It didn't work in 2002 so why will it work in 2007?

[Gombeen]

My apologies if this has been answered at some point already but I have been unable to find a clear answer on it on the many threads I have read on the subject.

I still don't understand why so many Labour members/supporters seem to have such a problem with the pact with FG. The argument that Labour should fight an independent platform going into the election seems very weak, since you did that in 2002 and it really didn't get you anywhere.

Labour didn't get damaged in 2002, but clearly failed to capiltalise on anti-government discontent and failed to get into government. Ruairí Quinn's stategy didn't work. He resigned and was replaced by Pat Rabbitte who unsurprisingly decided that Labour needed a new tactic. Both Labour and FG went on in 2004 to clean up in the local elections by way of a pact that diplayed a clear electoral alternative government to the electorate. Something that was clearly lacking in 2002. Clearly the pact was getting Labour somewhere.

Then we have one or two bad opinion polls for the alternative coalition and a bunch of you go into panic mode straight away (despite the huge gains in the locals and the tens of polls previous that showed you were making inroads) and talking about how Rabbitte is destroying the party and how he needs to be ditched. The words 'ungrateful backstabbers' was ones that entered my mind at least once on such occasions.

Now I can completely understand the wish of Labour people to not get drowned out by FG in such an arrangment and find themselves being dictated to in such a situation and to have their ideology diluted. That's certainly one of the motivations the Greens have for staying out of a pre-election pact. But the Greens and Labour are not the same. Labour is much bigger, older and more established than we are and have experience of government. There is also a lot more expectation and pressure on Labour to enter government than there is of the Greens. Labour do not face the same danger of being wiped out in a single election because of bad election tactics, in the way that the Greens or the PDs do.

So it's up to Labour people to set the agenda then, in the publications of joint-policies etc. Ditching Rabbitte will not improve that. It'll just return you to the political wilderness again.

Another very weak argument is the one that Labour and FG are incompatible. Anyone who uses this argument (from whatever political persuasion) clearly has selective amnesia that forgets every government prior to 1997. FG and Labour has been in government consistently in coalition since the first coalition government in 1948. The exception to the rule was the brief coalition with FF with didn't even last one whole term. I'd certainly accept that Labour are more left-wing than FG but claiming governmental incompatability is just laughable to anyone who's aware of Irish electoral history.

So the only real argument left as far as I can see, seems to be a very spineless, Machiavellian and unprincipled idea that a couple of bad polls means your only option is to prostrate yourselves at FFs feet and beg forgiveness like the Prodigal Son and beg to be let in instead of the PDs and "sure we'll throw a blind eye to how you've mis-spent countless billions and let blatant corruption run rampant without any consequences. But as long as Labour are in government, at least it'll seem like things are changing. Oh and all that guff for ten years about you governing badly was just a joke. We love you really!"

If that's the real reason some Labour members want to ditch Rabbitte and the accord, you'll have only yourselves to blame for giving FF/PDs a third term, since most everyone else will have lost any respect they had for the Labour party by then. I know I certainly will.

[FutureTaoiseach]

I would contend that Labour would have done even worse in 2002 had they entered a pact with FG. The smaller party usually does badly out of these pacts because the elephant takes up most of the electoral bed at the minnow's expense e.g. FG-PD 1987, FF-PD 1997, FG-Lab 1997. Labour will pay for surrendering its soul to the Blueshirts next year. :wink:

BTW the same would be the case if they entered a pact with FF.

[Gombeen]

I would contend that Labour would have done even worse in 2002 had they entered a pact with FG.

That's an extremely moot point.

I would contend that Labour would have done even worse in 2002 had they entered a pact with FG. The smaller party usually does badly out of these pacts because the elephant takes up most of the electoral bed at the minnow's expense e.g. FG-PD 1987, FF-PD 1997, FG-Lab 1997. Labour will pay for surrendering its soul to the Blueshirts next year. :wink:

And the doubling og the PDs seats to 8 while in a pact with FF, when they only got four outside of a pact five years previously? I can certainly conceed that a smaller party can bear the brunt in such situations, but it's not inevitable, as your own party has proved.
You see the weak element of that argument is that that pattern is based on a government leaving office, not one trying to enter it. And the fact is with a pre-election pact or without one, the two parties would almost inevitably be campaigning on a common platform in 2012 anyway, if they managed to enter government in 2007.

[THR]

Excuse me for my ignorance on the Irish domestic politics but I understand that FF is a party of very right-wing, should one even say Thatcherite, reforms and therefore Labour does not fit well into that pattern. Has there ever been a coalition in Ireland including both FF and Labour?

There is the other thread about Bertie Ahern opening the doors for a possible coalition with the greens or the labour. It really is a plan B for FF if they fail to get a majority with PD. Do Labour or the greens condescend to being a plan B?

If FG, the greens and Labour have anything in common, then they should fight the election on a common platform.

[Rocky]

I would contend that Labour would have done even worse in 2002 had they entered a pact with FG. The smaller party usually does badly out of these pacts because the elephant takes up most of the electoral bed at the minnow's expense e.g. FG-PD 1987, FF-PD 1997, FG-Lab 1997. Labour will pay for surrendering its soul to the Blueshirts next year. :wink:

BTW the same would be the case if they entered a pact with FF.

Actually the last time there was a pact while both parties were in opposition was in 73 and in that election Labour gained a seat. I'm fairly sure there wasn't one in 81 or 82.

[FutureTaoiseach]

And the doubling og the PDs seats to 8 while in a pact with FF, when they only got four outside of a pact five years previously? I can certainly conceed that a smaller party can bear the brunt in such situations, but it's not inevitable, as your own party has proved.
You see the weak element of that argument is that that pattern is based on a government leaving office, not one trying to enter it. And the fact is with a pre-election pact or without one, the two parties would almost inevitably be campaigning on a common platform in 2012 anyway, if they managed to enter government in 2007.

Factcheck - the PDs were not in a transfer-pact with FF in 2002, whereas they were in 1997. In 1997 they told PD voters to transfer to FF, whereas in 2002 they refused.

Actually the last time there was a pact while both parties were in opposition was in 73 and in that election Labour gained a seat. I'm fairly sure there wasn't one in 81 or 82.

That may be the exception that proves the rule. In the majority of cases the rule holds true.

Excuse me for my ignorance on the Irish domestic politics but I understand that FF is a party of very right-wing, should one even say Thatcherite, reforms and therefore Labour does not fit well into that pattern. Has there ever been a coalition in Ireland including both FF and Labour?

FF and FG are centrist parties with little ideology other than FF being more nationalist on issues like NI and FG being more partitionist. The ideological flavour of a govt in this country depends on who the junior Coalition partner is.

[Gombeen]

Factcheck - the PDs were not in a transfer-pact with FF in 2002, whereas they were in 1997. In 1997 they told PD voters to transfer to FF, whereas in 2002 they refused.

Reality check: Any two coalition partners who are seeking re-election are de facto mutually supporting each other electorally. Anyone with any vague intelligence who can read between the lines of what is said can see the inevitability of that.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Factcheck - the PDs were not in a transfer-pact with FF in 2002, whereas they were in 1997. In 1997 they told PD voters to transfer to FF, whereas in 2002 they refused.

Reality check: Any two coalition partners who are seeking re-election are de facto mutually supporting each other electorally. Anyone with any vague intelligence who can read between the lines of what is said can see the inevitability of that.

Experience shows that the electorate usually interprets an electoral-pact as evidence that the smaller party is irrelevant as it's only there to "make up the numbers" for the larger party, causing people to feel they might as well vote for the larger party in such an arrangement. I stand over what I said. FF's nod-and-wink at Labour and the Greens demonstrates that what you are saying about de-facto support being implied by 2 parties already being in govt with each other is not correct.

[tonys]

Excuse me for my ignorance on the Irish domestic politics but I understand that FF is a party of very right-wing, should one even say Thatcherite, reforms and therefore Labour does not fit well into that pattern.

[THR]

Excuse me for my ignorance on the Irish domestic politics but I understand that FF is a party of very right-wing, should one even say Thatcherite, reforms and therefore Labour does not fit well into that pattern.

Hahahaa to you too.