nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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. 😉

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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?

plibige

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253803#Comment_122253803

Yes

Not sure how that supports your point though, they don't need to merge to negotiate. And a government could be formed with one and a few indo's so not sure your point?

In your scenario it could easily be FF/FG/SD plus independents. So what's the need to merge?

Raoul Duke III

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253888#Comment_122253888

To answer your question: size matters

A merged entity has more bargaining power.

A merged entity has more electoral power (one SDLP candidate has a better chance of election than 1 SD and 1 LP).

[Deleted User]

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

They're political parties, not startup businesses. 'Scale' is not necessarily achievable, and if it was, it not necessarily the greater good. The assumption that a merger leads to a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts has no solid basis. The best model in vaguely recent history of this is the merger of Labour and Democratic Left, which really didn't produce 'scale'. Most observers agree that it produced a whole that is less than the sum of the parts prior to the merger.
Some people like to vote for a smaller party, or like to feel that they're part of a smaller party, not a mainstream party. These aren't entirely logical or rational decisions. There's a whole lot of emotion and history tied up in these decisions.
The most enthusiastic advocates for this merger seem to be those who would never vote for either party involved, leaving my slightly cynical about the basis for their advocacy

plibige

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253923#Comment_122253923

That's an opinion, and a weak one at that. Especially looking at history which is all we can do. Where parties that have gone into government with a minority of similarly sized to what you are describing, have consistently wiped out after.

History would beg to differ, with your very weak opinion with no evidence of success

Raoul Duke III

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253953#Comment_122253953

Well, look at the current Green party experience of government.

I would say they were pretty successful at getting good chunks of their agenda implemented. Well done.

They are likely to get a thumping in the next GE.

Should they have gone into government in the first place, or should they have maintained an aura of perfection from the sidelines?

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253818#Comment_122253818

Her name is out there now, likely will run in GE next.

Genghis

I expect there is clear delineation along age groups between Labour and SD. Labour being moderate left voters mainly over 50s, SD being moderate left mainly under 40s.

So maybe SD just need to keep appealing to younger voters and as Labour voters (not to mind representatives) diminish with age the SDs take over.

I don't see a merger happening unless both are existentially challenged at the same time.

I think they would coalesce with no issues, and from the point of view of the larger parties they could be considered a cohesive bloc in forming a government.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253818#Comment_122253818

Probably on the assumption that she would get her 1/4 quota and the associated refund of costs.

Raoul Duke III

There's actually much more coherent arguments being made on here than in that Irish Times article, which is basically just a mishmash of talking head's comments. So well done boardsies. 😉

plibige

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253985#Comment_122253985

You mean the same green party that went into government with 7 seats. As in the exact number that I said would be suffice for either Labour or SD to go into government as a junior party. And you said need "a merged entity has more bargaining power".

So is 7 enough or do you need more? And if so what's your point because you've got very muddled and unclear.

The only thing that seems to be clear is you want them to merge so they are easier to deal with, other than that you are bending and twisting your logic to fit your very obvious agenda