Labour needs to offer voters a modern, social democratic message different from FF and FG, writes David Leach
It was undoubtedly a poor election for the Labour Party. It was also a substantially poorer performance than that of 2002.
The Government parties lost nine net seats between them. Labour not only failed to gain seats, it actually lost one. In 2002 we held our own in the face of a huge swing to the government. Despite this, our party leader felt the need to resign. In 2007, when the swing was against the Government, we went backwards.
In simple terms the party's support fell by more than 6 per cent of that won in 2002. We entered the election with 12 fewer seats than Fine Gael; we go back with more than 30 fewer seats than Fine Gael.
In the aftermath of the 2002 general election, Labour's 2007 director of elections, James Wrynn, circulated a letter to TDs and the National Executive Committee (NEC), stating that Ruairí Quinn's independent strategy was responsible for "a golden missed opportunity" in that election.
Five years later and with a public evidently tiring of the Government in the early stages of the campaign, that missed opportunity must be more significant. James suggested that one of the problems in 2002 arose from "those of us in the party with different views not being sufficiently courageous and persistent in expressing our views".
No such lack of courage existed this time. The strategy adopted by Pat Rabbitte was debated hotly in advance and during our Tralee conference. In the aftermath of that conference the party correctly united around the decision taken by the party. Pat Rabbitte can have no complaints there.
Those who opposed that strategy at Tralee argued that the Mullingar Accord would benefit Fine Gael and would not benefit Labour. It did. We did not get the extra seats that Pat Rabbitte believed we would get as part of the alternative. That our "block" received 77 seats is no consolation to defeated Labour candidates. I heard my colleague Róisín Shortall TD on RTÉ Radio last week suggest that Labour suffered from the polarisation of the election in the last 10 days between Enda Kenny and Bertie Ahern.
True, but the point being missed is that Labour alone was responsible for this polarisation. We made Enda Kenny. Our support for Fine Gael, particularly offered as far out from the election as it was, resurrected and energised Fine Gael over the last five years. Rather than standing on our own two feet, we became the authors of our own downfall. That we visited the same polarisation on the Greens is something we should take little comfort from. In fairness to Pat Rabbitte, towards the end of the campaign he recognised that his efforts to prevent an Enda and Bertie show had been unsuccessful.
Another argument made against the strategy at the Tralee conference, most notably by former attorney general John Rogers, was that the strategy denied us flexibility in a post-election scenario. John is, of course, correct but the problem runs far deeper than this.
Consistently during the campaign, the polls indicated that the public didn't believe Pat Rabbitte's assurances that he would not lead us into government with Fianna Fáil.
For my own part, I found it difficult to keep up with our position as it evolved from January of this year and during the election.
But I know what I saw on election night when Pat, perhaps unaware that we wouldn't be needed to support a Fianna Fáil government, began talking about the dangers of a Fianna Fáil/Sinn Féin alliance and deploying the old chestnut - "the national interest" - in what was a clear move to offer our availability for government.
The public then were right. We and Pat were not to be trusted. We might have served in government with Fianna Fáil. Since we entered government with Fianna Fáil in 1992 it is simply not believable that we would not do so again in similar circumstances.
We would do well also to turn a deaf ear to advice from Fine Gael supporters. They skate over our poor performance in the hope that we will sign up to a similar platform in advance of the next election. In the aftermath of the 1997 election we mistakenly allowed Fergus Finlay to write the history of the previous five years. It is a mistake we shouldn't repeat.
I have no doubt that this deal with Fine Gael cost us votes. I believe it did so particularly after Kenny lost the leader's election debate. The irony is that our own leader would have fared far better than Kenny.
Our supporters, particularly in urban areas and in the trade union movement, do not share our obsession with "getting" Fianna Fáil. Being well received by Fine Gael supporters on the doorsteps is too often taken as an indicator that our campaigns are going well.
Labour needs to debate the outcome of this election fully. Every party needs a long-term vision and direction. Ours, set by Dick Spring, used to be to replace Fine Gael as the State's second largest party. Conceivable five years ago, it has been dealt a hammer blow by Pat Rabbitte's electoral strategy. What will we replace it with?
As the NEC meets today to discuss the election, we need to recognise that our obsession with the "ruling out" of "this, that and the other" that dogged Ruairí Quinn and that was embraced by Pat Rabbitte, is simply not shared by the public. We ran a good and professional campaign for the second time in succession. No fault lies with party staff.
Our politics is the problem. We continuously mock the British New Labour project but it wins and we lose. It is time we recognised that fact and concentrated solely on a positive and modern social democratic message different from that offered by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
• David Leachserved as national treasurer of the Labour Party from 1999 to 2005. He was national chairman of Labour Youth from 1996 to 1997. He is a trustee of the Labour Party