Labour can kill off Coke and Pepsi politics

**Mr A** · 12/05/2009, 8:36 AM

Fintan O Toole argues in today's Irish Times that Labour should not form a coalition with either of the civil war parties and that to do so perpetuates their dominance.

It certainly would be very interesting if a resurgent Labour could hold aloof after the next general election and force an FF-FG coalition.

One suspects though that the civil war parties would rather go back to the electorate than govern together.

**dahamsta** · 12/05/2009, 8:53 AM

They're politicians, they'll happily suck each other's balls for a seat at the Cabinet table.

(To preempt: They're politicians, they probably do anyway.)

**Dodge** · 12/05/2009, 9:04 AM

Its tough for labour, as if they don't get involved some will criticise them for taking potshots fromt he outside when they could be effecting policies.

Personally I'd like to see them stand stronga nd stay away from FF and FG

**Macy** · 12/05/2009, 9:15 AM

Whatever about politicians wanting power (obviously, if you want to effect change), would they really get the support of the people if it forced a run of unstable Governments, in the current circumstances? It's up to the voters to give them a big enough mandate to allow that happen.

Personally, I think Springs big mistake was not hanging tough. However, right back to before the formation of the state Labour has the track record of putting state ahead of party, to it's own detriment.

**dahamsta** · 12/05/2009, 9:24 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Personally I'd like to see them stand stronga nd stay away from FF and FG

I might feel the same way after the election if they pick up a lot of seats, but in their current position I don't think they're a lot to be gained from it. They have very little say in Irish politics at the moment, and imho it's a bad thing to have the only credible left-of-centre party in that position. (They're not left-of-centre enough for me these days, but that's another debate.)

**pete** · 12/05/2009, 9:53 AM

I don't think any party can approach an election saying they will not enter into government. When FF said they wouldn't go into coaltion that was seen as arrogant.

Coaltion is a fact of life in Irish politics. Probably the least stable colation would be one of equal parties - it seems best to have one clear leader.

The reason Labour had to accept policies of other parties is because they were a junior member in government. When they get 40+ seats then they will have greater say.

I find it hard to know what Labour stand for as it seems to vary from candidate to candidate.

**Macy** · 12/05/2009, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by pete

The reason Labour had to accept policies of other parties is because they were a junior member in government. When they get 40+ seats then they will have greater say.

If they get 40+, it means total collapse of FF, and would open up the possibility of a Labour lead Labour-FF Coalition.

**mypost** · 13/05/2009, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Mr A

Labour should not form a coalition with either of the civil war parties and that to do so perpetuates their dominance.

It certainly would be very interesting if a resurgent Labour could hold aloof after the next general election and force an FF-FG coalition.

How else are they going to find 83 seats?

FG could only recover the 20 seats they lost in 2002 last time, Labour lost one, and would gain only 10 more max. So they'll have to go cap in hand with FG to form a coalition as two official centre-left parties. FG have moved away from the left in recent years, but that's where their roots are.

**dahamsta** · 13/05/2009, 1:05 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

FG have moved away from the left in recent years, but that's where their roots are.

I think by now those roots may have fallen off. FG is right-of-centre now, full stop.

**Macy** · 13/05/2009, 1:06 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

FG have moved away from the left in recent years, but that's where their roots are.

FG centre left? When? O'Duffy must be spinning in his grave at that description of the FG roots...

**Dodge** · 13/05/2009, 1:16 PM

By no stretch of any imagination could FG every be called a left wing party. or even left of centre. Or even centrist for that matter...

**Mr A** · 13/05/2009, 1:27 PM

Indeed, the whole point of this discussion is that FF and FG are essentially the same in most ways (that said, I'd rather have FG in there than FF since they don't seem to have quite the same culture of incompetence and gombeenism), and that's an unhealthy thing for our democracy.

If Labour could force the two centre right parties into office together, they could reap real awards at the following election.

**pete** · 13/05/2009, 1:30 PM

I suppose FF could be described as centre right depending on the time of day?

**Macy** · 13/05/2009, 2:28 PM

Originally Posted by pete

I suppose FF could be described as centre right depending on the time of day?

Or, we could simply use their track record in Government, particularly since 1997, to prove they're a right wing party.

**Bald Student** · 13/05/2009, 2:37 PM

If Labour refused government and forced a second election we'd be left with having to give either FF or FG a straight majority, minus a half dozen green seats.

It'd be like Dr. Pepper trying to force an end to Coke and Pepsi by refusing to sell us any more Dr. Pepper.

**Macy** · 13/05/2009, 2:51 PM

Originally Posted by Bald Student

If Labour refused government and forced a second election we'd be left with having to give either FF or FG a straight majority, minus a half dozen green seats.

Why would it be Labour forcing an election in those circumstances? There would still be an option for Government - FG/FF. You're right in how it'd be painted, but how come only Labour have to fall on the sword of "national interest" not the other two main parties?

**Bald Student** · 13/05/2009, 3:28 PM

Originally Posted by Macy

Why would it be Labour forcing an election in those circumstances? There would still be an option for Government - FG/FF. You're right in how it'd be painted, but how come only Labour have to fall on the sword of "national interest" not the other two main parties?

Because this entire argument is based around the notion that it's ignoble for a politician to enter government. There might be some romance in that idea but I think that most people go to vote for the person they want to run the country. If Labour chose to not do that job, we'd be faced with a straight choice between the two other main parties.

To put it more simply; if Labour say to the electorate that there's no point in voting for them unless we give them a majority, I think it's more likely that people won't vote for them than give them that majority.

**pete** · 13/05/2009, 3:32 PM

Originally Posted by Bald Student

To put it more simply; if Labour say to the electorate that there's no point in voting for them unless we give them a majority, I think it's more likely that people won't vote for them than give them that majority.

A good example is the Green Party. They had a choice, either go into government & try to prove they could make a different or forever remain on the sidelines. If it doesn't work out for them they could take a beating at next General Election but if they didn't take the gamble they would never move past maybe 10 seats.

In recent General Elections Labout put themselves under pressure by aligning themselves with FG both officially for one GE & unofficial for the last GE.

**monutdfc** · 13/05/2009, 4:20 PM

Originally Posted by pete

In recent General Elections Labout put themselves under pressure by aligning themselves with FG both officially for one GE & unofficial for the last GE.

They were officially aligned with FG for the last election (the Mullingar Accord) and it was a tactical disaster fro Labour. It shored up FG's position as the main opposition party, the election became a straight choice between FG and FF (the Leader's Debate was only between Kenny and Ahern) with the smaller parties, including Labour, being squeezed out.
A good article by O'Toole, I agree with much of it.

**Ringo** · 14/05/2009, 6:37 AM

Gilmore refuses to rule out going into power with FF

LABOUR leader Eamon Gilmore has again refused to rule out going into government with Fianna Fail.

He was speaking after Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny warned that only a vote for Fine Gael in the two forthcoming Dail by-elections could ensure that Fianna Fail returns to the opposition benches.

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...f-1738395.html

Mr Gilmore refused to be drawn on the comments yesterday, saying instead that the public were "rightly rejecting" Fianna Fail in what was a contest for the leadership of the next government.

In the national interest.