Labour - really serious contenders?

[mypost]

I don't think keeping their head down last week whilst Biffo went on radio "under the weather", and Coveney tweeted did them any harm. There's a couple of times that Labour have come out looking the better by not getting involved in petty arguments.

So what row was Shortall involved in?

It's hard to see Labour suddenly grab 16 points as a result of someone else's problems alone.

[Poor Student]

We are running a gargantuan budget deficit which is becoming increasingly impossible to fund. We require budget cuts are more incisive than FF are willing to deliver. What exactly do Labour offer other than they're not Fianna Fail?

[Eminence Grise]

They offer very little, I think,and being partly funded by the unions means that they're vulnerable to a very powerful lobby group that hasn'talways acted with the country's best interests at heart. It's also never a good long-term strategy to position yourself as "not the other crowd." Meantime, what they're doing is exactly what FF do in opposition: carp, criticise and cavil, but never, ever get caught committing to a policy.

[Mr A]

Labour (or indeed anybody else) are nowhere remotely near as negative or vicious as FF in opposition.

[Eminence Grise]

True, FF have a much nastier streak in them. There's a saying that FG are gentlemen trying to be politicians, and FF are politicians trying to be gentlemen. But the level of Labour's criticism for its own sake, bereft of any policy to substantiate it, is politicking of the highest order, which FF pioneered in this country. Kinda nice to see somebody use their own shallow tactics against them. It's just a pity that those tactics are good for campaigns, but bad for discourse.

[Mr A]

As Macy pointed out- Labour have lots of policies.

And I think a major factor in their favour is that they were the party that smelled a rat with the bank guarantee. They were slated at the time but they were probably closer to being right than everyone else.

[Eminence Grise]

I’ve had a quick look at Labour’s policy page on their website (http://www.labour.ie/policy/). Now, while I accept that any party will have many policies and what will appear will be only a selection, I was surprised by Labour’s offering. Just a few at random:

• Sport: aspirational, no figures given on how much policies will cost, or how various agencies will be reconfigured. Still, I’m glad to see it top of the list.
• Universal health insurance: a copy of a six-page speech by Gilmore. Very light on detail.
• Post-Lisbon role of the Oireachtas: worthy, and I’m all for increasing the relevance and efficiency of the Oireachtas but is it really a pressing issue?
• Tourism: Again, no detail; lots of use of the conditional tense, and a reliance on existing state agencies without any change from their current role as parastatals.
• Education: a 2-page flyer for Ruari Quinn.

Other policies areas include reforming tax on betting (race horse and greyhound fund specifically), a 4-page document on the party’s intention to reinstate powers of investigation to Oireachtas committees (an idea that is long overdue, but will have to wait until the FFers are kicked into opposition) and a bill on child guardianship that, on a quick read, appears to attempt to redress issues of access for fathers. These are important, in their own way, but missing were what I would consider critical policies: jobs creation, re-training and upskilling for the unemployed, measures to end the recession – taxation, public service issues etc etc. Hell, anything vaguely socialist, in fact!

Now, some people may believe that Labour have policies. Well, from what I can see, they do a pretty good job of hiding them.

I’m not criticising Labour for their tactics: it is excellent politicking. FF hammer FG on their policies, because FG are more active in presenting a policy alternative to FF. Labour aren’t giving FF that ammunition. Their default setting is to criticise, then claim to have a policy. It works in the permanent campaign – look at the polls – but will it work when people are actually looking for a party to lead them out of the doldrums?

[osarusan]

I’ve had a quick look at Labour’s policy page on their website (http://www.labour.ie/policy/). Now, while I accept that any party will have many policies and what will appear will be only a selection, I was surprised by Labour’s offering. Just a few at random:

• Sport: aspirational, no figures given on how much policies will cost, or how various agencies will be reconfigured. Still, I’m glad to see it top of the list.
• Universal health insurance: a copy of a six-page speech by Gilmore. Very light on detail.
• Post-Lisbon role of the Oireachtas: worthy, and I’m all for increasing the relevance and efficiency of the Oireachtas but is it really a pressing issue?
• Tourism: Again, no detail; lots of use of the conditional tense, and a reliance on existing state agencies without any change from their current role as parastatals.
• Education: a 2-page flyer for Ruari Quinn.

Other policies areas include reforming tax on betting (race horse and greyhound fund specifically), a 4-page document on the party’s intention to reinstate powers of investigation to Oireachtas committees (an idea that is long overdue, but will have to wait until the FFers are kicked into opposition) and a bill on child guardianship that, on a quick read, appears to attempt to redress issues of access for fathers. These are important, in their own way, but missing were what I would consider critical policies: jobs creation, re-training and upskilling for the unemployed, measures to end the recession – taxation, public service issues etc etc. Hell, anything vaguely socialist, in fact!

Now, some people may believe that Labour have policies. Well, from what I can see, they do a pretty good job of hiding them.

I’m not criticising Labour for their tactics: it is excellent politicking. FF hammer FG on their policies, because FG are more active in presenting a policy alternative to FF. Labour aren’t giving FF that ammunition. Their default setting is to criticise, then claim to have a policy. It works in the permanent campaign – look at the polls – but will it work when people are actually looking for a party to lead them out of the doldrums?

Did you miss the 10-page pdf file titled 'investinginfuture' which outlines their poilcy of establishing a Strategic Investment Bank to provide investment support to companies which will build our export, transport, energy and communications?

[Eminence Grise]

No, I got bored reading the kind of guff that passes for policies these days. That document is pretty short on specifics, and I would question whether we need another “jobs for the boys, answerable to nobody, model of inefficiency” semi-state to hand out funding. Given that a major portion of the banking sector will already be state owned, at least one bank should be reconfigured and made responsible for funding SMEs. Using the pension fund is a good idea, but it’s not unique to Labour.

If people are satisfied that Labour’s major contribution to the economic crisis can be encapsulated in ten pages (three of them appendices), then we really looking at end of discourse, and the start of a Lippmann-style ideology of communication by symbols because the masses are incapable of independent thought. (His theory, not mine; I like his work, but I think some of his ideas are anti-democratic).

Meanwhile, FG have woken up at last: Alan Shatter was just on Radio 1 slating Labour as policy light political deviants who will hop into bed with FF at the merest fluttering of an eyelash. It will be interesting to see how the Labour figures hold up now that their most obvious coalition partner has started firing broadsides at them, though greater subtlety than shouting “like ye did in’92” might be required. The right’s favourite economist, Moore McDowell, has also questioned whether their projected seat gains can add up. He predicted a generous 40 to FGs 65.

I’ve voted Labour in the past, and will probably do in the future, because I believe that we need to see the emergence of a strong left of centre party to counter the near century of right-wing politics we’ve had. But I don’t like the current set-up of Labour, or its leadership, or its hypocrisy (remember all the animal-loving Labour TDs hanging their heads in shame and voting against the stag hunting bill, despite banning stag hunting being one of their former policies?) or its adoption of smoked salmon socialism, or its two-faced desire to end corporate donations as long as trade union funding can be maintained.

While I respect the views of many here who feel that Labour is a worthwhile party, and I know that I’m not going to change your opinion, I feel that Labour have betrayed their socialist origins and electorate, and offer nothing beyond carping and self-centred politicking. I won’t be voting for them in the next election.

[osarusan]

No, I got bored reading the kind of guff that passes for policies these days. That document is pretty short on specifics

No argument with that, but it isn't what you originally said, which was this:

missing were what I would consider critical policies: jobs creation, re-training and upskilling for the unemployed, measures to end the recession

The policies are there, but you're not convinced by them. Like the other policies you chose to mention. I don't see why you saw fit to describe them as missing when you listed other policies which you criticised in much the same way.

[Eminence Grise]

Not quite an accurate interpretation of my position: it's axiomatic that you cannot write a detailed economic policy for government in ten pages. What is there is an outline, very sketchy, that addresses the issue of credit to SMEs, through the creation of yet another semi-state. That facilitates loans to businesses. It doesn't translate as jobs creation (a government function which would address incentives, tax breaks etc) unless Labour intend that the private sector alone will solve the unemployment problem - and that would be highly unusual for a socialist party. Nor does it address funding for re-training/upskilling (access to sectoral/private sector training, higher or further education), or measures to end the recession (though I probably should have been clearer and written fiscal measures).

Any plan, to work, has to be SMART - specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timebound - to work. So those ten pages do not measure up as a policy - an aspiration, a good start, yes, but not a policy. And that is what my criticism is based on. For that document and the others.

Labour have chosen to attack FF on the basis that the government's policies have failed. If Labour are to be a credible party of government, they have to iterate their own policies so that the public can measure their worth. Based on my reading of their material, they have a lot of work to do to get actual policies together to persuade voters to vote for them for reasons other than Gilmore's soundbites, or the nice pamphlets with nice ideas on their website. And now that FG are gunning for them, I think their bluff is going to be called more frequently.

[culloty82]

Gilmore out!

FG 31 (-2)
FF24,(nc)
LAB 23 (-4)
SF 10 (+2)
GR 3 (+1)
Oths 9 (+3)

Clearly, there's no consistency between opinion polls - SF seem as artificially high in this poll, as they were low in the last, the truth for all parties is probably an average of both.

EDIT - Mattie McGrath has withdrawn his support, so the Government's majority is now 2.

[mypost]

Labour have chosen to attack FF on the basis that the government's policies have failed. If Labour are to be a credible party of government, they have to iterate their own policies so that the public can measure their worth. Based on my reading of their material, they have a lot of work to do to get actual policies together to persuade voters to vote for them for reasons other than Gilmore's soundbites, or the nice pamphlets with nice ideas on their website. And now that FG are gunning for them, I think their bluff is going to be called more frequently.

Gilmore and co are strong when it comes to soundbites, but weak on policy. With FG, it's the other way around. The public are confused, but because the soundbites sound good, back Labour on that basis.

[Macy]

And what do you reckon would happen if Labour put the detail to the policies in writting? FF would attack them over that rather than have to defend their own policies (as they've been doing with FG). FF and FG criticise the lack of Labour policy, but then also attack Labour over their policies. They want to have it both ways.

Much as FF don't get it's because they caused the mess as to why they're in trouble (not the "taking tough decisions"), FG don't get that the righteous attitude as displayed by Shatter on Saturday is the reason they're not making the hay they should. There's plenty of FF voters up for grabs, and the type of garbage that Shatter was saying (such as the '92 comments) is one of the reasons Labour are doing better than FG in gaining support.

On the polls - at least one of them was wrong. I'm expect that the next Times poll splits the difference - no basis for that other than I think both polls look flawed when taken together given they were taken on the same days, both over the phone etc. Still all to play for in terms of it being a 3 way fight.

[Macy]

Labour playing a blinder on FG removing pairings - they've just offered to pair Coughlan, if they're satisfied of the merits of the trip in creating jobs.

[dahamsta]

And what do you reckon would happen if Labour put the detail to the policies in writting?

Not really a valid argument for not having properly detailed and budgeted policies. But the idea that FG's policies are detailed and budgeted is equally laughable. Sadly, there's isn't a party in Ireland with a valid policy document.

[Dodge]

The public are confused. With FG, it's the other way around.

In my experience most people have a far better understanding of the situation that they're given credit for.

This early campaiogning has really hit FG hard as the public see that their policies, particularly in financial and economic matters, don't differ too much from the, clearly proved, failed FF policies. If they don't clearly win the next election, they should fold. Ideally FG and FF would merge and we can get on with real politics and not this pre partition ****e we have now

[dahamsta]

In my experience most people have a far better understanding of the situation that they're given credit for.

I'd have zero hesitation in stating the complete opposite.

[Dodge]

Guess we mix in different circles then.

[Mr A]

Why the feck was this trip planned for when the Dail was sitting? They've just been out for three months FFS! While it's probably better that MC be allowed to attend it rather than cancel at short notice, the important point of ministers being accountable to the Dail remains. Basic respect for parliament is something that all parties could do a lot better on.