Talk:Progressive Democrats

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ireland High‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the `image-needed` parameter once the image is added.

Politics: Political parties

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Section on the party's future

I removed the section on the party's future as it was speculative and seems dated with the references to Fine Gael's performance in 2004 (so unencyclopedic). Some of what's here could be incorporated into the main text abour the party. There were also a few minor mistakes. William Quill 12:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Good job. ant_ie

Progressive Democrat logo

Unless this logo is licensed under GFDL it can't be shown per wiki rules Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Fair use. Do you think the Microsoft logo is GFDL? --18.242.7.128 00:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:LOGO --18.242.7.128 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Neoliberalism" as party ideology

I've removed "neoliberalism" as a party ideology, as the term seems to be more of a slur than anything else. If someone can point to an instance of any Progressive Democrat party official describing the party as "neoliberal", an argument can be made to include it but to the best of my knowledge no such instance exists. Midos 15:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.ant_ie 17:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote or Polemic

".....And did we have to pay some very high price for pursuing this policy option? Did we have to dismantle the welfare state? Did we have to abandon the concept of social inclusion? The answer is no: we didn't".'

Is this section a quote from Mary Harney or a polemic by the editor. If the later it should be removed if a quote - corrected and clearly shown as such.

--Gramscis cousin 13:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added that quote, as well as the "i don't get my politcs from any ideology" quote, some time ago. I sourced it from the party website at the time. It's from a party convention speech which I think was in 2002.

Leadership

Is Harney restored to the leadership or currently just acting in post until the formal process can be sorted out? (Is the other PD TD ambitious?) Timrollpickering 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know as of it. See RTE News ant_ie 21:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likely fate

What's the likely future of the party? I think they'll hardly expect to make a comeback from such an utter defeat; are there any contingency plans? —Nightst a llion (?) 21:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen in the media it seems the current plan is first to get hold of and throttle McDowell for his instant resignation leaving everything in the lurch! Otherwise there's a mixture of views floating about, especially over whether or not to stay in government (Bertie has said he'll have themn) - some are arguing it's their only hope, others are arguing Harney can carry on as Health Minister as an individual or maybe rejoin Fianna Fáil, but without the party formally participating (although how exactly a difference between half the PD TDs being in government in an individual capacity and a formal coalition is to be presented to the electorate is beyond me) and some seem to be resigned to the end. Timrollpickering 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology

I can't see why the ideology of the party can't be simply liberalism. Economic liberalism is obviously a componenent of liberalism. As one user said before me, neoliberalism is not needed to eplain the ideology of the party... at least we can exchange it with libertarianism. --Checco 22:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really no-one has anything to say about it? --Checco 18:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really to add over what's been mentioned in edit summaries. Liberalism and Economic Liberalism are not necessarily the same thing - hence the need for two separate articles . Libertarianism is something else altogether and I don't think it applies to the PDs. I have no strong opinion either way on the inclusion of Neoliberalism. DrFrench 19:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but economic liberalism is a branch of liberalism and this is the only article about a liberal party mentioning both liberalism and economic liberalism, so my proposal is to leave only liberalism. Second, can we remove neoliberalism? --Checco 09:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are indeed socially and economically liberal, then including just "liberalism" should suffice. If, however, they are economically liberal but socially centrist or even socially conservative, we should say so. —Nightstallion 09:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As from the party's website, they clearly state they are a liberal party. I think it is best to keep it at that. ant_ie 12:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd go with that, then. —Nightstallion 15:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do remember that how a party describes itself may not be how it operates in practice. I'm sure you can think of extreme examples of parties which described themselves as 'socialist' or 'democratic' which were neither. DrFrench 15:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to appoint other labels to this party, it will need proof, untill then all we have is the Liberal label. ant_ie 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DrFrench when he says that often parties describe themeselves differently from what they are, but in this case I consider "liberalism" the best ideological classification for this party, which is both economically liberal and socially liberal (as a party can be socially liberal in conservative Ireland, off course!). --Checco 18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ahve spoken with people from the PD's and I would clearly label them as liberals, economic liberals. Electionworld Talk? 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cavanagd 11:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)== Cavanagd's edit ==[reply]

although evidence proves that although it may have at one stage been socially Liberal in its support for divorce and contraception, it is no longer Liberal and is as socially permissive as any other Irish centrist party.[1]

I am removing this again as the source does not match the opinion. I do not want to enter into an edit war, so if I am wrong, let me know. ant_ie 09:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly no longer socially Liberal. Granted, it was at one stage in relation to condoms and divorce etc. but nowadays it is not, as can be seen in relation to the magic mushroom banning and lack of support for gay civil unions (other parties do support them)

(Cavanagd 11:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

To be honest the onus is on you to prove that the PDs are in fact socially Liberal - you haven't provided a source to back that incorrect claim.

Cavanagd 08:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far I am ware this is the general consenus at present by editors of this article. The socal liberal term was not added by me buy noone else has remove it except you.ant_ie 10:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think they should retain the social liberal tag then? In order for something to be truthful there needs to be evidence to support that claim. There is no evidence to support the claim that the PDs are socially Liberal. Can we not change it to economically Liberal instead?

The reason I am making this request is because I hate it when the PDs claim they are socially Liberal when their stances claim otherwise. Just look at their manifesto in the last election. Cavanagd 11:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC

I don't have a problem deleting this "and social or moral matters" from the article. Also please see Wikipedia:Talk page on how to format your responses on talk pages, it just helps with easier reading of a discussion.Thanks ant_ie 17:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition

The last sentence of the opening paragraph says PD are still in coalition with FF and the Greens. Is this still the case? It seems there defeat in the recent elections has brought an end to that? Have I missed my guess? Granted, I am many thousands of miles away, but my understanding is that the coalition collapsed. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope they are in coalition for a third term in a row. See GP & FF agree to draft Govt programme ant_ie 23:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aahhh... ok. Thanks for clearing that up. Am I the only one who finds a coalition of FF, PD, and the Greens very strange? ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 16:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a Jamaica coalition without the colours and give or take the ambiguity over where Fianna Fáil sits in conventional systems but the idea is far from new. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leader and President

What is the difference between an Party Leader and a Party President? --89.60.212.114 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A party president is usually the head of the extra-parliamentary party and has various formal functions (for example they may be the one to receive a leader's resignation), whereas the leader is the key public spokesperson for the party, candidate for Taoiseach (or Tánaiste). Timrollpickering (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formal dissolution

The current slow edit warring on whether the PDs are actually extinct yet or not is not helpful. Has there been any coverage in the media as to when the party did/will formally cease to be a current legal entity? Timrollpickering (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They ceased to exist when they voted to disbandment in November 2008. All thats left is some legal dotting and crossing etc. Snappy (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role in the recession?

Shouldn't their role in the current economic recession particularily in regard to their policies towards regulation (or rather lack of it) of the banking and construction industries be commented upon. Exiledone (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it should. Joe Higgins however, is not a neutral source, its just one political party criticising another. When you find some npov sources, you should add in such material. Snappy (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No bother. Joe was the only one I could find at the time and lets face it he does great speeches. I wouldn't have been a massive fan of that party to be honest and I don't like that last paragraph. I think it needs balance.

Exiledone (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the country identifier?

Is there any reason to include Ireland in the title? I understood it to be Wikipedia convention to only have brackets in the title to distinguish articles of the same precise name. I know you mightn't know the party was from Ireland by the name alone, but you could say the same of the National Progressive Democrats. It's the kind of thing that should be avoided because it will mean going back over old links, and a lot of historic pages on Irish politics a little less neat in their coding. William Quill (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Democrats (Ireland) → Progressive Democrats — This redirects here already. This party is the only one on Wikipedia vying for this precise title. It was renamed earlier this year. It was named as this till March of this year. The renaming means that many historic articles on Irish politics will have to be changed to avoid redirecting, and to a needlessly slightly more awkward form. Yes, there's the National Progressive Democrats, the Progressive Democrats of America and the Progressive Democratic Party. But it's not as if there's been any call for a disambig page, if people think there's confusion, the usual disambig note at the top should suffice. William Quill (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It's a bit silly have this page redirect to the original unqualified one. As nominator says, a disambiguation at the top of the article will suffice for other articles. Snappy (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support We already do not have a country qualifier for parties which are the sole or primary meaning of a name e.g. Plaid Cymru, Democratic Unionist Party. PatGallacher (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Progressive Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211110548/http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1108/pd.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1108/pd.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.revenue.ie/budget/budget1997/income.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.revenue.ie/index.htm?%2Fbudget%2Fbudget2007%2Fincome_07.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Progressive Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Progressive Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]