Why so much fear of Labour?

southsiderosie

I honestly do not understand all of the angst about the possibility of the Labour party being in government, for several reasons.

First, the last time Labour was in government, Quinn was actually a pretty good Minister for Finance. Yes you could argue that economic conditions made it easier for him, but he admirably kept government spending under control, something that subsequent ministers failed to do.

Second, parties often move "against type" when in office. This is often because they need to prove something to voters, but also because they are better positioned to forge compromises with their own constituencies. Unions are a good example of this - if Labour (or Democrats) piss them off, who else are they going to turn to? (this would be a fuzzier question in earlier years since many union members have historically supported Fianna Fail, but not this election cycle. And it's much more straightforward in a 2-party system like in the US!).

Finally, the current situation is so dire, and the fiscal straitjacket so tight, I don't think that Labour could engage in out of control spending, even if they wanted to. We all know that whoever comes into government will not have a great deal of leeway to deviate from the previous course set by FF.

Anyway, to sum it up, I think a lot of the fear of the Labour party is misplaced, and the current situation and the history of the center-left both in Ireland and beyond suggests that they would not and could not give away the store if in office. Therefore, with the exception of those coming from a strong liberal/libertarian viewpoint, I don't really understand a lot of the anti-Labour hysteria - especially from those who have supported FF in the past.

galwayrush

Best embrace them, they will make up the next Government with FG.

ArtSmart

maybe cos they're godless commie baby killin heathens?

ever think of that, huh?

or perhaps they're track record of well... all the above. huh?

johngalway

For me it's their perceived closeness to the unions. Which wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily, except for how some of those unions acted in the recent past. Caustically bemoaning their own situation whilst the country was swirling down the plughole. All of which was well :eek: covered on here at that time.

In my mind, to be a fair Government, you sometimes need the ability to tell your friends - as much as anyone else - some pertinent home truths.

We'll just have to see how they fare out, as if the polls are correct they'll be the junior partner to FG.

liammur

southsiderosie wrote: »

I honestly do not understand all of the angst about the possibility of the Labour party being in government, for several reasons.

First, the last time Labour was in government, Quinn was actually a pretty good Minister for Finance. Yes you could argue that economic conditions made it easier for him, but he admirably kept government spending under control, something that subsequent ministers failed to do.

Second, parties often move "against type" when in office. This is often because they need to prove something to voters, but also because they are better positioned to forge compromises with their own constituencies. Unions are a good example of this - if Labour (or Democrats) piss them off, who else are they going to turn to? (this would be a fuzzier question in earlier years since many union members have historically supported Fianna Fail, but not this election cycle. And it's much more straightforward in a 2-party system like in the US!).

Finally, the current situation is so dire, and the fiscal straitjacket so tight, I don't think that Labour could engage in out of control spending, even if they wanted to. We all know that whoever comes into government will not have a great deal of leeway to deviate from the previous course set by FF.

Anyway, to sum it up, I think a lot of the fear of the Labour party is misplaced, and the current situation and the history of the center-left both in Ireland and beyond suggests that they would not and could not give away the store if in office. Therefore, with the exception of those coming from a strong liberal/libertarian viewpoint, I don't really understand a lot of the anti-Labour hysteria - especially from those who have supported FF in the past.

Ignorance.

People hear 'labour' and get confused with labourers.

I agree, that the labout party did quite a good job between 93-97.

The Volt

Whenever Labour begin to do well in the polls, the media have a field day. Just look at the non stor of Gilmore's wife, that took up 4 days in a row of front page news on the Irish Independent and featured again in the Sindo. This was as the IMF deal was looming. Coincidentally, this was the same newspaper that called for the execution of James Connolly so they have a history of generally being against the socially progressive moves that Labour tends to pursue. I would take this further and suggest that the media have used Sinn Fein to take away from Labour's support as there was only so high that FG could go in the polls.

On another note, I think a big problem for the party is Joan Burton. She is a highly intelligent woman and I don't doubt her capabilities (She predicted everything that has come to be. She warned Lenihan he'd bring the IMF into Ireland in 2007 and he laughed at her) but she has absolutely no sense of appearance or how to handle the media. As a result, very few people have confidence in her.

However much Labour take a battering on here or in the media, I have a lot of faith in them. They're by no means perfect (nor are the unions) but they're by far and away the best alternative to what is in place at the moment.

Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are only separated by the latter's intolerance for corruption. They're both right-wing and will pursue similar policies. Fine Gael do not represent change. Sinn Fein for me are still not to be trusted. The ULA in the Dail will be anti everything so they don't even deserve to come into consideration.

Labour were the only party to oppose the blanket guarantee back in 2008 and despite the constant labelling of them as populist, have nailed their colours to the mast as being social democratic for quite some time now.

cranfordmike

Joan Burton....:eek:

liammur

Voltwad wrote: »

Whenever Labour begin to do well in the polls, the media have a field day. Just look at the non stor of Gilmore's wife, that took up 4 days in a row of front page news on the Irish Independent and featured again in the Sindo. This was as the IMF deal was looming. Coincidentally, this was the same newspaper that called for the execution of James Connolly so they have a history of generally being against the socially progressive moves that Labour tends to pursue. I would take this further and suggest that the media have used Sinn Fein to take away from Labour's support as there was only so high that FG could go in the polls.

On another note, I think a big problem for the party is Joan Burton. She is a highly intelligent woman and I don't doubt her capabilities (She predicted everything that has come to be. She warned Lenihan he'd bring the IMF into Ireland in 2007 and he laughed at her) but she has absolutely no sense of appearance or how to handle the media. As a result, very few people have confidence in her.

However much Labour take a battering on here or in the media, I have a lot of faith in them. They're by no means perfect (nor are the unions) but they're by far and away the best alternative to what is in place at the moment.

Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are only separated by the latter's intolerance for corruption. They're both right-wing and will pursue similar policies. Fine Gael do not represent change. Sinn Fein for me are still not to be trusted. The ULA in the Dail will be anti everything so they don't even deserve to come into consideration.

Labour were the only party to oppose the blanket guarantee back in 2008 and despite the constant labelling of them as populist, have nailed their colours to the mast as being social democratic for quite some time now.

Good post. They have imo the best politicians out there.

Soldie

Out of Labour, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, Labour are the party that's least likely to make the cuts needed to salvage the country from its fiscal nightmare. Their close relationship with the public sector unions and Gilmore's never-ending fence-sitting doesn't make me believe otherwise. Simply maintaining the status quo (if you could call it that) right now isn't good enough, and further cuts are needed. I don't think that they're a business-friendly party, and, at a time when we desperately need to grow the economy with real jobs, a business-friendly party is precisely what we need.

The Volt

We as humans are creatures of habit. Labour will bringe about change in how this country is run but would things like the allowance of gay marraige and re-opening of a debate on our constitution (which still says things like the woman's rightful place is in the home) and of abortion things that frighten people?

I would also dispute the notion that the party would be economically instable. That's what Fianna Fail are. Labour were part of a government that delivered the first surplus in the history of the state and I already outlined above what Burton's actual problem is.

Min

They allowed the closet communists to take over their party, it all went really bad when they allowed in Democratic leftovers.

southsiderosie

Soldie wrote: »

Out of Labour, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, Labour are the party that's least likely to make the cuts needed to salvage the country from its fiscal nightmare. Their close relationship with the public sector unions and Gilmore's never-ending fence-sitting doesn't make me believe otherwise. Simply maintaining the status quo (if you could call it that) right now isn't good enough, and further cuts are needed. I don't think that they're a business-friendly party, and, at a time when we desperately need to grow the economy with real jobs, a business-friendly party is precisely what we need.

I don't understand this from a strategic perspective. Labour is best positioned to make cuts, particularly changes to the public sector. FF has refused to do so, and if FG comes out with the axe swinging, so will the unions. But it seems that Labour is best positioned to talk them off the ledge, so to speak.

In addition, it seems to me that one reason why unionized workers are so angry about cuts is because low-paid front-line workers are enduring pension levies and paycuts while little to nothing has been done to address administrative bloat and quangoes. What the current government does not seem to understand (as evidenced by attitudes towards their own wages and benefits) is that bitter medicine is easier to take when everyone is taking it. Labour's willingness to hack away at cushy quango positions makes it politically - and morally - easier to hack away at clerical wages.

Finally, again, I just don't think they have much wiggle room when it comes to cuts and spending. Whoever is in government will find it hard going and politically painful, and voters have short memories (as the situation in the US with "Obama's Recession" :eek::rolleyes: makes abundantly clear).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What policies of theirs would you call "hard left" rather than European-style social democracy (and I would even question that), or do you not draw this distinction?

Balmed Out

What do I hat most baout politics - The constant if you say x ill say y, even in the case where x = y. No party represents this more then the Labour party. Constantly spouting knee jerked reactions to others policies in a bid to appear different to fianna fail, who in truth are every bit as left wing as they are (thatd be centre centre left).

Yes they are still affiliated with many unions such as siptu and that transport one but these unions arent so powerful anymore. However at the end of the day its akin to being in partnership with a lobby group.


When they do try to come up with something different its inevitably stupid. They want to spend bucket loads to create 30,000 jobs through a Graduate and Apprentice Programme, because employers are queing up to invest time and resources training apprentices when they cant keep on the employees they have. All this would result in is more people being layed off and replaced with government sponsored cheap labour.


Oh and another policy I particularly like is to set up a Department of public service reform. Does anyone think this actually in reality would mean extra public service jobs resulting in nothing more then a tribunal style waste of money.

PLEASE DONT VOTE LABOUR

morbid.mascara

i say joan burton for minister of finance !

jimmycrackcorm

Labour are riding on a wave of anti-government populism instead of coming out and saying deep cuts are need. I don't believe that Labour would have come up with anything as good as the pension levy (a permanent saving). Gilmore waffles on about making mysterious savings. When 70% of the education budget is salaries then I guess he must mean building new hedge schools to achieve the necessary capital school building savings.

Balmed Out

I know I just mentioned it in a post 2 minutes ago but imagine it. The Department of Public Service Reform.

What a bunch of idiots

The Volt

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Labour are riding on a wave of anti-government populism instead of coming out and saying deep cuts are need. I don't believe that Labour would have come up with anything as good as the pension levy (a permanent saving). Gilmore waffles on about making mysterious savings. When 70% of the education budget is salaries then I guess he must mean building new hedge schools to achieve the necessary capital school building savings.

There's no historical proof of an economy ever being turned around on cuts alone. Labour are proposing a split of cuts and taxation and hopefully they get their wish and we see a third bracket of tax.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That really is a weird thing to say. In living memory, Labour has constantly kept its policies compatible with the centre-right Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in the knowledge that a Civil War two-and-a-half party system means coalition in this day and age - and therefore compromise. Most of the non-Labour left derides the party as sellouts and wishy-washy liberals in disguise, for this reason - and a catalogue of other ones - and won't even acknowledge Labour as a party of the centre left, let alone the hard left.

If there's "demonstrable" evidence of "a more willing embrace of hard-left doctrine" at work, let's see that evidence. Has Labour argued for anything even close to the following, for example:

-A programme of nationalisation of industry and all natural resources,

-Wresting dictatorial control of the economy away from the market and into Government Buildings,

-A withdrawal from the EU,

-The revival of the punt and departure of the eurozone and

-A default on all government and banking debt?


Any hint at these might be indicative of the hard left.

Does Labour fit that bill?

The Volt

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Do you neolibs have any particular greeting or secret handshakes? Or is it the choice of every individual :pac:

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again, can you point to any of their actual POLICIES that would mark them out as different from any other European social democratic party?

Pete_Cavan

Voltwad wrote: »

Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are only separated by the latter's intolerance for corruption. They're both right-wing and will pursue similar policies. Fine Gael do not represent change.

That is crap. FF pursued many left wing policies when they were in power, such as the social partnership thing that gave us benchmarking (that only went one way, up) and increasing social welfare levels to among the highest in Europe. IMO a lot of the right wing policies pursued by government (low taxes, high investment in infrastructure) were due to the PDs, not FF. After all, Bertie was "socialist"!

FG are a genuine centre right party so this thing that FG do not represent change is rubbish, they probably represent more of a change than Labour.

Flex

Voltwad wrote: »

There's no historical proof of an economy ever being turned around on cuts alone. Labour are proposing a split of cuts and taxation and hopefully they get their wish and we see a third bracket of tax.

As far as Im aware though, every party is proposing cuts and tax increases to close the deficit. The issue I have is Labours budget proposal proposed to have nearly 60% of the deficit correction to come from tax increases. We should be trying to keep tax increases to a minimum, along with avoiding cuts in capital spending at the moment.

In my opinion we need a party that will support business and encourage investment in the economy to create more jobs in the private sector which will lead to increased government revenue and a decrease in expenditure as less peope claim SW. We dont need a party that considers a person in a redundancy proof government job on €35k per annum as a "low paid vulnerable worker", has vowed to restore Public Sector pay to pre December 2009 budget levels, apparantly refuses to consider cutting welfare benefits and (as above), based on their policy page, want 60% of the deficit correction to come via tax inreases. Their affiliation with the unions as well...

I like Fine Gael's health policy and would greatly welcome a list system of voting (their initial proposal was very limited from what I remember, but its a start and step in the right direction; away from PRSTV). Also like the investment ideas theyve put forward. Ill be voting for them and hoping they win an overall majority. Having thought about this recently though, based on the nature of the company I work for and its target market and so on, it would probably be in my (short term) interest to vote Labour, but I can see the bigger picture. Fine Gael arent ideal to me, but I really think its the best outcome we can have.

southsiderosie

Flex wrote: »

I like Fine Gael's health policy and would greatly welcome a list system of voting (their initial proposal was very limited from what I remember, but its a start and step in the right direction; away from PRSTV). Also like the investment ideas theyve put forward. Ill be voting for them and hoping they win an overall majority. Having thought about this recently though, based on the nature of the company I work for and its target market and so on, it would probably be in my (short term) interest to vote Labour, but I can see the bigger picture. Fine Gael arent ideal to me, but I really think its the best outcome we can have.

Since it seems like no party will get a majority, what coalition do you think would be most likely to make the FG-style health care reforms (which are based on services in the Netherlands, no?). From what I have read, SIPTU is not happy with the plan, but FF has been critical as well.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That has to be the most shoddy excuse for an explanation I've seen in the political forum in some time.

You stated

Under their influence, the Labour Party has demonstrably moved away from its moderate centrism of the mid-1990s (which reflected the similar transformations in the UK that shaped Blair's "New Labour") and back towards a more willing embrace of hard-left doctrine.

as a result you were asked the entirely reasonable

southsiderosie wrote:

What policies of theirs would you call "hard left" rather than European-style social democracy (and I would even question that), or do you not draw this distinction?

(my bold)

Policies.
http://www.labour.ie/policy/

Not cherry picked phrases from speeches.

bmaxi

I think Joan Burton gets a bad press. All right she's no picture postcard and her voice does grate a bit but I think she has a good grasp of things, certainly a better grasp than Lenihan.
I think Labour is returning to it's roots and this might be what scares some people but the reality of the EU/IMF agreement really rules out hard left policies for the forseeable future, I think Gilmore & Co. are savvy enough to see that.
Besides, in the last GE 42% believed that the policies of FF would ensure the good times for evermore, so what do we know?

Incidentally if you think Joan's voice is grating, have a listen to this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6qBN9-AsxU

It's scheduled for 6mins 49 secs, the 49 secs was enough for me.

thebaldsoprano

I'd consider voting for them if they were clearer about their policies. For example in this document they recognise the need to control PS spending, but a few months later they advocated reversing the PS cuts already imposed. They seem to be trying to keep everyone happy like FF did and that didn't turn out so well. If they show a willingness to stand up to the PS unions between now and the election that might persuade some centre-right voters like myself to give them a preference, but I'd imagine it would also alienate some of their core supporters.

LordSutch

southsiderosie wrote: »

Why so much fear of Labour?

Surely the biggest fear by most is of the Shinners (not Labour)? OK, realistically SF dont have a chance in hell of getting into the next Dail, but they are lurking in the background none the less, & that is more unsettling than anything else in Irish politics . . . .

southsiderosie

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I'd consider voting for them if they were clearer about their policies. For example in this document they recognise the need to control PS spending, but a few months later they advocated reversing the PS cuts already imposed. They seem to be trying to keep everyone happy like FF did and that didn't turn out so well. If they show a willingness to stand up to the PS unions between now and the election that might persuade some centre-right voters like myself to give them a preference, but I'd imagine it would also alienate some of their core supporters.

Maybe I am reading these incorrectly, but it seems like the first document is a policy statement from the party, while the second document refers to a decision made by delegates at a conference. I'd guess that there is tension between the base and the leadership, which is why they have been relatively quiet on specific policy issues lately. They seem to be in sniffing distance of government, and the leadership doesn't want to screw it up; an internal revolt would only scare off skittish first-time labour voters.

Although you do raise an interesting point - maybe Labour needs a "Sister Souljah" moment (i.e. smacking down a sector of the base to reassure centrist/independent voters)?

ei.sdraob

Let me see (yes i voted/gave preference to Labour on local issues/elections before as well as Greens believe it or not before i realised what they really stood for, simply because the others sucked, here in Galway politicians come in worse & worst flavours..., so dont bite my head off)

1. backing the unions while they held country ransom
2. trying to do the Greens with an even dafter Climate Change bill version
3. backing the unions while they held country ransom
4. trying to "out promise" FF in past elections
5. backing the unions while they held country ransom
6. fence sitting
7. backing the unions while they held country ransom
8. contradicting themselves on various issues

but at least they are not SF or FF...

thebaldsoprano

southsiderosie wrote: »

maybe Labour needs a "Sister Souljah" moment?

That would be interesting alright. Although it might deliver a good part of their base into the hands of the United Left Alliance. It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of months.

The Volt

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Let me see (yes i voted Labour on local issues/elections before, simply because the others sucked, here in Galway politicians come in worse & worst flavours..., so dont bite my head off)

1. backing the unions while they held country ransom
2. trying to do the Greens with an even dafter Climate Change bill version
3. backing the unions while they held country ransom
4. trying to "out promise" FF in past elections
5. backing the unions while they held country ransom
6. fence sitting
7. backing the unions while they held country ransom
8. contradicting themselves on various issues

Do you have a problem with the unions?

ei.sdraob

Voltwad wrote: »

Do you have a problem with the unions?

Yes, do we need yet another thread about them

The Volt

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Yes, do we need yet another thread about them

Perhaps. One without populist forgettings of the amount of good they do,

Min

http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/eamon-gilmore-workers-party-nov-1982/

Valmont

Voltwad wrote: »

Perhaps. One without populist forgettings of the amount of good they do,

Are you referring to the public sector unions in Ireland or remarking on unions in general?

Manach

The unions seem to be mostly comprised of Public sector employees.
Given the Labour/Union links there would be little appetite to balance the State's borrowing that is running 16B in the red.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Referring to him being in the workers party is moot seeing as he was one of the members who caused a split in that party to form democratic left. The main reason for that was they wanted to accept the free market which the marxist workers party didn't

If he was really such a rabid commie he'd have stayed with the workers.

Min

Min wrote: »

http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/eamon-gilmore-workers-party-nov-1982/

It would be pretty strange if politicians retained the exact same fixed ideas from their early 20s into their 50s and beyond - and it would be pretty unhealthy too. They should react to changes in the world around them, to the circumstances their country finds itself in, and with good grace they should be able to accept better ideas when their previous argument has been lost.

Plenty of non-FF and -FG politicians display the above behaviour, and for them politics is a journey - if you're looking for a right-wing example, Michael McDowell's your man.

It figures that what annoys so many people about the Civil War parties is that rigid, anti-intellectual, my-party-right-or-wrong attitude. You're born, you support the party, you die. Well lads, while you were sleeping, the IMF walked in and emigration started again.

Politicians should have the freedom to mature and evolve their thinking over time, and bring a bit of intelligence to bear on the situation even if they get it wrong while they're still young. Isn't it strange how those who approach politics intellectually are still derided as Moscow-loving lunatics, while Mary Coughlan tops the poll in her constituency?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Min

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Referring to him being in the workers party is moot seeing as he was one of the members who caused a split in that party to form democratic left. The main reason for that was they wanted to accept the free market which the marxist workers party didn't

If he was really such a rabid commie he'd have stayed with the workers.

A party that was going nowhere, so they set up another party which was never going to be powerful, does enough to get his party accepted into Labour then gets former WP Pat Rabbitte elected as leader of Labour then Gilmore.
A perfect coup, moving from two hopeless parties to the third biggest.

Min

Deleted User wrote: »

It would be pretty strange if politicians retained the exact same fixed ideas from their early 20s into their 50s and beyond - and it would be pretty unhealthy too. They should react to changes in the world around them, to the circumstances their country finds itself in, and with good grace they should be able to accept better ideas when their previous argument has been lost.

Plenty of non-FF and -FG politicians display the above behaviour, and for them politics is a journey - if you're looking for a right-wing example, Michael McDowell's your man.

It figures that what annoys so many people about the Civil War parties is that rigid, anti-intellectual, my-party-right-or-wrong attitude. You're born, you support the party, you die. Well lads, while you were sleeping, the IMF walked in and emigration started again.

Politicians should have the freedom to mature and evolve their thinking over time, and bring a bit of intelligence to bear on the situation even if they get it wrong while they're still young. Isn't it strange how those who approach politics intellectually are still derided as Moscow-loving lunatics, while Mary Coughlan tops the poll in her constituency?

How do you know he has changed? Politicians want power and will do what they can to get power.
Gilmore dreams of being Taoiseach and drawing up a whole new constitution, do we really know what this man wants?

Wide Road

The lack of so called senior posters on this thread has to be a serious worry to the Thank You voters that have failed to latch onto this thread. It's sad, but it's true!!!!!!!!

Min

Min wrote: »

How do you know he has changed?

In a fairly similar way to how people knew what Seán Lemass was on about when he went from shooting Brits and Free Staters (early '20s) to putting Dev's conservative agrarian protectionism into place ('30s, '40s, early '50s) and going on to do the opposite - open up the economy with Whitaker-era reforms, many still valid today.

There was clearly an element of uncertainty and trust at each of those points in history. Since the foundation of the state, the constitutions (1922 and 1937) have been very good at deterring coups d'état, whatever their other failings. There are other checks and balances too - free speech, as is being practised here. The media. The EU. The imperative towards coalitions, which moderate politics and encourage centreism. We've pretty much had coalitions since the early '80s.

And as a few others have pointed out, the other PES parties in Europe are a good indicator: the party stands comparison with Spain, Germany and France, all of which have recently had Labour/social democratic governments without Lenin reanimating, marching out of his Kremlin mausoleum and crushing capitalism all across the continent.

Labour is a very mainstream party. As for New Labour in the UK - since an earlier poster was so impressed by them - they still sang The Red Flag at their party conference during Blair's tenure, there were a number of former communists holding senior ministerial positions, and some of them probably called each other comrade when they felt like it too.

mistermouse

They Fielded Frank McBrearty as a Local Councillor in Donegal, then after his 'performances' in that chamber fielded him in the Donegal SW By-Election, Even after those performances, they continue to run him as a candidate in the upcoming Election.

The thought of him in the Dail is quite scary

They certainly don't get EVERYTHING right.

Shea O'Meara

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Overreact much?:rolleyes:
What about the 'soldiers of destiny', it's in the name!:eek:

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Depends on whether or not the "e" is pronounced. I'd certainly prefer it to him using ridiculous made-up words like "homies" or "peeps".

Besides, if you go back through a lot if old Irish songs you'll find the word used quite a bit - AFAIK it actually means friend/colleague/fellow traveller/like-minded with common experiences.

So any supposed negative connotations are all in the mind of those reading; if they want to read into it, they will; if not, it's just a word.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=comrade

"A fellow member of a political party"

Looks like Cowen is a comrade of Ahern.

Killer Pigeon

Soldie wrote: »

Out of Labour, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, Labour are the party that's least likely to make the cuts needed to salvage the country from its fiscal nightmare. Their close relationship with the public sector unions and Gilmore's never-ending fence-sitting doesn't make me believe otherwise. Simply maintaining the status quo (if you could call it that) right now isn't good enough, and further cuts are needed. I don't think that they're a business-friendly party, and, at a time when we desperately need to grow the economy with real jobs, a business-friendly party is precisely what we need.

Yes .. like Fianna Fáil, we all know how "business friendly" they were. Please define exactly what you mean by "business friendly"? Do you mean trying to draw multinational companies into Ireland or providing the necessary facilities so that Irish countries can grow and prosper in their own companies without the threat of globalisation? FF's idea of "business friendly" was just a quick fix initiative and totally unsustainable.

Labour are the only big party to advocate large investment in education and research. These methods have proven to foster home grown large high-tech companies that grew directly out of universities in other countries.

Soldie

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yes .. like Fianna Fáil, we all know how "business friendly" they were. Please define exactly what you mean by "business friendly"? Do you mean trying to draw multinational companies into Ireland or providing the necessary facilities so that Irish countries can grow and prosper in their own companies without the threat of globalisation? FF's idea of "business friendly" was just a quick fix initiative and totally unsustainable.

Labour are the only big party to advocate large investment in education and research. These methods have proven to foster home grown large high-tech companies that grew directly out of universities in other countries.

Please read my first post carefully: I said that "[of the three big parties], Labour are the party that's least likely to make the cuts needed to salvage the country from its fiscal nightmare". Your post seems to suggest that I think Fianna Fáil (or even Fine Gael, for that matter) are undoubtedly going to make the cuts that are required, but I never said such a thing. Labour are a left-wing party, and they have a close relationship with the unions; over 75% of the health and education budget is spent on wages and pensions, so that's why I think they're the party that's least likely to tackle spending.

A business friendly party is a party that will take on the entrenched unions, cut spending back to levels more in line with our tax revenue, and also cut taxes and red tape inasmuch as it's possible in order to stimulate growth in the private sector. I don't want any of Labour's "large investment" -- we don't have the money.