Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Labour needs more NI input…
I recently heard Kate Hooey speak on a formal occasion at Queens. She was one of the early movers in the Civil Rights movement as a member of the Northern Labour Party and spoke very warmly of student leader Michael Farrell. Now she’s in the forefront of calls to Labour’s NEC to allow local people not simply to organise, but put up candidates in Northern Ireland.
Mick Fealty @ 04:30 PM
Labourman
Negotiations will now open with the Irish Labour Party to agree some form of joint approach. The focus will be on the Labour movement and building Labour values.
If you can pull of some sort of balance in relations it will be very much to your credit. To their credit the Greens appear to have tried this already, but on another thread it seemed clear that their have completely screwed up. Sadly their seem to be an Irish National Party in all but name as their links to their colleagues in Britain are purely token. I hope that Labour can produce a much better balance in relationships so that it becomes increasingly easy for those of different traditions to join and increase the potential for cross community support and issue based politics.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2007 @ 11:53 AMI will be very surprised if any Labour candidate here picks up more than 200 votes, to pluck a figure out of the air. It is fanciful to suggest that trade union membership, or even the number who pay the political levy could translate into votes for a Labour candidate.
The basic focus politics here will continue to be the border issue for the forseeable future. I doubt that many Unionists would trust the Labour party and Nationalists will continue to see the Labour party as a Unionist party but I suppose that’s choice in a democracy.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2007 @ 12:03 PMStarhound
You would not expect them to do well in this election as they have no time to build a base and 200 - 250 would seem about right to me. However in future Council elections they could do some damage IF they actually get organised.
Like all small parties if Labour floats you boat then vote for them and use your transfers. There is nothing to lose. Always give your preferences to the type of politics you actually want. There is no need to vote 1, 2 or 3 to keep someone out the transfers will do that effectively.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2007 @ 12:11 PMI suspect that the Labour vote is likely to be as large as the Conservative: 2718 in the 2005 Westminster election, 1164 in the 2005 Council elections. This works out at 64-151 per Westminster constituency.
From a NI point of view, it wouldn’t do any harm and might do some good, but from a Labour Party point of view, the expense of deposits etc is not justified.
Hooey’s suggestion is indeed hooey.
This would be an excellent development. If only it had happened 60 years ago…
Man dear, have you never heard of the NI Labour Party? Or was that meant to be ironic?
Posted by on Feb 07, 2007 @ 01:59 PMBrothers, and indeed, for it is the C21st, sisters, whose legs are better: Kate’s or Arlene’s?
Posted by on Feb 07, 2007 @ 02:44 PMWhere is the evidence of any great demand from voters for the Conservatives or Labour to put up candidates?
When voters have had the choice in the past they have hardly flocked to these banners so I feel that they will remain on the fringes.
I not too comfortable with the idea that seems to underpin a few posts here that this is somehow a ‘better’ style of politics than local parties. This seems patronising to say the least and ignores the results of countless previous elections.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2007 @ 02:54 PMPaddyReilly, I am indeed aware of the great efforts of the NILP, they weren’t howvever integrated within the British Labour Party. Instead the BLP preferred to play lip-service to them, and (along with the Conservatives) did its’ best to “stay out of the Irish bog” - not even discussing Northern Irish affairs in Westminster.
My point is that an attempt at political integration was viable within the Labourite tradition.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2007 @ 05:24 PMThe Labour Party is not pro-Union. The position of the party is that that it is for the Irish people to decide. However that does not mean that New Labour is pro Irish unity. It is not. No more is it for labour values, nor trade union strength. It is essentially for increased profit ratios for big business and lower taxation on those increased profits (and indeed with the wonderful new Inland Revenue policy of turning a blind eye to off shore trickery, no taxes at all).
This all to be paid for by forced low wages and drastic reductions in government spending on health, education and essential social services while Brown’s increasingly disastrous PFI’s are permitted to run rampant like Russian gangster oligarchs under Yeltsin in an orgy of waste, destruction, pillage and plunder.
While I have no doubt the robber baron tactics of New Labour would be most welcome among some business interests with an eye on the NI pudding and their expertise would be valued among some burgeoning politicoes, I cannot see the wily old populace somehow being deluded by them. Any credentials that they once had with labour crumbled to dust with Blair and Brown was his willing henchman and the holder of the purse.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2007 @ 08:10 PMGet real Rory tell folk which local budget has been cut by Labour. I remember 2002 budget when Gordon announced an increse in N.Ireland spending fron5.8Billion to8.9 Billion over 3 years BBC did a devolved angle and SNP and PC put up a spoksperson but not one MP from here could be found.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 10:09 AMueobmolv rklnpknm imzzvhwk http://sexdzkmk.com twovrlae vxcxywsc
Posted by on Feb 09, 2007 @ 11:24 AM
