Talk:Labour Party (Ireland)/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Góm (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I believe they took their their seats at both Stormont and Westminster. They briefly held the Belfast West Westminster seat from 1949 when sitting MP Jack Beattie joined (following disputes in the Northern Ireland Labour Party, largely over accepting partition). He lost it in 1950, regained it in 1951 and lost again in 1955. At Stormont they won the Belfast Dock seat in 1953 with Murtagh Morgan, lost it in 1958 but won again in 1962 with Gerry Fitt who left the party two years later. Both Fitt and Beattie had non-abstentionist records. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Knights of Saint Columbanus

A case of "that was then..." no doubt, but Brendan Corish and William Norton were Knights, according to Professor Ronan Fanning of UCD, MRIA, co-editor of the Dictionary of Irish Biography, etc. in 2009. More on Fanning at - [1] and [2]; a solid source.86.46.199.3 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Foundation date

The lede says founded 1912 by Connolly while the article says 1914. The constitution says 1912 by Connolly and Larkin. The lede has a citation tag, while the article is referenced to a book to which I don't have access. Anyone know which is correct? --Snowded ^TALK 04:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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"? [3] 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)

If the Labour Party is Democratic Socialist than they should be anti capitalist and their not. Democratic Socialism is not Social Democracy, Social Democracy is about a social market economy were capitalism still exited. Democratic Socialism is a democratic economy were workers and society control the means of production. Since the Labour Party does not want to end capitalism they are not socialists. Socialism is anti capitalism and if a Socialist Party is not anti capitalist they are reformists ( social democrats ). --UDSS (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (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. [[4]] 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.

Having been through a similar debate on the UK Labour Party I'd make the following points. Social Democracy is a specific continental tradition, the history of Larkin and Connolly is different. The web site which was used as an authority is obscure and it is privately maintained, it is not an authority. In the absence of anything else the constitution of the Party uses democratic socialism so have changed it to that. --Snowded ^TALK 04:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This infobox is about current ideology, not its origins. Whatever it says in its party constitution, and it's a section they'd hardly go to the trouble of changing, the Irish Labour Party idenifies much more with other parties that call themselves social democratic rather than democratic socialist. I'd trust a privately-owned website more than a party constitution, to be honest. But if we're looking for authorities, any standard classification would put both British and Irish Labour in the sd category. See the others in the comment above. The infobox on Party of European Socialists, of which Irish Labour is a member, lists social democracy as its ideology; the Party of the European Left, which includes parties much closer to Joe Higgins' Socialist Party, lists democratic socialism and Eurocommunism as its ideology. If these terms are to have any meaning in cross-country comparison, it should be clear what the ideology listed for Irish Labour should be. William Quill (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Find a reliable source which says that and I will happily accept it. Its original research (as well as wrong) to say that because they are lined to the European Socialists that the same ideology can be used. In the absence of any other authority their constitution is all we have. --Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a site that says the Labour Party is Social Democrat, [5], don't know how reliable it is though. Snappy (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's only accurate if it says it's democratic socialist, no matter how few neutral sources say that. All other sources are clearly misinformed. William Quill (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Factions

The section entitled "Factions" is very misleading and inaccurate. While there may be old allegiances among the individuals, these are not organised factions (as far as I know) in the same way that Militant Labour was in the 1970s and '80s. Section should be edited or removed in my view. Coolavokig (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded.--Autospark (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've renamed it as "Groupings", though it needs references or it may need to be removed entirely. Snappy (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of it is accurate though one or two parts are a bit ludicrous. I'm half thinking about getting rid of the DSPer section. Needs references

Exiledone (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Whole section is fantasist nonsense. Best cull it, unless someone happens to have some rigorous references.--Autospark (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll delete it if no-one wishes to stop me. As I've said before, it's a small bit accurate but there's no reference at all. Reminds me of an standard Italian Political Party article which would include its factions. Exiledone (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

This edit - "The Labour party is generally regarded as the political wing of the public service unions." - which is repeatedly being inserted by dynamic IPs will continue to be removed as necessary because it is POV. The page may also be semi-protected or the offending IPs range-blocked, both remedies which may adversely affect editors who wish to contribute constructively. To the person(s) in question, please find something better to do with your time. RashersTierney (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think we've reached the end of the line with this, one more time and semi-prot should be requested. Snappy (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested. RashersTierney (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi You keep removing this comment about the labour party. It is an accurate statement and not just a POV. The irish Labour has always had very strong links to the public service unions "http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/132397515415365923.html". Up until recently it got some of its funding from the unions. Your current leader Eamon Gilmore was a senior member of SIPTU the biggest trade union in Ireland. The only place where unions still have any influence in Ireland is within the public service. Labours support for the Corke park agreement is unwavering despite the considerable collateral damage it is causing. labour does not make any secret about its support for the unions. It's what labour is all about. This is not a POV. To the "Salvio giuliano" who put a block on this page i would like to say that this page should not be a place for positive political spin about the labour party or any other political party. The comment i made is not inflammatory and is not intended to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benq55 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between saying a political party has links to an interest group and stating it is "generally regarded as the political wing" of that group. You really need to read WP:NPOV more carefully. No-one said your edit was inflammatory. You were clearly and repeatedly told why it is unacceptable here. RashersTierney (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the RTE web site http://www.rte.ie/news/election2011/party_profiles.html "The party[Labour] was founded in 1912 in Clonmel, Co Tipperary, by James Connolly, James Larkin and William O'Brien as the political wing of the Irish Trade Union Congress." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benq55 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Your point being? RashersTierney (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That the Labour Party was founded as the political wing of ITUC, and today has links to unions, is not in dispute, and both facts are already mentioned in the article. What is in dispute is the Benq55's pov statement. Snappy (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

The very strong labour party links to the unions are a very relevant point which labour would rather not highlight. It could well be argued that labour and the unions are one in the same. Now that I have given a reference you are saying its just a POV. I don’t think you are disagreeing with my point that labour are the political wing of the unions you would just prefer the public not to see labour in that way. I would remind you that wikipedia is a reference site not a party political publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.199.63 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Policies and acts

This article is a good history, but what did the Labour Party actually accomplish? What acts, policies, etc, did it bring into law? What were its actual achievements? Part in social change in Ireland? Fergananim (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Labour Party template colour

The current colour is #CC0000, a standard dark red. However, the colour used on the logo is #e30613, which is a more normal red seen in other social democratic parties. Should this be changed? Currently the page is locked to template editors only. JackWilfred (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

United Ireland

Labour has lots of policies and positions and ideologies it pursues. They don't all need to be listed in the ideology line of the infobox. Achieving a united Ireland certainly has never seemed a top priority for the party. Actually, ATL, you're adding this on every party from PBP to FG. Let's centralise this discussion at WP:IRELAND. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will move it down Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Political position

SocDem1901, you keep removing "Centrist" from the infobox entry for political position. I've restored it, and referenced it. Interesting that an editor with only three edits (all to this page) would then start quoting policies to justify their edits... (did you edit previously under a different name?) Either way, a book on politics, written by a university lecturer from Ireland, and published in Ireland, is most certainly a RS. Just as the other books used as sources for "centre-left" are also RS. "Centrist" is not a term to be avoided per WP:LABEL. Please stop edit warring over this. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Bastun Hi there. I have edited as an IP user for period, I also took it upon myself to familiarise myself with wiki policy. Is that not expected? The source is giving their own opinion, as evident from the feminist anti-labour viewpoint expressed in the relevant part of the text cited.

P.S if you look at the revision history of the article you will see that the "centrist" label was only added about a week ago.SocDem1901 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And the opinion of a political science academic published in an academic book is indeed a Reliable Source. Equally as valid as those backing up the inclusion of "centre left", in fact. As you've noted, others also agree with the inclusion of "centrist", so removing it would be opposing consensus. As an aside, I'd honestly be surprised if most Labour members didn't classify themselves as feminist, so I'm unsure why you imply it's a slur. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Analysis of budgets

Mélencron’s deletion on 5 November 2017 of a new section about analysis of budgets 2012-2016 was unjustified and overzealous.

The deleter’s stated reason “Appears POV” seems to refer to Wikipedia’s requirement for a Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia clearly states “As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased” and “Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage”.

The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) is probably the most well known independent Irish institute providing evidence-based economic research. It’s economic analysis is thorough and widely cited.

A more appropriate response to Mélencron’s perception of a point of view would have been changing the title of the new section from “Regressive budgets” to “Analysis of budgets”. Based on the articles on Mélencron’s user page, the user’s reason for deleting the section appears to be the user’s own political views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.159.99.13 (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The section lacked any context with regard to this article; I've added that the budgets in question were partly introduced by Brendan Howlin, and that they were supported by Labour in government. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

My reversion was justified on the basis of the inclusion of the information as a separate section and the title given to the section, neither of which were neutral and led me to believe that the addition by the IP was politically motivated, especially given the other edit made by the IP. Like pretty much every other editor on political articles on Wikipedia, I have my own personal political views, but I keep them out of my editing; I've been accused of being everything from a communist to an Orbán/Le Pen supporter, and nobody's yet actually accused me correctly of the political views I actually hold. (As for Irish politics, I don't have any particular position, as I'm not familiar enough with the topic.) Mélencron (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

History section needs an overhaul

Much like the history sections of both Fianna Fáil and [[Fine Gael] until they were overhauled in the last year, the history section for this article needs to be more concise, more macro than micro-focused and better cited. The current version is riddled with citation needed marks and goes off in tangents in a number of areas. It sprawls out to half the article yet the weight of it is very lobsided. More information is given about inconsequential 2009 local and European elections than to the entire run as leader of Brendan Corish.

I'd like to quite a lot of fat trimmed out and more substance given to areas such as the 60s to 80s period. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Endorsement from O'Rahilly

Right, since another edit will bring us beyond WP:3RR I'll ask the IP editor (IPs can't be pinged so I'll leave a message on the talk page): as the onus is on you to find consensus for including this piece of information, why do you think the endorsement from Professor O'Rahilly should be included on the page? Imv it's giving undue weight to the endorsement of one person - hence why we don't find endorsements from other people on other political party's pages, even if they are authoritative academics in their fields - and is extraneous info. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The inclusion is completely WP:UNDUE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)