|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 5, 2011 10:19:31 GMT
Irishelectionlit: I would agree with most of your points. I suspect that the failure to produce a significant Catholic/Christian party in 1992 as distinct from a lot of candidates with local allegiances derives from the following: (1) The general election took place within a few months of the X Case decision - there might have been more time to organise if it had happened in 1993. (2) The high-profile leaders from the Pro-Life Amendment campaign generally believed more could be obtained by lobbying than by setting up a separate party. The leaders who came forward were less experienced and of lower calibre - moreover they tended to act as prima donnas rather than working together. (3) The new parties did not succeed in attracting many people who were politically experienced (in hindsight some effort should have been made to get Sean Loftus to act as figurehead but I don't know if this was ever considered). RIchard Greene who was an elected councillor was the main exception, and he was too much of a maverick to create a lasting organisation. (4) The 1992 showing I think reflected a spontaneous surge of outrage over the X Case rather than being co-ordinated; after the election the little parties failed to channel this into building something lasting. Quite a few of the candidates, some of whom did pretty well, just disappear off the screen afterwards and I don't know if the little parties made any attempts to retain them. The weakness of the Catholic/Christian press (the IRISH FAMILY, which was set up in 1992 to appeal to this constituency, is a sad example - instead of reporting on matters on the ground or discussing what happened and why it happened it confined itself to vacuous optimism, purist sovereigntism (i.e. all will be well if we leave the EU) and to singing the glories of the alleged Marian visionary Christina Gallagher - it was taken over by new management in 2005 or so but just spouted new brands of conspiracy theory and ultra-republican blather until it folded around 2008. (5) The leaders of the little parties assumed the whole nation was on their side and all they had to do was shout loud enough to rouse it. They therefore paid very little attention to organisation or policy formation (especially since these would have limited their own ability to say and do whatever they felt like without answering to anyone). Historically they have not shown much realisation of the need to address themselves to people who don't already agree with them. (BTW to judge by the extracts from the Conor O'Donoghue pamphlet which you have on your website it actually does have some rational content and is not a pure rant like Richard Greene's stuff or infantile like some other material I have seen. His big problem is presentation - he assumes that everyone knows what he is talking about - for example the Mary Harney letter is I think referring to the C case and to sex education in schools.) irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/open-letter-to-mr-michael-mcdowell-t-d-minister-for-justice-from-conor-odonoghue-christian-solidarity-party-limerick-2009-le/irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/open-letter-to-an-tanaiste-ms-mary-harney-td-minister-for-health-from-conor-odonoghue-christian-solidarity-party-2009-le/ (6) They also have a weakness for crank monetary theories which they assume will solve all ecconomic problems magically, so they don't bother trying to educate themselves about the problems on the ground. I suspect the CSP candidates who stood in multiple constituencies did so off their own bat - I doubt if there was enough national organisation to choose candidates other than backing anyone who came forward. I may post a bit more later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2011 20:29:36 GMT
Did anyone manage to get to the CSP meeting? I regret not attending but I'm dosed up on Lemsip since last week and didn't fancy passing it on in a generous fashion to our brethren. If anyone reading these forums did attend, please let us know what happened. There are so many guests online, what are ye doing just reading, please join in! Election lit, welcome to the forums, I hope you post often.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 6, 2011 11:03:56 GMT
I'm afraid I absent-mindedly left out the date of the CSP AGM in my post - it will be on 15 October. 4 September is the date of the CATHOLIC VOICE issue, not the meeting. Sorry about that, Louise - I hope nobody went to Ely House because of my mistake
|
|
|
Post by electionlit on Sept 6, 2011 22:51:15 GMT
Thanks Hiberincus for the reply and Banaltra for the welcome. I suppose your right in the lack of decent time frame to properly organise a party. Not alone that but having the election and referenda on the same day in 1992 would have split the pro life movements resources. my theory was in part because of my own parents who felt deeply betrayed by Fianna Fail introducing and supporting (although I don't think they produced literature) the 3 referenda on the same day in 1992. They weren't alone. FF at that stage would have been seen as the most 'Pro Life' party. There were many who had been turned off Fine Gael because of the Liberal Agenda (and FG forced out decent people like Alice Glenn over it) that saw Fianna Fail as now their only home.
At that stage there was also still a huge seething resentment within the FF grassroots about going into Coalition with the PDs. (This was a major issue that continued the alienation of the FF grassroots from the powers that be in the party.... and has got scant mention in all the recent analysis of FF in the papers, TV and Radio)
Yet despite all that the likes of Des Hanafin, Labhras O'Murchu and others stuck with Fianna Fail.
Had an alternative been offered with a broad policy base and a respected well known name or two at the helm would part of FF have jumped ship?
Anyway, re Conor O'Donoghue, I'll scan a good bit more of it up to give you a better idea.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 19, 2011 21:45:03 GMT
The capacity to create a new party with a broad policy base wasn't there. Fianna Fail are notoriously reliant on civil servants to supply them with policy expertise, which is why the prospect of a long period out of power leaves them in such a pickle. The most traditionalist members were also the least likely to defect (an interesting contrast to this when the PDs went was the departure of some of the traditional FF base in Galway West with Bobby Molloy - I'm told the effect was like a civil war). The defeat of most of the traditionalist FG and Labour Tds in 1987 and 1989 also discouraged defections. I wonder would things have been different if Sean Treacy had showed some interest in trying to create a political grouping instead of being satisfied with reinstatement as Ceann Comhairle.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 29, 2011 22:23:09 GMT
Something has come up which means that I cannot go to the CSP meeting on 15 October. I regret this; my expectations are low but I would still like to do something if I can. I would be grateful if anyone who attends the meeting could let the board know how it went. Here are three questions which ought to be raised: (1) How much internal policy debate/variety of opinion will be allowed? For example, would a pro-life who is also an Euro-Federalist be allowed to join and to argue their case within the party, or will dissent from the view that Ireland should leave the EU be treated as grounds for expulsion, just as being pro-abort would (and should)? (2) How far will the leadership be accountable to the members? Will the deputy leader and party officers be elected by members or nominated by the leader? (3) Will the leadership claim that the CSP ought to lead and direct the whole Irish prolife movement and the social policy of the Church in Ireland, or will they accept that such a claim, if made at all could only be sustained if/when the CSP has achieved significant electoral success (e.g electing a TD)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2011 17:12:51 GMT
Yes I should be able to attend this although I am no public speaker, perhaps I can print out your questions and hand them in to be answered. I need to clarify question 3 though, are you of the opinion that the CSP are already leading the prolife movement here? There are other groups doing that to my mind, or are they looking to do that while pushing those groups out? I'd like to know before I ask what their position is on this, if they have any, or is that your opinion?
Finally, surely the Church in Ireland should be directing its own social policy here, isn't part of the problem that the Church was in bed with politics for too long anyway? Surely leave Caesar to look after in his own mess and don't give them ideas on that front? It's their economic policy that needs, well, a policy..
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 6, 2011 22:10:36 GMT
The point of my third question is that Richard Greene speaks as if he was ALREADY the overall leader of the pro-life movement because he is the leader of the CSP. For example, in his open letter to Enda Kenny denouncing Pat Cox and urging FG to nominate Gay Mitchell, he says that he speaks on behalf of everyone who took part in the March for Life and that if Mitchell is nominated they will all work for him and secure his election (he has now pulled back from this and endorsed Dana - he should not have made that sort of commitment to Mitchell when there was a possibility of a more congenial candidate, because if he is going to engage in that sort of heated rhetoric in support of Mitchell and then walk away from it, how can anyone take him seriously.) Similarly, in an earlier post to this thread I cited an article where Greene said that bishops should tell congregations from their pulpits to vote for the CSP, Catholic organisations should promote it - even if those organisations are registered charities and risk losing their charitable status! - etc. The frequent comparisons he makes to Solidarity in Poland and the Tea Party in America also suggest that he sees the CSp as acting on behalf of the people as a whole and expects spontaneous mass support to arise from nowhere, etc. Now this in my opinion os profoundly delusional. THe CSP represents the people who join it and vote for it, and no-one else; if it wants support it has to work for it and to build it up a brick at a time, rather than assuming that everyone will flock to its side if only Richard Greene shouts loudly enough. The key to building up a political base is getting involved at local level, discovering what people's concerns are, working out how to relate those concerns to your own agenda, and trying to work on those concerns and show people that you are interested in their well-being. The curse of Catholic political parties over the last 20 years has been heaven-sent leaders who think everyone already agrees with them so there is no need for them to do anything except get on the ballot paper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2011 21:47:56 GMT
Aye, I sensed a bit of an argument in that 3rd question, but it's pertinent no doubt. I just don't feel comfortable speaking in front of a crowd Hibernicus, I'm sorry, so I think it's best I email your question to Paul O' Loughlin or hand them in to be asked. I hope that's ok. I'll let ye all know how it went.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 13, 2011 22:27:32 GMT
Thanks very much, Louise. It will be interesting to see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 14, 2011 17:27:17 GMT
Given that Richard Greene regularly cites the Tea Party in the US as a role model for the CSP, this article by an American political commentator on the attempts by liberal Democrats to promote the Occupy Wall Street protestors as a left-wing counterpart to the Tea Party may be of interest. His central argument is that the OWS protests are less significant than the Tea Party because they are seen as mobilising people who would be left-wing protestors anyway, whereas the Tea Party is seen as having succeeded in mobilising people who were right-wing but who were concerned enough to become actively involved as they had not been before. The problem the CSP and other groups with which we might be in sympathy have is that they are seen more as resembling the OWS protestors - people who would be protesting anyway. If Richard Greene wants to turn the CSP into the Tea Party, he needs to find a way of linking the pro-life and pro-family agenda to wider social concerns more effectively than by repeating "Burn the bondholders" and that all evils come from the EU when the general public attitude is that whatever is wrong with the EU, there is nothing else that could be put in its place. blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/10/13/ows-same-old-same-old-so-far/#comments
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2011 17:42:38 GMT
I suppose that's why I feel it's important to go and see what they're at. If it's all about the siege mentality then it's a lost cause.
I sent Paul a text asking if I could call about the meeting and got no reply. Not exactly promising. If I don't receive a reply I will ask one of them tomorrow to come on the boards and answer questions and engage a bit. There are always enough guests reading here, so if they're not atheists wondering what the Papists are up to now then they may be interested parties who could vote for them.
I'm not hopeful though, and will probably get lost on the way to there knowing me. Anyway, fingers crossed and all that.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 15, 2011 19:33:00 GMT
Thanks for this, Louise. As you say, it's important to go and see what they're at. It is important that there should be some sort of pro-life and generally Christian political force, and if I have directed so much flak at the CSP it's because I want things to improve. As I said, I intended to go myself, but something important came up that I couldn't get out of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2011 21:19:07 GMT
Ok I did attend that meeting, there were 17 of us there (including the youngest child of Manus!). I don't want to go into it a whole lot now as my broadband is playing up and I'll post loads and lose it. They are almost all just dotes and are clearly in need of hands (an "I have no hands but your hands" problem). I feel rotten complaining about them here now as I see their intentions are good and they are really up against it and I am sat here doing nothing while they are actually trying.
There was a lot of talk about the problems but when I asked Richard later about the lack of policies beyond prolife he agreed, he does get it, he really really does. He wants someone young, dynamic, smart who wants to be a politician and work in a community longterm, know it well and get elected from there and run the party line. That seems to be what he is pinning his hopes on. I was very hopeful speaking to him and Manus alone, there was too much griping and chit chat of the obvious from the group at large but those two gentlemen know, they just need help. If I'm not working tomorrow night I'll try get back online and explain more.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 15, 2011 21:29:42 GMT
Thanks Louise - I look forward to your more detailed report.
|
|