Red C Poll

alaimacerc · 17-01-2015 3:49am

conorh91 wrote: »

I don't think that's envisaged by anyone, least of all GA himself. I think he sees himself more as a chairman/ spiritual leader for national republicanism rather than a policymaker.

That was certainly the logic of his previous position, where he "presided" over the parliamentary leaders North and South without having to sully himself with such duties. But now he's elbowed aside Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin from the latter position, it surely looks like retreat to revert.

Unlike Micheal Martin, Adams chose not to assume a front bench portfolio.

Which could easily be seen as (false) humility on MM's part, or conversely as high-handedness on GA's.

I think he'll be leader of the next Opposition, then subsequently aim for the Presidency of Ireland, but is unlikely to ever enter Government.

If the ABSF coalition holds firm next time that would be the logical course of events. If SF are in and around government it's less clear. Would FF agree to support a SF taoiseach (possibly jobshare) provided it's not Adams?

hatrickpatrick · 17-01-2015 4:55am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

But that Independent/Other bucket hides a multitude though..

It's not a coherent opposition group - In reality it's 2 or 3 groups on 4%-6% of the poll with "true" independents around 12-14%.

I expect the largest voting block from there will be ~10% of the vote if you were trying to find a group to support a coalition ..

Next election will be messy and I believe we'll have a minority government when the dust settles..

It will certainly be messy. To be honest, I'd be ok with a minority government as a second choice if a government of independents doesn't work out.

Anything but another "The Dail votes exactly as the cabinet commands it" government, really.

Fr Tod Umptious · 17-01-2015 11:21am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It will certainly be messy. To be honest, I'd be ok with a minority government as a second choice if a government of independents doesn't work out.

Anything but another "The Dail votes exactly as the cabinet commands it" government, really.

So after the past few years of recovery and stability you would be willing to accept a minority government over your first preference of a totally unstable one.

Crazy

hatrickpatrick · 17-01-2015 10:48pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So after the past few years of recovery and stability you would be willing to accept a minority government over your first preference of a totally unstable one.

Crazy

As I say, any setup which empowers TDs to represent their constituents and hold the cabinet to account rather than rubber stamping it on every policy initiative. In my view a government of independents would be the most beholden to the public will, but a minority government would still need to earn the support of some TDs regardless of how many it could rely on through the whip. A cabinet accountable to a Dail of independents has to earn the vote of every TD on each individual bill it puts before parliament, hence why that would be my preference.

As far as I'm concerned, the words "unstable" and "accountable" go hand in hand when discussing this matter. "Stable" government in Ireland means a cabinet which does whatever it wants without any possibility of being prevented from doing anything.

If you look at the latest opinion poll in the OP it's good news for those who favour this setup - FG may have recovered a little but the independent vote is holding strong and has been rising in each consecutive poll - which none of the other groups has managed.

I love how people in these threads always try to twist these results into saying something other than what the figures are actually saying, which is that the majority of the public in four consecutive polls has favoured Independent and Other TDs over the main parties including Sinn Fein, and that this trend has repeatedly either increased or remained the same from one poll to the next, while every other group has declined at least a little between at least two polls.
The writing is on the wall for the traditional way of doing politics in Ireland, at least for the time being. Long may it smoulder on the ash heap of history.

What we do need is a vote management strategy. Independents being transfer toxic and unpredictable is a genuine problem and I would hope that some of them would be as FG, to their credit, always have been - willing to tell people to put themselves #2 and another candidate #1 to guarantee smooth vote transfers. I was always impressed during the last election at how FG candidates would agree to be #2 being their FG running mates on election posters, whereas FF would always just say "vote 1 and 2" with two candidates, not specifying which order and therefore risking a vote split without a clean transfer from one to the other.

Might start an awareness campaign on this myself closer to election time so that those hoping for the age of independents won't shoot themselves in the foot by splitting the majority of the vote without coherent transferring.

marienbad · 17-01-2015 11:25pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I say, any setup which empowers TDs to represent their constituents and hold the cabinet to account rather than rubber stamping it on every policy initiative. In my view a government of independents would be the most beholden to the public will, but a minority government would still need to earn the support of some TDs regardless of how many it could rely on through the whip. A cabinet accountable to a Dail of independents has to earn the vote of every TD on each individual bill it puts before parliament, hence why that would be my preference.

As far as I'm concerned, the words "unstable" and "accountable" go hand in hand when discussing this matter. "Stable" government in Ireland means a cabinet which does whatever it wants without any possibility of being prevented from doing anything.

If you look at the latest opinion poll in the OP it's good news for those who favour this setup - FG may have recovered a little but the independent vote is holding strong and has been rising in each consecutive poll - which none of the other groups has managed.

I love how people in these threads always try to twist these results into saying something other than what the figures are actually saying, which is that the majority of the public in four consecutive polls has favoured Independent and Other TDs over the main parties including Sinn Fein, and that this trend has repeatedly either increased or remained the same from one poll to the next, while every other group has declined at least a little between at least two polls.
The writing is on the wall for the traditional way of doing politics in Ireland, at least for the time being. Long may it smoulder on the ash heap of history.

What we do need is a vote management strategy. Independents being transfer toxic and unpredictable is a genuine problem and I would hope that some of them would be as FG, to their credit, always have been - willing to tell people to put themselves #2 and another candidate #1 to guarantee smooth vote transfers. I was always impressed during the last election at how FG candidates would agree to be #2 being their FG running mates on election posters, whereas FF would always just say "vote 1 and 2" with two candidates, not specifying which order and therefore risking a vote split without a clean transfer from one to the other.

Might start an awareness campaign on this myself closer to election time so that those hoping for the age of independents won't shoot themselves in the foot by splitting the majority of the vote without coherent transferring.

What ever the faults of the current set up this is just a recipe for instability and an election every 6 months .

hatrickpatrick · 18-01-2015 12:02am

marienbad wrote: »

What ever the faults of the current set up this is just a recipe for instability and an election every 6 months .

I disagree. And I still say that would be better than the current absolute dictatorship of the 16 which we have to endure.

I wouldn't say no to mid-term elections like they have in the US. I also wouldn't say no to every ministerial appointment being questioned and having to be confirmed by (an independent) parliament after the Taoiseach makes his or her choices. We could call it "accountability".

Can I ask though, why is it that you reckon it would lead to an election every six months? By what mechanism specifically would such elections be called? After every failed cabinet-proposed bill, or what? What would you regard as the parameters for dissolving the Dail under those circumstances as opposed to behaving maturely and moving on to the next issue instead of breaking up the entire government on the basis of the cabinet not getting its own way on one issue...?

marienbad · 18-01-2015 12:08am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I disagree. And I still say that would be better than the current absolute dictatorship of the 16 which we have to endure.

I wouldn't say no to mid-term elections like they have in the US. I also wouldn't say no to every ministerial appointment being questioned and having to be confirmed by (an independent) parliament after the Taoiseach makes his or her choices. We could call it "accountability".

Can I ask though, why is it that you reckon it would lead to an election every six months? By what mechanism specifically would such elections be called? After every failed cabinet-proposed bill, or what? What would you regard as the parameters for dissolving the Dail under those circumstances as opposed to behaving maturely and moving on to the next issue instead of breaking up the entire government on the basis of the cabinet not getting its own way on one issue...?

How responsible have independents behaved up until now ?

Kristopherus · 18-01-2015 12:09am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I disagree. And I still say that would be better than the current absolute dictatorship of the 16 which we have to endure.

I wouldn't say no to mid-term elections like they have in the US. I also wouldn't say no to every ministerial appointment being questioned and having to be confirmed by (an independent) parliament after the Taoiseach makes his or her choices. We could call it "accountability".

Can I ask though, why is it that you reckon it would lead to an election every six months? By what mechanism specifically would such elections be called? After every failed cabinet-proposed bill, or what? What would you regard as the parameters for dissolving the Dail under those circumstances as opposed to behaving maturely and moving on to the next issue instead of breaking up the entire government on the basis of the cabinet not getting its own way on one issue...?

You are in cloud cuckoo land. The possibility of what you would like to happen so remote, its not even worth considering.

CramCycle · 18-01-2015 12:27am

Far too many TDs in the Dail to be workable, the only way this would be workable or palatable is if the Dail was reduced by a minimum of two thirds or even three quarters.

oscarBravo · 18-01-2015 12:32am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my view a government of independents would be the most beholden to the public will...

Now there's an appalling vista.

alaimacerc · 18-01-2015 12:34am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I disagree. And I still say that would be better than the current absolute dictatorship of the 16 which we have to endure.

This appears, like Fox News and the Tea Party, to confuse "tyranny" and "democratic outcome I dislike".

I wouldn't say no to mid-term elections like they have in the US.

Midterm elections? Electing who in the middle of what, exactly? Essentially sounds like you don't want a parliamentary democracy at all; you want a presidential system, and one in perpetual gridlock.

Can I ask though, why is it that you reckon it would lead to an election every six months? By what mechanism specifically would such elections be called? After every failed cabinet-proposed bill, or what? What would you regard as the parameters for dissolving the Dail under those circumstances as opposed to behaving maturely and moving on to the next issue instead of breaking up the entire government on the basis of the cabinet not getting its own way on one issue...?

Your wishlist seems to be for Dáil that can't pass any real business. In such circumstances either the executive will eventually get fed up and go for a do-over ("these localist clowns are preventing the passage of these important measures that you, the Irish people, desire us to implement"); or else the Dáil itself will express lack of confidence (or vote down a budget, generally regarded as in effect the same thing).

conorh91 · 18-01-2015 1:16am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I also wouldn't say no to every ministerial appointment being questioned and having to be confirmed by (an independent) parliament after the Taoiseach makes his or her choices. We could call it "accountability".

We could also call it the separation of powers, a doctrine which is supposedly at the centre of our constitution and infused in the legal norms of the civilised world since Ancient Rome, but which Ireland has always casually ignored.

What you have described is effectively what is laid down in law, but nobody ever asks why we don't do it.

And then we ask ourselves why we are plagued with such incompetent political officeholders.

hatrickpatrick · 18-01-2015 1:31am

alaimacerc wrote: »

This appears, like Fox News and the Tea Party, to confuse "tyranny" and "democratic outcome I dislike".

Even FG's own TDs have admitted that they don't find the current system democratic enough.

The treatment of Lucinda Creighton, much as I dislike her and her policies, is a perfect example of how undemocratic it is. We don't need to rehash that debate yet again in this thread. A Dail of Independents is more likely to lead to an accountable cabinet - yes or no?

Midterm elections? Electing who in the middle of what, exactly? Essentially sounds like you don't want a parliamentary democracy at all; you want a presidential system, and one in perpetual gridlock.

Explain where you're getting that from? I simply want a cabinet which is held to account by the parliament. Nothing more, nothing less.
I like the idea of elections being more frequent than every five years simply because it would lead to politicians being perpetually in fear of the population's reaction to their actions in power as opposed to only in fear of it for about a quarter of their term.

Your wishlist seems to be for Dáil that can't pass any real business.

Specifically why do you imagine it couldn't pass anything? Be specific - what would stop TDs from voting through a bill which they either liked or felt commanded significant public support?

In such circumstances either the executive will eventually get fed up and go for a do-over ("these localist clowns are preventing the passage of these important measures that you, the Irish people, desire us to implement"); or else the Dáil itself will express lack of confidence (or vote down a budget, generally regarded as in effect the same thing).

You talk as if minority governments have never existed anywhere in the world

I've always felt the "all or nothing" approach to budgets is pretty moronic as well - if the parliament rejects a budget, the cabinet should have another look at it before panicking and calling an election.
Why must we always deal in "this passes or else it's election time" or "the coalition parties agree or else it's election time"? In other countries and other systems, such disagreements and failures to pass legislation aren't regarded as automatic grounds for armageddon.

hatrickpatrick · 18-01-2015 1:34am

conorh91 wrote: »

We could also call it the separation of powers, a doctrine which is supposedly at the centre of our constitution and infused in the legal norms of the civilised world since Ancient Rome, but which Ireland has always casually ignored.

Excellent point.

What you have described is effectively what is laid down in law, but nobody ever asks why we don't do it.

And then we ask ourselves why we are plagued with such incompetent political officeholders.

Well my belief is that the poll results of independent candidates, combined with the recent public discussions on whipped politics and moves by even FG to relax it, shows by and large that a significant proportion of the people are now questioning that very issue and that it's going to change.

You're right, of course. I for one wouldn't be so staunchly opposed to the establishment parties if they actually enforced a separation of powers and didn't treat their TDs as empty vessels through which the cabinet dictates how the country is run.

hatrickpatrick · 18-01-2015 1:36am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now there's an appalling vista.

This is often repeated by those who favour established parties, but rarely explained.
Those who support independents have often explained why they believe such candidates would be more in tune with their electorate than party TDs - why do you feel this is a misconception? I've genuinely never seen someone who calls BS on the concept actually explain why (not criticising, it could simply be that they've never been asked)

marienbad · 18-01-2015 1:37am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Even FG's own TDs have admitted that they don't find the current system democratic enough.

The treatment of Lucinda Creighton, much as I dislike her and her policies, is a perfect example of how undemocratic it is. We don't need to rehash that debate yet again in this thread. A Dail of Independents is more likely to lead to an accountable cabinet - yes or no?

Explain where you're getting that from? I simply want a cabinet which is held to account by the parliament. Nothing more, nothing less.
I like the idea of elections being more frequent than every five years simply because it would lead to politicians being perpetually in fear of the population's reaction to their actions in power as opposed to only in fear of it for about a quarter of their term.

Specifically why do you imagine it couldn't pass anything? Be specific - what would stop TDs from voting through a bill which they either liked or felt commanded significant public support?

You talk as if minority governments have never existed anywhere in the world

I've always felt the "all or nothing" approach to budgets is pretty moronic as well - if the parliament rejects a budget, the cabinet should have another look at it before panicking and calling an election.
Why must we always deal in "this passes or else it's election time" or "the coalition parties agree or else it's election time"? In other countries and other systems, such disagreements and failures to pass legislation aren't regarded as automatic grounds for armageddon.

Because independents take the adage 'all politics is local' to the extreme. Nothing would get done and the 'pork barrelling' would become even more outlandish.

hatrickpatrick · 18-01-2015 1:40am

Also sorry to drag us back to page one posts, but I have to question the following remark:

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Definitely seems like Labor are making a recovery at SF's expense.

Do you really see Labour as currently making a recovery? Whatever about SF, Labour are and remain the lowest established party in terms of opinion polling, and their "recovery" is a recovery only from a shockingly low result a month ago, back to a still low result which is identical to their recent streak of results.

I'd hardly call that a recovery, to be honest. They're still walking along rock bottom, and have merely managed to step out of a pothole. They remain on the same road.

hatrickpatrick · 18-01-2015 1:49am

marienbad wrote: »

Because independents take the adage 'all politics is local' to the extreme. Nothing would get done and the 'pork barrelling' would become even more outlandish.

Look at the independents we've had. Flanagan, Daly and Wallace were all extensively involved in exposing the Justice scandals of 2014, making sure they remained at the centre of public discourse and Dail debates until they led to resignations of the most senior figures involved. Richard Boyd Barrett has spoken about everything from the US military's use of Shannon to the Anglo payments. Stephen Donnelly has repeatedly spoken out on a wide variety of issues and was instrumental in exposing the corrupt nature of whipped politics when he stepped aside from the banking enquiry after Enda exposed his dictatorial approach to it. Catherine Murphy has spoken about many issues relating to austerity. Thomas Pringle has been vocally involved in trying to deal with the banking issue, including his court case against the fiscal compact.

That's just a handful of independent TDs, all of whom have made their names speaking on national issues - important, serious issued - and in some cases, such as those of Wallace, Flanagan and Daly, causing very serious scandals to be properly debated in public.

But yes, independent candidates do nothing but look for national funding to fix village potholes. :rolleyes:

marienbad · 18-01-2015 1:58am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Look at the independents we've had. Flanagan, Daly and Wallace were all extensively involved in exposing the Justice scandals of 2014, making sure they remained at the centre of public discourse and Dail debates until they led to resignations of the most senior figures involved. Richard Boyd Barrett has spoken about everything from the US military's use of Shannon to the Anglo payments. Stephen Donnelly has repeatedly spoken out on a wide variety of issues and was instrumental in exposing the corrupt nature of whipped politics when he stepped aside from the banking enquiry after Enda exposed his dictatorial approach to it. Catherine Murphy has spoken about many issues relating to austerity. Thomas Pringle has been vocally involved in trying to deal with the banking issue, including his court case against the fiscal compact.

That's just a handful of independent TDs, all of whom have made their names speaking on national issues - important, serious issued - and in some cases, such as those of Wallace, Flanagan and Daly, causing very serious scandals to be properly debated in public.

But yes, independent candidates do nothing but look for national funding to fix village potholes. :rolleyes:

But this is just par for the course , always fearless in opposition but given the balance of power or a close Dail and we see a different story . Tony Gregory ( a man that in many ways I have huge admiration for ) did great for his constituency but help bankrupt the rest of us , same with Jackie Healy Rae and loads more . It was ever thus.

Look I agree with you that the current system is deeply flawed and the failure to deliver on the promise of reform from the current lot is a terrible betrayal.

But maybe their initial efforts being so resoundingly rejected didn't help either - particularly on flawed reasoning such as the Senate one.

alaimacerc · 18-01-2015 2:12am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A Dail of Independents is more likely to lead to an accountable cabinet - yes or no?

I think the problems with your apparent take of "accountability" have been adequately explored already.

Explain where you're getting that from? I simply want a cabinet which is held to account by the parliament. Nothing more, nothing less.
I like the idea of elections being more frequent than every five years simply because it would lead to politicians being perpetually in fear of the population's reaction to their actions in power as opposed to only in fear of it for about a quarter of their term.

Because you're cherrypicking elements of the US system that tend to produce those results, then rubbing your hands approvingly at the prospects of it stymieing the functions of government. Even parts of the terminology, without bothering to explain what sense "midterm" could conceivably mean in a parliamentary democracy. (Let's assume you simply mean "general election every two or three years". Itself a recipe for more shameless pandering and localism.) That would be where.

Specifically why do you imagine it couldn't pass anything? Be specific - what would stop TDs from voting through a bill which they either liked or felt commanded significant public support?

Sure, the Motherhood and Apple Pie Act (2017) would get voted in with no problems. Good luck getting 79 TDs elected on "I'm opposed to what the previous shower did, and in favour of painless solutions to everything!" 'tickets' to concur on much else.

You talk as if minority governments have never existed anywhere in the world

No, I don't. You talk as if my critique has anything to do with the possibility of minority governments. It's about your gleeful anticipation of a rolling maul of cats-in-a-sack independents with no coherent platform or ideology failing to govern the country. Essentially your prescription is, "Everything wrong with Irish politics? Let's have more of it."

In other countries and other systems, such disagreements and failures to pass legislation aren't regarded as automatic grounds for armageddon.

By which you mean non-parliamentary systems, as far as I can see. Actual examples keenly sought.

conorh91 · 18-01-2015 3:09am

alaimacerc wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In other countries and other systems, such disagreements and failures to pass legislation aren't regarded as automatic grounds for armageddon.

By which you mean non-parliamentary systems, as far as I can see. Actual examples keenly sought.

Ah yes, Germany; that famously armageddon-like state.

hatrickpatrick · 18-01-2015 3:30am

marienbad wrote: »

But this is just par for the course , always fearless in opposition but given the balance of power or a close Dail and we see a different story . Tony Gregory ( a man that in many ways I have huge admiration for ) did great for his constituency but help bankrupt the rest of us , same with Jackie Healy Rae and loads more . It was ever thus.

Yes, but do you see the difference? Those independents held the balance of power in a coalition with parties under the current "all or nothing" system of government.

In a whipless system, they would have no such leverage, as the opposition wouldn't be guaranteed to vote against and the government party TDs wouldn't be guaranteed to vote for.
In a whipless system, the concept of "government" and "opposition" in the actual Dail would essentially be redundant - you'd have a cabinet entirely independent of the parliament, and the "alignment" of TDs would simply be irrelevant. A bill would either earn a majority of votes or it wouldn't. I'd argue that what gives independents such a ridiculous amount of power in previous situations is that we rely on a "government majority" to define the success of the Dail itself. If that concept was moot, then the "balance of power" would be held by each individual TD equally.

Look I agree with you that the current system is deeply flawed and the failure to deliver on the promise of reform from the current lot is a terrible betrayal.

But maybe their initial efforts being so resoundingly rejected didn't help either - particularly on flawed reasoning such as the Senate one.

The main reason people I know (can't speak for anyone else) rejected the Seanad referendum was that they saw it, however unreasonably, as removing one more obstacle to the total domination of the cabinet. Had they had confidence in an independent Dail holding the cabinet to account, they might not have felt it necessary to have a "valve" in the form of the Seanad, however weak it is.

alaimacerc · 18-01-2015 4:35am

conorh91 wrote: »

Ah yes, Germany; that famously armageddon-like state.

Perhaps I neglected to spell out the implied "examples of" context here. As far as I know, Germany is hardly well-known for vast roving bands of freebooting independents, systemic minority governments, complete absence of party management, etc. About the only thing that springs to mind is the somewhat more restricted scope and nature of application of no-confidence motions.

That the scope of the sweeping step-change reform we're talking about? Swapping Enda's Blueshirts for much the same EPP thing in a different colour-scheme, in a multi-party parliament with a slightly snazzier roof, representing the conventional left, right, centre and others political spectrum? OK, sounds OK to me. Kinda not really in line with the "rapid-turnover House of Representatives run by the Rosses and Wallaces holding the executive to account" rhetoric floated in this thread, though.

conorh91 · 18-01-2015 4:47am

alaimacerc wrote: »

Perhaps I neglected to spell out the implied "examples of" context here. As far as I know, Germany is hardly well-known for vast roving bands of freebooting independents, systemic minority governments, complete absence of party management, etc.

Oh, a strawman. Predictable.

You basically asked hatrickpatrick to exclude from his answer non-parliamentary systems, and you were clearly referring to the facilitation of internal disagreement and occasional failure to pass legislation, because that's what you'd quoted. Why else the reference to non-parliamentary systems? It's not as though non-parliamentary systems are known for "vast roving bands of freebooting independents" either.

Germany's legislature facilitates internal dissent in a way that we should consider replicating.

alaimacerc · 18-01-2015 5:17am

conorh91 wrote: »

Oh, a strawman. Predictable.

An attempt at unpicking your very bizarre example (in the context of HP's even odder premise). Really no effort at construction on my part whatsoever.

You basically asked hatrickpatrick to exclude from his answer non-parliamentary systems, and you were clearly referring to the facilitation of internal disagreement and occasional failure to pass legislation, because that's what you'd quoted. Why else the reference to non-parliamentary systems? It's not as though non-parliamentary systems are known for "vast roving bands of freebooting independents" either.

We have a parliamentary system. HP keeps cherrypicking elements of non-parliamentary systems ("midterm" elections, confirmation hearings, etc). Unless he's going to come right out and say "we should switch from a parliamentary to a US-style presidential system", these are entirely unhelpful comparisons. Hence my suggestion that parliamentary comparisons would be more productive. But if I'm missing some obvious solution as to how you have a general election in the middle of a parliamentary term, please, either of you, do enlighten me.

Germany's legislature facilitates internal dissent in a way that we should consider replicating.

Facilitates it how? By having a party-dominated parliament -- elected by a party list system, yet -- with a track record of stable majoritarian coalitions. How goes this remotely compare to the scenario HP seems to relish, with government by independents, or failing which, endemic occurrence of minority governments, precluding any party getting its business through? (Which seems to be HP's entire objective.)

hatrickpatrick · 18-01-2015 7:00am

alaimacerc wrote: »

We have a parliamentary system. HP keeps cherrypicking elements of non-parliamentary systems ("midterm" elections, confirmation hearings, etc). Unless he's going to come right out and say "we should switch from a parliamentary to a US-style presidential system", these are entirely unhelpful comparisons. Hence my suggestion that parliamentary comparisons would be more productive. But if I'm missing some obvious solution as to how you have a general election in the middle of a parliamentary term, please, either of you, do enlighten me.

Your error in reading my posts is assuming I want to swap our existing system for another existing system. Something doesn't necessarily have to be being done in some other country to be a good idea. I'm sure the first country ever to hold free elections contained a good number of people saying "but no one else is doing this, we should be copying other countries" and yet now it's regarded as the norm for a civilized society.

My use of the word "mid term" was perhaps misguided. All I meant was that I like the fact that representatives in the US are up for re-election every two years instead of five, meaning they are in perpetual fear of the electorate rather than having a "trough" period in which they feel they can safely ignore the electorate. That's all.

Relating back to the poll results in the OP, the plain fact is that voters are turning away from established parties in droves, and the established parties are now seriously considering allowing the Dail to be somewhat independent from the cabinet. Many who are opposed to this still trot out the "independent votes are just meaningless protest votes" sh!te, but in all honesty, I feel that if Red C produced a poll tomorrow asking people straight up if they'd like to see a Dail which operated independently of the cabinet and a clear majority responded positively to that suggestion, those posters here who are opposed would still find some way to dismiss the result and claim it meant something totally different with absolutely no evidence to back up that claim. :rolleyes:

To give you an analogy, if people started abandoning Tesco and Super Valu in massive droves and opting instead for smaller local shops, those posters would be saying "this probably means X or it probably means Y - but it certainly doesn't mean that people are tired of how the big supermarkets operate". It strikes me as incredibly obvious that the appalling guillotine politics we've been subjected to by the FG/Lab coalition is a a major factor in why people are so disgusted by those parties, yet there are many posters here who seem desperate to find literally any alternative explanation for the trend other than "people are tired of guillotine politics".

Again, I'm honestly starting to believe that if Red C ran a poll tomorrow which returned a headline of "Majority of voters tired of guillotine politics", those posters would still be here trying to say "Those voters are really saying something else entirely and are probably fine with guillotine politics".

WheatenBriar · 18-01-2015 1:56pm

I expect SF to gain a seat in Wicklow probably at the expense of Simon Harris funnily enough
The remaining 4 will keep their seats
I think Anne Ferris will buck the trend against labour if the water thing has died down a bit by then as there's a historic labour vote in that county,I also think there will be no change in wexford , the independent vote sticking with the man with the long hair and tie aversion

BoJack Horseman · 18-01-2015 2:17pm

WheatenBriar wrote: »

I expect SF to gain a seat in Wicklow probably at the expense of Simon Harris funnily enough
The remaining 4 will keep their seats
I think Anne Ferris will buck the trend against labour

Back in the 90s the Wicklow Labour vote was strong enough to bring in 2 TDs (but vote splitting /3 candidates shot themselves in the foot).

I'm unsure about Ferris though.....

Brady should be elected after losing narrowly to Donnelly in 2011.

I think Harris will be re-elected, Andrew Doyle too.

Timmons isn't a dead cert, despite ruling west Wicklow like a fifedom..... Hell probably make it though.

Donnelly should be reelected, but it won't be as easy as some assume..... He's rapidly developing into another generic 'no to everything' parish pumper.

There is a FF vote in the county, but the candidates are muck, so it won't get a seat.

Predicting (a long way out)
2 x FG
1x SF
1x Indie
1 x God Squad /Timmons

WheatenBriar · 18-01-2015 2:49pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Back in the 90s the Wicklow Labour vote was strong enough to bring in 2 TDs (but vote splitting /3 candidates shot themselves in the foot).

I'm unsure about Ferris though.....

Brady should be elected after losing narrowly to Donnelly in 2011.

I think Harris will be re-elected, Andrew Doyle too.

Timmons isn't a dead cert, despite ruling west Wicklow like a fifedom..... Hell probably make it though.

Donnelly should be reelected, but it won't be as easy as some assume..... He's rapidly developing into another generic 'no to everything' parish pumper.

There is a FF vote in the county, but the candidates are muck, so it won't get a seat.

Predicting (a long way out)
2 x FG
1x SF
1x Indie
1 x God Squad /Timmons

I'd rate Timmins chances higher than Harris,I think enough of the latter's vote will drift over to Donnelly to cause him problems and push Donnelly over the line
It wouldn't surprise me if Donnelly topped the poll this time which Tbh would be a deserved position but will lock out any transfers(if any great number) from helping Harris
I'd agree that Ferris is weak though but not as weak as Harris but it depends on how big a drift there is to SF
Doyle is safe I'd say

conorh91 · 18-01-2015 2:56pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Facilitates it how? By having a party-dominated parliament -- elected by a party list system, yet -- with a track record of stable majoritarian coalitions. How goes this remotely compare to the scenario HP seems to relish, with government by independents, or failing which, endemic occurrence of minority governments, precluding any party getting its business through? (Which seems to be HP's entire objective.)

You just did it again.

Why are you doing this?

I made clear in my last post I was not referring to independent v party politics. And if you read back, the question you asked, to which I responded, related only to internal dissent. I am talking about internal dissent being facilitated in legislatures of parliamentary democracies such as in Germany. How can I make this any more clear? A billboard? A picture? what?

Red C Poll

Comments