FG/LAB or FG/SIPTU?

thebaldsoprano

Last year, delegates at a Labour Party convention voted to actively campaign for the reversal of PS pay cuts. While these delegates aren't the ones in the Dail, it looks like any deal with FG will need their seal of approval before Labour can enter into a coalition:

Under the party’s constitution, the leader is required to bring any proposed programme before a special delegate conference for ratification. Delegates are nominated by party branches according to the branches’ size.

This raises questions around the extent to which they'll be determining the new Programme for Government. Are we likely to see a continuation of the blind pursuit of sectional interests that has been destroying the country over the last few years?

Killer Pigeon

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Last year, delegates at a Labour Party convention voted to actively campaign for the reversal of PS pay cuts. While these delegates aren't the ones in the Dail, it looks like any deal with FG will need their seal of approval before Labour can enter into a coalition:

A Labour Party conference will be held on Saturday. A motion will be brought forth at that meeting along the lines of "Do you agree with a coalition with FG? Yes or No". Party members who are eligable to vote at conference will decide and from what I gather a largely diluted Labour programme for government has a lot of opposition within the party.

thebaldsoprano

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

A Labour Party conference will be held on Saturday. A motion will be brought forth at that meeting along the lines of "Do you agree with a coalition with FG? Yes or No". Party members who are eligable to vote at conference will decide and from what I gather a largely diluted Labour programme for government has a lot of opposition within the party.

Things could get interesting if it's turned down! I wonder would the unmentionable be then on the cards - FF back in government :eek:

thebaldsoprano

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

From what I gather there is quite large opposition within the party, some other people are saying if Labour isn't offered Minister for Finance then an FG/Labour coaliton is in the bin.

They might be able to settle on someone like Quinn for finance.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Labour's youth organisation (Labour Youth) already passed a motion at it's conference several months ago saying it would oppose an FG/Labour coalition if Labour was the minor party. Labour Youth has the right to send delegates to the Labour Party conference and they are sure to oppose the motion.

Stuff like this could prove a lot more troublesome. I'd imagine it'll increase Labour's hand in negotiations though.

d'Oracle

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

They might be able to settle on someone like Quinn for finance.

I'm not sure he would even want that.

RandolphEsq

Labour won't get Finance or else FG won't go in with them. Their ratio of cuts to spending is 1 to 1, compared to FG's 3 to 1. Labour aren't a change at all!

am I wrong in thinking that the decision on a coalition should not be decided by unelected members of any party??

CDfm

Deleted User wrote: »

am I wrong in thinking that the decision on a coalition should not be decided by unelected members of any party??

No you are not - this by-passing the elected Parliment as the ultimate authority is the type of thing that undermines our democracy and institutions of state.

I wonder if such a body has any legitimacy under the constitution.

How can it be ?

johngalway

I don't have any fears that a Government won't be formed. I doubt Labour will get Finance, but, as discussed in the meejia, they may get some type of financial public sector portfolio.

CDfm

johngalway wrote: »

I don't have any fears that a Government won't be formed. I doubt Labour will get Finance, but, as discussed in the meejia, they may get some type of financial public sector portfolio.

I thought they already had secured An Bord Snip :rolleyes:

johngalway

CDfm wrote: »

I thought they already had secured An Bord Snip :rolleyes:

Dunno what the rolley eyes are for.

Anyway, as with all coalitions, negotiations on a programme for Government will require concessions from both parties. Anyone who voted and doesn't realise that, mmm well, less said easier mended.

patmac

A Labour/SF coalition would be better (thanks to AH)

CDfm

johngalway wrote: »

Dunno what the rolley eyes are for.

Because

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Their ratio of cuts to spending is 1 to 1, compared to FG's 3 to 1. Labour aren't a change at all!

I am cynical.

Same dog. Different hair.

Social Partnership. Coalition - whatever you call it is still dominated by SIPTU/ICTU.

Pherekydes

patmac wrote: »

A Labour/SF calition would be better (thanks to AH)

Very clever. But the numbers don't add up, even for Brian Lenihan.

johngalway

Anyone paying attention to the campaign before polling day could see the ratios of both parties on cuts and taxes. It was quite clearly spelled out on various different TV, Radio, and newspaper sources.

Also, the common thinking was the result of the election would be FG/Lab...........

So..................

People knew it and voted in favour of it.

johngalway

Pherekydes wrote: »

Very clever. But the numbers don't add up, even for Brian Lenihan.

My apologies, I could only thank your post the once :pac:

Pherekydes

CDfm wrote: »

Same dog. Different hair.

So, do you want to share who you've voted for with us?

Killer Pigeon

patmac wrote: »

A Labour/SF calition would be better (thanks to AH)

Oh, I loving this ... just not the SF part. Oh Labour please start a private army ...

CDfm

Pherekydes wrote: »

So, do you want to share who you've voted for with us?

No particular order - Michael Kennedy FF & James Reilly FG in Dublin North.

I really wasn't impressed with the other candidates.

I would have gone Independent if one adequetly dealt with reality.

thebaldsoprano

CDfm wrote: »

No you are not - this by-passing the elected Parliment as the ultimate authority is the type of thing that undermines our democracy and institutions of state.

On that note, a member of Labour's back room team, Dr Colm O'Reardon, is taking part in the negotiations. While this isn't all that surprising and I'm sure FG will have advisors behind the scenes too, it does raise a question about the extent to which polices are being set by advisors and sectional interest groups, rather than the people we elect.

CDfm

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

On that note, a member of Labour's back room team, Dr Colm O'Reardon, is taking part in the negotiations. While this isn't all that surprising and I'm sure FG will have advisors behind the scenes too, it does raise a question about the extent to which polices are being set by advisors and sectional interest groups, rather than the people we elect.

It is something I have posted on before -even in the history forum before the election was called on the creation of the Corporate State & TK Whittaker

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056127781

As I understand it my views are not too dissimilar to John Bruton's who is on record as saying that the country is run by civil servants who use the Dail & Seanad to rubberstamp their rule.

“At the present time, the Oireachtas is run by the executive, which in turn is, in a sense, run by the civil service.

“We have a sort of civil service led system of administration which uses the Dáil and the senate as a delivery
mechanism.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0106/breaking44.html

A parliments job is to do what is right and not to placate whatever interest group or client group comes along laying claim to limited resourses.

So operating this system and the three-line whip really does undermine our parlimentary democracy & effectivelly rubberstamps and legitamises the system that lots of people say is inefficient and corrupt.

People who voted deserve to be respected.

femur61

Labour party will bring the country back to the dark ages with no recovery. Why do they realise we can't afford PS wages, we have the highest PS in Europe, every €3 the government takes in revenue we actually spend €5. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to calculate that is a shorfall of €2.

Killer Pigeon

femur61 wrote: »

Labour party will bring the country back to the dark ages with no recovery. Why do they realise we can't afford PS wages, we have the highest PS in Europe, every €3 the government takes in revenue we actually spend €5. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to calculate that is a shorfall of €2.

:rolleyes:

No, far from it. Fine Gael are promising the sun, the moon and the stars with their 30,000 voluntary redundancies in the public service - it's never going to happen and what's more Fine Gael haven't broken down that figure into where they're going to be offering these redundancies. I am confident that they just made up that figure in their head to satified begrudging members of the private sector. 18,000 is a more realistic figure - which Labour proposed - from the top down and including the likes of pointless HR staff.

CDfm

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

- from the top down and including the likes of pointless HR staff.

But before they go it would be nice if they answered the questions Siptu's Matt Merrigan didn't on the 3 million HSE/Department of Environment Money that was paid to SIPTU.

The probe into the controversial €2.35m 'Skill' training slush fund was only ordered after the then HSE chief accidentally bumped into a senior Siptu official who was on a 'study trip' to Australia.


Brendan Drumm was attending a high-profile health seminar in Australia when he met Matt Merrigan and other union and HSE officials.


Drumm returned to Ireland and immediately confronted the HSE's HR director Sean McGrath and demanded to know what the party was doing in Australia and why the HSE was footing the bill.


McGrath said he knew nothing about the trips or the fund but promised to look into it. This sparked a probe that ended up in the public accounts committee last week and is still subject to further investigations by the HSE, Siptu and the gardaí.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2010/oct/10/235m-slush-fund-rumbled-by-hsechief-on-australia-t/

My issue here is not really speciffically with the Unions but there is a whole ethos there which if it exists accross the public service is rotten to the core.

Every right minded person should want to see these issues dealt with.

Fcek - Drumm must have felt he was under surveillence-dont you think

He probably was at the conference to meet heads of other health services and exchange ideas privately with them.

EDIT - so what I am saying is that anyone who approaches change in the the Health Service issue (and Ivor Callelly also did) would want to be fairly robust don't you think.

How the HSE/Siptu Slush Fund gets tackled for me will be a fairly important benchmark.

rodento

I've always said we live in interesting times:D

Social Partnership is back via the back door, FG... Who'd have thought:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

This country needs a serious look at wage deflation and that includes social payments as well... When we pay three times as much in some sectors and loads of contract jobs are going north of the border or overseas, something has to be done.

That includes, slashing minimum wage, child care etc... Costs/overheads in all sectors have to go down.

FF have stated they will support this but I can't see labour, so don't put away yout voting cards yet:eek:

De Dannan

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Last year, delegates at a Labour Party convention voted to actively campaign for the reversal of PS pay cuts. While these delegates aren't the ones in the Dail, it looks like any deal with FG will need their seal of approval before Labour can enter into a coalition:

This raises questions around the extent to which they'll be determining the new Programme for Government. Are we likely to see a continuation of the blind pursuit of sectional interests that has been destroying the country over the last few years?

Sick of moaning of SIPTU/Public sector about how tough they have it
FG need to make it clear that they have a mandate from the people to cut the waste rather than tax increases

CDfm

rodento wrote: »

I've always said we live in interesting times:D

Social Partnership is back via the back door, FG... How'd have thought:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

De Dannan wrote: »

Sick of moaning of SIPTU/Public sector about how tough they have it
FG need to make it clear that they have a mandate from the people to cut the waste rather than tax increases

So are we talking ethics in government and solutions from FG or winning elections.

I would have thought that dealing with the HSE slush fund is a major test of their resolve.

And I want stable government for the next 5 years.

MaceFace

johngalway wrote: »

Anyone paying attention to the campaign before polling day could see the ratios of both parties on cuts and taxes. It was quite clearly spelled out on various different TV, Radio, and newspaper sources.

Also, the common thinking was the result of the election would be FG/Lab...........

So..................

People knew it and voted in favour of it.

What

I voted FG because I was in favour of a 2:1 ratio in terms of cuts over tax increases.
I did not vote for Labour and if they had any real policies, I would be against them

CDfm

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Last year, delegates at a Labour Party convention voted to actively campaign for the reversal of PS pay cuts. While these delegates aren't the ones in the Dail, it looks like any deal with FG will need their seal of approval before Labour can enter into a coalition:

This raises questions around the extent to which they'll be determining the new Programme for Government. Are we likely to see a continuation of the blind pursuit of sectional interests that has been destroying the country over the last few years?

MaceFace wrote: »

What

I voted FG because I was in favour of a 2:1 ratio in terms of cuts over tax increases.
I did not vote for Labour and if they had any real policies, I would be against them

I wonder if rank & file FG members get a vote on whether they want a coallition.

It should cut both ways.

Killer Pigeon

CDfm wrote: »

I wonder if rank & file FG members get a vote on whether they want a coallition.

It should cut both ways.

Don't forget that Labour Party policy is also debated on at such conference in which rank and file members can vote on policy. If it is believed that Labour policy is threatened by a FG/Labour coalition than it is only fair that such a coalition be debated upon by the members who enacted the policies in the first place. How Fine Gael do things is their own business.

Also remember that most people who voted for Labour voted for them because they agreed with their policies. If Labour start diluting or are not actively trying to implement the policies which they promised during the campaign because they are being dictated by the majority FG party in Government, then it would be viewed as betrayal of the trust of the people who voted for Labour. This is the sort of key stuff that will be debated at the Labour Party conference on Saturday by the people who helped to establish those policies.

thebaldsoprano

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Don't forget that Labour Party policy is also debated on at such conference in which rank and file members can vote on policy. If it is believed that Labour policy is threatened by a FG/Labour coalition than it is only fair that such a coalition be debated upon by the members who enacted the policies in the first place. How Fine Gael do things is their own business.

Also remember that most people who voted for Labour voted for them because they agreed with their policies. If Labour start diluting or are not actively trying to implement the policies which they promised during the campaign because they are being dictated by the majority FG party in Government, then it would be viewed as betrayal of the trust of the people who voted for Labour. This is the sort of key stuff that will be debated at the Labour Party conference on Saturday by the people who helped to establish those policies.

That's interesting, I guess the question is where to draw the line between a group of people with similar ideals and those pursuing their own interests. It'd be difficult to argue that restoring a librarian's salary to 133,367 is anything other than clientelism. On the other hand, pledging to reverse the reductions to the minimum wage is much easier to see as following ideals. I guess one way of looking at it is to simply follow the money. If a policy lines the pockets of a large number of the party's members then I'd be inclined to see it as the former, if it also helps out a large number of those outside the party then it's easier to see it as the latter.