End of PDs a bad day for Irish politics?

[junketman]

While I didn't agree with much of PD ideology, I still think the demise of the PDs is bad for this country in terms of another political outlet being closed down. It will see a return to the FF versus FG politics of old with Labour the meat in the sandwich, depending on how many seats each get.

The PDs were far more beneficial to this country than for example the Green Party on the bigger questions of taxation, economic policy and in the early years tackling FF corruption.

I believe that PD members should create a new party, and I personally would be interested in joining such a party if only to provide opposition to the FF, FG and Labour triumvirate. Having these three parties alone dominate Irish politics would not be in the best interests of the country. The electorate needs more of a choice.

[Bobert]

While I didn't agree with much of PD ideology, I still think the demise of the PDs is bad for this country in terms of another political outlet being closed down. It will see a return to the FF versus FG politics of old with Labour the meat in the sandwich, depending on how many seats each get.

The PDs were far more beneficial to this country than for example the Green Party on the bigger questions of taxation, economic policy and in the early years tackling FF corruption.

I believe that PD members should create a new party, and I personally would be interested in joining such a party if only to provide opposition to the FF, FG and Labour triumpherate. Having these three parties alone dominate Irish politics would not be in the best interests of the country. The electorate needs more of a choice.

I completely agree!

[Big Bobo]

The PDs cannot be a political party because they have no base in communities. They were always a top down organisation that depended on strong personalities at the top to compensate for a lack of grassroots. They have lost their top and have there by fallen apart. If a few dozen unknown thatcherites want to form a new party then let them go for it, no one will take a blind bit of a notice.

[Bobert]

The PDs cannot be a political party because they have no base in communities. They were always a top down organisation that depended on strong personalities at the top to compensate for a lack of grassroots. They have lost their top and have there by fallen apart. If a few dozen unknown thatcherites want to form a new party then let them go for it, no one will take a blind bit of a notice.

Just like the Irish Communist Party.

[Big Bobo]

Just like the Irish Communist Party.

Yes exactly like the communist party.

[junketman]

The PDs cannot be a political party because they have no base in communities. They were always a top down organisation that depended on strong personalities at the top to compensate for a lack of grassroots. They have lost their top and have there by fallen apart. If a few dozen unknown thatcherites want to form a new party then let them go for it, no one will take a blind bit of a notice.

Nope one of the problems they had and any new party would have to avoid, is that they were too ideological. I think you will notice that the really successful political parties in Ireland, FF and FG, have no real core left wing or right wing ideology. This makes it harder for people to dislike them or take a stand against them since most people don't know what they are taking a stand against. These larger parties are 'broad church' parties who accept members with different ideologies, left wing, right wing, Green, etc.

Any new party would similarly have to avoid a strong right wing bias.

[FutureTaoiseach]

It's a bad thing and a good thing. In the context of the global financial crisis, these are not great times to be on the centre-right of the political-spectrum in terms of economic policy. Yet in the long-run, this may be a sacrifice that is necessary to ensure the longterm viability of economic conservatism in Irish politics. I would draw a parallel to what Lenin said about his NEP (New Economic Policy) i.e. that it is necessary to take one step back so we may go two steps forward at a later stage. The PDs simply have too much baggage at this stage to be electable or credible as a force in Irish politics. The leftwing of the media has not forgiven them for winning the Citizenship referendum, while the pro-FF elements like Tim Pat Coogan never forgave them for the circumstances of their political-birth. Meanwhile the 'Blueshirt' press e.g. in The Star and some Indo writers, disliked them for taking votes from FG and keeping it - even in 2007 - under the 30% mark and entrenching FF as the natural party of govt (something which may now be changing and this will help). The "rightwing" tag has also stuck, and in this country, that reminds people of Thatcherism, which, probably in part due to her Northern policy, is a no-no to most Irish voters (despite the fact that many Irish people would privately concede her economic policies had something to be said for them). Perhaps the elimination of the PDs as a force in Irish politics is a necessary "purification" of the economic centre-right political community of the emotional baggage and instinctive hostility that is needed to allow a future centre-right alternative to enter the political-arena without being strangeled at birth by connotations like "Thatcherism/rightwing/fascist" etc. that the hard left successfully tagged on the PDs (unfairly and inaccurately imho). The reality is that had the FF-PD govt of 2002-7 pursued the same tax-cutting zeal of the 97-02 one and continued the programme of privatisation seen in term 1, the scale of the recession here would have been far less than at present, as the private-sector would not be so burdened by price-hikes at the hands of state-owned monopolies that have historically served as agents of patronage for FF.

[HanleyS]

I think you will notice that the really successful political parties in Ireland, FF and FG, have no real core left wing or right wing ideology.

That's largely down to civil war politics.

I'll quote from an email I received from a friend in support of Joe Behan:

Some of them will have to look for work if they have to fork out for their own medical cards!

My granny is 92 lives alone in the back @rse of portlaoise and has voted for fianna fail from when dev set them up in the 1920’s right through to the current day..

Behan’s right Dev and lemass will both be turning in their graves at this current ridiculous predicament!

NEVER EVER VOTING FOR FIANNA FAIL AGAIN

and

The point is she supported fianna fail because her family bought into what de Valera was trying to do and she has supported fianna fail for 70yrs!

Its more the fact that over 70’s will have to be tested and examined to see what exactly they have and the 95 % will increase!

Joe Behan knows a lot more about the issue than XXX or YYY do and there’s no way he would have resigned if what the government were doing wasnt over the top!

As for class sizes that’s ridiculous too but over 70’s in Ireland should take priority!

Why not increase taxes on people in Ireland who reaped the benefits of the economic policies Fianna Fails lemass set up in the 1970’s (or take some of haugheys money)..

[Myles_per_hour]

It's a bad thing and a good thing. In the context of the global financial crisis, these are not great times to be on the centre-right of the political-spectrum in terms of economic policy. Yet in the long-run, this may be a sacrifice that is necessary to ensure the longterm viability of economic conservatism in Irish politics. I would draw a parallel to what Lenin said about his NEP (New Economic Policy) i.e. that it is necessary to take one step back so we may go two steps forward at a later stage. The PDs simply have too much baggage at this stage to be electable or credible as a force in Irish politics. The leftwing of the media has not forgiven them for winning the Citizenship referendum, while the pro-FF elements like Tim Pat Coogan never forgave them for the circumstances of their political-birth. Meanwhile the 'Blueshirt' press e.g. in The Star and some Indo writers, disliked them for taking votes from FG and keeping it - even in 2007 - under the 30% mark and entrenching FF as the natural party of govt (something which may now be changing and this will help). The "rightwing" tag has also stuck, and in this country, that reminds people of Thatcherism, which, probably in part due to her Northern policy, is a no-no to most Irish voters (despite the fact that many Irish people would privately concede her economic policies had something to be said for them). Perhaps the elimination of the PDs as a force in Irish politics is a necessary "purification" of the economic centre-right political community of the emotional baggage and instinctive hostility that is needed to allow a future centre-right alternative to enter the political-arena without being strangeled at birth by connotations like "Thatcherism/rightwing/fascist" etc. that the hard left successfully tagged on the PDs (unfairly and inaccurately imho). The reality is that had the FF-PD govt of 2002-7 pursued the same tax-cutting zeal of the 97-02 one and continued the programme of privatisation seen in term 1, the scale of the recession here would have been far less than at present, as the private-sector would not be so burdened by price-hikes at the hands of state-owned monopolies that have historically served as agents of patronage for FF.

Who awards the price hikes? The regulators?

Who created the regulators? FF & the PDs.

What policy change came with their creation? State monopolies were told they had to be profit generating, not service generating. Before the regulators were in place Ireland had some of the cheapest gas and electricity in Europe. FF-PD decided that those sectors would have to be privatised. No-one was going to buy them if they were earning low profits. It has long been rumoured that the only reason gas and electricity bills went through the roof was because the regulators were told to get prices up as high as possible to increase profits as much as possible to enable privatisation to take place.

I have said it so often in the past, FT, but you seriously seriously have not got a clue. You deliver theoretical ideas about market without having a bulls notion what you are talking about, whether it is your wacky claims that the government should have been privatising state industries in the 1980s, completely oblivious to the fact that in the 1980s no-one would have bought them because no-one had any money, to your nonsense now about how price hikes are because of a lack of privatisation - they are to gear up the market for privatisation by making it financially rewarding for businesses to enter the market!!!

[Myles_per_hour]

That's largely down to civil war politics.

Actually that is a widely believed myth. In a groundbreaking study, Professor Tom Garvin showed that FF and FG actually long pre-date the civil war, back to the 1790s. The parties may come from the post-civil war period, but the division they represented can be traced back through the Parliamentary Party, back through Parnell, back through O'Connell back as far as the ribbonmen. FF and FG are just a modern day personification of a two hundred year old division. If FF and FG disappeared tomorrow, new parties would appear and espouse the same division.

It is also linked to a theory called Huntington's Green Uprising whereby the times of mass political mobilisation decide whether a country evolves a left-right divide or a political cleavage on another issue. Where the mass political mobilisation(s) occur when a state or polity is predominantly rural, definitionary divisions (property rights, identity rights, definition rights) will predominate. Where the state or polity mobilises at a time when it is predominantly urban, a left-right cleavage involving economic and workers' rights will emerge. Our political mobilisation occurred in 3 phases - under O'Connell in the 1820s, under Parnell in the 1880s and from 1916-1932 - producing definitionary divisions. The US mobilisation also occurred at a time when the US was predominantly non-urban producing the Democrats and Republicans. Britain's final mobilisation occurred in the early 20th century when the dominance of the cities was marked, producing a form of left-right cleavage. The twist according to Huntington is that once a cleavage emerges and produces parties, those parties become self-generating, taking on new issues as they arise. So once a set of parties emerge it is almost impossible for a realignment to happen because the established parties have the means to shape political discourse to ensure their dominance. That is why third-based parties very rarely overtake one of the two dominant parties, hence why Labour is always stuck behind FF and FG, why the Free Democrats and now the Greens are stuck behind the CDU-CSU and SPD in Germany, while the Liberal Democrats are stuck behind the Tories and Labour in the UK. It takes an act of political suicide by one of the major parties to let the third placed party in (eg, the Tories in Canada, the Christian Democrats in Italy, the Radicals in France, the Liberals in the UK etc) but even then new parties emerge that are often only reshuffled versions of the old parties under a new name, as when non-conformists moved from the Liberal Party when it divided between Lloyd George and Asquith to Labour under Ramsey McDonald, making in many ways the modern Labour Party more of a descendant of the Liberals than of original Labour Party of the early part of the 20th century.

In other words,

• FF and FG are just a post-civil war re-appearance of a division among different wings of Irish nationalism that can be traced back to the 1790s.
• Mass political mobilisation has delivered us a party system that is effectively unchangeable, hence Labour's inability to overtake FF at its weakest (1927, 2008) and FG at its weakest (2002), and in Britain the inability of the SDP-Liberal Alliance's inability to overtake Labour even at its moment of weakness (1980s) and the inability of the Liberal Democrats to overtake the Tories at their weakest (1990s-2000s).