Why I won't be voting for Labour

Sizzler

# 1

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/labour-to-honour-croke-park-agreement-if-in-govt-490817.html

wrote:

Labour leader Eamon Gilmore has said his party will honour the Croke Park Agreement if in Government after the General Election.

Mr Gilmore said he believed the deal worked out between unions and the current Government can generate savings of €1.4bn in the annual public service pay bill.

He said cumpulsory redundancies were not being considered by the Labour Party and he promised to ensure the pay terms of the agreement are met.

However, he also said the productivity agreements in the deal would also be implemented.

"We should be much, much further advanced in getting reductions in payroll, and reforms in our public service," he said.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/labour-to-honour-croke-park-agreement-if-in-govt-490817.html#ixzz1CE7I7FDP

Mr Gilmore was very quick to stick the boot in to the current crop of clowns about the IMF/EU bailout deal citing "it was the worst possible deal for the Irish taxpayer". HELLOOOO Mr Gilmore, hot on the heels is the Croke Park agreement. An absolute fudge with no savings, no recrimination and zero trasnparency. But Labour seem happy to stay cosied up to their mates in SIPTU et al.

# 2 Clear conflict of interest with Labour and their union bretheren, they will NEVER tackle any of the public sector issues that are burdoning the public finances.

# 3 There will be no radical poltical reform as its quiet clear that Labour will still ensure their mates are looked after, trade union members being parachuted into plum semi state board positions, just in the same way FF looked after their supporters, same policy whatever way you dress it.

Devilman40k

Sizzler wrote: »

# 2 Clear conflict of interest with Labour and their union bretheren, they will NEVER tackle any of the public sector issues that are burdoning the public finances.

.

Not all trade union members are/were Labour members...a certain Mr M.Martin T.D was an ASTI representative iirc, although I have yet to hear what his proposals are re. the Croke Park agreement.

meditraitor

Sizzler wrote: »

# 1

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/labour-to-honour-croke-park-agreement-if-in-govt-490817.html



Mr Gilmore was very quick to stick the boot in to the current crop of clowns about the IMF/EU bailout deal citing "it was the worst possible deal for the Irish taxpayer". HELLOOOO Mr Gilmore, hot on the heels is the Corke Park agreement. An absolute fudge with no savings, no recrimination and zero trasnparency. But Labour seem happy to stay cosied up to their mates in SIPTU et al.

# 2 Clear conflict of interest with Labour and their union bretheren, they will NEVER tackle any of the public sector issues that are burdoning the public finances.

# 3 There will be no radical poltical reform as its quiet clear that Labour will still ensure their mates are looked after, trade union members being parachuted into plum semi state board positions, just in the same way FF looked after their supporters, same policy whatever way you dress it.

I agree with you on the croke park agreement,


but you are clearly wrong in saying that the Labour Party will parachute trade union members into semi state bodies, this is a complete falacy
Please be honest in your posts, what you are worried about is only possibilities and not truths, your worries should not be posted as facts!

See I would never go around saying that I wont vote FG because they will privatise the health service creating a 4 teir service were lower and working class people will have no access to a quality medical service. They will sell of all natural resources. They will reduce social welfare by 50% and de-regulate the markets to allow employers to pay what they think is a good wage and limit the workers rights to fair treatment. They will create a serf society were the clever and powerfull rule the roost because they are the wealth creaters.. This is every bit as possible as your post on what Labour may do......

But its not a fact and I wont portray it as such!

Sizzler

Devilman40k wrote: »

Not all trade union members are/were Labour members...a certain Mr M.Martin T.D was an ASTI representative iirc, although I have yet to hear what his proposals are re. the Croke Park agreement.

I would guess they are fundamentally the same, FF have a long standing "understanding" with the unions stemming back to Haughey's tenure. FF wont rock the boat, but if they are decimated in the GE perhaps it would be in his interest to go all radical on their a$$es.

meditraitor wrote: »

I agree with you on the croke park agreement,


but you are clearly wrong in saying that the Labour Party will parachute trade union members into semi state bodies, this is a complete falacy
Please be honest in your posts, what you are worried about is only possibilities and not truths, your worries should not be posted as facts!

See I would never go around saying that I wont vote FG because they will privatise the health service creating a 4 teir service were lower and working class people will have no access to a quality medical service. They will sell of all natural resources. They will reduce social welfare by 50% and de-regulate the markets to allow employers to pay what they think is a good wage and limit the workers rights to fair treatment. They will create a serf society were the clever and powerfull rule the roost because they are the wealth creaters.. This is every bit as possible as your post on what Labour may do......

But its not a fact and I wont portray it as such!

OK let me put it another way, there are already a number of trade unionists in plum board positions and I do not expect that to change with a Labour led administration, I think thats entirely believable and not mere speculation.

Eliot Rosewater

Trade Unions are a vested interest. Now you may argue that they are good, or bad, but I don't think you can deny that they are a vested interest.

Trade Unions have a vote at Labour conferences and are involved with the party generally. And that worries me, becuase I don't like the prospect of a party in government being especcially favourable to one group of people. I don't trust Labour to prioritize the interests of the country over that of the unions.

Flex

Excellent move by Labour. Im sure people can expect the public sector to implement cost saving measures by stating in advance of any savings being made that there wont be any redundancies or reductions in pay (ie. negative consequences for failing to make any savings or reforms). Im sure theyll be just as motivated to deliver efficiency and cost saving measures now as they were during the benchmarking farce. Economy is bleeding to death while we have to wait for the PS to 'retire' its way to affordability, its fair though...

Im not voting Labour for a number of reasons. One of which is the fact I dont like how they give so much credence to this particular lobby group at the expense of the country as a whole.

golfball37

As I posted in the Joan Burton thread: Labour lost 2 votes in my house to SF.
---
Labour pulled their no confidence motion therefore showing their true colours.

They wanted this bill through so they can blame FF for it. Everyone can see this for themselves and they will be well punished for it, at the polls.

The logic that the greens would voted confidence in a government with 7 cabinet ministers and a disgraced Taoiseach would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

Not to mention they would have to explain how/why they have confidence in a government they had just decided to leave a few days earlier.

Labour have, to quote Pearse Doherty shown themselves to be high on the sniff of the leather from the ministerial mercs and no amount of spin will fool the people who want a real alternative to this governments failed policies.

outandabout

I used vote Labour 1 but for tactical reasons this time round I'm voting FG 1/2 and Labour 3.

I also regret voting Labour in the past when they got elected to go into coalition with Fianna Fail.

Any time I have voted it has been to stop FF getting into power.

This time around I'm taking no chances.

Lockstep

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Trade Unions have a vote at Labour conferences and are involved with the party generally. And that worries me, becuase I don't like the prospect of a party in government being especcially favourable to one group of people. I don't trust Labour to prioritize the interests of the country over that of the unions.

*Some* trade unions do. They're not a single entity.

There are 12 trade unions affiliated to Labour, the likes of SIPTU and Impact. Some are Irish branches of British trade unions (like UNITE, GMB, Bakers Food and Allied Workers etc)

Unions involved in the Croke Park agreement like IFUT, ASTI, TUI and so on aren't represented.

OhNoYouDidn't

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Trade Unions are a vested interest. Now you may argue that they are good, or bad, but I don't think you can deny that they are a vested interest.

Trade Unions have a vote at Labour conferences and are involved with the party generally. And that worries me, becuase I don't like the prospect of a party in government being especcially favourable to one group of people. I don't trust Labour to prioritize the interests of the country over that of the unions.

But at least with Labour you get what is says on the tin. We know they are the party with the closest ties to the TU movement. I would argue that they are the ones who are most likely to get concessions from the TU's due to that relationship, but thats a different debate.

I would prefer a party being 'favourable' to a semi democratic lobby group in a transparent manner than the current arrangement where FF are 'favourable' to the developers and banks in a quite probably corrupt manner.

ednwireland

frank mcbrearty is their candidate for my constituency in the GE

need i say more ...................................

Sizzler

# 4 Reason not to vote Labour...

Future Minister for Finance :eek:

Toyed with the idea of emigrating but this could tip me over the edge.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG_ii1xiYOU

The Volt

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Trade Unions are a vested interest. Now you may argue that they are good, or bad, but I don't think you can deny that they are a vested interest.

Trade Unions have a vote at Labour conferences and are involved with the party generally. And that worries me, becuase I don't like the prospect of a party in government being especcially favourable to one group of people. I don't trust Labour to prioritize the interests of the country over that of the unions.

Just like big businesses are a vested interest to FG. Working people founded the Labour Party in Ireland so I don't see what's wrong with them having a say in how the party is run. Members of unions can vote to be affiliated with Labour. For example, I used to be in CWU before I went back to college and they had a vote to disaffiliate themselves from the Party.

meditraitor

Sizzler wrote: »

# 4 Reason not to vote Labour...

Future Minister for Finance :eek:

Toyed with the idea of emigrating but this could tip me over the edge.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG_ii1xiYOU

If Labour get the finance job it more than likely will be Quinn who gets it, proabably the most respected Finance minister of this generation...!

d'Oracle

golfball37 wrote: »

As I posted in the Joan Burton thread: Labour lost 2 votes in my house to SF.
---

So Burton Being rude and annoying is more of a concern than Ferris cozying up to Cop Killers?

Or Gerry Adams not knowing anything about Economic issues in the republic?

McGuinness sheltering murderers?

Strange world.
By all means pillar Joan Burton for being obnoxious.
I can even accept that people will not vote for them on grounds of her being obnoxious (I think its silly, but thats my view)

But voting for clueless terrorists as a result?
Bit extreme surely?

xE

I won't be voting Labour because:

1. They are fundamentally dishonest between their Leftist rhetoric and Rightwing policies.
2. A vote for Labour is really a vote for Fine Gael
3. Their local candidate is a parachute candidate
4. Eamon Gilmore and Joan Burton exemplify the worst in Irish politics, honestly, they're no different that melodramatic Martin or blunt Cowen.

Obviously I certainly won't be voting for Fine Gael either. So the pickings are quite slim between Greens, Sinn Fein, pointless Independents, or spoiling my vote.

d'Oracle

xE wrote: »

I won't be voting Labour because:

1. They are fundamentally dishonest between their Leftist rhetoric and Rightwing policies.

The rest of your reasons are your own, but this is not true.

The Labour party are a Social Democratic party.
Their philosophy is Capitalism with social Justice/responsibility.

Beyond supporting capitalism, I cannot see anything in their policies that is Right wing.

Count Dooku

d'Oracle wrote: »

The Labour party are a Social Democratic party.
Their philosophy is Capitalism with social Justice/responsibility.

social Justice/responsibility only for chosen, such as union members, but under cover of rhetoric to protect most vulnerable in order to justify tax increases for protection pensions/incomes of overstaffed public sector

d'Oracle

Count Dooku wrote: »

social Justice/responsibility only for chosen, such as union members, but under cover of rhetoric to protect most vulnerable in order to justify tax increases for protection pensions/incomes of overstaffed public sector

Nonsense.
Absolutely nothing to prove any of that.
When has anything like that ever been put in place?

The public sector became overstaffed and over administrated under FF.

cjgib

i agree with you 100%.Any politician claiming to be able to save money by "reform" is a liar.Why the media allow these lies to go out unchallenged is a mystery.
ps.politicians cant create jobs but watch them spoof about this unchallenged in the media.

speedboatchase

Anybody in private service that isn't in a union that votes Labour is a mug imo

Einhard

xE wrote: »

I won't be voting Labour because:


Their local candidate is a parachute candidate

So the pickings are quite slim between Greens, Sinn Fein, pointless Independents, or spoiling my vote.

*Cough* Gerry Adams *Cough*

Killer Pigeon

Sizzler wrote: »

# 2 Clear conflict of interest with Labour and their union bretheren, they will NEVER tackle any of the public sector issues that are burdoning the public finances.

# 3 There will be no radical poltical reform as its quiet clear that Labour will still ensure their mates are looked after, trade union members being parachuted into plum semi state board positions, just in the same way FF looked after their supporters, same policy whatever way you dress it.

With regard to #2, in labour's budget proposal they suggested the following:

Public Service Reform: The Comprehensive Spending Review

The Need for Reform
Despite the scale of the deficit that faces Ireland, Fianna Fáil have failed to introduce
any kind of real reform in public expenditure or public service delivery. Rather than
introducing a multi-annual approach to budgeting and public expenditure management,
they have lurched from budget to budget, introducing a series of crude expenditure
cuts. Crude cuts in budgets and service levels have been imposed, rather than
achieving savings through a process of reform that could minimise the impact on
frontline services.
The only contribution to any form of reform or re-think of public expenditure has
been the Bord Snip report, which was essentially a crude cutting exercise, rather than a
real review of public expenditure priorities. Moreover, the decision to hand-over the
review to an outside expert, with no Ministerial involvement, meant that there was
little or no buy-in from Government Ministers or Departments. The Four Year Plan
adopts a broadly similar approach.
The Bord Snip report stands in marked contrast to what is now regarded as
international best practice in managing public expenditure during a fiscal consolidation.
Labour is proposing an alternative approach to public expenditure consolidation
through a Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), which would have the
following features:

Asking Fundamental Questions
Rather than starting with the question ‘what can we cut?’, a CSR would start with the
question ‘What service do we want to provide and how can we provide it?’.
Following the Canadian model, the CSR then becomes a major social or Governmental
project, that asks fundamental questions about what Government can and should do in
a changing environment, on a ‘whole of Government’ basis.

Multi-annual Approach
A Comprehensive Spending Review would be undertaken every three years, and
would provide a basis for multi-annual budgeting of Departmental Expenditure.

Strong Leadership and Buy-in
Responsibility for co-ordination of the review must rest at the centre of Government,
through a special cabinet committee of senior Ministers. At Departmental level, the
process must be led by the Minister and the Secretary General.
‘Nothing is Agreed Until Everything is Agreed’
Collective Government is a fundamental feature of the Irish constitution, and the same
is true of effective expenditure reforms. By using the ‘nothing is agreed until
everything is agreed’ rule, the system is fairer and more open, and implementation is
more effective as a result.

Efficiency and Service Re-design
Sustained expenditure reduction requires a multi-annual approach. Economies can be
achieved through waste reduction and achieving greater efficiency within existing
structures, or through a fundamental re-design of service delivery. The object of the
CSR exercise is to deliver the same quality of service, or better, with fewer resources,
including both pay and non-pay budgets. Our proposals for Budget 2011 include a
number of up-front efficiencies that will reduce the cost of providing public services.
To avoid damaging the quality of front-line services, however, a CSR is required.

Staff Involvement
The CSR will be a matter for Government, but it will be necessary to involve staff in
delivering change. The outcome of the CSR will feed into negotiations with staff.

Public Sector Employment
As part of the process of re-designing public services and achieving savings, it will be
necessary to reduce the numbers employed. This can be done through a combination
of natural wastage and voluntary redundancies in targeted areas. Numbers policy will
be a key output of the CSR. For Budget 2011, Labour is adopting a target of reducing
payroll costs by at least €400m.

Non-Commercial Semi-State Bodies (NCSSBs)/Quangos
Non-Commercial Semi-State Bodies have mushroomed in numbers in recent years, and
there is growing concern about the value-for-money achieved by this approach to
public service delivery. In particular, it is questionable whether the benefits of quasiautonomous
organisations exceed the additional over-head costs. The CSR would
include a full-evaluation of all NCSSBs (‘Quangos’), with each body being required to
justify its continued existence outside of the parent department. Remaining NCSSBs
would be required to be accountable to the Oireachtas.

Annual Scrutiny of Public Spending

The Estimates Procedure
Labour favours a radical reform of the Estimates procedure to make it more
transparent, and to ensure real-time scrutiny of expenditure decisions.
The annual Estimates will be brought forward, so that it concludes in the summer
prior to the annual budget. It will also distinguish between monies being allocated to
maintaining the existing level of service for existing programmes and money to support
new programmes or policy decisions.
Departments proposing new expenditure programmes will be required to
simultaneously publish a five-year projection of costs and benefits of those
proposals.
The Estimates will also distinguish between discretionary and non-discretionary
spending, i.e., spending arising from legal entitlements which must be met (such as
pensions).
The Book of Estimates will be accompanied by a detailed performance report on what
the previous year’s spending had achieved. It will also give details of the level of
performance achieved by agencies under service delivery agreements with
Government.
A Budget Commissioner, with strong powers to obtain all necessary information, will
be appointed within the Houses of the Oireachtas to manage the advance scrutiny of
spending proposals, in the same way that the Comptroller and Auditor General
scrutinises the outcome of spending, after the event.
An Independent Fiscal Advisory Council
Labour will establish an independent Fiscal Advisory Council (FAC), separated from
fiscal decision-makers in government, that would scrutinise all official fiscal
projections.
Its modeling assumptions and inputs will, as far as possible, be open to public
scrutiny and its outputs would be freely available to external bodies, including in
particular, the opposition parties.
The Fiscal Advisory Council will be independent of Government and will report to
the Dáil. Its functions will include identifying and advising on cyclical and countercyclical
fiscal policies and structural deficits; the cyclical or temporary nature of
particular revenues; and the need to maintain an appropriate and effective tax base.

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/inirelandsinterests.pdf

Your third point is utter speculation, did you see such actions the last time(s) labour was in government? No.

Sizzler

^^

If you have been watching any of Labour's recent media outings you will see quite obviously they have no desire or policy on public service reform, if they do, they certainly arent willing to share it with the electorate.

A serious hole diging exercise for them, unless you are a blinkered public sector worker!

Public sector reform should be one of the top line agenda items for any incoming government, Labour's stance of accepting the status quo is equally as troubling as the current crop of idiots that have steered us to oblivion.

StupidLikeAFox

Sizzler wrote: »

^^

If you have been watching any of Labour's recent media outings you will see quite obviously they have no desire or policy on public service reform, if they do, they certainly arent willing to share it with the electorate.

Actually if you look at their "New Goverment, Better Government" document, released last month, they propose setting up an "Office of Public Reform" which will be run by a sitting minister.

Its on page 19.

http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/12943264241775893.html

Sizzler

ColHol wrote: »

Actually if you look at their "New Goverment, Better Government" document, released last month, they propose setting up an "Office of Public Reform" which will be run by a sitting minister.

Its on page 19.

http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/12943264241775893.html

Another QUANGO?

You have to be shítting me :eek:

StupidLikeAFox

It wouldnt be another quango, it would come withing the brief of a sitting minister. There is a fairly big difference. For one the reporting requirements and level of accountability for governmnet departments is significantly higher than for the numerous state bodies set by the last governments, so it wouldnt create too many plum jobs.

They have also committed to implementing a number of the Bord Snip proposals which the last government, for some reason, investigated then did nothing about.

I was just pointing out that when you said this....

quite obviously they have no desire or policy on public service reform

....it wasnt true.

Im not saying that they are the answer or the best, but my point is that they are (and have been in the past) extremely friendly to reforming how the country works.

Boulevardier

There is no need whatever for public service reform, except possibly more flexible redeployment. The rest of the so-called "public service reform" agenda is bogus.

The real agenda here is to make the public service work more for less, and in so doing, drive down pay and conditions in the private sector as well.

As for labour, it represents, or should represent, 2 sets of preople, namely (1) Those who are in unions, and (2) those who are not in unions but should be.

I am sorry to see Labour and its supporters trying to appease this agenda. I would say that the public service bashers are never going to vote labour anyway, so to hell with them.

Sizzler

Boulevardier wrote: »

There is no need whatever for public service reform, except possibly more flexible redeployment. The rest of the so-called "public service reform" agenda is bogus.

The real agenda here is to make the public service work more for less, and in so doing, drive down pay and conditions in the private sector as well.

As for labour, it represents, or should represent, 2 sets of preople, namely (1) Those who are in unions, and (2) those who are not in unions but should be.

I am sorry to see Labour and its supporters trying to appease this agenda. I would say that the public service bashers are never going to vote labour anyway, so to hell with them.

Whats a public service basher pres tell?

As a taxpayer I want to see value for money, I dont "bash" public sector workers as the vast majority do a sterling job but I think you will find there is a system that is complicit in stifling any tangible reform and its also rather obvious that FF made a balls of their cutbacks over the last few years in the PS,

How can you penalise a PS worker on 30k and leave a "senior" civil servant untouched? Luminaries such as Kevin Cardiff in the DOF who has ZERO business acumen outside the heavily insulated walls of government offices and is somehow earning 200k a year? WTF?

Allied to that there are a litany of quangos who bring NOTHING to the party to remotely deserve to have the taxpayer perpetually fund them.

You need to be specific when you call out PS bashers as most people on here are pretty reasonable I find.

On a personal level I dont believe Labour have any politcal will to tackle any aspects of the PS elephants in the room, not least again the critical issue of them having a serious conflict of interest with them being in bed with various unions. It would be just like voting Bertie back in with the builders & regulator in his bosom, same difference imho.

Pal

I won't be voting Labour because ;

They have vested interest in the trade unions.
They are socialists but pretend that they are not.
Joan Burton is obnoxious, ignorant on finance and cannot conduct herself in a manner worthy of being a public representative.
Eamon Gilmore is peddling a lie about how he will renegotiate the bailout terms.
They state openly that they will further tax earners over 100k

FG for me this time. Never voted for them before but will now. A one party overall majority is what I think the country needs.

Boulevardier

Sizzler, I would rate you as being only a moderate PS basher, because at least you can see that most ordinary public servants do a good job on les than princely salaries.

Nevertheless, there is a substantial contingent of people on boards like these who use the phrase "public service reform" as a fig-leaf to cover their anti-union agenda.

For myself, I only wish labour were as leftist as some here allege them to be, but unfortunately, they (Labour) are too busy at the moment ducking and weaving on policy in order to be FG-compatible. It is a sad sight.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PeterIanStaker

Pal wrote: »

FG for me this time. Never voted for them before but will now. A one party overall majority is what I think the country needs.

I'm tending towards this line of thought myself - if FF are annihilated, and I stress if (there are still a lot of FF hicks out there *shudder*), then there might by some chance be a Dáil with a left/right divide instead of two Civil War parties.

^
above is a hypothetical situation - don't attack me because I'm theorising or brainstorming, please.

Killer Pigeon

Pal wrote: »

I won't be voting Labour because ;

They have vested interest in the trade unions.
They are socialists but pretend that they are not.
Joan Burton is obnoxious, ignorant on finance and cannot conduct herself in a manner worthy of being a public representative.
Eamon Gilmore is peddling a lie about how he will renegotiate the bailout terms.
They state openly that they will further tax earners over 100k

FG for me this time. Never voted for them before but will now. A one party overall majority is what I think the country needs.

1. Not everyone in Labour thinks the present state of the trade unions is acceptable. Obviously corruption can happen in all areas of society and the unions are no exception to this, there needs to be a reform of the unions. However the unions have played a very important role in improving working conditions in Ireland over the years and we must not forget this.

2. Labour don't cover up the fact that they are socialists. They describe themselves as democratic socialists. There's no cover up, this is old news.

3. Joan Burton's behaviour lately on TV is obviously questionable but I honestly don't think that this will inhibit her ability to work as a good minister for Finance. Also, Fine Gael's finance spokesperson on finance has a lot less experience in that area than Burton. Joan Burton is an accountant and former lecturer, Michael Noonan is a school teacher. Also Michael Noonan isn't at all charismatic, neither in Enda Kenny in my opinion.

4. You say that "Eamon Gilmore is peddling a lie about how he will renegotiate the bailout terms", yet Fine Gael share the exact same sentiment and rhetoric in relation to the IMF/EU bailout as Labour do. How can you be sure that Enda is not also "peddling a lie"?

5. "They state openly that they will further tax earners over 100k", many people who earn those sort of figures are also business owners and are open to substantial tax reliefs. Due to this, many struggling lower income earners pay just as much in tax as many higher income earners. There needs to be some sort of compromise.

d'Oracle

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The key point here is that someone can be a socialist without being a raving communist dictator. (Despite the implication everytime the labour party is mentioned in this country)

I am a socialist, but I am not opposed to capitalism. Imagine that.

d'Oracle

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

2. Labour don't cover up the fact that they are socialists. They describe themselves as democratic socialists. There's no cover up, this is old news.

.

Social Democrats.
There is a difference.

The Volt

d'Oracle wrote: »

Social Democrats.
There is a difference.

There are socialists within the Party and supporters who consider themselves socialists, me included. The term 'socialist' is a broad one and for the case of people in Labour, the term socialist comes with a fundamental belief in democracy.

unknown13

I won't be voting for them for a number of reasons.

1. They aren't big enough to lead the Government.

2.Them and Fine Gael seem to clash on a lot of policies.

3. Joan Burton