Do we need an Irish version of the Lib Dems?

DublinWriter

Basically, we have two main political parties born out of Civil War politics with an oppertunistic middle-ground Labour party that shores up support for either.

Isn't it time that we had a new political party in Ireland? I was thinking something along the lines of the UK Lib Dems.

DadaKopf

Isn't that what the Labour Party does?

netwhizkid

I always thought the Greens were similiar to the Lib Dems anyway. What we need is an end to Civil War politics.

Regards netwhizkid

DublinWriter

DadaKopf wrote:

Isn't that what the Labour Party does?

Hmmmm no. Could you imagine the Lib Dems having being in coalition with both Labour and Conservatives in the last 20 years?

That's the reason I label the Irish Labour party as being opportunistic in their hopping into bed with Parties who hold diametrically opposite views to their own.

is_that_so

If most folks were honest there are bits of the two main parties that appeal to all of us and lots of bits that don't. We like our politics safe - ie centre-ish and however we may whinge about them, come election time it's FF,FG or Labour/PDs with Sinn Fein coming into the equation of late, every one of them tied to the Civil War.
Quite simply it's part of what we are.

At the same time I am curious about the question.
Is it thrown out for debate or is there a vision behind it ?

frootfancy

Hey if you're looking for a political party leader that likes to be humiliated on an Irish version of 'Have i Got News For you' then the Lib Dems are ideal!

johnKarma

DublinWriter wrote:

Hmmmm no. Could you imagine the Lib Dems having being in coalition with both Labour and Conservatives in the last 20 years?

That's the reason I label the Irish Labour party as being opportunistic in their hopping into bed with Parties who hold diametrically opposite views to their own.

I think the real issue here is the difference between the British and Irish electoral systems.

The UK uses a first-past-the-post system which leads to disproportionately large majorities for the two main parties. The reason it's difficult to imagine the Lib Dems in various different coalition configurations is because it's difficult to imagine situations in which they could play such a pivotal role. Labour and the Tories tend to have massive parliamentary majorities regardless of their true popular support. The Lib Dems have adjusted their policies accordingly. I reckon it's a question of political reality rather than principle. If there was a real possibility of them being power brokers I don't think they'd shy away from it - they're politicians after all.

axer

We have Sinn Fein who are making great progress in the Republic.

AngelofFire

That's the reason I label the Irish Labour party as being opportunistic in their hopping into bed with Parties who hold diametrically opposite views to their own.

Im a Labour party member and i couldn`t agree with you more.

pdh

At the rate we are going, you will only have to wait a few years and then you will have to opportunity to vote for the LibDems as we will be back in the UK officially, by then

toiletduck

axer wrote:

We have Sinn Fein who are making great progress in the Republic.

they're hardly an Irish Lib-Dems though, are they?

axer

toiletduck wrote:

they're hardly an Irish Lib-Dems though, are they?

No, but they are an alternative to FF & FG and are growing fast.

murphaph

axer wrote:

We have Sinn Fein who are making great progress in the Republic.

That's more of a indictment of FF/FG/LAB/PDs ability to impress than a ringing endorsement of SF as a realistic party of government. Whatever we think of the bland shower in the Dail we would be well advised to steer well clear of the economic nightmare that awaits if SF ever 'govern'.

ISAW

axer wrote:

No, [they i.e. SF are not an Irish anologue to the Lib dems] but they are an alternative to FF & FG and are growing fast.

You cant be serious! Look at the 2002 election results. SF got 6.5 per cent! Suppose SF wiped out Lab Greens PD they wuld have 24 per cent. FF and FG had 65 per cent of the first perference vote. Please dont propose SF are mainstream. In the Republic they barely constitute a party let alone an alternative! In the North there are about in the position (vote numbers wise) where they would be if they replaced all the small parties in the South, and were looking to replace a party the size of FG say.

Furthermore many SF gains were regional or in specific constituencies. Their biggest increase was 11.4 per cent in dublin SW. compare that to FF 21 per cent in Limerick W 12.9 per cent in Kerry South. FG 16 per cent in Dun Laoghaire, 12.9 pr cent in wexford 11.9 in Cork SW 11.3 in dublin SE (and that after a FG disaster!) Lab 15.8 in wicklow, 14 in Dun Laoghaire, 12.9 in Cork E.

Put simply your comment about fast growth may be true but can only be sustained for small numbers. If one doubles votes in every election but if only starts out with one vote it will take eight elections to get over one thousand. It is moving from one thousand to eight thousand (a safe seat) that is the challenge. The day SF can secure 8,000 votes (or roughly a quota) in eight constituencies is the day they will be a serious political party.

This raises one question about targeting seats as opposed to votes. I mean the PD's got eight seats from 73,500 votes and the Greens got 6 from 71,500. SF got five from 121,000. Labour with 200,000 got 21 seats.Obviously there is a pay off when you look for a percentage of votes widely spread. when there are fewer votes it seems wiser to concentrate them but somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 it is wiser to look for the later seats. topic for another thread maybe? But the point is that all the other parties together only just about add up to the second biggest. So even if SF could achieve that they would still not offer an alternative they would have to go into coalition (with FG of all people! ). I don't think this even enters the heads of most SF members.

axer

ISAW wrote:

You cant be serious! Look at the 2002 election results. SF got 6.5 per cent! Suppose SF wiped out Lab Greens PD they wuld have 24 per cent. FF and FG had 65 per cent of the first perference vote. Please dont propose SF are mainstream. In the Republic they barely constitute a party let alone an alternative! In the North there are about in the position (vote numbers wise) where they would be if they replaced all the small parties in the South, and were looking to replace a party the size of FG say.

Furthermore many SF gains were regional or in specific constituencies. Their biggest increase was 11.4 per cent in dublin SW. compare that to FF 21 per cent in Limerick W 12.9 per cent in Kerry South. FG 16 per cent in Dun Laoghaire, 12.9 pr cent in wexford 11.9 in Cork SW 11.3 in dublin SE (and that after a FG disaster!) Lab 15.8 in wicklow, 14 in Dun Laoghaire, 12.9 in Cork E.

Put simply your comment about fast growth may be true but can only be sustained for small numbers. If one doubles votes in every election but if only starts out with one vote it will take eight elections to get over one thousand. It is moving from one thousand to eight thousand (a safe seat) that is the challenge. The day SF can secure 8,000 votes (or roughly a quota) in eight constituencies is the day they will be a serious political party.

This raises one question about targeting seats as opposed to votes. I mean the PD's got eight seats from 73,500 votes and the Greens got 6 from 71,500. SF got five from 121,000. Labour with 200,000 got 21 seats.Obviously there is a pay off when you look for a percentage of votes widely spread. when there are fewer votes it seems wiser to concentrate them but somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 it is wiser to look for the later seats. topic for another thread maybe? But the point is that all the other parties together only just about add up to the second biggest. So even if SF could achieve that they would still not offer an alternative they would have to go into coalition (with FG of all people! ). I don't think this even enters the heads of most SF members.

SF have only just started seriously contending elections in the Republic. I don't think you can rule them out as being a possible alternative in the future. You think that a new party could out-perform their success so far?
I don't think it can be looked at as taking the seats off the smaller parties and thats all. If Sinn Fein get big enough (by taking the smaller parties seats or otherwise) they become more visible. If they can use this visibility best then they can have huge growth. FG only had 22.5% of the vote in the last election. If Sinn Fein can surpass that then they can push to get the highest 1st preference votes.
The OP posed the question of whether the Republic needs a new party to take on FF & FG. I believe that SF have a better chance of getting big enough to take on FF & FG quicker than if a new party entered the scene. It lies heavily on the next election though.

Nuttzz

Anyone old enough to cast their mind back to 1985 when the PD's were launched, they did quite well initally, however now they are (sadly) falling away. I can see the same for the shinners, many people will vote for them for romantic reasons or because they are weary with the current parties but if they get into power their popularity will soon disappear, along with our economy.....

Time Magazine

axer wrote:

FG only had 22.5% of the vote in the last election. If Sinn Fein can surpass that..

Sinn Féin have 6% of the vote. You're not going to quadruple your vote.

And now for the alternative SF bash:

axer wrote:

FG only had 22.5% of the vote of the last election

SF only had 6.5%. That's three and a half times your "mandate". Who's the potential governmental party again?

And third preference:

axer wrote:

FG only had 22.5% of the vote in the last election.

Three and a half times your "mandate". 26 x 3.5 = €91m of bank notes.

mycroft

axer wrote:

We have Sinn Fein who are making great progress in the Republic.

I'm racking my brains for the images of Charles Kennedy standing infront of a group of men wearing balaclavas saluting a bomb maker who murdered civilians during a terrorist campaign.

But seriously folks;

Sinn Fein are a party that must kotow to it's extremists in the north, take abortion for example it's right on left of centre down side supporters are pro choice while the fanatical northerners aren't.

Any party who's paramilitary wing has undue control over it's political party cannot be seen as a credible alternative.

Nice maths btw angry banana

axer

Angry Banana wrote:

Sinn Féin have 6% of the vote. You're not going to quadruple your vote.

Me? My vote? I'd probably have to run for an election to get a vote in the first place. I wouldn't be really interested in running tbh. Sinn Fein on the other hand did quintuple the number of their seats in the Dail.

Angry Banana wrote:

And now for the alternative SF bash:
SF only had 6.5%. That's three and a half times your "mandate". Who's the potential governmental party again?

Me? My mandate? I'd probably have to run for an election to get a vote in the first place. I wouldn't be really interested in running tbh. I was talking about compared to FF's 41.5%, how FG is (were) far behind FF. If Sinn Fein could reach that level then they could have a crack at FF.

murphaph

axer wrote:

Me? My mandate? I'd probably have to run for an election to get a vote in the first place. I wouldn't be really interested in running tbh. I was talking about compared to FF's 41.5%, how FG is (were) far behind FF. If Sinn Fein could reach that level then they could have a crack at FF.

But surely you wouldn't actually want SF in charge of the economy?

mycroft

axer wrote:

If Sinn Fein could reach that level then they could have a crack at FF.

Whats the first word in that sentence Axer If If Justin Barrett, or Aine Ni racist, got that level of support they'd be a credible alternative (albeit an alternative one).

You're arguing that on a thread about sa potential Irish lib dems and talking election statistics, you've not given a credible argument about why sf could be an alternative, merely that that they could

axer

mycroft wrote:

Whats the first word in that sentence Axer If If Justin Barrett, or Aine Ni racist, got that level of support they'd be a credible alternative (albeit an alternative one).

You're arguing that on a thread about sa potential Irish lib dems and talking election statistics, you've not given a credible argument about why sf could be an alternative, merely that that they could

This thread is about the need for a new party to challenge FF & FG. My point is that SF could be this party. So far their growth indicates that they are on the right track. Straight away it is shot down as not being possible. How long do you think an Irish Lib Dems would take to be a complete alternative to FF & FG - I doubt it could be done in just 1 election.

axer

murphaph wrote:

But surely you wouldn't actually want SF in charge of the economy?

Why? I wouldn't have a problem with them being in charge of our economy.

murphaph

axer wrote:

Why? I wouldn't have a problem with them being in charge of our economy.

Why? Because they'd spend all our taxes on cross border projects (in NI) to better the case for a UI in the eyes of the citizens of NI. We'd be left in an economic wasteland with a view to becoming a 'republican socialist utophia' that would never materialise, instead we'd return to mass unemployment and high taxation. You do realise that SF are very negative on membership of the EU, right? They're an inward looking party on the whole and that's a very very bad thing for such a heavily trade dependent nation such as Ireland.

axer

murphaph wrote:

Why? Because they'd spend all our taxes on cross border projects (in NI) to better the case for a UI in the eyes of the citizens of NI. We'd be left in an economic wasteland with a view to becoming a 'republican socialist utophia' that would never materialise, instead we'd return to mass unemployment and high taxation.

Wow, but I guess that is your opinion.

murphaph wrote:

You do realise that SF are very negative on membership of the EU, right?

From what I know they are very cautious about the EU becoming 1 state. Not negative about membership.

murphaph wrote:

They're an inward looking party on the whole and that's a very very bad thing for such a heavily trade dependent nation such as Ireland.

Instead Ireland should sell out, let US war planes land on Irish soil just in case the US ends up not liking us, Change a few words in referendums to fool the Irish into accepting the same thing as they had already rejected...sure we should just sell out for the good of other nations.

is_that_so

axer wrote:

This thread is about the need for a new party to challenge FF & FG. My point is that SF could be this party. So far their growth indicates that they are on the right track. Straight away it is shot down as not being possible. How long do you think an Irish Lib Dems would take to be a complete alternative to FF & FG - I doubt it could be done in just 1 election.

Sinn Fein has the distinct advantage of never having been in government in any jurisdiction and are still attractive alternatives. Give them a few years of government and see how they get on.

DublinWriter

axer wrote:

This thread is about the need for a new party to challenge FF & FG. My point is that SF could be this party.

I really don't think so, not unless they break the links with paramilitarism and give it a 10 year cooling off period as FF did in the 20's.

...and even so, SF would be too-leftist. My original argument was about establishing a new centrist party.

My arguement would be that FF and Labour are too happy in a search for power to skip between centre-left and centre-right resulting in the electorate perceiving them as not having any core values in the long term.

FG will always take the opposite stance of FF and hence will follow this jumping pattern themselves.

axer

is_that_so wrote:

Sinn Fein has the distinct advantage of never having been in government in any jurisdiction and are still attractive alternatives. Give them a few years of government and see how they get on.

So others prejudge that they will ruin the economy and country even though they have never seen them operate in government. The OP poses the question of whether a new party is needed to contend FF & FG in elections - this new party would never have been in government either.

is_that_so

axer wrote:

So others prejudge that they will ruin the economy and country even though they have never seen them operate in government. The OP poses the question of whether a new party is needed to contend FF & FG in elections - this new party would never have been in government either.

No prejudgement from me although I probably wouldn't vote for them :rolleyes: .
The question relates to Liberal and Democrat , the former term certainly doesn't apply to Sinn Fein and the second depends on your point of view. Sinn Fein by inclination are left wing with a nice swing to the right on some things.

axer

DublinWriter wrote:

I really don't think so, not unless they break the links with paramilitarism and give it a 10 year cooling off period as FF did in the 20's.

Well it would probably take 2 elections before they could have the support to contend anyways.

DublinWriter wrote:

...and even so, SF would be too-leftist. My original argument was about establishing a new centrist party.

a new centrist party who will probably just end up in a coalition with FF or FG.

mycroft

axer wrote:

This thread is about the need for a new party to challenge FF & FG. My point is that SF could be this party. So far their growth indicates that they are on the right track. Straight away it is shot down as not being possible. How long do you think an Irish Lib Dems would take to be a complete alternative to FF & FG - I doubt it could be done in just 1 election.

Woosh, and once again we're in the how, and not the why....

Instead Ireland should sell out, let US war planes land on Irish soil just in case the US ends up not liking us, Change a few words in referendums to fool the Irish into accepting the same thing as they had already rejected...sure we should just sell out for the good of other nations.

Yes SF who scurry up to Bush pre hillisborough, and get outraged that they can't be in the whitehouse this st paddys day, they're the party to stand up aganist bush.

So others prejudge that they will ruin the economy and country even though they have never seen them operate in government. The OP poses the question of whether a new party is needed to contend FF & FG in elections - this new party would never have been in government either.

So this would be the same SF who voted for hospital privatisation while in power in the north and for bin charges in sligo, while claiming to be aganist both further south.

C'mon axer this is just pathetic.

axer

mycroft wrote:

Woosh, and once again we're in the how, and not the why....

Believe it or believe it not i'm not trying to sell them - all I'm pointing out is that there is another party that is growing and should be given a chance to see can they grow big enough to challenge FF & FG as it would take a new party a long time to grow too (probably longer).

mycroft

axer wrote:

Believe it or believe it not i'm not trying to sell them -

I don't believe you I think you are trying to sell them

all I'm pointing out is that there is another party that is growing and should be given a chance to see can they grow big enough to challenge FF & FG as it would take a new party a long time to grow too (probably longer).

:rolleyes:

So we should support SF not because of their policy or their nefariouis supporters but because of the possibility that they might grow into a sizable opposition.

Well, I'm sold.

Wow
A thread about the need for a party like the lib dems ( a social democratic party ) becomes a tit for tat on how SF (an extreme left wing socialist party ) could or could not be that third force.

Where can I start? Well the fact that the Lib Dems and SF are poles apart in terms of extremism with their policies-yup theres a good start.

I want to see absolutely no more talk of Sinn Féin in this thread when the topic is about an Irish version of the Lib dems-posts that do will be automatically binned as being completely off topic and thread hijacking.

Anyone that wants to discuss SF can open a new thread

ssh

Ahem...

So we're asking if Ireland needs a socially liberal, economically liberal and (by all accounts) ethical party? I'd probably vote for them.

The PD's would at least aspire to fit that description, but I think that whatever elements of those ideals that did exist have been thoroughly eroded through their participation in coalition governments.

I would assume that nothing would prevent this from happening again with a new party?

is_that_so

ssh wrote:

Ahem...

So we're asking if Ireland needs a socially liberal, economically liberal and (by all accounts) ethical party? I'd probably vote for them.

The PD's would at least aspire to fit that description, but I think that whatever elements of those ideals that did exist have been thoroughly eroded through their participation in coalition governments.

I would assume that nothing would prevent this from happening again with a new party?

There is always a difficulty in starting up a new party. What about the SDLP ? They are similar to the Lib Dems in approach and maybe their model might be better suited to Ireland. They might have more of an appeal in this jurisdiction.

monument

[NOTE: not talking about SF here; just about abortion in the context of a leftwing liberals, and leftwing liberal party...]

mycroft wrote:

take abortion for example it's right on left of centre down side supporters are pro choice while the fanatical northerners aren't.

I don’t think it’s that simple…

Without getting too much into a philosophy debate [as I know more then a few people here think politics has nothing to do with such], abortion isn’t a clear argument between people of the “left” and the “right” - “fanatical”, or not. Although, the apparent leftwing liberals who believe it has are normally surprisingly authoritarian on the subject.

It’s usually a matter of when one thinks the second human life starts to have the right to exist. Even if the opposite/fanatical/extreme views [‘at conception the human has rights’ or ‘only at birth the child has rights’] were taken, from the point of the taker of such views, both could be consider as thinking/acting ‘liberal’ [for the woman or the young human], and the “fanatical” nature, or not, of such views is subjective.

Anyway what is - if any - the Lib Dem's party line on abortion? I’d imagine (correct me here, if I’m wrong) that it’s one of the issues that split the party.

netwhizkid wrote:

I always thought the Greens were similiar to the Lib Dems anyway. What we need is an end to Civil War politics.

Hmm… the Greens are my closed likeminded party here, while the Lib Dems are in the UK.

mycroft

monument wrote:

Without getting too much into a philosophy debate [as I know more then a few people here think politics has nothing to do with such],

Cute.

abortion isn’t a clear argument between people of the “left” and the “right” - “fanatical”, or not. Although, the apparent leftwing liberals who believe it has are normally surprisingly authoritarian on the subject.

It’s usually a matter of when one thinks the second human life starts to have the right to exist. Even if the opposite/fanatical/extreme views [‘at conception the human has rights’ or ‘only at birth the child has rights’] were taken, from the point of the taker of such views, both could be consider as thinking/acting ‘liberal’ [for the woman or the young human], and the “fanatical” nature, or not, of such views is subjective.

Anyway what is - if any - the Lib Dem's party line on abortion? I’d imagine (correct me here, if I’m wrong) that it’s one of the issues that split the party.

And it's one of things that usually splits a left wing liberal party to a degree, however you'll rarely find someone objecting to a womans right to choose, for herself.

However the abortion issue raised above isn't as simple for our friends in the north, they're trying to marry the trendy leftwing set down south, with their entrenched religious dogmatic supporters up north, abortion is an example of an issue which the clash is just so extreme, that "well we'll just agree to disagree" won't pass mustard, hence;

So, for example, motions from radical branches in the Republic calling on the party to support abortion rights for women will be voted down with a collective show of hands from delegates under IRA army instruction.

from here

I know the above is straying perilously off topic, but the Lib Dem mantel is one SF would like to garner (down south at least) and one only needs to examine the two worlds they're trying to inhabit to see that it's a farcial two faced cyncial stance the party are trying to employ.

Which is an extreme example of the dilemea facing any party in Ireland, while socially progressive legislation (divorce for example) is supported in the urban areas, while rejected in rural areas, so while such an issue may pass a referendum, many parties need to tow a more conservative base to ensure their success. This means parties like the Greens, PDs and Labour draw their support from urban groups, while down the country your politics are often what you inherited from your father.

The only possible form I could see a genuine new politcal party similar to the lib dems is a greens/labour coalition, this party as party of a majority coalition with a smaller FG is just about the only government I would stomach voting for.

rsynnott

axer wrote:

We have Sinn Fein who are making great progress in the Republic.

Well, progress in a certain direction, yep I wasn't aware that it was LibDem policy to blow up random people to achieve their goals, tho.

Pinochet

there are many shades of red. the more ways to split the left the better!

AngelofFire

I`ve always questioned the PDs liberal creditentials, particularily with Mcdowell presiding over the deparment of justice. This is a man who gained the apporval of the KKK, supported a ''less than lethal'' weapons conference, and used a disproportionate amount of security at protests.

Sand

TBH the PDs are the closest to the Lib Dems that we have in Ireland.

FG and FF are beyond politics - the Blueshirts are lying down with Labour FFS, simply to ensure they wont be confused with FF. The Greens simply reject the possiblity of ever entering government in case it would mean they would have to take responsibility for decision making instead of criticising it. SFIRA arent even a political party in the commonly understood sense.

McDowell will always have my respect for taking on SFIRAs corruption when everyone else was lining up to suck Gerrys dick. I remember he was ridiculed for his attacks on the provos on the last election, he had the last laugh when it suddenly became fashionable to "discover" what SFIRA was up to. He more than anyone else in this Republic stood up for liberal democratic principles. The PDs stand head and shoulders above practically every party in this country, that we get the government we deserve has never been more proven in the support for the FF boyos as opposed to the PDs.

AngelofFire

True, but you dont have to be socially liberal to stand up for liberal democratic principles, lots of conservative parties pride themselves in that sort of thing. The PDs and the Lib Dems are the opposite in many ways, the PDs support the war in Iraq, whilst the Lib Dems are opposed. The Lib Dems are in favour of tax increases for those on high income, something that the PDs are emphatically against. Also i think that there is a difference between claiming to stand up for Liberal democratic principles and being Liberal, George Bush likes to offer us rhetoric about how much he loves liberal democratic principles, ye he is one of of the most ilLiberal US presidents we`ve seen in a long time, particularily with regard to abortion, contraception, and stem cell research.

Sand

The PDs and the Lib Dems are the opposite in many ways, the PDs support the war in Iraq, whilst the Lib Dems are opposed. The Lib Dems are in favour of tax increases for those on high income, something that the PDs are emphatically against.

For the first you maybe have to consider whether its more liberal democratic to support a war that deposes a dictatorship or to reject a war on the basis of protecting a system of international law that legitimises such dictatorships. Thats a subjective decision - there is no "right" answer.

For the second I think youre confusing liberal democratic with socialism.

Also i think that there is a difference between claiming to stand up for Liberal democratic principles and being Liberal, George Bush likes to offer us rhetoric about how much he loves liberal democratic principles, ye he is one of of the most ilLiberal US presidents we`ve seen in a long time, particularily with regard to abortion, contraception, and stem cell research.

Well with regards to the much maligned George Bush, with regards to contraception Im not aware of anything suitably draconian in his stance, nor with stem cell research - only that he opposes funding it with *federal* taxes, which is fair enough when you consider that at the very least a sizable segment of his federal voters find it disagreeable. With abortion, if one is interested in liberal democracy one has to consider, if the woman has rights to her own body, does the child have any rights even if it is unborn? Do the fathers have any rights to decide whether their children should be born or not? If they dont have any right to decide whether their children are born, do they have any obligation to provide for the upkeep of their children, which they have no say in the existence of?

I dont know - my opinion on abortion is not settled in any sense. What I certainly share with George Bush is an abhorrence for the Democrat championed partial birth abortions, which I trust you'll allow is possible to oppose without being a foaming Christian evangalist. Perhaps women, with their championed independance should employ a wide variety of contraception prior to enterntaining abortion in their family planning plans.

rsynnott

Sand wrote:

For the first you maybe have to consider whether its more liberal democratic to support a war that deposes a dictatorship or to reject a war on the basis of protecting a system of international law that legitimises such dictatorships. Thats a subjective decision - there is no "right" answer.

It's not quite that simple; you're making the assumption that the Saddam-less Iraq will become a democratic paradise. Looking at the region's history, that looks like wishful thinking; look how things have already gotten so much worse for women in Iraq. There are rulers a lot worse than Saddam in that region of the world, and there's no reason to suppose that Iraq won't opt for something similar.

Sand wrote:

Well with regards to the much maligned George Bush, with regards to contraception Im not aware of anything suitably draconian in his stance,

He opposes education wrt safe sex, instead preferring education about abstinence. We live in a world where that approach won't work.

Sand wrote:

nor with stem cell research - only that he opposes funding it with *federal* taxes, which is fair enough when you consider that at the very least a sizable segment of his federal voters find it disagreeable.

A ban on federal funding is the kiss of death for any research project; the big public labs can't afford to touch it, and any further development will be done corporately (and therefore semi-secretly and concentrating only on products to fit a marketplace) or not at all. It isn't actually reasonable to say that a sizable segment of federal voters find it disagreeable; only a tiny, tiny fraction have even a vague idea what it is; the others just know it's something scary involving material from aborted babies. In any case, America has been quite happy to fund atomic bomb research, and germ warfare research, despite considerable public opposition. And they were right to do so; both projects had considerable civilian applications and have saved many thousands of lives. Here, Bush is imposing his views, and the views of the more extreme members of his party, on a system that has been traditionally unmaligned by the government.

Sand wrote:

With abortion, if one is interested in liberal democracy one has to consider, if the woman has rights to her own body, does the child have any rights even if it is unborn? Do the fathers have any rights to decide whether their children should be born or not? If they dont have any right to decide whether their children are born, do they have any obligation to provide for the upkeep of their children, which they have no say in the existence of?

Not going to get into this, as the arguments have been made a thousand times. I'm personally pro-choice (and therefore allegedly anti-life), and I believe that both parents have an obligation to provide for the upbringing of the child, in general.

Sand wrote:

Perhaps women, with their championed independance should employ a wide variety of contraception prior to enterntaining abortion in their family planning plans.

But Bush isn't a fan of that, and is certainly not a fan of educating about it, or providing funding for education programmes, supply of contraception to sex workers, and so on.

AngelofFire

For the first you maybe have to consider whether its more liberal democratic to support a war that deposes a dictatorship or to reject a war on the basis of protecting a system of international law that legitimises such dictatorships. Thats a subjective decision - there is no "right" answer

I dont believe that america went to war because it was concerned about dictatorship, considering that in the past they have backed more dicatatorships in the past than i can count on both hands, including saddamm hussain back in the 1980s

A Dub in Glasgo

To suggest that the PDs are the nearest thing to the Lib Dems is stretching credibility to snapping point. Unreal

Cork

I think we need an alternative party that will put forward an alternative range of policies. We are not getting this.

This is essential for democracy.

toiletduck

AngelofFire wrote:

the PDs support the war in Iraq, whilst the Lib Dems are opposed.

i wasn't aware the PD's supported the war, did they?

AngelofFire

I certianly dont see the PDs protesting against the use of shannon airport by the US army, anyone who supports the use of shannon in my opinion is condoning what america are using it for.