FRANK COSGROVE,
Sir, - John Farrelly, Fine Gael TD, for Co Meath, is certainly right when he says, as he did last week on the front page of the Meath Chronicle, that individualisation of the taxation system was "anti family". His promise that Fine Gael would abolish it, however, is very hard to believe. Fine Gael's track record in the recent past, like those of the other main political parties, has been anything but supportive to the conventional family. Fine Gael has been falling over itself in the attempts to be first to every "liberal agenda" political football for years.
Meanwhile, the Labour Party adopted the liberal agenda with a passion and zeal that bordered on the fanatical. Divorce, abortion, Nice, multiculturalism, gay rights, human rights, animal rights were all embraced with great fervour and little thought. Labour dumped socialism. Karl Marx, chief architect of socialism, identified "liberal capitalism" as the mortal enemy of socialism. The Irish Labour Party, in an attempt to reinvent itself, had the bright idea of stealing its arch enemy's clothes - liberalism. It has conveniently forgotten about the tiresome and difficult task it was set up to do, which was to get for working people a fair share of the wealth generated by the economy.
Fianna Fáil is a decidedly more capitalist than liberal party despite tax individualisation. Its great strength is its flexibility, its ability to jump on the nearest available bandwagon no matter what the ideology. This skill will be amply demonstrated in the upcoming World Cup.
The very name Progressive Democrats says it all. Progressive means forward-looking, modern, smart, in tune with new developments, outward looking - in a word, liberal.
What can be seen from this analysis is that there is hardly a whit of difference between any of the main political parties, a conclusion already drawn by a substantial part of the electorate. In these circumstances, why not do the progressive thing: get all four - into bed in a grand coalition? Failing this, a new party should be formed called the Liberal Capitalist Consensus Party which would be free from the historical baggage of the past. The election could then proceed with the minimum of fuss and argument.
For the other half of the electorate who do not believe in liberal capitalism to the same extent and are currently disenfranchised, there are substantial benefits in this proposal. They would not have to endure a constant barrage of meaningless and trivial arguments about insignificant details which differentiate one political party from another.
The ocean of drivel which is now descending upon the nation would be mitigated to some degree; and perhaps our patience would not be so sorely tried. - Yours, etc.,
Frank Cosgrove, Ardmulchan, Navan, Co Meath.