Would you support a new Rural Political Party

The only way this 'new party' will have a significant presence in the next Dail is if current rural independents are reelected in a different guise. This guy puts it well

What do you mean by "sequestering is something that farms should do"?

Do you understand the carbon cycle?

And, can you answer why is carbon sequestration not counted when calculating Agri emissions?

What industry do you work in yourself if you are not one of the 3 options that I gave you above?

The whole of Ireland is "up in arms" about stuff it knows nothing about which was my point all along. Every section of Irish society bitches about stuff it knows nothing about including farmers.

Also I have never once questioned farming methods, herd reduction or any sort of eco reductions in relation to farming.

When the cost of food goes up so does all sorts of other things in the "urban sector" so the whinging farmer will be double hit too and the cost will spiral which is how out of control inflation works. It symbiotic not an us vs them situation.

I don't think 'stability' will be a major issue. The likes of Lowry bring to mind the old definition of an honest politician as one who, when he is bought, will stay bought. He stayed loyal to the FF/Green government to the bitter end, even though he's from the opposite gene poool. The problem will be coralling such a motley bunch together in the first place to the point where they can make a cohesive proposal to FF/FG. This is why I think the groundwork needs to be done before the election...

Same as its individual members are doing as things stand: looking after their own constituents. But they'll have a few nationwide rural-friendly policies so they don't look like they're just a bunch of gombeens...

if the numbers here come to pass your looking at a hung Dail.

A cohesive group of independents might get into power but also I think SF and FF might start kite flying about putting differences aside in the national interest and democratic will of the people.

I think we're looking at 2 out of 3 from FF, FG and SF. It's a question of if a 3rd group is needed and if so who.

It would take very little shift in numbers from the last election for 2 parties to have a majority. In that situation I'm not sure a 3 way coalition with a partner who don't/ can't apply a whip will be what we come out with given the majority could be small. Even the greens have struggled at times to do so in this government.

It kind of hinges on what Micheal Martin wants to do (assuming he's still leader of FF). Even if FF and FG underperform those seat projections, if they recruit Greens, Labour and SDs and rout out every last viable independent (whether or not they have come together as a 'rural alliance') they should be able to put a government together (even if only barely). If Martin means what he says here you'd think that's what they would do

But this will surely be Martin's last spin on the merry-go-round, so maybe he has other priorities related to 'legacy'...

Going by this thread it would be a farmers party or an anti-Green party.

Very few are happy to pay more, including government. See now that Minister Redmond has instructed supermarkets to force down prices.

Yes, if a deal with one or two of those parties took FF/FG to even a tight, 3 or 4 seat majority I think they would prefer to leave it at that rather than try to negotiate with an unwieldy independent alliance/farmers party/whatever umbrella they are operating under. But that's looking a bit of a stretch at this stage...

Rural Alliance will not happen.

By now there should be enough tinsel hat brigade arriving on the scene, hoping for this to be a vechicle to vent scepticism and far right and left wing views that the organisers original concepts will be hard to keep on track.

To Hell or to Dublin !

It's hard to accept what isn't offered. Unless I'm missing something, which is quite possible, your post which I replied to never mentioned arterial drainage, land designation or anything else other than Brian Leddin giving up flying and you seeing it as hypocritical and using at as a stick.

I see it as similar to someone giving up smoking. Times and attitudes to smoking have changed yet many people still have a smoking habit Most would acknowledge that it's not for the best, especially for someone in public office or a position of influence, and I doubt anyone would call someone hypocritical for giving it up, even if they worked in the health service.

Exactly, personal behaviour versus public benefit.

But that as it may be, it doesn't take away from the fact that there's credit due to him, especially as an urban TD, for giving up both his hobby and the convenience of air travel. If he were not to, then that may be considered hypocritical alright.