|
Somebody told me that (allegedly) a lot of the older Labour candidates were originally guys in the IRA or in organized crime and that this was an open secret in the Irish political world. (And it is why Eamon Dunphy made allegations of the like about Ruadhri Quinn in a newspaper article which was subsequently the subject of a huge libel case.) Has anyone else heard anything about that?
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 13:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
lemonadesweetheart posted:Labour's track record doesn't hold up and you'd be foolish to take any of what you just said at face value given that history. Labour's track record of being the only major left-wing party in the history of the state to enter government, successfully dragging Irish policy to the left for a century? Those centre-right policy proposals are also directly from SF's policy platform, not Labours, for what its worth. So it doesn't really matter if you believe Labour's claims or not, its SF themselves promoting policies to the right of Blairism. The Question IRL posted:Somebody told me that (allegedly) a lot of the older Labour candidates were originally guys in the IRA or in organized crime and that this was an open secret in the Irish political world. (And it is why Eamon Dunphy made allegations of the like about Ruadhri Quinn in a newspaper article which was subsequently the subject of a huge libel case.) A lot of the senior Labour party leadership this century came into the party when Labour absorbed Democratic Left in 1999. Democratic Left were an offshoot of the Workers Party in 1992, who themselves were an offshoot of Sinn Fein in the 1970s. So technically some of the older guys like Ruadhri Quinn, Pat Rabbitte and Eamon Gilmore could have had IRA links, due to being part of that going way back. Some good background reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_of_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Left_(Ireland)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 13:17
|
|
|
Blut posted:Labour's track record of being the only major left-wing party in the history of the state to enter government, successfully dragging Irish policy to the left for a century?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 13:47
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Sorry... what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_cabinets_since_1919#Cabinets_since_1919
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 14:21
|
|
|
No, the bit I'm struggling with is where you think Irish policy has been dragged to the left at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
lemonadesweetheart posted:Labour's track record doesn't hold up and you'd be foolish to take any of what you just said at face value given that history. This is the problem with Labour. Believe me man I'd really love to be able to support Larkin and Connollys party but they just don't hold up. They have been responsible for some positive legislation especially things that the FF/FG old boys wouldn't touch, but all their victories are thirty years ago or more. They haven't been relevant since New Labour sprung up across the Irish sea. Southpaugh fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Feb 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 14:55
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:No, the bit I'm struggling with is where you think Irish policy has been dragged to the left at all. Labour were in government coalitions in 1948, 1954, 1973, 1981, 1982, 1992, and 1994 before the 2011 mess. They've pretty definitively dragged each government more to the left than it would have been otherwise. A party system that alternated exclusively between FG and FG majority governments over the last century, which is the alternative, would have had even fewer left wing policies implemented. Labour aren't perfect by any stretch, but given the inherent conservatism of the Irish electorate they were probably about as far left as they could go while still regularly getting 10+ TDs elected - and thus actually having the numbers to get into government and change things, even incrementally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 15:02
|
|
|
I mean they literally legalised slavery as per Irish, EU, and UN definitions of it while Joan Burton was Minister for Social Protection so I'd hate to see the dystopian hellscape you think would have happened if they didn't go into government for 2011...
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 15:29
|
|
|
Blut posted:Labour were in government coalitions in 1948, 1954, 1973, 1981, 1982, 1992, and 1994 before the 2011 mess. They've pretty definitively dragged each government more to the left than it would have been otherwise. What policies and which governments? If you have to go back more than 30 years I don't see how you can stand over anything you're actually saying right now. Labour needs to be put out to pasture, it died a long time ago. Also just so it's clear, I do not think Sinn Fein are a left party either but they aren't any farther right now than what Labour have become.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 15:32
|
|
|
It's a little bit telling when one has to appeal to unknowable counterfactuals about how bad things could have been, rather than any concrete political gains. It's a very UK LibDem message, and about as convincing
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
Venomous posted:Were Labour ever socialists or even social democrats at all, or were they always useless centrists? Labor historically have always propped up FG. The first time FG got in was thanks to a FG-Labour coalition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 15:45
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd want to echo that sentiment. The only significant thing Labour did that I can think of is the equal marriage referendum, but even that wasn't ideal. A high risk scenario in which LGBT people had to argue for their rights to marry in order to pass the buck and not be the government who maybe brought in an unpopular, if morally correct, policy. Additionally, the negative impact of the decision to take the question of marriage to referendum is being felt by LGBT people all across the world now, with more States following the Irish model of legislating for LGBT rights via the ballot box.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
I'm looking at the current government formation "wrangles" and I'm coming to the following conclusion: The FF/G gameplan here is to basically refuse to form a government, refuse to vote for Taoiseach Mary Lou then go back to the country with a new election after proving that silly left win stuff doesn't work, you have to vote for FF/G or you don't get a government. We could be looking at the stalling tactics lasting months to achieve this. I hope nothing important happens in that time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 16:10
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I mean they literally legalised slavery as per Irish, EU, and UN definitions of it while Joan Burton was Minister for Social Protection so I'd hate to see the dystopian hellscape you think would have happened if they didn't go into government for 2011... Do you think an FG only government in 2011 would have been more left-wing? Because that was the alternative. What we got was terrible, but what we could have gotten would have been even worse, it would definitely have been a hell of a lot closer to the dystopian neoliberal hellscape of Varadkar's wetdreams. Failed Imagineer posted:It's a little bit telling when one has to appeal to unknowable counterfactuals about how bad things could have been, rather than any concrete political gains. It's a very UK LibDem message, and about as convincing Its pretty far from an unknowable counterfactual when FG are well established as the most economically right wing party in Irish politics. Literally any other party going into government with them drags the government towards the center. FG were on record as advocating for even more cuts to public services during the 2011 government than what we actually got. lemonadesweetheart posted:What policies and which governments? If you have to go back more than 30 years I don't see how you can stand over anything you're actually saying right now. Labour needs to be put out to pasture, it died a long time ago. My point was more SF's party platform for this election was economically to the right of Labour. Which is amusing when SF supporters accuse Labour of being centre-right Blairites. Who does that leave on the left in Irish politics? Labour brought in legislation in every single government they participated in that would not have been brought in under more right-wing governments. To take a few historical examples using only your 30 year criteria, which basically limits us to Labour's time in power in the 1990s: - They brought in the Electoral Act of 1997 which was the first legislation to cap spending at elections, control political donations, and require politicians to reveal their interests. - Proinsias De Rossa as minister for Social Welfare introduced the first National Anti-poverty Strategy (NAPS) in 1997. For the first time Government acknowledged poverty and set out targets to reduce it and its causes. - In 1995 Mervyn Taylor, as Minister for Equality and Law reform introduced the Equality Legislation which for the first time outlawed discrimination against people with disabilities, gays and lesbians, Travellers, ethnic minorities and other minorities. - Labour were a driving force in pushing for and supporting the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland that removed the constitutional prohibition on divorce. etc etc. If you go off and read up on the achievements of any of the other Labour coalition governments you can find similar. Again, they're far from perfect - but when the alternative is a century of only FF&FG Labour are pretty much the best we as a country got.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 16:10
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:Somebody told me that (allegedly) a lot of the older Labour candidates were originally guys in the IRA or in organized crime and that this was an open secret in the Irish political world. (And it is why Eamon Dunphy made allegations of the like about Ruadhri Quinn in a newspaper article which was subsequently the subject of a huge libel case.) Dunphy got caught out for libel against Proinsias De Rosa, not Quinn, who was the leader of Democratic Left and brought them through the merger and was definately in the RA. The allegations were that he was aware of the OIRAs organised crime activities as fundraising for the Workers Party, similar stuff got thrown around as mentioned upthread in regards to Rabbitte and Gilmore and Kathleen Lynch (who's husband was probably also in the IRA), all former stickies turned third way-ish democratic socialists absorbed into Labour. Also probably worth mentioning that Catherine Murphy of the SocDems is from the same gene pool politically. Quinn is from the more left leaning party intake of the late 60s and 70s like Emmett Stagg and Miggeldy Higgins who favoured an end to FG coalitions. In terms of Labour policy successes I can think of a few from the 70s coalition era - lowering the pension age from 70 (as it had been since independence) to 66, implementing the first employment equality legislation that illegalized the marriage bar that forced married women out of work, the unfair dismissals act that codified unfair dismissal and made it illegal to sack someone for agitating for union organization and much of the groundwork for divorce reform. I think it's easy to forget what a hot garbage fire Ireland was until the late 90s kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Feb 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
Blut posted:Do you think an FG only government in 2011 would have been more left-wing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Dunphy got caught out for libel against Proinsias De Rosa, not Quinn, who was the leader of Democratic Left and brought them through the merger and was definately in the RA. That is right, it was De Rosa not Quinn. Tha is for the correction. Also thanks for the rest of your post. It's incredibly interesting. kustomkarkommando posted:
Ah yes. When most of the sex education for kids in the country in the 90's came not from the schools but from the educational shows they had on Network 2 on Saturday morning after Scratch Saturday. I think the turning point may have been 1995 when the second divorce referendum passed by the slimmest majority. Skull Servant posted:Yeah, I'd want to echo that sentiment. The only significant thing Labour did that I can think of is the equal marriage referendum, but even that wasn't ideal. A high risk scenario in which LGBT people had to argue for their rights to marry in order to pass the buck and not be the government who maybe brought in an unpopular, if morally correct, policy. As crappy as the Marriage Equality Referendum may have been for the LGBTQ community, it had to be done through the ballot box. The Constitution of Ireland had to be changed and it can only be changed by Referendum. If Labour had tried just introducing some legislation for it, it would never have passed. And even if it did pass, some Loony would have taken a Constitutional challenge against the legislation, and the Supreme Court would have almost assuredly ruled against it. The Question IRL fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Feb 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 16:51
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:As crappy as the Marriage Equality Referendum may have been for the LGBTQ community, it had to be done through the ballot box. The Constitution of Ireland had to be changed and it can only be changed by Referendum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
Skull Servant posted:Yeah, I'd want to echo that sentiment. The only significant thing Labour did that I can think of is the equal marriage referendum, but even that wasn't ideal. A high risk scenario in which LGBT people had to argue for their rights to marry in order to pass the buck and not be the government who maybe brought in an unpopular, if morally correct, policy. I mean we where kind of snookered after Zappone v Revenue commission when the High Court said "nope constitution definately means marriage is between a man and a woman at the minute" and the appeal at the supreme court floundered. The only reason why a referendum was used was because of that decision and vagueries around whether legislation would survive a supreme court challenge based on the high courts logic
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
Blut posted:- In 1995 Mervyn Taylor, as Minister for Equality and Law reform introduced the Equality Legislation which for the first time outlawed discrimination against people with disabilities, gays and lesbians, Travellers, ethnic minorities and other minorities. This specifically is a poor example to point to. Yes, it technically outlawed discrimination against LGBT people, but there was a significant loophole in that it only protected people from being discriminated in work. Therefore, you can have, and have had, examples of an out gay man who worked in a bar being refused as a customer in the same bar after his shift based upon his sexuality. This was not amended until 2000. Additionally, he was minister of Equality and Law for several years before bringing this legislation forward. Yes, these things take time. However, the length of time between decriminalisation and legislation for protection was far too long. Members of the Irish government were compelled to decriminalise homosexuality for years. It was not a spur of the moment decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:I mean we where kind of snookered after Zappone v Revenue commission when the High Court said "nope constitution definately means marriage is between a man and a woman" and the appeal at the supreme court floundered. While this is true, and Question also made the same point, I have encountered a lot of people directly involved in the marriage referendum who are staunchly of the belief that a referendum was not required. It is possible that they are wrong, but this seems to be widely held in my experience. Regardless, the issue was a can that was kicked down the road. In order to prevent the sitting government from being seen as openly endorsing the idea of marriage equality, they held a Constitutional Convention, which only lengthened the amount of time to give the LGBT community the right to marry and the protections that come with it. There were couples where one partner died before the process of marriage equality was implemented and, as a result, they lost their family homes because of the objections of a bigoted family member of the deceased. If Labour properly stood up for the community rather than treading lightly they could have shaved years off of the process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 17:08
|
|
|
Jobs Bridge has made me loath FG/ Labour for life. Labour should not survive after such blatent libertarian bullshit as Jobsbridge happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
Skull Servant posted:While this is true, and Question also made the same point, I have encountered a lot of people directly involved in the marriage referendum who are staunchly of the belief that a referendum was not required. It is possible that they are wrong, but this seems to be widely held in my experience. Yeah I agree with that tbh - it was like 6 years between the Cooley report and actually achieving a referendum and the constitutional convention was largely a massive waste of time considering the immensely slow rate things have planned out. I know a lot of people in the campaign argued a referendum wasn't necessary in order to extend marriage rights to same sex couples but I was always consderibly more hesitant about this because it placed the onus on the courts favourably reading domestic case law a big chunk of which is rather conservative on these matters (much like the whole abortion ref debate about simply deleting the eighth over inserting an enabling clause and fears of the courts digging up precedent from the 50s) - see McD v L when the supreme court just shouted "bollocks" repeatedly about the idea of a same sex civil partnership having de-facto marriage rights in regards to child custody
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
Foul Ole Ron posted:Jobs Bridge has made me loath FG/ Labour for life. Multiple reports of places having 2+ Tús "placements" at once, and just not bothering to hire people at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Seems like the labour leadership contest is going to Kelly v O Riordain, Nash has bowed out and Sherlock endorsed Kelly, with Kelly making a early pitch to represent "left leadership" while doing a lot of talking about the need to rediscover their position as the party of the working man and doing grassroots groundwork and stop apologising for their record in government - I've always struggled to puncture through Kelly's bluster and self importance to actually place him politically, always struck me more as a parish pump Labour man like Dan Spring (who became a TD off of winning a football all Ireland for Kerry and held his seat form almost 40 years with the usual big man about town pull you find among long running TDs) but I could equally see him do a left pivot simply based on the election results.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Blut posted:Its pretty far from an unknowable counterfactual when FG are well established as the most economically right wing party in Irish politics. Literally any other party going into government with them drags the government towards the center. FG were on record as advocating for even more cuts to public services during the 2011 government than what we actually got. So why bother voting for Labour then? Literally any other party will suffice
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
All that talk about having no navy when we double our ships with the ghost ship in a matter of days! Only a matter of time of outmatching the US navy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
We just need a good batch of sea men
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:All that talk about having no navy when we double our ships with the ghost ship in a matter of days! Plus Ghost Ships often have Ghost Sailors (or even better. Ghost Pirates) on board. We can rely on them to sink those Mortal ships.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:Plus Ghost Ships often have Ghost Sailors (or even better. Ghost Pirates) on board. We can rely on them to sink those Mortal ships. A good mix of seamen and ectoplasm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
Blut posted:I still reckon it'll be an FG s&c to FF/Green/SocDem/INDs, the above tweet and a few other rumblings do seem to be pointing that way. I put a tenner on it at 34/1 with paddypower last week, its down to 26/1 now. Definitely worth a punt at those long odds. Skull Servant posted:Yeah, I'd want to echo that sentiment. The only significant thing Labour did that I can think of is the equal marriage referendum, but even that wasn't ideal. A high risk scenario in which LGBT people had to argue for their rights to marry in order to pass the buck and not be the government who maybe brought in an unpopular, if morally correct, policy. irlZaphod fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Feb 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 10:57
|
|
|
Leo and MarRef is particularly sickening given his prior stance on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 11:04
|
|
|
irlZaphod posted:Can we not give political parties credit for the work of actual grassroots organisations? Labour/FG had gently caress all to do with it other than feeling it was probably safe enough to allow a Referendum on it. FG in particular taking credit for MarRef and Repeal is utterly galling. Believe me, I am not giving Labour any credit for the 2015 referendum. They might have legislated for it, but they did not drive the grassroots at all. That comes down to local LGBT groups and individuals going out and knocking on doors, speaking to their family and friends, and making their case for their own rights. At least locally, the only party I would give credit to would be Sinn Fein. Their local party structure came to the LGBT support group with maps and taught people how to doorstop. They also had 10 or so supporters out daily to help canvass. Fine Gael had one person, a local councillor, come out and campaign, but he was more focused on his own profile than the actual issue at hand. Regardless, any party support was supplementary. It may have been helpful in the case of Sinn Fein, but the local campaign was still spearheaded by actual LGBT people. Leo/FG taking credit for it infuriates me. In his maiden speech Leo came out strongly against civil partnerships, saying a relationship should be between a man and a woman. I know on good authority that he has never stepped into a LGBT centre until the referendum campaign, and even then it is always to influence his profile. He has no love for the community and zero solidarity with LGBT people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 12:54
|
|
|
Skull Servant posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
Foul Ole Ron posted:Would you have a link to that speech. Because he is a loving utter bollox if this is true. Reminds me of the puritanical Christian politicians in the States who decry LGBT culture publicly and are gay privately. I went back and had a reread of the speech. He says that he will vote for the bill, but only because there are some cases where it is warranted. He wants civil partnerships to be expanded and decoupled from sexuality. However, he does come out of nowhere with this anti-LGBT/single parent talking point. Leo Varadkar, 2010 posted:The question of adoption is ignored in this Bill because it is contentious. Sooner or later, it will have to be addressed. Every child has a father and a mother. Two men or two women cannot have a child together. A single person cannot have a child on their own unless they procure the pre-products of conception from an alternative source. This is an undeniable fact. Unfortunately, sometimes in children's lives one of the parents is not interested in them or dies. Where a child is an orphan, the State should replace their mother and father. Every child has the right to a mother and father and, as much as is possible, the State should vindicate that right. That is a much more important right than that of two men or women having a family. That is the principle that should underline our laws regarding children and adoption. I am also uncomfortable about adoption by single people regardless of their sexual orientation. I do not believe I as a single man should adopt a child. The child should go to parents, a mother and father, to replace what the child had before. Full transcript is here. I was a little wrong with him opposing Civil Partnership, but overall he is not in the slightest concerned with issues surrounding LGBT people. I'm sure some blueshirts will argue that he only made those arguments to protect his identity, but I don't buy it at all, especially with his lack of involvement in the community after coming out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 15:20
|
|
|
I've been told by various organisers of the push for MarRef that when he was asked about it at various events he laughed and told them it'd never happen. Also when he became a Minister Matt stopped playing Magic the Gathering in Gamer's World on Jervis street, apparently "just in case".
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
I think the picture of Justin Trudeau (doing whiteface) Leo and his partner Matt at Montreal Pride in Canada perfectly sums everything up about him. https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/taoiseach-leo-varadkar-and-his-partner-join-trudeau-at-the-montreal-pride-parade-36051167.html You have JT, who is giving a warm, natural looking smile of a man having a good time. Leopald has the smile of an old man who is forcing himself to look happy because there are cameras drat it and he has to look like he is having a good time. And then there is Matt. Who has that familiar look of a supportive partner who has been dragged into the limelight and just doesn't can't force himself to look happy because he is that uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I've been told by various organisers of the push for MarRef that when he was asked about it at various events he laughed and told them it'd never happen. Also when he became a Minister Matt stopped playing Magic the Gathering in Gamer's World on Jervis street, apparently "just in case". In case what? Does Warhammer make you double-gay?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
Different game, but presumably knowing how much his boyfriend spends on a card game would put his financial credentials in question for the inevitable bid for Taoiseach which then ended up being successful. Now Pascal O'Donohoe, he was one for the toy soldiers. Even canvassed the shop when it was on Dorset street.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Now Pascal O'Donohoe, he was one for the toy soldiers. Seems like it should be a euphemism if it's not
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2020 18:01
|
|