What is the ideological difference between FF and FG?

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.