The PDs - A Liberal Republican Radical Party

[Munion]

This is how McD has described our party.

Liberal because we stand for

1) Freedom - The right of each citizen to live their life without undue interference from the state.

2) Equality - Equality of opportunity where any citizen has the chance to reach whatever heights their own desire and ability wishes. Not equality of outcome.

3) Solidarity - To recognise that there are unfortunately some in our society that cannot help themselves and to give them whatever resources they require to live their life to fullest of its potential.

Republican because we stand for

A United Ireland but one reached by consensus and through mutual understanding. A United Ireland where all citizens feel they belong be they catholic or protestant, straight or gay, green or orange, born in North Korea or North Tipperary.

Radical because we stand for

Being unafraid of the big challenges. Refusing to accept the status quo should that status quo be holding Ireland back. Think back to 1986 when Garrett Fitzgerald saw our low tax policies and laughed. Well 20 years later we all know who was right on that issue...

These btw are my own words and not some press release. Just in case ye were wondering.

Now Discuss!

[Celbridger]

Four words of a subtitle.

That's at least two more TDs then you'll have next time out.

Biggest mistake the PDs ever did was not to make Pat Cox leader, a real Liberal, and not a Deefer Tory like your present Fuhrer. Instead you have become the repository of votes for punters who support the present government but are too posh to vote Fianna Fáil.

The Deefer Tories aren't Liberals. They are Neo-Conservatives who believe that the maximum amount of freedom that an individual has is wholly dependent on their economic value.

Real Liberalism values liberty, rights and freedoms, and private property as fundamental to individual happiness. Democracy is the check and balance by the People to prevent the tyranny of one group over the rest of society. Under Liberalism the individual has rights - to freedom of expression, religious belief, free association and responsibilities - to do no harm to the rest of the society that they live in and to work for your own betterment and those that depend on you. The State exists to protect the weak and to provide Health and Social Care and to facilitate Education. Allowing the "weakest to go to the wall" creates the environment where crime, substance abuse and subversion can weaken society for everyone else. It is the duty of a Liberal society to prevent this from happening, through allowing each person in the society to reach their potential. It is also the duty of a Liberal society to protect individuals from crime and those who would subvert the democratic process through violence or graft.

[stringjack]

This is how McD has described our party.

Liberal because we stand for

1) Freedom - The right of each citizen to live their life without undue interference from the state.

2) Equality - Equality of opportunity where any citizen has the chance to reach whatever heights their own desire and ability wishes. Not equality of outcome.

3) Solidarity - To recognise that there are unfortunately some in our society that cannot help themselves and to give them whatever resources they require to live their life to fullest of its potential.

Republican because we stand for

A United Ireland but one reached by consensus and through mutual understanding. A United Ireland where all citizens feel they belong be they catholic or protestant, straight or gay, green or orange, born in North Korea or North Tipperary.

Radical because we stand for

Being unafraid of the big challenges. Refusing to accept the status quo should that status quo be holding Ireland back. Think back to 1986 when Garrett Fitzgerald saw our low tax policies and laughed. Well 20 years later we all know who was right on that issue...

These btw are my own words and not some press release. Just in case ye were wondering.

Now Discuss!

The Deefer Tories aren't Liberals. They are Neo-Conservatives who believe that the maximum amount of freedom that an individual has is wholly dependent on their economic value.

[Conor]

Liberal because we stand for

1) Freedom - The right of each citizen to live their life without undue interference from the state.

What the deal with banning mushrooms then?

[Pidge]

While I'll probably still vote for them, the PDs have been quite disappointing on the liberal front. Now that the relatively easily solvable liberal issues such as divorce and contraception are effectively dealt with, they've lost their reforming zeal.

There are, of course, still plenty of liberal reforming areas for them to tackle: same-sex marriage, religion in schools, abortion, church involvement with the state, outdated laws like the Offences Against the State Acts, constitutional reform to name but a few. They're not going after these problems with any vigour and in some cases, such as the Offences Against the State Acts, are actively supporting them. I'd put this down to several things.

Firstly, there's a socially conservative wing within the PDs. Perhaps it's a former liberal one, which thinks the "liberal agenda" has been advanced enough. Alternatively, or maybe along with that, the PDs have members who support the them on economic policies, but are quite right-wing in their social outlook. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'd see this group largely congregating around Michael McDowell (whereas the liberals group around Liz O'Donnell).

Secondly, it's often been noted that the PDs don't bring many candidates up from the grassroots. People such as Tom Parlon and Colm O'Gorman have been parachuted into fairly important positions (official or otherwise) within the party. These people may not (I think especially so in Tom Parlon's case) share the values of the membership. They mightn't have liberal beliefs, and have joined the PDs on the basis of the rewards the party can offer them. (I don't, however, think that this is the case with Colm O'Gorman, but that's a different issue.)

Thirdly, it's obvious to all that the PDs have been in government quite a bit. (If I remember correctly, they've been in government longer than they've been out.) This long spell in power has two main effects for the PDs:
1) They get bogged down in the day to day business of the state, leaving little time or space for moralising and thinking in broader concepts.
2) As anyone spends more time in government, they're drawn to thinking that the government can solve all problems. If a problem arises, a minister is going to want to solve it. Considering that they control the government, they'll use the apparatus of state to attempt to solve the problem. This is an easy trap to fall into, regardless of a minister's views on the best limitations of state power.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Unlike so many others on this site, I've never been in the party, so perhaps they're best positioned to explain the party's flaws.

[rover]

1) Freedom - The right of each citizen to live their life without undue interference from the state

why did mcdowell not apply this to frank connolly?

2) Equality - Equality of opportunity where any citizen has the chance to reach whatever heights their own desire and ability wishes. Not equality of outcome

"An economy like ours demands inequality.........inequality is an incentive to the economy" - michael mcdowell, may 2004

[Pidge]

2) Equality - Equality of opportunity where any citizen has the chance to reach whatever heights their own desire and ability wishes. Not equality of outcome

"An economy like ours demands inequality.........inequality is an incentive to the economy" - michael mcdowell, may 2004

Indeed. I imagine that you agree too.

McDowell was making the point that people won't try to work harder and take risks if there's no incentive. If there's no reward, then why would anyone take a chance and set up a business? There can't be rewards without inequality, since a reward implies getting something above the ordinary. Don't you agree?

Liberal because we stand for

1) Freedom - The right of each citizen to live their life without undue interference from the state.

What the deal with banning mushrooms then?

Exactly. That was bo||ocks. Really annoyed me at the time.

[rover]

McDowell was making the point that people won't try to work harder and take risks if there's no incentive. If there's no reward, then why would anyone take a chance and set up a business? There can't be rewards without inequality, since a reward implies getting something above the ordinary. Don't you agree?

absolutely not. to even suggest that inequality (given the scale of it here) is necessary or acceptable in any way is offensive.
pidge from reading your posts up to now id never have guessed you were a pd voter. a rethink might be needed!

[Pidge]

absolutely not. to even suggest that inequality (given the scale of it here) is necessary or acceptable in any way is offensive.

Really? Do you think that everyone should be paid the exact same wage, regardless of the job they do (or don't do)?

Do you think that someone should be financially rewarded for risking their time/money by setting up a new business, or working on an idea?

pidge from reading your posts up to now id never have guessed you were a pd voter. a rethink might be needed!

Given the perception of the PDs, I'll take that as a compliment. :P

[rover]

Do you think that everyone should be paid the exact same wage, regardless of the job they do (or don't do)?

ah now come on. when did any serious advocate of equality ever propose something so ridiculous?

you seem to be mistaking "equality" with "communism". come to think of it, mcdowell seems to have the same impression