Latest Poll, Red C

Pride Fighter

FF 23 (-1) FG 33 (-2) Labour 24(+7) SF 6 (-4) Green Party 6 (+1) Others 8 (=)

http://www.irishelection.com/2010/05/red-c-poll-may-2nd/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20Irishelection%20%28IrishElection.com%29&utm_content=Twitter


A Labour led government looking extremely likely now.

IrishTonyO

I can't believe the Greens have increased support

Smiley Burnett

Pride Fighter wrote: »

FF 23 (-1) FG 33 (-2) Labour (+7) SF 6 (-4) Green Party 6 (+1) Others 8 (=)

http://www.irishelection.com/2010/05/red-c-poll-may-2nd/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20Irishelection%20%28IrishElection.com%29&utm_content=Twitter


A Labour led government looking extremely likely now.

stop being ridiculous! LAB/FF Coalition with a Lab Taoiseach will not happen!

Pride Fighter

Smiley Burnett wrote: »

stop being ridiculous! LAB/FF Coalition with a Lab Taoiseach will not happen!

I know that Labour will never go in with Fianna Fail. If the swing continues Labour will be leading Fine Gael :D

Macha

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I can't believe the Greens have increased support

Woohoo!

IrishTonyO

You left out labours score, it is 24

Pride Fighter

IrishTonyO wrote: »

You left out labours score, it is 24

Edited

Sulmac

Great news for Labour! That's a huge swing from the last poll just a few weeks ago. I take it the recent conference has a lot to do with it.

Fine Gael will (and should) be worried, not only did Fianna Fáil go down 1%, but they went down 2% - not a good sign. Fine Gael are failing to capitalise on Fianna Fáil's demise as well as they should. Could the swing to Labour be public sector workers hoping for their pay cuts to be reversed, or Sinn Féiners moving?

I wouldn't be surprised if we start hearing a few mumblings about Enda Kenny's leadership now.

When was the poll taken, does anybody know? Was it during the whole pension debacle? Labour and Fine Gael both showed Fianna Fáil up immensely there.

Very surprised the Greens are up (although it's margin-of-error stuff), and Sinn Féin down by a huge 4%.

I wonder if Labour will manage to stay this high, anytime they've gotten this far they've dropped down a good bit by the next poll.

edit: Any ideas when the next Irish Times/MRBI poll will be? They often contrast with SBP/Red C!

mike65

The Greens are well within the margin for statisical error so they are really as you were. Labour rising is good news for FG. The Shinners should be flying at times like these, if only in poor urban areas/border.

moonpurple

polls mean nothing

bring the election bring it

hallelujajordan

Pride Fighter wrote: »

FF 23 (-1) FG 33 (-2) Labour 24(+7) SF 6 (-4) Green Party 6 (+1) Others 8 (=)

A Labour led government looking extremely likely now.

How do you work that out ? All this means is a FG led government with a Labour partner who is stronger than they otherwise would have been. Oddly, I would have preferred FG to be rising. The stronger FG are, the more stable the next government is likely to be !

Biggins

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I can't believe the Greens have increased support

Don't forget with a 3% margin of error!

ChocolateSauce

They'd still need a 10% labour swing to realistically be in charge.

nkay1985

I'd be taking the Labour jump with a severe pinch of salt. No way there's a 7-point swing in such a short while. Taking a 3% margin of error and bring it back to a 4-point increase makes it just about believable.

Surely FG can't be failing so terribly to capitalise on the anti-government feeling that Labour are benefitting so much? Although, with Labour in favour of reversing the pay cuts, maybe some people would be drawn to them but you'd imagine most staunch union supporters would have already been Labour voters.

Liam Byrne

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I can't believe the Greens have increased support

+1 (with due respects to the comments re margin for error)

I also can't believe that FF are only down 1, considering that all of their lies about Anglo are being exposed, and their unwillingness to interfere in everything that costs us money is an almost daily occurrence.

trapsagenius

nkay1985 wrote: »

I'd be taking the Labour jump with a severe pinch of salt. No way there's a 7-point swing in such a short while. Taking a 3% margin of error and bring it back to a 4-point increase makes it just about believable.

I definitely can see there being a 7 point swing.FF, Lenihan excepted, are floundering in office and FG are floundering in opposition with a leader who is more of a liability than an asset to the party.Therfore, Labour the other real alternative (yes, I'm discounting SF and the greens), can expect to be the big gainers.Populist he might be, but Gilmore articulates very well and seems to have a good handle on what he's talking about.Labour will definitely be getting my vote in 2012.

Euro_Kraut

Biggins wrote: »

Don't forget with a 3% margin of error!

True. They could be at 9%

In fairness their support does seems to have stabilized of late. At the same time there have eek out a few concession from FF. Its been relatively good last 3 months for them.

Interesting to see FF down at 23%. My guess was that their base vote was 25% and they really could not go any lower. Nice to see I was wrong. Would love if they ended up behind Labour in the next General Election - if only on the popular vote.

Sergeant

A very strange poll result. People say they want politicians to be honest and straight with them, yet Gilmore spouts unobtainable rubbish, and gets a 7% bounce in popularity?

There is a seething anger out there, and Gilmore is using populist claptrap without offering any real solutions. There could be a bit of a "Clegg effect" taking place as well.

Smiley Burnett

trapsagenius wrote: »

I definitely can see there being a 7 point swing.FF, Lenihan excepted, are floundering in office and FG are floundering in opposition with a leader who is more of a liability than an asset to the party.Therfore, Labour the other real alternative (yes, I'm discounting SF and the greens), can expect to be the big gainers.Populist he might be, but Gilmore articulates very well and seems to have a good handle on what he's talking about.Labour will definitely be getting my vote in 2012.

what do you think of labour's policies re dealing with the defecit in the public finances?

GarlicBread

Sergeant wrote: »

A very strange poll result. People say they want politicians to be honest and straight with them, yet Gilmore spouts unobtainable rubbish, and gets a 7% bounce in popularity?

There is a seething anger out there, and Gilmore is using populist claptrap without offering any real solutions. There could be a bit of a "Clegg effect" taking place as well.

Looks like somone is getting worried .

Dob74

It's a three way race. Popular vote wont matter as much as vote transfers.
And where the vote is. If Labour can get 2 in 4&5 seaters in Dublin they can be the largest Party.

skelliser

Nice mis-direction here lads!

The real story is the fact that Fianna Fail are now third on 2 different polls.
People now know they are solely to blame for the economic mess we are now in.
Looks like this could be the begininng of the end of them.

Thank god!

Sergeant

GarlicBread wrote: »

Looks like somone is getting worried .

Not worried, me not believing the Labour Party line, or indeed the whole broad church of socialism, does not make me a FF voter. In fact, I'm very glad to see them have to clean up after the mess they made.

I just see a surge in Labour support as being strange. How are they going to handle the reform of the public service, how do they intend to curb the growing national debt, how do they intend to create employment. You know, policies.

GarlicBread

Sergeant wrote: »

Not worried, me not believing the Labour Party line, or indeed the whole broad church of socialism, does not make me a FF voter. In fact, I'm very glad to see them have to clean up after the mess they made.

I just see a surge in Labour support as being strange. How are they going to handle the reform of the public service, how do they intend to curb the growing national debt, how do they intend to create employment. You know, policies.

Labour are much apart of the public service, they are the party that can fix that issue with maximum social cohesion. The growing national debt can be curbed by removing FF asap before they piss away any more of our resources. We are stuck with unemployment for another 10 years at least so thats not an easy one.

Pride Fighter

Smiley Burnett wrote: »

what do you think of labour's policies re dealing with the defecit in the public finances?

Some of Labour's policies in improving the public finances are as follows. A temporary 5.5% VAT rate for the hospitality and leisure sectors. This would stimulate these industries, helping create new jobs and holding existing ones. Additional policies include getting people back to education and training in trades. At the last budget Labour proposed this, which would have gotten 30,000 people off the dole and into retraining.

The main thrust of Labour's policies in reducing the deficit is by creating jobs. Currently 20 billion is spent on unemployment benefit. That is too much. By getting people back to work less money will be spent on social welfare and more money will be brought in through the taxes the newly employed will be paying.

A jobless recovery is no recovery at all. By getting everyone back to work we can deal with the deficit in a better, more coherent and fairer manner.

Berti Vogts

Increase in Labour support just goes to show that you can never give the Irish public too much populism. It worked for FF for years so why wouldn't it work for Labour?

irishh_bob

yet more proof that kenny needs to be replaced as leader

trapsagenius

Smiley Burnett wrote: »

what do you think of labour's policies re dealing with the defecit in the public finances?

Well the idea reversing the pay cuts is just ridiculous I'll admit, but I'm fairly confident its just a vote-winner and they won't actually implement these policies in office, once they have to face up to the economic reality.I'd say at heart Gilmore isn't really a left wing idealist, just a pragmatist.

Also, see Pride Fighter's response.

trapsagenius

Possibilities wrote: »

Increase in Labour support just goes to show that you can never give the Irish public too much populism. It worked for FF for years so why wouldn't it work for Labour?

In fairness, it's not like FG haven't been trotting out populism since the 2007 GE, so how do you explain their relative lack of support? (yes they're still number 1, but they should be far, far higher up the polls)

Berti Vogts

trapsagenius wrote: »

In fairness, it's not like FG haven't been trotting out populism since the 2007 GE, so how do you explain their relative lack of support? (yes they're still number 1, but they should be far, far higher up the polls)

Yes they have been populist but not to the same extent as Labour.

Sully

Ill never get why we must insist on a leader rather then a party. This includes the attacks against FF/Greens/Labour etc. We seem to look at the leader a lot of the time and use that as a basis of whether a party is credible or not.

Its sad, because FG have an awful lot of credible policies and TDs/Senators/MEPs. They are an excellent party in respect but we cant seem to see past Enda, whome may not be the best but is much further from the worst. I believe he is a more credible leader then Cowen who has shown to be offering nothing.

It was FG who were calling for Anglo to be shut down but FF were insisting it wont be. Then Europe says it should be and FF then call for it! Yet, nobody even looks at FG for it and dismisses the party as "Oh, Enda? Never". Yet Varadkar, Hayes, Creighton, Bruton and Waterford's Paudie Coffey, and Maurice Cummins are bringing together a string of political plans - education, economy, health and political reform being a selection. They have, IIRC, something on agriculture taking shape now from what I gather. But - all dismissed because of Enda.

So, what, do FG need to hire a good looking entertainer, who can talk with absolute ease and be impressive to get people to consider the real structure and political power behind the very man who put it together in the first place? Ludicrous.

Look at Labour - water politics. Have very little potential and offer very little bar throwing punches at the government and making speeches that will win over public service workers and the general public - hitting the right notes and winning them over with stuff they want to hear. There a slow party in terms of policies and plans. They seem to offer very little in terms of front bench.

Yet, Gilmore is the face of the party and a damn good speaker winning over the hearts and minds of the voters with "Whatever you want, Labour will give" approach. Hey presto, the party jumps in support and looks to get an overall majority by robbing the voters blind just like FF did. Just not corrupt or in bed with bankers - just in bed with public sector unions and making speeches that people want to hear even if its unrealistic.

SF need an overhaul. Doesn't matter what they come out with, they will never be considered by the large majority to be an alternative.

Personally, I would prefer the party that can offer real change. Real reform. Real and fair politics. Even if it meant being "stuck" with a leader who isn't the best at public engagements and winning over the hearts and minds with political bull****.

Seems like this country wants change - but not the right type of change. Same circle we will remain in, just a different shower.

PeterIanStaker

I'd take polls with a pinch of salt but happy FF are down of course.

nkay1985

trapsagenius wrote: »

In fairness, it's not like FG haven't been trotting out populism since the 2007 GE, so how do you explain their relative lack of support? (yes they're still number 1, but they should be far, far higher up the polls)

Possibilities wrote: »

Yes they have been populist but not to the same extent as Labour.

Both of these are fair points.

I used to have a lot of respect for Labour but now I just see a load of electioneering and vote-getting promises that simply aren't realistic given the situation we're in. But it seems that that's what the Irish public want - someone to make them feel all warm and cosy, no matter how bad a state we're in. I can see how people get very disillusioned with politics.

Sully

nkay1985 wrote: »

Both of these are fair points.

I used to have a lot of respect for Labour but now I just see a load of electioneering and vote-getting promises that simply aren't realistic given the situation we're in. But it seems that that's what the Irish public want - someone to make them feel all warm and cosy, no matter how bad a state we're in. I can see how people get very disillusioned with politics.

All parties over populism. There is never a "straight talking political party" which does not shine on something they cant give. Its just how it all works and no amount of reform will change it.

I think there is a line and Labour cross it all the time. They seem to even cross what I would class as the "Labour Line" because the Irish people are down in the dumps, fed up of cuts and job losses, fed up and tired of lies and want change.

Perfect opportunity for Labour to jump in and offer the world. Free of course.

nkay1985

Sully wrote: »

Ill never get why we must insist on a leader rather then a party. This includes the attacks against FF/Greens/Labour etc. We seem to look at the leader a lot of the time and use that as a basis of whether a party is credible or not.

Its sad, because FG have an awful lot of credible policies and TDs/Senators/MEPs. They are an excellent party in respect but we cant seem to see past Enda, whome may not be the best but is much further from the worst. I believe he is a more credible leader then Cowen who has shown to be offering nothing.

It was FG who were calling for Anglo to be shut down but FF were insisting it wont be. Then Europe says it should be and FF then call for it! Yet, nobody even looks at FG for it and dismisses the party as "Oh, Enda? Never". Yet Varadkar, Hayes, Creighton, Bruton and Waterford's Paudie Coffey, and Maurice Cummins are bringing together a string of political plans - education, economy, health and political reform being a selection. They have, IIRC, something on agriculture taking shape now from what I gather. But - all dismissed because of Enda.

So, what, do FG need to hire a good looking entertainer, who can talk with absolute ease and be impressive to get people to consider the real structure and political power behind the very man who put it together in the first place? Ludicrous.

Look at Labour - water politics. Have very little potential and offer very little bar throwing punches at the government and making speeches that will win over public service workers and the general public - hitting the right notes and winning them over with stuff they want to hear. There a slow party in terms of policies and plans. They seem to offer very little in terms of front bench.

Yet, Gilmore is the face of the party and a damn good speaker winning over the hearts and minds of the voters with "Whatever you want, Labour will give" approach. Hey presto, the party jumps in support and looks to get an overall majority by robbing the voters blind just like FF did. Just not corrupt or in bed with bankers - just in bed with public sector unions and making speeches that people want to hear even if its unrealistic.

SF need an overhaul. Doesn't matter what they come out with, they will never be considered by the large majority to be an alternative.

Personally, I would prefer the party that can offer real change. Real reform. Real and fair politics. Even if it meant being "stuck" with a leader who isn't the best at public engagements and winning over the hearts and minds with political bull****.

Seems like this country wants change - but not the right type of change. Same circle we will remain in, just a different shower.

I agree with the thrust of what you're saying and have thought that many times but it's just ridiculous that FG have stuck with a leader who's so grossly unpopular with the public they want to elect them. Part of it is this; why would we vote for a party who is willing to have this muppet as their leader. And that's what he is. I've never been anything but underwhelmed by him. It feels strange saying it but if the party had taken the step of removing him as leader after the last GE, I'd probably be voting for them or at least giving thema high preference. But, as it is, I just don't know. The idea of having him represent us on the international stage is just frightful. If he's Taoiseach, he's the face of Ireland for an enormous number of people. To think that I could have a part in putting him in that position makes me very seriously think about whether I could vote for anybody who supports him as leader.

I fully accept that he did a very good job healing old wounds etc but he had done as much as he could by 2007 and IMO should have been ousted in favour of Richard Bruton or Gay Mitchell. With that move, FG would be the number one party by a long way right now; of that I have no doubt. Instead, they'll end up being run closer than they should be by Gilmore's bluster and ridiculous promises. Serious failing from the party members.

Pride Fighter

Sully wrote: »

Look at Labour - water politics. Have very little potential and offer very little bar throwing punches at the government and making speeches that will win over public service workers and the general public - hitting the right notes and winning them over with stuff they want to hear. There a slow party in terms of policies and plans. They seem to offer very little in terms of front bench.

Yet, Gilmore is the face of the party and a damn good speaker winning over the hearts and minds of the voters with "Whatever you want, Labour will give" approach. Hey presto, the party jumps in support and looks to get an overall majority by robbing the voters blind just like FF did. Just not corrupt or in bed with bankers - just in bed with public sector unions and making speeches that people want to hear even if its unrealistic.

Labour has a series of easily implemented policy documents that can help turn this country around. I've mentioned some of them on this and other threads. As for being a party of the public sector unions, thats nonsense. It was Fianna Fail that bloated the public sector between 1997-2005. Not Labour in government from 1992-1997. The last time Labour was in power 1000 jobs were being created a week. Ireland had its first ever surplus with a Labour finance minister.

I would not knock a party for having no policies when they actually have policies. I recognise Fair Care and New Era policy documents by Fine Gael. I disagree with them but recognise that Fine Gael have policies. Fianna Fail are the party without policies. Labour does have policies. By creating jobs we can get out of recession.

trapsagenius

Sully wrote: »

Ill never get why we must insist on a leader rather then a party. This includes the attacks against FF/Greens/Labour etc. We seem to look at the leader a lot of the time and use that as a basis of whether a party is credible or not.

Its sad, because FG have an awful lot of credible policies and TDs/Senators/MEPs. They are an excellent party in respect but we cant seem to see past Enda, whome may not be the best but is much further from the worst. I believe he is a more credible leader then Cowen who has shown to be offering nothing.

It was FG who were calling for Anglo to be shut down but FF were insisting it wont be. Then Europe says it should be and FF then call for it! Yet, nobody even looks at FG for it and dismisses the party as "Oh, Enda? Never". Yet Varadkar, Hayes, Creighton, Bruton and Waterford's Paudie Coffey, and Maurice Cummins are bringing together a string of political plans - education, economy, health and political reform being a selection. They have, IIRC, something on agriculture taking shape now from what I gather. But - all dismissed because of Enda.

So, what, do FG need to hire a good looking entertainer, who can talk with absolute ease and be impressive to get people to consider the real structure and political power behind the very man who put it together in the first place? Ludicrous.

Look at Labour - water politics. Have very little potential and offer very little bar throwing punches at the government and making speeches that will win over public service workers and the general public - hitting the right notes and winning them over with stuff they want to hear. There a slow party in terms of policies and plans. They seem to offer very little in terms of front bench.

Yet, Gilmore is the face of the party and a damn good speaker winning over the hearts and minds of the voters with "Whatever you want, Labour will give" approach. Hey presto, the party jumps in support and looks to get an overall majority by robbing the voters blind just like FF did. Just not corrupt or in bed with bankers - just in bed with public sector unions and making speeches that people want to hear even if its unrealistic.

SF need an overhaul. Doesn't matter what they come out with, they will never be considered by the large majority to be an alternative.

Personally, I would prefer the party that can offer real change. Real reform. Real and fair politics. Even if it meant being "stuck" with a leader who isn't the best at public engagements and winning over the hearts and minds with political bull****.

Seems like this country wants change - but not the right type of change. Same circle we will remain in, just a different shower.

Good post in general.You're like Gilmore-you articulate well.But there's still a lot I disagree with.

Sully wrote: »

Its sad, because FG have an awful lot of credible policies and TDs/Senators/MEPs. They are an excellent party in respect but we cant seem to see past Enda, whome may not be the best but is much further from the worst. I believe he is a more credible leader then Cowen who has shown to be offering nothing.

He's actually not that far from the worst, IMO.But anyway that's the point, it's not just about Kenny and Cowen, Gilmore is in the mix as well.And he's the best of the 3.This is one thing that helps secure my vote for Labour in 2012.

Sully wrote: »

Yet Varadkar, Hayes, Creighton, Bruton and Waterford's Paudie Coffey, and Maurice Cummins are bringing together a string of political plans - education, economy, health and political reform being a selection. They have, IIRC, something on agriculture taking shape now from what I gather. But - all dismissed because of Enda.

Agree with you about Varadkar and Bruton-both are good politicians. Disagree about Creighton and especially Hayes-apologies if this is slightly out of kilter with the politics forum etiquette, but the man's a ****.

Sully wrote: »

So, what, do FG need to hire a good looking entertainer, who can talk with absolute ease and be impressive to get people to consider the real structure and political power behind the very man who put it together in the first place? Ludicrous.

No, not a good looking entertainer.Just a much more competent leader who say, for instance, could give a reason not to go into government with SF.

Sergeant

I would have to agree. As Sully pointed out earlier, FG have some serious talent in the ranks, and have at least offered some definable policies. The shutting down of Anglo was a call they made a number of months back.

I do think Kenny is now hamstringing the party, he did help rebuild a decimated organisation after the 2002 election. But he does not inspire support in the voting populace. While politics shouldn't be showbiz, it does require an air of gravitas, which I believe Kenny lacks.

While I would love to see a change of government, I don't think a Labour/FG coalition will bring about the necessary changes this country so dearly needs. FG should aspire to majority government, and Kenny appears to be putting a ceiling on their support.

Stroke Politics

FG have a decision to make: do they stick with Kenny as leader and just beat FF or do they switch to Bruton and absolutely trounce them?

The slippage of 2% to Labour is also interesting, another 4% swing would leave them almost tied....

Darsad

When will the FF faithful realise that they need to get rid of that ignorant depressive apologist of a man Clowen, he has zero personality or leadership skills . He needs to go along with that numb nuts from donegal . with a new leader FF could actually rally a little and as it is a given that FF will do terrible at the next GE any new leader should be given until the fall or natural end of the next government . Nobody wants to leads FF now because they know tthey will be wiped out t the next GE so were all have to suffer.:mad:

Byron85

Sully wrote: »

Ill never get why we must insist on a leader rather then a party. This includes the attacks against FF/Greens/Labour etc. We seem to look at the leader a lot of the time and use that as a basis of whether a party is credible or not.

Its sad, because FG have an awful lot of credible policies and TDs/Senators/MEPs. They are an excellent party in respect but we cant seem to see past Enda, whome may not be the best but is much further from the worst. I believe he is a more credible leader then Cowen who has shown to be offering nothing.

It was FG who were calling for Anglo to be shut down but FF were insisting it wont be. Then Europe says it should be and FF then call for it! Yet, nobody even looks at FG for it and dismisses the party as "Oh, Enda? Never". Yet Varadkar, Hayes, Creighton, Bruton and Waterford's Paudie Coffey, and Maurice Cummins are bringing together a string of political plans - education, economy, health and political reform being a selection. They have, IIRC, something on agriculture taking shape now from what I gather. But - all dismissed because of Enda.

So, what, do FG need to hire a good looking entertainer, who can talk with absolute ease and be impressive to get people to consider the real structure and political power behind the very man who put it together in the first place? Ludicrous.

Look at Labour - water politics. Have very little potential and offer very little bar throwing punches at the government and making speeches that will win over public service workers and the general public - hitting the right notes and winning them over with stuff they want to hear. There a slow party in terms of policies and plans. They seem to offer very little in terms of front bench.

Yet, Gilmore is the face of the party and a damn good speaker winning over the hearts and minds of the voters with "Whatever you want, Labour will give" approach. Hey presto, the party jumps in support and looks to get an overall majority by robbing the voters blind just like FF did. Just not corrupt or in bed with bankers - just in bed with public sector unions and making speeches that people want to hear even if its unrealistic.

SF need an overhaul. Doesn't matter what they come out with, they will never be considered by the large majority to be an alternative.

Personally, I would prefer the party that can offer real change. Real reform. Real and fair politics. Even if it meant being "stuck" with a leader who isn't the best at public engagements and winning over the hearts and minds with political bull****.

Seems like this country wants change - but not the right type of change. Same circle we will remain in, just a different shower.

Here here!! Well said!!

Euro_Kraut

Dob74 wrote: »

It's a three way race. Popular vote wont matter as much as vote transfers.
And where the vote is. If Labour can get 2 in 4&5 seaters in Dublin they can be the largest Party.

Very unlikely. Labour will struggle to pick up seats outside of the urban areas. FF and FG will still dominate rural constituencies, with a couple exceptions.

yoshytoshy

Great news for labour and greens ,hopefully there might be a few phonecalls between them.
It would be nice to get an early election ,seriously though ,it's suprising that fianna fail have such support. Hopefully the 23% or so won't bother to vote for them.

Scofflaw

Rumours of the death of the Green Party vote appear to have been somewhat exaggerated...wishful thinking, perhaps?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sergeant

Scofflaw wrote: »

Rumours of the death of the Green Party vote appear to have been somewhat exaggerated...wishful thinking, perhaps?

cordially,
Scofflaw

A Red-C poll, margin of error.

Scofflaw

Sergeant wrote: »

A Red-C poll, margin of error.

Yes, I'm able to read, thanks. My point is that according to those who hate them, Green support has collapsed irretrievably - but there it is fluctuating within its margin of error, time after time. If it had collapsed, the margin of error in a single poll wouldn't prevent that collapse showing up over multiple polls.

cordially,
Scofflaw

yoshytoshy

Margin of error ,gulf oil slick ,Volcanic ash ,whatever floats the boat.

The green party will be the first port of call when people think about envoirnmental issues. The anger over backing up fianna fail is starting to fade and I think thats why their support is coming back.

Pride Fighter

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, I'm able to read, thanks. My point is that according to those who hate them, Green support has collapsed irretrievably - but there it is fluctuating within its margin of error, time after time. If it had collapsed, the margin of error in a single poll wouldn't prevent that collapse showing up over multiple polls.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The collapse is not in poll numbers the collapse is in the Green party itself. I think at heart the Green party is a good party. However, many Green people have left the party. While 4-6% will vote green, unless they are canvassed by activists those votes will not materialise. And with the party being more transfer toxic for going in with Fianna Fail I think that the Greens will get no seats unfortunately.

I am sorry, as you said you're a Green voter. But the party organisation is in tatters.

Scofflaw

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The collapse is not in poll numbers the collapse is in the Green party itself. I think at heart the Green party is a good party. However, many Green people have left the party. While 4-6% will vote green, unless they are canvassed by activists those votes will not materialise. And with the party being more transfer toxic for going in with Fianna Fail I think that the Greens will get no seats unfortunately.

I am sorry, as you said you're a Green voter. But the party organisation is in tatters.

I accept that point, which is entirely separate from the claims usually made. Admittedly, I vote without being canvassed (I don't think any political party has ever canvassed me), but I have no idea whether I'm typical in that respect.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pride Fighter

Scofflaw wrote: »

I accept that point, which is entirely separate from the claims usually made. Admittedly, I vote without being canvassed (I don't think any political party has ever canvassed me), but I have no idea whether I'm typical in that respect.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm the same. I've only ever been canvassed by Fine Gael and Fianna Fail and would never ever vote for them. Even though they are in government with Fianna Fail, the Greens will be getting a preference off me, but it will be lower than the number 3 they got the last time.

Scofflaw

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I'm the same. I've only ever been canvassed by Fine Gael and Fianna Fail and would never ever vote for them. Even though they are in government with Fianna Fail, the Greens will be getting a preference off me, but it will be lower than the number 3 they got the last time.

Slightly soiled, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw