Should Labour and the Soc Dems merge?

Phoebas

Maybe the new party could be called The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) - has a ring to it.

There isn't much between the two parties in policy terms, and I know that both Soc Dem leaders had their past falling out with the LP, but that was over personal and internal party differences, not policy ... and a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then.

Ireland needs a strong party on the left that can provide a balance to FG (and to a lesser extent, FF) and who can attract support back from the more fringe left wing parties that have sprung up over the past 20 years. A credible left leaning alternative could also pull some support from FF and FG.

There was a point when the Soc Dems started when there was a hope that they could become the new force on the left, but that didn't transpire - and isn't going to transpire - so is now the time for them to come together?

L1011

Labour have merged in/merged with at least four other parties over the years (Democratic Left, Democratic Socialist Party, Sligo/Leitrim Independent Socialist Organisation and National Labour) and I suspect that once the two co-leaders of the Soc Dems want to retire they'll merge also. That could be relatively soon.

If the Soc Dems fail to get 2% of the national vote; which is very possible with Donnelly gone, they will be broke after the next GE. Being broke is what brought Democratic Left in - although they also owed Labour a lot of money for the 1997 Presidential Election campaign where they co-nominated Adi Roche and didn't have any money to support it

Sesame

I prefer what the Soc Dec's stand for, based in their sound bites and without knowing the full extent of their agendas.
Labour, in my view, has become more of a party party standing for people who don't work, which is ironic given their name. They used to represent the trade union members and working people but now seem to stand for those who chose not to work or who don't want to contribute as evident in their focuses lately. Which is a shame, as a PAYE worker, I don't feel represented by FG/FF.

I have to say, some of the independants seem very intelligent and future focused. I'm not talking the parish pump Healy Rae types. But Zappone, and some of the my local Mep candidates. There does seem to be a corner for the emergence of a new longer term thinking party to represent the younger generation of PAYE worker who just wants to get by quietly in a fair society, with any religious/cronyism/nepotism influences.

L1011

Sesame wrote: »

I have to say, some of the independants seem very intelligent and future focused. I'm not talking the parish pump Healy Rae types. But Zappone, and some of the my local Mep candidates.

Zappone was a member of Labour until such point as she thought it was a hindrance to getting elected to the Dail, as it happens. Labour don't require members to sit as Labour Senators if appointed or elected via the college panels so that's why she was "Independent" during that era.

Ubbquittious

Yes they're both a pack of auld dhrips. Combine them into one shower for me to not vote for, great idea

ChikiChiki

Labourer are toxic, would not touch them with a barge pole.

I had great hope for the Soc Dems but some of their candidate selection has been absolutely woeful. Other candidates seem to be going way off message and they are a bit disjointed. In Catherine Murphy they have the best TD in the country but I think she has lost the run of the party.

That is a shame.

Annasopra

Maybe the lsd party?

_Kaiser_

L1011 wrote: »

Zappone was a member of Labour until such point as she thought it was a hindrance to getting elected to the Dail, as it happens. Labour don't require members to sit as Labour Senators if appointed or elected via the college panels so that's why she was "Independent" during that era.

Zappone is also a big supporter of the ridiculous and unsustainable open doors policy of immigration - even when we have no idea where they're coming from!

Then there was her trying to start a diplomatic incident with the US over Shannon because she doesn't like Donald Trump.

Also her messing about with her commuting route to maximise the expense claims.

Hardly an example of a good Independent

Yurt2

SocDems membership is stacked full of the woke brigade who are obsessed with cultural issues such as transgender rights as opposed to formulating policy proposals that address the economic needs of working people.

They're addicted like crack to the sugary hit of cultural victories instead of the hard nosed work of mitigating the disasters in housing, health and the gig economy effecting young people.

These are Labour's failings also, so yes, they may as well merge and die on the vine together.

is_that_so

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Labourer are toxic, would not touch them with a barge pole.

I had great hope for the Soc Dems but some of their candidate selection has been absolutely woeful. Other candidates seem to be going way off message and they are a bit disjointed. In Catherine Murphy they have the best TD in the country but I think she has lost the run of the party.

That is a shame.

They had the potential to be contenders but it ended up as a vehicle for TD reelection. They clearly never got any visionary people on board to define them properly. Not much time for the two remaining ladies but a real party could have been an alternative option at election time.

Phoebas

Yurt! wrote: »

SocDems membership is stacked full of the woke brigade who are obsessed with cultural issues such as transgender rights as opposed to formulating policy proposals that address the economic needs of working people.

They're addicted like crack to the sugary hit of cultural victories instead of the hard nosed work of mitigating the disasters in housing, health and the gig economy effecting young people.

These are Labour's failings also, so yes, they may as well merge and die on the vine together.

I think the left are going to move away from identity/cultural stuff as they see their traditional base moving away from them.

When that happens we're going to need at least one strong party strongly on the side of the average worker, working on the disasters you mentioned. It'll either be FF or a resurgent labour movement. I don't think that it's in anyone's best interest to see the oldest party in the state die because of a few missteps.

Mad_maxx

Phoebas wrote: »

Maybe the new party could be called The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) - has a ring to it.

There isn't much between the two parties in policy terms, and I know that both Soc Dem leaders had their past falling out with the LP, but that was over personal and internal party differences, not policy ... and a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then.

Ireland needs a strong party on the left that can provide a balance to FG (and to a lesser extent, FF) and who can attract support back from the more fringe left wing parties that have sprung up over the past 20 years. A credible left leaning alternative could also pull some support from FF and FG.

There was a point when the Soc Dems started when there was a hope that they could become the new force on the left, but that didn't transpire - and isn't going to transpire - so is now the time for them to come together?

need to go further than that , both need to merge with the green party.

both the soc dems and labour are for solid middle class liberals , they do not appeal to the same constituency as SF or the rest of the hard left , they are what i call RTE - irish times socialists. the green party are as well of course but the green party - agenda - brand is in the asscendancy where as the other two are in reverse

there was never any difference between the soc dems and labour and despite incredibly generous media coverage , the soc dems have gone nowhere , id love to see them disappear as they are full of the most insufferably smug WOKE liberals in the country , that and roisin shorthall is never off any weekly radio panel , she seems to have her own dressing room in both newstalk and rte

boggerman1

Soc dems is just a glorified women’s party.totally pointless party.

Mad_maxx

boggerman1 wrote: »

Soc dems is just a glorified women’s party.totally pointless party.

thats not true , its full of beta men too.

Augme

They lacked a solid vision and future plan and I think they have rushed into things too much. They needed to build a stable grassroots support in a few key, winnable areas and then build from there. I think they spread themselves to thin and ran too many candidates. And as mentioned, alot of really awful ones. Outside of the current two they have a few potentially electable candidates in the next election but they really need those to get seats. I think if it just remains the same then the party will fold.

Also, I think people who use the word woke are more woke than woke people.

Mad_maxx

Augme wrote: »

They lacked a solid vision and future plan and I think they have rushed into things too much. They needed to build a stable grassroots support in a few key, winnable areas and then build from there. I think they spread themselves to thin and ran too many candidates. And as mentioned, alot of really awful ones. Outside of the current two they have a few potentially electable candidates in the next election but they really need those to get seats. I think if it just remains the same then the party will fold.

Also, I think people who use the word woke are more woke than woke people.

the SOC DEMS have focused heavily on identity politics , this brought them very favourable media attention but left them out of touch with left wing voters concerned with everyday bread and butter issues, so while their members have a big social media following and rosin shorthall is never off the radio week in review on RTE , it hasnt translated into votes.

Dyr

Phoebas wrote: »

I think the left are going to move away from identity/cultural stuff as they see their traditional base moving away from them.

When that happens we're going to need at least one strong party strongly on the side of the average worker, working on the disasters you mentioned. It'll either be FF or a resurgent labour movement. I don't think that it's in anyone's best interest to see the oldest party in the state die because of a few missteps.

Their cultural base is more or less gone, and the intersectionalist nonsense is the core value of their younger members so they're not going to drop it.

Augme

Labour lack a leader. howlin is old and stale and is basically a reminder of the mistakes of the past. The biggest issue for them is that his most likely succesor is Alan Kelly who is a narcissist and about as polar opposite as a labour party leader should be. I think the party are just happy to keep Howlin is so it avoids giving the leadership to Alan Kelly.

GetWithIt

Zero chance of a Catherine Murphy party merging with Labour, again.

McMurphy

GetWithIt wrote: »

Zero chance of a Catherine Murphy party merging with Labour, again.

Absolutely.

Anyone that thinks Catherine Murphy will get into bed (specifically) with Alan Kelly, Joan Burton or Howlin needs their head examining.

A more apt question would be will FG and FF merge/coalition if there's a repeat/slight reversal of seats numbers we the last time.

touts

Socialists hate each other. That's why they are so fragmented and so prone to seeing those fragments splitting.

WoollyRedHat

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Maybe the lsd party?

That would be some power trip.

Loafing Oaf

McMurphy wrote: »

Absolutely.

Anyone that thinks Catherine Murphy will get into bed (specifically) with Alan Kelly, Joan Burton or Howlin needs their head examining.

Plus once Murphy and Shortall leave politics there'll be no reason for the SDs to carry on, so Labour may as well just wait for that to happen

sligojoek

First item on the agenda:

The split.

sligojoek

sligojoek wrote: »

First item on the agenda:

The split.

No. First item is the name.

James Brown

No.
Labour failed to show ethics and back Shortall so she went SD. Also Labour have a history of selling out.
Labour needs to rebuild from the bottom up. They really blew it by backing FG, (and FF before that). They need show some back bone and work in opposition for a time, stop taking the first offer FF or FG give them just to get in.
They and others have the disadvantage of people expecting a higher standard, were FF and increasingly FG don't have that problem.

James Brown

Bambi wrote: »

Their cultural base is more or less gone, and the intersectionalist nonsense is the core value of their younger members so they're not going to drop it.

Anyone affected by the housing crisis or business by the insurance issues might go for a party that represents people who actually get up early of a morning. Long before the right wing spin, the left was about working people.
Speaking if names, the 'Labour' party, the 'workers' party.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Plus once Murphy and Shortall leave politics there'll be no reason for the SDs to carry on, so Labour may as well just wait for that to happen

I think Emmet Stagg (75) is going to run again for Labour in the GE this year. So they're not exactly in the flower o' youth themselves. :pac:

Annasopra

GetWithIt wrote: »

Zero chance of a Catherine Murphy party merging with Labour, again.

Indeed. Peoole would have once said that about DeRossa

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They and others have the disadvantage of people expecting a higher standard, were FF and increasingly FG don't have that problem.

This bit I agree with in relation to the Labour party.

They made a risky move by going into power with FG when others preferred to sit on their hands.
We now have FF - the architects of the destruction of the country - rehabilitated, while Labour are still villified for playing a bad hand in good faith.

For how many more generations do we have to wait until the left in Ireland put aside their purist tendancies and accept that excercising power means having to make choices you'd prefer not to make?

is_that_so

Phoebas wrote: »

This bit I agree with in relation to the Labour party.

They made a risky move by going into power with FG when others preferred to sit on their hands.
We now have FF - the architects of the destruction of the country - rehabilitated, while Labour are still vilified for playing a bad hand in good faith.

For how many more generations do we have to wait until the left in Ireland put aside their purist tendencies and accept that exercising power means having to make choices you'd prefer not to make?

Forever, because promising common sense is not a vote-getter.

Jonny one

I believe the next government will be a super rainbow of FF/Labour/Soc Dems/Greens/independents and that Labour and the soc Dems will merge after that government.

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

This bit I agree with in relation to the Labour party.

They made a risky move by going into power with FG when others preferred to sit on their hands.
We now have FF - the architects of the destruction of the country - rehabilitated, while Labour are still villified for playing a bad hand in good faith.

For how many more generations do we have to wait until the left in Ireland put aside their purist tendancies and accept that excercising power means having to make choices you'd prefer not to make?

Choosing not to validate the then Kenny government and their policies is not sitting on your hands. Signing up and pushing their policies was risky but not ethical for a Labour party IMO.
No point in making choices that go against your reason for being and the people who voted for you. The disadvantage of standing for something and then playing with FF/FG, killed off many a party.

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

Forever, because promising common sense is not a vote-getter.

Fairytale.
Kenny's FG did very well out of telling it like it was, only falling foul when they returned to form.
Labours fault was backing them in it and not holding them to account.

Loafing Oaf

Jonny one wrote: »

I believe the next government will be a super rainbow of FF/Labour/Soc Dems/Greens/independents and that Labour and the soc Dems will merge after that government.

Don't believe the numbers will be there for this, unless the Greens make a massive leap forward.

Marcos

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Labourer are toxic, would not touch them with a barge pole.

I had great hope for the Soc Dems but some of their candidate selection has been absolutely woeful. Other candidates seem to be going way off message and they are a bit disjointed. In Catherine Murphy they have the best TD in the country but I think she has lost the run of the party.

Ellie Kisyombe anyone?

They had such goodwill when they set up based on the excellent work that Catherine Murphy did on the Siteserv / Irish Water fiasco. Also with Stephen Donnelly they looked like they actually had the makings of being a proper opposition party, as opposed to a pretend opposition such as Labour are*.

I don't know what Roisin Shortall brought to the mix, other than making up the numbers. But after they formed they went right down the identity politics rabbit hole. Maybe that's why Stephen Donnelly left so suddenly?

*We all know that given the first chance to get back into power and get the ministerial mercs and perks that they will jump at the chance.

Dyr

TBH don't Labour havent really represented anybody in a long time, they're basically a gang of long term carpet baggers, ex-stickies, careerist SIPTU officials, journos etc. who stuck together and made a gig out of being the party you vote for if you don't vote FG/FG. Their only constituency is well to do urban liberals and FG have a lot of that demograph sewn up which is why Labour used to live off FG transfers for seats.

And with Labour dead, SF will become that party It's already happening, Liada Ni Riada and such.

AndrewJRenko

Marcos wrote: »

Ellie Kisyombe anyone?

They had such goodwill when they set up based on the excellent work that Catherine Murphy did on the Siteserv / Irish Water fiasco. Also with Stephen Donnelly they looked like they actually had the makings of being a proper opposition party, as opposed to a pretend opposition such as Labour are*.

I don't know what Roisin Shortall brought to the mix, other than making up the numbers. But after they formed they went right down the identity politics rabbit hole. Maybe that's why Stephen Donnelly left so suddenly?

*We all know that given the first chance to get back into power and get the ministerial mercs and perks that they will jump at the chance.

Murphy and Shortall were far more natural bedfellows than Murphy and Donnelly.

Shouldn't any political party be jumping at the chance to get into power? What's the point in being in politics to sit on the opposition benches for ever?

Phoebas

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Murphy and Shortall were far more natural bedfellows than Murphy and Donnelly.

Shouldn't any political party be jumping at the chance to get into power? What's the point in being in politics to sit on the opposition benches for ever?

Being in government means spending your political capital and eventually being kicked out.

The real gravy train is getting embedded in perpetual opposition, make a lot of noise about how poor the government is, but whatever you do, don't ever assume the responsibility of weilding actual power.

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

Being in government means spending your political capital and eventually being kicked out.

The real gravy train is getting embedded in perpetual opposition, make a lot of noise about how poor the government is, but whatever you do, don't ever assume the responsibility of weilding actual power.

So FF, (Haughey, Ahern etc. etc.) and FG, (Lawlor, Dara Murphy etc.) are in it for the people not the money?

Bobtheman

The labour party got unfairly blamed for austerity. Without them public services would have been decimated further by FG.
I would love to see a merger of SF/Labour.
SF are now the major party of the left in numbers.
A more natural merger would be SF taking over Labour.
There has been a huge amount of bull**** spoken about FF/lab/ green coalition. The numbers just won't be there.

Bobtheman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So FF, (Haughey, Ahern etc. etc.) and FG, (Lawlor, Dara Murphy etc.) are in it for the people not the money?

I think you miss the essential point. People before profit will never gather more than 3 seats and have no intention of making the compromises necessary to get into power. Outside of SF/lab/Sdp - the rest of the left in Ireland is pertually splitting. The people's front of judea ( life of Brian )

Annasopra

Bobtheman wrote: »

The labour party got unfairly blamed for austerity. Without them public services would have been decimated further by FG.
I would love to see a merger of SF/Labour.
SF are now the major party of the left in numbers.
A more natural merger would be SF taking over Labour.
There has been a huge amount of bull**** spoken about FF/lab/ green coalition. The numbers just won't be there.

Nah. Really at their heart Nationalism and Socialism are incompatible. Nationalists put nations borders and flags first, socialists put people first.

James Brown

Bobtheman wrote: »

I think you miss the essential point. People before profit will never gather more than 3 seats and have no intention of making the compromises necessary to get into power. Outside of SF/lab/Sdp - the rest of the left in Ireland is pertually splitting. The people's front of judea ( life of Brian )

So you meant unlikely to get in, not don't want to. You inferred they were in politics for the money, happy to sit on the opposition gravy train.
So anyone serious about politics should join FF or FG so they get in?

Annasopra

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So you meant unlikely to get in, not don't want to. You inferred they were in politics for the money, happy to sit on the opposition gravy train.

Ye wha? The far left doesnt ever want to govern. It just wants to protest.

Dyr

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nah. Really at their heart Nationalism and Socialism are incompatible. Nationalists put nations borders and flags first, socialists put people ideologies first.

Looks about right now

Better Than Christ

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ye wha? The far left doesnt ever want to govern. It just wants to protest.

They do, but their prospects are limited by the fact that they've never been prepared to sell out like Labour.

AndrewJRenko

Better Than Christ wrote: »

They do, but their prospects are limited by the fact that they've never been prepared to sell out like Labour.

Check out Paul Murphy's interview on the Journal where he says that he could never see himself in Government.

Better Than Christ

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Check out Paul Murphy's interview on the Journal where he says that he could never see himself in Government.

Can you provide a link to that interview?

Phoebas

Better Than Christ wrote: »

They do, but their prospects are limited by the fact that they've never been prepared to sell out like Labour.

That's the crux of it.
Those parties see compromise as selling out, so they don't see themselves as parties of government; they see their own purpose as protest/opposition parties.

We're all but guaranteed unstable minority governments led by either FF or FG with no left alternative.

AndrewJRenko

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Can you provide a link to that interview?

I probably could,, but did you try searching for it yourself first?