Should Fine Gael Party Members have the Right to Ratify the Coalition - as Labours do

CDfm

Under the (Labour) 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.

I have a bit of a problem with how the coallition is being entered into as we elect & mandate TD's to govern and they get their power directly from the people -not from the Conference.

A Labour TD is quoted on todays Irish Times as saying "hardball" & a "Labour Driven" Coallition. Hardly the talk of a junior partner.

The Irish Times - Monday, February 28, 2011Labour TDs say party should try to bargain hard with Fine Gael





PAUL CULLEN, Political Staff
THE LABOUR Party should seek to strike a hard bargain in any negotiations over a future coalition with Fine Gael, a number of its TDs said yesterday.
The party should not presume its only option was to go into government with Fine Gael, Dublin Mid West TD Joanna Tuffy said.
Calling on the party to play “hardball” in any talks, Ms Tuffy said she would not be happy unless Labour was able to say after five years of coalition government that it had made a real difference.
“It can’t be a Fine Gael-driven government, it has to be a Labour-driven, social democratic government,” she said.

So is a conference like this right or wrong, and, if it is right should Fine Gael who is the larger party in the proposed coalition have an equal choice.

I happen to believe that conferences like this should not be. The people have not elected the conference to act on its behalf.

(One of my favourite post Independence Irish Politicians was a Sligo man named John Jinks - who abstained from a vote on a point of principle thus saving the Cumman na Gaedhael Government of 1927.

I even had a thread on him in the history forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056064820 )

I just wonder what people think of all this - as it seems to me to by-pass the democratically elected parliment.

CDfm

So what is the mood of FG members to a coallition with Labour - Lucinda Creighton is not so sure

Fine Gael also seem keen to emerge from the talks with their integrity intact – Fine Gael TD for Dublin South East Lucinda Creighton has commented that her party should explore all alternatives before entering into a deal with Labour, reports the [URL="http:///"]Irish Times[/URL]: “People voting for me and voting for my colleagues were coming from Fianna Fáil and PD backgrounds. They were voting against Labour and against higher taxes and going soft on cuts,” she said, “We will be punished if we were to say we would not try to see if there were other viable alternatives”.

And are they all forgetting



What are the EU/IMF's expectations on what will happen.

gcgirl

Higher taxes for those earning over 100k loves they way Lucinda keeps out certain stuff
In reality things will have to happen due to OUR stupidity we are balls deep with ECB/IMF

James Jones

The elected members of the Parliamentary Partys should make the decision because they have the democratic mandate to represent us. Ordinary members of either party do not.
I have always had a problem with coalitions because of this. If a political party does not declare its intentions beforehand, it should not be allowed to enter a coalition afterwards.
Look at the government we got when the people rejected Fianna Fail last time but the unelected members of the Greens got the final say!

takun

If ever I saw a clear vote for a FG/Labour coalition, this was it. People voting for either party knew exactly what they were voting for - it's not like the notion of a coalition came as a bolt from the blue after the counting was over.

I think these decisions are best made by the people who were directly elected by voters, not by delegates elected only by internal party mechanisms.

norrie rugger

takun wrote: »

If ever I saw a clear vote for a FG/Labour coalition, this was it. People voting for either party knew exactly what they were voting for - it's not like the notion of a coalition came as a bolt from the blue after the counting was over.

I think these decisions are best made by the people who were directly elected by voters, not by delegates elected only by internal party mechanisms.

Prove to me that someone voting Labour voted for a coalition.

CDfm

takun wrote: »

If ever I saw a clear vote for a FG/Labour coalition, this was it. People voting for either party knew exactly what they were voting for - it's not like the notion of a coalition came as a bolt from the blue after the counting was over.

Nah - this is how one of them is done from 2005

v
Labour conference prepares for vote on FG pre-election pact



28/05/2005 - 12:12:35
Labour Party delegates are discussing a motion at their national conference in Tralee that could see them enter into a pre-election pact with Fine Gael.

Opening the debate, Party leader Pat Rabbitte called on delegates to vote for the pact in order to maximise the Labour vote at the next election.

The vote is expected to take place before lunchtime today

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/labour-conference-prepares-for-vote-on-fg-pre-election-pact-204647.html#ixzz1FRiiusfY

Maybe they did not do it because it lost them votes -so people didnot agree or vote for a Coallition back them.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/critics-to-round-on-rabbitte-over-voting-pact-with-fg-893387.html

I think these decisions are best made by the people who were directly elected by voters, not by delegates elected only by internal party mechanisms.

+1 -less schenanigans

Manach

norrie rugger wrote: »

Prove to me that someone voting Labour voted for a coalition.

Would anecdotal evidence do, ie People in conversation saying that they voted Labour to check FG in a future coalition.

CDfm

Manach wrote: »

Would anecdotal evidence do, ie People in conversation saying that they voted Labour to check FG in a future coalition.

I don't think that would do it for me.

If Labour & FG did not disclose it in advance to the electorate then it is deception as people are voting on policies that it was never their intention to deliver on.

As for going back to a conference for a mandate to enter coalition that is just missing the point. The TD's are the elected representatives of the people.

To me the conference is plain wrong.

takun

norrie rugger wrote: »

Prove to me that someone voting Labour voted for a coalition.

I did. I knew it would probably end up with FG as the largest party. I voted for Labour knowing they would probably be in coalition and hoping they would act as some kind of brake on the more extreme FG policies.

I knew what I was voting for. So did many others I spoke to.

CDfm wrote: »

Nah - this is how one of them is done from 2005

They are done in many ways. Mostly after the numbers are known though. The reality is our system does not often throw up majorities. I've been voting more than 30 years and have never seen one, so I've come around to voting in the knowledge that a coalition is the most likely outcome by far.

In this election I really do believe it was obvious to all who were listening that FG/Labour was the most likely pairing by miles.

Killer Pigeon

@CDfm,

It is conferences like these that decide the policy of the Labour Party which the Labour Parlaimentary Party (being given a mandate by the people who voted for them on the basis of these policies) is obliged to adhere to. The Labour Party leadership called this conference so that members of the Labour Party would vote on the programme for government that's being negotiated with Fine Gael this week.

There is a risk that this new programme for government could put previously established Labour policy in jeopardy - this will be debated at conference by the members who helped implement the policy in the first place.

Futhermore, people who want to become candidates in a general election on behalf of the Labour Party are decided at these conferences.

norrie rugger

takun wrote: »

I did. I knew it would probably end up with FG as the largest party. I voted for Labour knowing they would probably be in coalition and hoping they would act as some kind of brake on the more extreme FG policies.

I knew what I was voting for. So did many others I spoke to.

Did you tell the Labour party this?
Can you prove that anyone other than yourself did this?

You did it because they "probably" join FG and "hoping" that they would reign in FG.
Labour ran their own campaign and had no "Mullingar" type accord with FG.
You voted tatically but Labour are not beholden to this assumption that you made

Killer Pigeon

CDfm wrote: »

I don't think that would do it for me.

If Labour & FG did not disclose it in advance to the electorate then it is deception as people are voting on policies that it was never their intention to deliver on.

As for going back to a conference for a mandate to enter coalition that is just missing the point. The TD's are the elected representatives of the people.

To me the conference is plain wrong.

Labour ran an independent campaign for this General Election, they did not say if they were or were not going into coalition with another party. If Labour go into government with water down or altered policies, different to the ones that are in Labour policy that was portrayed to the electorate, then I would view that as deceiving the people who voted for them and other members of the Labour party. To defend what the Labour Party stands for, the Labour Party that people voted for when voting for candidates under that banner, a conference of Labour Party members, who helped implement the aforementioned policy, must be held.

Chucky the tree

Could Fine Gael call an election if they didn't agree with Labour? I think if Labour didn't agree to a coalition votes the second time would give Fine Gael a clear majority which would be far better for FG.

CDfm

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

@CDfm,

It is conferences like these that decide the policy of the Labour Party which the Labour Parlaimentary Party (being given a mandate by the people who voted for them on the basis of these policies) is obliged to adhere to. The Labour Party leadership called this conference so that members of the Labour Party would vote on the programme for government that's being negotiated with Fine Gael this week.

There is a risk that this new programme for government could put previously established Labour policy in jeopardy - this will be debated at conference by the members who helped implement the policy in the first place.

Futhermore, people who want to become candidates in a general election on behalf of the Labour Party are decided at these conferences.

Not so fast.

I have looked up Article 15 of the Irish Constitution and nowhere in it does it mention the august body of Labour Party Delegates and a Conference.

It mentions the Dail , the Seanad , and the President and proportional representation etc but it leaves the Labour Party Conference out of it.

Have I missed a referendum or something - but -the power of the Dail is derived from the people. All of the people and not some of the people.

Once a guy or girl is elected his duty changes to the people and that is the principal of it.

Now, I did vote for Dr James O'Reilly of FG and would expect him to vote with his conscience in the Dail and in meetings of the Parlimentary Party. He got a vote from me. He is the Man.

Or if Enda becomes Taoiseach , Mrs Kenny, wont show up for Cabinet meetings if he has a sniffle because she is a member of FG. He is the elected representative.

norrie rugger

CDfm wrote: »

Not so fast.

I have looked up Article 15 of the Irish Constitution and nowhere in it does it mention the august body of Labour Party Delegates and a Conference.

It mentions the Dail , the Seanad , and the President and proportional representation etc but it leaves the Labour Party Conference out of it.

Have I missed a referendum or something - but -the power of the Dail is derived from the people. All of the people and not some of the people.

Once a guy or girl is elected his duty changes to the people and that is the principal of it.

Now, I did vote for Dr James O'Reilly of FG and would expect him to vote with his conscience in the Dail and in meetings of the Parlimentary Party. He got a vote from me. He is the Man.

Or if Enda becomes Taoiseach , Mrs Kenny, wont show up for Cabinet meetings if he has a sniffle because she is a member of FG. He is the elected representative.

This is a vote to support FG in government, nothing else

CDfm

norrie rugger wrote: »

This is a vote to support FG in government, nothing else

But it is from my little vote and other votes like it that power is derived and vested in the Dail Members & power and the responsibilty of the elected TD should not be delegated.

No one should make the decision other than the parlimentary party members.

It is not something the should delegate.

norrie rugger

CDfm wrote: »

But it is from my little vote and other votes like it that power is derived and vested in the Dail Members & power and the responsibilty of the elected TD should not be delegated.

No one should make the decision other than the parlimentary party members.

It is not something the should delegate.

This is not a legislative vote, so the Dail has no say on how the party operates. The TD's will not delegate anything of a legislative matter, this is a party decision, as to a compromise with another party.
The Labour Party is open, in that it has these conferences, so people know that this is happening.

gcgirl

It's always been a giving with Labour that all members have a say unlike other party's who go over the head of their membership, it's really silly to blame labour for not going into government as Enda possible has a few more aces up his sleeve I would not be surprised if a lil separate group of FG were dipping the water with The independents, if people had wanted labour in government more people would have voted labour

CDfm

norrie rugger wrote: »

This is not a legislative vote, so the Dail has no say on how the party operates. The TD's will not delegate anything of a legislative matter, this is a party decision, as to a compromise with another party.
The Labour Party is open, in that it has these conferences, so people know that this is happening.

The Social Partnership were not a legislative body either but they made laws.

Its semantics - they are being controlled by an outside body and that is not right.

They are not elected and have no business convening such a conference.

norrie rugger

CDfm wrote: »

The Social Partnership were not a legislative body either but they made laws.

Its semantics - they are being controlled by an outside body and that is not right.

They are not elected and have no business convening such a conference.

The Labour conference will make no laws

Killer Pigeon

CDfm wrote: »

Not so fast.

I have looked up Article 15 of the Irish Constitution and nowhere in it does it mention the august body of Labour Party Delegates and a Conference.

It mentions the Dail , the Seanad , and the President and proportional representation etc but it leaves the Labour Party Conference out of it.

Have I missed a referendum or something - but -the power of the Dail is derived from the people. All of the people and not some of the people.

:rolleyes:

Yes, I also looked at the Irish Constitution, it says nothing in relation to the authority of the Fine Gael executive council which is posed to say whether it will or will not accept a coalition with Labour ...

Killer Pigeon

CDfm wrote: »

The Social Partnership were not a legislative body either but they made laws.

Its semantics - they are being controlled by an outside body and that is not right.

They are not elected and have no business convening such a conference.

The conference will be about safeguarding what Labour, its members and its elected representatives stand for. Nothing else.

Killer Pigeon

Also, @CDfm

What's your opinion on organisations lobbying elected representatives - is that unconstitutional?

steelcityblues

They will do deal of a course.

Phil Hogan and Brendan Howlin looked all too comfortable discussing the possibility on Week in Politics.

They both have the IMF's stamp of approval above all else.

StupidLikeAFox

Can anybody think of a better alternative?

Possibilities are:
FG/Labour
FG/Independents
FG/FF
Some sort of super left grouping and FF
or a new election

There will be pros and cons to every outcome, and a Labour/FG coalition is the only show in town, especially when compared with those alternatives

I would have confidence that a decent deal will be agreed between the two. How its arrived upon is not important to me. If a deal isnt agreed btween Labour and FG it would throw a grenade among the pigeons, thats not something that would be too appealing

CDfm

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Yes, I also looked at the Irish Constitution, it says nothing in relation to the authority of the Fine Gael executive council which is posed to say whether it will or will not accept a coalition with Labour ...

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

The conference will be about safeguarding what Labour, its members and its elected representatives stand for. Nothing else.

As I see it , none of them should have a say except the elected TD's and that should be the general principle.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Also, @CDfm

What's your opinion on organisations lobbying elected representatives - is that unconstitutional?

Lobbying is OK in my book -but it should be open.

What is not ok is vested interest groups monopolising or controling policy.That and cronyism go hand in hand.

FF was in power and we had the HSE Slush Fund. That was worse then anything Charlie Haughey did.

I reckon we have two deeply entrenched comservative parties rooted in the 1960's who do not stand for change at all.

CDfm

gcgirl wrote: »

It's always been a giving with Labour that all members have a say unlike other party's who go over the head of their membership, it's really silly to blame labour for not going into government as Enda possible has a few more aces up his sleeve I would not be surprised if a lil separate group of FG were dipping the water with The independents, if people had wanted labour in government more people would have voted labour

Hi GC

I think its a done deal with a lot of spin attached. Its too easy for them to tie up together.

The general idea is that we should expect TD's business to be done in the open.

I particularly dislike the way that gender,orientation , family law and childrens rights are packaged and politicised. These are human rights.

Creighton, Shatter, & Senator Bacik. God help us. :rolleyes:

I am sure if we put a wish list here for real change and rights - we will be waiting.

The first lot of cronyism we will see is the Seanad appointments , followed by the state boards, etc.

Renogiotiate the EU/IMF deal - na - the interest rate maybe but we will still be paying the German & French bondholders who should take a hit.

Will the HSE slush fund people get prosecuted. No. A movement for change would.

The omens are not good.

Whatever happened to integrity.



CD

gcgirl

I don't think it's a done deal we just have to see how things pan out

CDfm

gcgirl wrote: »

I don't think it's a done deal we just have to see how things pan out

It is too cosy - they prepared for 2 years for 2007.

They also havent approached independents either yet. They dont need to.

This is the WWE of political discussions.

Anyway - the conference takes power one step away from the people & thats the point.

Killer Pigeon

CDfm wrote: »

As I see it , none of them should have a say except the elected TD's and that should be the general principle.



Lobbying is OK in my book -but it should be open.

What is not ok is vested interest groups monopolising or controling policy.That and cronyism go hand in hand.

FF was in power and we had the HSE Slush Fund. That was worse then anything Charlie Haughey did.

I reckon we have two deeply entrenched comservative parties rooted in the 1960's who do not stand for change at all.

You mention vested interest group. Would it come as a surprise to you that the county's biggest union, SIPTU, wants Labour to go into government with Fine Gael? The only union I know of so for that's against it so is Unite The Union. Obviously Monsieur O'Connor would view it as beneficial for Labour to be in government, for his own interests.

Now CDfm, I know from other posts you've written that you despise Jack and his play thing SIPTU to the core. Maybe you might therefore view it, with accordance to your own beliefs, as a good thing if Labour did not go into government this time around. I, however, am against the proposed coalition for other reasons. The only way that can happen is if Labour delegates vote against the FG/Labour programme for government on Sunday.