UNITE, Labour Cllrs and Labour Youth in plea for "New start for the Labour Party"

by Con Carroll Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:22

yes depressing. is Leo Vradkar going to be appointed as minister for social welfare. Joan Burton has been named as public relations or something of that nature

see new website. www.notodebt.ie

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Mar 06, 2011 13:55

..the department will need rebranding as the ministry for social warfare. Shatter in justice?Noonan has already proven himself as flinty as thatcher, and proud of it. But the pundits are, as usual, calling the TINA(there is no alternative) chorus.

Reading Mary Fitzgerald's breakdown of the north-African/Arabian ripples(saturdays IT). Lots of the conditions she outlines as underlying the unrest, without overt reference to parallels, could be applied to our current situation. Yet in a page and a half she makes little or no reference to the reduction of these countries to clients of the EU/US agendas. It takes Martin Turner to nail it with a cartoon.

Given the sycophantic attitude of our media its difficult to see how 'Labour voices'(other than the tame and nominal) will be heard.

On the debt, we hear much ado recently about pro-cyclical actions(driving artificially an already humming economy)contributing to the collapse of the tiger.
If this is true, and the thesis holds that pro-cyclical aint smart(Finance was warning McCreevy, Cowan and Ahearn all along, apparently)then the ECB should be informed that strangling the healthy parts of the debtor countries when they are in a southward trajectory is also pro-cyclical.

So far I've heard no-one voice this observation. Am I mutating into a dismal scientist from paying too much attention to all their jargon?

by Mike Novack Sun Mar 06, 2011 15:51

What alternative coalition do you suggest?

When in a parliamentary system of government the results of an election are such that no party has won a majority (that's what the VOTERS decided) then distasteful as this might be, it is necessary to have government by coalition. So while I hear your words I'm not sure that I understand them. If you don't want Labour to agree to join with the party that got the most votes (together they have a majority) then:

1) Are you saying that Labour could more usefully form some other coalition? Please describe with what other parties a governing coalition could be formed.

2) If you think Labour should instead remain in opposition, then what government do you imagine could be formed (what other majority coaliton).

Yes, I understand, you don't consider the outcome of the election acceptable. But that's too bad. The VOTERS get to decide who they want to vote for and for whom you feel they should have voted not relevant.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Mar 06, 2011 16:17

..if thats adressed to me, Mike.
FF/FG would be the logical coalition, on ideological grounds.

I think Labour SHOULD concentrate on organising the opposition, but I dont think their aging leadership is interested in anything other than their own last shot at cherrying their careers, so thats unlikely.

But then I dont accept that the charade of representation we have is adequate democracy for any educated population. Unfortunately the coalition has been a done deal since about a month ago when the Gilmore fart collapsed and Eamo started licking Enda's hand in anticipation of the cabinet sweeties.

But it is time we had a decent opposition, and the bones of it may just materialise, even as labour ,yet again, betray their voters and the interests of the working people who generate the wealth these kiddies squander. My case is that if FG and Labour were an inadequate opposition, how can they form an adequate government? They nodded through the budget while shedding crocodile tears for the victims of FF's squanderlust, now its their turn to screw us in the perrennial Leinster House fiddle-fest.

You, I take it, believe Labour will influence policy. I dont share that read. But I hope you are proved right and I am proved wrong. The most Gilmore Inc will manage is a tincture of iodine on the haemorage.

by Des - None Sun Mar 06, 2011 18:31

I am surprised that anyone has not yet grasped the fact that Cde. Gilmore & co. were drooling at the thought of those state cars, salaries and the status that goes with them. Water charges & 25,000 public sector workers to get the order of the boot. I am amazed that large numbers of people voted for them, one would think the lessons of previous coalitions had sunk in. Still, at least Joan will get to display her loyalty when her 'majesty' arrives.

by Mike No Sun Mar 06, 2011 22:12

"FF/FG would be the logical coalition, on ideological grounds."
Why so? Of course I'm used to a political system where political parties are less ideological (less WEDDED to a particular ideology; more in the business of trying to put together a mass of voters behind a program that gets adjusted to attract voters). But I'm not unfamilair with parliamentary systems. Sorry, but parties that you see as close might in fact be working very hard to distinguish themselves from each other in the eyes of the voters; and for that reason make uneasy coaltion partners.

"I think Labour SHOULD concentrate on organising the opposition, but I dont think their aging leadership is interested in anything other than their own last shot at cherrying their careers, so thats unlikely."
I did ask you about this. A scattering of parties all over the place in what they want does not make for an effective opposition. Probably you imagine that "the only game in town" is the conflict between workers and owners. Unfortunately "the people" get to decide which issue most rock their boat.

"But then I dont accept that the charade of representation we have is adequate democracy for any educated population."
Wrong place to put the blame. More democracy, a better system of democracy does NOT solve the problem of the populace being highly divided so that no factions have close to a majority and so govenrment must be by a coalition if at all.

"You, I take it, believe Labour will influence policy. I dont share that read. But I hope you are proved right and I am proved wrong. The most Gilmore Inc will manage is a tincture of iodine on the haemorage."
I have no idea what prices Labour will be bale to extract for their cooperation. I doubt whatever is managed will be more than a ticnture of iodine on the puncture but that's because I have a different idea of the depth of Ireland's difficulties than you do. In other words, I am far less optimistic that any "good" solutions exist, just choices between bad and downright awful.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:44

'..working very hard to distinguish themselves in the eyes of the voters..'.

You got it in one. Cosmetic differences cultivated by a crew of professional spinners to MISrepresent their real agendas of self-promotion under a screen of spurious contest. Campaigns managed by exclusive corporate interests, for corporatre interests, under the guise of 'sharing the pain', 'we're all in this together', population welfare, while their heirarchy of interests are (1)The seat,(2)The party that facilitates the getting of the seat(3)The constituency population that elects the seat, and trailing in then behind the lobbyists and perks(note Pat carey's final act and ask cui bono?).All to a mantra of 'the national interest', where the nation is defined, as I said, a la Mubarak et al, as 'L'etat, ce moi'(excuse my French).

No, I dont think the 'only game in town is the conflict betwen workers and owners'. But I question the accepted tropes of ownership, and believe its time distribution of both available work, and remuneration/basic subsistence, were allowed to be introduced into national(and global) debate. 'Owners' are often the hardest and most committed workers. I just dont believe that gives them absolute rights to ownership, while workers are squeezed down to sweatshop conditions(the logic of 'competitiveness uber alles)with no democratic input because of the diktat of the sacred invisible hand, that always swats the worker on the shop floor whiole it strokes the employers profits and 'shareholders'(outside money)dividends.

'Wrong place to put the blame'. You are looking at a different set of issues. I dont believe governmental 'stability' per se, is healthy. Mubarak had stability, as did Saddam et al. Your agenda seems to be to return to business as usual. I considered the boom just as symptomatic of our misrule as the bust cycle. The stability I would seek would ensure adequate provision(Wealth, weal, welfare are all from the same root which means well, as in health).The polarisation of wealth and poverty(ever increasing) is UNHEALTHY, for the rich as well as the dispossessed. And that is a global problem as well as national, and is NOT being solved by what one economist called 'The Growth Illusion'.

'Bad and aweful'. I believe things CAN be improved. I still doubt they will be. My job is to say what I see.

by Mike Novack Mon Mar 07, 2011 13:40

This is a problem in point of view. When trying to decide/judge the choices and actions of OTHER PEOPLE need to go by what THEY think, not your own (supposedly more correct) take on reality. Especially true when trying to ask questions like "cui bono" where you need to ask who THINKS they benefit as opposed to who does benefit according to your own (superior) take on reality.

"You got it in one. Cosmetic differences cultivated by a crew of professional spinners to MISrepresent their real agendas of self-promotion under a screen of spurious contest."

The problem is that you are interpreting according to your take on reality in which there are more important differences to fight over. You are assuming that these people agree with you on that (that these other things ARE more important -- are actually issues "in play") and are acting dishonestly to distract "the people" from these more important fights. Not so. They consider that these other issues you consider more important aren't currently "in play" because you, and others who agree with you (us) haven't managed to get enough people behind these alternatives to put them in play.

Sorry -- but thats OUR job. Organize enough support behind other issues (not these little things that currently divide the existing parties) to force them to rearrange what they fight over. hey have no obligation to help us with this. They aren't acting wrongly or dishonestly by not giving us a helping hand.

And you really need to be very careful when you fault REPRESENTATIVES from putting "the interests of the people who elected them" (according to what these people believe their interests to be) ahead of "the national interest" and "the global interest". It's OK, really, to admit that you do not believe in represtnative democracy or even that you do not believe in local democracy or even that you do not believe in democracy at all (the old debate; Plato vs Aristotle). Just be willing to be honest with yourself.

Story from here? A few years ago met the candidate from the right running for Congressman for my district. Now in the past there had been people from his party who were elected to represent this district and who did well at it, who understood the job description. But this guy was talking about why he wanted to be elected because "this district was so out of touch with the rest of the country". Like DUH ---- he apparently hadn't a clue about what a REPRESENTATIVE is supposed to do.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Mar 07, 2011 14:33

'They aren't acting wrongly or dishonestly..'.

Sorry Mike, if someone is motivated by moolah(the PR machines, and obviously, from their lack of embarrasment at their embarrasment of rich remuneration in oceans of public services deterioration and subsistance dole and miserable wages, our representatives) I tend to lean to the prejudice that they dont have MY(or your)interests to the fore.

Excuse my jaundiced, and subjective(I claim no infallibility, so do please refrain from attributing such) perspective.