Can Greens capitalise on Labour ambiguity?

Múinteoir

Vincent Browne seems to think so

InFront

What do you think?

Why should a Fine Gael voter give a preference to Labour, knowing that this might result in Fianna Fail being returned to power?

The surest way of Fine Gael voters ensuring that their vote is not used to help Fianna Fail would be to vote for Fine Gael candidates and then vote Green - provided, of course, the Greens oblige with an unequivocal commitment.

Daft. If my FG votes are going to be transferred I'd like them to be transferred to the party who have only actually said one thing: they will put FG into power. Thinking that we might give higher preference to the Greens, who have a far less attractive candidate pool and who do not have as strong a bedrock of support with the average floating voter, is a very odd notion.

Sand

FG voters might as well vote Green #2, because Labour voters are not going to transfer their votes to FG. Theres already cries of blueshirts in the air. Greens could indeed do well because of that.

The only thing that unites FG and Labour is an opposition to FF, and in the case of Labour that opposition doesnt run very deep. FG and Labour have very little else in common - Labours support is traditionally left of center, and FG is traditionall right of center. The PDs are closer idealogically to FG than Labour are. And yet FG are asking their voters to support Labour, and Labour are asking their support to vote FG.

Politics needs a real shakeup when you consider the opposition is basically incoherent and neither can put forward a case to their own voters without startling the voters of their so-called "partners". About the only thing Rabbitte and Kenny appear to be clear on is that theyre desperate enough to play the race card and fish about for Stormfronts votes.

Otherwise its still about the bloody civil war and government pay packets.

flogen

InFront wrote:

What do you think?



Daft. If my FG votes are going to be transferred I'd like them to be transferred to the party who have only actually said one thing: they will put FG into power. Thinking that we might give higher preference to the Greens, who have a far less attractive candidate pool and who do not have as strong a bedrock of support with the average floating voter, is a very odd notion.

Given that Labour have been far more vocal in their opposition to a FF coalition than the Greens, why on earth would someone trying to avoid getting Bertie back in go for them anyway?
It's obvious that there's every chance of Labour going with FF, but just as much (if not more) of the Greens doing the same.

The only coalitions that will 100% not happen this time around are between the PD's or FG and Sinn Fein, because they rely on the anti-Sinn Fein vote too much to betray their base... no other party, FF, PD, Labour, FG, Green have well and truly ruled out any type of coalition (and those that have are difficult to believe)

ballooba

Vincent Browne's article relies on the Greens saying they will not go into government with FF. The Greens have not and will not say that. Vincent Browne suggesting it is not going to change their mind.

Sand is talking complete BS. FG/Lab are not trying to appeal to Stormfront voters. Although maybe Sand would prefer if they were appealing to Residents Against Racism Voters seeing as he doesn't believe in a middle ground.

Who says that the two parties in government have to have the same ideology. If they can reach some compromise between their ideologies then they will be better able to meet the needs of their combined following.

Everybody keeps making out that the difference between FG and FF is civil war politics. The difference is that FF have been robbing you and I for years.

ballooba

flogen wrote:

Given that Labour have been far more vocal in their opposition to a FF coalition than the Greens, why on earth would someone trying to avoid getting Bertie back in go for them anyway?
It's obvious that there's every chance of Labour going with FF, but just as much (if not more) of the Greens doing the same.

We want Greens in government. So far they have said they are not committed to us. Labour have. That's why my vote is #1 FG, #2 Lab, #3Green.

flogen wrote:

The only coalitions that will 100% not happen this time around are between the PD's or FG and Sinn Fein, because they rely on the anti-Sinn Fein vote too much to betray their base... no other party, FF, PD, Labour, FG, Green have well and truly ruled out any type of coalition (and those that have are difficult to believe)

You forget FF/FG. That will never happen.

flogen

ballooba wrote:

We want Greens in government. So far they have said they are not committed to us. Labour have. That's why my vote is #1 FG, #2 Lab, #3Green.

The Greens were lucky/smart enough not to be tied down early on like Labour - both parties have a strong potential for holding a balance of power, and while the Greens have made their demands of FF quite obvious, they're far less hostile towards a union with the party than Labour are - or at least they're far less hostile in public and those supporting them won't feel as betrayed should such a union occour.
It's perfectly understandable IMO.

You forget FF/FG. That will never happen.

I'd say the Tallaght Strategy was a grand coalition in everything but name... at least as much of a coalition as these things tend to be.

Sure - it's highly unlikely at this election, but should Ireland find itself with no potential majority Government all bets are off IMO, and while neither FF or FG are likely to make the move in anything other than an extreme situation, never say never (my money is on SF suddenly becoming acceptable in the event of no potential majority Government - not a coalition, but a voting pact of some sort).

Múinteoir

It can certainly be speculated that the Greens could also enter a coalition with FF as much as Labour (though Trevor Sargent has said he would resign as leader before it would happen), but the big problem that Labour have in this regard is the ghost of the Spring Tide.
Dick Spring brought the Labour Party to new levels of strength in the Dáil in 1992, very much on the back of a anti-FF agenda, yet then jumped into bed with them. That precedent (which the Greens don't have) is one element that a lot in the media are using to beat Pat Rabbitte with. I certainly believe that to be unfair to Pat Rabbitte. Dick Spring he ain't. But history like that comes back to haunt a party.

partholon

yup, i still havent forgiven em for hopping into the sack with FF back in the 90s. i was close but then dermott lacy used his casting vote to bring in the bin charges when labour harped on for months before hand about how it was unfair double taxation and said they wouldnt bring it in. ya just cant trust labour when the chips are down.

i reckon the greens are playing a blinder with this election. any comment ive heard from em says they will go into power with FF but on their terms only and only if certain ministers get the sack. its pure genius, youve hopped in the sack with the one party all the opposition want to get out yet come out looking like youve beaten em into bargaining on your terms. its certainly gives the greens more credibility than labour , who lets be honest, we all know will do the dirt. looking like a bunch of ignoble vote whores in the process

ballooba

If like me, you want FF out of government then the only viable way of achieving that is through a FG/Lab/Green coalition.

If you vote Green and not Labour then the best you will get is a FF/Green coalition or, in the unlikely event of PDs being a player in the next government then FF/Green/PD. Fianna Fail will still be the senior partner.

FF want to divide and conquer. If they can bring one of those three legs down then the stool collapses.

Only with a solid performance from those three parties can we say goodbye to Fianna Fail politics for a few years.

That's why I will be voting FG/Lab/Green. To do my best to ensure Lab or Greens don't have to get into bed with FF.

partholon

oh i want FF out but im a realist and come the election politics will take over and the next gov .will be FF/LAB, FF/GREEN or FF/SF. thats just the sad reality of it

the greens will get my vote (among others) but i wont vote FG or LAB. as the former doesnt represent me and that latter are untrustworthy.

ballooba

partholon wrote:

oh i want FF out but im a realist and come the election politics will take over and the next gov .will be FF/LAB, FF/GREEN or FF/SF. thats just the sad reality of it

If you take that attitude then what's the best you can hope for? That FF will throw the GP a few scraps?

Remember that the Green Party is currently smaller than the PDs. they have 6 seats. They polled 3.8% at G.E. 2002. They are currently at 4% in opinion polls.

I didn't vote in the 2002 elections. I wasn't happy with the government at the time but I wasn't registered to vote. I thought other people would change the government for me. It was a big shock when they didn't. I'm sure a lot of other people were in the same boat. Hopefully, those other people won't be making the same mistake this time. I certainly won't.

partholon

best you can hope for is FF to lose about 21 seats, the PDs will cease to exist only retaining 2 seats and the smaller parties and indies will increase dramatically becoming the power brokers in the next dail. at least thats what i hope.

like i said ideally i'd like FF out but what difference would FG be? will they take a different stance on shannon or the mayo gas issue, water rates or the EU? no. so whats the point. theres nothing radical about em and even macdowel could say that in the beginning about the PDs . its not an alternative, its musical chairs and if im gonna be stuck with FF in some guise or another i want to reward people that represent a genuine change in policy which is why my support will go to the little guys

ballooba

partholon wrote:

best you can hope for is FF to lose about 21 seats, the PDs will cease to exist only retaining 2 seats and the smaller parties and indies will increase dramatically becoming the power brokers in the next dail. at least thats what i hope.

Well, you seem to have made your mind up. I'm with you on the FF losing 21 seats bit. On the rest I'll have to agree to disagree.

flogen

ballooba wrote:

If you take that attitude then what's the best you can hope for? That FF will throw the GP a few scraps?

Remember that the Green Party is currently smaller than the PDs. they have 6 seats. They polled 3.8% at G.E. 2002. They are currently at 4% in opinion polls.

Not sure what poll you're going by, but the latest SBP/Red C one has the Greens at 7%, in fact they've never gone below the 5% mark since polling began.

And if we use polling as a tool for prediction (which in PR it cannot truly be) then at the moment it would take a coalition of FG/Lab/Green/SF/PD to oust FF, and that just isn't likely at all (partly for previously stated reasons).

[****Bizarre use of polling statistics alert****]

By the looks of things the ABB vote is not very strong at the moment, and the party that needs to up its support (and is failing to do so) is FG for the most part.

People can vote Lab and Green all they want, but it won't do much if FF are in the high 30s, low 40s.
Sorry to stick to the SBP/Red C poll (I just have it in front of me), but at worst FF have registered at around 32%. At best FG have registered at around 27%. So let's assume that that's how things end up with the big two after the election - while both are within reach of a coalition, those votes that went to Green and Labour would have done nothing to block FF.

In fact, if we assume Labour are serious about their anti-FF position (with their highest vote coming in at 15% in the SBP poll), we still can't guarantee a definitive block on FF by voting Green or Labour, because the Greens could still go in with FF and the PDs (worth noting that the PDs and Greens share voters in many areas, specifically Dublin South East and this would sit very well for people like McDowell).

I'm using some twisted logic here by taking the best results of each party irregardless of when it happened, but it's just to show that with each party at their best (against FF at their worst) still leaves FF in a very strong position. The truth is that Labour are less likely to hold the balance of power than the Greens are.

(another example for emphasis - with the Greens at their best, 8%, they would almost bring FF at their worst -32%- above Labour/FG at its joint best - 42% - if you understand where I'm going! With the help of the PDs, even at their worst - 2% - FG/Labour are in trouble.
In other words, if the current coalition polls as badly as it has at any point the last year, it still only needs a good boost from the Greens to beat FG/Labour at its collective strongest).

- I know, twisted logic, but I think the fact that me mixing and matching the figures to make it as beneficial as possible for the alternative coalition still sees them in the minority says a lot.

I didn't vote in the 2002 elections. I wasn't happy with the government at the time but I wasn't registered to vote. I thought other people would change the government for me. It was a big shock when they didn't. I'm sure a lot of other people were in the same boat. Hopefully, those other people won't be making the same mistake this time. I certainly won't.

Nope, I think most people who don't vote do so out of pure laziness, or pure disillusionment with the political system as a whole.

Múinteoir

Polls traditionally overestimate FF's vote and underestimate FG's across the board. Actually a recent poll had the Greens on as high as 18% in Dublin and 7% nationally. But as most of us know, polls should be taken with a pinch of salt.

ballooba

flogen wrote:

- I know, twisted logic, but I think the fact that me mixing and matching the figures to make it as beneficial as possible for the alternative coalition still sees them in the minority says a lot.

You can't mix and match polls. Completely different techniques are used by each polling company.

That figure of 4% was from the TNS/MRBI poll in Nov. I just realised after I posted it that it was wrong. Just got round to looking at this thread again now. Your quite right, Red C had Greens at 7%.

Based on the Red C poll, Fianna Fail would have a good chance of returning with only PD support.

The MRBI poll from November would give a FG/Lab/Green coalition a running chance. It's hard to know how many seats Greens would get with 7% of vote.

It's pure coincidence that MRBI is the most accurate imo.

flogen

M&#250 wrote: »

Polls traditionally overestimate FF's vote and underestimate FG's across the board. Actually a recent poll had the Greens on as high as 18% in Dublin and 7% nationally. But as most of us know, polls should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Well you can't really take any poll too seriously in a PR system, especially not national ones. Smaller parties that won't be fielding candidates in all constituencies tend to fare particularly bad, for example, as do Independents.

As for the FF/FG over/underestimation I've heard as much from FG anyway, but not so sure how or why that would happen quite as much as it does with smaller parties... I would have seen FF as the party to benefit more from transfers than FG, for example.

Anyway... while all polls need to be read with disclaimers, I think it's all we really have to work on at the moment!!

ballooba wrote:

You can't mix and match polls. Completely different techniques are used by each polling company.

Wasn't using different polling companies, I was using different polls produced by the same company (Red C) over the last year or so...
Some details:
FF low of 32% - September 2005
FG high of 27% - December 2005 (and I think July 2006)
Labour high of 14% - May & September 2006
Green high of 8% - October 2006
PD low of 2% - July 2006

(note that I mis-read the Labour high in the 1st post - it was 14 and not 15 - this means that a FF/Green/PD coalition would beat a FG/Labour coalition under the above figures which put the current coalition at their weakest and the rest at their best)

That figure of 4% was from the TNS/MRBI poll in Nov. I just realised after I posted it that it was wrong. Just got round to looking at this thread again now. Your quite right, Red C had Greens at 7%.

Based on the Red C poll, Fianna Fail would have a good chance of returning with only PD support.

At the moment, yes, but by taking the worst of the coalition and the best of the alternative since August 2005, things still aren't much better for FG/Labour (and the Greens will call the shots).
While it's an odd way to prove a point, there's no way for me to make it easier for FG and Labour to come out in front - after all, I'm counting them at their best and their rivals at their worst.

The MRBI poll from November would give a FG/Lab/Green coalition a running chance. It's hard to know how many seats Greens would get with 7% of vote.

It's pure coincidence that MRBI is the most accurate imo.

According to the November MRBI poll it goes as follow (%):

FF - 46
FG - 24
Labour - 10
SF - 6
PD - 2
Green - 4

So FF/PD is 48%, FG/Labour/Green is 38%

Sorry - but trailing 10% behind the current coalition ain't much of a running shot in my view...

As an aside, under the above results a FF/Green coalition would be seriously on the table - it would secure 50% of the house, would allow FF to dodge the SF question, and it would mean they wouldn't have to try and do a deal with Labour (which would begin on a sour note if agreed).
So going back to the original point, a vote for Green is certainly anything but a vote against FF, nor is a vote against Labour... but at this stage in the political debate when every party has its aligiances and likely partners, voting on the prospect of who they might go to bed with probably isn't the best technique anyway - I'd say it's not much more productive than voting on Civil War politics or Personality, given that we really don't know how the post-election courting will really go until it happens.

The_Minister

ballooba wrote:

in the unlikely event of PDs being a player in the next government.

You said that on another thread as well. Why are you so quick to write off the PDs? There is still enough support for them to wrangle a FF+PD+Ind government which is just as likely as some of th other combinations touted. Don't forget that the PD vote is highly centralised, so their proportion of seats tend s to be higher than there % of the vote.

flogen

The_Minister wrote:

You said that on another thread as well. Why are you so quick to write off the PDs? There is still enough support for them to wrangle a FF+PD+Ind government which is just as likely as some of th other combinations touted. Don't forget that the PD vote is highly centralised, so their proportion of seats tend s to be higher than there % of the vote.

Indeed - according to the p.ie wiki they only have something like 14 candidates announced so far and although this will increase it probably won't go any higher than the mid to high 20s... that's out of 43 constituencies and so they're not even close to being represented on a national scale.

While their 2-3% polling figure seems pretty poor, it has to be put into context.

ballooba

The_Minister wrote:

You said that on another thread as well. Why are you so quick to write off the PDs? There is still enough support for them to wrangle a FF+PD+Ind government which is just as likely as some of th other combinations touted. Don't forget that the PD vote is highly centralised, so their proportion of seats tend s to be higher than there % of the vote.

Michael McDowell is doing poorly in FF's polls here in DSE. His seat is in no way safe. That's dodgy for the party leader.

PD popularity has not gone up since last election according to polls. They will lose transfers because they failed to deliver on their image as watchdog in the current coalition.

If Fianna Fail lose more than a couple of seats, then PDs are no longer attractive. They will set their sights on Labour, Greens and Sinn Fein.

ballooba

Regarding MRBI:

flogen wrote:

So FF/PD is 48%, FG/Labour/Green is 38%

That's an inaccurate way of looking at it imo.

I was taking the percentage achieved by each party and how many seats they achieved with that percentage at the last two elections.

The above would not take into account transfer patterns etc.

flogen

ballooba wrote:

Michael McDowell is doing poorly in FF's polls here in DSE. His seat is in no way safe. That's dodgy for the party leader.

last reply before bed:
The same happened last time and McDowell ended up with the most 1st pref votes (and got one of the first two seats on the 4th count along with John Gormley)... it's a mistake I made too, and McDowell has never been re-elected, but the polls weren't right last time and I'd be amazed if he failed to get in.

PD popularity has not gone up since last election according to polls. They will lose transfers because they failed to deliver on their image as watchdog in the current coalition.

Again, polls are a bad way to judge PD support as they're a very localised party.

If Fianna Fail lose more than a couple of seats, then PDs are no longer attractive. They will set their sights on Labour, Greens and Sinn Fein.

Yup - so how is a vote for Labour and the Greens a vote against FF?

ballooba wrote:

Regarding MRBI:

That's an inaccurate way of looking at it imo.

I was taking the percentage achieved by each party and how many seats they achieved with that percentage at the last two elections.

The above would not take into account transfer patterns etc.

No poll does, this is all we have to go on... besides, if the two deals work out, transfer patterns will be between the two sets of partners.

I'm not sure what your technique is though - what percentage achieved did you work on? The number of seats from the same percentage of 1st pref votes in the last two elections, or the number of seats from the same percentage of total votes from the last two elections?
Perhaps you can clarify and post up the conclusions?

lostexpectation

greeen posters

one party green gov no thanks, vote ff to keep on eye on us

bk

It makes sense for the Greens to leave all their options open. The Greens are basically a single issue party (the environment), they will never be the largest party, so it should always be their goal to get into Government with any party, grab environment and transport based ministries and influence things from the inside. They really shouldn't care if the other party is FF or FG, etc.

I actually think that is the problem with Irish politics in general and particularly Labour recently. They have simply been too focused on being anti FF and trying to get them out of power. FG and Labour have been too negative about the government and have put out little on how they would do things differently or how their policies are different to FF. Instead they have been agreeing to continue most of FF policies such as not raising taxes, continue all of T21 plan, etc.

But then the voters wonder, well why bother voting for them if they are exactly the same as FF? And the reality is that the general voters aren't as anti FF as most of the hardcore people here seem to believe. Most people in the pub grumble about the government, but when it comes to voting day, they keep returning them.

Instead FG Labour should focus on their own political policies and being different to FF and attracting core voters with their own policy and firm beliefs, they can look later at how they form a government.

ballooba

WRT to looking at polls. I look at the percentage support indicated, then compare that to the perecentage of first preference votes achieved in previous election.

Not very scientific, but I'm not a statistician or whatver they're called.

flogen

ballooba wrote:

WRT to looking at polls. I look at the percentage support indicated, then compare that to the perecentage of first preference votes achieved in previous election.

Not very scientific, but I'm not a statistician or whatver they're called.

Fair enough - not sure where you get the national 1st pref percentages (or did you just work them out constituency by constituency yourself?

What kind of results did you find then? Although I do expect this years transfers to be quite different for a number of reasons, namely the FG/Lab pact, the change in perception some have of the PDs, the boost to the Greens via the international environmental movement and the changing face of Sinn Fein as a result of their recent Ard Fheis (according to the Red C/SBP poll over 50% of voters would consider voting for them as a result of their decision).

Henry42

I don't think the Greens will be ruling out a coalition with Fianna Fail. I certainly have no preference myself between the two "blocs" - although a FF/Green/PD deal has been mentioned once or twice here, and that's something I'd personally be strongly against.

bk

flogen wrote:

(according to the Red C/SBP poll over 50% of voters would consider voting for them as a result of their decision).

One second, 50% of people said that they would consider SF more favourably, there is a big difference between this and actually voting for them.

partholon

The_Minister wrote:

You said that on another thread as well. Why are you so quick to write off the PDs? There is still enough support for them to wrangle a FF+PD+Ind government which is just as likely as some of th other combinations touted. Don't forget that the PD vote is highly centralised, so their proportion of seats tend s to be higher than there % of the vote.

i know this wasnt directed at me but wanted to chuck in my 2c

basically beyond all the polls all we really know about the PDs is that at the last election they're mantra was "dont let FF get an overall majority, you need us to keep an eye on em". it was a genius stroke and got macdowel to double his seats . and hey i give the guy credit cause i wrote him off too. the problem is he rolled over bigtime with the bertie gate issue. we were promised a watchdog and got a poodle and that why ive wrote off the PDs. feel free to chuck it back in my face in six months time but i predict both mary and mick will lose their seats at the next election and the party will be decimated cause they didnt follow through on their promised role. the only seats i reckon will be safe will be liz's and tom.

ironically i reckon this could help FF. after all if your a disenchanted PD voter you may as well vote FF cause its pretty much a one party state now as it is and as the other major parties are arraigned against the PDs anyway theres no point voting labour or green.

of course theres always SF

The_Minister

partholon wrote:

ironically i reckon this could help FF. after all if your a disenchanted PD voter you may as well vote FF cause its pretty much a one party state now as it is

I've said this soooo many times that I might as well just put it in my sig. PDs are more similar to Fine Gael then Fianna Fail. Most PDs don't like FF, and most FFers don't like the PDs. It's a marraige of convienience, if they each had a choice, they would be with different parties.

flogen

bk wrote:

One second, 50% of people said that they would consider SF more favourably, there is a big difference between this and actually voting for them.

From Pat Leahy's article on the matter (not available on the site by the looks of things):
"More than half of all voters (56 per cent) said they would be more likely to vote for Sinn Fein if the party decided to support policing in the North."

Either way, I said the percentage would consider voting for Sinn Fein as a result of PSNI support, which IMO is the same as looking on them more favourably than before.

lostexpectation

yeah but what ministry/position would they get? in either gov

they wouldn't get near minister for developement (above all else) Dick Roche's job

Múinteoir

lostexpectation wrote:

yeah but what ministry/position would they get? in either gov

they wouldn't get near minister for developement (above all else) Dick Roche's job

Well since they're not tied in with anyone already, they're in a very good position to name their terms after the election, if their support is needed by either side to get into government.
They're certainly not going to get Taoiseach or Finance, but I can see them punching well above their weight in cabinet. People automatically assume they'll get Environment alone, but Environment is a fairly toothless ministry in all fairness (just like the EPA) and the Greens know that. So that on it's own would be a crap deal for them.
If they have a strong hand when the dust has settled, I could see them wrestling Transport, amongst others, from their coalition partners. Possibly Foreign Affairs (Greens got that in coalition in Germany). But one things for sure, if their support is badly needed by someone, that someone will be making a lot more concessions than the Greens will.

Múinteoir

bk wrote:

One second, 50% of people said that they would consider SF more favourably, there is a big difference between this and actually voting for them.

True, but it does increase their potential for votes a lot. But what it seriously increases is SF's attractiveness for transfers. Until now SF have been very transfer repellent for many voters. Although they may not start voting SF #1, many will now be prepared to transfer to SF. And transfers are vital for smaller parties.

ballooba

flogen wrote:

Fair enough - not sure where you get the national 1st pref percentages (or did you just work them out constituency by constituency yourself?

They're on Wikipedia. Search for "Irish General Election". There are specific pages for each election.

flogen wrote:

What kind of results did you find then? Although I do expect this years transfers to be quite different for a number of reasons, namely the FG/Lab pact, the change in perception some have of the PDs, the boost to the Greens via the international environmental movement and the changing face of Sinn Fein as a result of their recent Ard Fheis (according to the Red C/SBP poll over 50% of voters would consider voting for them as a result of their decision).

I expect:
PDs - down.
Greens - up.
Sinn Fein - up.

ballooba

The_Minister wrote:

I've said this soooo many times that I might as well just put it in my sig. PDs are more similar to Fine Gael then Fine Fail.

Ideologically maybe. In practice however?

Also, It's Fianna Fail btw.

ballooba

Latest poll FYI, from MRBI, in tomorrow's Irish Times:
FF 37 (-3)
FG 26 (-1)
Labour 11 (nc)
SF 9 (+2)
Green 8 (+4)
PDs 1 (-1)

Múinteoir

Apparently the Greens are up from 4% to 8% in latest IT poll. Main parties both down. PDs at 1%!

*Edit: Sorry, Balloba in before me!*

flogen

ballooba wrote:

Latest poll FYI, from MRBI, in tomorrow's Irish Times:
FF 37 (-3)
FG 26 (-1)
Labour 11 (nc)
SF 9 (+2)
Green 8 (+4)
PDs 1 (-1)

Yup, not so much an improvement for FG/Lab as a drop for FF/PD - as before, however, the Greens hold the balance and either coalition would work... so how is a vote for Green a way of helping them not go into bed with FF?

Múinteoir

flogen wrote:

Yup, not so much an improvement for FG/Lab as a drop for FF/PD - as before, however, the Greens hold the balance and either coalition would work... so how is a vote for Green a way of helping them not go into bed with FF?

Sargent saying he would resign as leader rather than go in with FF maybe? Pat Rabbitte certainly hasn't been that blunt about it. It's not a 100% guarantee, but Sargent is a very popular leader and he'd know the party mood. He's unlikely to say something like that if he's wasn't very sure of his position.

flogen

M&#250 wrote: »

Sargent saying he would resign as leader rather than go in with FF maybe? Pat Rabbitte certainly hasn't been that blunt about it. It's not a 100% guarantee, but Sargent is a very popular leader and he'd know the party mood. He's unlikely to say something like that if he's wasn't very sure of his position.

Did he? I was sure I saw Sargent naming a number of existing ministers who would have to go before the Greens went in with FF (Martin Cullen, for example) - that doesn't strike me as something someone with no intention of taking part would say - when did he say it?

ballooba

When I said this:

ballooba wrote:

I expect:
PDs - down.
Greens - up.
Sinn Fein - up.

I wasn't expecting this poll.

Yes Fine Gael lost one point. But it's nothing compared to the FF/PD loss.

Trevor Sargent's views on FF coalition are here btw:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2006/1120/1163947706651.html

flogen

Thanks for the link on Sergent - obviously it doesn't rule out a FF/Green coalition, but naturally it does push things somewhat in FG/Lab's favourite... I still wouldn't call a vote for Green a vote against FF.

ballooba wrote:

They're on Wikipedia. Search for "Irish General Election". There are specific pages for each election.

OK - got the percentages from here, as suggested, and used the following method to work out potential seating (should transfers remain largely the same this time, which I really don't expect to happen):
Divided percentage of 1st pref vote against number of final seats (A); then got the percentage from the polls for each party and divided that number against A...
So, for example... FF got 41.5% of the 1st pref vote in 2002 - out of this they got 81 seats... 41.5 into 81 is .5123. In the latest SBP/Red C poll, FF got 42%... 42% divided by .5123 is 82 - so this method projects them to get 82 seats based on 42% 1st pref support.
Is this the same way you did it?

Anyway - at the risk of boring people further with figures, my total results are as follows:
FF:
GE - 41.5% (81 seats); SBP/Red C - 42% (82 seats); IT/MRBI - 37% (66 seats)
FG:
GE - 22.5% (31 seats); SBP/Red C - 21% (29 seats); IT/MRBI - 26% (35 seats)
Lab:
GE - 10.8% (20 seats); SBP/Red C - 12% (22 seats); IT/MRBI - 11% (20 seats)
PD:
GE - 4% (8 seats); SBP/Red C - 3% (6 seats); IT/MRBI - 1% (2 seats)
Green:
GE - 3.8% (6 seats); SBP/Red C - 7% (11 seats); IT/MRBI - 8% (12/13 seats)
SF:
GE - 6.5% (5 seats); SBP/Red C - 8% (6 seats); IT/MRBI - 9% (7 seats)

The various coalition combinations (including the more unlikely ones) are as follows:

SBP/Red C
FF/PD - 88 seats; FF/Lab - 104; FF/Green - 93; FF/PD/Green - 99; FF/Lab/Green - 115; FF/SF - 88; FG/Lab - 51 seats; FG/Lab/Green - 62 seats, FG/PD - 25

The ones in italics are the potential majorities, and as you see, they all involve FF... infact, FF are just 1 seat short of a single party majority themselves... Even FG/Lab/Green is 20 seats short of the FF holding.

IT/MRBI
FF/PD - 68 seats; FF/Lab - 86; FF/Green - 79; FF/PD/Green - 81; FF/Lab/Green - 99; FF/SF - 73; FG/Lab - 55 seats; FG/Lab/Green - 68 seats, FG/PD - 37

Obviously today's poll is a slight bit better for FG/Lab, or should I say worse for FF... contrary to what the percentages may suggest the most obvious coalition is FF/Lab, and again, contrary to the percentages, Green support for FG/Lab is only enough to match a much weakened FF/PD, rather than top it.
Again, the only potential coalitions are involving FF (and Lab, unless you can get the Greens and SF to support FF), and even a grand coalition of FG/Lab/Green/PD/SF would be 6 seats short of a majority (not to mention the most unlikely coalition in the history of the country!)

Just a comment on the method -while it does take some account for transfers, I think it will prove just as inaccurate as standard 1st pref polls.. Sadly with a PR system it's very hard to poll accurately, even through the most complex of methods. Either way it's not looking good for FG/Lab... or FG/Lab/Green.

ballooba

Not quite the way I was doing it. I look at the number of seats FF/FG/PD/Lab/Green/SF got with that percentage of 1st Prefs. i.e. the last time they polled that percentage.

At 26-28% (last 4 MRBI polls) FG is at the same level it was at for the 1997 G.E.

flogen

ballooba wrote:

Not quite the way I was doing it. I look at the number of seats FF/FG/PD/Lab/Green/SF got with that percentage of 1st Prefs. i.e. the last time they polled that percentage.

At 26-28% (last 4 MRBI polls) FG is at the same level it was at for the 1997 G.E.

Ah - but what do you do when you find a polling percentage that the party has never gotten in an election (for example SF's high, the PD's low etc.)?

Also doing the above criss-crosses transfers, and if you go back far enough you'll find a very different political situation which, in transfer terms, is completely irrelevant to today... I'm not saying the technique I used is more accurate, because I think plenty has changed in 5 years to make last time's transfers unreliable if not irrelevant, but I think it's at least the most relevant to today's situation (specifically in relation to green issues and support for SF on the policing motion)

ballooba

flogen wrote:

Ah - but what do you do when you find a polling percentage that the party has never gotten in an election (for example SF's high, the PD's low etc.)?

That's where the method falls down. Interesting where the figures are available though.

Regarding the 1% party, the PDs. I don't want to get ahead of myself on the predictions front. I do think the Socialist Party have a good chance of getting more seats than them this time round though. Less chance of Joe Higgins rolling over for Bertie.

flogen

ballooba wrote:

Regarding the 1% party, the PDs. I don't want to get ahead of myself on the predictions front. I do think the Socialist Party have a good chance of getting more seats than them this time round though. Less chance of Joe Higgins rolling over for Bertie.

On the PDs - I think they are hard to poll nationally due to their concentrated base, although I don't expect them to better 2002, in fact I think McDowell would do well to hold that figure.

Re the Socialist Party, I agree that they're very much an unknown quantity... they're always part of the Other category in the major polls* and I think they'll be boosted by their anti-War, Anti-Shannon usage policies (something the major parties have all shied away from), as well as their actions in the Corrib dispute (for that area at least, the rest of the country probably don't care too much.)

That said - it all depends on how many candidates they field and how good they are at pushing themselves. I'd bet the party wishes it had more Joe Higgins's, but he seems to be a once off.

*Can anyone tell me how the polling works actually - are interviewees presented with a list to chose from, or do they just pick an option based on their own opinion? I imagine it's the former, but I wonder if the firms/papers keep an eye on any of the smaller parties, namely Socialists, to see if they're worth accounting for on their own...

ballooba

flogen wrote:

On the PDs - I think they are hard to poll nationally due to their concentrated base, although I don't expect them to better 2002, in fact I think McDowell would do well to hold that figure.

I would be looking more towards their 1997 result.

Rock Climber

ballooba wrote:

I would be looking more towards their 1997 result.

I wouldnt.
I'd look at constituencies that they have a t.d in and poll there.
It's nonsensical to draw conclusions from a poll taken from a nationwide sample to figure out the seats for either the pd's or SF as both parties are stong in particular constituencies only.

That means polls will suggest thet SF will get more T.D's than real results due to SF supporters being spread out across all constituencies wider than say the p.d's.
Ergo polls are a distortion for them.
Equally they are a distortion for the pd's (they hint at lower seats than the actual)because locally they have strong candidates/sitting t.d's.
Local factors affect both those parties so anything wrote about either around national polls saying they are up or down , about to landslide or be demolished is pure spin doctoring rubbish in my opinion.

ballooba

Rock Climber wrote:

I wouldnt.
I'd look at constituencies that they have a t.d in and poll there.
It's nonsensical to draw conclusions from a poll taken from a nationwide sample to figure out the seats for either the pd's or SF as both parties are stong in particular constituencies only.

I have looked at constituency polls for my own constituency at least.

McDowell is not looking too good there.