What is the ideological difference between FF and FG?

Digi_Tilmitt

As far as I can see, which one people vote for is determined by which side of the civil war their great grandfather fought on. Is there any ideological difference at all between them? Or is their existence just a self sustaining feud that has become meaningless?

I can see the ideological positions of Labour, Green Party, Sinn Fein and the late PDs, but I cannot tell the difference between FF and FG. It always struck me that FF and FG were the most compatible coalition partners out of all the parties.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DrumSteve

quite true... thing is that fine gael arent as tainted with the brown envelopes as are ff, however they do descend from Macneill and his fascist cohorts...

InFront

Well I wouldn't accept that it's civil war politics anymore. I have no link to the civil war and the reasons I chose to join FG instead of FF are the fact that it

• has a more liberal and pro-enterprise economic policy than FF have traditionally had, and certainly moreso than Labour/ SF/ Greens
• FG policy is to be particularly firm on the application of law and order, unlike FF, who traditionally have not prioritised it
• FG are more socially conservative than FF
• I share their views on Northern Ireland policy and respect the fact that they are less Nationalistic, or less overtly so, than FF
• Tough line on political corruption unlike FF

It's untrue that FF=FG. However, FF are the party most ideologically suited to us in terms of coalition partners, and as I said before I think that ought to be a serious consideration for FG in the coming years.

When FF clean their act up over corruption, I think there would be little reason to shy away from co-operating with them in Government as opposed to say, Labour.

Sand

The only real difference between FF and FG is that FF have been in power for something like 80% of the existence of the state and are thus fully corrupted by power and infested with bandwagon jumpers looking to get some of that brown envelope action.

Fine Gaelers arent any different idealogically really, except theyre less corrupted by power because they tend to have less power and their membership is at least motivated by more than getting appointed to some juicey semi-state body because theyre mates of Bertie Ahern. Because theyre not mates of Bertie Ahern.

Other than that, theyre still basically the same party that split over the treaty back in the 1920s. With Fine Gael being the more sensible, practical, boring half and Fianna Fail being the more reckless, feckless interesting half.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

The only real difference between FF and FG is that FF have been in power for something like 80% of the existence of the state and are thus fully corrupted by power and infested with bandwagon jumpers looking to get some of that brown envelope action.

Fine Gaelers arent any different idealogically really, except theyre less corrupted by power because they tend to have less power and their membership is at least motivated by more than getting appointed to some juicey semi-state body because theyre mates of Bertie Ahern. Because theyre not mates of Bertie Ahern.

Other than that, theyre still basically the same party that split over the treaty back in the 1920s. With Fine Gael being the more sensible, practical, boring half and Fianna Fail being the more reckless, feckless interesting half.

Though it doth taint my soul to utter it, I largely agree with you.

Sand

Quick, scrub yourself down with bleach and a brasso and the taint will be cleansed!

Red Sleeping Beauty

There's no core difference between any mainstream parties as they've to talk the same amount of crowd and media pleasing twaddle but the differences between FF and FG might have something to do with how both parties came about .

The_Minister

FG = Sorta a Christian Democrat party with the odd Social Democrat
FF = Social Democrat, with a mix of all flavours thrown in, and a large body of apolitical members.

MonicaBing

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Jesus thats an excellent way of describing them! Kudo's OP, great question, its actually helped me explain it to my kid in simplistic terms.

Tirabaralla

Interesting thread...this is something that I struggle to understand completely since I arrived in Ireland "to stay for a while".
Despite studying irish history and being aware about these 2 parties history (well, atr least a bit of it)...I was still finding it difficult to see the major differences nowadays.
TY OP for asking ^_^

irish_bob

they parties are similar in politics but differ in style with fine gael being more rule abiding and fianna fail having an attitude of the end justifying the means

Joey the lips

Am I allowed to say that the op is quite clearly a labour supporter trying to discredit Fine Gaels campagn by associating them as being no different than fianna fail! Well thats what a fine gael supporter would say!


There is absolutly no difference its just down to trust! Nobody will ever trust fianna fail ever again! why cause they made morans of Labour, PD's and the greens with all the scandles whilst being in goverment with them.

plus enda kenny promises to bring back the christmas bonus and review the deal with the religious order! gobsh1te!!!!

Het-Field

Fianna Fail have become an out an out populist party. They call themselves "Republican", but any basic study of history reveals that they are "Republican" to the extent of a jingoistic party, who's fundamental raison d'etre is their links to Civil War Ireland. Its a weak republicanism, which does not come from any self reflection, or consideration of one's political position. Nationalism is the default setting, and politics really should not flow from it.

A light prevailing wind will have FF dragged any which way. This is most evident is their mishandeling of the economy. Their populism wont allow them engage in expenditure cuts, and they are simply lobbing taxes on the wealthy, while disincentivising business. As long as they do that, they are remaining true to their populist roots.

Fine Gael appear to have more of an ideology, but have rarely be allowed put it into practice. As a result, I would be cocerned that they are in no position to implement it anymore.

Lorcan 17

While there may be some small policy differences between FF and FG I would suggest there are as many as many differences between people within the two parties as between the two parties themselves . They would make very cosy coalition partners and until this happens there will never be any fundemental change in Irish Politics .

Tricity Bendix

I have heard it said from a Fine Gaeler That the difference is that Fine Gael believe in doing whats best for the country, whereas Fianna Fail believe in doing whats best for the party. But for a lot of Fianna Failers, whats good for the party is what is good for the country. FF are similar in ways to the South African ANC, in that they belive that they as a party represent "the people".

FG are essentially the Tory party in Ireland. Tough on crime (at least in principle), pro-enterprise, rightwing social policies (after Fitzgerald's time in charge), and emphasising citizens' responsibilities as well their rights.

Mal-Adjusted

it appears that even boarders don't know the answers here. over the past two pages, FG have been described as rightwing, leftwing, liberal, conservative, socialist etc. the only thing people seem to agree on is that they are pro-enterprise.

thebman

I don't think there are big differences between the two which is all the more reason to change which is in power in every other election to stop them getting used to being in power (ie. corrupt)

InFront

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

it appears that even boarders don't know the answers here. over the past two pages, FG have been described as rightwing, leftwing, liberal, conservative, socialist etc. the only thing people seem to agree on is that they are pro-enterprise.

Nobody called them left wing or socialist, or liberal in anything except economic policy
If anything everyone who described FG policy described it along the same lines - broadly economic liberalism and social conservatism.

fenris

There doesn't seem to be a huge difference when you take into account the fact that dodgy planning and zoning decisions have been made fairly evenly by local government made up of both parties, if anything the difference seems to be that FF is dodgy at the national level because that is wehere they have the power and FG is dodgy at the local level because that is where they have power.

CtrlSource

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

it appears that even boarders don't know the answers here. over the past two pages, FG have been described as rightwing, leftwing, liberal, conservative, socialist etc. the only thing people seem to agree on is that they are pro-enterprise.

Who isn't pro-enterprise in its literal sense? Being pro-enterprise is hardly a comparitive political advantage, if most of the other parties are too.

Both FG & FF have been soft on the regulation of big business and the financial sector in recent decades. Is that what you really meant when you called them "pro-enterprise"?

InFront

CtrlSource wrote: »

Who isn't pro-enterprise in its literal sense?

But we're not talking about pro-enterprise in a literal sense, rather in the economic sense. It's a valid description of a political party who believes in incentivising business - lower taxes and lower rates, public private partnerships for example - as opposed to a less capitalist approach which would take money from the most productive elements in the economy (FF's current taxation policy, long term Labour policy)

Red Sleeping Beauty

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

FG are essentially the Tory party in Ireland. Tough on crime (at least in principle), pro-enterprise, rightwing social policies (after Fitzgerald's time in charge), and emphasising citizens' responsibilities as well their rights.

Do you mean that Fianna Fail are :

Easy on crime
Anti-enterprise
Leftwing social policies
and don't emphasize citizen's responsibilities as we as their rights .

?

thebman

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Do you mean that Fianna Fail are :

Easy on crime

I wouldn't say they are easy on crime so much as selective on who gets punished for the same crime committed. Depends who you know and you get off. That is corrupt on crime to me which is far worse than easy on crime to me.

Jack Sheehan

Yes, they are both centrist parties, but thats what people want. There is a reason that Sinn Fein and the Socialist Workers Party are small.

thebman

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

Yes, they are both centrist parties, but thats what people want. There is a reason that Sinn Fein and the Socialist Workers Party are small.

Exactly, I think it is natural for a convergence toward centre to occur and I think it is a good thing that the differences become more subtle.

I view it as an evolution of the parties to what they think people want them to be.

It is good that people can have a choice on the smaller things because the parties agree on the bigger issues.

Seems to happen in America too.

Digi_Tilmitt

thebman wrote: »

It is good that people can have a choice on the smaller things because the parties agree on the bigger issues.

So what are the smaller things where FF and FG disagree with each other? I see alot of "You're doing/did it wrong" from FG but I don't really see what policies they are/were advocating that are/were different from what FF advocates.

I structure my voting preferences according to how best the parties match my own ideology and completely ignore human stuff like personalities, so not being able to ideologically differentiate between FF and FG makes it quite difficult for me to decide on what order they should go down in my preferences. The last time I voted I gave FG a higher preference but that was only because I couldn't differentiate them ideologically so I had to decide on other stuff and the horrendous corruption record of people in FF drove me towards giving a higher preference for FG.

But I'd still like to have a clearer idea of the ideological differences (if any) that exist between them. I'm still strongly of the opinion that it is bizarre that the two parties have not merged together, or at least gone into coalition together.

Dalfiatach

I think there's actually very very large differences between FF and FG, in culture and in policy. But it has become accepted conventional wisdom that they are exactly the same. Trotting out this line is a strategic aid to both Fianna Fáil (who thereby put across the "better the divil ye know, sure them Blueshirts would do everything we do anyway but they're nowhere near as much fun and don't give as many sweeties as we do" line which up til now has been very successful for them) and Labour (who thus actually have an issue on which to pretend to be the "real force for change", hence reducing FGs appeal for those tired of FF, thus leaving the door always open to coalition with either FF or FG. It's not in Labours interest for either to grow too strong)

There is an element of truth in that both party's local councillors tend to be utter gombeen mucksavages. But then almost every local councillor in Ireland is a gombeen mucksavage, regardless of party.

So that's the motivations for the "sure der all de same" talk you always hear.

FF are a classical clientelist Peronist-style party like, well, the Peronists in Argentina, the MRI in Mexico or the LDP in Japan. The entire point of the State is to provide jobs for the local supporters, local pork investment schemes, and generally to keep the faithful happy and continuing to vote for you. The point of those workers and businesses not within the State sector is to provide the taxes to keep the welfare coming. The party is run by and for the interests of donors from a few favoured industries - e.g. in Japan the LDP is run by and for the public-sector unions and the connected bosses of the zaibatsu. FF is run by and for the public sector unions, the builders and the publicans. Peronist-style parties also exhibit the curious trick of being their own opposition. Being comprised of a bunch of vested interests in uneasy cooperation to divy up the spoils amongst themselves, various vested interests often squabble for Top Dog position and Cabinet Ministers will frequently go off on solo-runs looking for additional pork for their faction. Power struggles within the established Party between factions are often far more important for determining the future direction of the country than any mere General Election. Again, the similarities between FF and the LDP are striking here.

Peronist parties by their very nature always end up quite startlingly corrupt.

FG are a conservative fiscal-rectitude law-and-responsibility party. The State exists as a body with the Authority to pass Law, regulations, establish standards and ensure personal responsibility. The purpose of the State is to provide a stable environment of impartial Law, and to provide public goods for the disadvantaged and for reasons of public health and overall national competitiveness. The State exists therefore as a support mechanism, it's purpose being to provide the stable lawful environment and healthy educated populace that Enterprise needs to create real wealth.

Here is by far the profoundest cultural difference between FF and FG - the nature and purpose of the State. FG clearly have very very different policies to the FF/PD government in recent years, not least on such trivial matters as how to sort out the banks, co-location and health service privatisation, universal health insurance, public sector administrative and employment reform, the economy generally, the attitude to borrowing and where new jobs should come from, corruption and ethics in public life. Just off the top of me head, like.

And when you look at those very different policies in light of the attitude of both parties to the purpose of the State, you'll see I'm not far from the truth and that there is a big, big difference between FF and FG.

Now, in the same light, look at Labour.

And you can see that What Everybody Knows is quite simply, and as usual, just plain wrong. It's not FF and FG that are fundamentally the same - it's FF and Labour!

I'm not particularly fond of FG - their social conservatism, occassional hang-em-and-flog-em outbursts, and the small-but-barking-mad Anglophile rump leave me cold. But while I dislike authoritarianism and curtain-twitchers, I loathe corrupt Peronist gombeen pork merchants masquerading as politicians while they parasitically bleed the country white.

Clientelist Peronist vampires have to be removed from power for a generation if we are to have any chance of rescuing the country. If that means 15 years of a centre-right law-and-order FG Government then so be it. This place has become a corrupt lawless cesspit under endless FF rule, and it has to stop.

grenache

I was always taught it was like this, FF are a centre-left party, more interested in social reform than anything else, and appeal to a very select group of individuals in the economy, i.e. Builders, contractors, judges. They have traditionally been viewed (or like to be viewed) as the common mans party. FG on the other hand are to the centre-right, interested in law and justice reform, respecting traditional values i.e. Institution of marriage, advocaters of keeping certain authorities under state or semi state control. They have traditionally appealed to big farmers and big businesses. FG's may capitalist style of nationalism is opposite to FFs more socialist republican outlook.

Overheal

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Irish politics in words i can understand

irish_bob

Dalfiatach wrote: »

I think there's actually very very large differences between FF and FG, in culture and in policy. But it has become accepted conventional wisdom that they are exactly the same. Trotting out this line is a strategic aid to both Fianna Fáil (who thereby put across the "better the divil ye know, sure them Blueshirts would do everything we do anyway but they're nowhere near as much fun and don't give as many sweeties as we do" line which up til now has been very successful for them) and Labour (who thus actually have an issue on which to pretend to be the "real force for change", hence reducing FGs appeal for those tired of FF, thus leaving the door always open to coalition with either FF or FG. It's not in Labours interest for either to grow too strong)

There is an element of truth in that both party's local councillors tend to be utter gombeen mucksavages. But then almost every local councillor in Ireland is a gombeen mucksavage, regardless of party.

So that's the motivations for the "sure der all de same" talk you always hear.

FF are a classical clientelist Peronist-style party like, well, the Peronists in Argentina, the MRI in Mexico or the LDP in Japan. The entire point of the State is to provide jobs for the local supporters, local pork investment schemes, and generally to keep the faithful happy and continuing to vote for you. The point of those workers and businesses not within the State sector is to provide the taxes to keep the welfare coming. The party is run by and for the interests of donors from a few favoured industries - e.g. in Japan the LDP is run by and for the public-sector unions and the connected bosses of the zaibatsu. FF is run by and for the public sector unions, the builders and the publicans. Peronist-style parties also exhibit the curious trick of being their own opposition. Being comprised of a bunch of vested interests in uneasy cooperation to divy up the spoils amongst themselves, various vested interests often squabble for Top Dog position and Cabinet Ministers will frequently go off on solo-runs looking for additional pork for their faction. Power struggles within the established Party between factions are often far more important for determining the future direction of the country than any mere General Election. Again, the similarities between FF and the LDP are striking here.

Peronist parties by their very nature always end up quite startlingly corrupt.

FG are a conservative fiscal-rectitude law-and-responsibility party. The State exists as a body with the Authority to pass Law, regulations, establish standards and ensure personal responsibility. The purpose of the State is to provide a stable environment of impartial Law, and to provide public goods for the disadvantaged and for reasons of public health and overall national competitiveness. The State exists therefore as a support mechanism, it's purpose being to provide the stable lawful environment and healthy educated populace that Enterprise needs to create real wealth.

Here is by far the profoundest cultural difference between FF and FG - the nature and purpose of the State. FG clearly have very very different policies to the FF/PD government in recent years, not least on such trivial matters as how to sort out the banks, co-location and health service privatisation, universal health insurance, public sector administrative and employment reform, the economy generally, the attitude to borrowing and where new jobs should come from, corruption and ethics in public life. Just off the top of me head, like.

And when you look at those very different policies in light of the attitude of both parties to the purpose of the State, you'll see I'm not far from the truth and that there is a big, big difference between FF and FG.

Now, in the same light, look at Labour.

And you can see that What Everybody Knows is quite simply, and as usual, just plain wrong. It's not FF and FG that are fundamentally the same - it's FF and Labour!

I'm not particularly fond of FG - their social conservatism, occassional hang-em-and-flog-em outbursts, and the small-but-barking-mad Anglophile rump leave me cold. But while I dislike authoritarianism and curtain-twitchers, I loathe corrupt Peronist gombeen pork merchants masquerading as politicians while they parasitically bleed the country white.

Clientelist Peronist vampires have to be removed from power for a generation if we are to have any chance of rescuing the country. If that means 15 years of a centre-right law-and-order FG Government then so be it. This place has become a corrupt lawless cesspit under endless FF rule, and it has to stop.

superb post , i think it was dec once said that labour will have to wait , for the simple reason that fianna fail are the labour party

regarding fine gael being the centre right party and them being different to fianna fail , in the past this certainly was the case however since garrett fitzgerald took over , fine gael have moved significantly to the left , under bruton they took a step more to the right but under enda kenny , they have set thier stall out as a centrist populist catch all party , kenny was quick to quash any talk of reductions in pay to public servants who earn under 100 k and mentioned doing business with sinn fein further enfroces the centrist possition they now hold under the man from mayo

i for one regret this and believe a golden opportunity exists for fine gael to restablish themselves as a genuine party of the right , thier is a huge demographic of private sector voters who have no voice who are crying out for such representation

kmhenry

Dalfiatach wrote: »

I think there's actually very very large differences between FF and FG, in culture and in policy. But it has become accepted conventional wisdom that they are exactly the same. Trotting out this line is a strategic aid to both Fianna Fáil (who thereby put across the "better the divil ye know, sure them Blueshirts would do everything we do anyway but they're nowhere near as much fun and don't give as many sweeties as we do" line which up til now has been very successful for them) and Labour (who thus actually have an issue on which to pretend to be the "real force for change", hence reducing FGs appeal for those tired of FF, thus leaving the door always open to coalition with either FF or FG. It's not in Labours interest for either to grow too strong)

There is an element of truth in that both party's local councillors tend to be utter gombeen mucksavages. But then almost every local councillor in Ireland is a gombeen mucksavage, regardless of party.

So that's the motivations for the "sure der all de same" talk you always hear.

FF are a classical clientelist Peronist-style party like, well, the Peronists in Argentina, the MRI in Mexico or the LDP in Japan. The entire point of the State is to provide jobs for the local supporters, local pork investment schemes, and generally to keep the faithful happy and continuing to vote for you. The point of those workers and businesses not within the State sector is to provide the taxes to keep the welfare coming. The party is run by and for the interests of donors from a few favoured industries - e.g. in Japan the LDP is run by and for the public-sector unions and the connected bosses of the zaibatsu. FF is run by and for the public sector unions, the builders and the publicans. Peronist-style parties also exhibit the curious trick of being their own opposition. Being comprised of a bunch of vested interests in uneasy cooperation to divy up the spoils amongst themselves, various vested interests often squabble for Top Dog position and Cabinet Ministers will frequently go off on solo-runs looking for additional pork for their faction. Power struggles within the established Party between factions are often far more important for determining the future direction of the country than any mere General Election. Again, the similarities between FF and the LDP are striking here.

Peronist parties by their very nature always end up quite startlingly corrupt.

FG are a conservative fiscal-rectitude law-and-responsibility party. The State exists as a body with the Authority to pass Law, regulations, establish standards and ensure personal responsibility. The purpose of the State is to provide a stable environment of impartial Law, and to provide public goods for the disadvantaged and for reasons of public health and overall national competitiveness. The State exists therefore as a support mechanism, it's purpose being to provide the stable lawful environment and healthy educated populace that Enterprise needs to create real wealth.

Here is by far the profoundest cultural difference between FF and FG - the nature and purpose of the State. FG clearly have very very different policies to the FF/PD government in recent years, not least on such trivial matters as how to sort out the banks, co-location and health service privatisation, universal health insurance, public sector administrative and employment reform, the economy generally, the attitude to borrowing and where new jobs should come from, corruption and ethics in public life. Just off the top of me head, like.

And when you look at those very different policies in light of the attitude of both parties to the purpose of the State, you'll see I'm not far from the truth and that there is a big, big difference between FF and FG.

Now, in the same light, look at Labour.

And you can see that What Everybody Knows is quite simply, and as usual, just plain wrong. It's not FF and FG that are fundamentally the same - it's FF and Labour!

I'm not particularly fond of FG - their social conservatism, occassional hang-em-and-flog-em outbursts, and the small-but-barking-mad Anglophile rump leave me cold. But while I dislike authoritarianism and curtain-twitchers, I loathe corrupt Peronist gombeen pork merchants masquerading as politicians while they parasitically bleed the country white.

Clientelist Peronist vampires have to be removed from power for a generation if we are to have any chance of rescuing the country. If that means 15 years of a centre-right law-and-order FG Government then so be it. This place has become a corrupt lawless cesspit under endless FF rule, and it has to stop.

truely excellent post....actually articulates all that people know are the differences between fg and ff but find it somewhat difficult to express. imo ff are dominantly centrist and "catch all" favouring the developmental statist state and generally following the overall economic consensus in order to win seats. People have this misconception that ff today are a fairly right-wing neo-liberal pd type party....nothing could be further than the truth....like Blair's New Labour in the UK they embraced the economic status quo not from ideology but for party gain. Their high spending but low tax policies act as a spectacular testament to their clientalist opportunism. FG also tried to go down this road after their disastorous 2002 election as an act of desperation and this is why the differences between ff and fg seem somewhat dubious.

At the core of ff and fg today however, after the onset of the recession, IMF and a more pronounced european affiliation with certain group parties like the ALDP and the EPP etc. it is clear that FG are pretty centre-right or Christian Democratic with the occassional dab of ff-style populism (as regards minimum wage, social welfare). I would agree with the Above Post when they say how FG are more pluralist or quasi-minimalist when it comes to the functioning of the state and economy. People seem to think that FG would back more privatisation or deregulation etc. I'm not denying some of these attributes but if you think about it FF never really preached the true assets of centre-right capitalism....they allowed developers and bankers commit financial fraud, they spent too much and taxed too little relative to this spending and they allowed local councils facilitate the supply of land for developments which, if you study any basic economics txtbook, completely broke the basic laws of capitalism and most importantly, the laws of supply and demand (inelastic supply of housing relative to demand).

FF, particularly now under Michéal Martin, i would say will adopt their old style centrist rhetoric which was never articulated a lot under cowen or ahern (but was clearly there of course). FG i suppose will play the centre to centre-right role but from a different sort of perspective. I actually like how these parties seem to have more subtle differences rather than large gaping ones like that between the French UMP and PS, it allows the electorate to centre themselves more on the nitty-gritty cultural and political diffs between the parties

Sulmac

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

FG are essentially the Tory party in Ireland. Tough on crime (at least in principle), pro-enterprise, rightwing social policies (after Fitzgerald's time in charge), and emphasising citizens' responsibilities as well their rights.

Do you mean here that they have been socially conservative since Fitzgerald or with the exception of Fitzgerald being leader? Fitzgerald certainly seemed to be one of the more liberal Taoisigh - trying to get the divorce referendum passed in 1986, for instance.

If I also remember correctly, Fine Gael were the first party to publicly support same-sex civil partnerships (back in 2004)? They also (along with Labour, who I'll admit probably pushed more for it) eventually got the divorce referendum passed in 1995. They seem to be more liberal than you're giving them credit for, although not as liberal as I'd personally like!

Sir Oxman

Dalfiatach wrote: »

I think there's actually very very large differences between FF and FG, in culture and in policy. But it has become accepted conventional wisdom that they are exactly the same. Trotting out this line is a strategic aid to both Fianna Fáil (who thereby put across the "better the divil ye know, sure them Blueshirts would do everything we do anyway but they're nowhere near as much fun and don't give as many sweeties as we do" line which up til now has been very successful for them) and Labour (who thus actually have an issue on which to pretend to be the "real force for change", hence reducing FGs appeal for those tired of FF, thus leaving the door always open to coalition with either FF or FG. It's not in Labours interest for either to grow too strong)

There is an element of truth in that both party's local councillors tend to be utter gombeen mucksavages. But then almost every local councillor in Ireland is a gombeen mucksavage, regardless of party.

So that's the motivations for the "sure der all de same" talk you always hear.

FF are a classical clientelist Peronist-style party like, well, the Peronists in Argentina, the MRI in Mexico or the LDP in Japan. The entire point of the State is to provide jobs for the local supporters, local pork investment schemes, and generally to keep the faithful happy and continuing to vote for you. The point of those workers and businesses not within the State sector is to provide the taxes to keep the welfare coming. The party is run by and for the interests of donors from a few favoured industries - e.g. in Japan the LDP is run by and for the public-sector unions and the connected bosses of the zaibatsu. FF is run by and for the public sector unions, the builders and the publicans. Peronist-style parties also exhibit the curious trick of being their own opposition. Being comprised of a bunch of vested interests in uneasy cooperation to divy up the spoils amongst themselves, various vested interests often squabble for Top Dog position and Cabinet Ministers will frequently go off on solo-runs looking for additional pork for their faction. Power struggles within the established Party between factions are often far more important for determining the future direction of the country than any mere General Election. Again, the similarities between FF and the LDP are striking here.

Peronist parties by their very nature always end up quite startlingly corrupt.

FG are a conservative fiscal-rectitude law-and-responsibility party. The State exists as a body with the Authority to pass Law, regulations, establish standards and ensure personal responsibility. The purpose of the State is to provide a stable environment of impartial Law, and to provide public goods for the disadvantaged and for reasons of public health and overall national competitiveness. The State exists therefore as a support mechanism, it's purpose being to provide the stable lawful environment and healthy educated populace that Enterprise needs to create real wealth.

Here is by far the profoundest cultural difference between FF and FG - the nature and purpose of the State. FG clearly have very very different policies to the FF/PD government in recent years, not least on such trivial matters as how to sort out the banks, co-location and health service privatisation, universal health insurance, public sector administrative and employment reform, the economy generally, the attitude to borrowing and where new jobs should come from, corruption and ethics in public life. Just off the top of me head, like.

And when you look at those very different policies in light of the attitude of both parties to the purpose of the State, you'll see I'm not far from the truth and that there is a big, big difference between FF and FG.

Now, in the same light, look at Labour.

And you can see that What Everybody Knows is quite simply, and as usual, just plain wrong. It's not FF and FG that are fundamentally the same - it's FF and Labour!

I'm not particularly fond of FG - their social conservatism, occassional hang-em-and-flog-em outbursts, and the small-but-barking-mad Anglophile rump leave me cold. But while I dislike authoritarianism and curtain-twitchers, I loathe corrupt Peronist gombeen pork merchants masquerading as politicians while they parasitically bleed the country white.

Clientelist Peronist vampires have to be removed from power for a generation if we are to have any chance of rescuing the country. If that means 15 years of a centre-right law-and-order FG Government then so be it. This place has become a corrupt lawless cesspit under endless FF rule, and it has to stop.

Great post.
I wouldn't fully agree that FG are socially conservative. I think they have two wings SD social liberal and CD social conservative with the SD wing more prominent.
I'd tend to agree that Labour are more akin to FF which is why I have a big question mark over post-election Labour doing a deal with FF no matter what Gilmore says now.
You have FF totally bang on. Their whole raison d'etre is the gaining of and holding of power (some posters here hold that up as a virtue) - and they will do anything to achieve that eg, throw a whole country's future away.