By-Election Confirmed for March 27th

K-9

FG should be worried at the results, yep they kept the seat and Government parties winning bye elections is rare enough, but given the backdrop, this was never in doubt. That FF did do well, and Labour disintegrated is a worry.

FF look like getting over that 25% or so threshold that sees a big seat dividend, FG know all about it, they seen the dividend in 07 after the disaster of 02, a 20 seat gain with only a small 5% gain in votes.

It's threshold where you start winning second seats in constituencies.

FG's problem is they will drop in vote share, plus Labour are going to collapse. It's getting to the stage where FG/Labour may struggle to form the next Government, a political certainty after the last election.

DJCR

the groutch wrote: »

the real winner in this election is DDI.
6.5% of first preferences, and nearly 25% of transfers from independents/greens is very good for a first ever candidate, and will put them in good stead for next year's local elections.

Nope, I'm sorry but as much as I like to see grassroot issues flourish the DDI is not one of them and I'll tell you why.

On 2011 a Councillor from the area pretty much got the same amount of votes by himself. Secondly the amount of vote for "Others" which the DDI is included only raised by just over 1%. In the grand scheme of things, while they have a lot to be proud of, this was not a successful campaign for them.

Considering Meath East is their equivalent to the PDs limerick City (Dessie O'Malley) .... A so called stronghold.

Anyone involved in the DDI is deluded to think this is a great result. This was more about Labour failure than DDI gain.

DDI on a national front will be slaughtered.. this is what they could do on a focused point .... what are they going to be like when they try to spread the field of play to all counties. Funding will be an issue for them.

Just my 2 cents on the issue.

Am Chile

Wednesdays turnout we know more 60 per cent didnt turn up to vote-which leaves me asking a question-those who did turn up to vote were age/demographic were the majority of those who went to the polls and voted on wednesday? Just to trying to get a clear picture of age/demographics and who voted and who didnt vote the other day.

Lockstep

I'm amazed at how proud DDI of their result. "We did better than Labour" says far more about Labour's fall than it does about their rise.

God help us if they got anywhere near power. It'd be rule by the Joe Duffy show.

Sully

Lockstep wrote: »

I'm amazed at how proud DDI of their result. "We did better than Labour" says far more about Labour's fall than it does about their rise.

God help us if they got anywhere near power. It'd be rule by the Joe Duffy show.

To be fair, they did fantastic for a "party" setup in November and not having the man power that the parties would have had. I know Sinn Fein use that line but they had a strong numbers on the ground - bus loads!

Sinn Fein have been working hard in that consistency since its formation and came third. They are a well established anti-austerity party.

DDI start in November and come fourth and are an unknown group.

That's a very good achievement - even if its probably because of Labours downfall!

Sierra Oscar

Sully wrote: »

To be fair, they did fantastic for a "party" setup in November and not having the man power that the parties would have had. I know Sinn Fein use that line but they had a strong numbers on the ground - bus loads!

To be honest, did Gilroy not just capture the standard 'Independent' vote? Would he have done as well if Bonner was running, who secured over 5% of the vote as an Independent in the last election?

Guess it is too early to tell for sure, we will have to wait for another election before we can start drumming up decisive conclusions.

darkhorse

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

To be honest, did Gilroy not just capture the standard 'Independent' vote? Would he have done as well if Bonner was running, who secured over 5% of the vote as an Independent in the last election?

Guess it is too early to tell for sure, we will have to wait for another election before we can start drumming up decisive conclusions.

It could just as equally be said, did Helen McEntee not just capture a sympathy vote. Some might say Yes.

Am Chile

darkhorse wrote: »

It could just as equally be said, did Helen McEntee not just capture a sympathy vote. Some might say Yes.

I had a look over a lot of comments on helens facebook page the other day from a good few threads on there-after being elected here is just a sample of a lot of comments from people in her area what they had to say-in my view these comments prove she received a sympathy vote from a lot of people.

Sully

Her facebook would be the most inaccurate way of judging and those comments would be made I suspect even if her Dad passed away several years ago - its what you would say.

rufty

I agree that DDI's result is no major shakes. Gilroy only did 0.7% better than Bonner did. Given that this is a mid-term election where anti-establishment candidates usually poll higher than they would at a General Election, I'd go as far as to say that the result is in fact a disappointing one for DDI. Labour's collapse however masks it as some kind of win.

SF can't be too happy with their result either. With such a huge portion of the public dissatisfied with Government and given that it's only 2 years since Fianna Fáil were dumped out of Government in unceremonious fashion, you'd have expected them to hit at least 20%. They seriously need to re-think their strategy and possibly the leadership of their Southern party.

FG did well in winning it. Yes, the sympathy vote definitely won it however it wouldn't have been enough without a solid candidate on which to base it. I wish her well in her new role and hope that she doesn't become another voiceless back-bencher. It also helped her cause that many FG voters from the last election pretty much signed up to most of what the Government's now doing (as opposed to Labour who promised mainly the opposite). Things like Property Tax are still to really bite people however.

Byrne will be disappointed not to have won as he would have if FG ran any other candidate to be fair. It's still a great showing for FF to go under 20% to 34% in just 2 years. He was helped by the fact that he was only in the Dáil "a wet week" (about a year) before the crash came such that he can't be held in te same regard as Ahern, McCreevy or Cowen for what happened the economy. A sign of things to come with new candidates?

And finally a note on the 60% or so that chose not to vote (granted, I'll exclude those who couldn't vote for legitimate reason): In effect, they all voted for Helen McEntee and the Government. They have now reneged their right to complain about the Government. If you chose not to take part, you support the winner by default really.

raymon

This must be a terribly disappointing result for Fianna Fail. FF really threw everything at this election and still failed.

Thomas Byrne himself looked shocked and glum when he appeared alongside Michael Martin to concede defeat.

How could they have failed with 500 FFers knocking on every door. With Michael Martin and other prominent FF top brass in the area.

In fact FF only got 8002 votes , which is less than the 8384 that FF got in the election disaster of 2011.

Various FF TDs showed up for the victory party that never happened.

So we have heard FF try to say this was a success by saying that Thomas Byrnes votes increased over 2011 or that the FF % has increased.

Others have dismissed the defeat as some kind of sympathy vote.

I disagree , I think that 8000 is probably the core FF vote in this area .

The rest of the population didn't vote for FF because of decades of dishonesty.

rufty

raymon wrote: »

This must be a terribly disappointing result for Fianna Fail. FF really threw everything at this election and still failed.

Thomas Byrne himself looked shocked and glum when he appeared alongside Michael Martin to concede defeat.

How could they have failed with 500 FFers knocking on every door. With Michael Martin and other prominent FF top brass in the area.

In fact FF only got 8002 votes , which is less than the 8384 that FF got in the election disaster of 2011.

Various FF TDs showed up for the victory party that never happened.

So we have heard FF try to say this was a success by saying that Thomas Byrnes votes increased over 2011 or that the FF % has increased.

Others have dismissed the defeat as some kind of sympathy vote.

I disagree , I think that 8000 is probably the core FF vote in this area .

The rest of the population didn't vote for FF because of decades of dishonesty.

Lets judge it by your barometer so.

FG: Votes in 2011 = 17,471, 2013 = 9,356 (40.87% to 38.5%) -2.37%
FF: 2011 = 8,384, 2013 = 8002 (19.61% to 33%) +13.39%
Lab: 2011 = 8,994, 2013 = 1,112 (21.04% to 4.6%) -16.44%
SF: 2011 = 3,795, 2013 = 3,165 (8.9% to 13%) +4.1%

You can try spin it all you want but the fact of the matter is that the result shows a clear turn from Labour to FF. All parties had members and front bench politicians on the ground for the weeks running up to the election as well. It wasn't only FF. Your bias is clouding your judgement I fear. Take a deep breath and relax.

raymon

rufty wrote: »

Lets judge it by your barometer so.

FG: Votes in 2011 = 17,471, 2013 = 9,356 (40.87% to 38.5%) -2.37%
FF: 2011 = 8,384, 2013 = 8002 (19.61% to 33%) +13.39%
Lab: 2011 = 8,994, 2013 = 1,112 (21.04% to 4.6%) -16.44%
SF: 2011 = 3,795, 2013 = 3,165 (8.9% to 13%) +4.1%

You can try spin it all you want but the fact of the matter is that the result shows a clear turn from Labour to FF. All parties had members and front bench politicians on the ground for the weeks running up to the election as well. It wasn't only FF. Your bias is clouding your judgement I fear. Take a deep breath and relax.

This is what we know :

The FF vote actually decreased from 2011 to 2013

FF threw all their resources behind the failed candidate Thomas Byrne

FF were defeated

You and FF have been spinning this , so keep spinning

Chips Lovell

The turnout also decreased (which you've conveniently ignored to suit your narrative), so it's hardly surprising their vote was down.

I'm no FFer, but it's hardly spin to point out that their share of the vote had gone up.

rufty

raymon wrote: »

This is what we know :

The FF vote actually decreased from 2011 to 2013

FF threw all their resources behind the failed candidate Thomas Byrne

FF were defeated

You and FF have been spinning this , so keep spinning

By the same token, FG threw everything they had into this, they lost 8,115 votes. Labour threw the kitchen sink, even attacking their coalition partners, and lost 7,882 votes. My point is, on a day where everyone "lost votes" (given turn out was way down) going on how many votes were lost between 2011 and 2013 still leaves FF the big winner by comparison. It's a ridiculous barometer to begin with but said I'd play the game by your rules.....still winning! The fact of the matter is that you were sure that Thomas Byrne was going to flop badly when in truth he massively increased his vote share. The figures don't lie (no matter which abstract way you attempt to look at it).

At the end of the day we're still a bit miffed at not taking the seat if not unsurprised. The fact that we were written of as a dying party only 2 years ago with no future to then put in a performances like this is heartening. It's a clear sign that the renewal and rejuvenation process isn't finished but it's clearly on the right track with constructive opposition being the call of the day.

raymon

rufty wrote: »

By the same token, FG threw everything they had into this, they lost 8,115 votes. Labour threw the kitchen sink, even attacking their coalition partners, and lost 7,882 votes. My point is, on a day where everyone "lost votes" (given turn out was way down) going on how many votes were lost between 2011 and 2013 still leaves FF the big winner by comparison. It's a ridiculous barometer to begin with but said I'd play the game by your rules.....still winning! The fact of the matter is that you were sure that Thomas Byrne was going to flop badly when in truth he massively increased his vote share. The figures don't lie (no matter which abstract way you attempt to look at it).

At the end of the day we're still a bit miffed at not taking the seat if not unsurprised. The fact that we were written of as a dying party only 2 years ago with no future to then put in a performances like this is heartening. It's a clear sign that the renewal and rejuvenation process isn't finished but it's clearly on the right track with constructive opposition being the call of the day.

FF lost.

Your candidate gave a terribly jaded performance in the debate.

My point is that FFers are trying to make the defeat look good.

K-9

raymon wrote: »

This must be a terribly disappointing result for Fianna Fail. FF really threw everything at this election and still failed.

Thomas Byrne himself looked shocked and glum when he appeared alongside Michael Martin to concede defeat.

How could they have failed with 500 FFers knocking on every door. With Michael Martin and other prominent FF top brass in the area.

In fact FF only got 8002 votes , which is less than the 8384 that FF got in the election disaster of 2011.

Various FF TDs showed up for the victory party that never happened.

So we have heard FF try to say this was a success by saying that Thomas Byrnes votes increased over 2011 or that the FF % has increased.

Others have dismissed the defeat as some kind of sympathy vote.

I disagree , I think that 8000 is probably the core FF vote in this area .

The rest of the population didn't vote for FF because of decades of dishonesty.

raymon wrote: »

FF lost.

Your candidate gave a terribly jaded performance in the debate.

My point is that FFers are trying to make the defeat look good.

And you are trying to paint it as a terrible result when it clearly isn't.

Trying to argue that FF somehow did worse because they'd less votes, when there was 18,000 less votes overall is frankly bizarre. On that basis FG winning was a disaster as their vote nearly halved.

raymon

K-9 wrote: »

And you are trying to paint it as a terrible result when it clearly isn't.

Trying to argue that FF somehow did worse because they'd less votes, when there was 18,000 less votes overall is frankly bizarre. On that basis FG winning was a disaster as their vote nearly halved.

It is obvious that the % of FF vote increased over 2011. But that is only one way of looking at it. SF and FF, polled nearly identical numbers to 2011, a possible reason being that a core vote of that amount.

The FG vote dropped a lot compared to 2011 , unsurprising considering they had unleashed a widely unpopular property tax.

FF are very disappointed with this result despite the spin

K-9

raymon wrote: »

It is obvious that the % of FF vote increased over 2011. But that is only one way of looking at it. SF and FF, polled nearly identical numbers to 2011, a possible reason being that a core vote of that amount.

The FG vote dropped a lot compared to 2011 , unsurprising considering they had unleashed a widely unpopular property tax.

FF are very disappointed with this result despite the spin

Right, if you think a drop in turn out by over 40% only effected FF and SF and nobody else, you are entitled to that opinion. SF don't really have much of a core vote in constituencies like Meath East. I don't think even a FG or Labour party hack would try to argue that but how and ever.

raymon

K-9 wrote: »

Right, if you think a drop in turn out by over 40% only effected FF and SF and nobody else, you are entitled to that opinion.

Where did I say that ? That would be a ridiculous conclusion.

What I am saying is that at 8000 FF had mobilised their maximum core vote of party supporters. They weren't going to get many more. FF had gone the extra mile on this one .


The 60% that stayed in bed realised that it was a two horse race and didn't like either of the horses.

rufty

raymon wrote: »

Where did I say that ? That would be a ridiculous conclusion.

What I am saying is that at 8000 FF had mobilised their maximum core vote of party supporters. They weren't going to get many more. FF had gone the extra mile on this one .


The 60% that stayed in bed realised that it was a two horse race and didn't like either of the horses.

Or maybe it's a repeating trend across by-elections for the past two decades: http://adriankavanaghelections.org/2013/03/22/voter-turnout-levels-in-dail-by-elections-1994-2011/

Special order for Raymon:

raymon

rufty wrote: »

Or maybe it's a repeating trend across by-elections for the past two decades: http://adriankavanaghelections.org/2013/03/22/voter-turnout-levels-in-dail-by-elections-1994-2011/

Special order for Raymon:

No need to get insulting about it .

Your link shows that by elections have lower turnout . We knew that . What is your point?

rufty

raymon wrote: »

No need to get insulting about it .

Your link shows that by elections have lower turnout . We knew that . What is your point?

And a basic understanding of statistical analysis would show that at each by-election previous, the voter turn out levels being lower didn't affect the expected support levels for each party. This election was no different. There is a clear correlation between the collapse of the Labour vote and the rise of the FF vote. Your attempt to spin it as somehow FF and SF supporters came out and FG and Labour voters stayed home is farcical, non-sensicle, goes against all manners of statistical analysis, national opinion polls and wide spread media commentary. You are vehemently opposed to FF, fair enough, that's your thing. However trying to tell us the sky is green and the grass is blue to try stick a boot into the party you hate with out any basis in fact.

Your twisted way of trying to look at the figures have been disproven by several posters both FF and non-FF. Accept it and move on. There is no grounds in fact or reason to your stance. All parties had massive teams on the ground for this election. Trying to claim that only one party did (or even implying it) undermines your position further.

raymon

rufty wrote: »

And a basic understanding of statistical analysis would show that at each by-election previous, the voter turn out levels being lower didn't affect the expected support levels for each party. This election was no different. There is a clear correlation between the collapse of the Labour vote and the rise of the FF vote. Your attempt to spin it as somehow FF and SF supporters came out and FG and Labour voters stayed home is farcical, non-sensicle, goes against all manners of statistical analysis, national opinion polls and wide spread media commentary. You are vehemently opposed to FF, fair enough, that's your thing. However trying to tell us the sky is green and the grass is blue to try stick a boot into the party you hate with out any basis in fact.

Your twisted way of trying to look at the figures have been disproven by several posters both FF and non-FF. Accept it and move on. There is no grounds in fact or reason to your stance. All parties had massive teams on the ground for this election. Trying to claim that only one party did (or even implying it) undermines your position further.

Why are you are continually misquoting me .

Please provide a quote where I said FG supporters stayed at home.

K-9

rufty wrote: »

Or maybe it's a repeating trend across by-elections for the past two decades: http://adriankavanaghelections.org/2013/03/22/voter-turnout-levels-in-dail-by-elections-1994-2011/

Special order for Raymon:

Mod: No need for the "funny" pictures.

rufty

raymon wrote: »

Why are you are continually misquoting me .

Please provide a quote where I said FG supporters stayed at home.

You have insinuated throughout the past few pages that FF put in a massive effort to get every last FF core voter out and have left the gap to suggest other parties didn't do the same. All in some kind of vain attempt to portray this as somehow being an electoral disaster for FF, which it isn't. If you're now claiming the FG & Labour DID in fact do the same, then certainly this has to be viewed as electoral success for FF again (showing a relative upkeep of their vote while the Government parties all collapsed). You keep choosing the barometer to view these result and I'll keep using your terms and the basic mathematics to show that FF did well here, especially seeing as where we came from just 2 years ago.

raymon

rufty wrote: »

If you're now claiming the FG & Labour DID in fact do the same, then certainly this has to be viewed as electoral success for FF again.

Where am I claiming that?
My god , your misquoting of me is taking a life of its own
Unbelievable.

rufty

raymon wrote: »

Where am I claiming that?
My god , your misquoting of me is taking a life of its own
Unbelievable.

You're insinuating one, then the other. Which is? Simple question. And notice the word "if" in the above quote, inviting you to clarify your position. Get out of the centrifuge, your spin is getting nauseating for the rest of us too!

raymon

rufty wrote: »

You're insinuating one, then the other. Which is? Simple question. And notice the word "if" in the above quote, inviting you to clarify your position. Get out of the centrifuge, your spin is getting nauseating for the rest of us too!

Now I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be insinuating.
Please be more specific, and quote me if necessary.

rufty

raymon wrote: »

Now I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be insinuating.
Please be more specific, and quote me if necessary.

I'll spell it out for ya craythur:

Are you of the mind that only Fianna Fáil put in a massive effort and therefore were the only party successful in getting all its core vote out, or are you in the position that all the major parties did the same? This is a very straight forward question for you.