Comments on: Back to the future, or I’ve seen the past and it works! Fine Gael/Labour and a strategy for winning the next election… Part 2 http://www.irishelection.com/2006/10/back-to-the-future-2/ Coverage of Irish Politics, News and Current Affairs Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:23:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: WorldbyStorm http://www.irishelection.com/2006/10/back-to-the-future-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3835 WorldbyStorm Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:54:13 +0000 http://www.irishelection.com/10/back-to-the-future-or-i%e2%80%99ve-seen-the-past-and-it-works-fine-gaellabour-and-a-strategy-for-winning-the-next-election%e2%80%a6-part-2/#comment-3835 True, but prior to the election in 1992 FG made it very clear they did not regard DL as a potential partner should the numbers come right, so what happened to change their minds as regards the suitability of them in the meantime? True, but prior to the election in 1992 FG made it very clear they did not regard DL as a potential partner should the numbers come right, so what happened to change their minds as regards the suitability of them in the meantime?

]]> By: Daniel Sullivan http://www.irishelection.com/2006/10/back-to-the-future-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3722 Daniel Sullivan Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:52:07 +0000 http://www.irishelection.com/10/back-to-the-future-or-i%e2%80%99ve-seen-the-past-and-it-works-fine-gaellabour-and-a-strategy-for-winning-the-next-election%e2%80%a6-part-2/#comment-3722 DL didn't have the votes in 92 for the government to be stable they and Labour did in 94. DL didn’t have the votes in 92 for the government to be stable they and Labour did in 94.

]]> By: WorldbyStorm http://www.irishelection.com/2006/10/back-to-the-future-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3719 WorldbyStorm Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:37:57 +0000 http://www.irishelection.com/10/back-to-the-future-or-i%e2%80%99ve-seen-the-past-and-it-works-fine-gaellabour-and-a-strategy-for-winning-the-next-election%e2%80%a6-part-2/#comment-3719 Two thoughts, Daniels question is very pertinant to the issue at hand. A lot rides on the outcome. Remember that in the early 1980s the WP abstained (as I recall on a vote for Haughey). Keith, a couple of things intrigue me about the time frames you propose. Why ten years for Labour and 20 or 30 years for Fine Gael? And surely my post above is predicated on just such a desperate need as was evident in 1994 - aka the necessity for a change at the top. How come DL was satisfactory as a partner in 1994 but not in 1992? What difference occured over the intervening two years. Regarding your points about the Government in the North I wonder if what you say is absolutely correct. My read of where the Agreement is being driven is one where a degree of collective responsibility is implicit in the workings of it. The text of the GFA seems to make it fairly clear that only by broad consensus could decisions be made - as with the establishment of all-island bodies and it's hard to envisage SF adopting the sort of knocking role you propose if it actually wants movement on those issues. So de facto an element of collective responsibility emerges. More to the point even if what you cite is absolutely correct, is that issue greater than say the fact of DUP and SF Ministers working together and exercising executive power within the six counties - which is de facto their role, and how does that actually debar them from power in the South even if true? What principle is at stake here? Two thoughts, Daniels question is very pertinant to the issue at hand. A lot rides on the outcome. Remember that in the early 1980s the WP abstained (as I recall on a vote for Haughey).

Keith, a couple of things intrigue me about the time frames you propose. Why ten years for Labour and 20 or 30 years for Fine Gael? And surely my post above is predicated on just such a desperate need as was evident in 1994 – aka the necessity for a change at the top. How come DL was satisfactory as a partner in 1994 but not in 1992? What difference occured over the intervening two years.

Regarding your points about the Government in the North I wonder if what you say is absolutely correct. My read of where the Agreement is being driven is one where a degree of collective responsibility is implicit in the workings of it. The text of the GFA seems to make it fairly clear that only by broad consensus could decisions be made – as with the establishment of all-island bodies and it’s hard to envisage SF adopting the sort of knocking role you propose if it actually wants movement on those issues. So de facto an element of collective responsibility emerges.

More to the point even if what you cite is absolutely correct, is that issue greater than say the fact of DUP and SF Ministers working together and exercising executive power within the six counties – which is de facto their role, and how does that actually debar them from power in the South even if true? What principle is at stake here?

]]> By: Keith http://www.irishelection.com/2006/10/back-to-the-future-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3699 Keith Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:27:14 +0000 http://www.irishelection.com/10/back-to-the-future-or-i%e2%80%99ve-seen-the-past-and-it-works-fine-gaellabour-and-a-strategy-for-winning-the-next-election%e2%80%a6-part-2/#comment-3699 I think there's a very important difference between being in Government in the North and being in Government in the South. In the North there's no Collective Responsibility. What the DUP Minister for Health does can be denounced just as easily by a Shinner Minister for Education as by someone on the sidelines. That can't happen in the South, because the Minister for Education is equally responsible for the Health Department as the Minister for Health (at least in the legal/constitutional sense). To be in Government with SF in the South, one would have to share responsibility for their actions in Government. That may be a step too far for anyone other than Fianna Fáil right now. Another twenty or thirty years will probably be required for Fine Gael & the PDs to accept them barring some desperate need for their support sooner than that (á la 1994 acceptance of DL by FG). Labour will most likely end up accepting them sooner than that, but don't underestimate the animosity between the two parties in the meantime. It'll be ten years at least before Labour would be willing to sit in Government with Sinn Féin, and that would need to be ten years without a single indiscretion on SF's part. I think there’s a very important difference between being in Government in the North and being in Government in the South. In the North there’s no Collective Responsibility. What the DUP Minister for Health does can be denounced just as easily by a Shinner Minister for Education as by someone on the sidelines. That can’t happen in the South, because the Minister for Education is equally responsible for the Health Department as the Minister for Health (at least in the legal/constitutional sense).
To be in Government with SF in the South, one would have to share responsibility for their actions in Government. That may be a step too far for anyone other than Fianna Fáil right now. Another twenty or thirty years will probably be required for Fine Gael & the PDs to accept them barring some desperate need for their support sooner than that (á la 1994 acceptance of DL by FG). Labour will most likely end up accepting them sooner than that, but don’t underestimate the animosity between the two parties in the meantime. It’ll be ten years at least before Labour would be willing to sit in Government with Sinn Féin, and that would need to be ten years without a single indiscretion on SF’s part.

]]> By: Daniel Sullivan http://www.irishelection.com/2006/10/back-to-the-future-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3685 Daniel Sullivan Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:34:04 +0000 http://www.irishelection.com/10/back-to-the-future-or-i%e2%80%99ve-seen-the-past-and-it-works-fine-gaellabour-and-a-strategy-for-winning-the-next-election%e2%80%a6-part-2/#comment-3685 I suppose the question that is most likely to occur is will SF be neutral in a vote for Taoiseach between Ahern and Kenny, or will they vote against one while abstaining in the vote for the other? I suppose the question that is most likely to occur is will SF be neutral in a vote for Taoiseach between Ahern and Kenny, or will they vote against one while abstaining in the vote for the other?

]]> By: Brian Boru http://www.irishelection.com/2006/10/back-to-the-future-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3624 Brian Boru Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:41:37 +0000 http://www.irishelection.com/10/back-to-the-future-or-i%e2%80%99ve-seen-the-past-and-it-works-fine-gaellabour-and-a-strategy-for-winning-the-next-election%e2%80%a6-part-2/#comment-3624 FG will never talk to SF I feel. Hostility to SF is too entrenched in that party and their traditional electorate would be horrified. This will help keep them in Opposition and that can only be a good thing. Also FG's big-business backers would balk at an alliance with SF which is hostile to multinational investment in Ireland and described private property in a document some time ago as "an instrument of oppression of the working-class". An alliance with SF would lead to an haemorraging of FG votes to the PDs. At the same time I doubt SF would want anything to do with them after Bruton's opposition of their participation in All-Party Talks in his term of office and the perceived cryptounionism and West-Britishness of FG. Many voters - including some Opposition voters - regard FG as too sympathetic to Northern Nationalists - bordering sometimes on hostility to their aspirations. That won't endear SF to them. FG will never talk to SF I feel. Hostility to SF is too entrenched in that party and their traditional electorate would be horrified. This will help keep them in Opposition and that can only be a good thing. Also FG’s big-business backers would balk at an alliance with SF which is hostile to multinational investment in Ireland and described private property in a document some time ago as “an instrument of oppression of the working-class”. An alliance with SF would lead to an haemorraging of FG votes to the PDs. At the same time I doubt SF would want anything to do with them after Bruton’s opposition of their participation in All-Party Talks in his term of office and the perceived cryptounionism and West-Britishness of FG. Many voters – including some Opposition voters – regard FG as too sympathetic to Northern Nationalists – bordering sometimes on hostility to their aspirations. That won’t endear SF to them.

]]> By: Simon http://www.irishelection.com/2006/10/back-to-the-future-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3610 Simon Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:26:42 +0000 http://www.irishelection.com/10/back-to-the-future-or-i%e2%80%99ve-seen-the-past-and-it-works-fine-gaellabour-and-a-strategy-for-winning-the-next-election%e2%80%a6-part-2/#comment-3610 <em>Simon, out of curiosity, what are you basing that assertion on?</em> Again a poll. In the Daily Mail put her on 6% Simon, out of curiosity, what are you basing that assertion on?

Again a poll. In the Daily Mail put her on 6%

]]> By: mollie malone http://www.irishelection.com/2006/10/back-to-the-future-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3607 mollie malone Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:53:56 +0000 http://www.irishelection.com/10/back-to-the-future-or-i%e2%80%99ve-seen-the-past-and-it-works-fine-gaellabour-and-a-strategy-for-winning-the-next-election%e2%80%a6-part-2/#comment-3607 the greens actually believe in something -something which is being spoken about every day the bloody environment so whether you live in a rural town and theyve turned off the water becuse its been polluted for the first time or the sixth time it must make people think or even just livid the production of food relevant to many waste management / the cost of it/ incineration all these weighty subjects were once an interest of the greens only many thought they were nutters then the others decided to pretend they were interested too but the lack of action on many of these issues has caught up on us and they are no longer debating or dinner party talk -theyre immediate theyre real the greens are not tainted with anything not with history or splits ( ive just touched wood !!!) theyre clean decent untainted - god they sound like a church and theyre rising in the charts !!!!!!!!! the greens actually believe in something -something which is being spoken about every day
the bloody environment
so whether you live in a rural town and theyve turned off the water becuse its been polluted for the first time or the sixth time it must make people think or even just livid

the production of food relevant to many

waste management / the cost of it/ incineration
all these weighty subjects were once an interest of the greens only
many thought they were nutters
then the others decided to pretend they were interested too
but the lack of action on many of these issues has caught up on us and they are no longer debating or dinner party talk -theyre immediate theyre real

the greens are not tainted with anything
not with history or splits ( ive just touched wood !!!)
theyre clean decent untainted – god they sound like a church
and theyre rising in the charts !!!!!!!!!

]]> By: WorldbyStorm http://www.irishelection.com/2006/10/back-to-the-future-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3596 WorldbyStorm Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:41:50 +0000 http://www.irishelection.com/10/back-to-the-future-or-i%e2%80%99ve-seen-the-past-and-it-works-fine-gaellabour-and-a-strategy-for-winning-the-next-election%e2%80%a6-part-2/#comment-3596 I guess Paddy the only rationale would literally be, Anyone but FF, a situation the current polls appear to offer, although theres still time for some turnaround, but I think you're right, short of that what's in it for FG and Labour? And yet, that sort of dynamic was strong enough in 1948 to give the first Inter-party coalition which was surely as diverse, if not more so... Moreover for those of us who recall 1992 where it took weeks before the government finally coalesced I suspect horse-trading between all parties would be at a premium. I don't believe it though... mollie, the Greens are very good on certain things, but I wonder if they have the weight of ideology or indeed support to travel far enough at this stage. I guess Paddy the only rationale would literally be, Anyone but FF, a situation the current polls appear to offer, although theres still time for some turnaround, but I think you’re right, short of that what’s in it for FG and Labour? And yet, that sort of dynamic was strong enough in 1948 to give the first Inter-party coalition which was surely as diverse, if not more so… Moreover for those of us who recall 1992 where it took weeks before the government finally coalesced I suspect horse-trading between all parties would be at a premium.

I don’t believe it though…

mollie, the Greens are very good on certain things, but I wonder if they have the weight of ideology or indeed support to travel far enough at this stage.

]]> By: Paddy Matthews http://www.irishelection.com/2006/10/back-to-the-future-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3594 Paddy Matthews Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:25:52 +0000 http://www.irishelection.com/10/back-to-the-future-or-i%e2%80%99ve-seen-the-past-and-it-works-fine-gaellabour-and-a-strategy-for-winning-the-next-election%e2%80%a6-part-2/#comment-3594 <i>Look at Mary Lou . She is doing very badly in a seat that Nicky Keoheo nearly took.</i> Simon, out of curiosity, what are you basing that assertion on? If it's the article in this month's <i>Magill</i>, I'd not give any more credence to something publised there than to reports of polls in the <i>Sunday Independent</i>. After all, Kehoe himself only stood for the first time in 2002, replacing Christy Burke who had been working the ground in Dublin Central for donkey's years. Look at Mary Lou . She is doing very badly in a seat that Nicky Keoheo nearly took.

Simon, out of curiosity, what are you basing that assertion on?

If it’s the article in this month’s Magill, I’d not give any more credence to something publised there than to reports of polls in the Sunday Independent.

After all, Kehoe himself only stood for the first time in 2002, replacing Christy Burke who had been working the ground in Dublin Central for donkey’s years.

]]>