Green Party TD: "Fuck you!"

Saturday December 12, 2009 01:53

by former green voter

Thoughts from the Dáil

Green Party TD Paul Gogarty's approach to politics is unconventional at the best of times.

Readers will remember he recently attracted attention by rolling around the floor and playing dead while a political rival was making a speech at a public meeting. But in the Dáil on Friday December 11th, he used what they call un-parliamentary language to make his feelings known. Video may be unsuitable for children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8TRXJ0SHm4

The Deputy, who the Irish Times sometimes calls No-Go Gogarty, was upset by being barracked by opposition TD's while he explained that he felt it was necessary, but perhaps not right, to vote for cuts to benefits to people such as the unemployed, disabled and carers. He said the situation of the economy was not caused by him, and he blamed others.

That would be the people you are propping up in government Paul.

Anyway, people on social welfare didn't mess up the economy either, but they are the ones paying for it, literally, out of their benefits.

Can they tell someone to fuck off Paul? Most of them would have more sense, and realise the important thing is not to get angry, but to get even...

Caption: Video Id: h8TRXJ0SHm4 Type: Youtube Video
Green Party Deputy lets fly

save preference

Comments (5 of 5)

However

by Mike Novack

Sat Dec 12, 2009 16:39

I really shouldn't be having to explain your sort of political system but perhaps you are putting blame in the wrong place.?

It is inherent in the form "parliamentary democracy" that unless some single party has a majority, and that depends on the people, not the parties, that "the govenrment" has to be formed by a coalition of parties. That means that representatives form the coalition "in power" will sometimes have to support measures that they and their party would not support were they:

a) a majority party able to rule on their own
b) not part of the governing coalition.

Let's look more closely at "b" (since "a" clearly is not an option at the present time).

When/why is this choice made (when is it the right choice)
a) One's party is about what is so different from what most of the people want (one's supporters are a small minority) that the whole exercise of running is simply to give a VOICE to this difference. To represent the interest groups supporting this party with at least words even though lacking enough clout to get ANYTHING that the people of these interest groups want. In other words, a form of protest.
b) There are other parties "in opposition" with whom with with a few more seats won collectively it might be possible to replace the ruling coalition with another coalition AND one has some reasonable expectation that in this coaltion there would be less times having to support measures that one's own party finds distasteful.

See -- the problem doesn't ever go away entirely. Not unless "the people" become surprisingly unified, everybody wants the same thing. Highly unlikely.

What I am saying here is that you have to evaluate "supporting measures that the party would not/should not want to support" against alternatives. ARE there alternative coaltion possibilities that would reduce the amount of thime that this was happening. Or is this a situation where unfortunately the best of the bad? Notice I am NOT arguing that it is, just that you should be trying to make the case that there IS some better alternative. Otherwise what you are arguing against is not the behavior of this party but the sort of "democratic system" you choose.

Dail Eireann was Elected.

by Pete

Sat Dec 12, 2009 16:34

The democratic electecd Dail Eireann runs Ireland.

Not......self servig,....well paid . public sector workers.
.
.

Funny remix

by Rage Against the Stagg Machine

Sat Dec 12, 2009 14:32

http://soundcloud.com/ihasaflavour/fuck-you-deputy-stag...er1-1

New Name Needed

by eco joe

Sat Dec 12, 2009 13:01

Should be called the "Yellow Party"