Let’s hope that they don’t pull another Rabbitte out of the hat!

by C Murray Mon Aug 27, 2007 15:15

Interestingly since this morning Brendan Howlin has ruled himself out of the running
for leadership of Labour. Pity, really he distinguished himself more than Rabbitte bringing in
Private members on co-habitation and gay rights, taking on Mc Dowell's crap during the
criminal law (sexual Offences ) Bill (both 2006 and 2007, Minister Mc Dowell had neglected
not alone the constitutional wrongs of section 5 but had neglected the solicitation and by
extension the trafficking aspects of child protection laws. Howlin also fought on TD
privlege in relation to the Donegal issue. This leaves Eamon Gilmore in the running, wondering if
Joan Burton will run (finance tends to follow on in that way- ask Brian Cowen, Bertie is going
to Europe, apparently). Spotted in the Irish independent , which ye get with coffee in cafes:-
'Jobs for the Boys- FG wants to entice more TD's,' well , of course they do and its a boys game
cos otherwise the women community leaders would have been co-opted ages ago. Its
far-sighted electoral policy with the FG/Lab parties translating power in terms of the FF
sexist type (FF pushed the guys at the election) and the Greens too, like to project the image of
the male politician as well, with seven years under their belts and only one female TD
to their name. There really is a lack of female voice in the Dail with Mary harney leading the PD's
and the female deputies not putting themselves forward for leadership roles.

by electoral fall out Mon Aug 27, 2007 09:30

The men are asserting their credentials on the meat block, the women are not putting
their names forward yet. Don't like the political positioning of Quinn and Rabbitte, Burton
is a highly talented Finance and Liz Mc manus is too wealthy, too caught up in the bray
property market to even consider the position.

Maybe young labour will rescue the aging beer guts back to the principles of socialism
cos Old Labour are moving to globalisation, repression of unions and centrism.
They represent the moneyed enfranchised and betrayed gama and the Nurses.
Note their silence on aer lingus.....

by Runner Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:50

The PD's will liberalise anything, long as a profit can be made. they hi-jack issues,
for example Liz O Donnell tried to liberalise women's issues, in tandem with Mary harney's
ability to profit seek through embroyo and bio-tech research (patents etc)
Mc Dowell refused and blockaded Howlin's attempts to liberalise the gay/long term co-habitation laws
in the Dail (in the run up to the election) cos he wanted to introduce a similar set of laws with a middle
class bias- where Labour failed was in refusing to deal with their natural constituency- the workers
and the poor. if all politicos represent the perceived financial borgeouis types (its all about tax bands
and thatcherism) then theres no room for marginal representation. i.e The democracy they
think they are repsresenting is the new wealth created by FF. The white-tipped/SUV/Property buyer in the EU
who only cares to skim the surface and ignore desperation caused by centralisation of
health services/privatisation of schools etcetera. Centrism does not work, effectively Pat Rabbitte
continued the route to a two-party US system and in disenfranchised the already marginalised.
he followed the Lead of FF and Bertie whose translation of 'socialism' is enriching and marginaliseing
the opposition did not provide any worthwhile opposition which is why FF suceed.
Who is Ralph Nader- Gormley or Adams?

by Floater Fri Aug 24, 2007 06:30

I generally agree with Jay's designations above. Yes, FF is Centrist-Pragmatic (it has been this generally since the 1960s, with the exception of drastic cuts in govt. expenditure in the late 1980s by Ray 'Mac the Knife' MacSharry when he was Finance Minister). FG (Centrist-Conservative) seems an apt designation for FG. Its economics has always focused on the middle class professions and medium-large business interests. Didn't one of the Cumann na nGael (forerunner of FG) ministers pinch a shilling off the old age pension in the 1920s?

What I query is the designation of PD as 'Liberal'.

This word liberal needs more careful handling. In the 19th century UK (of which Ireland was a part) liberalism on the economic front was associated with free trade and minimal govt. intervention in the economy i.e. fiscal stinginess, which was no good to the degraded urban underclasses. OK, there was a certain progressive taint in liberalism's social policy - widening of the franchise, more schools for the underclass, introduction of pensions, and a steady attempt to deal humanely with the Irish Question. (This ultimately failed, and the IRB and Sinn Fein organised a different turbulent approach to the Question.) Now Liberal economic policies since the Monetarist writings of Milton Friedman gained political clout in the late 1970s in USA and UK have been associated with drastic cutbacks in social welfare (Thatcher-the-milk-snatcher in UK, and deregulation of airlines and union smashing by Reagan in USA, as examples) and privatisation of state controlled enterprises. (Selling off the family jewellery). Maybe this economic liberalism appealed to the ideologue think-tankers in the PD party, but it never appealed to the FF party faithful or the Irish public generally. The only claim to be liberal that the PDs could mention in their manifestoes was the party's stance on what former Senator Brendan Ryan called "pelvic issues" i.e. contraception, divorce, gay rights, child care facilities. Such issues are a middle class sop to the underclass, and making contraception easily available to the urban underclass is part of a strategy by the 'liberals' to reduce the underclass numbers and thereby save on government spending on the same class.

Liberalism has a historical record on the issue of free speech that I can admire. Its record on economic policies is very mixed. If it came to a collapsing air balloon game, I'd throw out the PD liberal long before the FF liberal. But I wouldn't like to be a passenger in a falling balloon.

by Runner Thu Aug 23, 2007 20:53

The worrying thing is this: we have an obviously corrupt legislature who have been burying planning
corruption and crony profiteering in the dirt for years, an angry electorate and an opposition with
connections to the far right and uber-catholicism. Tis a rock and a hard place. The unique
Irish interpretation of democratic mandate that sees a Green party give up both its principles
and grassroot and will ultimately fail in an election leaves growing room for the far right
and their blueshirt brand of nanny stateism. The left must advocate and represent at community
level beginning with the 2009 county council elections.
Interpreting 'Centrism' as a run-off from a corrupt general election, where Brian Cowen admitted
meeting the eds at the Irish independent and where Mc Dowell was openly humiliated(with
good cause) is a cop-out. the election was bought through a combination of the
biggest spin doctor and media monitoring service in the EU and an aversion by the middle classes
to the FG/Lab coalition (which goes down the wire regarding both tax and rural issues).
FG wil be resurgent unless urban based parties begin representing the ordinary people at
grassroot level. Now. (ish) FF are in power too long and the alternative is the tub thumping
morass of the blondey thug in FG.

by Jay Thu Aug 23, 2007 20:29

''the electorate don't buy centrism when all it guarantees is more of the same.''

The results of the recent election say different;
Fianna Fail (Centre, pragmatist) slight decrease
Fine Gael (Centre, conservative) large increase
Labour (Centre/Left, mildly-socialist (sometimes)) stagnant
PDs (Liberal) wiped out
Socialists wiped out
Greens stagnant
Sinn Fein stagnant

Given the results it seems as if the electorate clearly DO buy centerism, with the minority left wing and right wing parties all suffering losses or remaining on the same number of seats. Labour could have gained more votes by identifying with the commuters of Dublin, the east coast and the large urban centres, but they wouldn't drop the outdated socialist-leaning policies that simply don't attract voters today as they did in the 1970s and 1980s. Either go hard left and take a chance, or go towards the centre and remain safe for a few more years.

by Run Rabbitte Run! Thu Aug 23, 2007 16:47

Do the victors of the dirtiest general election campaign in the History of the State
who seem to grow through absorbtion and criminal activity enjoy watching the fall-out?

#Mc Dowell
#Sargent
#Rabbitte

or are they beginning to realise that opposition means just that ,opposing the criminality
and expedience of a right-wing government that has been in power too long- Rabbitte
went because he did not effectively oppose the style of the Government and the electorate
don't buy centrism when all it guarantees is more of the same.
Labour were not there for the environment. The unions. the Nurses. The Health Crisis.
and whilst cogigtating in a focus group with SF may help adapt a more centrist approach to
politics- it still accepts the status quo and works within.

So Long Pat and thanks for all the Fish!

Still, Enda Kenny's right-wing muscular Catholicism will probably attract the PD fall-out.
and not one victorious party is listening to its grassroot- especially the Greens , who will
reap the benfit of their power-positioning in the next election= protest votes all round.