Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
FRAMED AS A response to the housing crisis, the draft Planning and Development Bill 2022 is designed to enact a radical overhaul of the planning system and related court processes in Ireland.
It attempts to fulfil promises made in the Programme for Government and appease construction and property industry lobby groups who have long complained that excessively bureaucratic processes, over-regulation, restrictive nature protections and “NIMBYs” or “objectors” stymie development.
The changes proposed in the Bill, which were not subject to public consultation, will have far-reaching negative implications for access to justice and the Rule of Law in Ireland, and will make it difficult for citizens, NGOs and community groups to challenge planning decisions which affect the environment. It could also expose Ireland’s planning system to years of satellite litigation.
Published in January of this year, it is currently before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage.
A central aim of the Bill is to restrict access to justice, based on the flawed premise that “a tsunami” of judicial reviews are stalling progress on housing and other developments. An examination of the available figures quickly shows that these arguments do not bear up to scrutiny.
Judicial review rates have remained relatively steady over the past ten years.
That is the period since Ireland ratified the Aarhus Convention. This agreement provides the international legal basis for rights such as access to judicial review of planning decisions, the right to participate in planning decisions and rights of access to information.
However, the number of judicial reviews of An Bord Pleanála decisions increased following the introduction of Strategic Housing Development (SHD) legislation, a fast-track planning process for large-scale housing projects that bypassed local authorities and went straight to An Bord Pleanála.
In 2021, for example, the number of judicial reviews of An Bord Pleanála decisions doubled (95 compared with 50 in previous years), and the success rate of those relating to strategic housing developments was 75% – clearly demonstrating why trying to bypass proper oversight and decision-making procedures is a bad idea.
This increase in the number of judicial reviews is still a very small percentage (3.65%) of the circa 2,600 An Bord Pleanála decisions annually. This is not an open floodgate that needs to be closed.
Academic and other investigations, including by Noteworthy, have documented extensively the manner in which industry lobby groups have successfully weaponised the housing crisis to argue for a deregulatory agenda in the planning system in Ireland.
The real story of the housing crisis is unfortunately a much more complicated and nuanced affair.
At a time of intensifying climate and biodiversity crises, the importance of judicial review for environmental and climate accountability cannot be overstated. It is a vital mechanism for ensuring that developments align with Ireland’s climate and environmental goals and commitments.
A raft of changes is proposed in the Bill that will restrict the number and types of organisations that can access judicial review. The intention behind these changes appears to be to eliminate challenges by residents and community groups and to eliminate long-standing environmental organisations that do not meet the new criteria.
Under the changes proposed, unincorporated associations and NGOs or associations which have less than ten members will be restricted in their access to judicial review. NGOs will also be required to have been registered in existence for at least one year prior and to have passed a resolution to take judicial review proceedings.
This represents a substantial rollback of environmental access to justice. The narrowing of the category of NGOs eligible to take a judicial review is likely to be a breach of international and EU law under the Aarhus Convention and of the non-regression principle of international human rights law.
The practical effect of these changes will be to force citizens to litigate individually rather than as part of an association, potentially creating a multiplicity of separate litigations on the same case, rather than having the desired effect of reducing the number of judicial reviews.
Where individuals are concerned, they will now need to show that they are directly or indirectly materially affected by a planning decision in order to be considered to have “sufficient interest” to take a judicial review. There is no definition of “materially affected” in the Bill – this will require definition by the courts.
Additionally, changes to the cost rules will make it more difficult for individuals and NGOs to get legal assistance. If brought in, the clause removing the capacity to recoup your costs if successful means that applicants will not be able to avail of “no foal, no fee” legal help from lawyers any more.
This is a system where, if a lawyer assesses your case as being well grounded, they may offer to take the case for free on the basis they will get paid if it is successful. This system has the benefit of filtering vexatious cases and ones with a low prospect of success out before they get to court.
The Bill also proposes changes that will allow the planning authority to amend a planning decision at any time in the eight weeks after judicial review proceedings are initiated, to remedy the matter that is the subject of the judicial review.
This change would introduce further uncertainty and laxness into the planning system.
It also risks inculcating a mindset which views the decision as provisional pending a challenge.
If the An Bord Pleanála crisis has shown us anything, it is the importance of proper decision-making and accountability by the planning authority.
The failure to engage in public consultation when drafting the Bill is striking, given Ireland’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention and the fact that this Bill constitutes an historic reform of our land use laws with significant implications for the environment.
While a closed, invitation-only stakeholder group was established for the duration of the review, the Planning Advisory Forum, the majority of its members were from industry and government. This does not meet the international law requirement to consult with the public.
The lack of meaningful public consultation raises the prospect of a breach by Ireland of Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention, which stipulates that legislative proposals under development by the executive must be subject to broad public participation through the publication of draft legislation and provision of sufficient time for response.
We are at a critical juncture in the future of the planet in terms of climate and biodiversity issues, and it has never been more important that Ireland takes bold steps in the direction of strengthening democracy, climate action, addressing housing and human rights challenges.
This comprehensive review of Ireland’s planning law has the potential to radically improve and overhaul our planning and land use system as well as related court processes.
But in order to achieve this ambition, the public must be given a proper say on such significant changes to the democratic balance of our planning system, and proper recognition needs to be given to the right of communities to have a say in what happens to their local environment.
The Bill must be put out to public consultation. It must also be the subject of a multidisciplinary review by experts in relevant fields (environmental science, ecology, planning, architecture, law and NGOs).
Crucially, it must be substantially revised to ensure citizens’ rights to call Government to account are protected.
Alison Hough is the head of the Access to Justice Observatory at the Environmental Justice Network Ireland and Gavin Elliott is an environmental justice lawyer at Community Law & Mediation.
She’s complaining about the government decisions on the economy yet voted for every single one of them. And campaigned on them too.
Only setting up a new party because she refused to support the Protection of Life in Pregnancy legislation.
New politics? She belongs in the stone age.
She will split the fg vote.
She’ll split Dana’s vote.
Whats their position on Water Charges?
@Ronan, Suggest this would be the reply.
While not condemning them they couldn’t confirm that they are not in favor of them.
She can’t even Christen the child !
The issue that I have is with Independents currently higher that anyone collectively in the polls will the ones that flock to Creigthon’s party go into government with FG?
Or who will they go in with or are they going to go it alone or be in opposition?
Should she split the FG vote it will still amount to half of nothing being nothing…
I wouldn’t get involved in her party even if it had a free bar!
just what we need another fine gael lite party thought having Labour was enough,,heaven help us were doomed
Somebody asked where does she stand on Irish Water!! She walks on it!
Reeboot Ireland .Com, – no name yet….??, – how about RIC…??
Does Lucinda really think the Irish Voters are that dumb, that we would even consider voting for a besmirched Fine Gael has been. Lucinda couldnt vote on the abortion ref but could vote for Alan Shatter Eviction that will do untold damage to this country and its people.
Fook off Lucinda and take your has_been Eddie Hobbs with you, we dont need your kind of politics , we got enough gangsters already in the form of Fianna fail fine Gael and Labour
I already know everything I need to know about Lucinda Creighten’s new party.
With Hobbs on board they can kiss goodbye to any chance of public sector support!
Old Boot?
Yes. The real insider elites. They benchmark themselves and destroy the paperwork.
Hobbs complains about the public service, yet in 8 months he couldn’t decide if he was going to stand or not.
How could she sit with Hobbs……..knowing what he thinks of the public sector and his investment vehicles. Disappointed in you Lucinda
The Irish Tea Party has arrived and the mad hatter is running it.
__http://thedutchguy.biz/isee/?p=75__
Hopefully enough so that none of those fraudsters get any further although as much as I am left wing, I worry that we don’t have a leftist party ready to take up the reigns and a mulch of independents and Sinn Fein don’t auger good either although they’ll get my vote before this vomit inducing crowd, FF or FG or Labour, Green Party needn’t apply with their nothingness!
Agree Sean…hardly “new” politics..
“Reboot Ireland”
I wouldn’t trust Lucinda as far as she could be thrown with Ireland’s future. Her history in Europe and her campaigning here on their behalf shows she’s sell Irish sovereignty for a bag of penny sweets.
vote independent.
Are we just to forget that when she was a loyal FG apostle that she was the one busy selling us out to the EU? Or does she really think the irish voters are that forgetful? The woman is, and will remain, at least for a decade or two, political poison. And it only illustrates the lack of political savvy enjoyed by the rest of this new party that they would touch her doth a bargepole!
We need new choices on the political landscape, and we need them as soon as possible. This country is crying out for it. But I’m sorry Lucinda, you don’t represent a new choice for me. You’re just going to be a right-wing conservative party with a strong whiff of Catholicism thrown in. What’s new about that? I want this country to move forward from all that nonsense, not regress back into it.
I really despair. Where are the new political parties that represent “normal” people and have policies that are based on common sense and fact?!
So for that reason Lucinda, I’m out.
And yet not word of social issues or ‘Catholicism’ this morning. It really is the economy, stupid. Giver this a chance, she may surprise us.
“Normal” people, sadly, don’t want to engage in politics. Or people who may be willing, don’t see a point, as its hard to get elected.
If she wants people to vote for her she needs to answer questions outside the narrow ‘economic’ boundary she has set.
Eg if she ultimately is equivocal or against same sex marriage, she needs to state that & let the majority of the country decide to ignore her in the polls; she can’t cherrypick what subjects she will advocate on.
Don’t worry John, I can’t see that many people voting for this party.
@jason a leopard doesn’t change it’s spots
Have some respect for Catholics, the majority religion in this country and world wide, like it or not. Sadly Catholics are the most discriminated group in this country now. Unlike many other groups people seem they can make judgements and random comments about them.
Ann, that’s not discrimination, that’s debate and questioning. Discrimination is what the Catholic Church does to the gay community when it tries to deny marriage equality.
I’ll vote for them.
All this nonsense about Fine Gael being right-wing. They’re campaigning for gay marriage, bringing in abortion legislation, taxing to the hilt and spending huge sums of money while penalising business people and the self-employed at every turn. What’s so right wing about that? For the people who wanted a new left-wing party instead – you have Sinn Fein, the Socialists, The Socialist Workers, the Greens, The PBPA… Vote for one of them!
“Catholics are the most discriminated group in this country now” – Really? Discriminated? What is it that a Catholic cannot do in this country that others can?
No, honestly, what is it.
I’ll tell you something that I, as an atheist, cannot do, enrol my son in a some schools because I refuse to baptise him. So I am forced to choose a different school because the state has allowed this TRUE discrimination to go unchecked for years.
Go look up what ‘discrimination’ actually means and then come back.
Or even better, don’t look it up and continue showing how some Catholics, like yourself, are wilfully ignorant about reality.
Discriminated. Don’t make me laugh.
@ Ann Catholicism is not the majority religion in the world, It is not even in the top three. Worldwide it is a minority religion.
Are you sure about that? A simple google search will reveal over 1.2 billion people class themselves as Catholic. That’s over 17 percent of the world’s population. Yes it’s a minority, but it’s a rather huge one.
@ann That’s not discrimination you are experiencing, it’s the gradual breaking down of the privilege to which you were accustomed. A privilege that required and maintained consistent discrimination against others.
What you are starting to feel is equality. To you, coming from where you were, it feels like oppression. To those who were oppressed it feels like freedom.
It’s all about your point of view really, isn’t it?
Scipio, I think what Doc means is, while Christianity is the worlds largest religion, Catholicism is a small number within that wider branch.
Well maybe it’s because she left FG not for their economic policy but for their changing stance on abortion. Maybe though, after falling victim of the whip system, this party might work it differently? That would be a plus.
FG brought in “abortion legislation” to codify what was ALREADY LEGAL.
The X Case ruled that abortion was permissible when the risk to life was suicide, the government of the day even put the ruling to the people to ensure we agreed.
More people voted against removing the suicide clause than voted for the 8th amendment, and due to the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary – the government were not within their rights to leave it out. They had to legislate for X. That’s the way it works.
I for one do not feel comfortable at the prospect of a party led by someone who let’s their ideology get in the way of following due process and the constitution that she’s supposed to be upholding.
Smoking crack I see Ann! Cop on the persecuted Christian card is out of date by centuries! Nobody is thrown to lions for Christ sake.
@John Kelly:
An anagram of “Lucinda Creighton” says it all – Enduring Catholic!
Ann Flood – Your statement is ridiculous – Christianity is the largest religion in the world, Catholicism is a part of it and does not stand alone as there is only a marginal percentage more members of the Catholic church world wide than protestant.
Also, only 18% of the population actually attend mass regularly in Ireland which means no more than 20% are in fact active members of the church, although around 85% say they are catholic, in so much as they share the beliefs.
I wont make a “random comment” now, I will make a clear one – The Catholic Church in Ireland is completely backward, it stigmatizes half of the population, has abused its powers since the state was created and does not follow its own doctrine.
The church, as it stood and stands today is a prime example of everything we are trying to move away from – Today, we want free speech, we want freedom of choice and belief, freedom for the people of our nation to be who they are and not closet their feelings or beliefs and most important, we want equality and fairness – these are not things that coincide with the catholic church.
Nice one, John :)
Best comment so far!!!
Yeah, she’s a massive CANT alrite..
@ Ann , “..have some respect for catholics”. Why?
Jane
A religion which has ideas about homosexuals is their religion, it is not discrimination, if you don’t like the religion get out of it or start your own, but they are entitled to hold whatever views they have regarding how they believe the nature of life should be.
I see you simply point the finger at the Catholic church and say nothing about Islam or other African cultures for example which have a culture of violence against homosexuals. Btw “gay” is an English word meaning joyous or happy. Nice to see your hypocrisy has gained in strength Jane.
No religion should be entitled to practice a message of hatred and oppression against a significant minoririty of the population. Other religions practice that message of hatred but, in Ireland, the primary offender is the Roman Catholic Church and a substantial number of its slavish adherents.
Ann the Catholic Church raped our children or made such event into a culture. How can you blame people for hating on Catholics? I mean really what planet are people on. It makes me a small bit queasy on a Sunday morning driving past people who support that thing
Lasair
I don’t believe we’ve met before, unless you used to comment under another name?
Don’t worry, I don’t discriminate against catholics. I’m an equally-opportunities arguer against any and all organised religions that attempt to deny rights to others.
As for beliefs, you’re right, they’re personal. You can believe whatever you like; you can believe that you poop rainbows for all I care. It’s when you attempt to impose your beliefs on others that I have an issue. I don’t care if you believe marriage is just between men and women; that’s your prerogative. I do care if you use your beliefs to prevent other people acting as they believe is correct, providing they’re not hurting anyone else.
Oh, Lasair, and what hypocrisy would that be, exactly? DO tell. I’m DYING to know.
@Lasair You are right to a point. But you overlook three things:
While those who adhere to a religion can of course believe and practice whatever their religion obliges them too, they do not
1. have the right to have those beliefs enshrined in law
2. have the right to require those who do not adhere to their faith, or any faith, to conform to the beliefs of their religion
3. have the right to behave in any way that is contrary to the laws of the land.
As to the use of the word ‘gay’. Language evolves, words, with usage, develop other meanings. There are no up to date dictionaries which don’t include several meanings for this word.
I am proud to call myself a Catholic, we are totally discriminated by the media in this country, I admire Lucinda for having the courage to walk away from her job as Minister for European Affairs and did not abandon her conscience and stay in Fine Gael who sold out to the liberal agenda, they will suffer at the next election for abandoning their conservative voters, and I am just for the record a Fianna Fáil activist and former Tipp Town Councillor before we were illegally abolished by big Phil Hogan disgraceful.
Maybe she never really left Fine Gaels(payroll) and is just starting up an undercover branch.
Jane, Laisir A is a neo Nazi. I’m not sure about the neo bit though. He will have have nothing to do with the English Defence League because they support Israel. He is anti-Israeli not for human rights reason but good old anti-Semitism. His views on Muslims is equally predictable. At least he is consistent in his anti-Semitism. Only white Aryan European people can join his club. I am unsure if he thinks white people from Eastern Europe are Aryan or are Slavs still untermenschen. The St. Brigids cross is code for a swastika. Thought I’d share.
John
For the record, Lucinda did not “stand by her principles”.
We, the people, voted to allow abortion under certain circumstances.
Our government was then obliged to legislate for that, because we told them too.
Lucinda went against her government and the will of the people she was supposed to represent.
Do you genuinely believe that a person like that should be trusted to run again?
Ten, thanks for the heads up. I don’t believe I’ve encountered him/her before, but maybe I just blocked the encounter from my memory.
Ann you are confusing Catholicism with Christianity. Christianity is the largest religion in the world but there are far more muslims in the world than catholics. I also find it preposterous that a catholic can cry discrimination considering the the sheer amount of it doled out by the catholic church over the years, against many marginalised groups, not just gays. It is not discrimination, it is being asked to answer to your behaviour and beliefs and it’s about time this ‘discrimination’ has finally come about.
Ah here, you know darn well that ‘gay’ means a homosexual in modern parlance, you’re just insulting us. We’re not happy when people start spouting claptrap, pretending gay sexuality isn’t real, we’re here and get over it. It’s 2015 not 1815. Look, go and join Lucinda’s game of thrones if you want, but she’s on the road to nowhere.
Ann you need to probably spend some time researching theology. Google “top religions in the world” you might be shocked to find your beloved catholic religion fares poorly. Also while your at it google religions in india you’ll probably be gobsmacked that there is hundreds. Tell the legion of mary ppl about this unbelievable knowledge.
Bang on
Nailed it Shanti. 100% agree with you.
Respect is earned! And this country owes much cruelty and horror in its history to the teachings of the church and how they were enforced. People who go to worship GOD should have had the freedom to do so, but you cannot honestly dismiss how betrayed people are by the Church which is entirely without devine influence.
When was the last time Catholics were discriminated against in Ireland?
Interesting that she now wants to give ‘choice’ to us.
Name for the “new” party….How about The Regressive Demagogues?
yes, anti choice.. which this party will provide in spades.. same crap, same people, no choice or change here..
#REBOOTLUCINDA
@John O’Neill….Regressive Demagogues lmao!!!!! Brilliant :)
Perfect, John
Comment of the year right there!
…or maybe The Repressive Demigods?
Democratic Right.
Anyone remember Libertas? Lucindatas will go away with the Dodo after the next election
@Genius:
Reboot Lucinda up the arse!
Miserable Dinosaurs –
Depressive cerapods!
Great name ha ha
Is she also going to use the hashtag #holiertanthou as well ?
#holierthanthou sorry.
#wolfinsheepsclothing
They should just call themselves Progressive Democrats Nua and be done with it… #PDNua
Will it be a #byob (Bring your own Baby) or a #byohw (Bring your own Holy Water) type of party?
New Fine Gael will do just fine.
Does she owe Kenny royalties on the great place to do business quote ?
So when giving “politics back to the people” will she allow the people have their say on the 8th amendment?
Hopefully not…that is a question of the killing of the unborn ..when is that right in anybodys eyes
See how you have 6 red thumbs, and no green thumbs? What does that tell you?
Give me a few days to work that one out will ya
Donaill. Just ignore yer wan. A twitter account set up to troll is all it is……pathetic
So freedom of expression only works when it’s the Iona view. I believe your right. That’s how I believe Lucinda sees it too.
Just more of the same from Creighton. It sounds like it’s basically FG rebooted. This country needs a healthy Eurosceptic party. The sycophantic attitude of our major parties towards the EU makes me sick to my stomach. It’s all about jockeying for position at the Brussels pig trough.
@christine okeefe:
Get well soon!
#rehash FG policy – nothing new to see here
#LeopardsDon’tChangeTheirSpots
Will she have a five-point-plan?
Four point. Father, son, holy spirit as she blesses herself.
Daisy, don’t forget foetuses, they’d be point 5.
Looks like this party want to drag us back to the 50′s. Maybe Shane Ross will give us a liberal and progressive party.
I think father, son and holy spirit add up to 3 not 4
Never blessed yourself before, Mary?
Holy Spirit is both shoulders Mary
No, I think Lucinda may be counting herself as on and the same with the Holy Trinity which has also been rebooted and renamed #theholytrinity!
@Mary King:
They add up to bugger all!
You missed the point Mary
Why does Creighton’s Ego get so much publicity? There’s numerous hard working TDs in the Dáil who do a much better job than she does.
might have somthing to do with been honest
Look at her voting record then talk about honesty.
Such a crowd of cynics.
Give the woman a chance. Not many resigned from a plumb job over a principle. Not like our dear leader Enda who will campaign for Same Sex Marriage even tho we all know he is no more a believer in this cause than the man in the moon ! but sure if it gets a section of the nation behind you and maybe will vote for you come next election why not ? (my turn to be cynical .)
She had her chance in FG and showed herself to be good little TD, falling into line with all the government’s austerity measures. Leopards don’t change their spots. She’ll still be a right winger with 80s policies and anti equal rights.
Nothing cynical at all. Her voting record is there for all to see. She’s pro property tax. Pro water tax. Pro every economic decision the government has made. That’s a fact. She’s had months to plan this and the one question she avoided, bottled was on freedom of choice. ( it’s personal). How does she plan to get things done with no policy on social issues. It’s FGmk2.
Don’t expect too many green thumbs, Shinbot key board warriors are working overtime this morning
I agree with your Ursula.Anyone is better than this shower of spineless liars.Give them a chance.
She didn’t resign, she was booted out over going against the whip on a constitutional issue.
The government were OBLIGED by law to legislate for the suicide clause that she objected to. It was the democratic will of the people as expressed when we rejected the 12th amendment (more people voted to reject omission of the suicide clause than voted for the 8th amendment by the way).
So she should have been booted. She doesn’t believe in democracy than she has no right sitting in the dail.
@christine okeefe:
“been honest”…?
What are you now?!
Precisely, Shanti. She went directly against the democratically-decided will of the people. That is not someone I want to see in power, ever.
Honest what criac are you smoking.
I dunno, I think if the principle she so nobly resigned over had been the austerity cuts and not the abortion clause that the people voted for she might have a shred more credibility.
All the other parties will be quaking in their boots at the thought of………Eddie Hobbs!!
Knock him all you like but he did give us an idea of what was coming. Remember Rip Off Republic 2005 I think?
What was their thinking behind getting Eddie Hobbs as their financial advisor? He was on the telly, so that will do.
I’m not calling him a people’s champion and, when you make predictions, you can get it wrong. If people followed his advice and lost-tough.
He did realise, however that the Celtic Tiger was “eating its young”. That is true for a lot of people who didn’t and weren’t able to go mad in the boom.
Sure you might as well have Sean Gallagher on board as “entrepreneurial adviser” or something to that effect seeing as he was on Dragon’s Den. He’s just as shady as Lucinda too so he’d be a perfect fit for this “new” party.
The Vatican will soon be in contact with Eddie Hobbs regarding a new gig to help Fran the Man clean up the Catholic Church’s Global Finances, now that Eddie has shown his true colours.
That’s the funding partially sorted for Hot-lips’ new political party!
I am one of her constituents, and I can tell you she won’t be getting my vote. Typical politician promised the moon and the stars, promised she would fight our corner come hell or high water. But never mentioned if a handy number in Europe was to came along she would drop our area like a hot cake, never to be heard of again. She had an office in Ringsend a big one across the road from the church, never seen it open nor has anybody I know, would be interesting if she was claiming expenses for it ???? This women is a liar and can not be trusted and I will be going out of my way to spread the word. Even on the abortion thing with FG just maybe she should have asked her constituents for there opinion befogged going off with her own opinion considering that’s who she is supposedly there to represent, us not herself, because believe me that is all she cares about is herself.
No mention of religion?
what has religon got to do with anything
Lucinda is very interested. Herself and her husband are quite a holy pair!
Anyone want to hazard a guess who Christine was before? We do seem to have a drop off in the usual trolls.
They must all go home under the bridge for the Christmas break
Christ on a bike she’s back…….a right wing nutter peddling the ideals of an 1980′s Ireland, is there anything to be said for another mass Lucif….I mean Lucinda….who in their right mind would vote for such a party?
I will
Free speech Christine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I don’t agree with the rubbish you’ve written above but I defend your right to say it regardless of its content!
you called her a nutter
Obvious Troll is….well…obvious!
Eh, Christine, freedom of speech means she’s entitled to call Lucinda a nutter if she wants, just as you’re entitled to disagree.
Christine, you too are allowed to be a right wing nutter if you want, I would
hope that you would notice the amount of red thumbs every comment you
have made has gotten, your views come across as intolerant, blinkered and
are remnants of a church fearing generation.
Creighton and her gang will huff and puff their moral outrage for a little while
but ultimately won’t last.
Jane you are a nutter
Why thank you, Tony! You’re probably right.
Oops, Tom, not Tony. Eyesight is going, sorry.
Jane…moderator AND agitator… I love your style
Why thank you, John :)
an anti woman right wing party – no thanks
Personally I’d love to see a proper Quango cull and lower income tax for full time workers. A full reboot is precisely what this welfare dependent state needs
I agree with the Quango cull, but we don’t wanna get into another “Charlie McCreevy style” erosion of the tax base, unnecessarily. Scrap the poxy USC and other stealth taxes, create two more rates of income tax, one that lower earners pay on a certain amount, like 15% from 15,000 to 20,000 21% up to 40,000 – which is not an extravagant wage, 41% upto 65,000, 48% to 80,000 and 52% over 100,000. that would be a much fairer way of staggering the base. We need decent public services, amenities, and infrastructure. P-P partnership can deliver a lot, but the reason we are in this mess is that FF destroyed the tax base, and spent the revenue from the property boom on stupid things by and large, without delivering what the general public needed. I know few who saw the tiger roar, but suffered even more when it died.
She’s hated on the left and mocked on the right, should make a great Irish politician.
Sure the Left hates everyone.
Even Michael D. these days!
Well if she stops the building of those ridiculous Educate Together schools she will be getting my vote
here here
linda, meet christine. christine, meet linda. I’m waiting for finbarr to turn up any minute now!
Koalas don’t respond to ‘here here’ …You should try some Eucalyptus leaves !
Where, where?
Maybe Christine is one of Findabarrs new identities?
@christine okeefe:
There, there!
What’s wrong with educate together schools?
I want a new party to get rid of silly taxes and charges that interfere with people’s lives like the M50 toll charges and the plastic bag tax. Get rid of the NCT too.
I don’t want a country where it’s great to be a “worker/consumer” I want a country where it’s great to be a citizen. I want a country where people are not seen as employers or workers, but seen as people, where the government work for those that elected them, not those that bribe them.
Guess I’ll have to look further.
Sounds like you’re running yourself there michael?
Who, could possibly red thumb the idea of being a valued citizen on a country where the government work for the people elected them, the mind boggles!
No, I’m not running. But find it interesting her definition of the country she wants to create is all about consumer/employer/worker – no mention of citizens, social policy etc.
Great another right wing pro no choice pro keep the rich rich and the middle down politician who’s clear aim is to hit middle ireland public and private sector and continue to bend over to Europe she is a joke
Hopefully every politician wants to keep the rich rich and offer opportunities for everyone else to become rich.
I wonder what her stance is on a very wealthy individual making nearly half billion Euros from the installation of second hand German water meters?
Just in time to get her mug on the telly for the equal marriage referendum… Probably to campaign against it. So disappointing to see a young woman with such regressive views.
Hope she does Daisy..there wll be actually people vote against it so they need a voice as well…sure ye will have Panti out batting for yere side wont ye
And why are you opposed to denying homosexuals the right to have their union given all the same protections as any other in the eyes of the LAW?
What reason have you for denying them what you can have? What is your issue with homosexuals?
Oh God no.
God says Yes!
God told me she’s on the verge of getting her smite on. She hasn’t had a good smiting in aeons!
I heard she wants to bring back the laundries for unmarried mothers.
It would be even cheaper than Jobbridge! Think of the money raised by selling babies to rich Americans. The economy will be back on track in no time.
FG under a different name, fg wont have the numbers so it gets old members to form a party and try and bring them into government, why would any of us fall for this BS
Could spilt the vote in areas where FG poll marginally better thereby denying FG a seat,has to be welcomed imo.
From what little knowledge or interest I have in politics, this whole thing makes no sense to me. They are trying to appeal to the socially conservative FG voters, who are generally rural based, traditional voters, by setting up a Dublin centric party, which already has an elitist feel to its makeup and launch.
I’m missing something obviously. Where’s the mad lad comes on here about false flag exercises and stuff when you need him?
What a great start for a new party, hold a conference and tell the people nothing.
No name for the party, sound bite type mission statements & a further “launch” where further details will be announced… Should have left it till they had it hammered down instead of this half baked bollox.
How about the TWP – “Theist W+nkers Party”?!
Somebody had too much Xmas tiple
Another party that will lie about representing us.
Don’t like the woman or her policies, on the upside her party will harvest a lot of disaffected FG voters which is a good thing.Anything that helps deny FG a second term is to be welcomed.
Disagree, Norman. The alternative as represented by Lucinda is not to be welcomed by anyone! I’d actually rather vote for FG than give that terrifying woman any power; and that’s something I never thought I’d say.
Jane try reading my comment.I did not welcome her party only the prospect that it may help deny FG a second term.
Or end up going into coalition propping up FG perhaps? The PD’s did that when O’Malley et al. left FF in the 80′s. FF will bounce back, but not as much as people think, as Willie O’Dea says “there is no messiah in the wings” and without a Bertie style bounce, they will be marginally better than they are now, Meehawl will have to step down and someone from the new generation like Averil Power will replace him. SF will play a major part of who is in government, in that they will go into coalition with one of the traditional parties and Labour – if they survive, or they will force FF, FG and the loopy lucy party into power together, which I would believe is the worst case scenario, although this will end civil war politics, and create a real left-right divide, I don’t know if FG and FF will realise how similar they are.
Norman, I read what you said and I take your point, but the idea of lucinda’s party splitting the FG vote is only good if it means neither gets in. On the other hand, if both get in…!
Never left, Christine. *waves*
“Loopy Lucy party”! Love it, Keith :)
Jane ,It is unlikely that anyone other than disaffected FG voters will vote for her party.
Norman, I really hope you’re right. That woman quite frankly terrifies me.
Don`t worry FG is finished, with or without this group.
Three words in that article ” former FG ” that says it all, another stray sheep.
The minute her new party seem to be making progress she’ll jump ship to help the traitorous mob again.
Kenny will regret the day he got her turfed out of the party…good to see a pro life party starting in Ireland ..hopefully they will canvass against this ridicolus marriage equality referendum for gays as well
More ‘humour’ Christine?
If they did that it would be the shortest lived party in history I reckon
just facts will ..when you have the labour party hell bent on pushing their liberal agenda on our people I believe another party is the best way to respond to that
Yes down with equality and rights for gay people Christine. Why not just say that?
Christine – are the policies (as yet unknown) of the other party not the relevant factor?
A bit premature maybe….
You are a person who lives in the stone age
they can have their rights like everyone else…marriage is between a man and a woman ..full stop
Gurranabraher in fact Bob …were right next door to each other
Well it looks like the rights of (civil) marriage will be available to gay couples and I have no problem with that. As the man once said – you don’t have to have one!!
Hmmm… I’m always suspicious of people who can’t spell their own names properly on twitter. Socks who pick Irish surnames but omit the apostrophe are quite common round these parts.
lower the tone as usual
What’s so “ridicolus” about Marriage Equality, Christine?
@christineokeefe
Here’s a conundrum for you.
If a young woman had been sexually attacked,became pregnant and wanted an abortion,obviously you would be against that. But then,what if you knew that child would be gay or bisexual when they grew up? What say you then?
There are gay people against gay marriage also….I am against abortion in all circumstances and the geneder of the child would make no diference to my views ..thats a sick question by the way
Well they will get their say when May rolls around, as will the rest of the country!!
Oh look – against abortion in *all* circumstances..
Such as?
Where there’s a risk to the woman’s life
Where there’s a risk to her permanent health
Where the foetus will not survive.
Where the woman was raped.
Where the pregnancy arises from incest.
Yup.. Best to make sure those women carry to term against their will and the long term implications of same..
We already voted for abortion on demand, it’s just in the UK. More people voted for it that have ever voted for “pro life ideals” in this country. So what makes you think Ireland is looking for a “pro life” party?
We already have 3.
Shanti are you suggesting that women that go through an abortion have no side effects or after effects both emotionally and physically?
I would be 50/50 and would go either way as long as unbiased facts that showed all the pros and the cons of abortion and the effects/outcomes on both mother and child were laid bare. I just don’t see why it is some that seems to fascinate you, that you seem to get a kick out of. Nobody wins with an abortion. It should be the last case scenario for any human being to contemplate. And it certainly something we should all cheer and celebrate if it ever does come in as a law.
We all agree it should be rare.
We all agree prevention is better than cure.
If it were legal we would know:
How many abortions were being carried out.
What age groups were having them
Why they were having them.
Then – like other countries, we could focus on the relevant areas that could reduce the need for abortion. Be that sex ed, free contraception, more research into certain birth anomalies. Whatever the statistics turn up.
At present we export it. The only figures we have are the ones the UK provide us with. We have no demographic breakdowns, no further information. No way to tell who or why, no concrete place to work from in preventing the need for abortion.
We do know that substantial amounts of abortion pills are seized at customs, we have no idea how many get through. We don’t know what our abortion rate is.
Before the UK introduced their law, the only abortions they knew about were the ones that wound up in hospital in septic shock. We can be thankful we have the UK cleaning up our mess for us or things may have been quite different over here.
No one thinks it’s inherently good to terminate the potential humans development – but some realise that it’s not always so black and white, sometimes it’s just the least terrible of some awful options.
That is being hopeful. We have a police force that is not reporting all the crime figures into the database. Hence why the crime figures are distorted. Just like the crime figures you could have a government that could swing the figures to suit their agenda unless some sort of an independent body is set up outside of Irish government funding, or Abortion agency funding.
I reiterate my previous comment that I got red thumbed for. I don’t know why really but I do think we need all the facts on the table that is outside the spectrum of “morals” and “liberalism” and look at the unbiased medical facts. I would like to know the after effects in particular in detail and what emotional and physical ramifications it can have on a young mother, prior to any decision.
It is I agree the least terrible of some awful options.
OK – I had posted a reply – it could have popped up elsewhere, but it only had 3 links in it so it should have been published..
American Psychiatric Association states that there are no psychiatric ill effects directly caused by abortion (based on a review of the literature). This remains their official stance.
Abortion is actually safer than childbirth and look to the Turnaway study for what happens to women denied abortion..
Will this post?
Christine is right – let’s try to pray the gay out of people. It’s worked for centuries in this country.
Great to re-live the dinosaurs sentiment. …refreshing in a kind of a ‘pat-on-the-head’ of the ye olden days
Marrige is a legal format
A “legal format. ..Matrimony is a church format
Once a turd always a turd
Wise words.
All sound bites and no policies Her salary was a hundred and fifty thousand a year ,HER husband as a senator got 85.500 euro ,giving a combined 235.000 euro a year or 4,500 a week or 640 every day of the week .lucinda voted to cut child benefit ,tax on your home, water tax ,pay bond holders .protect bankers pay , and you still believe her party will be different ?
I was wondering how she could afford setting up a new party
It’s not her fault she earns what she does. She’s not in charge of her own wages.
She might not get reelected in 2016.
If she was earning minimum wage and had lots of kids it would then be ok to vote to cut child benefit?
Do you have to be pensioner in order to vote to cut pensions?
If you believe you can never ever ever cut spending then you are just left with some sort of spending bubble which will leave us with massive debt for years to come. Sometimes governments overspend in certain areas and cutbacks need to be made.
If you don’t like her policies, that’s fair enough but you shouldn’t knock her for working and earning a living. I think; that she believes, she is doing her best for our country, which is a nice quality.
Sometimes when I look at her, I think she’s going to cry. She looks like she maybe needs some antidepressants to me. I hate the way people slate her.
If she needs antidepressants because she has to deal with criticism then she needs to get out of the political system immediately. There’s no place for someone who can’t deal with the weight of the responsibility that they’re taking on, that’s not an excuse. She doesn’t have to be earning minimum wage or be a pensioner, and no it wouldn’t make it any easier on the people who’s income is being cut if she was, but she would at least have some credibility if she earned anything near the average industrial wage. How does it look when a women who, last time I heard, was on a salary of ~150,000 is willing to cut child benefits and pension payments, income received mostly by people who are only scraping by as it is. None of her decisions affect her, like all other politicians I suppose. None of the cuts take money out of her pocket because the majority of politicians expenses are footed by the taxpayer, and what isn’t is easily paid for with their exorbitant salaries. You talk about her like she’s ever done anything to deserve the kind of money she gets. She isn’t in charge of her own salary, but I wouldn’t hold my breath on her returning any of it either.
Lucinda is a right tease. So, we are told that this will be a “pro business” party and not much else of specific substance. We are not told who the founders are. We are not told who the financial backers are. The social policy issues are now kept behind a veil so as not to frighten of commercial backing and we have no announcement of the detailed political manifesto, economic policies or the stance of this soon to be launched party on the major social, political and economic issues of today.
This will be yet another Irish political party pretending to be all things to all voters, reassuringly right wing, pro big business and anti labour. Yes, more of the same from the same old people who supported the policies which brought economic and social ruin to the country.
Of course, it may be true. It may be that the Irish voter can’t handle real change and radicalism. We clasp to the past and no one does nostalgia and political comfort of traditionalism than Lucinda. There may be enough suckers out there to be led along by her.
An FGer by any other name is still an FGer
Where does she stand on irish water.
As a former FG td I assume she fully supports the charges and potential future privatisation of IW
She claims to be “business led”. You get what that means, right? Privatisation all the way and screw the little guy.
I thought it couldn’t get any worse and then along comes Fundamentalist Fine Gael.
They can have their rights, like everyone else. Just not the right to marry, so they can’t “have their rights” then.
Lucinda “Vote Yes for Jobs” Creighton…..no thanks
Another PDs….look what happened to them
Here we go again. More teachers, more guards, more nurses. An accountable public service, less quangos. Truly a new political party is born.I’m really excited. Looks like real change is on the way.Yahoo.
this is funny. an absolute europhile in all ways. she was the minister for european affairs at the height of our problems and was happy to throw the people of the state under the bus. that will not be forgotten.
this was the same puppet who supported the financial ruin of the country and defends the financial institutions behind it,
she is one not to be trusted.
PD’s MarkII. IBEC must be deliraa
Left the party? Kicked out , was it not
I call on all my fellow Shinnerbots to swarm all over this forum like a horde of wasps to ensure Lucinda is crushed before she garners any support.
I’m a SF supporter who is delighted that she has decided to set up this party. This new right wing conservative party will take votes from FFG but it’s not going to bother SF in the slighest. Here’s to her success, if only from a pure selfish view of splitting the FFG vote!
So it’s not a social party, but an economical party? We are “consumers” and they will make Ireland a great little country for consuming. Provided you have the means to consume of course. I would like a party that stands for human beings, not just business.
Mother of God, they have had long enough to think, plan and launch this idea and yet the shocking ineptitude surrounding the press conference this morning is embarrassing, even more bizarre and almost disturbing is motor mouth eddie hobbs potentially throwing his hat into the ring, christ all mighty this is all the nation needs. This clown has contributed nothing apart from a nationwide headache, perhaps all his magical investment advice has worn thin with anyone foolish enough to listen to him. I felt sorry for the Token “rural” representative, an un heard of offaly Councillor, Jesus I’m in his constituency and I’ve never heard of him. What in gods name are this shower up too? not a very inspiring start. I have a suitable name for them if their stuck! “All most Ran!!!!”
another far right theocratic party in Ireland….well if you want to support that sort of thing go ahead.
Lucinda, with a capital C puts the Catholic into Irish politics. Catholic dogma is to be injected back into Irish politics.
“Lucinda Creighton resurrects the Progressive Democrats.”
Instead it’s the “Regressive Democrats”
Hopefully paddy won’t fall for this spin and propaganda.
Anything with Lucinda Creature or Eddie Hobbs and I’m out!!!! Two total toss pots!!! Eddies the Hobb will have our wages cut within a wet week!!! Not a chance would I vote for these pair!!!!!
No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong and I may be . But isn’t this the same lady that was complaining about the date of a referendum because a lot of her South Dublin voters would be abroad on holidays at that particular time, Maybe her new party will ban referundums and elections if it coincides with their summer holidays! Poor south Dubs will not have to worry about referendums and their holidays to the south of France clashing again.
I could never, ever in good conscience give that woman, or anyone associated with her party a vote…
Ooh one just cannot wait …..
Pass me the liquorice all sorts….. and some monster munch ……
Now where’s the twits …. Opps sorry …. Twix gone ……
‘Slings and arrows are at the ready, pointed at us’ … How does one point a sling?
More importantly, cliché and self-pity do not make for a promising start.
I thought Maggie Thatcher had passed away ? Looks like she has returned to Ireland !
I will not vote for any party helmed by a deluded religious nut, regardless of what their policies are.
Relaunch herself and her Party into Space just another one trying to get back on the Bandwagon No Thanks
Imagine for second a scenario where this bunch somehow wins at the next election…. We’d have a cabinet with Fidelma Healy Eames and Peter Mathews as ministers. Just let that horrifying thought sink in. I’m only surprised they haven’t lured David Quinn on board.
They probably have Cora Sherlock as a legal advisor and Patricia Casey for health..
Creighton Cretin’s party! No thanks!
I wouldn’t go even if she invited me to an free-bar party!!
Can we please have a party that actually looks after the Irish people and not put immigrants at a higher priority
65% of the social housing list is taken up by foreign nationals
That is a disgrace and is not sustainable
You got a credible source for those figures?
Doesn’t look like it Chris..
Imagine my surprise!
@Snowball effect – In Fingal – not the entire housing list in Ireland.
@snowball – and what of it? Merely applying for something and having your name on the list means absolutely nothing, it doesn’t mean they are all on SW, it doesn’t mean they are all not working and in receipt of SW.
Snowball, did you even read that article or did you just read the headline?
(I would be willing to put money on it being the latter).
One County council in Dublin does not the entire housing list make. As a percentage of the housing lists around the country you will likely find the figure to be a lot smaller.
Your comment is still no more than xenophobic nonsense.
Not much to get excited about here, same shit-different shovel as far as I’m concerned
Oh look, another party full of meaningless slogans and empty rhetoric. Because we just don’t have enough of those.
Thought of a good name for her party in the style of GOP how about WCI; as in White Catholic and Irish!
Eddie sticking his head out of his fox hole when all the bullets are spent. Back on the bandwagon eddie. I dont remember u doing and of ur famous tv programmes on how to deal with ur personal finances when banks were moving on houses or people losing there jobs and deciding that the only way out was being 6 foot under.ur a real poster boy of what to do when things cant go wrong. Go away and count ur beans.
Move along people, nothing to see here, more of the same crap
Still wouldn’t vote for any party shes a part of, she stood by Kenny and backed him to the hilt on every austerity tax he inflicted, she wasn’t worried how it might effect the ordinary Joe then, so ordinary Joe should repay her now and tell her to sod off, no running with the hare and the hound, take your new party Lucinda and sling yer hook.
Another right wing conservative party??? we already have 2 and a half of them….. No thanks..
I wouldn’t waste a vote on these FG 2.0 shams
“giving politics back to the people” until the people opt for something she doesn’t agree with that is
Whoopee can hardly wait.
I find Lucinda a vile, odious right wing reactionary who wants Irish women (and men) to live in the dark ages.
She want’s Ireland to be an ignorant backwater run by pedo priests
She will not be getting my vote
That’s a bit harsh
Harsh but true!
Big willy, that’s nowhere near harsh enough.
New year and new shower of muppets for Irish political voters.
Fair play to Eddie Hobbs, he gave me great advice about property in 2006 now I have three mortgages and 10 properties across Moldova and Belarus. Great to see him back in the game!
Lucky you did not buy in Romania or Bulgaria..lol
Oh Jaysus, this being the Journal we will receive saturation coverage of “what Lucinda did next “. The Sindo will be beside themselves! We have more than enough right wingers. Do not forget the Fiscal Compact Treaty, lads – treachery at its finest.
#wewillsayanothermassIreland?
Fidelma Healy ‘Hames’ #honesty
She is right that there is a problem with the whip system. Why are MPs in Westminster allowed vote against military action in Syria but in Ireland everyone must vote as the leader commands? Whats the point in electing 166 people if 5 or 6 people decide how they vote?
Fair enough about the whip – but she wanted to vote against the will of the people.
I for one am not happy with the idea of a government who thinks the results of referendums are optional.
Another D4 “Greed is good” party. Just what this country needs ….NOT!
The PDs Rebooted…
PDs were always socially liberal, with regards to the marriage, abortion issues etc.
Surely #ReshoeIreland Losenda, sorry…Lucinda.
PD’s mark two, we don’t need another ultra right wing party of self flagellating nut jobs
Only 8 weeks until the launch of the #forcedpregnancy party.
How will the Taliban contain their excitement?
Unless they explicitly declare in their manifesto to leave the Euro, terminate the bank guarantee to bond holders, enforce the EU’s Asylum seeking rules which states that the asylum seeker must ask for asylum at the first EU country they land, get rid of the USC and stop passing 100% of austerity to the people, then is just another washed blue shirt.
So you mean completely unrealistic, vague promises.
No thanks, we already have enough parties promising such. Lucinda and co. only seem to be offering a different flavour of vague.
The Blue Shirted DPs would be an appropriate name, the economy should belong to the super rich, women should return to pre suffragette era, gays should be shunned, popery should be the state philosophy and the patron of the party will be be Eoin O Duffy – welcome to the 1930s.
Enda Kenny with lipstick
I would love any new party to be different – ie open, truthful, honest, transparent, accountable.
What are the policy objectives, where does it get funding from, who are in the shadows advising and directing it?
Let us start with that Lucinda, baby steps.
Eddie Hobbs no thanks. #were no body’s children.
Is that the McWilliams fella you’re thinking of there, popes children?
They won’t be getting my vote we all know we’re she stands with gay rights
I cant wait for Saint Lucinda to appear on the Vincent Brown programme
He’ll rip her to shreds
Eddie Hobbs bullshitttter wat wld he know heard all his crap years ago in the boom wonder if he still talks with them peas stuck up his nose
Fine Gael now has a dissident wing-will the media make Lucinda into a hardliner -
Nothing to see here same old shite
She said that the party wants to make Ireland “a great place to innovate, to grow, to build and expand a small business, to employ people, to work and to be a consumer”.
“Citizen” Lucinda, not “consumer”, “Citizen” is the word you’re looking for.
Looks like a sign for Reebok Ireland behind her head.
Yeah, Ireland has lost it’s sole….what a load of cobblers!
Dublin Bay Borgen daydreams…
Paternalistic Party?
Every article (and comment) so far seems to focus on how lucky FG were to be shot of her. Hobbs will still be flogging Cape Verde (neat Senegal) apartments.
Shane Ross, who cheered Eoghan’s Harris’s Seanad appointment, and was himself rejected by FG, will probably set up another party.
Stephen Donnelly will almost certainly join FF within the next few months.
So much for “new radical politics”.
Where did you hear Stephen Donnelly is set to join the party that ruined the country?
He’s a closet Fianna Failer Shanti. Common knowledge.
Ohhh yeah, “common knowledge”. That’s supposed to be substantiation!
Would prefer evidence over “common knowledge”. My experience of “Common knowledge” is that it’s usually devoid of knowledge and based upon assumption.
The rumour of him joining Fianna Fail have been doing the rounds for a year or two now. He hasn’t ruled it out as far as I know.
“Rumours”, “common knowledge” come on Reg, you know better than that.
I’m on my PC now Shanti and can post some links. Here’s some of the stories that have been doing the rounds.
Don’t shoot the messenger!!
Cheers – that’s more what I was asking for.. It would be a terrible shame for him to do so.
REBOOT Ireland looks like Ireland’s answer to UKIP on many policy issues. Interesting overlaps of advisers and theorists.
The stance on European union membership may be the only significant policydifference between the two.
Recession followed by austerity breeds this kind of nasty political development.
I wonder will Eddie Hobbs last longer than George Lee
Am not a blue shirt, I am not a fan of Lucinda, I fundementally disagree with her stance on abortion. However, I am not going to pre judge any person or politicial party that is estabished to provide an alternative choice to irish people.
The comments here make me laugh – many nameless and faceless keyboard warriors pontificating from on high and unwilling to actually get involved – I mean you come on to the journal to “shape” the news, yet are unwilling to give this as yet unanamed party a chance, seek to get involved – make an inpression – make a stand for your own community.
To many on here demanding change in our politics while unwilling to change themselves.
Linda, what a catty remark. I advocate banning cats from posting comments. Ban feline commentators.
@Anthony, sorry – damn cat at the PC again………..lol
My issue with the woman is that she doesn’t seem to realise what the role of a legislator is.
She opposed the suicide clause in the protection of life in pregnancy act. As though it was up for debate.
The government was obliged by law to legislate for X. That was the X Case decision – the people even endorsed the ruling by referendum (and more people voted against removing the suicide clause than voted for the 8th).
Yet she seemed to think her personal morals trumped not just the constitution (which it was her duty to uphold) but also the will of the people as expressed by referendum.
The woman is clearly too much of a control freak if she thinks her personal morals supersede that of the people she works for – eg, the Irish people.
That’s why I couldn’t trust her. For someone with legal training – she has no respect for the law.
Shanti, I am not defending LC but my understanding is that Fine Gael promised in 2011 NOT to legislate for abortion and when they decided to do this LC refused to support it.
LC canvassed and made that pledge to her supporters, she could not vote for something that she stood for when she was elected.
The ECHR made their ruling on AB&C vs Ireland in December 2010.
They found that:
“…authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to secure….effective respect for her private life by reason of the absence of any implementing legislative or regulatory regime providing for an accessible and effective procedure by which the third applicant could have established whether she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland in accordance with Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.”
So if FG promised not to legislate for X then they were doing so in the knowledge of this ruling, and furthermore in the knowledge that this ruling, the X Case judgement and the rejection of the 12th and 25th amendments obliged them to legislate for X – including the suicide clause.
But if I recall correctly – they did say they’d legislate for X.. I am of course open to correction.
They don’t specifically say that they promise “not” to legislate – but the first line states clearly – “FIne Gael is opposed to the legislation of abortion” ……..
As I said, I am not defending her, but she felt (rightly or wrongly) that she could not vote for something that she did not believe in and that she was led to believe her party did not believe in eiither. She felt that this was one of the issues that she was elected on and she felt (again rightly or wrongly) that she would be betraying voters who voted her in on that basis.
Just to add Shanti – they absolutely did not say (as far as I can find and given LC stance) that they would legislate for X.
Couldn’t agree more Shanti, well said.
Polls showed support in her area were over whelmingly in support of the protection of life legislation but her opinion superceeded this. She should not have ran for office if she can’t listen to the will of people. Cretin indeed.
@Deborah – that may be the case, but LC sent a private email to each and everyone of her constituents and clearly outlined not only her position, but the position (that she understood) of her party.
The supporters in her area overwhelmingly voted in FG in the full knowledge that she and FG opposed legislating for abortion, so I cannot see the point you are making?
Is it that they are fickle or she is?
All of this “what FG said before the election” is irrelevant though.
The Protection of life in pregnancy act merely codified what was already legal. The government were obliged to legislate for X, not only had the issue been avoided for more than 2 decades, we had been hauled in front of the ECHR and they pretty much told us “legislate or there will be sanctions”.
They had no choice. This IS the law and has been the law since 1992. If legislation was not forthcoming we would be in breach of not only the ECHR ruling, but also our own constitution..
FG said a lot of things trying to get elected, and they were all bull. Lucinda stood in what is the most pro choice voting area of Ireland.. If something got her elected, it wasn’t her stance on abortion. And it sure as hell wasn’t her stance on the X Case ruling.
Shanti’s statements as to the legal position are all correct. In effect, Lucinda was promising to disregard the X case and the late Supreme Court Judge Niall McCarthy’s urging of the Dail to legislate as well Lucinda flouting Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, which although focused on the foetus, also guaranteed by its laws to vindicate the life of women, whether suicidal or for any other life threatening reason. Let us not forget that pregnant women also have a right to life.
Lucinda is a failed legislator and fails to represent the people. She has elevated her personal notions ahead of political duty. She is fundamentally unfit and unsuited to have any senior role in Irish politics. Lucinda is a mouth piece for the tendentiously self described pro-life movement and should limit herself to that narrow role. That’s her self appointed function in life, her zealous endeavour and she has no place in the wider politics of representing all of her constituents, many of whom may be pregnant women at some point.
Linda as far as I can remember Fine Gael said they would set up an expert group to look at the x case and act on their recomendations. This is exactly what they did. The tragic case in Galway forced them to act more quickly than they may have otherwise done.
Lucinda must have missed this bit from the Fine Gael 2011 election manifesto.
“We will establish an all-party committee, with access to medical and legal expertise, to consider the implications of the recent ruling of the ECHR and to make recommendations. Such a process would, we believe, be the best way of examining the issues in a way that respects the range of sincerely-held views on this matter.”
She has the email address of everyone in her constituency? The CIA doesn’t even have that. How did she manage that then?
Sorry Shanti, let’s rewind here for a second. Firstly you said:
“So if FG promised not to legislate for X then they were doing so in the knowledge of this ruling, and furthermore in the knowledge that this ruling, the X Case judgement and the rejection of the 12th and 25th amendments obliged them to legislate for X – including the suicide clause.
But if I recall correctly – they did say they’d legislate for X.. I am of course open to correction.”
To which I provided a link which clearly showed the position FG held in the full knowledge of the ECHR ruling and yet now because it is shown that you are incorrect what FG said is suddenly irrelevant?
“FG said a lot of things trying to get elected, and they were all bull. Lucinda stood in what is the most pro choice voting area of Ireland.”
Yes, but LC’s stance was not to try and get elected – she wasn’t talking bull or misrepresenting herself.
“If something got her elected, it wasn’t her stance on abortion. And it sure as hell wasn’t her stance on the X Case ruling.”
So why is it relevant to this discussion if what FG said (and lied about) isn’t?
What disturbs me is the amount of vitriol from people here against her and this from “pro-choice” people – I am pro-choice and to me that means that if you choose NOT to have a termination, for any reason or not to support abortion for any reason, then isn’t this a “CHOICE”? Isn’t she allowed to have the same “CHOICE”?
Why do “pro choicers” feel entitled to be so enraged if a woman’s choice does not fit what they want?
Isn’t that hypocritical?
Reg, in that same article they clearly said that they opposed legislating for X and like you said they acted quicker than they might have done and really screwed that up when you look at the most recent case.
My point is that she never hid her stance and her views and despite this she was elected in the most pro choice area in Dublin. She never changed her stance and she could not support something that she did believe in and she beleived that the party that she stood for shared thoe same values.
I don’t agree with her stance, but I believe in respecting her choice.
@Concubar O’Nuamain…………..
“The details of her private emails, released under the Freedom of Information Act, are another indication of the depth of her opposition to including the threat of suicide as a ground for abortion.
This was the key issue in the X Case, in which a 14-year-old pregnant rape victim was allowed to have an abortion because she was suicidal.
Ms Creighton’s private email to her constituents was sent after the publication of the expert group report on abortion and before the abortion bill was published, but clearly stated her views.”
It’s called technology and when you affiliate yourself with a party and sign up with them you provide contact info including email addresses……
They didn’t say that they would oppose legislating for the x case in their election manifesto Linda. What I posted is the exact words from the document.
The first line states:
“FIne Gael is opposed to the legislation of abortion”.
That is the exact wording in that letter and what you posted followed.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fg-asked-prolife-group-to-spread-election-message-29230068.html
“FINE GAEL actively courted the pro-life vote before the last general election, saying it would be “most appreciative” of the help of campaign groups to spread its message.
SHARE:
The party actively volunteered to issue a statement saying: “Fine Gael’s opposition to the legalisation of abortion stands.”
The statement refers to a commitment to “safeguard” the lives of mothers and to “preserve the life of the baby”.
But the party also asked the Pro-Life Movement, the country’s largest anti-abortion lobby group, to circulate the statement.
“We would be most appreciative of your support in spreading this message to your supporters at your earliest convenience. We will send it to all of our candidates and email directly to those people who have taken the time to contact us directly,” an email from a senior adviser to Enda Kenny said just days before the election.”
They actively sought support from pro life campaigners/supporters leading up to the election, their stance was clear, their opposition to legislating for X was also clear….
OK, it’s clear I haven’t expressed myself well. I do not have any problem with Lucinda being pro life in her personal capacity. My issue is with the fact that she had some obligations that she was fully aware of when she signed up for the job.
And she was, fully, aware of them. She has studied law and she understands the mechanisms, she would have been well aware that, by law – a suicidal woman has been entitled to an abortion under Irish law since 1992. There was just no mechanisms in place.
As a legislator, representing her constituents, her job was to draft the legislation that codified those mechanisms.
I don’t doubt that FG are against abortion legislation – but they were very keen to point out that this wasn’t changing anything, this was all *already* legal.
She wasn’t there in a personal capacity, she was there as a public representative – and the majority of her constituents already voted on this issue and they were in favour. This is where the crux of the issue lies, it’s not about her personal choices – she is acting in the capacity of a public representative. And that public made its preference clear.
Does this clear my position up? It’s fine for her to be pro life for herself, and when she goes to the polls like the rest of us – then she can cast her votes in a personal capacity. Equal with the rest of us rather than using a position of power to do it.
“OK, it’s clear I haven’t expressed myself well. I do not have any problem with Lucinda being pro life in her personal capacity. My issue is with the fact that she had some obligations that she was fully aware of when she signed up for the job.”
It’s an issue that I struggle with as well if truth be told – but…… When she signed up to the job she did so with a party who she believed shared her values.
“I don’t doubt that FG are against abortion legislation – but they were very keen to point out that this wasn’t changing anything, this was all *already* legal.”
Well clearly they were and clearly legislating for it was going to change something?
“She wasn’t there in a personal capacity, she was there as a public representative – and the majority of her constituents already voted on this issue and they were in favour. This is where the crux of the issue lies, it’s not about her personal choices – she is acting in the capacity of a public representative. And that public made its preference clear.”
But she didn’t canvass on the abortion issue, it’s how she feels and despite that she was elected, so her personal views did not prevent her being elected – the public made it’s preference clear and they didn’t object to her stance then, while the public made it’s preference clear, there were people who voted against it and a true democracy respects their rights as well.
“Does this clear my position up? It’s fine for her to be pro life for herself, and when she goes to the polls like the rest of us – then she can cast her votes in a personal capacity. Equal with the rest of us rather than using a position of power to do it.”
But that’s the point – she has/had no power (whip) she could not cast a vote for something that she simply did not believe in, she did not stand on the abortion issue, it is/was a personal view that she had and that was well known prior to her being elected.
To ask someone to support a vote that they believed would not happen (I understand the legal view) – and as has been said, this only happened because of the Galway case.
FG had no intention of legislating and when they were forced to they changed their stance, she could not (as opposed to would not) change hers and that is something that I can identify with.
We need opposing views, we need alternative opinions – we really do. Democracy demands that – a true democracy does to me anyway.
The manner in how she has been treated is truly shocking – from women in particular on this site and from men who will never be in that situation. As I said before, I would never have rated her prior to today – but seeing how she has stood by her beliefs in the face of the abuse she has received and the thought that she put into her speech before voting against the legislation has made me reconsider and at the very least give her a chance to see what she can achieve.
At least she has put herself out there – which is more than can be said for many here.
Linda has sidestepped the legal dimension.
Linda fails to recognise the duty of legislators to legislate following the X case and indeed following Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, introduced by the Eight Amendment in 1983.
We have to recognise that it is not onky the foetus which has a right to life. The mother should have a right to life which is properly vindicated by legislation.
The issue in the tragic Mullingar case was not the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act. It was the fact that Article 40.3.3 conferred an arguable right to continuing preservation of a foetus which had no viable future.
I have been unable to trace any specific provision of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which posed concern to Licinda Creighton. She incorrectly described the Bill as a charter for abortion, when it was no such thing. She opposed abortion in cases where the pregnant woman was suicidal although that was what the Supreme Court X case determined based on Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution.
No I have not and it should be noted that any efforts made to legislate have only been done so in response to tragic and rare cases. Not out of a duty to legislate.
“We have to recognise that it is not onky the foetus which has a right to life. The mother should have a right to life which is properly vindicated by legislation.”
But this does not apply in this case Anthony – the mother was clinically dead and as the foetus has “equal” rights the medical team (incorrectly in my view) felt that legally (not medically) they could not stop life support on the mother.
“The issue in the tragic Mullingar case was not the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act. It was the fact that Article 40.3.3 conferred an arguable right to continuing preservation of a foetus which had no viable future.”
No I would not agree with that:
“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”
It does not say that and there are now questions as to why this had to go to court when all the medical evidence pointed towards the fact that the foetue would not survive, indeed the HSE did not oppose the families application – the medical team did.
“As far as practible” does not confer an arguable right to preserving a foetus thait with the benifit of medical evidence makes it clear that the foetus would not survive.
I have already posted a link of LC full explanation of her position and again, that is a choice and a view that she was elected with and she is entitled to that choice.
It is unfortunate and unhelpful that your agenda leads you into so many errors.
If you read the judgement of Judege Niall McCarthy in the X Case, you will note that he urged the Government to comply with its duty to legislate for the protection of the lives of pregnant women in the circumstances of the X case. There was an irresponsible legislative vacuum in the aftermath of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court did its best, within its limits, to take the worst of the sting out of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. The lack of definition of a method of reconciling the divergent interests of the foetus and of the pregnant woman is one of the more wretched deficiencies.
The second error is that my points are not limited to the Mullingar case. As for the Mullingar case, it is correct that the tragic woman was dead but there was an argument created by the wording of Article 40.3.3 that even after the death of the mother, the life of the foetus had to be preserved and not foreshortened by the removal of the “life” support of the pregnant woman. The Mullingar case demonstrates that so long as the foetus has a heart beat, the onky legally safe option is to seek a judicial determination of the implications of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. The Opinion of a Senior Counsel may be helpful but the only legally authoritative source of interpretation and application of the Constitution is the Superior Courts of Ireland. We now face the horrible prospect of Court hearings every time there is to be a balancing of the respective life interests of the pregnant woman and the foetus which she is carrying. The Constitution gives no guidance or support on the question of the temporal dimension. It is legally arguable that a non viable foetus should not have its life shortened by any period of time even if it not viable in the longer term.
The third error which you have made is to deny that Article 40.3.3 does not impose an obligation on the Dail to legislate in furtherance of Article 40.3.3 so as to vindicate the right to life of the pregnant woman as well as that of the foetus.
This sorry saga is the Constitutional mess created by the religiously inspired and promoted Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. It is not only the right to life of the foetus which is to be vindicated by legislation. There is a duty also to legislate for the vindication of the life of the pregnant woman, although sadly not her health. In the obsession with the preservation of foetal existence, we must not forget that the pregnant woman has equal rights. (I would prefer that the rights of the pregnant woman would take precedence but Article 40.3.3 does not permit this. )
The rare but significant number of cases are merely the trigger for the realisation of the defects inherent in Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. Unfortunately, primary legislation cannot rectify Constitutional defects and the Supreme Court is not permitted to recommend specific Constitutional reforms.
The duty to legislate derives from Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. The tragic cases make it clear that legislation can play a limited role in assisting In some of these legal conundrums but legislation has to be interpreted and applied in a manner which is in conformity with the Constitution. So, we ca!nmit escape Article 40.3.3 unless it is repealed by Referendum.
The problem with Lucinda Creighton, a barrister, is that she reneged on her legislative duty to legislate and absolved herself of her duty of responsibility to see that legislation was introduced and passed so as to vindicate the right to life of pregnant women in circumstances in which the life of the pregnant woman is imminently imperilled by the continuation of the pregnancy.
Sadly, the Mullingar case, the P.P. Case is not the last of these cases. We know not the day when the next crisis dilemma may arrive, the unpredictable cases, in which the life of a pregnant woman may be lost because of the delay involved in obtaining judicial determination.
I should also mention that the right to life of a foetus is not ipso facto removed in the event of the death of the host. There may be cases in which the host may require to be kept on life support if the foetus has a prospect of viability, however physically mentally or physically incapacitated. The PP. Case was confined to its own specific facts. It is not of wider legal guidance.
I don’t regard Lucinda Creighton as a fit and proper person to hold high political office in view of her disregard for the life, health and welfare of pregnant women in these rare but significant number of cases. As I see it, the loss of life of one pregnant woman due to bad law, when sensible clinical considerations are overridden by foetal focus, is one loss too many.
Shanti, you’ve said that three times in this thread! :) I do agree though Creighton put her personal belief ahead of democratic decision. Wouldn’t trust her as far as I’d throw her. Appalling ego.
I’m not sure what you think my agenda is and what you perceive as errors are my observations and opinions, I am entitled to those. The Mullingar case demonstrated that this was not a right to life issue and there as no reason for it to go to court. The evidence in this case was overwhelming, keeping this woman alive was deemed grotesque and even experimental, 7 medical doctors gave ccompelling evidence, the foetus, with a heartbeat had no chance yet all these doctors did not trust their own opinions- and you talk about agenda? I may not agree with LC, but I respect her right to choose her beliefs and stand over them. That’s pro choice, that’s regard for human life. Like it or not, there are people who feel that the foetus has a right equal to it’s mother, it’s not my view, but I’m happy to be in a country where there are people who will stand up for those rights.
Linda, you agenda is clear. It is an agenda to support Lucinda Creighton and her soon to be established right wing party. That is your democratic right but it has caused you to “spin” the position in relation to Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and to ignore the effect of the later Referenda. The problem with Article 40.3.3 is not limited to the Mullingar case.
It is correct that many supporters of Artcle 40.3.3 are now seeking to make the case that the PP case or Mullingar case did not require to be referred to the High Court and that the consensus of medical evidence to the effect that the pregnant woman was clinical dead and that the foetus was not viable were sufficient legal justification for the HSE to withdraw somatic support. It is a view point but it suffers from “post hoc ergo proctor hoc” . The nub of the problem is that even where the pregnant woman is dead, Article 40.3.3 does not cease effect. The foetus is still alive in a sense of having a heart beart and although it was highly unlikely to be viable, no clinician was able to say that the foetus would expire within a specific period of time. If a foetus has a right to life, then there is no apparent legal justification to shorten that life, however short and limited its existence may be.
The nub of the opposition expressed by Jane Travers and by Shanti to Lucinda Creighton as a legislator is that Lucinda failed to shoulder her collective legislative responsibility to address the consequences of the X Case and of the later referenda which addressed the risk to the life of the pregnant woman. There was a clear legal and political duty on the legislators to reflect in clear legislation what was already expressed in the Constitution interpretation by the Supreme Court in the X case. Lucinda Creighton was a senior member of Fine Gael with enormous internal influence. Lucinda could have influenced and moulded the draft legislation at Bill stage. She did not do so. Instead, she characterised the Bill as a charter for abortion which it was certainly not and sought to argue that allowing suicide to be treated as a threat to life was a means of opening the flood gates. We can now see from actual experience of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act that it has opened no floodgates to abortion in Ireland and her supposed apprehensions were not justified. Lucinda cynically deployed her pro life credentials as a political platform, thus leading to her fully justified expulsion from the Fine Gael party.
Lucinda Creighten is a naked political opportunist who used a very serious issue of right to life of foetus and of pregnant women in a failed attempt to aggrandise her personal political position. I would have allowed her some respect for misdirected sincerity had she threatened to resign from the FG party and then resigned. She did neither. She had to be expelled and now she feels obliged to form a political party, which if successful enough, will be used by Lucinda in order to be absorbed back into Fine Gael after Kenny is gone. There is noting in the proposed new party which will be other than a minor cosmetic variation on the Fine Gael theme of conservative economics accompanied by conservative social values with a pretence of allowing individual members to opt out of the more hard line elements.
What Lucinda Creighton will never admit is how dangerously Defective Article 40.3.3 is to the lives of an admittedly small number of pregnant women but, as a matter of personal value, I consider the danger to the life and health of one pregnant woman to be too great a price to pay for foetal protection.
There is no valid basis for admiring Lucinda as some kind of brave and principled politician. She is nothing of the sort. She is a cynical politician in pursuit of political power. She can only fool some of the people some of the time.
Oh Linda..
Read the judgement.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1385958-p-p-v-hse.html#document/p1
The doctors felt they had a duty to vindicate the unborns right to life as far as practicable – they gave examples of some rare cases where this has been possible, even from 15 weeks.
One of those doctors revised his testimony for maintaining life support on the day, given the testimony of doctors who had seen the woman more recently.
That’s the right to life part of the case. Your misunderstanding was not shared by the court who made the ruling in the best interests of the child, as the situation was starting to become untenable.
Now, I have repeatedly explained this – you *refuse* to see it.
Lucinda, a woman with a law degree, expected the government to legislate for X – without legislating for X.
She objected to the Supreme Court ruling, fair enough. She was given TWO opportunities to vote against it, these votes came out in favour of the ruling.
Her attempt to abuse her position of privilege as a legislator to overturn a Supreme Court ruling as well as the results of two referendums is the issue.
She cannot claim that she was unaware of her attempts at a tyrannical revision of the constitution. She’s well aware that the legislature may not interfere with the judiciary or their rulings.
(exactly why we must vote on marriage).
Why do you refuse to see that this was about the constitutional duties and obligations she claimed to be aware of?
Shanti, superbly well expressed and right on the nail.
I suspect that Linda was less engaged by the merits or lack of merits of Article 40.3.3 and the later Referenda than she was by the need to defend and to vindicate Lucinda Creighton.
I was struck by some startling similarity of expression and style between Linda Nolan and Lucinda Creighton! Purely coincidental of course! It may be that Lucinda has a supportive amanuensis.
Was listening to Mr Hobbs on newstalk earlier. When he was finishing up he said we need solicitors, accountants etc to help us set up out party. Which for me says a lot, he didn’t mention bus drivers, bakers or builders. He also invited Bobbie Kerr to help out too but not a nurse or fire fighter or policeman. So who do you think Lucinda and Eddie will be representing?
It’s a feeble attempt to recruit the professional classes and the Doheny and Nesbitt set to the new party in a poor imitation of the Progressive Democrats.
Solicitors, accountants and other professionas did not exactly acquit themselves well in avoiding the destructive deregulation and the destructive economics of the past.
I think Mr. Hobbs mentioned that there was help needed to “set up” as in give their skills free of charge as opposed to having to pay for legal advice and acountants.
The legal services involved in establishing a political party are straightforward and simple. As a barrister, Ms Creighton has ample such contacts.
The real agenda is to recruit additional funding and backers from amongst the professional classes, the classes which served us so poorly in the past.
She’s a wolf in sheeps clothing. Not a hope of her or that “party” getting my vote. If you read her “ideas” you’ll see they were no different to FG during the last election. She also said she wouldn’t have a position on same sex marriage as a party – one of the most important social issues of our time. Not a hope of her or that “new” party fooling me. And I sincerely hope anyone else too for that matter. We’ve been lied to enough. Take note FF, FG and Labour! And I’m not involved politically with any party and generally non partisan.
National citizens movement,the hub Ireland
Setting up a party based on economic policies and going about it the way they have is exactly what the tradition parties are. There should be an equal balance between social and economic policy. Society has been neglected for far too long which has lead to the rise of the socialist and left wing parties. I’m very disappointed in this half assed move
….which has lead to the rise of the socialist and left wing parties. You say that like it’s a bad thing!
Irish Anti-Fornication Party???
A hashtag for a rag tag rump party of reactionary political fossils.
Do they honestly expect us to think that her and her cohorts will change anything, she gleefully voted for every FG piece of austerity and tirelessly campaigned against the womans right to abortion, So she will at least have the legion of mary vote.
So many right wing nutters – so little choice!
Was going to join not now that Eddie Hobbs is involved
I think we will see more new parties emerge in the next year in the run up to the general election. Every time I see the Dail on telly it reminds me of the Punch and Judy show. However we get the leaders we deserve “remember to use democracy sensibly”
Basically this is just Fine Gael repackaged and dresses up, right wing, jobs for the boys (and girls) cronyism,deceit, lies and and austerity would be the same with these parasites living in the stone age, never in a million years would i consider voting for FF/FG/LAB or this lot, ill stick to Independent /PBP, my conscience is clear i didnt vote for amny of the man partys who are all the same, there is no difference except for the name.
#REBOOTIRELAND…. well they might as well call themselves …. Control Alt +Del……. Lucindarella…….last person to leave please turn off the lights, lock all doors and will you please double check that the immersion is switched off…thks :(
If the total lack of support on this site is anything to go by, Mr Kenny can sleep soundly in his bed tonight!
This new political foetus has a lot of outriders to support it. It can look forward to support from Youth Defence, already out in support, the Iona Institute, Catholic Comment and, of course, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
This will be a new type of political party, a politico-religious political party. Its zealot supporters can hardly contain their excitement.
“The Dublin Bay South TD also called on ordinary people to run for the party in the general election”………?????…..how democratic of her
When you think Irish politics can’t get more right wing we get our version of the tea party mixed with UKIP!
Just going of Lucinda Creighton’s beliefs here but get ready for homophobic, extremist Christian, anti-immigration social policies if this crowd ever gets elected.
I for one am very worried. I believe in freedom of speech and expression (queue not repealing the blasphemy law), an equal society (queue closer church state relations, no progress on hate crimes legislation (unless it’s against the Church) and anti-immigration legislation).
Lucinda Creighton is a scary woman with a very scary belief system. Anyone who wants a free and equal society, where people can speak their minds so long as they are not inciting hatred against others. Those who believe in democracy without the guidance of a church (which not all citizens subscribe to), do not vote for this woman.
Rant over.
“Onward Christian Solder” their theme tune
The last thing this country needs is a right wing facist
Extreme right wing Fine Gael just what the country needs
Is this not the longest gestation period of any political foetus in recent human history?
@jane The Catholic Church is the most compassionate to the gay community. More than any other religion, and even more than the government. Because we tell them they have dignity. People like you just tell them they’re sexual objects. We tell them there is right and wrong, you lie to them and tell them that anything that makes them feel good is right. We treat them like people. You treat them like a demographic.
David Nolan, you use of the word “compassion” betrays you and reveals you for what you truly are.
It should not require stating. Gay people don’t need compassion, understanding or patronising nonsense. Gay people require and deserve parity of esteem with heterosexual people, dignity, respect, acceptance and full equality.
Your comment is as patronising as it is appalling. It is more more and no less than that which is a banned word, a word which the Iona Institute does not permit to be used. You comment deserves contempt and rejection for its tone and for its falsity.
Interesting to see what comes out from under the stones taken up by Lucinda Creighton before her new party is even established.
It’s that kind of insulting invective that gets up peoples noses.
Good, it should get up the noses of patronising and religious zealots who spout blatant falsities and up the noses of those who support them.
No, you treat them *like* people.
Most right minded people realise that they ARE people.
See there you go again, Baseless insults.
David, I think the Unitarians and the Quakers do FAR better than the Catholic Church when it comes to respect for LGBT. Even if the new Pope is a breath of fresh air, the whole organisation has a long, long way to go.
Paul, yes to insults and no to “baseless”. I have made a New Year’s decision. Each and every time I hear an anti gay remark, such as from David Nolan above, I will challenge it. Every time gay people are insulted, I shall insult the offender.
It is a curious irony that some so called “Christians” make it a particular task to insult, to criticise and to oppress their fellow human beings, their brthers and sisters, for the mere fact that they express their love for members of their own sex.
I am pleased that you have responded. I will not back down any more against bullies and bigots and this allows me the chance to express solidarity with my gay brothers and sisters. I will robustly challenge the offenders and their fellow travellers.
As for fact, I could outline a long litany of offences by the Roman Catholic Church against gay people but it would be a waste of time exposing the true facts because zealots never listen.
@David Nolan:
Oh, the overwhelming compassion of the RCC! What a comforting thought.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
David Nolan is the true master of unintentional irony!
The RCC does not exactly spring first to mind as a defender of the dignity and equality of gay people, never mind “compassion”.
Next we will hear that RCC practices “hard love” towards gay people.
The mind of a zealot ignores fact and reality.
I’ve just realised that David Nolan is not Involved in Iona. I’ve stumbled across a supporter of Youth Defence. I was wondering why Paul was so keen to defend David Nolan. Now I know.
Next Tanaiste.That solves the problem of Kenny going into coalition with FF after next election………….All we need is McDowell to pop up as a candidate and it will be back to pd policies that contributed to the collapse of the country….
I doubt that Michael McDowell sings from the same hymn sheet as REBOOT Ireland.
Do you want to put money on that Anthony?
All animals are equal……
Until
Some animals are more equal than others
G. Orwell
One thing in her favour, she does appear to have a conscience, agree with her or not. I’d sooner have someone who is not afraid to say what they believe, rather than the majority of politicans, who constantly blow with the wind and have no back bone. Or populist for the sake of gaining power
Creighton’s conscience appears to extend only as far imposing her own sick values on Irish women.
She supports forced pregnancy, even for
* suicidal rape victims
* women whose fetus has no chance of survival
* women whose health may be severely damaged by the pregnancy
Her warped version of “conscience” doesn’t seem to cover what she would do. It amounts to imposing her values on the lives and bodies of others
http://www.thejournal.ie/lucinda-creighton-abortion-legislation-973853-Jul2013/
Here is her stance clearly expressed in a speach she made, to shrink and condense it to the points you punctuate above is lazy, you should read her views before coming to such conclusions, you can still disagree with her but have the courtesy to hear her views beforehand.
Linda, if you want to do condescension, I can do it back again. it’s a pity that that you made the lazy and discourteous assumption that I had failed to hear Creightons’ views before reaching a conclusion. It’s also pity that you have apparently failed to understand the consequences of Creiughton’s stance.
I had in fact listened to Creightons’ speech when the bill was going through the Dail, read the transcript afterwards, and re-read it late last year when the “Migrant Y” case arose.
Creighton’s speech provided an eloquent exposition of *her* view on the point at which a fertilised ovum becomes a human life, of *her* view of the steps which it is appropriate for a suicidal woman to take. I disagree with her on nearly all the claims she made, but I unreservedly support her right to hold those views, however much I believe her to be mistaken.
However, the consequence of Creighton’s actions in opposing legal termination of pregnancy would be that
* a suicidal rape victim will not be allowed to make her own decision about whether to end the pregnancy. Ms Creighton seeks to impose her own conscience over that of the pregnant woman, and deny the pregnant and suicidal rape victim the right to decide what happens to her body. That is forced pregnancy
* women whose fetus has no chance of survival will not be allowed to make her own decision about whether to end the pregnancy. Ms Creighton seeks to impose her own conscience over that of the pregnant woman, and deny the pregnant with an unviable foetus the right to decide what happens to her body. That is forced pregnancy
* women whose health may be severely damaged by the pregnancy will not be allowed to make her own decision about whether to end the pregnancy. Ms Creighton seeks to impose her own conscience over that of the pregnant woman, and deny the woman whose health is threatened by the pregnancy the right to decide what happens to her body. That is forced pregnancy
I do not believe that there is any single set of circumstances in which abortion is the “right thing to do” or the “wrong thing to do”. Many situations are heart-rendingly difficult, capable of being viewed in many different ways by the woman concerned. My friends who have faced those choices have made different decisions. In some cases those have been decisions I felt I agreed with, and in other cases not; but in every case, it was not my body and therefore not my decision.
However, the core of the matter is very very simple. Either the pregnant woman is free to make her own decision about whether to continue the pregnancy, or someone else has the power to force her to continue the pregnancy.
There is no way around that simple binary: either a woman is free to make her own decision, or she isn’t. Either a woman decides, or she has a forced pregnancy.
Lucinda Creighton refuses to let a pregnant woman make her own decisions. That creates forced pregnancies.
Having read her views it’s clear that they were summed up quite accurately above.
Lucinda is opposed to the X Case ruling, she said herself she took issue with the suicide clause, which arises from the judgement in X, and the rejection of the 12th amendment.
In fact – that case was about a suicidal rape victim, so yes – Lucinda opposes abortion for a suicidal rape victim.
Lucinda made no direct mention of TFMR, but she did go to great lengths to try and blame neo natal screening for abortion. Several “pro life” TDs had dishonesty sought to equate TFMR with terminations done for mere disabilities during the debate – I do not doubt this was more of the same.
As for the woman who’s long term health is in danger. They are still not catered for in this country. Even with this new legislation that Lucinda felt was a little liberal for her liking, so it’s safe to presume she wouldn’t support abortion in those cases.
She does however support abortion if there’s a clear and immediate PHYSICAL risk to the woman’s LIFE as distinct from her health. As those were the parts she agreed with.
To be fair – anyone who would oppose abortion in those circumstances is not so much “pro life” as “pro birth”.
The consequences of her actions? Eh, we live in a democracy and has been pointed out ad nauseam, we are pro choice, it’s her opinion, she’s a minority. You don’t unreservedly support her right to hold those views because that is what is clear in your post.
Linda, do you understand the difference between holding a view and seeking to impose it on someone else’s body?
Do you view of democracy as process which gives a majority a right to impose their view on what happens inside somebody else’s body?
Are you willfully ignoring the point Linda?
It’s certainly starting to seem that way..
Many complain that marriage equality shouldn’t be going to referendum, that civil rights should not be subject to the whims of a majority vote.
The reason we *need* to vote however, is because the high court interpreted the constitution to mean marriage was a heterosexual union, and the government are not permitted to change that ruling without a referendum. Same way they couldn’t overturn X without a referendum.
The legislature are not permitted to interfere with the judiciary – this is a constitutional protection against tyranny, something I would hope you appreciate.
Lucinda expected the legislature to either ignore or overturn a Supreme Court ruling, in addition to the results of two referendums.
She was treating them like they were optional – they’re not. She’s well aware of that fact, but she chose the deliberately disregard the courts and the people – I am not comfortable with elected representatives who think that referendum results are optional.
I don’t like the 8th amendment – I don’t propose we disregard it, I support the campaign to put it to the people again – because that is due democratic process. Something it seems Lucinda has no respect for.
Lucinda think that the time is right to become Ireland’s Le Pen.
The name of the new party might be “The Irish National Front”.
Anyone who aspires to be a politician shouldn’t be allowed to become one. I Don’t trust any of them anymore.
But then there’d be no politicians.
I’d love to have a go at Lucinda!!!
Down with the Gays!! Comin’ over here stealin’ all our tight trousers. We need a new party with Sarah Palin, sorry, Lucinda Palin, at the forefront, and with Brendan O’Carroll’s 1970s-style sitcom, and now this shambolic 1940s-era ‘political party’, Ireland will once again stand tall against the likes of Faroe Island, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg. Actually, not Luxembourg.
They have said that they will set up meeting throughout the Country to allow people have an input. Rather than the usual negative input from people here why don’t you take to opportunity to express your views directly or perhaps hiding behind the internet suits your agenda. I don’t agree with her views on abortion which are known to all. Her thoughts on creating an environment where small business can grow is worth exploring. However at least she has the courage of her convictions and is entitled to respect for that. But then SF key board warriors don’t do respect so red thump away lads.
There’s nothing very courageous about voting for suicidal teenage rape victims to endure a #forcedpregnancy
If she stops Islam she will get my vote.
Stops Islam?
In what sense particularly?
I think he means the rise of Islam across Europe. Ireland is behind the curve in terms of the spread of radical Islam in Belgium, Sweden, UK, Holland etc. Ordinary hard working or good muslims are just like any Christian or Atheist citizen or immigrant. Its the ones that hang around the radical clerics that brainwash them into this ISIS crack the we do not want Shanti.
Windom like myself doesn’t want to see what is happening in the middle east happening over here in the west. Its not a bad thing to ask for really.
This “rise in islam”.. It’s a tad of a spotlight fallacy. The majority of Muslims are as against these radical islamists as much as Christians are against the Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK, and like those small minorities of extremists – that’s the numbers you’re talking about in Islam too.
All this stuff about them being anti female and demanding the burka is nonsense (were you aware that the % of Muslim women who wear the full veil isn’t even statistically significant? That Muslim nations have had more female leaders than Christian ones?).
Extremism is an issue – and one that needs to be stomped out. OF ANY RELIGION. To act like Islam is the only religion plagued by extremists would be very naive.
Really? I wouldn’t be inclined to shrink the size of the issue that is facing the Western world. I used to travel a lot to Belgium and Holland a few years back and there wasn’t the problem that there is now with radical Islamic behaviour that I saw first hand on a recent trip. Belgium is a powder keg ready to off, excuse the pun, no pun intended. The problem is not the parents of the children or the grandparents that came here decades ago. They by and large are good people that came here. It is the children themselves being brainwashed into believing every iota of information in the Koran.
And there is a lot of things in the Koran that are dangerous that contradict the good things. It just takes a youth that is disheartened with what Western society isn’t providing for them and the country has a potential extremist.
“Shrink the size of the issue”???
If anything it’s being blown out of proportion..
You have a point about disenfranchised youth, but seriously.. In Belgium, like France, they got themselves in a tizzy about “Banning the Burqa”, never mind that they were actually talking about the Niqab.. But when they actually did a survey it turned out that the numbers of women wearing these garments wasn’t even statistically significant (a “couple of dozen” out of half a million Muslims in Belgium and 367 of the whole Muslim population in France). Now I’m sure you remember all that whoha.. And what was it for?
It was because of the spotlight fallacy that preceeded it. All the media attention gave people the mistaken impression that these veils were part and parcel of Islam, when they’re not. They’re cultural traditions from specific countries. Wearing a head covering is optional, as is wearing a niqab or Burqa.
In Holland they have that Geert Wilders chap who is as ignorant as your average daily fail reader, and just as xenophobic.
Seriously dude – the biggest threat to radical islam is Muslims. They treat them with the same contempt most Christians show their extreme elements (eg WBC and KKK). It’s mainly Kurds that are fighting off IS in case you hadn’t realised..
A spotlight fallacy is still a fallacy. These minorities have no hope of taking over in the West, the majority of Muslims living in the West live here for a reason, and it’s not to “spread sharia law”.
It’s the Catholic Fundamentalists such as Youth Defence and Catholic Comment I fear more in Ireland.
From a pro choice perspective the avoidance of any mention of pro life politics is heartening – if she felt there was any strong political traction in the anti choice side it would be plastered all over this new party. Even she realised that pro life politics are a lost cause.
This is a great country what other country has a party for Knobs Hobbs and Snobs.
F Healy eames a knob and a snob it’s just incredible how any person in there right mind could take her seriously tax dodging fare dodging pious snob
Hobbs giving up his freedom of speech ?? Interesting
We badly need a new party but this is more of the same.
They can launch with great gusto and integrity however I feel they will go the way of every other party and compromise on principles when they get a sniff of power.
As Groucho Marx said ‘these are my principles, if you don’t like them I got another set”.
Its not scientific but if these comments are a straw pole the new gang haven’t a pups chance, difficult to find a positive comment about them. PS Hobbs is a bo##ix
She’s a politician I respect and I look forward to what she has has to offer.
Eddie Hobbs I rest my case
With Hobbs on board credibility shot from the start.
The EGO has landed.
The Regressive Aristocrats
About time we got a real centre right party, take on the unions and get the country back on track..
Yep, sure it was the “unions ” that ruined the country ,Borrowing 85 billion euro to prop up banks and carry 42% of European banking debt ,Them “unions ” looking after their members what they are paid to do ,unlike the government looking after banks and bondholders,and screwing the Irish people with tax after tax ,
Niall, yes, it just takes the promise of a new far right party for people with your values to come out of the woodwork. It was right wing economics which irreparably damaged this country. Right wing politics and right wing economics are the problem, not the answer.
New party with out her
The irony of a woman leading this party is beyond the ridiculous
Just look at what Lucinda says she wants to make Ireland a great place to innovate, grow and develop a small business. To be employed and to be a consumer in! How’s about making a good place to LIVE in?
I would vote for a party that Shane Ross would be leader of but I do think this party is just another P.D. shadow but I could be wrong? Doubt it…
John how is it one of the most important social issues, is there a top 10 of social issues or is it, possibly a step in the right direction from your point of view, because if it is, its definately been catipulted to the top by the media. That the version of equality based on votes.
Nothing will ever change until the civil service is overhauled. After all, it is they who run the country, not the politicians.
Juuge, its big companies who come here, and suck the wealth out of it, who rule this country. It’s idiots that run it.
Very short minded plotics from a FG spin off. We don’t need more “consumers” its supposed to be a civilisation not a pig farm. Full attendance in Christchurch last night for trailblazers, where people and professionals argued passionately for a more civil society. A society of equality, responsibility and sacrifice. Yes ordinary people should stand for election, say no water charges, say no to USC, say no to bankers bonuses, say yes to reducing TDs allowances and TD pensions, say yes to stabilising state pensions and care, say yes to a fair deal for all citizens, say yes to a better Ireland.
The last thing Ireland needs is yet another party. To make our democracy work for the people is to outlaw the party whip system. At a stroke you will enable genuine debate and enable parties of all hues to be more inclusive and engage a wee bit more. You will also allow for all views good and bad to flourish which is the essence of a true democracy. So who needs another loser party the last 10 years has seen the demise of quite a few, with the defunct and impotent labour party soon to follow.
I agree the whip system needs to go and it’s time to think about the republic too. In these days of technology it is no longer applicable that we send people somewhere to speak for us without direct input and ability to recall them if they don’t do what we like. We should institute stronger direct democracy into Irish politics.
lets all join, then come the ard fheis voter her and her co. out :)
The déjà vu’s
Is Lucinda not going to bother to represent the children in [ Northern ]- Ireland-
What a bunch of tossers! They wouldn’t get a kick in a stampede! Eddie Hobbs?!
I remember meeting her about 10 years ago walking home from work on the bridge going into Ranelagh at the barge pub . She was trying to talk about the lack of public transport . I think she might be genuine but prob in way over her head . The fact she’s ex Fine Gael etc certainly don’t help lol. And wow Eddie Hobbs . I forgot all about that guy . Haven’t seen him on tv for a long time
‘Reboot Ireland’?………she wants to join in kicking it again.
I can’t wait to vote for this new party… It’s about time someone stood up to Enda and his cronies and started to concern themselves with the issues of today. And not with what is popular today..good luck and I wish you all the best with the battle ahead.
“Issues of today”. Issues of the 1920s is all there intrested in
I think (imo) that this new party will bring a fresh and invigorating approach to Irish Politics and our issues in general…with an honest and sincere straightforward approach, this party could work…best of luck to them I will be watching their progress with interest…
How is she promoting politics back to the people when she has such a staunch view on abortion?? Everyone is entitled to be pro-life or pro-choice, but when you’re elected by the people your own opinion shouldn’t matter!!!!
A 2011 Leaflet from John Leahy, who spoke at the press conference today.
http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/leaflet-from-john-leahy-independent-laois-offaly-2011-general-election/
With Hobbs on board she is on a hiding to nothing.Shes already lost support having that self proclaimed public service basher with her
I see the PDs with added religion is being launched as something called Reboot Ireland.
Been looking at video’s of Lucinda Creighton. Creighton supports the Transatlantic trade and Investment Treaty, which will put most low paid workers in Ireland out of work, lower working standards, reduce workers rights and remove legal protections, besides making it illegal to exclude USA companies from taking over healthcare, water, etc. It would be illegal under the treaty to have water in government ownership.
Creighton is a serious supporter of banking and development sectors, as well as supporting the banking bail out and has made clear her support for the bond holders in the past, besides calling for even bigger bonds as in Eurobonds.
The new party is 100% proof distilled Fina Gael. The new party is significantly to the right of Fina Gael on business and financial issues and has neoliberal financial ideas, such as no regulation of banks or finance sector. I would expect to see Jobbridge become mandatory for all people on social welfare if she got power.
Immigration to Ireland will increase under Creighton so as to speed up the race to the bottom for workers, forcing more Irish to leave.
She is a supporter of serious tax cuts in the upper rates and tax breaks for insider activities.
She not only supports the cuts but is a supporter of more severe welfare and rental allowance cuts.
If she ever gets power, expect to see the carers allowance cut to nothing and disabled to loose what is left of their support.
She supports the irish water charges and meters.
Expect calls for joining NATO and the removal of the triple lock so Ireland can engage in wars.
She supports bringing in the Swedish prostitution law which would turn Ireland in to a traffickers paradise as it did in Sweden. Another side effect of a law like that would be to bring back the Magdelene laundries different in name only, combined with the shaming of women on percieved moral grounds.
She supported the initial calls to cut the pensions, then changed her mind when the pensioners mobilised.
Creightons attitude to women’s reproductive rights and body autonomy is straight out of the dark ages.
She has been a vehement opponent of LGBT rights.
Also I see Creighton has made clear she wants vounteers and people to volunteer for everything. In plain language that means work for free, for her, so as to get her back in to the Dail to use it as a stepping stone to a cushy job in Brussels, where she can disregard her volunteers.
Most of the group of 100 so called volunteers for the new party are known more generally as insiders. It appears so far to be made up of anti-abortion capaigners, banking insiders, barristers and other insiders for the church, banking and legal professions.
If they get in power expect the old age pension and dole to get halved over night. After that the cuts will get brutal. Also with a religious fundementalist in charge expect women’s and minority rights such as LGBT and disabled to get compromised very quickly. Anyway Creighton would quickly form a coalition with FG to attack the vulnerable as much as possible.
Regarding the civil service. Exepct entire areas such as welfare, health and education to be put up for sale, resulting in massive job losses.
As for Eddie Hobbs, I remember him supporting the excessive loans, over priced housing, spend and do not save, etc. Hobbs is a popularist insider who just sees the wind blowing away from the established parties and is trying to make himself look radical even though he is an extremely conservative person who supports neoliberal government.
Basically the new party is distilled Fina Gael and a reincarnation of the ideas of Eoin O’Duffy.
We need a far right religious-banking-anti-poor political party like a we need a hole in the head. Things are bad enough.
LAUGH HA! HA! – I nearly did – more of the same old [ cpar ], packaged in new shiny 2015 wrapping.. when will we wake up and see this [ hits ] for what it is… __http://thedutchguy.biz/isee/?p=75__
# righterthanright
In which of Charlie Flanagan’s categories of Irish politics does this fall?
As I thought. My suspicions about you are confirmed.
m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=bOguenZdABQ
Dont be lazy.
I don’t think that this is no coincidence that this party has launched today it has all the hall marks of early election coming.she has hi standing in FG and she still on good speaking terms with the higherups and she would her the roomermill that early election.
Needed like a hole in the head!
Re boot Ireland up the rear end again? No thanks.
She’s a completely useless politician. She never has a useful contribution on panels and seems very lacking in knowledge. She also suggested yesterday that gay marriage was one of her ‘matters of conscience’. So she’s ok with the idea that being born gay means you don’t get the same rights in our state. Dreadful person.
“a completely useless politician” yeah maybe she should have just joined Sinn fein so
Another publicity stunt by the govt. She obviously got paid off to she’d light on this so the news will slip by the govt. The govt. has a lot to answer for and this is just nonsense.
LooseEnda, another useless, overpaid religious fanatic, not needed, just go away
A lot of Irish people are begrudging hateful sado’s who wouldn’t have the balls to do what Lucinda is doing.
Lucinda Creighton is an anagram of Incidental Grouch.
have your say