When's a policy not policy? When the leader disagrees....

[David Cochrane]

At the Questions & Answer sessions of the Labour Youth conference, Pat Rabbitte was asked if he would ensure that any programme for Government would include a commitment to remove US troops from Shannon, he said no. This then resulted in someone raising a point of info from the floor, reminding him that this was party policy as passed by the last motion-based conference.

He said that that may be the case, but that it wasn't his opinion, and that he would be calling for inspections instead.

So my Monday afternoon question, is if a party votes on a motion of party policy, is the party leader bound by that decision, or, should the party leader, being the party leader be allowed to determine what's in the best interests of the party based on his own opinion?

What are your thoughts on this?

[jady88]

Of course it is all determined by each parties own internal rules etc. but in general i believe that the party leader should still be governed by the people and general membership.

Aside from that this shows the hypocrisy of Rabitte.

[Rapisco]

Then tell me, what is the purpose of motions so????

[lostexpectation]

was this motion on condition of government or condition of coalition government?

seeing as FG would never agree Pat's right, anyway it would take more then one government to reverse 50 years of foreign military flights.

[ocean]

If you're a minority party in a govt, PD, Lab, Greens, SF well then it's impossible that all your policies will become part of a govt programme.

In negotiations with a larger party they might have the opportunity to identify say four or five 'untouchables'. They will want to make sure that those are in areas that they feel resonate with the public. Like it or not, Troops in Shannon is not such an issue.

That is why that is at their peril that smaller parties go into these discussions with declared preconditions.

[daithimac]

Its usually best to have a leader who can deal with these situations more tactfully so as not to provoke division within his own party

[RyeSixSeven]

Circumstances can change, there can be background reasons not known to the group that set the policy.

Also, just because a majority agree on something doesn't always mean it should happen. Im sure you could find a majority in favour of executing paedophiles.

There are plenty of examples Im sure of Tony Blair ignoring party policy, or of leaders manipulating policy motions to their needs.

Bottom line, the leader needs some discretion to act (and diplomacy in executing it), but if he or she strays too far the party can remove their leader.

[Gladstone]

This puts all his anti-war rethoric into perspective....will he roll over like that on Universal Health Insurance, Free GP care? Investment in hospital beds?

Why should the party bother passing a policy if the leader can just ignore it?

[JimHacker]

if party policy is to oppose us troops at shannon but the leader can just ignore then i suppose he could equally ignore the policy of not going into government with ff?