Kenny v Bruton v Labour

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Any opinions on who should lead Labour? Apart from the current muppet, obviously.

---

As a leader, Gilmore as is good as it is going to get for Labour right now. The party has let its front bench grow old and predictable, and suffers from not having a range of new, energetic candidates to offer the electorate (witness the undignified trawl around the country for “I’m a Candidate, Get Me in Here” young blood that so far has unearthed such dynamic luminaries as ex-PD TD Mae Sexton and Independent TD Jerry Crowley, both rejected by the electorate after serving single terms.) It speaks volumes for the party that its best and heaviest hitters are its current and past two leaders... Gilmore is good enough to lead the party into the next election, and may be good enough to be Finance minister and Tánaiste in a coalition. But he won’t be Taoiseach.


I don’t think that Labour will translate fickle opinion polls into Dáil seats. Gilmore is treating the campaign (yup: we’re in a semi-permanent election campaign), as if it were a marketing exercise. His speeches are long on the rhetoric that disaffected voters want to hear, but contain very little detail on policy. It’s like being told so often that the Labour brand of toothpaste whitens your teeth better than anything else: you end up wanting to believe it so badly you daren't ask whether it contains dangerous levels of bleach or good ol’ natural products in case the product's mystique is lost. There’s also the party’s link to the unions to consider: I think there’s a definite mood that a lot of non-unionised private sector workers and unemployed voters will vote for a party that gets tough on perceived partnership excesses.


For Labour to overtake FF or FG in the next Dáil, they would have to increase their number of seats by about 30-35 – a huge task, given that their historic high (the Spring Tide in 1992) is 33 seats in total. It would mean taking a seat in every constituency and at least two seats in approximately twelve. I’m usually the world’s worst tipster, but I reckon that it’s a safe enough bet that that won’t happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

if he can translate the opinion polls into an election result, there should be a raft of potential next leaders from a generation down? Muppet or not, surely the bigger picture is a first labour Taoiseach

---

In this country, we get a choice of Taoiseach. FF or FG holding it. Labour will never have it. They don't have the seats, and won't have them next time, regardless of what the polls show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

In this country, we get a choice of Taoiseach. FF or FG holding it. Labour will never have it. They don't have the seats, and won't have them next time, regardless of what the polls show.

---

..........and thats something to be embarrassed by, not something to trumpet.

Also, "never" is a strong word. Once we completely lose the direct generational link to the rising, Civil War, formation and development of the state (basically the first half of the 20th Century) then, in theory, this should gradually unlock the unwritten law of successive generation voting along pro or anti Treaty/Dev etc. lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

..........and thats something to be embarrassed by, not something to trumpet.

Also, "never" is a strong word. Once we completely lose the direct generational link to the rising, Civil War, formation and development of the state (basically the first half of the 20th Century) then, in theory, this should gradually unlock the unwritten law of successive generation voting along pro or anti Treaty/Dev etc. lines.

---

You would think that but FF have that 25 percent in the bag, the ones working in the civil service with the nice cushty jobs, the ones working in all the quango's, the bailouts. FF reminds me of the communists - the party is more important that the country, and if you are in it you are fine, feck the rest

The time for detailed policy explaination is the election campaign. Part of FG's problem is that they've been producing and talking about detailed policy and rather than concentrating on the mess FF are making of, banking for example, they have the out of saying why what FG are proposing wouldn't work. It actually helps FF to have opposition policies to pick apart. You have to deal with the electorate in front of you, and they're not very sophisticated in Ireland. But anyway, labour have been producing policies and bills, just that doesn't suit FF/FG and a now panicing media...

@ Eminence Grise - Labour are picking up established politicians in places where there simply isn't time to build the base before the next election. There are young guns coming through, but Labour didn't make the gains the last time. Gilmore, Rabitte and Quinn still have plenty left in them to get through the next election with hopefully a new generation coming through. You mention the Spring Tide as though that is a natural high point - it was actually a major f**k up. Not enough candidates (too many single candidates when they could've brought in two at least) and not enough / all consitutencies. Your middle paragragh is all fine and dandy, but then why are Labour doing so well in the polls? Of course Labour are linked to the unions, Congress formed the feckin party, but the supposed great giveaways to the unions/ public sector, such as benchmarking and HSE jobs for life, happened on FF/PD watch FFS.

Gilmore for Taoiseach is a possibility rather than a probability at this stage. But who knows, if FF and FG stay at current levels and labour continue to do well, Labour could be in a position of going into Government at maybe an even enough footing to demand a rotating Taoiseach. Ideally the shinners would get their act together and eat into the FF republican base a bit and we might finally have a Government without either of the right wing civil war parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

@ Eminence Grise - Labour are picking up established politicians in places where there simply isn't time to build the base before the next election. There are young guns coming through, but Labour didn't make the gains the last time. Gilmore, Rabitte and Quinn still have plenty left in them to get through the next election with hopefully a new generation coming through. You mention the Spring Tide as though that is a natural high point - it was actually a major f**k up. Not enough candidates (too many single candidates when they could've brought in two at least) and not enough / all consitutencies. Your middle paragragh is all fine and dandy, but then why are Labour doing so well in the polls? Of course Labour are linked to the unions, Congress formed the feckin party, but the supposed great giveaways to the unions/ public sector, such as benchmarking and HSE jobs for life, happened on FF/PD watch FFS.

---

Hm... quite a bit there. A lot of it makes good sense. Let’s take the points as they come…

On Labour picking up established politicians, that’s perhaps true, but it’s like a national football team recognising that it hasn’t developed its own underage talent and resorting to naturalising blow-ins, who are just glad to get on any ticket, and can’t spell “political ideology”. I mean, Mae Sexton? From an economically right wing, anti-union party to one on the left (ruefully, as close to a left as we have in Ireland) – how is that playing out with traditional Labour voters, who view the PDs as the Spawn of Satan architects of our free-market economic doom? As for building an electoral base, Labour have had 98 years to do that. High time they got the finger out…

On Gilmore, Rabitte and Quinn: I don’t doubt their ability. I have the utmost respect for Ruari Quinn, and wish there were more politicians with his intelligence and integrity. I just don’t share your hope that a new generation is coming.

As regards the Spring Tide, perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I had intended: I referred to the Spring Tide as an historic high point to demonstrate how difficult it will be for Labour to increase its number of seats by more than the total number of seats of its record win. I agree with you that in 1992 Labour didn’t read the constituencies at all well but I think the real problem was in not building on their 33 seats given that they had had five generally successful years in power.

To clarify my “fine and dandy paragraph”, and offer a view on why Labour are doing so well in the polls, can I suggest it is because FF and FG and the Greens and SF are doing particularly badly? Because Labour have assumed a market orientation in their campaigning? Because Gilmore is populist? Because (and you’re right on this) Labour is not debating on policies that can be picked apart by FF? Because it’s been 13 years since Labour last sat in government, and voters have forgotten all about the Labour party jobs for the boys, and the increase in the number of special advisors for which they were responsible, and Spring’s personal ego-trip, the wasteful and little-lamented Department of the Tánaiste?

I’ve organised political polling for a pretty senior politician. Reluctantly. It’s fickle. Voters like a politician on Monday, but by Wednesday they’ve changed their minds. Polls don’t always translate into votes. How many of the respondents who indicated a preference for Labour could name their local Labour candidate, or five of the Labour front bench? How many said Labour because they thought of that nice man Gilmore, who says exactly what they themselves feel, but will nonetheless vote 1 for their FF local man, and 2 for the FG councillor who got the potholes filled and 3 for the kooky Green lady, because looking after the planet makes them feel good about themselves? Gilmore can't run in 40-odd constituencies.... Nor can the other Labour candidates ride on his coat-tails. And remember Sinn Fein’s confidence that they would return with double figures in 2007? They believed the opinion polls too....

And finally, your last sentence… Tsk, tsk… Temper, temper… I’m well aware of Labour’s history. And the history of social partnership. The point I was making is that there is a mood in the country that public servants and their unions are pampered and protected from economic reality by generous pensions, jobs for life, and whatnot. There is a right of centre economic view (IBEC, SFA, Chambers Ireland most vociferously) that demonises public sector unions; there are enough private sector voters hurting from redundancy and wage cuts who will endorse that view and punish parties that appear to protect public servants. Labour can’t distance itself from the unions, and this may be to the party’s detriment.

And just a couple of points you made at the end of your post.


A rotating Taoiseach is an interesting concept, but I fear it would diminish the office. Look at the ridicule heaped on the Greens for suggesting rotating ministries! Never mind the most powerful executive position in Irish politics. The position is not supposed to be within the gift of parties on a whim (like rotating Cathaoirligh of town councils), but rather achieved with the approval of the Dáil as a body.

And as for SF eating into the FF republican vote, that's a distinct possibility. It should concern FF (and maybe anybody who doesn't want to see more SF in the Dail!) But I would be equally concerned that they could eat into Labour’s urban working class vote were I a card-carrying socialist… Which, you may have guessed, I’m unlikely to be!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

On Gilmore, Rabitte and Quinn: I don’t doubt their ability. I have the utmost respect for Ruari Quinn, and wish there were more politicians with his intelligence and integrity. I just don’t share your hope that a new generation is coming.

---

Wow. From a family background that used to always support labour..............Gilmore, Rabitte and Quinn are a joke. The problem with labour is that they dont represent working class people.
Remember 40%, so 60% dont think Gilmore is doing a good job as leader....................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

On Labour picking up established politicians, that’s perhaps true, but it’s like a national football team recognising that it hasn’t developed its own underage talent and resorting to naturalising blow-ins, who are just glad to get on any ticket, and can’t spell “political ideology”. I mean, Mae Sexton? From an economically right wing, anti-union party to one on the left (ruefully, as close to a left as we have in Ireland) – how is that playing out with traditional Labour voters, who view the PDs as the Spawn of Satan architects of our free-market economic doom? As for building an electoral base, Labour have had 98 years to do that. High time they got the finger out…

---

I take the point to a degree about building a base (even if it skips a whole load of historical reasons why that hasn't happened), but I'm not sure Sexton was the stereotypical PD, she was more an independent in PD clothes. Until recent years, the PD's would've been socially liberal as are the Labour party, despite the obvious differences economically. For various reasons, Labout don't have the credible candidates in place in some areas, with an election any time in the next two years, it's imperative for Labour to get candidates on the ground so as to not miss another opportunity as they did with Spring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

On Gilmore, Rabitte and Quinn: I don’t doubt their ability. I have the utmost respect for Ruari Quinn, and wish there were more politicians with his intelligence and integrity. I just don’t share your hope that a new generation is coming.

---

Time will tell. We won't have to wait long to see how the next election goes and who comes through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

As regards the Spring Tide, perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I had intended: I referred to the Spring Tide as an historic high point to demonstrate how difficult it will be for Labour to increase its number of seats by more than the total number of seats of its record win. I agree with you that in 1992 Labour didn’t read the constituencies at all well but I think the real problem was in not building on their 33 seats given that they had had five generally successful years in power.

---

No doubt it wasn't built on (going in with FF didn't help), and a lot of ego's got in the way and potentially still could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

to clarify my “fine and dandy paragraph”, and offer a view on why Labour are doing so well in the polls, can I suggest it is because FF and FG and the Greens and SF are doing particularly badly? Because Labour have assumed a market orientation in their campaigning? Because Gilmore is populist? Because (and you’re right on this) Labour is not debating on policies that can be picked apart by FF? Because it’s been 13 years since Labour last sat in government, and voters have forgotten all about the Labour party jobs for the boys, and the increase in the number of special advisors for which they were responsible, and Spring’s personal ego-trip, the wasteful and little-lamented Department of the Tánaiste?

---

If it's what an opposition leader has to do, it's what he has to do. FF know it works, as it's exactly what they do in opposition, hence they attack Labour for the supposed lack of policies and opposing everything. FG are idiots who don't see it works and so get bogged down in their own policy and practically in permenant opposition. Gilmore is playing it right as we don't have a sophisticated electorate, who just want soundbites. But there is the policy positions there, it's spin from FF and FG that they're not. The main gripe that FF/FG have is that Labour were proved right about the bank guarantee, and whatever spin they put on the lack of policies Labour have them on the hook over what will cost this state billions and billions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

I’ve organised political polling for a pretty senior politician. Reluctantly. It’s fickle. Voters like a politician on Monday, but by Wednesday they’ve changed their minds. Polls don’t always translate into votes. How many of the respondents who indicated a preference for Labour could name their local Labour candidate, or five of the Labour front bench? How many said Labour because they thought of that nice man Gilmore, who says exactly what they themselves feel, but will nonetheless vote 1 for their FF local man, and 2 for the FG councillor who got the potholes filled and 3 for the kooky Green lady, because looking after the planet makes them feel good about themselves? Gilmore can't run in 40-odd constituencies.... Nor can the other Labour candidates ride on his coat-tails. And remember Sinn Fein’s confidence that they would return with double figures in 2007? They believed the opinion polls too....

---

I don't think anyone's under any illusions that a poll is just a poll. It does show the potential though, and even if it dropped significantly on polling day you're talking significant gains, particularly when you look at the performance in Dublin. As far as I'm aware Labour have been attempting to follow up the poll result with more activity over the weekend - it's being used as a motivation rather than a means to an end. As for naming the local candidate - isn't that exactly the reason for getting established politicians like Sexton and Crowley?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

And finally, your last sentence… Tsk, tsk… Temper, temper… I’m well aware of Labour’s history. And the history of social partnership. The point I was making is that there is a mood in the country that public servants and their unions are pampered and protected from economic reality by generous pensions, jobs for life, and whatnot. There is a right of centre economic view (IBEC, SFA, Chambers Ireland most vociferously) that demonises public sector unions; there are enough private sector voters hurting from redundancy and wage cuts who will endorse that view and punish parties that appear to protect public servants. Labour can’t distance itself from the unions, and this may be to the party’s detriment.

---

It’s more that general point doesn’t stand up rather than a personal attack. Social Partnership and the supposed "giveaways" to the unions happened when Labour weren't in power. The stock answer by anyone Labour should be "benchmarking happened under FF". I actually think the population is beginning to cop on about the whole public sector v private sector thing now, when it's being used to justify cutting the minimum wage, break registered agreements, drive down wages in the Private sector, cut pensions etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

A rotating Taoiseach is an interesting concept, but I fear it would diminish the office. Look at the ridicule heaped on the Greens for suggesting rotating ministries! Never mind the most powerful executive position in Irish politics. The position is not supposed to be within the gift of parties on a whim (like rotating Cathaoirligh of town councils), but rather achieved with the approval of the Dáil as a body.

---

It’d depend on how the numbers stack up and then be a matter for the programme for Government discussions. But I don’t see the problem – we’re told Cowen has a mandate as the Dail voted for him, so what’s the difference? The rotating Ministers thing was because it was a clear pensions for the boys (and girl). If they’d done it just before pensions were due I doubt there would’ve been the backlash. Anyway, I’ve said many times, if the numbers break that way, I’d like Labour to attempt to force FF/FG in together – why should it only be Labour that concedes in the “national interest”?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

And as for SF eating into the FF republican vote, that's a distinct possibility. It should concern FF (and maybe anybody who doesn't want to see more SF in the Dail!) But I would be equally concerned that they could eat into Labour’s urban working class vote were I a card-carrying socialist… Which, you may have guessed, I’m unlikely to be!

---

If you believe some of the spin, Labour don’t get working class votes anyway, but I was quite specific about Republican votes ;)

I thought Gilmore was superb in the Dial yesterday, effectively making Cowan admit that the €22billion donated to Anglo will never be seen again. Kenny had 10 minutes worth of faffing about and couldn't land a single punch

Yeah- I was actually going to make that point. It's a massive, massive issue and it was Gilmore who got Cowen to admit the truth. That's a very important step in combating the revision of events by Cowen where it's all "We made some mistakes yeah, but sure the advise was bad and aren't we doing mighty now?". Balls, Cowen and co. ****ed our future up against the wall and it's good to see somebody landing blows about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

I thought Gilmore was superb in the Dial yesterday, effectively making Cowan admit that the €22billion donated to Anglo will never be seen again. Kenny had 10 minutes worth of faffing about and couldn't land a single punch

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Yeah- I was actually going to make that point. It's a massive, massive issue and it was Gilmore who got Cowen to admit the truth. That's a very important step in combating the revision of events by Cowen where it's all "We made some mistakes yeah, but sure the advise was bad and aren't we doing mighty now?". Balls, Cowen and co. ****ed our future up against the wall and it's good to see somebody landing blows about it.

---

I find this whole idea that is being perpetuated that the "money will never be seen again" is somewhat moronic.

Its not like it disappearing into thin air........ its going to ensure depositors and (more controversially) bondholder keep their money. Lets call it the way it is.

Not relevant to the thread but bugs the hell out of me. Do continue!

Mainly bondholders since deposits guaranteed anyway, so it is money "we" won't see again, as most of the bondholders are foreign* anyway.

*as per the Government, as recently as this lunch time by their rep on Newstalk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Mainly bondholders since deposits guaranteed anyway, so it is money "we" won't see again, as most of the bondholders are foreign* anyway.

*as per the Government, as recently as this lunch time by their rep on Newstalk.

---

......and who is the guarantor of the depositors funds?!? Its a money now or later argument. Its all coming from the same source.

The point I'm trying to make is that the blanket guarantee made the €22bn and counting for Anglo inevitable.

Dragging my point back to the political context, the reason this is relevant is that FG supported the bailout of the banks, including Anglo and actually campaigned to bring in local subsidiaries of foreign owned banks, back on 30th September 2008(what I don't remember is how they voted on the Bill, but they were supportive in the media of the guarantee).

Therefore by extension, FG signed up for the €22bn for Anglo, either through stupidity or acceptance. Labour is this regard are on much firmer ground given their opposition.

If FF don't have a leg to stand on, FG are hopping on one foot. Thats one of the reasons why they can't go all out on Cowen.

Speaking of putting the boot in on the government, I'll bet Brian Lenihen didn't see this one coming: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...reaking40.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Speaking of putting the boot in on the government, I'll bet Brian Lenihen didn't see this one coming: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...reaking40.html

---

You're an only child, aren't you. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

You're an only child, aren't you. ;)

---

You could scarcely be further from the truth!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

I thought Gilmore was superb in the Dial yesterday, effectively making Cowan admit that the €22billion donated to Anglo will never be seen again. Kenny had 10 minutes worth of faffing about and couldn't land a single punch

---

The King of the soundbite struck again.

It's a pity Gilmore has to give long speeches in parliament and in the media. If you can be elected on populist soundbites instead, he'd be Taoiseach every time. He can land punches, but is a poor debater. Kenny struggles to land a decisive punch, can nail a speech, but tv/radio usually don't have all day to listen to it. As for Cowen....actually he's just a lame duck, who can't do any of the above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

The King of the soundbite struck again.

It's a pity Gilmore has to give long speeches in parliament and in the media. If you can be elected on populist soundbites instead, he'd be Taoiseach every time. He can land punches, but is a poor debater. Kenny struggles to land a decisive punch, can nail a speech, but tv/radio usually don't have all day to listen to it. As for Cowen....actually he's just a lame duck, who can't do any of the above.

---

So to summarise, Gilmore is the only one of the three main party leaders who understands the modern political game? Can't say Gilmore has come across as a poor debater to me, and the only time the public get an opportunity to see full speeches is the party conferences (I'd say he beat both Kenny and Cowen on those most recently). It's kinda surprising that FF and FG are bricking it about a 3 way leaders debate for the next election - the perfect opportunity to show up poor debating skills, reliance on soundbites, lack of policy etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

The King of the soundbite struck again.

It's a pity Gilmore has to give long speeches in parliament and in the media. If you can be elected on populist soundbites instead, he'd be Taoiseach every time. He can land punches, but is a poor debater. Kenny struggles to land a decisive punch, can nail a speech, but tv/radio usually don't have all day to listen to it.

---

I can give a speech. Should I be running the country? Why do you rate that skill over Gilmore's?

Gilmore's performances in the Dail have lead to him landing several blows to Cowan. For me, this is a far greater sign of intelligence than being able to read a speech well as it shows he can think on his feet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

Gilmore's performances in the Dail have lead to him landing several blows to Cowan. For me, this is a far greater sign of intelligence than being able to read a speech well as it shows he can think on his feet.

---

Memorising speeches is the ultimate in politics in this country. Do you remember the RTE led media w**kfest over Cowen doing that speech a year or so ago without notes?