Why so much fear of Labour?

johnnyskeleton

Soldie wrote: »

Out of Labour, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, Labour are the party that's least likely to make the cuts needed to salvage the country from its fiscal nightmare. Their close relationship with the public sector unions and Gilmore's never-ending fence-sitting doesn't make me believe otherwise. Simply maintaining the status quo (if you could call it that) right now isn't good enough, and further cuts are needed. I don't think that they're a business-friendly party, and, at a time when we desperately need to grow the economy with real jobs, a business-friendly party is precisely what we need.

Seriously? FF promised cuts but didn't deliver, instead fudging all issues. Labour promised less cuts than FF, but they are more likely to stick to their word. FG promise all sorts of cuts, but who knows whether they would actually do them or not.

Their relationship with the public sector unions is not as close as that between FF and the unions. FF made the CP agreement, FG backed the CP agreement, Labour have refused to agree to it. So although your preconception is that Labour are in the pockets of the unions, the evidence of what we have seen in the media does not stack up to that. If anything, Labour are likely to get rid of the high paying fluff jobs in quangoes and semi states that have overpaid cronies of FF in them, and the massive bureacracies in the HSE, in favour of retaining frontline staff. FF have created most of these quangoes and appointed their favourites to the high paying semi state posts and have bloated (with the help of the PDs) the HSE monster. FG probably won't change this either, because they are not really that interested in fixing the country, they are interested in getting into power so that they can remove the cronies to appoint cronies of their own.

Since it was a labour finance minister who introduced the 12.5% corporation tax which is so business friendly, it is simply wrong for you to suggest they are not pro business. Indeed, we have seen how FF and FG conduct "business" i.e. greasy envelopes, golf games (it's not just Cowen who is at that http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0720/breaking36.html) and political patronage that corrodes our business environment. Labour will stop this system of "business" which is really clientelism, and will do the best thing possible for real businesses by leaving them alone.

So all your criticisms are not based on real world criticisms of the Labour party, nor are they based on a comparison between Labour and FG/FF as you claim. They are based on vague anti-left wing views that are trotted out in every country to scare people away from left wing parties. But that is to ignore that of all three big parties, Labour are the least likely to do the most harm to the country after the next election.

johnnyskeleton

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Meanwhile, Bertie was dipping his hand in the till and covering for Haughey, but sure let's ignore them and focus on the big bad commies in the corner, who couldn't possibly have moderated their views as they got older.

Balmed Out

Look at the end of the day any party stupid enough to wish to set up a Department of Public Service Reform should not be voted for.

scr123

Fitzgerald, Bruton, Owen, Noonan and Dukes are 5 members that I know of who have said in last two years that when in government with Labour in the 80's it was impossible to make decisions to tackle the then economic problems. Even before they enter government these two parties are at each others throat again and along with the past it explains why there is fear in the minds of people.
The ABFF are so blinkered with self-inflicted brainwashing they cannot remotely understand their pathetic unsuitability for office

southsiderosie

scr123 wrote: »

Fitzgerald, Bruton, Owen, Noonan and Dukes are 5 members that I know of who have said in last two years that when in government with Labour in the 80's it was impossible to make decisions to tackle the then economic problems. Even before they enter government these two parties are at each others throat again and along with the past it explains why there is fear in the minds of people.
The ABFF are so blinkered with self-inflicted brainwashing they cannot remotely understand their pathetic unsuitability for office

And yet they magically did it in the 1990s? What happened in the interim?

Honestly, I am not trying to be snarky here, but the brief FG-Lab coalition in the 1990s seemed to have worked well, and Labour stood behind very pro-growth, pro-business policies, so I don't understand why people think that if they got back in government again that Ireland would become Soviet Eire, or that they would drive the country off of a (second) cliff. Maybe this is an overly-rosy reading of the situation, and I'd be happy to hear other perspectives, but it seems like if you were basing a decision on what a party has done while in office in the past rather than what they might do in the future, Labour actually looks pretty good (and Fianna Fail looks dreadful).

Finally, the ABFF line is getting tired. No political party is perfect; it's up to voters to add up pros and cons. That said, given their performance over the last 13+ years, it is understandable why some voters are refusing to even consider Fianna Fail candidates in this election cycle. Personally, I don't have skin in this game since I can't vote in Ireland, but from my outsider's perspective, I find a lot of the anti-Labour hysteria baffling. I'm also amazed that FF ministers are able to show their faces in public and that the government hasn't fallen yet, but that is another story altogether.

gandalf

scr123 wrote: »

Fitzgerald, Bruton, Owen, Noonan and Dukes are 5 members that I know of who have said in last two years that when in government with Labour in the 80's it was impossible to make decisions to tackle the then economic problems.

Have you sources for this comment?

Valmont

Balmed Out wrote: »

Look at the end of the day any party stupid enough to wish to set up a Department of Public Service Reform should not be voted for.

Oh how I chuckled:D

DoesNotCompute

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That is crap. FF pursued many left wing policies when they were in power, such as the social partnership thing that gave us benchmarking (that only went one way, up) and increasing social welfare levels to among the highest in Europe. IMO a lot of the right wing policies pursued by government (low taxes, high investment in infrastructure) were due to the PDs, not FF. After all, Bertie was "socialist"!

FF are far from left wing. If anything, they are populist, and will do anything to get a vote. Bertie is a prime example of this.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Childish, hysterical soapbox rhetoric which again evades the original question. They've a policies page on their website.

i_love_toast

My problem with labour lies with their reluctance and absolute disagreement with welfare cuts. Labour started this tradition of increasing social welfare. They kept on increasing it and then also put huge pressure on fianna fail to do so aswell doing the boom years. Obviously Bertie agreed as this led to easy votes.

I just do not agree with the level of social welfare allowance in this country....and it needs to be cut more but labour will not do it if in power.

Count Dooku

Nodin wrote: »

Childish, hysterical soapbox rhetoric which again evades the original question. They've a policies page on their website.

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/inirelandsinterests.pdf

Table 2 Expenditure Savings
Agriculture
Reduced expenditure on REPS 35.7
Reduced expenditure on disease eradication 6.3
Closure of ERS scheme 5
Reduction in intervention costs 4.5
Efficiencies in running s tate bodies 3
Other savings 5.5
Non pay administration savings 9
Total 69
Communications, Energy, Natural Resources
Reduce exchequer funding for TG4 to replaced from licence fee 6.2
Merge Comreg and BAI without reducing industry contribution 1.4
Non-pay administration savings 1.7
Total 9.3
Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs
Reduced funding for Rural recreation 0.6
Reduced funding for Gaeltacht and Island Development 1.4
Savings across Irish Language programme 0.6
Non-pay administration savings 3.1
Total 5.7
Defence
Reduction in current non-pay expenditure 10
Education
Reduction allocation to teacher training colleges 3
Integrate senior traveller training centres 24
Non-pay administration savings 4
Total 31
Enterprise Trade and Innovation
Reduce administration budget inc NERA 0.7
Merge Valuation Office; OSI; Property Registration Authority 1.8
Industrial relations/social partnership 0.8
Merge Competition Authority and National Consumer Agency + rationalise expenditure on
Consumer Affairs 2
Operational efficiencies in agencies 0.8
Health and safety authority 0.5
Misc 0.3
10% cut in FAS Services to Business Unit 8.7
Non-pay administration savings 4.5
Total 20.130
Environment, Heritage and Local Government
Lower Exchequer Contribution to Local Government Fund* 75
Non-pay administration savings 2.6
Total 77.6
* To be replaced by a number of cost-recovery measures for local authorities
Finance Group
Target for administrative savings in OPW, Revenue and Finance including rent rolls 24
Non-pay administration savings 0.8
Total 24.8
Foreign Affairs
Programme Savings 1
Non-pay administration savings 3
Total 4
Health and Children
Further 8% reduction in professional fees paid to dentists, pharmacists and doctors 84.3
Charge full cost of private beds in public hospitals 100
Savings on generic drugs 200
Non-pay administration savings 7.5
Total 391.8
Justice
Criminal Legal Aid efficiencies 5
Asylum savings 5
Garda Management Efficiencies 20
Courts - efficiencies across the network of courts 5
Procurement savings 10
Non-pay administration savings 5.6
Total 50.6
Taoiseach's Group of Votes
Administrative Budget 1
Programme savings 1.4
Attorney General's Office 0.1
CSO 3
Non-pay administration savings 2
Total 7.5
Tourism Culture and Sport
Replace exchequer support for Horse & Greyhound Racing Fund with 1.5% betting levy 15
5% cut in non-pay Arts & Culture expenditure 4.6
Non-pay administration savings 4
Total 23.631
Transport
Administration 0.18
Operational Efficiency in Road Safety Authority 2
On-line motor tax 0.5
Reduce subvention to public transport, agency rationalisation and administrative savings 10
Non-pay administration savings 2.1
Total 14.78
Social Welfare
Measures to combat fraud 100
Savings through re-structuring of rent supplement 65
Misc savings through programme reform 50
Total 215
Political System 5
Total 960

Table 3: Taxation Measures €m
(2011)
Increase carbon tax to €25 per tonne (net of fuel poverty measures) 130
Reduce Pension Reliefs 400
Third rate of tax at 48% 255
Investment Property Relief 150
Property schemes 360
Minor Reliefs 219
Progressive Structure for Capital Gains Tax 130
New rate structure and thresholds for CAT 110
5% increase in rate of DIRT to 30% 125
Reduction in personal credit by €250 335
Increase tax on seconds homes from 200 to 500 94
Excise package and anti-smuggling initiative 180
Tax Exiles 100
Abolish airport travel tax -110
Total Tax Measures 2478

Count Dooku

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Their relationship with the public sector unions is not as close as that between FF and the unions. FF made the CP agreement, FG backed the CP agreement, Labour have refused to agree to it.

Mr Gilmore countered that he had been very clear that there should be a national agreement. He had “welcomed the conclusion of that agreement” with the Croke Park deal.
“Issues of pay and public service reform should be matters that should be negotiated and agreed,” he said.
“But he was not prepared to “interfere in the ballot and there is good reasons why I won’t interfere in the ballot”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0519/1224270655317.html

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Since it was a labour finance minister who introduced the 12.5% corporation tax which is so business friendly, it is simply wrong for you to suggest they are not pro business.

Because it was the easiest way to save FDI in ruined by unions irish economy
Corporate tax is growing, but numbers of employed by MNC's are declining

Boxoffrogs

Balmed Out wrote: »

Look at the end of the day any party stupid enough to wish to set up a Department of Public Service Reform should not be voted for.

But is reform not needed? I would imagine that we can all agree that it is. This should, in my opinion, include a mixture of cuts (wages and numbers) and efficiencies, all the while being fairly targeted, the emphasis on retaining front line staff and removing a lot of middle management.

And if you can accept that reform is needed, can you also accept that this is a mammoth task? Currently reform falls under the remit of the Department of Finance, which, given the current situation, does not have the capacity to give too much time to the task. Would you advocate leaving responsibility with Finance, knowing that it will not be their top priority and indeed some critiques indicate that they are not capable of delivering?

Incidentally, Richard Bruton quizzed Brian Lenihan about this very matter in April of last year and the exchanges between left me with the impression that Bruton also supports the establishment of another Department. In October, Bruton also told the Times as much.

So it seems that the only large party remaining on the fence about the issue is FF. Are you therefore saying we'd be mad not to vote for FF?

Min

Nodin wrote: »

Childish, hysterical soapbox rhetoric which again evades the original question. They've a policies page on their website.

It is a pretty poor policy list.

Nodin

Min wrote:

It is a pretty poor policy list.

There seems an inability here to understand a question.....

southsiderosie wrote:

What policies of theirs would you call "hard left" rather than European-style social democracy (and I would even question that), or do you not draw this distinction?

(my bold)

Nodin

Count Dooku wrote: »

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/inirelandsinterests.pdf

Would you care to explain yourself, or are you cutting back on sentences per post....? I might add that you failed to post the full measures. I presume this was accidental,,......

Min

Nodin wrote: »

There seems an inability here to understand a question.....

(my bold)

I was not answering a question, I was just making a statement on their policy page, doesn't look very organised.

Lot of words, very little substance, a bit like relying on distilled water for nutrients.

Min

Nodin wrote: »

Would you care to explain yourself, or are you cutting back on sentences per post....? I might add that you failed to post the full measures. I presume this was accidental,,......

Labour were showing in that the fact they are not willing to make the cuts, but then in opposition you can make it up as you go along.

Count Dooku

Nodin wrote: »

Would you care to explain yourself, or are you cutting back on sentences per post....? I might add that you failed to post the full measures. I presume this was accidental,,......

Do you mean attempt to hide unemployment by Labour’s Jobs Fund and fool everybody else by "a Strategic Investment Bank" buzzword?
because labour don't want to decrease spending and want to keep wages in PS and welfare benefits on unsustainable level, it is obvious that 48% top tax is only beginning and it doesn't make any sense to start own export orientated business here if it is possible to sell startup in another country

Spearbearer

Min wrote: »

http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/eamon-gilmore-workers-party-nov-1982/

This is 1982 literature. In 1983, Gardai raided the printing HQ of The Worker's Pary and discovered thousands in forged currency. No one was convicted and the forger is believed to have fled to North Korea.
Did Gilmore leave the Workers Party immediately, outraged at its association with criminality? No.

Spearbearer

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Referring to him being in the workers party is moot seeing as he was one of the members who caused a split in that party to form democratic left. The main reason for that was they wanted to accept the free market which the marxist workers party didn't

If he was really such a rabid commie he'd have stayed with the workers.

They split because the wished to advance their own political careers and had come to the realisation that the Workers Party was a marginal and controversial party that was going nowhere.

Ardent

Soldie wrote: »

Out of Labour, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, Labour are the party that's least likely to make the cuts needed to salvage the country from its fiscal nightmare. Their close relationship with the public sector unions and Gilmore's never-ending fence-sitting doesn't make me believe otherwise. Simply maintaining the status quo (if you could call it that) right now isn't good enough, and further cuts are needed.

+1

Spearbearer

They split because they

Spearbearer wrote: »

had come to the realisation that the Workers Party was a marginal and controversial party that was going nowhere.

Not a bad reason to split, really.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Spearbearer wrote: »

They split because the wished to advance their own political careers and had come to the realisation that the Workers Party was a marginal and controversial party that was going nowhere.

So why did they change the policies if that were the only reason? Do you honestly think Gilmore intends to turn Ireland into a socialist republic?

Nodin

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you mean attempt to hide unemployment by Labour’s Jobs Fund and fool (..........)in another country

No, I mean you used an unrelated question as an excuse to partially c&p a list of financial measures in, to make it appear as if there was some vast imbalance.

Min wrote:

labour were showing in that the fact they are not willing to make the cuts, but then in opposition you can make it up as you go along.

It shows cuts well in excess of the amount posted here..if you'd bother to actually read it.

steelcityblues

Because they are arch populists who will produce happy short term measures like no welfare cuts to please enough of the electorate (the same types who loved Bertie), while failing to produce a clear position on the likes of the Croke Park Agreement, EU/IMF and so on!

Also, having delusions of grandeur by selecting 65 candidates nationwide should come back to haunt them on the day itself.

Sure things are grand as they are. Four more years!

There's some serious scope in this thread, isn't there? From unreconstructed Marxist-Stalinists to arch-populists who'll do anything to please anyone in just a few short pages. It's almost impressive.

steelcityblues

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure things are grand as they are. Four more years!

There's some serious scope in this thread, isn't there? From unreconstructed Marxist-Stalinists to arch-populists who'll do anything to please anyone in just a few short pages. It's almost impressive.

History lesson - Stalinists became populists at first to win over their native people.

steelcityblues

steelcityblues wrote: »

History lesson - Stalinists became populists at first to win over their native people.

Was that before or after they constructed a state guaranteed only by a secret police and one of the biggest armies the world has ever seen, in which no-one outside a tiny circle ever got to vote for who wielded power and every section of society was terrorised into submission through violence and hunger? Some populists.

Nah - people really shouldn't have voted for that.

steelcityblues

Deleted User wrote: »

Was that before or after they constructed a state guaranteed only by a secret police and one of the biggest armies the world has ever seen, in which no-one outside a tiny circle ever got to vote for who wielded power and every section of society was terrorised into submission through violence and hunger? Some populists.

Nah - people really shouldn't have voted for that.

Before, during and after in Stalin's case - he put his name into the national anthem for heaven's sake.

Given Gilmore, at least at one time, was an admirer of the old communist USSR, it is kinda understandble why terms like stalinist and marxist have been used in this thread.

southsiderosie

steelcityblues wrote: »

Before, during and after in Stalin's case - he put his name into the national anthem for heaven's sake.

Given Gilmore, at least at one time, was an admirer of the old communist USSR, it is kinda understandble why terms like stalinist and marxist have been used in this thread.

None of the policies that Gilmore has proposed in his capacity as party leader have any shades of Stalinist and/or Marxist sympathies. Nothing within the party documents is supportive of Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist policies. The constant references to Gilmore and/or the Labour Party in 2010 as anything other than a run-of-the-mill European social democratic party - and one somewhat to the right of its continental counterparts - are ridiculous.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to criticize Labour for what it actually does - its relationship with unions, its candidates it puts forth for elections, etc - but the commie pinko bastard line is not only silly and untrue, but increasingly read as (...sigh...) American-style tin-hat-in-the-basement hysteria.

southsiderosie

i_love_toast wrote: »

My problem with labour lies with their reluctance and absolute disagreement with welfare cuts. Labour started this tradition of increasing social welfare. They kept on increasing it and then also put huge pressure on fianna fail to do so aswell doing the boom years. Obviously Bertie agreed as this led to easy votes.

I just do not agree with the level of social welfare allowance in this country....and it needs to be cut more but labour will not do it if in power.

Setting aside the fact that most of the increases in welfare entitlements over the last twenty years happened under Fianna Fail...

Can you identify what Labour has actually said about welfare cuts and what you would like them (or anyone else for that matter) to do?

steelcityblues

southsiderosie wrote: »

None of the policies that Gilmore has proposed in his capacity as party leader have any shades of Stalinist and/or Marxist sympathies. Nothing within the party documents is supportive of Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist policies. The constant references to Gilmore and/or the Labour Party in 2010 as anything other than a run-of-the-mill European social democratic party - and one somewhat to the right of its continental counterparts - are ridiculous.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to criticize Labour for what it actually does - its relationship with unions, its candidates it puts forth for elections, etc - but the commie pinko bastard line is not only silly and untrue, but increasingly read as (...sigh...) American-style tin-hat-in-the-basement hysteria.

Well, let's say he, or Rabbitte, becomes Minister for Foreign Affairs in the new cabinet.

Will his past beliefs on international affairs maybe not come into play when dealing with other dignitaries and heads of nations - especially on an issue like Europe? It is relevant to a degree.

southsiderosie

steelcityblues wrote: »

Well, let's say he, or Rabbitte, becomes Minister for Foreign Affairs in the new cabinet.

Will his past beliefs on international affairs maybe not come into play when dealing with other dignitaries and heads of nations - especially on an issue like Europe? It is relevant to a degree.

Are you serious?

The Volt

steelcityblues wrote: »

Well, let's say he, or Rabbitte, becomes Minister for Foreign Affairs in the new cabinet.

Will his past beliefs on international affairs maybe not come into play when dealing with other dignitaries and heads of nations - especially on an issue like Europe? It is relevant to a degree.

No. Given that time and time again, Gilmore has been insistent on having a working relationship with the EU.

steelcityblues

steelcityblues wrote: »

Before, during and after in Stalin's case - he put his name into the national anthem for heaven's sake.

Given Gilmore, at least at one time, was an admirer of the old communist USSR, it is kinda understandble why terms like stalinist and marxist have been used in this thread.

I doubt Gilmore would want to put his name in the anthem, though I think it would be amusing to see him try. Let's get out the rhyming dictionary.

I wonder how much of an admirer of the USSR he really was... not much of one, I reckon. I get the impression he was mobilised by quite local issues at the time, didn't look much further beyond Irish borders, and found himself out of step with the Labour of the day.

There were tons of people in the Workers Party who found themselves in the wrong party for the right reasons. Eoghan Harris, now a senator who's migrated off to the FF/Sunday Independent right wing, after a stint advising John Bruton, is just one example.

steelcityblues

steelcityblues wrote: »

Well, let's say he, or Rabbitte, becomes Minister for Foreign Affairs in the new cabinet.

Will his past beliefs on international affairs maybe not come into play when dealing with other dignitaries and heads of nations - especially on an issue like Europe? It is relevant to a degree.

That is bizarre.

steelcityblues

Voltwad wrote: »

No. Given that time and time again, Gilmore has been insistent on having a working relationship with the EU.

Which is ruled at the top by undemocratic totalitarian globalists.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

steelcityblues wrote: »

Which is ruled at the top by undemocratic totalitarian globalists.

Sinn Fein, a party which is far to the left economically, and which has a strong Marxist-socialist bent to a significant chunk of its membership, was opposed to Lisbon, and has been consistently wary of the EU. So could you please explain the logic behind your statements again?

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And you've yet to demonstrate why we should be quaking in our boots at the idea of them in power, apart from some stuff they said a long time ago in very different circumstances.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's an off-topic debate for another day.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not once did I say that they deserve credit for the Celtic Tiger. What I did say is that they deserve credit for keeping government spending under control during a period of economic expansion, something that many posters here seem to think they are incapable of doing (despite this history) and something that Fianna Fail proved they were incapable of doing.

I also said I would appreciate it if someone could highlight where they think today's Labour party is different from that of the 1990s. While the current leadership has a more radical background, and I have had at least one Labour elected official straight out say to be "Well, I'm just an old Stalinist", I have seen nothing in their actual political behavior at a local or national level to suggest that they are anything other than a run of the mill social democratic party, and a rather conservative one at that. When you factor in that their voting base isn't working class, but rather middle and upper middle class urban professionals, I'd reckon that there are pretty tight membership and institutional constraints on them raising the red flag, so to speak. The fact that the ULA is organized separately, and Sinn Fein offers a more leftist alternative also suggests that Labour is far from radical.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steelcityblues

southsiderosie wrote: »

Sinn Fein, a party which is far to the left economically, and which has a strong Marxist-socialist bent to a significant chunk of its membership, was opposed to Lisbon, and has been consistently wary of the EU. So could you please explain the logic behind your statements again?

Sinn Fein respect Irish sovereignity, which we saw during Lisbon unlike FF/FG/LAB.

They are centre-left nationalists, not marxists like the SWP for example.

Labour are statists, which is obvious due to their unbreakable support to everything about the EU.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's also a bit of a stretch to suggest that the speaker is a dyed-in-the-wool communist.

I've written already of New Labour welcoming ex-communists into cabinet and singing The Red Flag at their party conference during Blair's time - a stint you seem to admire as what you called "moderate centrism" in an earlier post.

southsiderosie

steelcityblues wrote: »

Sinn Fein respect Irish sovereignity, which we saw during Lisbon unlike FF/FG/LAB.

They are centre-left nationaliasts, not marxists like the SWP for example.

You suggested that the past beliefs of current Labour party leaders might affect their approach to international affairs.

There are plenty of people in the leadership and senior membership of Sinn Fein who have (and do) identify as Marxists.

Yet magically both of these groups with past ties to Marxism have come to radically different conclusions when it comes to international relations.

Moral of the story: past positions on political economy are not a good predictor of current and/or future positions, not only on PE but also on international affairs. Especially when it comes to Ireland, which pretty much breaks every "rule" of electoral politics.

steelcityblues

southsiderosie wrote: »

You suggested that the past beliefs of current Labour party leaders might affect their approach to international affairs.

There are plenty of people in the leadership and senior membership of Sinn Fein who have (and do) identify as Marxists.

Yet magically both of these groups with past ties to Marxism have come to radically different conclusions when it comes to international relations.

Moral of the story: past positions on political economy are not a good predictor of current and/or future positions, not only on PE but also on international affairs. Especially when it comes to Ireland, which pretty much breaks every "rule" of electoral politics.

Given SF still to this day are still heavily scrutinised about the IRA past, by media and many rival supporters alike, then why is there a different rule for the old WP wing of today's Labour in general?

If anything, by giving unconditional support to Europe, Labour's views are closer to what the old communists would have approved of.

steelcityblues

steelcityblues wrote: »

Given SF still to this day are still heavily scrutinised about the IRA past, by media and many rival supporters alike, then why is there a different rule for the old WP wing of today's Labour in general?

Because the WP didn't go around blowing up pregnant women and stuff.

steelcityblues wrote: »

If anything, by giving unconditional support to Europe, Labour's views are closer to what the old communists would have approved of.

Such a surprise, then, to hear Labour talking about at least trying for a better EU/IMF deal, after the unconditional capitulation by the current gangsters.

johnnyskeleton

Balmed Out wrote: »

Look at the end of the day any party stupid enough to wish to set up a Department of Public Service Reform should not be voted for.

Why? Do you think the public sector should not be reformed, or that it will be reformed magically or organically without the need for any political involvement?

steelcityblues

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the WP didn't go around blowing up pregnant women and stuff.



Such a surprise, then, to hear Labour talking about at least trying for a better EU/IMF deal, after the unconditional capitulation by the current gangsters.

We will wait and see what this 'better' deal will be about, but i'm not optimistic.