Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
So was that radical, or redundant?
Read more about: Progressive Democrats
When Michael McDowell became president of the Progressive Democrats, he infamously stated that they needed to be radical or they would become redundant - he believed this so much he even suggested they change their name to emphasise their radical credentials.
Of course, being radical doesn’t mean being off the wall, it just means being different and McDowell was spot on in his statement. After all, if a small party like the PDs, Sinn Fein, the Greens or Labour can’t offer anything different to Fine Gael or Fianna Fail, then why would they exist at all? As an aside, this is part of the conundrum Rabbitte has found himself in with the Mullingar Accord as his party is no longer “radical” or different to one of the main players and has been suffering in the polls as a result.
So - now that the dust has settled from his first outing as party leader at a PD conference, has McDowell followed through on his wisdom from years gone by?
The most notable policies from the PD conference are as follows:
- Lowering the standard and upper rate of tax by 2%
- Reform of the stamp duty system to benefit first time buyers (and resellers)
- Rejection of the Privacy Bill
- Call to re-examine the introduction of Café Bar licences
- Introduction of an Ombudsman for old people
- Introduction of an SSI-type pension plan that offers €1 for every €2 saved
So has McDowell ensured his party is radical through his proposals? Or is he failing to offer us anything we wouldn’t find elsewhere?
To me, some are fresh (#5), while some are old (#1), but overall I’m not sure if the new and “radical” ideas are enough to make them an overall “radical” party - after all, one new idea can never set a whole organisation apart from its peers.
What do you think?
(and if I’ve missed any of their main points, let me know - I’ll edit them in)
rejection of the privacy bill is intereting
Especially as it’s legislation sponsored by McDowell in the Oireachtas
Why doesn’t he formalise the eradication of the presumption of innocence along with the right to silence, and dissolve the separation of powers? That would be radical, wouldn’t it? Sod it, why not go for a monarchy altogether, and we can all worship at the feet of his Lordship McDowell. Then he can change the name of February to MichaelMonth.
Especially as it’s legislation sponsored by McDowell in the Oireachtas
That is why it is interesting
Can’t say I’m quite so surprised about the Privacy Bill rejection - bear in mind that McDowell himself said there was no need for such a bill about a year before he introduced it.
The only reason it was even put forward down the line was because FF said they would refuse to support his Defamation Reform if it didn’t go hand in hand with new laws on Privacy (and the reason they were so for a Privacy Bill is largely based around a number of incidents in which FF TDs and Ministers had their privacy invaded - if I’m not mistaken, Mary Hanafin was photographed sunbathing whilst on holiday, for example).
McDowell’s Defamation Reform has been accepted by and large by the Irish media - the only ones kicking up a stink are the Oirish versions of British papers… in fact it may just be The Oirish Sun that has gotten its knickers in a twist over it.
Against this the Irish media, without exception, has slammed the Privacy Bill completely and it has since been put on the shelf.
With the lack of support amongst the media and the amount of support amongst his party, McDowell can now enter potential coalition negotiations with a stronger hand on the issue.