FF V. FG/Lab

K-9

I see we have a a thread on what are the differences between FF & FG but I'm beginning to wonder are Labour getting off a bit lightly here considering they are the other 1/2 in the 1 against 1 1/2 equation. What do significant differences did Labour bring to the equation?

Dirk Gently

Seanies32 wrote:

significant differences

If we assume Labour will allow some form of hospital co-location if in power with FF the there are no significant differences. FF / FG differences are just civil war tribalism / we're not as corrupt as the other lot and Labour spin the lefty language but in reality all three parties have much more in common than they have differances. FG and labour individual members might have most differences (smolked salmon socialists v's christian right burn all wrong do'ers in hell) but for the main stream of all 3 parties politically they're pretty much the same. The GE was in effect a referendum on Bertie and the question of co-location, not much else.

K-9

clown bag wrote:

If we assume Labour will allow some form of hospital co-location if in power with FF the there are no significant differences. FF / FG differences are just civil war tribalism / we're not as corrupt as the other lot and Labour spin the lefty language but in reality all three parties have much more in common than they have differances. FG and labour individual members might have most differences (smolked salmon socialists v's christian right burn all wrong do'ers in hell) but for the main stream of all 3 parties politically they're pretty much the same. The GE was in effect a referendum on Bertie and the question of co-location, not much else.

Agreed in large part. If there is no hospital relocation we're back to the same old position except Labour instead of the PD's giving in to public sector pay arguments. God help us, whatever chance we had with Mary Harney, could you imagine Liz McManus in Health? Nurses 35 hours, off course and what other cherry would you like?

On relocation, well Harney (despite her party) and FF did win hands down. People have no faith in the old Health system. It's a sad state for democracy when the Govt. comes up with the most radical policy.

The Govt. suggests change in the Health system, the opposition, "lets pump more money into it to TRY and create 2,300 beds, ach, it sounds great"

IronMan

clown bag wrote:

FG and labour individual members might have most differences (smolked salmon socialists v's christian right burn all wrong do'ers in hell) but for the main stream of all 3 parties politically they're pretty much the same.

As a member of FG, I've have yet to meet any of these Christian right burn all wrong do'ers in hell members. The vast, vast majority of members are economically and socially liberal. Very much social democrats for the most part. I'll keep looking for the rabid right wingers though.

Húrin

clown bag wrote:

FG and labour individual members might have most differences (smolked salmon socialists v's christian right burn all wrong do'ers in hell) but for the main stream of all 3 parties politically they're pretty much the same.

No I think rabid Catholic hypocrites tend to go for FF.

K-9

So much for debate. Obviously people couldn't be bothered posting about differences between Lab, FG & FF.

Same like it seems nobody new bothers voting for Labour.

Lennoxschips

Nurses 35 hours, off course and what other cherry would you like?

Nursing is an extremely difficult, stressful and taxing job.

Mick86

H&#250 wrote: »

No I think rabid Catholic hypocrites tend to go for FF.

The most hypocritical of Rabid Catholics is unlikely to vote for a party, the leader of which is an adulterer (in the eyes of Rabid Catholics that is.:D )

Breezer

Attempting to get this back on topic. Labour's most obvious contribution was their opposition to co-location, but they also had some innovative ideas separate from Fine Gael's. For instance, on transport, they were proposing a flat €1 fare for Dublin Bus. On health, they were proposing that someone with a business and management background (preferably with medical experience also) be put in charge of the HSE, as opposed to someone with a medical background, to ensure more efficient running of our hospitals and more rigorous enforcement of hygiene and cleaning to combat MRSA. They proposed bringing in more consultants and reducing the number of junior doctors working in hospitals, moving them instead to the primary care sector.

However, most of their policies got swallowed up by the Mullingar Accord, and they ended up being seen as an appendage to Fine Gael. I don't blame Rabbitte; Quinn did the opposite in 2002 and got the same result. A lot of soul-searching will need to be done within Labour and a new direction decided upon before the next election if they are to have any hope of long-term survival. What that direction will be I don't know, it'll be interesting to see though.

K-9

Breezer wrote:

Attempting to get this back on topic. Labour's most obvious contribution was their opposition to co-location, but they also had some innovative ideas separate from Fine Gael's. For instance, on transport, they were proposing a flat €1 fare for Dublin Bus. On health, they were proposing that someone with a business and management background (preferably with medical experience also) be put in charge of the HSE, as opposed to someone with a medical background, to ensure more efficient running of our hospitals and more rigorous enforcement of hygiene and cleaning to combat MRSA. They proposed bringing in more consultants and reducing the number of junior doctors working in hospitals, moving them instead to the primary care sector.

However, most of their policies got swallowed up by the Mullingar Accord, and they ended up being seen as an appendage to Fine Gael. I don't blame Rabbitte; Quinn did the opposite in 2002 and got the same result. A lot of soul-searching will need to be done within Labour and a new direction decided upon before the next election if they are to have any hope of long-term survival. What that direction will be I don't know, it'll be interesting to see though.

At last a meaningful comment. Looks like an option of Labour and FG standing on their own policies with a view to coalition after an election seems to be an alternative. At least Labour would then offer a real alternative which seems to have been lacking this time.

Breezer

In fairness, I think they did present a real alternative, at least on paper (I won't go into whether or not it would have worked in practice, I know from other topics that we don't really see eye to eye on that ). The problem, I think, is that the common belief was that Rabbitte would end up Tánaiste no matter what. The election therefore ended up coming down to a choice between two Taoisigh, and those that didn't want Bertie ended up voting for Enda and Fine Gael for the most part. Labour ended up being forgotten about.

A view expressed in The Irish Times today is that Labour are out of touch with modern politics. They need to modernise not their views, but the way they apply those views, similarly to how Labour did in England. Show the electorate that they are not anti-business (which is how they are often perceived), and how the prosperity a healthy economy brings can be used, through fair taxation and legislation, to bring about a socialist agenda.

K-9

Breezer wrote:

In fairness, I think they did present a real alternative, at least on paper (I won't go into whether or not it would have worked in practice, I know from other topics that we don't really see eye to eye on that ). The problem, I think, is that the common belief was that Rabbitte would end up Tánaiste no matter what. The election therefore ended up coming down to a choice between two Taoisigh, and those that didn't want Bertie ended up voting for Enda and Fine Gael for the most part. Labour ended up being forgotten about.

I think a lot of Labour voters and members would not have had a problem with coalition with FF (if no alliance) but unfortunately I don't think the party can go back on that now, even more so than 92, because Rabbitte did make it quite clear (despite the media wishing otherwise) his position. It was an issue in the election and he more or less showed he rejected it.

There is a question Labour maybe have to look at, though of course they are very unlikely to accept it and rightly so in a democracy. England has a 2 party system and then the Lib Dems, and if they had PR well the Lib Dem would be prospective Govt. partners for both parties.

I made this point on an other thread but maybe the Spring Tide in 92 as an exception for Labour to all the other election results and they got the protest vote that time.

Of course the Labour party doesn't have to accept that but it is looking pretty ominous, 15 years after the Spring Tide and 13 years after they left the FF/Lab, obviously they are still not being punished for coalition with FF, and that to a large extent it is always going to be a 2 1/2 party system, no matter how presidential the election.

The next election is going to be the same, whether you or me likes it, Cowen V. Kenny as seems likely now.

Breezer wrote:

A view expressed in The Irish Times today is that Labour are out of touch with modern politics. They need to modernise not their views, but the way they apply those views, similarly to how Labour did in England. Show the electorate that they are not anti-business (which is how they are often perceived), and how the prosperity a healthy economy brings can be used, through fair taxation and legislation, to bring about a socialist agenda.

Ah! The dreaded Times, ABFF. I really don't think this was a serious issue in the election. I don't think the electorate had an issue that FG/Lab could manage the economy and Rabbitte could be Minister for Finance, more so, they went with experience. Ruairi Quinn was Min. for Finance and didn't do a bad job just as Cowen hasn't. Cowen did try and make an issue of it but of course he would, its an election.

If they move too centre there is a serious danger they will just have the same policies as FG/FF and well, as shown in the election people trust FF with that.

I do think in fairness to Cowen he has tried to address the McCreevy budgets, now that the money was in the economy. No tax on the minimum wage would have been a Labour objective but FF achieved it and ths appealed to usually Lab/SF voters. These voters realised they where paying no Tax or PRSI (or very little) and voted according to their wage packets, which Labour shouldn't object to.

The same on PRSI, No PRSI on wages over €48,000 would have been a Labour policy as well, but i suppose Labour couldn't have proposed this in an election because FF would have attacked them as high tax, whereas when FF do it, its fairness!

I do think FF/Lab with a tinge of Green would have been an excellent Govt. to try and and distribute the wealth even better, but unfortunately this has been ruled out politically, though with the Greens today putting pressure on FF and Harney talking to FG, FF could say, "well away you's go" knowing Healy Rea and Cooper Flynn would have serious problems with the grassroots selling FG Govt. plus of course as everybody seems to be ignoring, just because he was FG, Lowry has serious problems to answer too.

People keep raising Cooper Flynn going bankrupt or Bertie, but have no problem with Lowry "the Doncaster" political rover when it comes to FG Govt.

breezer wrote:

For instance, on transport, they were proposing a flat €1 fare for Dublin Bus.
On health, they were proposing that someone with a business and management background (preferably with medical experience also) be put in charge of the HSE, as opposed to someone with a medical background, to ensure more efficient running of our hospitals and more rigorous enforcement of hygiene and cleaning to combat MRSA. They proposed bringing in more consultants and reducing the number of junior doctors working in hospitals, moving them instead to the primary care sector.

The €1 sound great, if more people would use Dublin bus and so it wouldn't be looking for more Govt. subvention, with EU problems. On primary care, moving junior doctors to primary is a great idea, but..... what will the junior doctors think of that, and will we need new contracts? Harney's been there, NOW not before

More efficient running sound great in principle, but WHAT less hours and more pay will be needed to get it, which maybe, then cancels the efficiencies, and then we need more efficiency.....vicious circle. Bringing in a management expert sounds great but you still have the HSE against everybody else.

I'm not saying there's no merit in those proposals, but Harney did come across very well in Health debates against Twomey and McManus. People just don't believe the current system will deliver 2,300 beds, no matter what efficiencies Labour bring. People want a new system and Harney's made sense, whether it will deliver, well that's for another day.

Breezer

Seanies32 wrote:

On primary care, moving junior doctors to primary is a great idea, but..... what will the junior doctors think of that, and will we need new contracts? Harney's been there, NOW not before

Well in four years I'll hopefully be one of them, and I'm all for it. I think the general feeling among my classmates is that while at the moment the money (in overtime) is great, the hours are terrifying, and I think many would be relieved to see them reduced. This would also be fairer on patients, who have a right to be treated by someone other than a burnt-out, inexperienced junior doctor.

seanies32 wrote:

More efficient running sound great in principle, but WHAT less hours and more pay will be needed to get it, which maybe, then cancels the efficiencies, and then we need more efficiency.....vicious circle. Bringing in a management expert sounds great but you still have the HSE against everybody else.

I see where you're coming from, but hospital staff are acutely aware of the need for clean hospitals. This is more about ensuring cleaning contracts are being respected, that health care staff are adhering to procedures, etc. As such, it would be more a case of extra HSE staff being made available to conduct inspections.

seanies32 wrote:

I'm not saying there's no merit in those proposals, but Harney did come across very well in Health debates against Twomey and McManus. People just don't believe the current system will deliver 2,300 beds, no matter what efficiencies Labour bring. People want a new system and Harney's made sense, whether it will deliver, well that's for another day.

They want a new system, but I'm not sure they want Harney's system. Co-location was a major component of PD policy, which was roundly rejected around the country. In the short term, it would get more beds into public hospitals, but in the long term, it would inhibit expansion of public hospitals and is a step towards the American-style private health system.

K-9

Breezer wrote:

Well in four years I'll hopefully be one of them, and I'm all for it. I think the general feeling among my classmates is that while at the moment the money (in overtime) is great, the hours are terrifying, and I think many would be relieved to see them reduced. This would also be fairer on patients, who have a right to be treated by someone other than a burnt-out, inexperienced junior doctor.

And more consultants are to be appointed, thus improving the service and reducing hours, but the Consultants association have problems with it. I hope what you are saying is correct and that some doctors will take the lesser pay obviously associated with doing lesser hours. Not a pay reduction as such, just less hours, less pay but off course a better quality of life.

Breezer wrote:

I see where you're coming from, but hospital staff are acutely aware of the need for clean hospitals. This is more about ensuring cleaning contracts are being respected, that health care staff are adhering to procedures, etc. As such, it would be more a case of extra HSE staff being made available to conduct inspections.

Sounds like all parties need to work together.

Breezer wrote:

They want a new system, but I'm not sure they want Harney's system. Co-location was a major component of PD policy, which was roundly rejected around the country. In the short term, it would get more beds into public hospitals, but in the long term, it would inhibit expansion of public hospitals and is a step towards the American-style private health system.

Co-location was a FF policy as well, defended by Lenihan and Ahern. It sounds like an Ameracanisation but no party in Ireland is going to accept a reduction in the quality of the public health system. FF realise that of course you have to have a quality public health syatem available to those who can't afford private. This system is a compromise between the American system which no party wants and the Berlin model which unfortunately no party has the b**** to suggest. Seems like we want a German hospital system but an American tax system.

Dr Galen

Seanies32 wrote:

I do think FF/Lab with a tinge of Green would have been an excellent Govt. to try and and distribute the wealth even better, but unfortunately this has been ruled out politically, though with the Greens today putting pressure on FF and Harney talking to FG,

there is obvous some Galway style water tampering going on in Dublin 15 right now.......must be.....why else would I keep nodding my head in agreement

Co-location was a FF policy as well, defended by Lenihan and Ahern. It sounds like an Ameracanisation but no party in Ireland is going to accept a reduction in the quality of the public health system. FF realise that of course you have to have a quality public health syatem available to those who can't afford private. This system is a compromise between the American system which no party wants and the Berlin model which unfortunately no party has the b**** to suggest. Seems like we want a German hospital system but an American tax system.

i'd agree that right now, certainly now party would look to diminishing the public health system, but whose to say that in 10 years time, following an economic slowdown, some less charitable leaders might. By allowing the co-location plan to happen, we're all but giving some future government this opportunity. i'm not against private healthcare as such, people can have the choice. But it shouldn't be a necessity to have it, which it more or less is now, lik it not, as people can't get appointments in a decent space of time without it. I am totally agisnt though turning healthcare into a "market" to be exploited, usingtax breaks and public land, for profit. If some company wants to buy and develop a greenfield site into a privately run hospital, thats grand.

K-9

nurse_baz wrote:

there is obvous some Galway style water tampering going on in Dublin 15 right now.......must be.....why else would I keep nodding my head in agreement

Ah yeah, strange how the watergate scandal came out in Galway and the water was turned off for the Wicklow election count. I think its Dick Roche putting something in the water alright! Lol.

But I do think a majority of FF'ers would have no problem whatsoever working with Labour and have introduced policies that Labour would have no problem with and would commend, though maybe not publicly!

nurze_baz wrote:

i'd agree that right now, certainly now party would look to diminishing the public health system, but whose to say that in 10 years time, following an economic slowdown, some less charitable leaders might. By allowing the co-location plan to happen, we're all but giving some future government this opportunity. i'm not against private healthcare as such, people can have the choice. But it shouldn't be a necessity to have it, which it more or less is now, lik it not, as people can't get appointments in a decent space of time without it. I am totally agisnt though turning healthcare into a "market" to be exploited, usingtax breaks and public land, for profit. If some company wants to buy and develop a greenfield site into a privately run hospital, thats grand.

A lot of people seemed to be completely against this on ideological grounds and not much else. The system already is a market, private v. public and there is a choice of health insurance providers. Parties are against private beds in private hospitals and using tax breaks etc. but not against the current system of private beds in pubic hospitals and not against consultants treating private and public patients.

I'm just wondering is the new system really that massively different from the current system and are people getting dragged into ideologies and not seeing the current system.

Dr Galen

well i can certainly see what your getting at here, and to be hinest I'd like it if no private patients were treated in public hospitals full stop. but they do provide some revenue for the hospitals involved so i suppose its not all bad.

the idea though of building a private hospital,using public land and giving quite generous tax breaks though just seems not right to me. it smacks of blatent profiteering by the big hospital companies. health isn't another commodity like petrol or oranges, and thats the way that I see this ending up

mickd

Mick86 wrote:

The most hypocritical of Rabid Catholics is unlikely to vote for a party, the leader of which is an adulterer (in the eyes of Rabid Catholics that is.:D )

Yet he was the only Taoiseach in modern times who came into the Dail with the ashes stamped on his forehead on ash wednesday thereby proclaiming his faith

K-9

Can't wait to see the manifestos.

Christan right doers burn all wrong dooers V. Rabid Catholics.


Sounds like a replica of the last election.

And where do the other none of the above parties stand?

nurse_baz

nurse_baz wrote:

the idea though of building a private hospital,using public land and giving quite generous tax breaks though just seems not right to me.

Look at it another way.
1.They pay corporation tax on their profit so the government get 12.5% of it.
2.They employ a whole lot of nurses and doctors that otherwise wouldn't be employed (some of them may have got onto the public pay but not as many) who are contributing a lot of paye and prsi to the revenue.
3.The land is no use pushing up the daffodils and the Daisies,it makes sense to make some money out of it whilst at the same time leaving the public beds to the public patients and the building funds to be more quickly invested in patient care.

Theres a discussion on it here .