Head over to our T-Shirt shop for the latest designs including Conor Lenihan's memorable performance on Vincent Browne.
Read more about: Progressive Democrats 
The Independent is talking of the Progressive Democrats changing their name to the Liberal Democrats due to the negative image the media has of it. Would it change anyone’s opinion of them?
Post a comment below:
It was the ECB wot done it: Dick Roche takes the Fianna Fail defence to the pages of the Wall Street Journal Europe.
IRA members seek US Medicaid assistance? Only in conservative prank video.
HSBC to pay $US63 million compensation to investors in light-touch regulated Irish investment fund linked to Bernie Madoff.
Saudi Arabia thinks Batt O’Keeffe is still Minister for Enterprise (as of 15:50, 20 April) not Richard Bruton.
“When I am on holiday, I am not foreign minister.” It’s not just Ireland where ministers have blind spots about their connections.
After a long absence from these hallowed pages, I’m back! (I hope.)
No, wouldn’t make me even slightly more likely to vote for them. Changing your name doesn’t change who you are, after all. They might have more success renaming themselves the Choco Krispies.
I love the way the PDs always draw the ire of people for being ‘far right’, yet, this is the very same PDs that are allied with the UK LDs and the Alliance party in the same group in the European Parliament which is regarded by all and sundry as a centrist bloc in the parliament between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats.
Only in Ireland.
Who are they kidding ?
Not a bit. Besides ‘Liberal’ implies centralism.
They are getting desperate.
Hmmm, “Liberal Democrat leader Mary Harney” certainly sounds so different to “Progressive Democrat leader Mary Harney” you wouldn’t think they were the same at all would you? Would they also start calling their leader Ming, like their UK counterparts? Where would that leave Ming the Terrible? Could he be persuaded to come and lead them out of the wilderness? This whole idea just raises more questions that it answers…..
Hey World by Storm, the PDs haven’t had representation in the European Parliament for 8 years and I don’t think many people regard the ALDE group as centrist. DWSOT (does what it says on the tin): they are liberals, both on the moral spectrum (follow their voting on ethical issues like stem cell research) and the economic spectrum.
Based on your logic (of EP affiliation and political colours), Fianna Fail is a right wing eurosceptic party, which champions homophobia and xenophobia like their allies in the UEN: Alleanza Nazionale, Lega Nord, Polish Law and Justice, Polish League of Families, Polish Self Defense and others.
As regards the post, the PDs are neither progressive nor truly liberal. If they want a name change, they should just come clean. I suggest Posh Fianna Fail.
Better still, how about Fine Gael?
As a PD member I agree we need to rebrand including the namechange – which would help counter criticism from some quarters that we are simply a relic of the past given we were set up partly in opposition to Haughey and he’s long gone. We still have a role in terms of economic liberalism regarding the electricity and gas markets in particular. Liberalism is not solely a social ideology – economic liberalism denotes support for greater competition, private-enterprise, and low taxation. However I also believe we need to pursue more of a socially liberal programme in order to counter the “right-wing” stereotype in rags like The Star which is always demonising us. Our party manifesto included civil-unions for gay people and that is hardly rightwing. But I will concede that our economic policies are to the right of Irish politics – and do so unapologetically. It was centre-right economics that gave birth to the Celtic Tiger in terms of tax-cuts and pro-competition policies beginning with the 1989-91 govt. Criticisms of us by other parties should not obscure the fact that other parties are quick to poach some of our policies such as on stamp-duty and to some degree on income-tax.
“Besides ‘Liberal’ implies centralism.”
It actually implies the opposite.
Pat Rabitte chanded the name of his party Workers party, New Agenda, Democratic Left befre joining Labour and everyone thinks he’s a great fella
Fer feck’s sake…. next thing they’ll be putting McDowell in the Witless relocation programme (oops. typo).
The essence of a ‘brand’ is what that thing is or stands for. Johnson & Johnson have a strong brand value and ‘credo’. They could (in theory) change their name in the morning and still have the same appeal. eircom changed its name from Telecom Eireann a few years back… the core values of screwing things up for customers still ring true. Ultimately, putting a piece of shit in a fancy wrapper does not remove the inherent attributes of shitness that shit has. No amount of rebranding turns a sows ear into a silk purse.
Changing the name of a party that, to my eyes, stands for less and less (it doesn’t like being described as right wing and it gave up the right to be seen as a ‘moral conscience’ in Irish politics the day it dropped the soap for Bertie in favour of staying in power) is a bit like putting an extra caked layer of make-up on a butt-ugly woman and trying to pass her off as the next Top Model. Before they bandy around proposals to change their name to protect the guilty (and the innocent) the PDs would be better advised to take a look at their values and what they stand for as a party.
If they want to be right wing and have an influence on government… join FG. If they want to continue on as a toothless guard-dog with no bite and piss all bark then they should pack their tents and just re-join FF.
If, on the other hand, they want to stand for ethics and good governance then they should steer clear of coalition with FF and spend some time in the wilderness to redefine themselves as Liberal or Progressive. Once the core credo is restored and people actually know what they stand for then the change of name will make sense and not be seen as a cynical attempt to hurriedly cut the lifeboat loose from the sinking ship that is the credibility of the PDs.
If the PDs had as much moral certitude when dealing with FF as they had when dealing with SF then their fortunes in the election may have been a hell of a lot better.
If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck then chances are it is a duck.
If it fails to question the ethics of the majority party in government, if it continues to rail-road policies through against good sense and judgement(e.g. hospital co-location, criminal justice act) and if it fails to retain a moral compass when dealing with fundamental matters of government then it is a Progressive Democrat – no matter what you feckin’ call it.
If they want to be right wing and have an influence on government… join FG
COuld not let that one go.
How many years have FG been in power for the last 20 years. about 2.5 years?
PD’s have been in what something like 15 years ?
A name change will make no difference to the PD’s
Jesus, this really isn’t going to help them shake the image of being a bunch of West Brit L&H loving Trinity grads now is it it?
Name change? Why not – it worked wonders for Windscale.
The influence on government would, of course, be from the opposition benches through vigorous challenging of government policies and the driving of debate on issues. Should have made that a bit clearer. It would also be a very limited influence.
However the fundamental point that a relabelling without a root and branch rethinking of who the PDs are and what they stand for will just be seen for the cynical exercise that it is. I could start calling myself “The Right Honorable Sir Horatio Clump of Royston-Vesey-on-the-Wold” in the morning – people would still know me for who I am in terms of values, principles and world view. It would also take longer to type into the name field on a comments box.
Shit in a new wrapper is still shit. PDs with a new name are still PDs.
The fact that the PDs have been in government for such a long time strengthens the argument that, at this time of meltdown, a period in opposition to reframe them in the eyes of the public and allow them to put some clear water between them and their former coalition partner while they rebuild the party, the party organisation and get ready for a comeback a la FG is probably a GOOD thing for the “Party-possibly-formerly-known-as-the-Progressive-Democrats”.
I disagree Celtictigger. A period in Opposition would serve only to cement the image of the PDs as a party in decline. A period in govt would present the possibility of fixing the health-service in time for the rewards in 2012.
I don’t think they should change their name, if for no other reason than to piss off idiots
like Celtic Tigger. So the PDs didn’t have a great election.However they are still going to be in Government applying a degree of influence well above the number of TD’s they currently have. Fact is that Mary Harney will exert more influence over policy in this country, particularly in health than the dregs on the Fianna Fail backbenches, Labour and Fine Gael put together.
Soft Fine Gael voters will eventually return to the Progreessive Democrats just as they have always done once they realise how they wasted their vote voting for Fine Gael and the Alliance for Change (some change ).
Jaysus Dermot, there was no need to get personal. I really don’t care whether they change their name or not. It is unlikely to piss me off. I just think that it would be a bad idea unless they are going to change a lot of other things as well.
My personal view is that if the PDs want to be seen as anything other than an annex of FF (albeit one that does box above its weight in terms of influence in government) then they need to take time out from that relationship to redevelop a distinct party identity which may or may not include a name change.
If they are happy to be seen as the tail that wags the dog then that is a valid and appropriate decision for them to make. However they will need to accept that their credibility as the ‘ethical watchdog’ at Cabinet will be no more. They will need to accept a likely perception amongst the public that they will do anything and accept anything to remain in Government.
Mary Harney’s stated desire to return to Health if she is back in government is laudable – it shows a degree of committment to delivering a vision. The problem that many people have (such as hospital consultants etc.) is that that vision may not be appropriate and may not achieve the stated objectives. But I cannot fault her diligence and her willingness to take the challenge on.
Fair play to the PDs if they sustain their foothold in government. If they manage to fix the health service in 4 years (they’ll need the 5th year to crow about it loudly and to have the benefits fully felt by the electorate) then they’ll have had an impressive recovery.
Personally I think that is a very big IF, and a come back would also require them to get a decent number of new faces through in the local elections to have some new ‘names’ to run in 2012. They will also need to have a clearer ethos and message to give to the electorate which is, in my view, one of the things that hit them hard this time around.
As to whether the PDs are a party in decline… may be they aren’t. Maybe this is just a winding that will invigorate them to come back stronger. Brian Boru may have a point that taking time in opposition to redefine their independent identity may cement the image of a party in decline. This is the tough decision that they need to take.
But if Mary Harney rejoined FF in the morning and became an FF Minister for Health would she have any less influence on policy?