Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Labour Holding Pattern
Read more about: Labour Party
At what point should the Labour party begin to get worried over the holding pattern they have been in since the last election? With a year to run almost every party has momentum of some sort (bad-FF, iffy-PD, inconsistent-FG, good-SF, good-Green). Labour are not going anywhere.
As Pat Leahy points out in todays Post, they have held their high profile conference with the bevvy of young hopefuls speaking as they were. The only big noise in terms of candidates is Cllr Dominic Hannigan who is in the press at least once a week at this pace (not bad for a local Councillor). The party has drawn up some policy documents, dipped its toe into social justice, and hitched up to the managerial overtones eminating thus far from the alternative coalition.
Yet for all that there is little or no movement between the 11%-13% range (smaller than the margin for error in most polls). There has been little sign of steady progress under Rabbitte and the potential resignations over the coming months puts Labours general health at risk in 2007.
Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and PDs have been scouring for high profile candidates, these offer a double boost-high profile local presence which is likely to secure votes but also they feed into a national feelgood factor among supporters of the party that there is a coherent and high profile direction for the party.
Hannigan’s performance is about the only thing on-par with these movements in the other parties. So what is there to do for the party? Thankfully it’s not the job of IE.com to help Labour out as its not easy but there are a number of simple things that are not being done.
I dont think Labour are making as much use of the talent they have, moving Howlin back to a high profile position is a start and surely he is looking to land some solid punches on McDowell as opposed to Fine Gaels Finance spokesman doing the job. However some other high profile Labour heads could be drawn back into the fold for a dogfight. Michael D is commonly rumoured to be on the sidelines under the current leader, but as a fantastic orator and a man deeply immersed in Labour values the benefit of letting him get out there and bang the Labour drum is yet to be reaped.
Dick Spring is supposed to be engaged in a series of searches for young candidates to go forward for Labour in 2007. Much of the reason for their success in 1992 was the huge boost to candidate numbers and the relative youth of those going forward. The conditions in 1992 were different for sure but by trying to re-capture what went right there are votes to be had.
Finally dont be afraid to talk social-justice and equality. While the logic of the day dictates its a dirty word which voters dont like, I think that after 9 years of underwhelming government there is a space for a party to seriously address social justice issues and honestly tackle the idea of social provision. Honest argument in this area does reap rewards. As do tangible plans explitictly directed at the good.
Thats all back of an envelope stuff, as bloggers are wont to do. I am available for more serious chat thoug 
Seriously back to my point, the Labour party has failed to find anything resembling momentum in the past years, the tenure of Rabbitte has steadied the ship at around 11%-13%. For a party like Labour this is not good enough. The evidence from the Greens suggests that when the issues of the day are your bread and butter there is support for a party that can be strong on their message. The Labour party need to generate their own message and get it out. They need to grab the national debate by the scruff of the neck and bring themselves kicking and screaming past 15% and on toward 20%.
The only way that will happen currently is through Fine Gael transfers, and no leader can sleep soundly if he is relying on others to secure his fate. While the party is unlikely to rebel the holding patterns is only enough currently to secure government with Fianna Fail. 11%-13% is more like a rock or a hard place than comfy holding pattern.
Sorry to be a pedant, but it’s Hannigan, not Halligan…my own view if Labour hadn’t made a pre-election pact, they’d have higher poll numbers - but because they are a the smaller of two parties in a pact, their numbers are suffering.
Also, the simple fact is that in Ireland, politics revolves around personality and spin and not around policy. Labour have some good policy and are less into the spin - and this is another reason for their stalling poll numbers.
Cool, i think i got all of them changed, thanks for that Tom.
On the spin issue, there is a difference between being averse to spin and getting your voice heard. Spin is altering the image away from the truth of the matter while Labour lack rudimentary exposure for being positive in their approach and havin a coherent platform.
I agree politics is about personality as much as policy but younger voters are not as concerned with fuddy duddy old politicians and are open to issue based politics-look at Green and Sinn Fein support among others. Even FF has principles to sell to the Ogra.
labour are lacking in firepower and creativity, not just the spin and tactics. If they had it they would be moving along at a better clip. I agree that FG may be stifling progress but that is the price to pay. Howlin and co made that clear at the conference debate.
It’s deeply frustrating seeing Labour stuck on 11 per cent. I agree they need to generate their own message but they need to find issues that they, and only they, can own. Of course this means taking risks…I’m convinced that age has a lot to answer for, a spell in office before retirement perhaps? As a sort of lapsed member I go to the odd meeting in Wicklow and it’s not often, at the age of 43, I get to feel so youthful and positively skittish compared to most of the audience. Is it all “about personalities and spin” as Tom says? I hope not otherwise why bother, particularly if you’re a bit inclined towards issues like equality and social justice. So it’s back to taking risks again…
I agree, like the Greens on renewables, Labour need to get on the agenda with a unique agenda and position that they are strong on as a party. At the moment thats hoping against hope.
Age is a terrible burden on Labour, especially the weight of replacing vote-winners in unlikely seats (Cronin et. al.) before looking at positive gains. I think some of the conditions which brought Spring and his babes in in 1992 need to be replicated-lots of candidates with a young profile.
It doesnt help that so many of the people Labour send out to meet the press are so hard to take.
I dont think its about spin and a positive approach from Labour can be driven through the media without spin. If it is about personality though Labour are royally screwed.
Buala bos mór to Magill’s Andrew Lynch for getting Pat Rabbitte to fundamentally alter his posture on the greasy pole in this month’s interview, e.g. —’there are hundreds of thousands on this island voting for Fianna Fáil who would vote Labour if they lived in Britain… so the social democratic impulse in ireland is stronger than just the Labour Party. We’ve never managed to caapture it all… my job now is to get more of those people to vote for us.’
In response to the interviewer (AL) saying
my understanding is that you’d resign as leader before you’d go into government with Fianna Fáil,
Rabitte (PR) replied
‘That’s not my electoral strategy… My electoral strategy is to form an alliance with Fine Gael to offer the people the choice of an alternative government.. I believe people are entitled to know that there’s a credible alternative available to them’.
AL So there’ll be no Fianna Fáil-Labour government under your leadership?
PR ‘Well…’
AL I’m sorry, I don’t want to be argumentative, but to me that’s a yes or no answer.
PR ‘I appreciate that but I’ve made it plain that going into government with Fianna Fáil is not consistent with my strategy… You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that’.
AL I appreciate that but I’ve made it plain that going into government with Fianna Fáil is not consistent with my strategy… You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that’.So the answer is?’
PR I’ve given you my answer. No one wants to talk about the positive side of my electoral strategy. Everyone wants to know what I’m ruling out. I’m ruling in Fine Gael and Labour.’
AL To me there’s still a chink of light there…
PR ‘It’s a hugely narrow chink of light.’
AL Well readers will have to decide for themselves
Hmmm.
I say why vote Labour when the largest party in the state is recognised by the Labour leader himself as being social democratic, even if, as Rabbitte claims, some (unspecified) FF ministers have been ’swung’ to a ‘neo-liberal’ view. ROFL
If Labour dont get around the 20% region in 2007 and generally scrape through on Fine Gaels coat tails as is likely right now, the decision on Government will not be Rabbitte’s to take.
Perhaps in our explanation though to little explanation is being put down to internal party divisions. Its been a while since a public Labour blow up but the party factions are no doubt hampering progress on a coherent policy direction and, perhaps, the installation of new candidates? Any Labour insiders wish to put that conjecture to bed?
Also, Rabbitte and Labour have to stop partronising FF voters by saying they are the real social democrats etc, ‘words to the heat of deeds to cold breath gives’. Get out there and show your strengths.
Simon has pointed out elsewhere that the media could not be more helpful to the opposition and Health and Welfare coupled with public transport should be bread and butter to Labour. They either havent got an eye on the ball or are just not up to it.
Also Frank I disagree about FF being a Social democratic party. Big-tent, yes but social democratic, nope.
Hell, the Wordpress formatting gremlins have got into my above comment, but the interview is worth reading in full.
I don’t think Fianna Fáil calls itself a social democratic party, even if Pat Rabbitte made that linguistic link. It’s a left-of-centre party.
aI think Labour has missed a huge opportunity. A few months ago after Rabbitte’s remarks on immigration, Labour support rose to 16%. The failure to run with that issue since then has lost the party the immigration-sceptic part of the electorate. I read in Village Magazine some time ago that Rabbitte had wanted to support the Citizenship referendum and had warned his party of the danger of getting too out of touch with public opinion, but the national executive forced him to call for a No vote. I don’t think the Labour party really wants power first and foremost. I think it is too concerned with principles and not sufficiently interested in public opinion. Until that changes, it will remain stuck. I am one of those who would have given them a shot if they had convinced me that Rabbitte spoke for the party on this issue.
After the Fine Gael meltdown of 2002, Ruairi Quinn claimed, a bit melodramatically, that Labour had become the real opposition. He was right, and Rabbitte has made similar noises more recently.
Fine Gael is a party for cop-out votes which don’t stand for anything specific. Labour needs to stop thinking of itself in terms of British nineteenth century industrial proletarian class identity, and a name change and relaunch might help it.
The party system needs a credible opposition, and we don’t currently have one. The absence of a credible opposition contributes to the continuing rise of the independent and fringe parties. That is both good and bad — bad if it allows kingmakers to exert undue influence e.g the independents in the 1997-2002 Dáil, good in that it allows the watchdog role to be filled, nudging the larger parties to deal with new issues e.g energy diversification.
Any suggestions for a new name for Labour?
I don’t really think the name is the problem. The unreconstructed ideology of Labour vis a vis privatisation and other issues is one problem. Another is how they tie themselves to FG nearly all the time. Historically speaking, voting pacts have tended to be disastrous for smaller parties. The PD pact with FF in 1997 led to them losing half their seats - same outcome for Labour in that year.
I agree, Labour has not got a problem with name, indeed being a party name that has been around since the beginning is a bonus in terms of name recognition. What they seek is an approach to social justice and delivery of a fair society that will make waves in the current orthodoxy. At the moment the Greens do a lot of running in that area.
I feel that a media appreciative of their difference has given an easy time in terms of numbers and funding so as to make debate livelier. Labour need a rethink though the new-labour model is not one that I think they should follow. We have a different culture here with middle-england types seriously lacking. A strong narrative and direction from Labour would set them up nicely.
Principle certainly kept them on the no side of the citizenship debate but for the quality being put forward on the yes side I am thankful for that.
On pacts, Lab/FG were part of a very successful pact in 73, with transfers up in the 60%-80% range, if i remember correctly and this contributed to the thinking of Rabbitte. The focus is on keeping transfers consistent instead of building a first preference core vote. That in my mind is a mistake as a first pref labour voter is very different from a first pref FG voter.
I have to say that if the recognized name limits Labour at the 11-13% mark then it needs to consider the option of changing it. The problem I see is that it is an archaic name which has all but lost its meaning, and therefore does not taking recognition one stage further to voter identifcation with a coherent and definable set of values.
Fianna Fail isn’t a political party in the same sense that Labour is a political party. FF would say that they are a national movement. There are social democrats in FF but there are also neo-Liberals in FF. They have always been able to appeal to just about anyone. This is either genius or complete lack of any political position. Please, spare us the “pragmatic party” argument, if you were tempted. Fianna Fail is not a socialist or Social Democratic Party. Think, “tent; Galway races”! However, without a firm position, it could be pushed into conceding just about anything to a coalition partner; it’s the ultimate in political empty vessels!
Jackie,
Fianna Fáil’s political philosophy is republican, democratic, constitutional, egalitarian. But it doesn’t believe equality to mean holding anyone down to the meanest level of livelihood,, as seems to happen in the UK.
Ah Frank,
You have to be joking! FF is republican only in the bizarre sense that the word is used in Ireland. That is to say, FF often wants a united Ireland and is often anti-British. However to call FF republican in the sense that it is usually understood is way off the mark. They are about as republican as SF! FF have become and remained constitutional - apart from one brief lapse by CJH when he had to be told by D. Spring that he couldn’t remain on as Taoiseach - and they are democratic if you mean that they support representative democracy. Apart from that internally they are democratic centrist and publicly their notion of participation is limited. To say that FF is egalitarian is frankly ridiculous; they believe in inequality as the best way to relieve poverty. This is a nasty view of a divisive society and is being created as we discuss things now.
Jackie,
I don’t know why you think I’d spend time debating these issues with you. You regard the founders of this sovereign independent democratic republic — the executed leaders of the 1916 Rising who lie buried at Arbour Hill, the people who sacrificed their lives to bring about an Ireland in which every man and woman was a citizen and not a subject of some imperial monarch — you regard these heros as blood-obsessed friutcakes.
Give us a break from the sermonizing. Labour, of which you are a ‘lapsed’ member, is on 11%. That’s the issue. Eight out of nine voters don’t rate them as deserving a first preference vote. You’ve ‘lapsed’ from them. Why?
labour in the 1940s wanted Ireland to sell all itss airplanes. and when they got into power they did indeed sell our transatlantic planes to the brits. As they thought that flying was only for the rich and the state should not funded it. Now they are against privitising Aer Lingus.
Parties change
Parties change
Precisely the point at stake here, there is a set idea of what labour is about, but it can certainly move with the times and bring a more coherent argument for the value of equality and society as well as the argument for prosperity. It can inform those debates but doesnt.
To borrow a phrase from Blair, Labour isn’t working.
Labour can change but to what?
Frank,
Wow! You’re easily upset.
I take it that because, say, just 10 per cent of Irish people agree with me, you think I should remain silent. I hate to be difficult but minority voices are the measure of a democracy.
For the record, I am a socialist and I am a member of the Labour Party.
So all of this “republican” violence is so that the Irish can be free citizens of a republic rather than slaving under a monarch like the prople of Britain or Canada. Frankly, I would expect bloody revolution to achieve a great deal more.
Yes, I think that many of our patriot dead were simply mad and that is a most charitable verdict. The current lot - so recently weaned off blood - should live their lives quietly in shame and regret rather than trying to justify themselves and win electoral support.
I find it difficult to take seriously an Irish nationalist/republican who doesn’t even bother to learn to speak Irish (and I don’t mean Adam’s pidgin version) or who “supports”, say, Manchester United as opposed to, say, Bohemians.
It strikes me that Irish republicanism is very undemanding: you just need to hate the English except for their football and admire murderers who claim to act in the national interest.
Jackie,
not easily upset at all, just bored hearing the same old jaded claptrap from the permanent opposition. Labour and Fine Gael receive a lot of taxpayers money which should enable them to be not only an opposition which is effective at holding the government of the day to account, but can also present itself as a coherent and credible alternative government. the money is wasted on FG and Labour on all counts, adn the proof is that the electorate has not returned Fine Gael to government for nigh on twenty years. Whetehr you’re a lapsed or unlapsed member of Labour, what on earth is theri game. the country deserves better, because the quality of our democracy and of govcernment in general suffers when the opposition abdicates its responsibilities, as Labour and Fine Gael have been doing for so long. It’s easy and lucrative for them to carp, but it’s not good representation.
Frank,
So you don’t want to talk about FF’s pretence at nationalism and republicanism. You’ve also given up arguing the merits of the violent nutters. You don’t even want to consider the importance of a minority socialist voice in a polity dominated by neo-liberals. Now,what you you want to do is shift to a hoary old FF doctrine, last peddled by that great patriot, CJH. He was big into “an opposition’s duty is to oppose”, as if politics was about holding a government to account without reference to any underlying values.
The Labour Party has more socialist members than any other party. Indeed it is dominated by socialists. It is hardly surprising that as an “Irish republican”, which I take you to be, you will dislike Labour’s politiacal perspective.
Labour should enter coalition with any non-violent right wing party which is ideologically weak or desperate enough for government to concede the implementation of socialist policy. This suggests that FF would be the perfect coalition partner, assuming that the numbers added up. Unfortunately FF at present is so utterly discredited that Labour has no option but to deal with FG. Labour would have a tremendous bargaining opportunity if FG could be played off against FF but the former have some vestige of principle and the latter, as I said, have descended to ignomy.
Incidentally, Labour’s share of state funding is a small fraction of that given to FF.
Given your admiration for our anti-Irish, blood crazed patriots would you favour a FF/SF/IRA coalition, if the numbers added up? I would be appalled at such an outcome but there is a real danger that it could come to pass; these parties have common bloody roots and in the case of SF/IRA the roots are just below the surface. They also share a tendency to change their politics at the drop of a percentage point. Dangerous days are ahead for Ireland. You should pay heed to a boring old constitutional, socialist party. You may have cause to be grateful for its presence.
Jackie,
What is your occupation? I ask this because I’m curious to know what people like you, whose mindsets are stuck in the past — leading them to wish their lives away and slur and denigrate others — what such people do for a living.
Hey Frank. Please remember the commenting rules play the ball not the man/woman. So leave the above type comments out thanks. The comment guidelines are in the Irish Election info section.
Simon,
To what exactly were you referring in my response to Jackie — mindset stuck in the past, slurring and denigration, or enquiring into his occupation? I consider my responses to have been mild, measured, and relevant.
The topic is about Labour’s holding patern what jackie does or not is not the issue. This is just to keep the debate on track.
Simon,
With respect, where Jackie is coming from is 100% an issue, as all his comments to date give witness to. Get a grip. You are one of many on this blog.
Frank,
My occupation is indeed irrelevant. However, asking about background in an attempt to understand my perspective is fine but I doubt it will do much good as you steadfastly refuse to argue with me.
I’m a working class Dubliner. I rejected Catholic nationalism in my teens and became an equally devout communist until I began slowly to think for myself. This lead me to socialism, which lead me to the Labour Party.
I find it strange that a “republican” should accuse me of living in the past. If you look back at the postings above, you will see that you introduced my lack of respect for our so-called patriot dead.
I look forward to a confident, socialist, Ireland, taking its place in a federal Europe. First we need to be iconoclastic: no more respect for and worship of violent people of questionable sanity; demand that the killers and their apologists retire from public life and try to live quietly with their shame; begin to speak clearly, particularly by using the term “republican” as it would be understood in the wider world. Then we can build on the great asset that is our strong national culture, both English speaking and Irish speaking.
Someone like me - and there are lots of Irish like me - doesn’t need to admire thugs, murderers and gun-runners to feel Irish. I don’t hate or even dislike the British; I admire many aspects of their culture, traditions and achievements - and I respect the political structures they left behind here. Equally, the new Irish from abroad will not present a problem in the long term because our dominant culture will welcome and absorb them.
As long as I remain a socialist - and I would change if presented with a compelling argument - I will argue for a mixed economy. That is to say, I want the state to intervene when necessary. That’s why I cannot irrational current neo-liberal approach with its childlike faith in the market which persists long after the problems have become obvious. Neither do I have a desire for some crude egalitarian utopia but I do reject our increasingly unequal society - driven hard by the FF/PD coalition. I’ve gone on for far too long but let me close by asking you to compare the pay of a nurse with the pay of the head of the Health Authority. (I’m sorry, it’s late the correct name escapes me right now.) The disparity ought to be a national scandal in a republic, if we had a republic!
Jackie,
I appreciate your reply. what I’m really trying to establish is whether you have an earned income from a publicly funded source eg an educational institution or broadcasting, or indeed from a publicly funded voluntary bodie or a membership organization such as a trade union. My reason for pressing this question is to then make the point that the money that funds public services, pensions, childres allowances and everything else, comes from the successful management of the kind of mixed economy you espouse.
What is the socialist difference that Labour is trying to represent?
Frank,
What you are suggesting is that I’m intellecually dishonest, that the source of my income determines my political argument. I hate to disappoint but I’ve worked in both the private and public sectors and my arguments are not based on self interest.
Do you really think I know so little about economics that I don’t appreciate fully the need to create wealth for distribution?
The distinctive feature of the Labour Party is that it really believes in the mixed economy. It doesn’t just use the term; it wants a sensible, well-argued mix of private companies, state control to preserve markets, prevent corruption, exploitation, excessive wealth or poverty etc. and state owned companies. This approach would be in marked contrast to, say, Charlie McCreevy or Mary Harney who are the kind of blind doctrinaire neo-liberals who are making my country unpleasant and cold hearted.
Jackie,
I really can’t tell whether or not you are being honest because you are not willing to give me the information I asked for. I don’t think understanding economics requires any kind of specialist knowledge, though opposition politicians and academics often seek to assert that they are either more knowledgeable and/or morally superior to the government of the day. What they really can’t handle is that the electorate doesn’t agree with that view.
Why should Professor Brendan Drumm not be paid the price for the job he’s been asked to do for your country, if he has the qualifications, skills and experience to do it. Surely income tax is the method the Oireachtas has ordained to redistribute income.
And what do you mean by excessive wealth?
Jackie,
ps To make the Irish economy more mixed than it currently is, what companies, services or resources would you wish to nationalise, and why?
Frank,
You tend to convince me that I should pack it in here and seek a site more committed to discussion. I’ve been far too tolerant (Indeed, I’ve given you personal information irrelevant to my arguments.) but you really have gone too far.(Is this “discussion” moderated in any way?) I must give you detailed information about my employers so that YOU can decide if I’m honest!!! Do you want this test to be applied to every citizen who posts a view here? Do you assume dishonesty in all cases?
I assume honesty until I’ve evidence to the contrary.
You are back to a view disposed of a long time ago. Winning an election is not supposed to silence minority views.
I don’t have a specialist knowledge of economics. I was replying to your innuendo that I knew nothing.
I’m not aware of people opposed to the present government who claim to be more knowledgeable or morally superior. I simply see contending, convincing or unconvincing arguments.
I’ve no objection to using taxation to redistribute income. However, I think a salary in excess of 450K is excessive, it undermines social cohesion (Surely that would be a rebublican virtue?)and eliminates any possibility of good industrial relations.
So we should pay the professsor lesss than his worth and appeal to his sense of altruism to satisfy some symbolic imperative for the sake of ’social cohesion’. There are a lot of nurses out there, so I assume that the total remuneration package currently available to them, including child benefits and mortgage tax reliefs, is adequate to attract sufficient people into the occupation. Why should they be paid more than is necessary?
Frank,
You now choose to focus on just the question of pay differentials.
Social cohesion is only partly to do with symbols. It is also affected by the existence of enormous income differentails. Moreover, any experienced manager will tell you about the corrosive effect of extreme pay differentials on industrial relations. Professor Drumm, as a manager, must know by now that his “remuneration package” is a source of trouble. Of course this can be dismissed as envy but dismissing a problem doesn’t make it go away.
Is the Prof. “worth” 450K ? Who decided? The market? Does the market decide nurses’ pay? This is a very dangerous road for the neo-liberal to take because organised labour can operate the market mechanism. They can withdraw or limit supply until the price of their labour increases. Workers with control over some vital resource can exercise their “market” power. True, the media will say that such action is “holding the country to ransom” but that’s how a free or uncontrolled market works. Do we want an unfettered market in wages? Control would be better and this means keeping high earners out of the “scandal zone” as much as it means keeping low earners out of the “poverty zone”.
Jackie,
If you moved from being a communist to being a socialist, I assume that demonstrates that at some point in the past you had a capacity to progress your thinking on political matters.
You say you want to debate, but I feel your argument is not really with me at all but with your own Labour party, as well as with all the rest of us.
I’ve looked back over all the comments you’ve posted in IrishElection.com since it began, and I think you’re against everything and everyone.
We’re all out of step except Jackie Laughlin.
This reminds me of the Labour party member who said he’d like to be a public representative, and probably could be if he lived in a country with a less competitive electoral system than PR/STV, but he just couldn’t put in the time and personal commitment necessary to get elected under our democratic system.
Tough, that.
God Protect Us From Do-Gooders
Frank,
Such bitterness! If you want to trade abuse, you’ll need to find someone else.
For the record, comrades within the Labour party agree on most things but disagree on others. I’m told that I’m viewed as a moderate.
I reckon that I upset you because I don’t conform to your twin stereotypes: catholic, pseudo-nationalist, Irish “republican” OR West Brit.
I’m a socialist, I’m very comfortable with my Irishness, I speak Irish, I’m working class and my view of what it means to be Irish is becoming commonplace.
You have a choice to make. Stay with Pearse, Adams and Ahern and annual pilgrimages to Arbour Hill or escape into the fresh air of Irish freedom. Slán, Frank.
Jackie,
Oh you’re such a cheat. The reason I have refrained from engaging in debate and argument with you is because it was clear from the start that trading abuse was precisely what you wanted. So without my engagement you have been left to do the abusing by yourself.
I’m glad you are enjoying the fresh air of Irish freedom now, even though you give the appearance of having no respect at all for the movement which has made Irish freedom and democracy so enjoyable, even for the nurses who are flocking to this country to work in our HSE.