Why don't the Labour Party and the Social Democrats merge?

Raoul Duke III

There is zero benefit to having two small social democratic parties fighting for the same vote - why don't they merge (after all the SDs come from the Labour gene pool)? The resulting economies of political scale could see them become a proper force in Irish politics again and one that could be seen as potentially crucial coalition partners when it comes to forming the next government.

If they want a name, I'm sure their northern friends wouldn't raise too much fuss if they call themselves the SDLP. 😉

L1011

Because the two until recently SD co-leaders, who retain huge influence, would never countenance it; basically.

When they eventually retire (they have their Dáil seats for life, realistically) it may be possible.

There'd also be significant issues with deciding on a name - the Soc Dem name hasn't got baggage but Labour would likely still be the bigger party in terms of both public reps and members 2:1 or so; and a bigger geographic spread of where those reps and members are.

Raoul Duke III

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241088#Comment_122241088

So basically personality differences are standing in the way of the wider good of social democracy in Ireland?

If that is the case, then I would suggest that those personalities should be nudged aside.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Ah Raoul you know as well as anybody that a meeting of these left leaning parties always ends up like a scene from a Monty Python movie.

Would pay to see their first meeting live streamed though.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241099#Comment_122241099

When the SDs are basically just a party built around those personalities, it isn't possible to nudge them aside.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241088#Comment_122241088

There's also a reason all the current SDs never joined Labour and instead joined the SDs. They didn't do it because they didn't realise Lavour existed. For various reasons they didn't feel Labour aligned with their views. The same for SD voters. They vote for the SD because they feel Labour dont/didn't aligned with their views. That's still something that would need to be considered and whether SD members would vote for a mearge.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241111#Comment_122241111

The only time I've seen someone in the SDs express a reason that wasn't either baggage or leadership related was about laws relating to sex work. Which would currently be intractable as Bacik won't budge on her opinion on that.

I don't think that is the driving issue for most of the membership of the SDs.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241137#Comment_122241137

But you have basically said it is being stopped by two big personalities in the SDs. Why did Hilly Cairns join SD and not Labour?

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241146#Comment_122241146

You'll have to ask her that.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241159#Comment_122241159

There's no need. But I have a feeling the reason isn't that she was forced to by the two big personalities.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241164#Comment_122241164

Those preventing a potential merger are not those controlling which party people join or vote for.

Danzy

Labours purse strings are still controlled by the ex worker's party types, and that's a turn off. They would fall out with a stick.

Personality types as well, Labour are more old school refined, where as the Social Democrats are a more on trend type.

In a normal circumstance they would merge as the differences are small but they won't.

The SD are the people who would be labour youth

standardg60

Simple answer is two parties will garner more overall support than one.

If FF and FG merged ( you could make the same argument that their policies align), their combined support would be a lot less than it is now.

Pat Rabbite said as much in relation to Democratic Left when they merged with Labour.

Raoul Duke III

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241236#Comment_122241236

Really? I would have thought the opposite i.e. that they get in each others way and crowd out each others candidates

landofthetree

The SD are just people from Labour who are afraid of going into government.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241171#Comment_122241171

As I said, there's a reason she, and the others, joined the SD. I just find it strange that those reasons wouldnt also exclude a mearger with Labour.

gym_imposter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241236#Comment_122241236

Nonsense

Resources are split and more importantly votes are split

Furze99

Shortall has to go.

magicbastarder

the left look for traitors, the right look for converts.

there's a little bit of truthiness to that.

StormForce13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122242137#Comment_122242137

Not a hope! The two former co-leaders are on the pig's back. Both have the full State Contributory Pension plus TD's salaries and expenses. (Shortie might have a Junior Minister's pension too, if she was a junior for long enough - I don't know if that's paid when a TD reaches 66)

If they retire, they'll be left with nothing to do except reading the papers, cutting the grass and minding the grandchildren.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241257#Comment_122241257

You could say that the people who went from SF to Labour weren't afraid of going into government.

(One of several SF's and via Democratic Left)

Manach

Not having an idealogical stake in distinghishing between the two parties, I would say that having had to trudge through some of Bacik's legal papers during a course I can see why merging would be problematic.

Brussels Sprout

I don't know but I'm sick of them being asked this at every interview. It's not going to happen anytime soon. You don't need to ask them for the 90th time!

plibige

Seems odd to want to merge them. What are the long term pro's, this new left party ends up being the junior party in government and drifts to the centre. Then gets obliterated in the following election and there is no alternative other than the greens to centre left voters. Rinse repeat.

It's good and healthy to have choice, they can grow in a healthy separate manner, and differentiate on policy in small ways to give people healthy choice.

I think the calculations of merge Lab and SD and 1+1=2, wouldn't work out as well as people think. More than likely it will be 1+1=1.5 at best, in terms of support

Raoul Duke III

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122251938#Comment_122251938

Oh no, being a government coalition partner, what a terrible fate!

Isn't the whole point of being in politics to actually get to implement your policies? In order to do that, you need a certain level of scale and organization. SDLP is far better than SD + LAB in that regard. Run 1 candidate per constituency and they might realistically aim for 15-20 seats.

If you actively don't want to be in government (hello PBP and nearly all Independents), that's fine but at least be honest enough to tell those who vote for you that your policies will never be enacted.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058355358/why-dont-the-labour-party-and-the-social-democrats-merge

Or LSD Party?

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241191#Comment_122241191

Ex workers party??

Workers party members left and joined Democratic Left in early 90s, Labour and DL merged in late 90s. Thats 25 years ago in case you hadnt noticed.

Heraclius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122251991#Comment_122251991

They have great vision(s)

Heraclius

I don't see much upside really. They probably separately attract more votes and seats than they would as one party.

Raoul Duke III

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122251991#Comment_122251991

the floating voters will certainly pull the tab for them (2 puns for the price of one, thank you thank you, I'm here all week)

Grassy Knoll

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241257#Comment_122241257

correct, Labour were punished for entering government in 2011. I think history will judge them favourably, they were part of an administration that had limited choices. However the economy we have now reflects this, it would be easy to do the student Union politics and sit it out with no constructive input

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122251986#Comment_122251986

Why do you assume they have to merge with labour to qualify as a coalition partner?

plibige

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122251986#Comment_122251986

Who said anything about not wanting to be in government? I said it would be detrimental to a person on the left of centre to have their only option go into government and drift to the centre.

There is in fact precedent for this, with the democratic left and labour merging and then labour drifting towards the centre with the coalition of fg.

As its set up now, the two parties can in theory go into coalition being a junior party, and even if the party drifts towards the centre or left, the other party can stick to its principles.

I don't see any advantage to merging the parties if its not to try be a senior party in government, and based on the figures you suggested they wouldn't be.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122241099#Comment_122241099

Why would this be 'the wider good'? What good will arise?

Raoul Duke III

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122252757#Comment_122252757

Scale. A combined SDLP would beca bigger force in politics, thus would have more clout in any government they were a part of. Thus more scope to get policy implemented.

That's what SDLP supporters want, right? Their policies to be implemented. (It feels strange to even have to clarify it)

Raoul Duke III

I see the Irish Times is asking the same question.

plibige

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253156#Comment_122253156

History would beg to differ on this, everytime Labour has got to a certain size and gone into government as a junior party, they have made compromises and drifted to the centre, lost their core support and had to start rebuilding. On top of that, the merger with the democratic left in the 90's meant there was no viable alternative and we stay locked in our own version of a two party system. This cycle has been happening for the greens in part for the past 20 years too.

I really can't see any advantages at all for labour to merge with SD and they end up with 20 seats and go into government and have to compromise on their core principles. This in turn loses their core and they have to rebuild again. And alternatively if either wanted to govern and went in as the junior party, what is the advantage of being 20 as opposed to 12 or 10 seats? In fact let's go the full hog and say ff needed both SD and Labour to create a government, but they are negotiating with two separate parties, as opposed one twenty seat party, the power dynamic is now much more with the left parties than ff, and more compromises would have to be made by ff dealing with the two of them.

The only reason i can see anyone wanting them to merge is so that they are easier to push down again. Get Labour caught back in the two party trap they keep getting caught in, and bring the SD's down with them.

Choice is the strength of our system, and taking choice away from the public for the chance to have slightly higher seats in the next election and potentially being a junior party that has to compromise and lose their base, sounded good in the past, but history has proven otherwise

Augme

Labours problem is they have shown that they don't really have policies once they get elected into government. There's a massive risk merging with a party like that. Imagine a situation where they merge, and they get into government and the people on the Labour side are like "nah, we're happy to abandon all our policies now we're in power". Again, it would sink the party.

L1011

Soc Dems appear to have no money - Gibney apparently had to sell her car to fund her Euro run and is 20k in a hole according to the Irish Times.

csirl

There's also an argument that Labour, SD and Greens should merge. They are competing for the same type of voter with similar policies. Votes also seem to readily transfer between their candidates in elections - the electorate perceive them as being different shades of the same thing.

Raoul Duke III

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253442#Comment_122253442

So, yes you are correct - being a junior coalition partner is hard and, surprise surprise, politics is all about compromises. You govern from the centre and fight hard for your own priorities but you will never get a perfect program for government.

So, say you are a voter for any political party, which do you prefer:

(a) a pragmatic party who will go into government and negotiate a program where they will get some of their policy implemented (but will probably have to hold their noses and compromise on some other things)?, or

(b) a party of shining ideological purity that will never go into government, and thus will never get any of their policy implemented?

You seem to be advocating for (b). I would say that's all well and good, but you will be condemned to a political lifetime of tutting from the sidelines as more pragmatic parties coalesce and implement their policies.

I would advocate for (a), and in order for the SDs and Labour to best achieve their policy objectives (of which they have many laudable shared ones), they should unite as a single party to create the political scale to do that.

Raoul Duke III

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253515#Comment_122253515

Not so sure about the Greens. They are a distinct European and global political movement in their own right. I would suggest the SDLP's top priorities are misaligned with those of the Greens?

plibige

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253550#Comment_122253550

No you keep creating this strawman argument of B because its the only argument you have. I explained clearly in my past posts the strengths of staying separate and growing, hopefully to a point where one if not both could be a senior party in government. You reverted back to the "get back in line, once you reach a certain size you go in as a junior party, compromise and revert back to where I want you, we have a two party system here don't you know"

I even created a scenario where both parties stayed separate and went into government as both junior parties but with better collective bargaining, surely you can see the advantages to that?

The notion that neither party wants to govern is laughable, to the point of making any argument come across as biased. Soc Dems don't even exist 10 years, and Labour have been in government twice in the past 30 years.

They do want to govern, just not on the terms you want them to

dulpit

I think a lot will come of this when the next general election happens. If it becomes obvious that there is a chance for the Labour and Soc Dem TDs to form a bloc in government they should take it. I can see Labour taking the chance to be in government but whether the Soc Dems do too is another question.

If they (Social Democrats) stay out when the option is there for them to be in government then I question what the point of them is. They will just become a permanent opposition party like PBP/Solidarity and who does that really benefit apart from the elected reps then?

gym_imposter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253490#Comment_122253490

I'd take that with a pinch of salt, she's a fairly prolific player in the NGO industrial complex and there is oceans of money in that sea

gym_imposter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253515#Comment_122253515

They absolutely should and under the Green banner as it's a much stronger brand , the kind of people who vote Labour, Soc Dems, Green today, are not overly concerned with old school union politics

Climate

Diversity

Gender

These are issues parties

Annasopra

Holly Cairns keeps going on the difference between social democrats and Labour is “the internal culture of how we do politics”.

Wow just wow!

Did none of the soc dem TDs think to support their EU candidate at the RDS the last few days.

Gary gannon was there briefly way before she was left all alone. Nobody else. She was left alone like a lemon.

Its an overwhelming moment. And in that count there’s dozens of cameras on you as you’re eliminated. You’re very exposed and have to walk through all those cameras and journalists to get out. There isn’t anywhere to hide.

They cruelly left her on her own apart from one or two people.

She should have had people with her. There should have at least been a press person there to talk her through and prep her before the announcement. Something. And all their TDs sitting back in Leinster House.

Cruel cruel party.

DamiensNeck

Soc Dems see themselves as above Labour and will claim they are different to them to prevent being tarnished with the Labour reputation from a decade ago.

There really is no depth or experience to the Soc Dems though. I view them as the college students union party. Built on ideals rather than reality.

Cairns, the party leader only became a councillor for the first time 5 years ago.

Murphy and Shortall are pushing on, they're both 70 and even so, their reputations took a massive hit during covid when they were looking for 0 covid all along. They'll hardly contest the next election.

Gary Gannon should just stay at councillor level the way he goes on about things.

Raoul Duke III

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253630#Comment_122253630

Well, let's try a (reasonably realistic) thought experiment and see if we can bring this debate to life

Fast forward to Halloween.

Taoiseach Harris has called an election and the results are as follows:

• FG 36
• FF 36
• GP wiped out, 0 seats

(so the old FFG coalition can't happen)

• SF 36
• INDOs 25
• SD 7
• LAB 7
• PBP\SP\OTH 7

In order to have a stable government, FF\FG need another partner. SD\LP have the numbers.

Should the SD and LP enter into meaningful negotiation for government or not?

Raoul Duke III

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253785#Comment_122253785

I doubt it's 'cruelty'. Probably more amateurism than cruelty.

(which in the world of politics is definitely worse)

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253490#Comment_122253490

that's a weird one. she knew she only stood an outside chance; why spend 20k of your own money?