Talk:Labour Party (Ireland)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the priority scale.
An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the image-needed parameter once the image is added.
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Organized Labour Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

Contents

[edit] Reorganising Page Information

I've started a new page History Of The Labour Party (Ireland) which is were I feel is best for the history and most of the content of the Labour Party (Ireland) page. This page will be rewritten to be more in line with other European PES parties in that it deals with general and current policy events.


[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:


[edit] Year of merger with DL

While I don't actually remember the date myself, the Labour Party website implies that 1999 is the correct date. I've amended the article accordingly. Palmiro | Talk 11:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coalition

"From this period onwards there has no longer been any significant body of opinion within Labour opposed on principle to governing as the junior partner of more right wing parties. However tactical disagreements over particular coalition options have arisen from time to time."

NPOV anyone? As a member of the party who does not believe in coalition and has, with others, argued as such, I don't think this is appropriate commentary.

I suggest you try and amend the article to reflect this, but with the support of a published source. A third-level textbook on Irish political parties or Irish politics generally might be a place to look for a quote. Palmiro | Talk 13:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted this POV section. There remains considerable internal dissent to coalition and the above section is very clearly written in the context of the Socialist Party and doesn't reflect the NPOV truth, if such a thing exists, in the Labour Party. An example of dissent to coalition is in the 2004 decision of the Labour Youth Conference to oppose the pre-electoral pact with Fine Gael - see http://www.labour.ie/youth/policy/index/20041124165119.html - relevant quote is "That Labour Youth is totally opposed to the Labour Party presenting itself as a potential minority partner in Government. Conference calls for the Labour Party to promote itself as a potential leading party in government." Labour Youth is one of the few organised sections within the party and represents more than 1/8 of all members. Labour Youth reaffirmed that policy at its most recent Conference (November 2005). Cois na Camac 03:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is all fair enough except that the motion you quote above does not include opposition to coalition with the main right wing parties. A close reading reveals that it actually argues against going to the electorate as part of a pre-election pact with Fine Gael. It does not argue against going into government with Fine Gael or with Fianna Fail. In other words, while there is still an argument within Labour about coalitions, the argument has moved. In the 1980s the argument was between a large minority of the party which opposed coalition entirely and a majority which favoured it. Now the debate is between a smaller minority which opposes pre-election pacts but not post-election coalitions and a huge majority which favours both. I will try to reedit to encompass the distinction.

This is ridiculously POV. I am a member of said party and spoke up against coalition at the Conference to decide this. While only 20-25% voted against the pre-electoral pact it is incorrect to say that no-one in the party opposes coalition. This should be revised to take note of the many varying shades of opinion on this matter amongst the membership. Cois na Camac 18:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Far from being ridiculously POV, your insistence on editing out any referece to the fact that the debate around coalition has changed fundamentally reflects your own bias rather than any sort of Neutral POV. Maybe we should go through this step by step. I take it you accept that during the 1970s and in particular the 1980s that the Labour Party was almost at the point of civil war between pro and anti coalition wings of the party? I take it that you accept that this is no longer true? And that the leaders of the anti-coalition side in the 1980s now support coalition (Stagg, M.D. Higgins) or are gone from the party (J.Higgins)? And that while Labour Party conference still sees debates on the subject that these are primarily now debates over coalition options or pre-election pacts rather than over the principle of coalition? And that no prospective leadership candidate in the party for the forseeable future is anti-coalition even if the current leadership goes? Because really, if you deny any of that this argument becomes akin to one about whether the Earth is flat.
Even your own statement above is in line with what I am saying. 20% or so voted against the most recent pre-election pact. A large part of that vote were people who favour coalition but different parties. And another large part of that vote were people who favour coalition after the election but are against pre-election pacts. So at most a single figure percentage opposed coalition full stop. That is a far cry from twenty years ago when the party was split almost down the middle over the principle of coalition. Something has changed therefore and your insistence on editing out any reference to that change is simply bizarre. I have however re-edited the comment to make sure that you understand that it does not say that "no-one in the party opposes coalition", but that the main focus of the argument has moved on.

[edit] Democratic Socialism

Why does it say that the Labour Party is a social democratic party, when it stated clearly in its constitution that "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party"? [1] I think it should be changed! Bolak77 00:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Wiki is supposed to represent a NPOV, not an organisation's own self-description. The conventional description of parties like the Irish Labour Party is "social democratic" rather than "democratic socialist". We don't describe North Korea as a democracy because it calls itself a Democratic People's Republic, to give you an extreme example. Personally I would describe the Irish Labour Party as "liberal" rather than "social democratic", but the latter is the convention.

It is NPOV to describe Labour as a democratic socialist party given it is encyclopaedic - the reference is at http://www.labour.ie/party/constitution.html "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party and, through its membership of the Party of European Socialists and Socialist International, is part of the international socialist movement working for equality and to empower citizens, consumers and workers in a world increasingly dominated by big business, greed and selfishness." Furthermore the Labour Party (UK) includes democratic socialism in the article. Your own and my own opinions are irrelevant here. There are references to democratic socialism and social democracy in the article so at this stage the reverting just seems petty.Cois na Camac 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not disputed that the Labour Party sometimes describes itself as "democratic socialist", so why you think that repeating that point adds anything to the discussion is beyond me. Once more: Self description is not the same as a neutral point of view. The most obvious example is North Korean regime's self description as "democratic". Anyone or any group can describe themselves as anything. That does not mean that such self description is acceptable as NPOV. In fact self-description, by its very nature, is amongst the least likely things to be NPOV. It is conventional to describe the Western parties affiliated to the Second (Socialist) International, including the Labour Partyies, as social democratic, it seems rather strange to insist that the Irish Labour Party be described otherwise. I will therefore revert regardless of your views about pettiness. If you want to mount a case that goes beyond mere assertion that the Irish Labour Party's self description is in fact NPOV feel free to do so. I note in passing that you describe yourself in conversation with another contributor above as a member of the Irish Labour Party and that you appear to have unusually left wing views for someone in that party. Perhaps you would do well to consider just how NPOV your own outlook is.

Hi, if you believe something is a "convention", please provide evidence. It is more NPOV to give an item its accepted categorical description, as referenced above, than to argue against said description, because you do not personally agree. Bolak77 00:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I was operating on the basis that the description of the various Social Democratic Parties and Labour Parties in Western countries as "social democratic" was so well established a convention that it needed no further referencing. However if you insist here are just some of the countless sites and articles which use that description. Leftist Parties of the World for example is the most comprehensive site on the web dealing with, as you would expect, parties of the left from all over the world. It describes the Irish Labour Party, as well as the other Social Democratic or Labour Parties, as "social democratic". Wikipedia's own List_of_social_democratic_parties again includes the Irish Labour Party and the other similar parties one might expect (I did not, by the way, have anything to do with the compiling of that article). Then there are practically limitless academic [essays and books which describe the Irish Labour Party as a social democratic organisation. This is the normal, conventional description of pretty much all of the Social Democratic or Labour Parties. By contrast all the previous contributor has done is point to the undoubted fact that the Irish Labour Party sometimes describes itself as "democratic socialist". As I pointed out above, this is not disputed by any means. The LP does sometimes use that self-description. But self-description is not the same thing as NPOV. I respectfully request that neither of the two Labour Party members who have commented here revert this article again without at the very least making an argument which goes beyond stating over and over that the Labour Party's self description amounts to a NPOV. By the way, contrary to Bolak's comments above, "social democratic" is not how I would personally choose to describe the Irish Labour Party. "Liberal" would in my view be a much more accurate description, but "social democratic" is the norm.83.70.75.250 14:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The citation of the Wikipedia article listing Social Democratic Parties does not hold any ground in this case, as the article listing Democratic Socialist Parties also lists The Labour Party. [[2]] Also, it is not good enough to cite a little known website which has the Labour Party down as social democratic. Bolak77 23:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I gave four examples, I could have given a hundred and four or a thousand and four. Neither of the Labour Party members who have engaged in this discussion have yet provided any argument other than repeating over and over that Labour's self description is NPOV. I feel little need to add further comment here unless there is something more serious to respond to. By the way, and this is not of particular importance to this discussion, the Leftist Parties of the World site may be "little known" in the greater scheme of things, because it is a specialist website. It is not little known to those with an interest in leftist organisations from the liberal to the wilder fringes of Maoism, Anarchism or just plain Lunacy. It's by far the most comprehensive and best known resource on the subject on the internet.

[edit] The North and Westminster

I see the article says that the Labour Party at one time campaigned and was elected in Northern Ireland, I'd be interested to know whether they abstained from their seats (like Sinn Fein) or whether they actually went to London (like the SDLP). Does anybody know? It would be an interesting fact for the article either way. --Hibernian (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)