Labour - no policies apart from denouncing everyoen else?

Black Bloc

Listened to News at One today and the Labour Party spokesperson spend the air time saying what Labour wouldn't do, who they the wouldn't agree with and what policies they wouldn't adopt. Is this really what people need now? A party that creeps into the government on the basis of having nothing useful to offer itself but plenty of stick for alternatives. Since I returned to Ireland I developed an admiration for Gilmore's fortrightness but he seems to have decided that the best policy is to be against anyone else's. What a troglodyte.

Killer Pigeon

Labour Election Manifesto 2011:

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/labour_election_manifesto_2011.pdf

One criticism I would have with the Labour website is that it doesn't provide simply bullet points with all the policies rather than large PDF documents that nobody has the time to read. It would be a good read though if you had the time. It seems FG's election website is short to the point and doesn't go too much into the nitty-gritty policies while Labour's goes too in depth.

Anyway, I find that indeed FG and Labour do have some comparable policies and I don't particularly agree with your analogy that Labour go by the philosophy "the best policy is to be against anyone else's". It may seem so but that's just election spin.

I agree with what many people here and elsewhere say, i.e., that Labour are doing too much attacking. This is obviously having a negative effect - you need not look any farther than the latest SBP Poll with Labour down 3 points to 17%. If only they campaigned with their policies they would do so much better, however the damage is done at this stage unless of course there's some sort of miracle in the next week.

upmeath

Black Bloc wrote: »

he seems to have decided that the best policy is to be against anyone else's

That's funny, he was shown on Six One agreeing with Ciarán Cuffe (Green, Dun Laoghaire) that environmentally-conscious policy is what's needed in future, and he's long adhered to green principles.
Every party, even every politician, has common ground with another, but also issues they don't agree on. If they all agreed on everything we'd install Hu Jintao on Kildare Street - permanently - and we'd forget this GE lark.

yoshytoshy

I wanted to vote for labour for the last two years ,but after their tactics with the tesco ads in the papers. They come across as a populist fianna fail type crew who put their own interests above all else.

Killer Pigeon

yoshytoshy wrote: »

I wanted to vote for labour for the last two years ,but after their tactics with the tesco ads in the papers. They come across as a populist fianna fail type crew who put their own interests above all else.

Check out FG's Valentine's Day page on their website.

Anyway, these populist tactics used by FG/ Labour are quite common during elections in other countries. I'd take them with a pinch of salt, just plain bickering.

upmeath

yoshytoshy wrote: »

I wanted to vote for labour for the last two years ,but after their tactics with the tesco ads in the papers. They come across as a populist fianna fail type crew who put their own interests above all else.

Or... Labour's PR consultants came up with a really clever way to play on the fact that Fine Gael have a €5bn hole in their planned budget for government, and FG are not coming clean on where cuts are coming and what taxes are proposed. A bit like Tesco

Black Bloc

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Labour Election Manifesto 2011:

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/labour_election_manifesto_2011.pdf

One criticism I would have with the Labour website is that it doesn't provide simply bullet points with all the policies rather than large PDF documents that nobody has the time to read. It would be a good read though if you had the time. It seems FG's election website is short to the point and doesn't go too much into the nitty-gritty policies while Labour's goes too in depth.

Anyway, I find that indeed FG and Labour do have some comparable policies and I don't particularly agree with your analogy that Labour go by the philosophy "the best policy is to be against anyone else's". It may seem so but that's just election spin.

I agree with what many people here and elsewhere say, i.e., that Labour are doing too much attacking. This is obviously having a negative effect - you need not look any farther than the latest SBP Poll with Labour down 3 points to 17%. If only they campaigned with their policies they would do so much better, however the damage is done at this stage unless of course there's some sort of miracle in the next week.

Labour has nothing to offer private business. Their whole tack is don't cut any state handout, spend more but don't say where the money will come from and tax anyone making a go of things because they must be worth a mint. What about all those lawyers that run through taxpayers' money at the tribunals. Any hope Labour or any other party for that matter might raise a flag here. Unreal that any party should think it so normal for people paid by the public purse to become multimillionaires.

Killer Pigeon

upmeath wrote: »

Or... Labour's PR consultants came up with a really clever way to play on the fact that Fine Gael have a €5bn hole in their planned budget for government, and FG are not coming clean on where cuts are coming and what taxes are proposed. A bit like Tesco

Yeah, but the tactic didn't work, did it? Look at the backlash!

Personally, I think Labour should not have attacked FG at all until the 5 way debate. Up until then they should have just remained calm and uncontentious and released their policies steadily to the public. Why? Because they want to show the public that they're level headed and fit for government.

They should have given the likes of Joan Burton sedatives before going on TV (notice how she's not appeared on TV for quite some time since the VB incident). At the same time they should have given the odd jab to FF & the Greens but not to any other party.

This is basically what Enda & Co. are doing and fair play to them it's working.

Killer Pigeon

Black Bloc wrote: »

Labour has nothing to offer private business. Their whole tack is don't cut any state handout, spend more but don't say where the money will come from and tax anyone making a go of things because they must be worth a mint. What about all those lawyers that run through taxpayers' money at the tribunals. Any hope Labour or any other party for that matter might raise a flag here. Unreal that any party should think it so normal for people paid by the public purse to become multimillionaires.

Labour (similar to FG actually) want to cut employers PRSI. They also want to create a strategic investment bank which will help fund Irish businesses. Note also that Labour will maintain the low Corporate Tax rate intact, it was actually brought in by a certain Labour Finance Minister in the 1990's.

Labour want to reduce the Public Service by 18,000. FG want to reduce it by 30,000 through voluntary redundancy packages which is (a) not realistic and never going to happen and (b) the redundancies are going to cost a hell of a lot.

mrrepublic

At the start of this election campaign the four people in our family with votes were strongly in favour of voting for the Labour party and within the last week we all have decided to support FG simply because of the way in which Labour are behaving twords their potential partners in goverment.
E. Gilmore (E.G.) accused FF of putting the FF party before the country and now under his leadership E.G. is playing into the hands of FF by creating a rift between F.G. and Labour and is also sending out a message that Labour is more important than our country. How twofaced can you get.

Killer Pigeon

mrrepublic wrote: »

At the start of this election campaign the four people in our family with votes were strongly in favour of voting for the Labour party and within the last week we all have decided to support FG simply because of the way in which Labour are behaving twords their potential partners in goverment.
E. Gilmore (E.G.) accused FF of putting the FF party before the country and now under his leadership E.G. is playing into the hands of FF by creating a rift between F.G. and Labour and is also sending out a message that Labour is more important than our country. How twofaced can you get.

In this regard, every party is the same - the thing is FG are good at not letting their sentiments run riot. All Labour, like every party, is focused on at the minute is winning as much seats for the party as possible through whatever means possible.

hare05

It seems the only reason to vote for labour at the moment is their stance on gay and transgender rights. That is to say, they have a stance, and it doesn't involve keeping us as second class citizens.

It's a shame when you have to choose between (the slim chance of) economic stability and basic marriage rights...

FG have openly stated they do not support gay marriages at all!

upmeath

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

In this regard, every party is the same - the thing is FG are good at not letting their sentiments run riot. All Labour, like every party, is focused on at the minute is winning as much seats for the party as possible through whatever means possible.

+1
That's true, the seats are FG's to lose at the minute. As far as Inda's concerned they don't need to explain themselves to anyone, nor do they need to expose anyone else. Labour need to do both over the next 5 days if they want a say in how the country is run for the next 5 years.

mrrepublic

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

In this regard, every party is the same - the thing is FG are good at not letting their sentiments run riot. All Labour, like every party, is focused on at the minute is winning as much seats for the party as possible through whatever means possible.

I agree with your point but may I add that if a party is not fit to sell itself with its own policies the surly they are not fit to govern.

Killer Pigeon

mrrepublic wrote: »

I agree with your point but may I add that if a party is not fit to sell itself with its own policies the surly they are not fit to govern.

Not necessary, this is one of the largest election campaigns Labour has run on their own so far. I stress, on their own. During the last General Election Labour/FG were basically joined at the hip. I would mainly attribute Labour's PR disasters over the past couple of weeks to inefficient campaign experience on their own. They can sell themselves but they're not doing it properly.

yoshytoshy

What really eats at me about this is ,people know politics needs a change. Yet Labour see fit to drag the fight back down to circus levels.
It's a crude way of getting attention and it does nothing but unsettle people.

The Volt

Black Bloc wrote: »

Listened to News at One today and the Labour Party spokesperson spend the air time saying what Labour wouldn't do, who they the wouldn't agree with and what policies they wouldn't adopt. Is this really what people need now? A party that creeps into the government on the basis of having nothing useful to offer itself but plenty of stick for alternatives. Since I returned to Ireland I developed an admiration for Gilmore's fortrightness but he seems to have decided that the best policy is to be against anyone else's. What a troglodyte.

Labour get scrutinized from the right-wing parties and parties further to the left of them. The media have already nailed their colours to the mast and the party have been labelled baby murderers with this whole abortion thing, in spite of the fact that they have only agreed to legislate for the supreme court ruling of the X-Case if in government.

My point is, Labour have plenty of detailed policy on a number of subjects. There is a dominant ideology that exists in our society and the people who dismiss Labour as populist or light-weight from a policy perspective are generally the type who are happy enough to see this ideology maintained. Whenever Labour get publicity, they are usually forced into defending themselves by responding to often misleading claims by other parties. No one seems to want to actually engage too much with what they've proposed.

mrrepublic

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Not necessary, this is one of the largest election campaigns Labour has run on their own so far. I stress, on their own. During the last General Election Labour/FG were basically joined at the hip. I would mainly attribute Labour's PR disasters over the past couple of weeks to inefficient campaign experience on their own. They can sell themselves but they're not doing it properly.

I would be far more impressed to see the old E.G. fighting and tackling the FF party that created such suffering for so many people in this country we should never be let forget. Along with that I would love to hear Labour promote Labour party Policies and sell the positives of the party to the peoply and the positives of a strong coalition to the voters.

Killer Pigeon

mrrepublic wrote: »

I would be far more impressed to see the old E.G. fighting and tackling the FF party that created such suffering for so many people in this country we should never be let forget. Along with that I would love to hear Labour promote Labour party Policies and sell the positives of the party to the peoply and the positives of a strong coalition to the voters.

I agree, the "J'attaque" everyone tactic isn't working and only shows desperation. Germany tried it during WW2, look how it turned out for them.

Eliot Rosewater

Voltwad wrote: »

Whenever Labour get publicity, they are usually forced into defending themselves by responding to often misleading claims by other parties. No one seems to want to actually engage too much with what they've proposed.

Were they forced into printing ludicrous ads in the newspapers?

http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3664140#post3664140

Killer Pigeon

Is it me or did someone just surgically remove one of my posts as well as MrRepublic's? Oh well the conversation was getting a little too Godwinian for liking anyway.

ftnbase

Voltwad wrote: »

Labour get scrutinized from the right-wing parties and parties further to the left of them.

And are you surprised?

Labour are trying to be all things to all people for the past 10 years but when it comes to the crunch (election time) their lack of real policies makes them vulnerable. The electorate are more intelligent than what Labour give them credit for - especially outside the Pale.

Do not forget that:
Labour published a 1 year economic plan when everyone else publised a 4 year plan (in late 2010) -
Labour waits for all other parties to publish their policies before they publish theirs (in the GE campaign)
Labour did not complain when Eamon Gilmore's wife was paid more than €500,000 for a site in Galway (now valued at €100,000 max.) - and continue with the usual soundbites about cronieism during the Celtic Tiger. Eamon Gilmore should persuade his wife to "share the burden" by repaying half of the site value difference to the State. If that was done by next Friday I would vote for Labour.

Eliot Rosewater

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Is it me or did someone just surgically remove one of my posts as well as MrRepublic's? Oh well the conversation was getting a little too Godwinian for liking anyway.

Oh yeah, sorry, I deleted his post for being off-topic and not contributing, and I deleted yours because it was only a reply to the first. Sorry for not notifying.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Bloc

Labour doesn't represent 'the worker' and never has since the foundation of the state. Its low vote among the 'lower' socio-economic groups says it all. Look at the number of well-paid academics and lawyers pushing onto the Labour platform - hardly cloth cap types. It is a party for public servants and those who live off the public purse.

Regarding the Strategic Investment bank, Labour ran with something similar though on a smaller scale in the FG/Lab coalition in the 80s. Basically a state agency (a hybrid between ANCO and Youth Unemployment was created at the time out of the Dept of Labour under Ruairi Quinn) would advance half the money for a project and this was then used to raise the other half from a bank. It was a seed captial scheme. The funding per project was relatively small and on paper it wasn't a bad scheme given the dire state of the country. Unfortunately, the funding was too small for startups (building up customers) and the banks still insisted on personal guarantees. I have personal experience of the scheme, and when our enterprise failed I found myself scewed by my bank at the time for the next seven years. On the otehr hand, I have reservatiosn about the state underwriting all of a commercial R&D exercise - I know this is how the universities operate - as riskfree capitalism isn't capitalism but socialism and the taxpayer caries all the risk, not the 'academic enterpreneur'.

ftnbase

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think he is in favour of Croke Park Agreement now since it was ratified by the unions. But I am sure that he has not said that publically because his view might need to change in the future.

Black Bloc

I just heard Michael Martin on News At One agree that FF would raise taxes over the next three years. Possibly not income tax - phew! - but other indirect taxes. As long as the Croke Park agreement is in place, every party will have to raise taxes to meet the bills from banking mess and the PS wage bill.

ftnbase

Black Bloc wrote: »

I just heard Michael Martin on News At One agree that FF would raise taxes over the next three years. Possibly not income tax - phew! - but other indirect taxes. As long as the Croke Park agreement is in place, every party will have to raise taxes to meet the bills from banking mess and the PS wage bill.

Sure aren't Labour supposed to increase taxes more than ever other party (except the most vulnerable of course - whoever they are).

Black Bloc

The IT has reported Gilmore warning against single party government by FG. A FG/Labour coalition apparently would be better. The electorate must vote to prevent an FG 'monopoly'.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0222/breaking4.html

Is this really the best argument the Labour can put forward for getting into government? Gilmore has clearly given up on pushing the policy package. 'Don't let FG in on its own' is a pretty poor slogan at this stage from the man who once saw himself as taoiseach.

Winning hearts and minds is obviously a harder slog than relentless policy-free negative campaigning. It's groundhog campaigning all over again. Businesses on the floor, unemployment at skyscraper levels and emigration battering families up and down the country and Labour is reduced to begrudgery. Depressing lack of vision.

Maj Malfunction

Speaking at the University of Limerick, Dr FitzGerald said such a coalition would be “much more solid” than seeking support from Independents, which he described as “disastrous”.
“With Independents you have no idea. They can blackmail you for something in their constituency,” he warned.

I have to concede to Dr FitzGerald's point about Independents, you just have to consider Jackie-Healy-Rae style parish politics, which I strongly disapprove of.

So to ensure that doesn't happen, Happy Gilmore will have to get over the fact that Labour threw the election away compared to where Labour were six months ago and realise that they are now in a different space and that FG should push hard for an overall majority.

Labour have only themselves to blame my 'negging' FG. How is Labour expected to form a government with FG when the basis of their election campaign was to keep stabbing FG in the back?

Does Happy Gilmore expect to turn up on FG's door with a smile on his face pretending its all forgotten about?

Anyone from Labour care to answer that question clearly and concisely without the usual waffle?