Is it moral to create a governmt, excluding the party with the most votes?

Xterminator

Just like to see what your opinions are here.

I see that Dick Spring is supposed to have ruled out going into government with FF after the next election. (regardless of what share of the vote the parties receive).

But given that FF received more votes than any other party, in virtually every general election i can remember, and given that fact that opinion polls suggest this will still be the case after the next election, is it morally right to say 'we are going to try to form a government excluding the party that received the most votes.'

And if a government cannot be formed without FF, they would rather force another election than form a government with FF?

Is this not disenfranchising the electorate?

Do they not have an obligation to try to form a govenment, even if it worked out that a FG+Combined Left+ Independants did not gain the required seats.

I can see why they dont want to go into govenment with FF, i just am not sure it is ethically right to treat the voters wishes in this fashion.

(This is not a do you like FF thread, rather a discussion of coalition politics and whether it is right to force a second election etc.)

X

m1ke

I think as a party they are obliged to try and set out to accomplish their goals and policies... and if their goals are totally incompatible with FF then they shouldn't go into government with them. They have to strive to achieve what they believe is best for the country otherwise as a party they're worthless. I think they're taking an ethical stand against FF and the corruption within FF and their lack of effectiveness throughout a time of plenty and it's admirable.

TwoShedsJackson

Dick Spring? I thought he retired or something ages ago? Anyway, Labour also ruled out going into coalition with FF before the 1992 election, they then proceeded to go into coalition with FF after the election, so I wouldn't bother putting too much store in what they say about that.

Having said that, Ruairi Quinn does seem to have a bit more integrity then a lot of politicians, so hopefully if he says it, he won't go back on his word if he was in a position to do so.

Never underestimate what politicians will do to get into government, it's all they want (of course).

swiss

In my view, labor have the right to choose whomever they wish to enter coalition with (or not as the case may be). Labor have their own manifesto, their own goals and aspirations which they can pursue in a democratic mandate in whatever way they desire.

The fact that FF have the majority of votes of any party in the Dáil is irrelevant in this case. They do not have the overall majority required to return to government without a coalition partner (all polls currently seem to indicate this). Therefore there is no onus on other parties to coalesce with FF in order for them to enter government.

Given the breakdown of votes in the Dáil, a FF/Labor coalition seems the most likely government that may be formed in the next election. Bertie Ahern has already made his pitch to rank and file members of the Labor party. His intention to enter government with Labor is clear. Such a match would also help to silence criticism that FF is becoming right wing.

However, Ruraí Quinn has sternly rebuffed these overtures of friendship with stinging criticism of the governments activities. This, to me, seems a little disingenuous. If Ruraí Quinn wants to improve a government's 'track record', he should consider entering government as well to do so himself.

Despite all of this, I still think that it is very possible that a skilful piece of spin-doctoring will yet result in the posited coalition. I suspect, however, that the price of such a match will be very high for FF. It is hard to imagine that the ensuing friction created from the power struggle will be beneficial to stable government - but only time will tell us that.

bonkey

You form a government by electing officials. The Irish government consists of all members in the Dail (and arguably the Senate and the President). You are implying that those who are not part of the majority coalition are somehow not part of the government....

Thats probably being a bit pedantic. I guess the regular terminology used is where" the government" is used to describe "the ruling faction within the government". So lets look at that...

A ruling faction is most typically one made up of diverse groups in modern politics. The coalition itself typically has a majority. So, if said coalition were to exclude FF (for example), so what? The majority of elected officials have chosen to align themselves, which is their perogative. They reflect the interests of the majority of the people. Why should this be morally wrong?

Were anyone to imply that there is any sort of moral imperative to include FF in a government because they have the largest single-party headcount would be ridiculous. If excluding them would disenfranchise sections of the populace, then surely the opposite is true - granting them automatic inclusion would be equally biased against anyone not in the FF party or smongst their supporters.

Effectively, if there was an argument in favour of what you are asking, then the same argument could be used to say that after the largest party has been included in the government, surely it is equally morally incumbent on us to include the next largest party in order to maintain the same standards.

Thus, the government must morally be formed by a successive list of "largest remaining parties", until a majority had been formed. Of course, this would disenfranchise the smaller parties, and the independants and be unfair to them.....so we end up in a situation where the only morally correct thing to do is to include every elected member into the ruling majority...which brings us full circle and is blatantly ridiculous.

In short...no...I do not believe that there is any moral imperative on including the largest party in the government.

AS to the other issue you raise...the notion of refusing to form a government...this is something I have strong objections to. The number of times I have heard TDs after elections come out with coments like "it is in the best interests of our party not to form a coalition, but to remain in opposition and undermine the government, until such times as we can gain a larger majority in a later election". I mean - hello? We elect these people to help run the country, and they see the best way of achieving that to be to try and hamstring the new government in order to diminish said government's popularity, so that they can become more popular themselves????

Jeez - and here I was thinking that their job was to do the best for the country - not the best for their party and their own little necks.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Xterminator
I see that Dick Spring is supposed to have ruled out going into government with FF after the next election. (regardless of what share of the vote the parties receive).

I think it was Ruairi Quinn, TD, said it. I understand Dick Spring, TD, is an ordinary member of the parlimentary Labour Party (he might also be a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs)

Originally posted by Xterminator
But given that FF received more votes than any other party, in virtually every general election i can remember, and given that fact that opinion polls suggest this will still be the case after the next election, is it morally right to say 'we are going to try to form a government excluding the party that received the most votes.'

If those people want a FF government, let tham vote FF. Is that saying it too simply?

Xterminator

Originally posted by Victor

If those people want a FF government, let tham vote FF. Is that saying it too simply?

Fiar enough so far Victor, but, what about a situation where because of the math, Labour (or another party) will not go into coalition, but forces another general election?

I belive this would be irresponsible, as they are elected to look after the good of the country, and if they cannot get their desired partner, they should then seek to form a stable government with the party(s) that have the no's of candidates to form a government , and not waste more taxpayer time and money forcing another election, when the most likely outcome is the same.

X

gandalf

I'm sorry Xterminator but if Labour are voted in by people who do not want them to join with FF in coalition shouldn't they respect the wishes of those people 1st.

Also talking about wasting taxpayers money, what about this bloody abortion referendum thats been rolled out again un-necessarly; what about Bertie Bowl lots of cash spent on "consultants" and nothing to show for it. Please don't play that bullsh!t "wasting taxpayers money card" again, if it takes 2 elections to get a strong and stable government then it will be worth it.

Gandalf.