Are Labour limited by their own ambitions?

[NZ Blaa]

It seems to me that for the second time in 20 years the Labour party have limited their potential gains by their sheer lack of ambition and by doing so have missed out on a huge opportunity to take on a national leadership role. I have read many times that the ‘Spring Tide’ would have brought a lot more TDs in than the 33 that they did in 92, if they put forward more candidates. Could they have made the same mistake this time in the locals?

I do not profess by any stretch of the imagination to be an expert in election strategy or the criteria of selection but looking at some constituencies I think they were really hamstrung by themselves. Either through personal refusal to countenance a running mate, or just the lack of candidates. For example in Waterford city, historically a very much left leaning city there are 3 wards. In 04 each ward comfortably elected a councillor, there were no running mates. This year again the three councillors were returned, 2 in the first count and the last one was second elected in his ward. Again none had a running mate. One, the current mayor, was running in an enlarged ward, still was on his own.

Labour could very very easily have become the largest party in Waterford city, instead were satisfied with their three for three. Are there other areas where this was mimicked? Or is Waterford the only place where they seem to have a dearth of ambition?

Their performance in the Euros was exceptional, could they have echoed this performance with more candidates in the locals? So it this a lack of ambition, a lack of conviction in their beliefs, or just a sign that the candidates have too much sway in constituency strategy?

[Eorna]

It seems to me that for the second time in 20 years the Labour party have limited their potential gains by their sheer lack of ambition and by doing so have missed out on a huge opportunity to take on a national leadership role. I have read many times that the ‘Spring Tide’ would have brought a lot more TDs in than the 33 that they did in 92, if they put forward more candidates. Could they have made the same mistake this time in the locals?

I do not profess by any stretch of the imagination to be an expert in election strategy or the criteria of selection but looking at some constituencies I think they were really hamstrung by themselves. Either through personal refusal to countenance a running mate, or just the lack of candidates. For example in Waterford city, historically a very much left leaning city there are 3 wards. In 04 each ward comfortably elected a councillor, there were no running mates. This year again the three councillors were returned, 2 in the first count and the last one was second elected in his ward. Again none had a running mate. One, the current mayor, was running in an enlarged ward, still was on his own.

Labour could very very easily have become the largest party in Waterford city, instead were satisfied with their three for three. Are there other areas where this was mimicked? Or is Waterford the only place where they seem to have a dearth of ambition?

Their performance in the Euros was exceptional, could they have echoed this performance with more candidates in the locals? So it this a lack of ambition, a lack of conviction in their beliefs, or just a sign that the candidates have too much sway in constituency strategy?

Labour do not have the numbers on the ground and there is large swathes of the country where they do not exist at all, it is the greatest hurdle to their ambition of becoming the no. 2 party.

[mccafferty cat]

Labour got 14% of the vote - less than half of FG's tally (32%) and miles behind FF (24%)

And yet, Gilmore persists with this laughable notion that the next general election will be a 3-way contest between FF, FG and Labour