Head over to our T
Labour’s Lost Opportunity
Read more about: Government, Irish Election, Labour Party, Polls 
Labour has taken quite a hit in the recent opinion polls. When Pat Rabbitte was elected leader, I was pleased that the party would be led by someone who was capable of devising the kind of political strategy that might take the party beyond the limits of traditional labourism. While the party quickly dispensed with the sitting-on-the-fence strategy of the previous leadership, there was no bold follow up in terms of recasting the party’s identity and political strategy.
Everything has been sacrificed to the strategy of aligning with Fine Gael. Rabbitte genuinely believes that removing Fianna Fail for a couple of terms is for the good of the body politic. It’s hard to disagree with that, given the entrenched cronyism and soft corruption associated with the ruling party.
There are few who would argue the case for staying out of government until the left wins a majority—the position held be many Labour left-wingers in the 1970s and 1980s. The dynamics of our winner-take-all Westminster system inevitably makes political leaders choose office holding over policy and votes. So, given that Irish political leaders will never refuse office when the opportunity is presented, how do we reconcile the imperatives of office holding with the pursuit of political and ideological goals, which is what drove us into politics in the first place? There is no contradiction here in principle but, in practice, the parties of the left have never emerged strengthened after serving in government as the junior partner in a coalition inevitably dominated by a much larger party of the centre-right.
Let us suppose that the current polling boost for the governing coalition proves to be temporary and that the fortunes of the Rainbow are restored (the next Red C monthly tracking poll should be interesting). The question is, can Labour emerge from another spell in government without the damage and demoralisation that usually ensues? Again, there’s no reason in principle why not, but I’m sceptical and not very optimistic. This is partly to do with the likely numbers; Labour will do well to hold its current total of seats in the Dail seats or add a couple at best. The big winners are likely to be Fine Gael and, possibly, the Greens. Maybe one or two leftie independents will be required as well. So Labour will not have much extra traction in the post election negotiations over policy programmes and who occupies what cabinet post. Still, with a little luck, the party may find itself back in government and with some highly capable individuals appointed to ministerial office, they might make a decent fist of it.
There’s still every chance for a competent, clean and moderately reforming alternative government taking office after the next election. But a real opportunity for Labour has been lost. Rabbitte’s leadership could have started a process of political and ideological renewal that would have been based on a conviction-driven determination to strengthen the party’s position vis-a-vis Fine Gael. This never happened and many people in and around the Labour Party are baffled as to why. I put it down to an ageing and tired generation of political leaders who have the sense that this is their last chance to achieve anything in politics and have chosen the least risky means of doing so. The theme of a “strong society and a weak economy” makes sense if you’re trying to minimise differences with your future coalition partner, but it abdicates responsibility for developing a critical view of the Irish economy that should be at the core of the party’s message.
Instead we have the reassuring promises that taxes won’t go up under Labour. It would appear that the party has decided to attract the floating middle strata who might have voted FF last time. Focus groups delivered the message that there was nervousness about Labour’s ability to maintain current economic prosperity. This sort of approach may appeal to a risk-averse leadership but I’m convinced that a more honest and critical approach would appeal to many. The trouble with Rabbitte is that he’s only half right on some some of the key questions; he’s right to want to remove FF from office but wrong in his approach. The Mullingar Accord provides clarity of choice for the electorate but weakens Labour’s identity and distinctiveness. He’s right about the weak society but wrong about the strong economy. The old Workers’ Party, for all it myriad faults, argued that the economy was central to the concerns of a left party. Yes, it produced some policies that were barmy but at least the focus was in the right place.
Labour stood at 22% after it elected Rabbitte and was still at 19% according to a MRBI October 2003 survey. Now that figure is down to 10%. All historical precedence says that Labour,as part of a rainbow coalition wil not gain the extra 25 seats needed to be elected. Fitzgerald couldn’t manage it, neither did Fianna Fail in the 77 election. Labour has not just comprimised for FG, it has capitulated. Traditionally it has believed in wealth distribution, now it believes in low taxes. It has a pro-choice policy but would never mention it, fearing it would scare FG transfers. Thre is no alternative. The choice we have is like choosing between a chicken royale meal and a McChiken sandwich meal. Everytime labour has gone into government with a FF o FG it has losts seats at the following election in 48,54,73, 81 (remained the same), 82 and 92. Labour has alienated its base like the ATGWU for example who are totally against any FF/FG pact and labours view on social partnership. Labour should prepare for another 5 years in opposition followed by another period propping up FG
Labour doesnt have much option but to people- please on the tax issue
otherwise they would be slaughtered at the polls – ive listened to the arguements against labour coalesing with fine gael or others for decades but who can wait decades for them to go it alone? i agree with higher taxes ….
i agree that the policies of labour should be articulated now – dammit i dont believe it should be left till the bloody election is announced
you get a very potted version then, we deserve better
the housing situation for young adults and what this government has done to young adults needing housing over the last ten years needs to be exploited sometime i wonder are the opposition up for it ? not a word about timber framed houses cheaper to build and easier on energy and much faster to build
this is a major bread and butter issue
george lee rte ecomomist on tuesday this week on ryan tubridys programme beginning of the programme you can listen back to it – let fly on this subject i never heard anything like it
he was brilliant
labour party need to get a hold of this and repeat it like a mantra
in fact if someone got a copy it could go into print on this site
housing and planning are major subjects affecting all our lives
labours version of what it should be like -we all need to hear
just today on newstalk i heard a rep. from a federation of res assoc in Laois say that 15 res associations had complaints against developers in their area concerning unfinished work on their estates. A guy from the industry was pathetic on the issue.
its not difficult to alienate the atgwu, they are left wing i am left wing and the labour party really isnt -but they are not ff or pd
there has to be an alternative to fianna fail and the pds
its up to us to embarrass the labour party into what they should be doing
into being radical- screw fine gael- if they want power theyll jump.
this awful practice of the parties saying what the issues are crime health and education
they say
thats complete bunkum we need to decide what the issues are
lets hope it happens ………………
I don’t understand how Gerry can liken our Liberal and democratic constitution — with its democratically elected President, and its bicameral legislature whose Dáil members are elected by PR to represent multi-seat constituencies and who in turn elect a Taoiseach who is accountable to the Dáil — to Her Majesty’s winner-take-all Westminster system.
Nor can I. Our system of government is the Westminister system with a few tweaks, but we don’t use FPTP in elections, we use STV.
Forget about the obvious differences – Ireland not having a crowned head of state and our PR-STV and multi-party system. Look at the structure of power. For both Westminster and the Oireachtas the executive completely dominates the legislature by virtue of winning the election to the lower house. The party or combination of parties that win the election has all the power and the opposition has none. It’s a zero-sum game. Both polities are highly centralised, Ireland especially so. There are no regions that the opposition party at national level can rule, unlike federal states such as Germany. There are no directly elected city mayoralities that could provide opposition politicians with a platform outside of the national level. Furthermore, we do not have the system of parliamentary committees that are common in European legislatures that allow the non-governing parties some significant legislative input.
The fact that we have a large number of parties is largely a consequence of our use of STV, but when people say winner-take-all, they’re usually referring to the use of FPTP being used for elections. Westminister system is also the name of a system of parliamentary government, hence my links.
Is there a parliamentary democracy where this isn’t so?
Your complaint is more down to poor Dáil procedures than anything else, such as substitution of scripts for actual debate, the lack of a reasonable amount of time for leader’s questions, the weak committee system, the fact that the independents have to form a “Technical Group” to get anything on the order of business, &c.
Yup, I agree, and I’d like to see something like that happening. But implementing that would mean real decentralisation, and it’ll be a cold day in hell before you see any of the parties advocating that in any meaningful way.
Never mind that, at least mayors are indirectly elected, but the county managers are not.
We do, they’re just rather weak, with the exception possibly of the PAC.
lazy, no hunger, predestined belief in their own superiority.
Forget about the obvious differences is a weak opening response.
However, Gerry also fails to acknowledge another Westminster analogy, namely the fact that we have a professional and impartial civil service, sometimes called the permanent government. He also forgets that we have a Seanad which provides within our legislature the augmented representation which some states achieve through an electoral list system. Thirdly, he overlooks the crucial role of the committee stage in legislating, where line by line discussion and amendment of legislation takes place in what is, after all, a legislature. Fourthly, the majority system of government doesn’t take kindly to ‘princes across the water’ in any guise, and what he really wants is institutionalised power for parties which have failed to persuade enough electors to let them govern.
what he has elsewhere argued for
we do not have the system of parliamentary committees that are common in European legislatures that allow the non-governing parties some significant legislative input.