Michael McDowell's electoral predictions

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

It took years for Labour to recover from their last rendezvous with FF, I can't imagine they're going to be that stupid again.

Tragedy

It's not about stupidity, 4 years in power is worth 40 years in opposition.

court_opinion

Nodin wrote: »

It took years for Labour to recover from their last rendezvous with FF, I can't imagine they're going to be that stupid again.

Every party that has gone into coalition with FF has suffered... McDowell knows that more than most.

I think he is right that we will have a 'things are worse than we expected' moment but equally I think that a softening in European sentiment and expectation with regard to austerity measures is coming and a FG/Lab coalition are in a far better position than FF have been to renegotiate interest rates and deadlines. That will provide as near to a honeymoon period as anyone can expect in this crisis.

In any event I think that despite polls underestimating the number of covert FF voters I dont think there is any chance of FF being in any position to be laying in the long grass waiting to jump into government.. they will simply not have the seats.

liveline

I think what McDowell says makes sense. I think a FG overall majority would be better for the country in that it wouldn't allow FG to blame Labour on any changes in policy. FG would have to be more accountable to the people. FG have based their manifesto on unrealistic growth forecasts. This means that the level of cuts required will be greater than being proposed by anyone. One of the obvious ways to save money is to scrap the Croke Park Agreement. Based on opinion polls, there seems to be a public appetite for this. Labour would oppose this strongly as they are the Trade Union party, further strengthening the argument for a single party government.

91011

court_opinion wrote: »

Every party that has gone into coalition with FF has suffered... McDowell knows that more than most.

When a coalition partner is a small partner, they can get bullied.

If FF had 42 seats and Labour had 42 seats also (not a predicion, just example) it would be a totally different scenario. However with FG likely to have 75ish and labour possibly under 35, Labour will be very much a junior partner and will get bullied & will suffer.

liveline

91011 wrote: »

When a coalition partner is a small partner, they can get bullied.

If FF had 42 seats and Labour had 42 seats also (not a predicion, just example) it would be a totally different scenario. However with FG likely to have 75ish and labour possibly under 35, Labour will be very much a junior partner and will get bullied & will suffer.

McDowell is right though in that having too many backbenchers would be a recipe for disaster.

court_opinion

liveline wrote: »

I think what McDowell says makes sense. I think a FG overall majority would be better for the country in that it wouldn't allow FG to blame Labour on any changes in policy. FG would have to be more accountable to the people. FG have based their manifesto on unrealistic growth forecasts. This means that the level of cuts required will be greater than being proposed by anyone. One of the obvious ways to save money is to scrap the Croke Park Agreement. Based on opinion polls, there seems to be a public appetite for this. Labour would oppose this strongly as they are the Trade Union party, further strengthening the argument for a single party government.

I think that coalition would allow labour to also blame FG for policy changes. For instance it is not too hard to imagine the labour policy of 'no tax hikes for those under 100K' becoming 'no pay cuts in the public sector pay for those earning under 100k'

court_opinion

goat2 wrote: »

i am hoping for this outcome, ff and labour would be the better than fg labour.

i have to wonder how in all the permutations and compuations that are holy you could include FF in any combination... that they will have any TD's after the election is a testament to some individuals hard work locally and even more to the traditional family voting habits of many irish people...but it is beyond me how anyone with the higher function to switch on a computer could seriously consider putting them BACK INTO GOVERNMENT..... that is all.

court_opinion

goat2 wrote: »

i have good time for the person i am giving my no 1 to and with the mix we have the opposition do nothing for me, bringing down the importance of our language has to be my number one disgust with them,

i have no problem with you giving your number 1 to someone you personally have good time for... and i cannot argue with you taking issue with anyones policies.. but to advocate FF in government again just beggars belief...

mike65

The composition of the independents could be what swings it for FG, if they can see enough likeminded unattached TDs they'll do a deal. A coalition of 100+ seats is bad for governence and bad for parliamentary democracy.

Rubik.

liveline wrote: »

McDowell is right though in that having too many backbenchers would be a recipe for disaster.

I'm not so sure, the cracks only started to appear in the FF backbenches when it became obvious that many of them were going to lose their seats. The backbenches lot is essentially to make up the numbers and endeavour to get re-elected.

Pal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He is probably correct.

Labour are a nuisance to say the least.
They really have nothing to offer except protectionism for their precious unions.
We'd all be better off if they never existed but for now they will hang
around with their 25 seats or so like a cold sore.

liveline

Rubik. wrote: »

I'm not so sure, the cracks only started to appear in the FF backbenches when it became obvious that many of them were going to lose their seats. The backbenches lot is essentially to make up the numbers and endeavour to get re-elected.

Agreed but in a FG-L coalition we would have far more backbenchers plus these would be split between two different parties. In the past three govts. the vast majority of bankbenchers were FF'ers (with the odd Green or PD)The dynamic would be very different in a FG/L coalition and you could easily see a situation occurring where backbenchers become disgruntled because their party's policy isn't being implemented.

Rubik.

liveline wrote: »

Agreed but in a FG-L coalition we would have far more backbenchers plus these would be split between two different parties. In the past three govts. the vast majority of bankbenchers were FF'ers (with the odd Green or PD)The dynamic would be very different in a FG/L coalition and you could easily see a situation occurring where backbenchers become disgruntled because their party's policy isn't being implemented.

Whether their party's policy is going to implemented will be decided at start in the Programme for Government.

Monty Burnz

goat2 wrote: »

i have good time for the person i am giving my no 1 to and with the mix we have the opposition do nothing for me, bringing down the importance of our language has to be my number one disgust with them,

Another person who thinks that we should persist with a failed policy instead of looking for a new way to revitalise the language...:rolleyes:

Jim Stark

goat2 wrote: »

i have good time for the person i am giving my no 1 to and with the mix we have the opposition do nothing for me, bringing down the importance of our language has to be my number one disgust with them,

I made the post below in the Gaeilge forum, and I'll state it here too in response to this post.

Jim Stark wrote: »

It's not right saying Fine Gael are trying to end the Irish language, that's just scare mongering by Martin, and FFer's.

This point of the policy is to encourage it, by changing the way it's taught, and by not forcing people.

The fact is that the current approach to teaching Irish in schools DOESN'T WORK. And if something doesn't work, you make changes, and try a different approach. It's not going to improve if you just keep going about it the same way, which is what will happen with FF, and Labour.

Like most people, I spent more than 12 years in primary, and secondary school learning Irish, and I can only string a few basic sentences together, and I think that's schocking. And that's true for the majority of people, I know some people are fluent leaving school, and that's great but I don't think it's because of how it was taught in the schools. I welcome any effort to change this, and it's one of the reasons I'm voting FG.

It's basic psychology; force someone to do something, and they will reject it, and resent having to do it. Present them a choice, and you will get a more positive response.
Enda Kenny said he will also make the oral count for 50%, which will give more importance to the spoken aspect, which is what language is all about. I believe him to be genuine in his efforts to encourage the language, and don't think he is trying to kill it by any means.

With this in place, less people will no doubtedly be studying Irish at leaving cert level, but I think it will result in more people having a higher level of spoken Irish coming out of school, which is what we want.

liveline

Rubik. wrote: »

Whether their party's policy is going to implemented will be decided at start in the Programme for Government.

Neither FG or Labour's policies are realistic though. The challenges the next govt. face are not reflected in either party's manifestos. The Programme for Government will probably be based on overly optimistic forecasts as well. Within months, it will become clear that more savings will be needed. FG will want more cuts. Labour will want higher taxes. Whatever the frontbenchers might agree, the backbenchers having less to lose, will revolt. That's just my opinion on it though. Will wait and see what happens. Maybe Labour won't even be needed!

Rubik.

liveline wrote: »

Neither FG or Labour's policies are realistic though. The challenges the next govt. face are not reflected in either party's manifestos. The Programme for Government will probably be based on overly optimistic forecasts as well. Within months, it will become clear that more savings will be needed. FG will want more cuts. Labour will want higher taxes.

I would agree you here, but I'm just not convinced that your typical Irish backbencher is by nature very volatile.