I think on balance the power the “Civil War politics” broke about 20 years ago – when Robinson became President. However the power of “Parish pump politics” remains as strong as ever.

The PR-STV electoral system incentivises electors to play there various local TDs in a competition to be seen as “hardest working on the ground”. The voters don’t give a damn about TDs who do legislative work. They want ones that spend every moment of the day, 7 days a week all year around holding their hand or at least being available to do so.

Having TDs that are not connected to specific geographic constituencies would make for better decision making and more long-term policy formulation would not be considered as risky. The list system has its draw backs, but it does force the voter to vote for a block of ideas, rather than the bloke who lives around the block.

The disproportionate amount of parish pump TDs undoubtly played a huge role in the failure of the political system in the bubble years. Civil war politics is dead, but I don’t believe voters can see the wrong of their TDs having to spend far too much time devoted to constituency matters.

I think your prognosis is correct but I’m more optimistic about the potential for change. The good news is the electorate is changing and the conversation is also changing from the treaty to how to run the country. After 90 years you might say not before time. The rabid, frothing at the mouth civil war dopes have at least stopped reproducing and while they’ll be with us a while yet, the conversation is moving to the economy, services and that.

I agree that we’d be better with 100 by-elections. 100 seats is enough in the House, the rest should be on the councils where they belong. The TD’s brief should be national issues and national legislation. They should not get bogged down with constituency work permanently campaigning. When you look at Dáil proceedings there should be more than three people there. I think this would make for better decision making and more long-term policy formulation would not be considered as risky. We need to curtail the tendency to make policies on the strength of how it plays in a potential election because that sort of thing has really done us harm.

Unfortunately you would need a different electorate. they persist in electing county councillors to the national legislature. The Dual mandate is abolished the best part of a decade and the voters still won’t break their habits.

A new electoral system without multi-seat constituencies and a large list element to the system would be essential. If FG & Labour have sense they should propose to change the electoral system in tandem with abolishing the senate. It is the only way to fool the voters into scrapping their parish pump TD.

The present electoral system has served Fianna Fail particualrly well – they excel at it. Ideological parties have foundered on it and the legislature is the poorer for it. FG & Labour might well find a continental electoral system more congenial that might allow better alternation of governments and facilitate a more national policy debate rather than 40 odd individual local contests.

Fifth or maybe Sixth would be more realistic.

We have a bizarre mix of socialism and capitalism with the system where ideology is corrupted only to favour the rich. That’s why a party that espouses genuine economic liberalism is a good idea – as long as it also maintains a social safety net.

The doctrine that government should stay out of both the bedroom and the boardroom.

Yeah, right, Mack. Pull the other one. I can read the papers as well as the next fellow. This is all very well and good until failure actually occurs and then either the taxpayer steps in as recent events have all too painfully demonstrated and as was demonstrated even more disgracefully in the case of the Lloyd’s names who, when their hitherto winning wagers lost, went crying to HMG insisting that they act as bookmaker and refund their stakes.
Besides which it is always the workers whose effort had gone under-rewarded while they ensured that the business was in profit who are, upon the failure of management, then tossed to the dogs.

economic liberalism, the political doctrine that advocates that the rich can do whatever they like just so long as the poor pay for it.

Not really, it’s more a like the doctrine that says that businesses should be run by businessmen, not corrupt politicians, and should be allowed to fail – with the investors and not the tax payer bearing the cost.

The only reason the PDs lasted as long as they did was the former Fianna Fail reps they inherited from 1985 when they were established. They were good at constituency work, clientelism etc. Not surprisingly they folded when these reps came near retirement.

The genuine ideologues in the PDs were hopeless at constituency work and after the initial surge in 1987, the party bumped along at 4% perilously close to the margin of error.

In 1985/6 social liberalism was about to finally burst out on the political scene in the South. In 2010 much of 1980s “liberal agenda” is mainstream. Just look at the civil partnership debate in the Dail this week.

When the PDs folded Fianna Fail joined the European Liberal party (alongside the Alliance & Lib Dems). If the pressures of the economic crisis do cause pieces to drop off FF & FG in the coming years, it won’t be social liberalism any new economic liberal party will be championing, it will be populist anti-immigrant poltics like a far right party in Netherlands or Scandinavia.

As regards north of the border, the main development in the “Liberal” camp will be a re-aligned and re-named SDLP joining Fianna Fail in alliance in the European liberals. Expect a joint pro Europe Euroliberal candidate from FF/SDLP in 2014.

There is a potential economic liberal v statist divie that might emerge in NI. Fianna Fail & Tories v a few Labourites, Shinners and Loyalists. The opposition to the public sector might well become a a rallying point for middle class economic liberls on both sides of the communal divide in the North.

I’m not in a position to say at this stage.

- Editorial control
- An editorial process
- A legal entity
- Entirely different editorial objectives

You are aware of the concept of a magazine, I trust? It’s an old armaments terms but it has been known to be used in publishing, too.

“It’s an online magazine. … It is most assuredly not a blog.”

Could you briefly explain the difference?

The Irish Labour Party in its present form, venerating the memory of James Connolly but sharing almost none of his objectives, is heavily funded by trade unions that exist throughout these islands and are headquartered over here. And that’s just official funding.

Fine Gael and, if anything even more so, Fianna Fáil are not even takeovers early on, as in the Labour case. We can all see who was behind a merger in 1933 of the Blueshirts, Cumann na nGaedheal and the National Centre Party, complete with a commitment to Commonwealth membership (which in those days necessitated retention of the monarchy, and a very high degree of integration in foreign policy and defence), albeit for a United Ireland as the ultimate aim. Never mind a 1926 secession from Sinn Féin itself, which went on to hang the IRA. You see, there is always a price.

So, who is behind this new, neoliberal, neoconservative secession from, at least, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, and possibly Labour as well? Three guesses. And they would all be right. In which case, what is their price?