Fianna Fail and Fine Gael: is there much Difference?

Bob Z

Both of thes parties are both right wing. So apart from the personalities involved is there mich of a difference in their policies? Could they combine into one party?

Biggins

I hope not, there should always be a viable alternative barking at government heels.
If at the very least, it helps to keep the present lot in line at least to some extent!

That said, the lines between the two parties and their idology has become somewhat intermingled.
What each one stands for and where they differ from the other, is not very clear any more to the public.

Bob Z

Biggins wrote: »

I hope not, there should always be a viable alternative barking at government heels.
If at the very least, it helps to keep the present lot in line at least to some extent!

That said, the lines between the two parties and their idology has become somewhat intermingled.
What each one stands for and where they differ from the other, is not very clear any more to the public.

i dont think there has ever been much of a difference. When you hear them argue it always seems to be management not about policy differences

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I think the fact that the two main parteis are similar says a lot about the electorate. Ireland is a very mainstream country and has very mainstream political parties. Any party that was significantly different wouldn't get a look in on election day.

Bob Z

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I think the fact that the two main parteis are similar says a lot about the electorate. Ireland is a very mainstream country and has very mainstream political parties. Any party that was significantly different wouldn't get a look in on election day.

but i dont think people vote on policy anyway. I could be wrong but most i know seem to vote the way their parents and grandparents voted.

ChocolateSauce

Bob Z wrote: »

but i dont think people vote on policy anyway. I could be wrong but most i know seem to vote the way their parents and grandparents voted.

It all dates back to which side did you support, the free staters or the republicans? And our great-grandparents passed their voting habits down the generations, and while the parties have changed, the loyalty has not. I see not one reason why both parties shouldn't be dissolved and replaced with real parties which offer real, actual different policies and ideologies. Or any ideology for that matter, something both sorely lack at present.

Elmo

Really they need to be forced into government with each other. A Grand Colition if you will.

Labour won't let that happen, if Labour get 30 seats in the next election it will be hello government forget about that manifesto thing we wrote about, we are happy to be FG/FF for a few years.

They should have done it back in 1992 when they had 33 seats. Letting FG/FF merge into a grand colition rather then swapping sides half way through the election would have been far more benifical to Labour. Whom I beleive lost seats because they entered government with FF and then FG, which was worse?

I know your going to say a grand colition like that would mean at least a 110 seat strong government, but at least we would actually have an opposition.

Just my opinion. In answer to the OPs question. FF = FG there is very little difference, only one is in Government and the other is not.

Also FF are professional politicans, while FG are amatures.

El Stuntman

Elmo wrote: »

Also FF are professional politicans, while FG are amatures.

yes, they are doing a really professional job in Government at present :rolleyes:

Elmo

El Stuntman wrote: »

yes, they are doing a really professional job in Government at present :rolleyes:

There is a difference between a professional government and a professional politician. Bertie would have survived the current mess, in the same way he surived the election. I amn't suggesting that there is something wonderful about being a professional politican, only good thing is you know you will be elected.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bob Z wrote: »

but i dont think people vote on policy anyway. I could be wrong but most i know seem to vote the way their parents and grandparents voted.

I think that illusion is dead. Certainly my generation (I'm in my mid 30s) doesn't give a **** about familial alliances. I don't even know what way my family used to vote, and both my parents have changed alligiance at some point in the last 20 odd years.

I doubt the younger generation will care either, especially in Dublin. We've got balls.

That said, you may be right - policies aren't that dissimlar.

eoin5

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

That said, you may be right - policies aren't that dissimlar.

But any little difference is like a dead cow on the train tracks. I think the history of the two parties is the main reason why they wouldnt cooperate well together. They argue too much over the mistakes they have made. The recent budget is matched well with an interesting childrens shoe incident.

brianthebard

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It all dates back to which side did you support, the free staters or the republicans? And our great-grandparents passed their voting habits down the generations, and while the parties have changed, the loyalty has not. I see not one reason why both parties shouldn't be dissolved and replaced with real parties which offer real, actual different policies and ideologies. Or any ideology for that matter, something both sorely lack at present.

I think its more complex than that. Since the famine the people who were likely to hold extremist political ideological views were the people who emigrated because there was no way they could succeed in Ireland. As a result the population at home came to benefit least from a government (any government) pursuing radical policies. A clear case in point would be the furore over the mothers and child scheme by Browne, which was in no way radical but appeared so to some people at the time. Ireland has become one of the most politically conservative countries there is.

timbel

Elmo wrote: »

Bertie would have survived the current mess, in the same way he surived the election.

I'm not so sure. Part of the reason we are in the mess we are, is that Bertie couldn't/wouldn't say no to anybody. It was described as 'building consensus', but amounted to caving in to all demands.

However, the situation we have now, there is no money to do this.
Bertie got out at the right time.

Elmo

timbel wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Part of the reason we are in the mess we are, is that Bertie couldn't/wouldn't say no to anybody. It was described as 'building consensus', but amounted to caving in to all demands.

However, the situation we have now, there is no money to do this.
Bertie got out at the right time.

Professional Politican = Wessel, Sly Fox etc.

Bertie would just have the people eating out of his hand, he can just do that for some strange reason. Very aggravating, I would say Cowan is even more aggravated then I am.

irish_bob

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I think that illusion is dead. Certainly my generation (I'm in my mid 30s) doesn't give a **** about familial alliances. I don't even know what way my family used to vote, and both my parents have changed alligiance at some point in the last 20 odd years.

I doubt the younger generation will care either, especially in Dublin. We've got balls.

That said, you may be right - policies aren't that dissimlar.

its is far from dead , in fact outside dublin , the majority of people still vote based on who thier parents , grandparents and so on voted , were this not the case then the greens , the pd,s and sinn fein would have grown this past few elections

as a nation , we are utterly predictable and conformist in how we vote

Dob74

FF=FG.

The banking crisis was a time to shine. But FG proved they are just the same as FF. The party of the merchant princes is the same as the party of chancers.

asdasd

as a nation , we are utterly predictable and conformist in how we vote

bully for us. The real question isnt the survival of Fianna Fail - which is , now, a center right party ( with some statist policies, and public sector links) - survives, it has been in givernment. The question is why Fine Gael votes dont go to labour etc.

But to beg the question answers it. Fianna Fail has more working class support than labour. It is a populist party like the PRI in Mexico with links to business but also a record of left wing measures - free education etc. which in other countries were implemented by left wing governments.

Fine Gael is the natural home of ranchers and small businessmen. So unless labour can steal FF populist vote, the situation stays as it is.

turgon

Another thread to remind us how depressing the political spectrum is in Ireland.

A grand coalition, as suggested by a previous poster, would serve one benificial purpose and that would be to affirm in everyones mind that FG and FF are the same. At the moment a lot of people buy into the tit for tat stuff of the dail nor realizing that a lot of measures might be similer is FG were in power.

Because of this there lacks real choice for people in some issues. Like, who could I vote for confident they would legalize abortion??

asdasd

Like, who could I vote for confident they would legalize abortion??

You would have to dissolve the people and elect another.

Elmo

The question is why Fine Gael votes dont go to labour etc.

I think you mean why FF votes are passed on to Labour, SF, The Greens and Independents.

I think it is because of the coverage that FG have had, Labour haven't had a look in with the media. Richard Bruton is on Prime Time with Brian Lehinan, where was Labour? But then Labour made a bad pact with FG before the GE yet again.

Because of this there lacks real choice for people in some issues. Like, who could I vote for confident they would legalize abortion??

I personally believe issues like abortion should not be party political. Rather if a TD is pro-life or pro-choice it should be up to them not the party. I am a democrat and I don't beleive a referundum on abortion would be best served if only one side was heard and lets face it if they do change the rules on referundia the abortion debate would be one sided and undemocratic IMO. Of course both sides of that argument would need a government to actually put forward a real referndum on the subject first. Sorry I don't want to get into a debate about abortion, I only bring it up as it relates to the current situation with the Communications comitee.

You would have to dissolve the people and elect another.

hehe they would need the vote first.

Bob Z

I know Some people say The Democrats and The republicans are the same in the US and they say the same about The Tories and Labour but isn't FF and FG even more closely related?

Elmo

Bob Z wrote: »

I know Some people say The Democrats and The republicans are the same in the US and they say the same about The Tories and Labour but isn't FF and FG even more closely related?

I would say that they are equally similar. Labour and the Tories prior to 1997 very different. I don't think Barack Obama will change much, but I am sure he is totally different to Bush.

FG and FF are very alike, too alike IMO. That is why I would like to see a grand coilition in 2012. And a Labour lead government in 2016 <<< 2016 just for the 100th Anniversary of the Rising.

Dob74

Bob Z wrote: »

I know Some people say The Democrats and The republicans are the same in the US and they say the same about The Tories and Labour but isn't FF and FG even more closely related?

In the US the Democrats and Republicians are fundamentally different. Democrats depend on a Left wing coalition of the Unions(Afl-Cio), the Lawyers and Minoities. The Republicans depend on a right coalition of Churchs, Gun Owners and Big business. There are different types of party beliefs throughout such a large country. A southern democrat would bo different then a New Democrat. But they generally follow the party line. FF and FG are pretty much the same thing. They do not defer on any major policies.

Elmo

Dob74 wrote: »

In the US the Democrats and Republicians are fundamentally different. Democrats depend on a Left wing coalition of the Unions(Afl-Cio), the Lawyers and Minoities. The Republicans depend on a right coalition of Churchs, Gun Owners and Big business. There are different types of party beliefs throughout such a large country. A southern democrat would bo different then a New Democrat. But they generally follow the party line. FF and FG are pretty much the same thing. They do not defer on any major policies.

Yes but the Left wing in America, is very much a right wing grouping. As John Daly said after the french election, A left wing party up againist a not so much left wing party. The same can be say of this years US elections A right wing party up againist a not so much right wing party.

Dob74

Elmo wrote: »

Yes but the Left wing in America, is very much a right wing grouping. As John Daly said after the french election, A left wing party up againist a not so much left wing party. The same can be say of this years US elections A right wing party up againist a not so much right wing party.

Alot of people say this in this country but having lived in both countries I would disagree. America is alot more advanced when it comes to workers rights, benefits for workers and pay.
The press in europe is very anti Republican and I would like to know why a papers like the indo follows this trend. I think they would fit in perfectly with the republicans.
We give welfare to the poor, rich, banks who ever has ther hand out. We subsidise fee paying schools, give child benefit to anyone no matter how rich they are and free college for every millionare's son. I would concider this rightism. But in this country we consider this socailism? or Leftwingism. At least in the states the rich pay there way.(well for the most part anyway)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dob74 wrote: »

Alot of people say this in this country but having lived in both countries I would disagree. America is alot more advanced when it comes to workers rights, benefits for workers and pay.
The press in europe is very anti Republican and I would like to know why a papers like the indo follows this trend. I think they would fit in perfectly with the republicans.
We give welfare to the poor, rich, banks who ever has ther hand out. We subsidise fee paying schools, give child benefit to anyone no matter how rich they are and free college for every millionare's son. I would concider this rightism. But in this country we consider this socailism? or Leftwingism. At least in the states the rich pay there way.(well for the most part anyway)

Ireland, like most of Europe, is a centre-right country - it's only when you compare it to the US it appears to be leftist. The only leftist countries in Europe, I'd say, are the Scanadvian states (from experience) and Slovenia (from reports).

Curious to know how America is more advanced with regard to workers rights? They don't have a minimum wage over there and there's no mandatory holiday entitlements (as far as I know - open to correction).

kevmy

I'd say FG and FF are relatively similar on policy but then if you want to be in power in any country you have to appeal to ~40% of the electorate, thats what both of them are trying to do.

But they do represent a lot of the people of the country and thats what they want to do.

Having said that is it a bad thing? That's the question that has to be asked.

Will we benefit hugely by having a larger gap between parties and going into the traditional left/right split. If the people of the country want largely different policies believe me they will vote for or set up a party that reflects that.

If the majority of the country is fairly centrist - which I think is fair to say they are (be it centre left or centre right) and are moving slowly towards a progressive, slightly left agenda. For example look at divorce, gay rights, etc. 20 yrs ago.

Will Ireland benefit from being pulled from ideas which are further to the left or right only to change every 6 or 7 years back to the other way?

This isn't to say you don't need an opposition - you do, but sometimes the benefit of a change in government is about by fresh faces, more energy, more determination rather than their idealogical stances

Elmo

This isn't to say you don't need an opposition - you do, but sometimes the benefit of a change in government is about by fresh faces, more energy, more determination rather than their idealogical stances

The problem is FG even with their youthful TD don't give of a sence of determination.

An opposition has to be different otherwise it is pointless and isn't doing its job and that is the main issue.

I amn't saying that FG aren't doing their job, but their job isn't made very easy when they have pretty much the same views as FF.

oscarBravo

Elmo wrote: »

An opposition has to be different otherwise it is pointless and isn't doing its job and that is the main issue.

I disagree. The one thing the current opposition doesn't have is a sense of permanent entitlement to government, and the deep-seated arrogance and complacency that goes with it. Sometimes the incumbent needs to be replaced - even if they're replaced by someone else with similar policies - just to remind them that they don't have a god-given right to be in government.

Elmo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I disagree. The one thing the current opposition doesn't have is a sense of permanent entitlement to government, and the deep-seated arrogance and complacency that goes with it. Sometimes the incumbent needs to be replaced - even if they're replaced by someone else with similar policies - just to remind them that they don't have a god-given right to be in government.

True but sure it is now time not only to suggest that it isn't FFs give right to rule but also time insist that FG should be wholy susummed into an FF government so that they too can also "have a sense of permanent entitlement to government, and the deep-seated arrogance and complacency".

oscarBravo

I have to confess that I haven't the faintest idea what you mean.

Elmo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have to confess that I haven't the faintest idea what you mean.

All I am saying is that FG/FF have to go into Coilition. FG/FF must remerge after years of bitter division since the civil war. A grand coilition which would allow an actual opposition where not only a different view can resided but also an actual choice not just a Party that would only displace FF because the public felt that FF had been there for too long and we need "fresh" faces rather then an actual change. This is a stupid reason IMO to vote FG over FF.

oscarBravo

Elmo wrote: »

...not just a Party that would only displace FF because the public felt that FF had been there for too long and we need "fresh" faces rather then an actual change. This is a stupid reason IMO to vote FG over FF.

Don't get me wrong: given a choice between actual change (assuming it was change in the right direction), and more of the same, but minus the arrogance, I know which I'd pick. But given the choice between two similar packages, one of which includes smug arrogance, it's an equally clear choice for me.

I'm not sure how you think merging FF and FG would increase choice.

Elmo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Don't get me wrong: given a choice between actual change (assuming it was change in the right direction), and more of the same, but minus the arrogance, I know which I'd pick. But given the choice between two similar packages, one of which includes smug arrogance, it's an equally clear choice for me.

I'm not sure how you think merging FF and FG would increase choice.

It would point out to the public that FG and FF are the same party and that they aren't different. I understand your argument about smugness verus FG, but TBH FGs Holier than art thou attituded doesn't sit too well with me. And I don't see either as the lesser of two evils.

It would also put Labour in the driving seat of the opposition which is where they should be, and this would lead to Labour having a far strong voice.

I don't think an FG lead government will change anything so, Ireland under an FG lead government won't move it in any direction good or bad. IMO.

DublinWriter

It's hard to put any clear water between FF and FG, even their unofficial matra of "We're not the other guys" is becoming quite threadbare right now.

Pushing Civil War origins aside, they are basically the same centerist party these days.

Speaking as someone who came through the 80's, in a word, I'd say we're f*cked. Even more so than then. This is just the calm before the storm.

The reason I say this is because we have a complete lack of political capital in this country. We don't have visionaries of the caliber of Collins, Haughy, Lemass and Fitzgerald any more, personally flawed as they were.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irish_bob

DublinWriter wrote: »

It's hard to put any clear water between FF and FG, even their unofficial matra of "We're not the other guys" is becoming quite threadbare right now.

Pushing Civil War origins aside, they are basically the same centerist party these days.

Speaking as someone who came through the 80's, in a word, I'd say we're f*cked. Even more so than then. This is just the calm before the storm.

The reason I say this is because we have a complete lack of political capital in this country. We don't have visionaries of the caliber of Collins, Haughy, Lemass and Fitzgerald any more, personally flawed as they were.

what a pessimistic outlook you have , thier is no reason why we should be f*ucked, all that is needed is a willingness to make some tough descisions , the country and the economy are baschically sound , we need a goverment who are willing to look further ahead than the next election , unfortunatly a goverment like that cannot include FF

Elmo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not in the current dail, As I said it is unlikely that FF will do as well next time round and it is unlike that FG would do as well as FF which would bring that down.

Is having such similar political parties in the Dáil a good thing?

It would only work if Labour had more seats. Like back in 1992.

Labour should not have gone into power with FF rather demanded a grand colition.

FF = 68
FG = 45
LP = 33
PD = 10
DL = 4
GP = 1
IO = 4 (1 Indo FF)
CC = 1 (A labour Independent, Sean Treacy)

This would be very different to day with DL and PD gone from the Dáil.

But if FF/FG grand coilition had occur they would have had 113 seats, the FF/LP government had 103 (Including 2 independents they did not need) only 10 less seats.

Imagine Dick Spring and Albert Renolds on the Prime Time Leaders Debate and John Bruton reduced to a debate with Mary Harney

FTA69

Bob Z wrote: »

but i dont think people vote on policy anyway. I could be wrong but most i know seem to vote the way their parents and grandparents voted.

Spot on. That is the single biggest factor in people determining which party they will vote for. The situation we have here is actually quite a European anomaly where you have the two main parties who are completely identical.

Dob74

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ireland, like most of Europe, is a centre-right country - it's only when you compare it to the US it appears to be leftist. The only leftist countries in Europe, I'd say, are the Scanadvian states (from experience) and Slovenia (from reports).

Curious to know how America is more advanced with regard to workers rights? They don't have a minimum wage over there and there's no mandatory holiday entitlements (as far as I know - open to correction).

Federal minimum wage is $6.50 an hour with the republicans in power for the last eight years. Different states can have higher rates. Holiday pay is quite poor alright, 2 weeks a year is all thats mandatory. But you can build it up or take unpaid leave. In saying that I have only been paid holiday pay in this country on rare occasions and each time I had to battle for it. But at least four weeks is law.

kevmy

Elmo wrote: »

An opposition has to be different otherwise it is pointless and isn't doing its job and that is the main issue.

I don't think the point of opposition is to be different rather to speak for the people who fell the government isn't speaking for them. Also you have to say what you believe. If you happen to believe in something similar to what the present government then you can't go around lying about it.

Having said that I think FG could be a bit more radical without betraying their principles.

Elmo wrote: »

Not in the current dail, As I said it is unlikely that FF will do as well next time round and it is unlike that FG would do as well as FF which would bring that down.

Is having such similar political parties in the Dáil a good thing?

It would only work if Labour had more seats. Like back in 1992.

Labour should not have gone into power with FF rather demanded a grand colition.

FF = 68
FG = 45
LP = 33
PD = 10
DL = 4
GP = 1
IO = 4 (1 Indo FF)
CC = 1 (A labour Independent, Sean Treacy)

This would be very different to day with DL and PD gone from the Dáil.

But if FF/FG grand coilition had occur they would have had 113 seats, the FF/LP government had 103 (Including 2 independents they did not need) only 10 less seats.

Imagine Dick Spring and Albert Renolds on the Prime Time Leaders Debate and John Bruton reduced to a debate with Mary Harney

In 1992 yes, but then if we go back to Cumann na Gael government ... Ireland has changed, deal with the realities as it is now. Looking back doesn't help that much.

Also you seem to think that by releasing Labour by themselves to the Opposition benches people will automatically flock to them. I don't think so.

People know FG and FF are essentially the same. If Lab want to become one of the main parties then they have to convince the people to vote for them. It's Lab failings, not FG or FF or the electorates that they haven't progressed.

They fcuked up in 92 by going in with FF after stating the wouldn't, they then proceeded to dance in and out of government with them for 2.5 years.

Even after they were slapped down they were given a golden chance after 2002 to become the main opposition. Everyone said FG were dead but they didn't take that chance.

FTA69 wrote: »

Spot on. That is the single biggest factor in people determining which party they will vote for. The situation we have here is actually quite a European anomaly where you have the two main parties who are completely identical.

I agree people shouldn't vote by how parents etc. vote however I will argue that for a long period of time there was clear water between FG and FF. These areas were in law and order, the economy, social issues and how to deal with the North. A lot of this issues have either been resolved (law and order of FG was mainly based on dealing with the old IRA and social wars of the 80's are essentially over) or have been accepted by all (talking with everyone in the North and giving up articles 1 and 2).

Elmo

They fcuked up in 92 by going in with FF after stating the wouldn't, they then proceeded to dance in and out of government with them for 2.5 years.

It funny but I think the ****ed up by going into power with FG. But they did lead those 5 years when Ireland came out of the depression it was in.

In 1992 yes, but then if we go back to Cumann na Gael government ... Ireland has changed, deal with the realities as it is now. Looking back doesn't help that much.

We could and we should always look back on our past so that we don't make the same mistakes. E.G. if Labour get 33 seats they might think of letting FG/FF go into government.

Even after they were slapped down they were given a golden chance after 2002 to become the main opposition. Everyone said FG were dead but they didn't take that chance.

By making a pact with FG, that was the reason. This put many from voting for Labour IMO.

Mr.Micro

The only difference between FF and FG is the G.

kevmy

Elmo wrote: »

It funny but I think the ****ed up by going into power with FG. But they did lead those 5 years when Ireland came out of the depression it was in.

You may be of the opinion that they shouldn't have gone in with either and I agree with you that they done well in government. But going from being very anti-FF to going into government with wrecked their credibility if they were going in with anyone they should have gone in with FG/DL from the start.

The lesson for any smaller party going in with FF is you get all the blame and none of the credit. They are sneaky politicians only interested in getting elected and getting into power for themselves. And fair play to them they are the best at it. But they fcuked Lab, they fcuked the PDs and they will fcuk the Greens

Elmo wrote: »

We could and we should always look back on our past so that we don't make the same mistakes. E.G. if Labour get 33 seats they might think of letting FG/FF go into government.

Fair enough but I don't see Lab getting 33 in the next election 25-30 would be doing massively well. They would probably top out at 27/28

Elmo wrote: »

By making a pact with FG, that was the reason. This put many from voting for Labour IMO.

True enough they didn't put Lab first. They made "get FF out" their main priority.

MG

Personnally I do think there is something of a difference but they certainly sit in the same range of the spectrum. If we call this centrist (it tends to swing between the centre right and centre left depending on electoral demands (especially for FF - some might disagree but I found the budget extraordinarily leftist)

Anyway, 70-80% of the electorate seem to be centrist. The advantage of having two parties filling this space is that governments seem to go stale after a few years and the determination that is required for successful government can only be restored by a spell in the opposition.

This is how I see the current situation - FF is completely stale having grown fat on power, while FG is showing signs that it is ready to lead.

Mr.Micro

FF=FG, but what's in a name? Look at New Labour in the UK, anything but socialist IMO. Blair was more Conservative than Thatcher. In democracies people tend to stick to centrist parties. New Labour once thought unelectable left wingers made the transition to centre and centre right in 1997 and since. It is no surprise that in Ireland we have 2 parties virtually the same and little talent between them.

Donnaghm

Their respective views on social issues and on the north contrasted starkly in the 1980s. It's difficult to say at the moment and I'm a member of yfg with the last 4 years.

lostexpectation

Biggins wrote: »

I hope not, there should always be a viable alternative barking at government heels.
If at the very least, it helps to keep the present lot in line at least to some extent!.

yeha but we have right right opposition and government rather then a nominally left v right battle that exist even in the US