Fianna Fail and Fine Gael: is there much Difference?

Bob Z

Both of thes parties are both right wing. So apart from the personalities involved is there mich of a difference in their policies? Could they combine into one party?

Biggins

I hope not, there should always be a viable alternative barking at government heels.
If at the very least, it helps to keep the present lot in line at least to some extent!

That said, the lines between the two parties and their idology has become somewhat intermingled.
What each one stands for and where they differ from the other, is not very clear any more to the public.

Bob Z

Biggins wrote: »

I hope not, there should always be a viable alternative barking at government heels.
If at the very least, it helps to keep the present lot in line at least to some extent!

That said, the lines between the two parties and their idology has become somewhat intermingled.
What each one stands for and where they differ from the other, is not very clear any more to the public.

i dont think there has ever been much of a difference. When you hear them argue it always seems to be management not about policy differences

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I think the fact that the two main parteis are similar says a lot about the electorate. Ireland is a very mainstream country and has very mainstream political parties. Any party that was significantly different wouldn't get a look in on election day.

Bob Z

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I think the fact that the two main parteis are similar says a lot about the electorate. Ireland is a very mainstream country and has very mainstream political parties. Any party that was significantly different wouldn't get a look in on election day.

but i dont think people vote on policy anyway. I could be wrong but most i know seem to vote the way their parents and grandparents voted.

ChocolateSauce

Bob Z wrote: »

but i dont think people vote on policy anyway. I could be wrong but most i know seem to vote the way their parents and grandparents voted.

It all dates back to which side did you support, the free staters or the republicans? And our great-grandparents passed their voting habits down the generations, and while the parties have changed, the loyalty has not. I see not one reason why both parties shouldn't be dissolved and replaced with real parties which offer real, actual different policies and ideologies. Or any ideology for that matter, something both sorely lack at present.

Elmo

Really they need to be forced into government with each other. A Grand Colition if you will.

Labour won't let that happen, if Labour get 30 seats in the next election it will be hello government forget about that manifesto thing we wrote about, we are happy to be FG/FF for a few years.

They should have done it back in 1992 when they had 33 seats. Letting FG/FF merge into a grand colition rather then swapping sides half way through the election would have been far more benifical to Labour. Whom I beleive lost seats because they entered government with FF and then FG, which was worse?

I know your going to say a grand colition like that would mean at least a 110 seat strong government, but at least we would actually have an opposition.

Just my opinion. In answer to the OPs question. FF = FG there is very little difference, only one is in Government and the other is not.

Also FF are professional politicans, while FG are amatures.

El Stuntman

Elmo wrote: »

Also FF are professional politicans, while FG are amatures.

yes, they are doing a really professional job in Government at present :rolleyes:

Elmo

El Stuntman wrote: »

yes, they are doing a really professional job in Government at present :rolleyes:

There is a difference between a professional government and a professional politician. Bertie would have survived the current mess, in the same way he surived the election. I amn't suggesting that there is something wonderful about being a professional politican, only good thing is you know you will be elected.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bob Z wrote: »

but i dont think people vote on policy anyway. I could be wrong but most i know seem to vote the way their parents and grandparents voted.

I think that illusion is dead. Certainly my generation (I'm in my mid 30s) doesn't give a **** about familial alliances. I don't even know what way my family used to vote, and both my parents have changed alligiance at some point in the last 20 odd years.

I doubt the younger generation will care either, especially in Dublin. We've got balls.

That said, you may be right - policies aren't that dissimlar.

eoin5

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

That said, you may be right - policies aren't that dissimlar.

But any little difference is like a dead cow on the train tracks. I think the history of the two parties is the main reason why they wouldnt cooperate well together. They argue too much over the mistakes they have made. The recent budget is matched well with an interesting childrens shoe incident.

brianthebard

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It all dates back to which side did you support, the free staters or the republicans? And our great-grandparents passed their voting habits down the generations, and while the parties have changed, the loyalty has not. I see not one reason why both parties shouldn't be dissolved and replaced with real parties which offer real, actual different policies and ideologies. Or any ideology for that matter, something both sorely lack at present.

I think its more complex than that. Since the famine the people who were likely to hold extremist political ideological views were the people who emigrated because there was no way they could succeed in Ireland. As a result the population at home came to benefit least from a government (any government) pursuing radical policies. A clear case in point would be the furore over the mothers and child scheme by Browne, which was in no way radical but appeared so to some people at the time. Ireland has become one of the most politically conservative countries there is.

timbel

Elmo wrote: »

Bertie would have survived the current mess, in the same way he surived the election.

I'm not so sure. Part of the reason we are in the mess we are, is that Bertie couldn't/wouldn't say no to anybody. It was described as 'building consensus', but amounted to caving in to all demands.

However, the situation we have now, there is no money to do this.
Bertie got out at the right time.

Elmo

timbel wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Part of the reason we are in the mess we are, is that Bertie couldn't/wouldn't say no to anybody. It was described as 'building consensus', but amounted to caving in to all demands.

However, the situation we have now, there is no money to do this.
Bertie got out at the right time.

Professional Politican = Wessel, Sly Fox etc.

Bertie would just have the people eating out of his hand, he can just do that for some strange reason. Very aggravating, I would say Cowan is even more aggravated then I am.

irish_bob

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I think that illusion is dead. Certainly my generation (I'm in my mid 30s) doesn't give a **** about familial alliances. I don't even know what way my family used to vote, and both my parents have changed alligiance at some point in the last 20 odd years.

I doubt the younger generation will care either, especially in Dublin. We've got balls.

That said, you may be right - policies aren't that dissimlar.

its is far from dead , in fact outside dublin , the majority of people still vote based on who thier parents , grandparents and so on voted , were this not the case then the greens , the pd,s and sinn fein would have grown this past few elections

as a nation , we are utterly predictable and conformist in how we vote

Dob74

FF=FG.

The banking crisis was a time to shine. But FG proved they are just the same as FF. The party of the merchant princes is the same as the party of chancers.

asdasd

as a nation , we are utterly predictable and conformist in how we vote

bully for us. The real question isnt the survival of Fianna Fail - which is , now, a center right party ( with some statist policies, and public sector links) - survives, it has been in givernment. The question is why Fine Gael votes dont go to labour etc.

But to beg the question answers it. Fianna Fail has more working class support than labour. It is a populist party like the PRI in Mexico with links to business but also a record of left wing measures - free education etc. which in other countries were implemented by left wing governments.

Fine Gael is the natural home of ranchers and small businessmen. So unless labour can steal FF populist vote, the situation stays as it is.

turgon

Another thread to remind us how depressing the political spectrum is in Ireland.

A grand coalition, as suggested by a previous poster, would serve one benificial purpose and that would be to affirm in everyones mind that FG and FF are the same. At the moment a lot of people buy into the tit for tat stuff of the dail nor realizing that a lot of measures might be similer is FG were in power.

Because of this there lacks real choice for people in some issues. Like, who could I vote for confident they would legalize abortion??

asdasd

Like, who could I vote for confident they would legalize abortion??

You would have to dissolve the people and elect another.

Elmo

The question is why Fine Gael votes dont go to labour etc.

I think you mean why FF votes are passed on to Labour, SF, The Greens and Independents.

I think it is because of the coverage that FG have had, Labour haven't had a look in with the media. Richard Bruton is on Prime Time with Brian Lehinan, where was Labour? But then Labour made a bad pact with FG before the GE yet again.

Because of this there lacks real choice for people in some issues. Like, who could I vote for confident they would legalize abortion??

I personally believe issues like abortion should not be party political. Rather if a TD is pro-life or pro-choice it should be up to them not the party. I am a democrat and I don't beleive a referundum on abortion would be best served if only one side was heard and lets face it if they do change the rules on referundia the abortion debate would be one sided and undemocratic IMO. Of course both sides of that argument would need a government to actually put forward a real referndum on the subject first. Sorry I don't want to get into a debate about abortion, I only bring it up as it relates to the current situation with the Communications comitee.

You would have to dissolve the people and elect another.

hehe they would need the vote first.

Bob Z

I know Some people say The Democrats and The republicans are the same in the US and they say the same about The Tories and Labour but isn't FF and FG even more closely related?

Elmo

Bob Z wrote: »

I know Some people say The Democrats and The republicans are the same in the US and they say the same about The Tories and Labour but isn't FF and FG even more closely related?

I would say that they are equally similar. Labour and the Tories prior to 1997 very different. I don't think Barack Obama will change much, but I am sure he is totally different to Bush.

FG and FF are very alike, too alike IMO. That is why I would like to see a grand coilition in 2012. And a Labour lead government in 2016 <<< 2016 just for the 100th Anniversary of the Rising.

Dob74

Bob Z wrote: »

I know Some people say The Democrats and The republicans are the same in the US and they say the same about The Tories and Labour but isn't FF and FG even more closely related?

In the US the Democrats and Republicians are fundamentally different. Democrats depend on a Left wing coalition of the Unions(Afl-Cio), the Lawyers and Minoities. The Republicans depend on a right coalition of Churchs, Gun Owners and Big business. There are different types of party beliefs throughout such a large country. A southern democrat would bo different then a New Democrat. But they generally follow the party line. FF and FG are pretty much the same thing. They do not defer on any major policies.

Elmo

Dob74 wrote: »

In the US the Democrats and Republicians are fundamentally different. Democrats depend on a Left wing coalition of the Unions(Afl-Cio), the Lawyers and Minoities. The Republicans depend on a right coalition of Churchs, Gun Owners and Big business. There are different types of party beliefs throughout such a large country. A southern democrat would bo different then a New Democrat. But they generally follow the party line. FF and FG are pretty much the same thing. They do not defer on any major policies.

Yes but the Left wing in America, is very much a right wing grouping. As John Daly said after the french election, A left wing party up againist a not so much left wing party. The same can be say of this years US elections A right wing party up againist a not so much right wing party.

Dob74

Elmo wrote: »

Yes but the Left wing in America, is very much a right wing grouping. As John Daly said after the french election, A left wing party up againist a not so much left wing party. The same can be say of this years US elections A right wing party up againist a not so much right wing party.

Alot of people say this in this country but having lived in both countries I would disagree. America is alot more advanced when it comes to workers rights, benefits for workers and pay.
The press in europe is very anti Republican and I would like to know why a papers like the indo follows this trend. I think they would fit in perfectly with the republicans.
We give welfare to the poor, rich, banks who ever has ther hand out. We subsidise fee paying schools, give child benefit to anyone no matter how rich they are and free college for every millionare's son. I would concider this rightism. But in this country we consider this socailism? or Leftwingism. At least in the states the rich pay there way.(well for the most part anyway)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dob74 wrote: »

Alot of people say this in this country but having lived in both countries I would disagree. America is alot more advanced when it comes to workers rights, benefits for workers and pay.
The press in europe is very anti Republican and I would like to know why a papers like the indo follows this trend. I think they would fit in perfectly with the republicans.
We give welfare to the poor, rich, banks who ever has ther hand out. We subsidise fee paying schools, give child benefit to anyone no matter how rich they are and free college for every millionare's son. I would concider this rightism. But in this country we consider this socailism? or Leftwingism. At least in the states the rich pay there way.(well for the most part anyway)

Ireland, like most of Europe, is a centre-right country - it's only when you compare it to the US it appears to be leftist. The only leftist countries in Europe, I'd say, are the Scanadvian states (from experience) and Slovenia (from reports).

Curious to know how America is more advanced with regard to workers rights? They don't have a minimum wage over there and there's no mandatory holiday entitlements (as far as I know - open to correction).

kevmy

I'd say FG and FF are relatively similar on policy but then if you want to be in power in any country you have to appeal to ~40% of the electorate, thats what both of them are trying to do.

But they do represent a lot of the people of the country and thats what they want to do.

Having said that is it a bad thing? That's the question that has to be asked.

Will we benefit hugely by having a larger gap between parties and going into the traditional left/right split. If the people of the country want largely different policies believe me they will vote for or set up a party that reflects that.

If the majority of the country is fairly centrist - which I think is fair to say they are (be it centre left or centre right) and are moving slowly towards a progressive, slightly left agenda. For example look at divorce, gay rights, etc. 20 yrs ago.

Will Ireland benefit from being pulled from ideas which are further to the left or right only to change every 6 or 7 years back to the other way?

This isn't to say you don't need an opposition - you do, but sometimes the benefit of a change in government is about by fresh faces, more energy, more determination rather than their idealogical stances

Elmo

This isn't to say you don't need an opposition - you do, but sometimes the benefit of a change in government is about by fresh faces, more energy, more determination rather than their idealogical stances

The problem is FG even with their youthful TD don't give of a sence of determination.

An opposition has to be different otherwise it is pointless and isn't doing its job and that is the main issue.

I amn't saying that FG aren't doing their job, but their job isn't made very easy when they have pretty much the same views as FF.

oscarBravo

Elmo wrote: »

An opposition has to be different otherwise it is pointless and isn't doing its job and that is the main issue.

I disagree. The one thing the current opposition doesn't have is a sense of permanent entitlement to government, and the deep-seated arrogance and complacency that goes with it. Sometimes the incumbent needs to be replaced - even if they're replaced by someone else with similar policies - just to remind them that they don't have a god-given right to be in government.

Elmo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I disagree. The one thing the current opposition doesn't have is a sense of permanent entitlement to government, and the deep-seated arrogance and complacency that goes with it. Sometimes the incumbent needs to be replaced - even if they're replaced by someone else with similar policies - just to remind them that they don't have a god-given right to be in government.

True but sure it is now time not only to suggest that it isn't FFs give right to rule but also time insist that FG should be wholy susummed into an FF government so that they too can also "have a sense of permanent entitlement to government, and the deep-seated arrogance and complacency".

oscarBravo

I have to confess that I haven't the faintest idea what you mean.