New political party anyone?

A

Ancutza

Registered User
Messages
498
Given the increasingly obvious FF mismanagement of the economy over the last number of years (for which I apologise as I voted them at least twice), Labours socialist agenda and Fianna Gaels 'say-anything-to-get-into-power' approach I'd like to put the case for the formation of a new political party.

What we've had until now is an oligarchy dressed up as a democracy but declared to be a Republic. So where will the new party position itself and any suggestions for a manifesto?

I'm going to go for centre right, more republican than democratic, and tipping towards being more right than centre.
 
The problem you would face is a national broadcaster which is made up of left-wing civil servants who shamelessly propagate their left-wing agenda.
You would also face an almost completely left-wing media and a culture of entitlement from the electorate. Any party that supports the motion that we should all have to stand on our own two feet and be accountable for our own actions will face a tidal wave of self-righteous indignation.
 
Nope. That's broadly the 'lean' of the party. I think the first and second point on the manifesto should be a Thatcherite face-down of the unions and a ruthless tackling of corporate wrong-doing. Neither of these are ever going to happen under the current parties.
 
What we need is a party based on conservative libertarianism encouraging individuals rights and responsibilities.

But in our culture of entitlement I don't think we get many people who would vote for such a party.

We need the state to concentrate on a core of services and setting the rules for the country but not taking over all aspects of life.

Let's start with lowering the unresonable tax burden on individuals by having everybody paying the same % of taxes without a complicated tax system of deductions, loopholes and other unrelated stuff.

Than move to a spending based tax system. If I earn more and can keep more than I spend more hence I pay more taxes spending while I also create jobs.

Meanwhile understand that the state is asking you to take your own responsiblity and keep the fingers of the state out of areas where it should no be in (banks, builders, ESB, Bord Gas, AerLingus etc.).

But I think we are actualy on the opposite path and soon we have the goverment run most of our country facing 40 % unemployment, public service of 25% and a crippled private sector.

That latest happens when they need to up the corporate tax band (because they can't press more out of the workers) and the multinationals leave Ireland in a faster pace.

We all know we need an alternative goverment but there is just no alternative right now and a new party will never gain enough power in just 1 election.

I'm fully prepared for a summer full of strikes and civil unrest.
 
DublinTexas said:
What we need is a party based on conservative libertarianism encouraging individuals rights and responsibilities.

But in our culture of entitlement I don't think we get many people who would vote for such a party...
Click to expand...

So what we need is a party people would not vote for.
 


Fook you're like me. I agree we need a new political party. Conservatism and Libertarian. Have you heard of the UK libertarian party? I also like listening to Ron Paul.

However, the media in this country is too leftist. Any libertarian party would be demolished by the unions, public sector and media. So, there's no hope. Nice thought though.
 
Libertarianism is just another smoke screen for the currently unaccountable to remain unaccountable. It's the law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest no matter what. As such it's unacceptable in the context of the greater good.

To go back to the 'confronting-the-unions' issue then surely the first union which has to be confronted is PDFORRA. Who ever heard of a unionised military for christsake!?

Was anyone else outraged by reports earlier in the week that PDFORRA was lobbying the minister for defence to ensure that soldiers weren't called on to drive buses and ambulances should those groups go out on strike? Whatever happened to discipline in the armed forces and serving the government will??

They have to be tackled first as the army will have to be called on to provide these services whilst the government faces down the rest of the unions.
 

I disagree with your point about Libertarianism but that is part of Libertarianism, there are diffrent flavours and we need to discover the right one for us as a country.

In respect of PDFORRA as I said in the discussion "Take a real stand" the question is not so much about a reprensative organisation for the Army (please remember that technical PDFORRA is not a union) but as to if we need an army.
 
Howitzer said:
Sounds like the Progressive Democrats to me.
Click to expand...

And look at how the public service broadcaster (RTE) and the propaganda pamphlet of the Labour Party (The Irish Times) lead the personalised and vitriolic campaign against that the left wing media waged against them.
 
Purple said:
And look at how the public service broadcaster (RTE) and the propaganda pamphlet of the Labour Party (The Irish Times) lead the personalised and vitriolic campaign against that the left wing media waged against them.
Click to expand...

I'm looking...

looking...

looking...

No, I don't see it.
 
A friend sent me this site a few weeks ago, have to admit I like the idea:

[broken link removed]
 
...Except for the unexplained process about how the views of the majority will be established. My guess is that after any debate there will be a spectrum of views that cannot be reduced to simple Yes/No alternatives - who will then "establish the views"? Will the techno-constituents be content when one interpretation is put forward as the view of the group? How will the views of a sizeable minority be taken into account? (After all, shouldn't democracy should be more than simply majoritarianism?)
 
DublinTexas said:
We need the state to concentrate on a core of services and setting the rules for the country but not taking over all aspects of life.
Click to expand...

I've never understood this point of view. Why is it unanimously accepted that the state should be providing services when they're usually of poor quality and always inefficient?
 
zephyro said:
I've never understood this point of view. Why is it unanimously accepted that the state should be providing services when they're usually of poor quality and always inefficient?
Click to expand...

Now as much as I am for a small goverment I think that core services like security (internal/external), financial regulation, fire and ambulance etc. should be provided by the state.

I'm all for taking the state out of airlines, electricity, gas, airports, transport, banks etc but a state must be able to guarantee the security of it's people by a modern law enforcement agency.

Zephyro, I really would like to hear how far you would go.
 
zephyro said:
I've never understood this point of view. Why is it unanimously accepted that the state should be providing services when they're usually of poor quality and always inefficient?
Click to expand...

Good point zephyro.

There appears to be an inability in most people's minds to distinguish between the provision of essential services and the delivery of those services. They seem to think that if a service is to be delivered, it must be delivered by a public sector body.

They forget that an alternative way of providing services is for the Government to procure the services on behalf of its citizens.

When you put this point forward, people then generally say that a private company will not deliver the same level of service or will not deliver certain services because they are unprofitable. This view point is a big red herring. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you pay a private company to deliver a service, if it isnt delivered, they dont get paid and/or you cancell the contract and give it to someone else. They dont understand that its not possible for such services to be unprofitable for a private company as they would generally not tender for the services at an unprofitable rate.

These people also forget that at present, we are paying for services that are not being delivered or are being delivered poorly, so we are getting terrible value for money.
 
The answer from the collectivists is that the private sector will take the money and still not deliver the service. What they don’t see is that this is yet another failing by the powers that be to manage, regulate or even interact in a competent or proactive way with the private sector. The solution they offer is that the services should continue to be delivered in a grossly inefficient way because if the state in incapable of managing suppliers.
This is utterly bizarre logic yet it is seldom questioned in the media or by the public sector broadcaster.
 
DublinTexas said:
Zephyro, I really would like to hear how far you would go.
Click to expand...

Personally I'd like to see it restricted to defense and law & order. However I'd fully support state health and education subsidies for those on lower than average incomes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register