well, the economic situation, troika, bondholders blah blah' - I seem to recall a promise that the practice of using the guillotine to push through legislation was going to stop - in fact it has increased. That had nothing to do with the economy, the Troika etc etc - that is a government not willing to debate or allow proper scrutiny of legislation but instead uses it's majority and the whip system to push through legislation. It's undemocratic, arrogant and disrespectful of the Oireachtas.

Quin_Dub

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It says a lot about the state of Irish politics when we cannot believe that everyone involved is in it simply and only 'for a shot a governance'.

One the one hand of course they are - that's the point after all - but your statement implies that they will do anything to get that shot which is not necessarily the case. I can understand that cynicism as that has been what we are used to in the past - that does not mean it is the only way. It just means that Irish politics is dysfunctional.


Shortall, for example, was 'in governance', she could have stayed 'in governance' if she had just kept her mouth shut and played the game. She didn't - she resigned on a point of principle. So if her only desire is to be in government why did she resign from the government?

As for a block of three seat never going to get into government - how many PDs were there in government there at the end of the FF/PD/GP coalition? A block of 2 if I recall correctly.

As for IW - I have no issue paying for water usage directly although I do think this places a pro-rata heavier burden on those on lower incomes - but hey, the unemployed don't need to shower everyday eh as it's not like they have jobs to go to...

My issue is that we are already paying for it through taxation and now we are being required to also pay for it directly - one or t'udder - not both. That is simply unacceptable.

What is also unacceptable is political parties running and winning based on a particular manifesto which gets chucked out the window as soon as they get in power. I am sure I am not the only person who is sick of that... and before anyone says 'well, the economic situation, troika, bondholders blah blah' - I seem to recall a promise that the practice of using the guillotine to push through legislation was going to stop - in fact it has increased. That had nothing to do with the economy, the Troika etc etc - that is a government not willing to debate or allow proper scrutiny of legislation but instead uses it's majority and the whip system to push through legislation. It's undemocratic, arrogant and disrespectful of the Oireachtas.

My point about them is not they are only in it for a "shot at governance" but that the formation of the party is purely for a shot at governance - As you rightly point out, if they wanted only to be in power they'd have joined FF or FG.

In terms of the block of three getting into power - They absolutely have a shot at it , but to do so, they'll have to give up on the IW stance as the "big" party won't be prepared to accept those terms.

Hence my point that holding that up and saying "If we get into Government we'll scrap IW" is a flat lie because they absolutely categorically will never be able to deliver on that...So that instantly impacts their credibility in my view....

Bannasidhe

Quin_Dub wrote: »

My point about them is not they are only in it for a "shot at governance" but that the formation of the party is purely for a shot at governance - As you rightly point out, if they wanted only to be in power they'd have joined FF or FG.

In terms of the block of three getting into power - They absolutely have a shot at it , but to do so, they'll have to give up on the IW stance as the "big" party won't be prepared to accept those terms.

Hence my point that holding that up and saying "If we get into Government we'll scrap IW" is a flat lie because they absolutely categorically will never be able to deliver on that...So that instantly impacts their credibility in my view....

Again - isn't the point of being in politics to have a shot at governing?
The unfortunate thing in an Irish context is that our parliament has been so stripped of power that now were are essentially being governed by a gang of four and highly paid unelected consultants/civil servants.

Perhaps the point of the SocDems is that we change the system so it is no longer a case of if you want to be in power it has to be either FF or FG?


Can we really, as a society, not imagine the possibility of a government that doesn't contain one of those two as the majority partner.

Is a government without either of them beyond us?

We need to get away, imho, from having a 'big' party that dominates government. It is a recipe for unaccountability and pushing through legislation without proper scrutiny.

I am listening to Enda Kenny on the radio now talking about lack of transparency in Bertie's time - the hypocrisy of the man is stunning and he is in charge of our country!

Quin_Dub

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps the point of the SocDems is that we change the system so it is no longer a case of if you want to be in power it has to be either FF or FG?


Can we really, as a society, not imagine the possibility of a government that doesn't contain one of those two as the majority partner.

Is a government without either of them beyond us?

Well... The bottom line is that Ireland is a predominantly Centre/Centre right country - Always has been and there is nothing to suggest that that is going materially change anytime soon.

So - The creation of yet another left/centre left party is an exercise in futility if the aim is to replace FF/FG as the dominant parties in the state.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We need to get away, imho, from having a 'big' party that dominates government. It is a recipe for unaccountability and pushing through legislation without proper scrutiny.

This is where I have a problem - If we have a government made up of a hodge podge of small parties and independents then absolutely nothing will get done as consensus will be extremely hard to achieve - If they all share the same views then they are a de-facto party so it would just be window dressing rather than achieving what you are suggesting..

The Whip system isn't perfect , but the alternative is the US system which leads to legislative paralysis (See Republicans vs. Obama) or rampant bribery and corruption (See every other US government).

Both systems have their obvious flaws , but in my view the whip system is the most effective at getting the actual legislative work done.

nice_guy80

Best of luck to them

Thomas_.

While I agree with a lot of what you said, there´s still something I´m not going conform with.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Again - isn't the point of being in politics to have a shot at governing?
The unfortunate thing in an Irish context is that our parliament has been so stripped of power that now were are essentially being governed by a gang of four and highly paid unelected consultants/civil servants.

Perhaps the point of the SocDems is that we change the system so it is no longer a case of if you want to be in power it has to be either FF or FG?


Can we really, as a society, not imagine the possibility of a government that doesn't contain one of those two as the majority partner.

Is a government without either of them beyond us?

That´s a Thing one can read in other countries too, most from those who are fed up with the Establishment parties, but it´s often hard for them to get a better alternative.

We need to get away, imho, from having a 'big' party that dominates government. It is a recipe for unaccountability and pushing through legislation without proper scrutiny.

It´s not just simply maths that a "big" party with a majority of elected TDs can form a stable government and if the majority isn´t enough to rule by one party, they have to go into a coalition. So, given that there are more small parties and thus no bloc of a majority by one party or two parties, it makes governing a bit more difficult if such a coalition government can´t reach much of a common ground on which they work.

I am listening to Enda Kenny on the radio now talking about lack of transparency in Bertie's time - the hypocrisy of the man is stunning and he is in charge of our country!

You wouldn´t hear the whole truth from many politicians, wouldn´t you? In the end, Kenny brought Ireland through the crisis and the Irish are not alone in this, there are other countries where people had also to manage with short cuts. I´m not a FG follower, on the contrary I´m a Social Democrat myself (not related to this new party this thread is about), but I do pay the Taoiseach some respect for how he managed to get Ireland out of the worst from the mess left behind by his predecessors government.

Like it or not, hypocrisy is part and parcel of the game called "politics". Sometimes it is cristal clear sometimes it just comes across like it when circumstances change and politics have to adjust on the changed situation. Some call that "flexability" instead of hypocrisy.

But let us be a bit more frank, one can´t expect the current leader of a government to praise his predecessor.

Bannasidhe

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Well... The bottom line is that Ireland is a predominantly Centre/Centre right country - Always has been and there is nothing to suggest that that is going materially change anytime soon.

So - The creation of yet another left/centre left party is an exercise in futility if the aim is to replace FF/FG as the dominant parties in the state.




This is where I have a problem - If we have a government made up of a hodge podge of small parties and independents then absolutely nothing will get done as consensus will be extremely hard to achieve - If they all share the same views then they are a de-facto party so it would just be window dressing rather than achieving what you are suggesting..

The Whip system isn't perfect , but the alternative is the US system which leads to legislative paralysis (See Republicans vs. Obama) or rampant bribery and corruption (See every other US government).

Both systems have their obvious flaws , but in my view the whip system is the most effective at getting the actual legislative work done.

We have a surfeit of centre right parties - FF/FG/Renua and the LP can certainly not be considered left any more as they sit swollen and bloated in the centre pursuing neo-liberal policies with gusto.

What we do not have is, with the possible exception of SF, is a centre left party. A party that considers Irish society as a whole and not just the Irish economy.


What have our centre right governments given us? Nothing but boom/bust, boom/bust - FF give away and trash the economy and FG come in and cut, cut, cut (primarily focusing on those who can least afford to take cuts) until middle Ireland is on it's knees and they get chucked out and we start the merry-go-round again. That's not stability. That's insanity.

You might find the idea of a majority government using the Whip system and guillotine to bulldoze through unscrutinised legislation appealing but I find it abhorrent. That's not 'stability' that is a quasi-dictatorship by a single party.

Thomas_.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Well... The bottom line is that Ireland is a predominantly Centre/Centre right country - Always has been and there is nothing to suggest that that is going materially change anytime soon.

In fairness, wasn´t it the period of Séan Lemass when he was Taoiseach and brought modernisation into the Irish society, and thus also changed the direction of FF being the "modernising party"? I think that - imo - Lemass was one of the very able Irish political leaders in Ireland who brought this country forward. He had a Talent for economics and he was a strong leader, despite that FF has become the most loathed party in Ireland for their history of gombeenism and corruption. Without setting the direction back in the 1960s (that seen in a long run period), the years of the "Celtic Tiger" had probably never occured.

So - The creation of yet another left/centre left party is an exercise in futility if the aim is to replace FF/FG as the dominant parties in the state.

Centre left could be the alternative to centre right and hopefully a bit more social too, depending on whether this will be affordable and that alone is argueable.

This is where I have a problem - If we have a government made up of a hodge podge of small parties and independents then absolutely nothing will get done as consensus will be extremely hard to achieve - If they all share the same views then they are a de-facto party so it would just be window dressing rather than achieving what you are suggesting..

The Whip system isn't perfect , but the alternative is the US system which leads to legislative paralysis (See Republicans vs. Obama) or rampant bribery and corruption (See every other US government).

Both systems have their obvious flaws , but in my view the whip system is the most effective at getting the actual legislative work done.

I agree with that.

Patser

edanto wrote: »

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.

I'd question though are they going to try expand as a party? Are they going to run new candidates in other constituencies? They say they want to. If they are then they offer an alternative as a party nationwide. That's exciting but we'll have to see what calibre of candidates they offer, and what those candidates have to say for themselves.

But if they don't, then they're just 3 sitting TDs, loosely cooperating in an attempt to regain their seats and offer a 3 for price of 1 deal to one of the existing big parties. People on this thread talk of breaking the FG FF dominance, but a party if 3 well known names, without enough policies/ideals in place to bring in extra seats isn't going to do that.


The bigger worry is that following the next election, and looking at current polls, we'll have FG and Sinn Fein ad 2 largest parties but nowhere near enough to form a Govt due to 3 seats for SD, 2 for Greens, 3 for aaa, 1 for Renua , 12 for random independents, 2 for Ross's Alliance of Independents, 3 for PBP, FF on 15, Lab on 7 etc. Leading to the biggest load of horse trading ever seen, with all these little groupings trying to outbid each other to get into power, while also to differentiate themselves and stick to their principles.

Can you imagine a 7 party coalition with independents also involved and how unstable it'd be.

Just to take the anti-IW coalition SF, AAA, PBP, SD, Wallace, Daly, OSullivan, Ross's group maybe.

Or equally unstable FG FF Lab Renua Ross's group again, Healy Rae, Greens, McGrath...

Thomas_.

Some new article regarding the social democrats:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/new-social-democrats-party-not-trying-to-replicate-labour-342771.html

K-9

I'd say Donnelly probably had to compromise on IW, that's the reality of politics and something a hell of a lot of Irish voters seem to have a huge problem grasping. Bug bear of mine, but we've had 33 years of continous coalitions, you'd think the penny would have dropped by now. I can see it in the UK but here? Sophisticated electorate my arse!

Instead we've the perverse situation of minor coalition partners (with obviously less influence) getting punished for not implementing manifesto proposals, and that's all they are until programmes for Government are negotiated. FF and FG always get away scot free, I'd suggest FF would have got away with it last time as well except for the crash thingy!

The point is, this group might want to abolish water rates but what people would get from that is that they'd be open to changing the current system, which I'd say nearly everybody can agree is a total Omnishambles at this stage. Nobody has any confidence in it.

I'd read suggestions before that Donnelly was a bit FF leaning so he'd me a master of compromise if that's the case.

As for Ireland being centre/centre right, I can't accept that. FF always looked after Social Welfare as much as they could, and they did it so well, they stopped Labour being part of the big 2.

Muahahaha

I think the Social Democrats is a positive development, they're three very credible TDs with Murphy and Donnelly in particular being stand out performers in the Dail. For the many of us sick of the FF/FG/Lab charade and who dont want to vote SF then this is finally a viable alternative.

I hope they try to recruit at least 10 candidates to run with them. Renua are talking about 40 candidates running but I dont see that as realistic tbh

Scipio_Hib

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think the Social Democrats is a positive development, they're three very credible TDs with Murphy and Donnelly in particular being stand out performers in the Dail. For the many of us sick of the FF/FG/Lab charade and who dont want to vote SF then this is finally a viable alternative.

I hope they try to recruit at least 10 candidates to run with them. Renua are talking about 40 candidates running but I dont see that as realistic tbh

There are certainly more attractive personalities in the SDs compared to SFein or Renua - and their policies should be a bit better thought out.

An interesting development and one that offers more potential for long term, sustainable success compared to Renua, imo.

1800

Scipio_Hib wrote: »

There are certainly more attractive personalities in the SDs compared to SFein or Renua - and their policies should be a bit better thought out.

An interesting development and one that offers more potential for long term, sustainable success compared to Renua, imo.

So before they even create policies your already claiming they are better than SF and Renua....

Jawgap

Quin_Dub wrote: »

How is saying that they'd abolish IW and put metering on hold if they get into Government "credible"?? - There's not a chance in hell of them being able to deliver on that.

That statement is Populism , pure and simple.

.....

I think saying they'd abolish IW is not the same as saying they'd abolish water charging - it sounds like a reasonable idea to me. IW is severely, perhaps even critically damaged, they seem to be suggesting a different entity or entities will be put in place, but that charging will remain.

Thus far, I like the cut of their jib, but it'll be interesting to see how matters progress over the next few months. The reaction of the mainstream parties will be interesting, along with the reaction of SF. It might also be telling if others jump ship to join them and from where.

Chips Lovell

Policy wise, they'd tick a lot of boxes. But what would move them down the preference order for me is their hidebound opposition to water charges and the personnel involved, in particular Donnelly. Still, probably better than Renua.

Quin_Dub

Patser wrote: »

The bigger worry is that following the next election, and looking at current polls, we'll have FG and Sinn Fein ad 2 largest parties but nowhere near enough to form a Govt due to 3 seats for SD, 2 for Greens, 3 for aaa, 1 for Renua , 12 for random independents, 2 for Ross's Alliance of Independents, 3 for PBP, FF on 15, Lab on 7 etc. Leading to the biggest load of horse trading ever seen, with all these little groupings trying to outbid each other to get into power, while also to differentiate themselves and stick to their principles.

Can you imagine a 7 party coalition with independents also involved and how unstable it'd be.

Just to take the anti-IW coalition SF, AAA, PBP, SD, Wallace, Daly, OSullivan, Ross's group maybe.

Or equally unstable FG FF Lab Renua Ross's group again, Healy Rae, Greens, McGrath...

Not a chance of that...

Even going on the last set of opinion polls from the end of June FG and FF will be the largest parties accounting for over 50% of the seats and that's before the fallout for SF from their love-in with Syriza...

FG will be ~20 seats or so short of a majority so it'll be Labour plus about 10 or so others unless they do a deal with FF and for for a "super" majority coalition with FF.. I think that depends on how badly Labour get cleaned out...IF labout go below 10 seats then I think the FG/FF option is on the table

Godge

For me, their stance on water charges is a big problem as I am in favour of metered water charges from a conservation point of view and a single utility from an efficiency point of view. Donnelly's views on the cost of metering only paying for themselves is short-sighted by ignoring any conservation effects.

That being said, a lot else of what they say would have a resonance with me. They will get a preference that is higher than Sinn Fein, Renua or the Socialist Parties.

jimmycrackcorm

efb wrote:

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

What will happen if they happen to end up as part of a government coalition? We all know the fate of the PDs, the Green party, probably Labour.

Godge

Godge wrote: »

For me, their stance on water charges is a big problem as I am in favour of metered water charges from a conservation point of view and a single utility from an efficiency point of view. Donnelly's views on the cost of metering only paying for themselves is short-sighted by ignoring any conservation effects.

That being said, a lot else of what they say would have a resonance with me. They will get a preference that is higher than Sinn Fein, Renua or the Socialist Parties.

It's been noted that IW don't care about conservation. They've said that prices will rise if people conserve water.

I also agree on metered water, but IW has been a clusterf*ck from day one and seriously needs abolishing.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

It's been noted that IW don't care about conservation. They've said that prices will rise if people conserve water.

I also agree on metered water, but IW has been a clusterf*ck from day one and seriously needs abolishing.

I also agree with metered water - lived in Sydney and Brisbane where water was metered, however the free allowance was enough that if careful there was no charge. Being careful with water is now second nature to me. But not for one second do I think IW is about water conservation - it is nothing but another fundraising scheme like the property tax that was going to fund 'local services'.

What I do not agree with is funds continue to be taken from other sources such as motor tax and VAT and metered water. I'll pay for water once not multiple times.

Annasopra

Quin_Dub wrote: »

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..

That's the thing - I think Quinn and Shortall would jump at government but Murphy wouldn't

Bannasidhe

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That's the thing - I think Quinn and Shortall would jump at government but Murphy wouldn't

Quinn?

Shortall jumped from government on a point of principle but you seem to be ignoring this.

I'm getting the impression from your posts you have issues with Shortall.

RJ Globe

I think the formation of this new party could be a real kick in the stones for SF. SF have benefited greatly from the sharp decline in support for the other major parties, particularly Labour. The SDs will undoubtedly be seen as a more viable option than SF by many voters, who are hesitant to lend their support to SF due to their controversial past. Not to mention that what little support Labour still have may now be siphoned by this new centre-left party that can capitalize on the disenfranchisement of Labour voters.

FreudianSlippers

RJ Globe wrote: »

I think the formation of this new party could be a real kick in the stones for SF. SF have benefited greatly from the sharp decline in support for the other major parties, particularly Labour. The SDs will undoubtedly be seen as a more viable option than SF by many voters, who are hesitant to lend their support to SF due to their controversial past. Not to mention that what little support Labour still have may now be siphoned by this new centre-left party that can capitalize on the disenfranchisement of Labour voters.

That's certainly who I see it is aimed at - the traditional Labour voter. At the moment, there are plenty of Labour supporters who wouldn't vote for this coalition again as they feel Labour party has abandoned their policies. These voters aren't likely to be as left-wing socialist as your average SF supporter.

1800

RJ Globe wrote: »

I think the formation of this new party could be a real kick in the stones for SF. SF have benefited greatly from the sharp decline in support for the other major parties, particularly Labour. The SDs will undoubtedly be seen as a more viable option than SF by many voters, who are hesitant to lend their support to SF due to their controversial past. Not to mention that what little support Labour still have may now be siphoned by this new centre-left party that can capitalize on the disenfranchisement of Labour voters.

I see your point but considering Murphy and Donnelly will likely comfortably get elected anyway I dont see how it really affects SF all that much. Labour will lose alot of seats, I dont see where this party are going to pluck other viable popular candidates from 8 months before an election. Only additions I can see are more Labour deserters changing colours to keep themselves in the Dail. Most people will see through it.

This just seems to be 3 TDs grouping together hoping to be involved in the next mix mash coalition government. I dont think they have the resources or the time to stand candidates across the country and get them elected.

Bannasidhe

1800 wrote: »

I see your point but considering Murphy and Donnelly will likely comfortably get elected anyway I dont see how it really affects SF all that much. Labour will lose alot of seats, I dont see where this party are going to pluck other viable popular candidates from 8 months before an election. Only additions I can see are more Labour deserters changing colours to keep themselves in the Dail. Most people will see through it.

This just seems to be 3 TDs grouping together hoping to be involved in the next mix mash coalition government. I dont think they have the resources or the time to stand candidates across the country and get them elected.

Hopefully they are looking longer term and not just following the usual Irish political pattern of living from G.E. to G.E.

If all three retain their seats in the next election that will give them a good platform to build on for the next G.E. - they will have the visibility of being a party in parliament (albeit in Opposition), speaking time, and funding. I don't think they need any current LP TDs to jump ship (I'd certainly look at that with a cynical eye) but possibly a few who have already jumped might decide to join.

Loafing Oaf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hopefully they are looking longer term and not just following the usual Irish political pattern of living from G.E. to G.E.

If all three retain their seats in the next election that will give them a good platform to build on for the next G.E. - they will have the visibility of being a party in parliament (albeit in Opposition), speaking time, and funding. I don't think they need any current LP TDs to jump ship (I'd certainly look at that with a cynical eye) but possibly a few who have already jumped might decide to join.

Or perhaps other 'floaters' like Finian McGrath, Averill Power if the SDs really pick up steam? Can't see anyone who doesn't already have a profile getting elected on an SD ticket but the PDs never really groomed new people and they did alright...

I'd be surprised if there's not room for Power in the social dems. The big concern must be getting good rural candidates in so they don't appear to be East coast/Dublin centric.