Red C Poll

alaimacerc · 20-01-2015 7:17pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

At a rough guess there about 35-40 TD' on the government side actively involved (Minister, Jr Minister , Sitting on a some committees). In opposition you have less than that if you total up the "Shadow ministers" and committee members - So 60-70 out of 166 actually doing National work in our National parliament.

There's 15 people just in the cabinet, plus another three "attendees". The number of junior ministers is anything up to 20. I think you're considerably underestimating the numbers involved in Dáil committees, but I'm much too lazy to try to count all those on spec.

Even if you were to cut these numbers down, it would be a very odd sort of parliament where being part of the majority almost automatically meant you were in the executive. Maybe this would tend to act against the "local embarrassment" effect... but it's a very kill-or-cure effect to try.

Quin_Dub · 20-01-2015 9:15pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

There's 15 people just in the cabinet, plus another three "attendees". The number of junior ministers is anything up to 20. I think you're considerably underestimating the numbers involved in Dáil committees, but I'm much too lazy to try to count all those on spec.

Even if you were to cut these numbers down, it would be a very odd sort of parliament where being part of the majority almost automatically meant you were in the executive. Maybe this would tend to act against the "local embarrassment" effect... but it's a very kill-or-cure effect to try.

Maybe 60-70 is a bit extreme , but I think we can all agree there's an awful lot of dead-wood in the Dail (and not always their fault to be fair , there's just nothing substantive for a back-bencher to do).

They may wangle the odd committee seat but do we really need 12 or whatever on committee XYZ when we'd probably be grand with 6 or 7 etc.?

CramCycle · 20-01-2015 9:43pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yeah, another poster, but that's what you appeared to be commenting on. Their suggestion was that you "solve" Dáil localism by giving the Seanad a local role, to in some way "ringfence" TDs from having one. I suggested that would worsen the problem, because you now have an even more virulently localist party (or other) rival to potentially compete with.

All I commented on was the ludicrous way things are that a TD is involved in local, personal, issues. There are some local issues which may give rise or notification to national issues but that's the only part of a TDs job that should even be close to a local issue.

And that's inevitably going to be a subjective judgement, and inevitably going to be open to abuse as soon as you empower someone to make such judgements.

By that reasoning there should be no way to report or allege any abuse of power in any area as people will abuse the system.

A very simple example is the bullying reporting in my workplace. By your logic it should not be there as someone will abuse it.

I don't think there's anything magical about county boundaries, and infrastructure isn't forever. The real question is, which services are better under local (or regional) democratic control, and at what level or critical mass?

Agreed but for certain issues that can be considered local, it provides a nice frame that people accept.

Service "delivery" is I think a secondary consideration: if it's purely simply a matter of local offices or decentralisation that can be done with or without formal devolution, according to whichever is the handiest. There is, as you point out, no relationship between local democracy and where you might want to pop into to get your motor tax disk.

Depends on the service, but motor tax is a prime example of something that can be centralised for efficiency.

alaimacerc · 21-01-2015 3:29am

CramCycle wrote: »

All I commented on was the ludicrous way things are that a TD is involved in local, personal, issues. There are some local issues which may give rise or notification to national issues but that's the only part of a TDs job that should even be close to a local issue.

Yes, "should", I think there's some agreement on this point. The question is how to ensure something more on those lines than we have at present. FreudianSlippers suggested a "Bundesrat" (local representatives) model for the Senate; you were replying to my critique of that. So if it's not what you intended to speak to, you were missing some key context.

By that reasoning there should be no way to report or allege any abuse of power in any area as people will abuse the system.

Well, no, there should always be such a system: the electorate are supposed to be the people dealing with "abuse of power", by the expedient of withholding it. There's a clear sovereignty-of-the-people issue when it comes to disciplining elected representatives, by anyone other than the people they represent. Are you going to disbar someone from elected office for seeking to fix too many potholes?

Depends on the service, but motor tax is a prime example of something that can be centralised for efficiency.

On the contrary, I think it's a prime example of something that there's no case for local democracy involvement in. Whether there needs to be per-county offices for users' convenience is another matter entirely.

alaimacerc · 21-01-2015 3:45am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Maybe 60-70 is a bit extreme , but I think we can all agree there's an awful lot of dead-wood in the Dail (and not always their fault to be fair , there's just nothing substantive for a back-bencher to do).

I think it's a system in the process of admittedly-much-less-than-advertised change. Numbers of seats have gone slightly down, committee work has become somewhat more extensive and meaningful. Hopefully they'll eventually meet somewhere in the middle.

They may wangle the odd committee seat but do we really need 12 or whatever on committee XYZ when we'd probably be grand with 6 or 7 etc.?

I'm not hung up on numbers on each one, but I do think that having a decent number of backbenchers to man the committees is pretty important. If you have a third of the parliament in the executive, a third going decent work in the committees, and a third being dead wood, you're not doing too badly. Trying to pare back too hard might just mean... more of the dead wood ending up in the first two groups.

CramCycle · 21-01-2015 12:19pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, "should", I think there's some agreement on this point. The question is how to ensure something more on those lines than we have at present. FreudianSlippers suggested a "Bundesrat" (local representatives) model for the Senate; you were replying to my critique of that. So if it's not what you intended to speak to, you were missing some key context.

I missed that, I just thought you put our two posts together.

Well, no, there should always be such a system: the electorate are supposed to be the people dealing with "abuse of power", by the expedient of withholding it. There's a clear sovereignty-of-the-people issue when it comes to disciplining elected representatives, by anyone other than the people they represent. Are you going to disbar someone from elected office for seeking to fix too many potholes?

No, but they should be fined or carded for claiming that electing them as a TD can get potholes fixed or did get potholes fixed. Its not in their remit. Obviously a system that needs refining but I wasn't calling for them to be disbarred/banned but that if they continually lied to the electorate in a provable fashion, then they would get repeated warnings before being banned from running or sitting in the office for a period of time.
The issue nowadays is that many of the electorate think that these minor, local, issues are within the remit of TDs and possibly continue to vote for them on this basis, although I hope this is changing.

On the contrary, I think it's a prime example of something that there's no case for local democracy involvement in. Whether there needs to be per-county offices for users' convenience is another matter entirely.

That's pretty much what I said, motor tax is something that is legislated for, there is an online system and a government department for it. Other than making making the forms more freely available at local post offices (convenience covered), there is no need for a motor tax office in any constituency. All someone needs is a receipt of postage date if they are pulled over before the form is processed and the disk sent out. This applies to alot of offices and jobs within councils, these public servants could be retrained into other government departments for better use of their time, particularly departments with paperwork backlogs (eg the report this week on department of social protection having back logs of 20 weeks etc.). If they do not want to move into a department they are capable of working in, they have the right to quit or leave. This maybe going way of topic now.

Banjo String · 15-02-2015 1:47am

Lol

Sinn Fein is currently the country’s most popular political party on 26pc jumping five points since the last survey.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/revealed-sinn-fein-the-most-popular-party-in-ireland-30992727.html

marienbad · 15-02-2015 2:00am

Banjo String wrote: »

Lol

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/revealed-sinn-fein-the-most-popular-party-in-ireland-30992727.html

Not much good without transfers

Sierra Oscar · 15-02-2015 2:04am

marienbad wrote: »

Not much good without transfers

At 26% SF would still pickup seats with or without transfers.

Get ready for government SF. People have very high expectations after all the rhetoric over the last few years.

FG / SF government on the cards.

marienbad · 15-02-2015 2:06am

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

At 26% SF would still pickup seats with or without transfers.

Get ready for government SF. People have very high expectations after all the rhetoric over the last few years.

FG / SF government on the cards.

Indeed, I could have worded that better.

Iwasfrozen · 15-02-2015 2:40am

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

At 26% SF would still pickup seats with or without transfers.

Get ready for government SF. People have very high expectations after all the rhetoric over the last few years.

FG / SF government on the cards.

It's possible but I think FF / SF more likely as they're more ideologically similar than FG / SF.

Shurimgreat · 15-02-2015 3:00am

There seems to be a direct correlation between the number of skeletons found in Sinn Fein's cupboard and their popularity.

Maybe if FF or Labour disappeared a few people, covered up a few crimes, and carried out a bombing campaign or two, they might grow in popularity too? It's worth a try at least.

Nodin · 15-02-2015 4:41am

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

At 26% SF would still pickup seats with or without transfers.

Get ready for government SF. People have very high expectations after all the rhetoric over the last few years.

FG / SF government on the cards.

I can't see it meself.

irishpancake · 15-02-2015 12:47pm

Shurimgreat wrote:

There seems to be a direct correlation between the number of skeletons found in Sinn Fein's cupboard and their popularity.

Shurimgreat wrote:

Maybe if FF or Labour disappeared a few people, covered up a few crimes, and carried out a bombing campaign or two, they might grow in popularity too? It's worth a try at least.

You are joking, aren't you?

You don't know that FF came from a violent revolutionary movement called the IRA?

Or that Labour has within it's ranks people who were members of the Official Republican Movement, murderers, assassins, fraudsters, forgers, Stalinists, all associated with the OIRA and Group B gangsters.

Sierra Oscar · 15-02-2015 1:32pm

Nodin wrote: »

I can't see it meself.

I can.

Neither want to do business with FF.

FG are already starting to argue that someone is going to have to keep an eye on SF if they get into government and are terrified at the prospect of a FF / SF government. Let's not forget that FG approached SF in 2007 to discuss the potential of forming a government together.

Similarly SF have been saying that Labour have been failing to blunt FG's 'right wing' policies and they could do better to protect the most vulnerable.

It will be a SF / FG government or a SF / Independent government. As support for the independents has started to fall as predicted I reckon the SF / FG option is most likely.

Rightwing · 15-02-2015 2:01pm

It's good to see SF rise. We need a proper left/right divide. Only problem is I can't see too many on the right.

BoJack Horseman · 15-02-2015 3:32pm

How can labour be 9% in RedC & half that on Millward Brown?

WheatenBriar · 15-02-2015 5:46pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

How can labour be 9% in RedC & half that on Millward Brown?

Because there's something wrong with MB polling

alaimacerc · 15-02-2015 5:52pm

Rightwing wrote: »

It's good to see SF rise. We need a proper left/right divide. Only problem is I can't see too many on the right.

Explain to me how the "rise" of a grubby bunch of irredentist nationalists whose policies boil down to "tell the latest populist outrage what they want to hear" is giving us a "proper left/right divide"? I think the best you could say is "threatening the Civil War status quo". (To be replaced with a Troubles status quo?)

Yeah, well. A proper left/right divide. Would be a very good idea.

alaimacerc · 15-02-2015 6:03pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It will be a SF / FG government or a SF / Independent government. As support for the independents has started to fall as predicted I reckon the SF / FG option is most likely.

If the Indies held up, wouldn't they very likely to be more likely to break in favour of supporting a FG government than a SF one? Unless SF is massively the largest party, or unless you throw FF into the "left-led government" mix. (Meaning that SF+Labour+left-leaning Indies > FF, so what harm...)

I still really struggle to see the rationale for FG/SF government. Short of a programme for government saying "We agree on nothing, will do nothing, but we'll still piss off our respective bases of support. But hey! Bums on ministerial seats, woo!" Well, maybe not nothing. It does seem they're both happy to talk out of both sides of their mouths on abortion...

maccored · 15-02-2015 6:12pm

Nodin wrote: »

I can't see it meself.

i cant see SF going in as junior partners. if they got the seats though, I could see it happening the other way around. personally I'd prefer they waited til the next election and garnered some solid support by being a strong opposition.

Nodin · 15-02-2015 6:16pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I can.

Neither want to do business with FF.

FG are already starting to argue that someone is going to have to keep an eye on SF if they get into government and are terrified at the prospect of a FF / SF government. Let's not forget that FG approached SF in 2007 to discuss the potential of forming a government together.

Similarly SF have been saying that Labour have been failing to blunt FG's 'right wing' policies and they could do better to protect the most vulnerable.

It will be a SF / FG government or a SF / Independent government. As support for the independents has started to fall as predicted I reckon the SF / FG option is most likely.

Sort of ignores the truly visceral loathing that exists on both sides, tbh.

alaimacerc · 15-02-2015 6:17pm

maccored wrote: »

i cant see SF going in as junior partners. if they got the seats though, I could see it happening the other way around.

Supported by whom? FG? FF? Mix-and-match?

personally I'd prefer they waited til the next election and garnered some solid support by being a strong opposition.

Incoherent populist outrage can go down, as well as up...

efb · 15-02-2015 6:21pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

How can labour be 9% in RedC & half that on Millward Brown?

Both having an error margin of 2% would explain that

michael999999 · 15-02-2015 6:26pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

At 26% SF would still pickup seats with or without transfers.

Get ready for government SF. People have very high expectations after all the rhetoric over the last few years.

FG / SF government on the cards.

They CANT do any worse than Fianna fail!

maccored · 15-02-2015 6:32pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Supported by whom? FG? FF? Mix-and-match?

are you telling me come election time, that if SF somehow managed to have the makings of a majority government, that FG or FF wouldnt be running around like lapdogs looking to be a junior partner? I cant see SF getting that kind of numbers - but I also cant see them being junior partner to FF, FG or Labour.

maccored · 15-02-2015 6:33pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Incoherent populist outrage can go down, as well as up...

sure we know that from the past few governments .... i dont see the relevance to SF> In fact I dont go the for whole populist SF theory either. they arent populist considering they usually stick by what they promise.

alaimacerc · 15-02-2015 6:36pm

maccored wrote: »

are you telling me come election time, that if SF somehow managed to have the makings of a majority government, that FG or FF wouldnt be running around like lapdogs looking to be a junior partner? I cant see SF getting that kind of numbers - but I also cant see them being junior partner to FF, FG or Labour.

What precisely are the "makings of a majority government"? We're talking about a scenario in which the three largest parties have broadly similar numbers of seats, are we not? Obviously you want to draw a deep distinction between SF being slightly the larger party, and them being slightly the smaller, than whoever they're talking about going in with.

maccored · 15-02-2015 6:38pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

What precisely are the "makings of a majority government"? We're talking about a scenario in which the three largest parties have broadly similar numbers of seats, are we not? Obviously you want to draw a deep distinction between SF being slightly the larger party, and them being slightly the smaller, than whoever they're talking about going in with.

afraid I left my magic ball at home so I cant fortell how the next election will pan out. obviously you really need to read my post a bit closer as all the data is there plain to see. the last line is one you might want to read - "I cant see SF getting that kind of numbers - but I also cant see them being junior partner to FF, FG or Labour"

alaimacerc · 15-02-2015 6:41pm

maccored wrote: »

afraid I left my magic ball at home so I cant fortell how the next election will pan out. obviously you really need to read my post a bit closer as all the data is there plain to see. the last line is one you might want to read - "I cant see SF getting that kind of numbers - but I also cant see them being junior partner to FF, FG or Labour"

Ah, so furious handwaving it is, then.

"Please Lord, make SF popular, but not so popular they actually have to face any political decisions they might make any of their supporters uncomfortable."

alaimacerc · 15-02-2015 6:44pm

maccored wrote: »

sure we know that from the past few governments .... i dont see the relevance to SF> In fact I dont go the for whole populist SF theory either. they arent populist considering they usually stick by what they promise.

Yes, "not populist because I like 'em". Very rigorous analysis there. Look at SF's last few budget submissions. They haven't even managed to "stick by what they promise" as long as time to make the next set of promises. Much less until actually implementing any of them. We might likewise go through SF's policy document flipflops, but to be fair not even SF supporters read those, much less expect anyone else to believe them.

Nodin · 16-02-2015 7:41am

maccored wrote: »

afraid I left my magic ball at home so I cant fortell how the next election will pan out. obviously you really need to read my post a bit closer as all the data is there plain to see. the last line is one you might want to read - "I cant see SF getting that kind of numbers - but I also cant see them being junior partner to FF, FG or Labour"

t'would be suicide.

maccored · 16-02-2015 11:28am

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ah, so furious handwaving it is, then.

"Please Lord, make SF popular, but not so popular they actually have to face any political decisions they might make any of their supporters uncomfortable."

"Please lord make this person stopped ranting

Yours
Maccored"

@Nodin - indeed it would. Adams actually made the point on newstalk this morning that they have no intention of going in as junior partners.

maccored · 16-02-2015 11:31am

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, "not populist because I like 'em". Very rigorous analysis there. Look at SF's last few budget submissions. They haven't even managed to "stick by what they promise" as long as time to make the next set of promises. Much less until actually implementing any of them. We might likewise go through SF's policy document flipflops, but to be fair not even SF supporters read those, much less expect anyone else to believe them.

What powers of analysis you have. whats wrong with their budget submissions precisely. And which document 'flipflops' are you referring to?

realdanbreen · 16-02-2015 11:34am

maccored wrote: »

"Please lord make this person stopped ranting

Yours
Maccored"

@Nodin - indeed it would. Adams actually made the point on newstalk this morning that they have no intention of going in as junior partners.

Well if Gerry Adams said that then it must be true.

CramCycle · 16-02-2015 11:40am

realdanbreen wrote: »

Well if Gerry Adams said that then it must be true.

Its been said by Mary Lou in the past as well, while not a fan, have to agree with this decision. They won't go in as Junior partners as they would end up forcing the Dail to dissolve on the first serious issue where there view differs to the Senior member or losing the backbone of their support on the ground.

They are unlikely to make senior partners, which suits them as well, as with anyone who believes they will be on the opposition bench, its alot easier to say what your supporters have to hear without actually backing it up if any of them simply don't face upto the scrutiny of being implemented.

michael999999 · 16-02-2015 11:44am

CramCycle wrote: »

Its been said by Mary Lou in the past as well, while not a fan, have to agree with this decision. They won't go in as Junior partners as they would end up forcing the Dail to dissolve on the first serious issue where there view differs to the Senior member or losing the backbone of their support on the ground.

They are unlikely to make senior partners, which suits them as well, as with anyone who believes they will be on the opposition bench, its alot easier to say what your supporters have to hear without actually backing it up if any of them simply don't face upto the scrutiny of being implemented.

You mean just like what fine Gael and labour are doing now?

CramCycle · 16-02-2015 11:56am

michael999999 wrote: »

You mean just like what fine Gael and labour are doing now?

Not sure what you mean. Fine Gael and Labour have stayed in government and reached workable, even if they were not amicable agreements to keep it going (for how long more, who knows).

I can't see Fine Gael going in as Junior partners to anyone who might make enough votes, but maybe I am basing that on too narrow a view, maybe they would but on their experience of being the bigger dog at the table, I just can't see it at the minute. Labour will always have too unless they grow considerably.

maccored · 16-02-2015 12:51pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Well if Gerry Adams said that then it must be true.

as in opposition to your if gerry adams said it then he must be lying? common sense says it.

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2015 1:11pm

maccored wrote: »

Adams actually made the point on newstalk this morning that they have no intention of going in as junior partners.

I believe he also made the point that Sinn Féin are not in a position to make full use of a 26% vote share - he said the party is still developing or something like that.

If FG and Sinn Fein get are equal first preference share in the polls going into the election, FG will get a lot more seats.

maccored · 16-02-2015 2:07pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I believe he also made the point that Sinn Féin are not in a position to make full use of a 26% vote share

... which is why i said in an earlier post that I doubt they'll get those kinds of numbers. I'd prefer if they stayed in opposition for another few years tbh. cant do them any harm.

FTA69 · 16-02-2015 4:56pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

FG are already starting to argue that someone is going to have to keep an eye on SF if they get into government and are terrified at the prospect of a FF / SF government. Let's not forget that FG approached SF in 2007 to discuss the potential of forming a government together.

What? When did that happen?? I have absolutely no recollection of that happening and my memory is that Fine Gael categorically ruled out coalition between the two. Sinn Féin in 2007 were blatantly angling for a coalition with Fianna Fáil and very luckily for them, were rebuffed in favour of the Greens.

Similarly SF have been saying that Labour have been failing to blunt FG's 'right wing' policies and they could do better to protect the most vulnerable.

Sinn Féin also learned the lesson of the Greens and Labour and realised that entering coalition as a minority partner propping up austerity will lead to ruin. I know that Adams has a near fanatical desire to be in government in the north and south but from what I hear, the lessons of 2007 have been well learned. Muppets like McGuinness and his ilk would be likely to be enthusiastic with a power-at-all-costs approach but I can't see the party going for it. If they do ever go for coalition it will be on a "green agenda" with Fianna Fáil.

It will be a SF / FG government or a SF / Independent government. As support for the independents has started to fall as predicted I reckon the SF / FG option is most likely.

The Blueshirts would never go for it, there'd be uproar.

Permabear · 16-02-2015 5:59pm

This post has been deleted.

listermint · 16-02-2015 6:01pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Independents may take rise, There is alot of anger out there at FG. Unless they get their house in order. i.e. ditch Enda and perhaps a few of the older like minded loons well then they will suffer.

A radical overhaul of that party would give them an instant fresh face.

Permabear · 16-02-2015 6:14pm

This post has been deleted.

golfball37 · 16-02-2015 6:51pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just because the economy is growing now it still doesn't justify what happened here.
It was morally wrong to attach banking debt to the Irish tax payer and I hope this is still sung from the rooftops no matter how we are doing.

Godge · 16-02-2015 7:01pm

listermint wrote: »

Independents may take rise, There is alot of anger out there at FG. Unless they get their house in order. i.e. ditch Enda and perhaps a few of the older like minded loons well then they will suffer.

A radical overhaul of that party would give them an instant fresh face.

The anger is fading.

The poll at the weekend was interesting but it wasn't a RedC poll who have been doing the most polls recently. The less often a polling company takes a poll, the less able to spot trends.

The next RedC poll will tell a lot.

Godge · 16-02-2015 7:06pm

One thing on the weekend poll.

SF said they won't go in as junior partners.

SF/FF/Ind is possible based on the figures. Martin wouldn't go for that, but he won't be leader if those figures pan out. Third biggest party? So which future FF leader would be happy as junior partner to SF?

Permabear · 16-02-2015 7:57pm

This post has been deleted.

michael999999 · 16-02-2015 8:04pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But its not really difficult to be the fastest growing economy statistically, when our starting base is so low. And Europe is up the ****ter.

Red C Poll

Comments