NOT surprisingly in the extraordinary week that was in it, that the final positioning of the two smallest opposition parties on the government's bank guarantee scheme went largely unremarked upon.

The global banking system and economy may be in crisis, but the way Sinn Féin and Labour voted on the credit institutions bill showed yet again that all politics is local.

Both parties had their minds firmly set on the next general election when they cast their votes.

Over two decades ago, Labour was part of a government that bailed out AIB, while the Republican movement, as well as seeing banks as a legitimate target for raising quick finance for the cause, wanted to see financial institutions nationalised.

Fast forward 23 years and the wheel, while it certainly hasn't gone full circle, has certainly shifted a bit. In the early hours of Thursday morning, Sinn Féin voted with Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Greens and the PDs in favour of the bank guarantee scheme. Labour voted against.

In voting the way it did, Sinn Féin may as well have carried a flashing neon sign bearing the words 'Sinn Féin – ready for government'. Their 'Tá' (tiocfaidh ár tá?) sent a clear signal that on big, crunch issues – and let's face it they don't get any bigger than last week's bill – Sinn Féin could be trusted to do the right thing if and when it gets into government.

The vote marks another small step along the party's long journey to the political mainstream. This may not thrill Republican purists but it is a sign of the party's growing political maturity. And come the inevitable government negotiations that will follow the next general election, Sinn Féin will be in the mix as a realistic potential coalition partner.

And so, Eamon Gilmore fervently hopes, will the Labour Party. Gilmore has been impressive in the year since he became leader. While his breadth of knowledge is wide, his focus is as narrow as Pete Doherty's trouser leg: He wants to be in government after the next election and will do whatever it takes to get there.

Of course, Labour will absolutely jib at the suggestion that their 'Níl' last week was political posturing. They will argue that its TDs had raised serious unanswered questions about the guarantee scheme – most particularly, about the lack of detail on offer and the level of the state's exposure.

No doubt those concerns were genuine. However, the feeling persists that Labour was only too happy to buck Dáil unanimity. At times the party seemed to be almost searching for ways to convincingly do so.

Little wonder. There wouldn't have been time to do focus groups last week – but you wouldn't have to be Frank Luntz to realise there is a percentage of the Irish electorate that was seriously unhappy about the taxpayer coming to the rescue of the banks.

Labour's backing of the "man on the street" or "Seán Citizen" seemed like a no-lose position, particularly when there wasn't the slightest possibility of the bill being defeated. The fact Labour would be the sole occupants of the "we told you so" position if the guarantee scheme goes horribly wrong in the future is but a potential bonus.

It has to be said though that some of the amendments tabled by the party were almost embarrassingly populist – most notably the call to cap the salaries of the chief executives of the banks at the level of the salary of minister for finance.

Gilmore and Joan Burton are highly intelligent politicians and they know full well how unrealistic this suggestion was. But they also know it will strike a chord with voters across the country.

On the vote itself, Fine Gael – a party traditionally associated with business – couldn't have got away with opposing the bank guarantee scheme. Nor did Labour, like Sinn Féin, have to worry about proving their credentials to be a sensible coalition partner – been there, done that countless times. So free from historical baggage, the party was free last week to look after number one – or more to the point, number ones (in the next election).

It may jar slightly with the rather
po-faced and high-minded "we're
different" self-image of at least some in the Labour Party, but Gilmore is nothing if not pragmatic and is certainly not po-faced.

He knows that being in government is what politics is all about and that it's been far too long since Labour was part of one. Out of power since 1997, the thought of a 20-year stretch in opposition – a reality if Labour remains out in the cold after the next general election – is unthinkable to senior figures in the party.

Gilmore's actions last week are further proof of his determination to ensure that doesn't happen. The real tests, however, lie ahead.

Kicking the banks around the place was an easy sell to Labour's leftist old guard. If pragmatism demands adopting stances that go against the traditional Labour default position, you can 'bank' on them meeting with somewhat more internal resistance.

scoleman@tribune.ie