Could SocDems and Labour merge to form SDLP in the south?

PoliticsNow

Was thinking it might be a good strategy for the Social Democrats and Labour to merge (considering their recent polling numbers) and form SDLP in the south, thus becoming a larger left leaning party to challenge SF? With SF’s recent growth and that they may potentially get into government in the Republic in the next GE (with FF possibly being wiped out), You could potentially see a lot of people from FF without a home but with a new SDLP party option, could that become their new home? For a lot of left leaning people also that can’t stomach SF because of their history etc, could a new SDLP option become an option for them also?

What are people’s thoughts on this, do you think it could happen?

johnnyskeleton

PoliticsNow wrote: »

Was thinking it might be a good strategy for the Social Democrats and Labour to merge (considering their recent polling numbers) and form SDLP in the south, thus becoming a larger left leaning party to challenge SF? With SF’s recent growth and that they may potentially get into government in the Republic in the next GE (with FF possibly being wiped out), You could potentially see a lot of people from FF without a home but with a new SDLP party option, could that become their new home? For a lot of left leaning people also that can’t stomach SF because of their history etc, could a new SDLP option become an option for them also?

What are people’s thoughts on this, do you think it could happen?

Unfortunately, small ideological parties generally tend towards splitting rather than coming together.

The Social Democrats were formed by Roisin Shortall and Catherine Murphy (two former Labour party candidates) and Stephen Donnelly (who has since left to join Fianna Fail). So it is unlikely that they would want to rejoin Labour or that Labour would want them.

A further problem is that it's very difficult to be a centre left political party in Ireland because, despite their desire to paint Fine Gael and Fianna Fail as right wing parties, in reality all Irish politicians are Social Democratic left of centre economically and mostly only differ on social issues and the extent to which they are prepared to enact social democratic policies.

The rise of Sinn Fein as the main "left wing" party is because they are prepared to be all things to all men and make all sorts of spending committments, safe in the knowledge that they will never actually have to implement these policies and, if they do, they can then claim that the other parties or the EU won't let them do it.

Sierra Oscar

I think it's inevitable the SD's and the Labour Party will merge at some stage. A lot of the membership of the SD's couldn't stomach being in the same party as some of the senior membership of the Labour party from the 2011 - 2016 Government. However a lot of those figures are rapidly disappearing from the Labour Party. They're getting old. A lot of the SD's would have been members of the Labour Party if the party hadn't entered Government in 2011.

O'Neill

I'll never understand why SDLP didn't form a merger with SocDems instead of Fianna Fáil, I guess it's more in the fact they're the largest party. Terrible misjudgment though in my opinion.

Peregrinus

Worth pointing out that after a poor general election in 1997 Labour merged with the Democratic Left, which inaugurated a period of steady increases in both votes and seats that lasted nearly 20 years, until the 2016 election.

Which is not to say that a merger with the Social Democrats now would be quite as attractive as a merger with Democratic left was then. But, in general, the policy of unifying left-of-centre parties paid dividends in the past. It could again.

Acosta

Not anytime soon, if at all. Definitely not while Alan Kelly is leader.

View

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Unfortunately, small ideological parties generally tend towards splitting rather than coming together.

The Social Democrats were formed by Roisin Shortall and Catherine Murphy (two former Labour party candidates) and Stephen Donnelly (who has since left to join Fianna Fail). So it is unlikely that they would want to rejoin Labour or that Labour would want them.

A further problem is that it's very difficult to be a centre left political party in Ireland because, despite their desire to paint Fine Gael and Fianna Fail as right wing parties, in reality all Irish politicians are Social Democratic left of centre economically and mostly only differ on social issues and the extent to which they are prepared to enact social democratic policies.

The rise of Sinn Fein as the main "left wing" party is because they are prepared to be all things to all men and make all sorts of spending committments, safe in the knowledge that they will never actually have to implement these policies and, if they do, they can then claim that the other parties or the EU won't let them do it.

Neither FG or FF are even remotely left of centre economically. In European political terms, one is Christian Democrat, the other a (conservative) Liberal Party. Both follow the normal European centre/right-wing “paternalistic” model of social spending.

Neither party though makes the slightest effort to overhaul the economic status quo in this country in an effort to open the door to disadvantaged groups, such as the poor or travellers, so that they can compete on an equal footing in society. Nor do they engage in radical overhaul in perennial problem areas such as the health system, opting instead to maintain the status quo - a status quo where some people can benefit from relying on VHI etc and others are left to flounder on waiting lists.

petronius

It would have to be the Labour and Social Democratic Party the LSD Party

Traditionally Fianna Fail were more like Labour/SDP economically and more like Fine Gael in Dublin Socially

They both get squeezed by FF/FG and SF/GP/and the left overs

Labour in government in 2011 were just fatening up the pensions of Gilmore Rabbitte and Quinn

No appetite for Alan Water Charges Kelly! or AOR - lets abolish the seanad, then applies to become a senator after losing his dail seat

BluePlanet

Labour should dissolve and many of their members will naturally migrate to SocDem.

a very cool kid

Soc Dems have no interest in being in power/actually doing anything. They're a middle class SOL-PBP-RISE. Being pure is more important to them than improving a bit of their voters' lives.

FF, FG, Labour, Greens have made some (major!) mistakes down the years but have also done an awful lot of good. FF in particular through attracting foreign investment have massively raised our standards of living in the past 40-45 years, again some seriously dodgy characters in there but still plenty of achievements. FG/Labour brought in free college fees, gave hundreds of thousands opportunity to go to third level.

Soc Dems will never **** up but they'll never achieve anything either without a huge change in direction.

a very cool kid

View wrote: »

Neither FG or FF are even remotely left of centre economically. In European political terms, one is Christian Democrat, the other a (conservative) Liberal Party. Both follow the normal European centre/right-wing “paternalistic” model of social spending.

Neither party though makes the slightest effort to overhaul the economic status quo in this country in an effort to open the door to disadvantaged groups, such as the poor or travellers, so that they can compete on an equal footing in society. Nor do they engage in radical overhaul in perennial problem areas such as the health system, opting instead to maintain the status quo - a status quo where some people can benefit from relying on VHI etc and others are left to flounder on waiting lists.

This view is nonsense - FF literally bankrupted the country spending every penny they had available to take low paid earners out of the tax net! They also hired over fifty thousand civil servants to improve services amongst all the other money they spent. Right wing parties don't do stuff like that 😂🀣

megaten

a very cool kid wrote: »

Soc Dems have no interest in being in power/actually doing anything. They're a middle class SOL-PBP-RISE. Being pure is more important to them than improving a bit of their voters' lives.

Wasn't one of the Soc dem founders one of the major architects of Slaintecare? I wouldn't mind the Social Democrats trying to build themselves up into a bigger force but why would you go into government if you can achieve major policy goals from the opposition benches.

jd

O'Neill wrote: »

I'll never understand why SDLP didn't form a merger with SocDems instead of Fianna Fáil, I guess it's more in the fact they're the largest party. Terrible misjudgment though in my opinion.

The SDLP have quite a socially conservative membership

Social Democrats would have to be sky high to go near poisoned Labour.

Edgware

Acosta wrote: »

Not anytime soon, if at all. Definitely not while Alan Kelly is leader.

The Soc dems cant even decide on a leader so imagine what would happen if Kelly arrives on the scene

View

a very cool kid wrote: »

This view is nonsense - FF literally bankrupted the country spending every penny they had available to take low paid earners out of the tax net! They also hired over fifty thousand civil servants to improve services amongst all the other money they spent. Right wing parties don't do stuff like that 😂🀣

Actually right wing parties frequently do that. It’s plain old fashioned populism which is as much, if not more, a right-wing phenomenon as it is a left-wing one.

And FF bankrupted the country due to rigging the housing market to enrich their friends in the building trade and their banker buddies who helped finance their projects.

a very cool kid

megaten wrote: »

Wasn't one of the Soc dem founders one of the major architects of Slaintecare? I wouldn't mind the Social Democrats trying to build themselves up into a bigger force but why would you go into government if you can achieve major policy goals from the opposition benches.

Well Soc Dems declined to join the government and Sláintecare is not implemented....

Ekerot

I'd be very surprised if Labour ever became relevant again, they've already been outpaced by SD and it's already a crowded arena with the amount of left leaning independent TD's in the Dáil

MaryL88

It's hard to see the Soc Dems having the guts ot go into government - they will let labour do that and then complain. Unless their TDs get wiped out I can't see them joing with Labour

MaryL88

Ekerot wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if Labour ever became relevant again, they've already been outpaced by SD and it's already a crowded arena with the amount of left leaning independent TD's in the Dáil

If FG get too much influence or FF are wiped out then the public sector workers may well go back to Labour. Bertie took a lot of that support from them but the growing influence of FG may well bring it back.

James Brown

Labour need to rebuild after many years of willfully playing second fiddle to FF/FG before anyone should touch them. I say that as a former Labour party member.
Labour needs to decide if it's for the people or desperate to be in government despite the costs.
Kelly needs to go and the unelected behind the scenes people need to be honest with themselves and join FG or form a FG-lite.

James Brown

a very cool kid wrote: »

Well Soc Dems declined to join the government and Sláintecare is not implemented....

Puts them above Labour IMO.

Hermy

Why does Kelly need to go?

I'm asking in ignorance - not opposition.

James Brown

Hermy wrote: »

Why does Kelly need to go?

I'm asking in ignorance - not opposition.

He's a symbol of the party moving in the wrong direction IMO. If Labour is to be improved it needs to get rid of him. His attitude and stance on issues.

L1011

Bowie wrote: »

He's a symbol of the party moving in the wrong direction IMO. If Labour is to be improved it needs to get rid of him. His attitude and stance on issues.

That really doesn't answer the question you were asked in any way.

James Brown

L1011 wrote: »

That really doesn't answer the question you were asked in any way.

It absolutely does.
He's an aggressive and poor attitude. He's an issue with ego. He chastised members of the public who protested. These are not good qualities IMO. Specifically in a party supposedly to support the right to protest.
If you've a yearning for something else please let me know.

jd

Unan Mullaly talks about Alan Kelly today.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-alan-kelly-is-shrewdly-hitching-labour-s-wagon-to-sinn-f%C3%A9in-1.4390922

Yet on the Kelly front, it’s beginning to seem like the detractors were wrong. In media and for the most part in the chamber, Kelly’s gasket-blowing is often reduced to a simmer. Remarkably, here is a politician who has mellowed with responsibility. The perception is that he is maturing into the role of leader. We won’t know (for now) what an Ó Riordáin-led Labour would have looked like, but Kelly-era Labour is shaping up to be a little more intriguing than predicted. So can Labour, with its smattering of all-male TDs, progress?

James Brown

jd wrote: »

Unan Mullaly talks about Alan Kelly today.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-alan-kelly-is-shrewdly-hitching-labour-s-wagon-to-sinn-f%C3%A9in-1.4390922

Read that. I took, "...the Labour "brand" and legacy is held far to dearly (and rightly so) to dilute it for the sake of opportunistic short-term electoral success" as sarcasm. It's that very trait sums up the party and Kelly looking to sidle up to any rising star for the chance of getting in is not new territory.

Hermy

Bowie wrote: »

It absolutely does.
He's an aggressive and poor attitude. He's an issue with ego. He chastised members of the public who protested. These are not good qualities IMO. Specifically in a party supposedly to support the right to protest.
If you've a yearning for something else please let me know.

Yeah, I get the aggression - just wondered where his politics fit with where Labour are now and where they need to get to.

L1011

Bowie wrote: »

It absolutely does.
He's an aggressive and poor attitude. He's an issue with ego. He chastised members of the public who protested. These are not good qualities IMO. Specifically in a party supposedly to support the right to protest.
If you've a yearning for something else please let me know.

You original answer could be translated to "because things". You gave no indication of the specific attitude, stance or direction that you opposed

This one actually gives some content.

Which of the other five TDs do you think is more suited?

paul71

Peregrinus wrote: »

Worth pointing out that after a poor general election in 1997 Labour merged with the Democratic Left, which inaugurated a period of steady increases in both votes and seats that lasted nearly 20 years, until the 2016 election.

Which is not to say that a merger with the Social Democrats now would be quite as attractive as a merger with Democratic left was then. But, in general, the policy of unifying left-of-centre parties paid dividends in the past. It could again.

It also happened earlier than that with the workers party.

Edit: Sorry they formed democtratic left.

L1011

paul71 wrote: »

It also happened earlier than that with the workers party.

Edit: Sorry they formed democtratic left.

Previous actual mergers with Labour include the Democratic Socialist Party, SLISO and National Labour.

man98

For what it's worth, a merger between Labour and the SocDems really isn't on the cards in the way some to think it is. For Labour it's a matter of pride, for SocDems it's a matter of ambition. Labour will not go in as equal partners with what are seen as young upstarts and some would be uneasy with elements within the SocDem party structures. Likewise, the SocDems see themselves as replacing Labour anyway, thus there's no point taking on this toxic brand. Likewise, I'm sure many fear the Labour old guard.

The other issue with is the matter of ego. This would derail any negotiations for the next five years at least. My own belief is that Labour should end up coming out on top - as the party is probably less vulnerable to a further Sinn Féin - SocDem members have said much the same to me. With a savvier SF campaign in the next election some SocDem TDs could be wiped out, but additionally it will prevent them gaining additional seats. While Labour is currently in the doldrums, even a slight resurgence in targeted areas against Green/ Fianna Fáil weaknesses could deliver additional seats. Medium term I see a tit for tat, with a combined seat count of under 15 between the two parties for the next election cycle or two before the parties either collapse or merge.

Peregrinus

The repeated mergers of Labour with other parties are simply the flip-side of the well-known tendency of the political left to institutional fractiousness and disunity. Left parties merge so often precisely because there are so many left parties to merge. And the process never ends, because new left parties keep springing up - either new foundations, or splits from existing parties.

un5byh7sqpd2x0

Hermy wrote: »

Why does Kelly need to go?

I'm asking in ignorance - not opposition.

Because he’s an idiot.

GoneHome

Do you know I'm very tempted to vote Labour the next time out, even though I'm in a rural area from a farming backround which wouldn't be their general base I must say I'm quite impressed with Alan Kelly, an option to consider indeed

paul71

GoneHome wrote: »

Do you know I'm very tempted to vote Labour the next time out, even though I'm in a rural area from a farming backround which wouldn't be their general base I must say I'm quite impressed with Alan Kelly, an option to consider indeed

There was a traditional Labour vote in rural Ireland because there was a rural labouring class. it has declined due to industrialisation of agriculture.

GoneHome

paul71 wrote: »

There was a traditional Labour vote in rural Ireland because there was a rural labouring class. it has declined due to industrialisation of agriculture.

They're a slightly better option than the Shinners, but only slightly, I'm tempted to give the Shinners a high number the next time too just to see how they'll govern, interesting times.

Hermy

Armani Tasty Valor wrote: »

Because he’s an idiot.

In that case perhaps he should be Taoiseach.

Pronto63

Do party leaders get an extra allowance?
If so what is the definition of a party?
How many TDs?

Just asking.

Not being cynical.

Not in the slightest!!

Peregrinus

Pronto63 wrote: »

Do party leaders get an extra allowance?
If so what is the definition of a party?
How many TDs?

Just asking.

Not being cynical.

Not in the slightest!!

A parliamentary activities allowance is paid in respect of a registered political party that has contested the last election and that has got any members elected. It can be used to pay expenses incurred in connection with the party's activities - e.g. in connection with party admistration, research, training, policy development - and the expenses have to be vouched and audited. It cannot be used to pay election expenses. The amount depends on the number of members the party has had elected - so much per TD, so much per Senator. Parties in opposition get a larger per-member allowance than parties in government, on the basis (I think) that they don't have civil service support in policy formation.

Independent members can get a similar allowance. The party allowances are aggregated and paid to the party leader, but each independent member gets his own allowance.

The party could choose to spend part of the allowance in giving the party leader an uplift to his salary, to reflect the additional work he has to do as party leader - that's up to the party. If they do, it's taxable income in the hands of the party leader. Whether any party does this, I don't know.

L1011

You also get funding based on % of vote over 2%, which is how Renua got funding with zero TDs.

The 2019 figures seem to be overdue, but this is what each party got in 2018. Independents got about 40k each.

The Seanad leader for each opposition party/technical group gets an extra allowance, presumably for similar reasons as funding opposition parties on Dail numbers. Its not huge, 9k for FF and 6k for the others based on number of seats.

James Brown

Hermy wrote: »

Yeah, I get the aggression - just wondered where his politics fit with where Labour are now and where they need to get to.

The big one for me was Labour's support of the IW/metering quango and attitude towards protestors. Kelly was outspoken on that. The party itself allowed FG carry on with it's crony behaviour. Labour need stand for something other than what might let them in government. If they'd stuck to their supposed traits and stood behind the rights of the protesters rather than ridicule them, in agreement or not, and called out FG on Reilly's clinic allocations and 'looking after our own' they'd be doing a lot better ironically.

L1011 wrote: »

You original answer could be translated to "because things". You gave no indication of the specific attitude, stance or direction that you opposed

This one actually gives some content.

Which of the other five TDs do you think is more suited?

See above.
Would be less smart arsey if you simply asked for me to elaborate.
Any one is preferable to Kelly IMO, especially if Labour wish to move away from being merely FF/FG enablers.