If there no civil war politics anymore, why not merge?
There is no way that an FF&FG party would gain more seats than they both would individually.
There are differences between them. FG is slightly to the left on economic issues and FF is further to the left. Both parties are socially liberal and both are quite populist due to the necessities of our electoral system. FG are Republican, something they share with the Shinners but FF have followed a peaceful and constitutional path for the last 90 years and don't have a private army in reserve and in that they differ from the Shinners. FG are not gone on Republicanism and are happy enough to go with the flow. They pay lip service to a United Ireland in the same way the Shinners do to constitutional democracy, tackling racism, terrorism and criminality.unless some fundamental differences can be identified between them, its hard to see long-term the relevance of these two parties existing as minority parties.
Both parties are socially liberal and both are quite populist due to the necessities of our electoral system.
Most of those are now Shinner supporters. Anyway, it was a 50/50 split.
Most of those are now Shinner supporters.
I do agree that there is a fundamental realignment of Irish politics. It's not along a left-right divide but rather on a populist-even more populist divide. The populism of FF and FG is tempered by the fact they have actually been in power and so their policies are tethered to reality, albeit by a long and often frayed rope. The Child Killers and loony left are constrained by no such experience or relationship with reality.My OP is somewhat misleading in the context of calling out the future prospects of Irish political parties, implying that it will be either FF or FG who will demise.
The possibility of a resurgence of both parties at the expense of other, namely SF, is also a possibility.
But if I were to take a guess, it would be that FF is the one under pressure.
Except when it came to a socially liberal policy whre more than half its elected representatives voted against itThe Party policies are socially liberal.
I think abortion is a very divisive issue and should not be seen a specifically liberal issue as it is far more complex than that.Except when it came to a socially liberal policy whre more than half its elected representatives voted against it
I'm inclined to agree with MLM. This coalition has already been in place in everything but name for the last five years.
So a party which supports LGBTQ rights, divorce, same sex marriage, same sex adoption and is led by someone who publicly supported the repeal of the 8th is not socially liberal?@Purple
So if we're still doing labelling it's absurd to call Fianna Fáil socially liberal.
Except when it came to a socially liberal policy where more than half its elected representatives voted against it
The child killers claim to be liberal and inclusive but still hold as heros those who murdered people because of their religion.
- Who decriminalised homosexuality? FF
- Who brought in gay marriage?- FG
yes, both parties are more conservative then the left wing guys and girls but between them they have a long track record of social change.
Interestingly as well how in FF, when half their TD's and senators voted against abortion, no action was taken against them as it was considered a vote of conscience and I respect FF leadership for that. Contrast that with the hypocrisy of SF who whipped their TD's and in effect expelled one of them when he refused to go along and yet they allow Paddy Honahan back in and even nominate him for mayor despite his hideous remarks
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?