Will the Euro/Local Election results be reflected in next General Election?

Quin_Dub

I know a general election is 18 months to 2 years away and a lot can change between now and then, but do people think that the projected results in the Euro/Local elections will be in any way indicative of the next General Election?

Personally - I don't think so.... It seems to me that people don't really rate an MEP or Councillor in the same way as a TD , in regard to their ability to impact peoples daily lives etc. (They don't/can't raise taxes)

As such I think that a large % of people are planning to vote on Friday purely as a protest vote in the belief that it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things other than to "make a statement"

In an Article in today's Irish Times about the Sinn Fein Euro candidate in Dublin, there was a quote from a voter

Leo Oman says he will give Sinn Féin a vote. “I can’t wait to give the Government a kick” he says. He’s fuming over how they are “raiding pensions” and “hammering people with disabilities.” The water charge isn't too welcome either. But he won’t vote for Sinn Féin in a general election. “I wouldn't agree with their views.”

I suspect that this is the case for a lot of people , voting for SF, Independents, PbP, AAA etc. this time round , but very little chance of them voting the same way in a General election.

Thoughts?

Lockstep

SF especially have a great track record in community issues. That might not transfer well into General Elections though. I'd be happy to have a Shinner as my local councillor but not as my TD.

realweirdo

In a time of austerity, the government in power always takes a big hit. So the answer is yes.
It will be the same in the UK.
Labour suffered last time out, and Conservatives and Lib Dems will suffer in the next GE.

It's easy to be popular when you are in opposition during austerity. Oppose every cut and the electorate will agree with you and vote you in next time. It's not rocket science.

jonnny68

It certainly will although I sincerely hope FF are not voted back in, a vicious merry go around, you need a coalition of SF /PBP and Independent to merge together for real change to happen.

comongethappy

jonnny68 wrote: »

It certainly will although I sincerely hope FF are not voted back in, a vicious merry go around, you need a coalition of SF /PBP and Independent to merge together for real change to happen.

Good change or bad change?

Godge

jonnny68 wrote: »

It certainly will although I sincerely hope FF are not voted back in, a vicious merry go around, you need a coalition of SF /PBP and Independent to merge together for real change to happen.

What would that collection be for?

sin_city

What is the real difference between FG and FF?

I expect voters to continue to vote for SF and IND as a protest vote

nesf

People have had a chance to punish FG/Lab. They now may, or may not, calm down in the next 18 months and some of the anti-Government sentiment may fade. Never expect the midterm local elections to mirror the future general elections, they're a good snapshot of public sentiment right then but any projection forward of a year or two is going to be prone to error.


All that said, it's going to be very, very tough for Labour in the general election without most of its local politics presence.

hallelujajordan

jonnny68 wrote: »

you need a coalition of SF /PBP and Independent to merge together for real change to happen.

They can't even stick together in opposition . . I would hate to see how they would perform in government . . . And I presume the Taoiseach in your coalition would be Gerry Adams ?? :eek::eek::eek:

Agree with other posters that the extreme voting patterns seen here will not necessarily replicate in a GE but there are a couple of trends that I could see continuing. . .

• Labour will remain weak.. Unless they can begin to live up to their promises and satisfy the reason they were put into coalition in the first place (i.e. to protect the country from FG) then Labour are doomed at the next GE. Labours reason for existing is that they are/were the only strong left wing party. They have deserted the left and others (SF/IND) are reaping the reward. If Gilmore continues to sit in Iveagh House in his cosy Foreign Affairs job, both he and Labour are toast.
• SF will continue to grow but unless some of the old dogs (primarily Adams) depart the scene and leave it to Mary Lou and the SF ladies I can see a lot of people who voted for them this time round, rejecting them at the next GE. If Adams were to retire gracefully and Mary Lou were to lead SF into the next GE there could be a very different story
• FF / FG will remain in the 25% region . . the 'core' vote that would allow either party to hit 40% and threaten for an overall majority is gone, I think forever. . Now, more than ever there is plenty of rationale for FF/FG to come together and offer a government that, from a policy perspective, makes sense..

donalh087

I suspect there will be a huge movement in Labour over the next few weeks to be seen to take a stand on something - probably water charges. It wouldn't surprise me to see the government fall by mid summer.

Godge

donalh087 wrote: »

I suspect there will be a huge movement in Labour over the next few weeks to be seen to take a stand on something - probably water charges. It wouldn't surprise me to see the government fall by mid summer.

I am not so sure.

If the general election is held this year, then Labour will definitely be wiped out.
If the general election is held in 2016, Labour will probably be wiped out.

Quin_Dub

hallelujajordan wrote: »

• Labour will remain weak.. Unless they can begin to live up to their promises and satisfy the reason they were put into coalition in the first place (i.e. to protect the country from FG) then Labour are doomed at the next GE. Labours reason for existing is that they are/were the only strong left wing party. They have deserted the left and others (SF/IND) are reaping the reward. If Gilmore continues to sit in Iveagh House in his cosy Foreign Affairs job, both he and Labour are toast.
• SF will continue to grow but unless some of the old dogs (primarily Adams) depart the scene and leave it to Mary Lou and the SF ladies I can see a lot of people who voted for them this time round, rejecting them at the next GE. If Adams were to retire gracefully and Mary Lou were to lead SF into the next GE there could be a very different story
• FF / FG will remain in the 25% region . . the 'core' vote that would allow either party to hit 40% and threaten for an overall majority is gone, I think forever. . Now, more than ever there is plenty of rationale for FF/FG to come together and offer a government that, from a policy perspective, makes sense..

I would agree with all the above.

However , I can't see Adams stepping down, not with the possibility of Government in the offing , despite the fact that his presence significantly weakens that possibility..

My fear on SF getting into Government as a Junior partner (aside from Adams as Tanaiste...) is that hubris and bloody mindedness would have SF actually follow through on some the various "Tax the Rich and increase government spending like mad" options that they have on the table..

Whilst we are in the s**t right now and the current government have made more than a few missteps thus far , I do believe that broadly speaking we are on the right track (albeit taking longer than anyone would like). But if we were to do the things that SF/PbP/AAA etc. advocate we would kill the economy for good.

We might get a short term , dead cat bounce from the increased tax revenue from increasing the corporate tax rate and introducing various wealth taxes. But it would be very short lived .

All the FDI would dry up , they'd simply stop investing - They won't simply shut down the day after the budget , but they will just shift focus and let the jobs wither on the vine here and shift the various functions out of the country to avoid taxes..

3-5 years after the introduction of the kind of fiscal policies that the far left are advocating the country would terminally screwed.. Even if a future government were to undo those changes it would be near impossible to restore confidence with the FDI world and without it our economy cannot survive...

golfball37

Why does everyone focus on the economy and not society? I just can't fathom it. Until the main politcal parties start showing a social conscience I won't vote for any of them. Labour were finished with me when they sacrificed Shorthall to the wolves for highlighting a stroke FF would have been villified for.

New Politics my eye. That for me anyway is the real issue with these results and why I voted the way I did.

Riskymove

Godge wrote: »

I am not so sure.

If the general election is held this year, then Labour will definitely be wiped out.
If the general election is held in 2016, Labour will probably be wiped out.

I really disagree, 3 years ago a common view was that FF and Greens were finished....this weekend both made gains

if it is 2 years to an election, anything can happen

Godge

Riskymove wrote: »

I really disagree, 3 years ago a common view was that FF and Greens were finished....this weekend both made gains

if it is 2 years to an election, anything can happen

I don't think we disagree. Your scenario is possible, but unlikely.

It is actually more realistic that if Michael Noonan starts the process of tax cuts this October and continues it the following October while also giving something in the form of reducing the pay levy or giving back the pay cuts to the public sector workers that FG could recover quite significantly.

It is harder for Labour because they have fallen further. Look at FF, for all the talk of recovery, they are only back to the level of their worst local election performance in history - 2009.

Outkast_IRE

Honestly there will be massive pressure on FG/Labour to give something back to the middle class in the next budget, if they can manage with this and the next budget to ease some of the burden then it might not be as bad as people think.


I think the medical card / health issue is going to be a massive battleground for the next year. There are medical cards being taken off deserving people left/right and center and they are being given automatically to young children. This is a case of shafting those who have paid into the system for years in favour of young kids. Its not sitting well with the population at all.

I am also aware of someone with chronic arthritis in both hips, who struggles with daily tasks and is on enough pain meds for a horse who has been messed around on waiting lists for hip replacement for nearly 2 years now.

hallelujajordan

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I think the medical card / health issue is going to be a massive battleground for the next year. There are medical cards being taken off deserving people left/right and center and they are being given automatically to young children. This is a case of shafting those who have paid into the system for years in favour of young kids. Its not sitting well with the population at all.

I am also aware of someone with chronic arthritis in both hips, who struggles with daily tasks and is on enough pain meds for a horse who has been messed around on waiting lists for hip replacement for nearly 2 years now.

If Gilmore has the sense and the balls then he will fight to take Health himself in the upcoming reshuffle. .

By doing this he would be able to tackle issues like the medical card crisis and win back some public confidence while at the same time staying at home in Ireland and showing some leadership..

If he doesn't then I give him no more than 6 months . . 2 more cycles of negative opinion polls will force Burton et al to react (If they dont do so now !)

comongethappy

What is the medical card crisis?

Too many cards?
Or too few?

hallelujajordan

comongethappy wrote: »

What is the medical card crisis?

Too many cards?
Or too few?

Inappropriate distribution . . Government promises medical cards to under 5's while taking them off people who actually need them . .

Outkast_IRE

comongethappy wrote: »

What is the medical card crisis?

Too many cards?
Or too few?

The medical card crisis is a problem right from Local GP level up to the administration and application of the system.

The issue with the amount of cards according to many in the profession such as doctors etc is that there are X amount of cards to be given out. With O Reilly giving cards automatically to young children, it means that basically all applicants that are not children will be scrutinised in order to get numbers down to the same X amount as much as possible.

Now i have no issue with them properly vetting applicants, however for the last few years i would call what they are doing in some cases a disgrace. They have set out to make the process so drawn out, frustrating and slow in the hope people wont fight them.

In my own case my mothers application for renewal took over 9 months, during this 9 months she had to pay for all her own medications up to the drug scheme limit (which is considerable).

They lost documents she sent in, made her reapply from scratch, they turned her down with the section giving the reason for being turned down left blank (they couldnt think of a reason). Then on appeal they sent her the medical card with no explanation of what had changed. 9 months of stress and fighting for a woman with chronic emphysema and suffering from breast cancer took its toll on her health as she stressed over money to pay for medication.

The current system is not there to help the people its there to keep the numbers as low as possible.

K-9

comongethappy wrote: »

What is the medical card crisis?

Too many cards?
Or too few?

Well it seems the Government wants an Universal system so that would mean too few!

There's a lot of cases in the press that I'd find hard to see why the card was taken away. Labour were voted in to safeguard stuff like that from FG, and rightly or wrongly get the blame for cases like that.

Conmaicne Mara

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

In my own case my mothers application for renewal took over 9 months, during this 9 months she had to pay for all her own medications up to the drug scheme limit (which is considerable).

They lost documents she sent in, made her reapply from scratch, they turned her down with the section giving the reason for being turned down left blank (they couldnt think of a reason). Then on appeal they sent her the medical card with no explanation of what had changed. 9 months of stress and fighting for a woman with chronic emphysema and suffering from breast cancer took its toll on her health as she stressed over money to pay for medication.

The current system is not there to help the people its there to keep the numbers as low as possible.

Seems to be a relatively common practice in this country (in more sectors than health), frustrate and delay the applicant to the point they go away/go broke/die, which ever happens first. With, like you say, no reason behind it whatsoever.

comongethappy

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Inappropriate distribution . . Government promises medical cards to under 5's while taking them off people who actually need them . .

Medical cards for under 5's?

Where?

Riskymove

comongethappy wrote: »

Medical cards for under 5's?

Where?

It's a GP card not a medical card

Godge

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

The medical card crisis is a problem right from Local GP level up to the administration and application of the system.

The issue with the amount of cards according to many in the profession such as doctors etc is that there are X amount of cards to be given out. With O Reilly giving cards automatically to young children, it means that basically all applicants that are not children will be scrutinised in order to get numbers down to the same X amount as much as possible.

Now i have no issue with them properly vetting applicants, however for the last few years i would call what they are doing in some cases a disgrace. They have set out to make the process so drawn out, frustrating and slow in the hope people wont fight them.

In my own case my mothers application for renewal took over 9 months, during this 9 months she had to pay for all her own medications up to the drug scheme limit (which is considerable).

They lost documents she sent in, made her reapply from scratch, they turned her down with the section giving the reason for being turned down left blank (they couldnt think of a reason). Then on appeal they sent her the medical card with no explanation of what had changed. 9 months of stress and fighting for a woman with chronic emphysema and suffering from breast cancer took its toll on her health as she stressed over money to pay for medication.

The current system is not there to help the people its there to keep the numbers as low as possible.

There are 2 million medical card holders, there are 2 million workers.

Each person working is paying for a medical card for someone else.

That is not sustainable.

There is something wrong with the system of medical cards.

Outkast_IRE

Godge wrote: »

There are 2 million medical card holders, there are 2 million workers.

Each person working is paying for a medical card for someone else.

That is not sustainable.

There is something wrong with the system of medical cards.

That number or medical cards should see a natural decline over the next few years, as the numbers entitled to it sky rocketed as unemployment rose.
As unemployment declines we should see a lag of a year or so for renewals to come up due and people to be no longer entitled to them.

I agree there is something wrong with the system, there are systems all over Europe where healthcare is fully covered as a tax deduction from your wage and they have good well run systems.

Godge

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

That number or medical cards should see a natural decline over the next few years, as the numbers entitled to it sky rocketed as unemployment rose.
As unemployment declines we should see a lag of a year or so for renewals to come up due and people to be no longer entitled to them.

I agree there is something wrong with the system, there are systems all over Europe where healthcare is fully covered as a tax deduction from your wage and they have good well run systems.

Those countries have much lower social welfare payments.

One example. Why didn't the government cut child benefit (costing €2 bn) again to find the money for paying for medical cards for all under-16s. That direct benefit would be a much better way of spending the child benefit.

Outkast_IRE

Godge wrote: »

Those countries have much lower social welfare payments.

Not all of them, Germany their version of jobseekers is paid in proportion of the wage you had before losing the job. Think it starts at 75% and reduces and if you take up certain up skilling it doesnt reduce for that duration.

They also have a pretty good health system, you contribute alot in your tax to it but you have access to GPs, Specialists and Hospitals quickly.


Also GPs wouldnt accept a direct re-routing of those funds for all under 16s to have a medical card, one of the biggest problems with GPs at the moment is that each medical card holder is only worth about €11 a month to them but they are the most frequent visitors to the GP. There are quite a few GPs now not accepting any new medical card patients.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Well it seems the Government wants an Universal system so that would mean too few!

There's a lot of cases in the press that I'd find hard to see why the card was taken away. Labour were voted in to safeguard stuff like that from FG, and rightly or wrongly get the blame for cases like that.

Well Labour hold the Ministry so it's reasonable the blame lands at their feet no?

Riskymove

nesf wrote: »

Well Labour hold the Ministry so it's reasonable the blame lands at their feet no?

no they don't...medical cards are via HSE not Social Protection

hallelujajordan

Back on topic . . . and to the question of whether recent election results would be reflected in the next GE . .

Gilmore clearly didn't have the balls to fight it out, take on a real (and home-based) ministry (like health) and try to tackle the issues that are hurting the people on the ground, showing leadership to his people and to potential future labour voters... He has been a huge disappointment imho and will leave his post as Tanaiste having achieved nothing other than selling out on labour voters and breaking many of his pre-election promises.

For Labour to avoid annihilation at the next GE . . the next leader needs to step up to the plate and tackle the FG leadership . . the next year in government could be really uncomfortable for all sides..

The next Labour leader needs to be strong enough to make Enda Kenny believe they are willing to walk away from government if necessary ..

comongethappy

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Back on topic . . . and to the question of whether recent election results would be reflected in the next GE . .

Gilmore clearly didn't have the balls to fight it out, take on a real (and home-based) ministry (like health) and try to tackle the issues that are hurting the people on the ground, showing leadership to his people and to potential future labour voters... He has been a huge disappointment imho and will leave his post as Tanaiste having achieved nothing other than selling out on labour voters and breaking many of his pre-election promises.

For Labour to avoid annihilation at the next GE . . the next leader needs to step up to the plate and tackle the FG leadership . . the next year in government could be really uncomfortable for all sides..

The next Labour leader needs to be strong enough to make Enda Kenny believe they are willing to walk away from government if necessary ..

What does threatening to bring down the government achieve?
That only plays into the hands of the opposition, as well as distracting from doing the jobs they were elected to do

hallelujajordan

comongethappy wrote: »

What does threatening to bring down the government achieve?
That only plays into the hands of the opposition, as well as distracting from doing the jobs they were elected to do

It's not about threatening to bring down the government. . It's about making the FG leadership recognise that they have to listen more closely to their government partners ..

Labour need to show that a FG/LAB coalition government is different/better than a FG overall majority. This was the whole basis behind their 2011 campaign, it is the reason they did so well in the last election and their failure to live up to this promise is the reason they are suffering at the hands of the electorate right now..

Quin_Dub

comongethappy wrote: »

What does threatening to bring down the government achieve?
That only plays into the hands of the opposition, as well as distracting from doing the jobs they were elected to do

Agreed - That'd would rightly be seen as pure electioneering...

People need to see the light at the end of the tunnel - There has to be some kind of "give back" in the next budget..

Not advocating the extremes of the socialist parties as I believe that would have catastrophic long term implications, but the government need to start rewarding the country for the last number of years of austerity...They have to find some high profile way of cutting taxes.

For example if they were to lay out a roadmap of plans to reduce USC and/or widen tax bands over the next few years with a small start in the next budget I think that would be a big help...

They also need to sort out the Health Dept - Reilly is clearly out of touch here...

The things he is advocating like universal health care, free care for children etc. are all very laudable , just not in the current economic situation.

Health has always been managed terribly by successive Governments , the boom years ministers just threw cash at it without ever addressing the fundamental structural issues..Reilly continues the theme of not addressing the underlying issues except now with a shrinking budget..

The limited budget needs to be spent MUCH more effectively...And stop talking about universal free anything for at least a few years yet....

TL;DR - If the government wants to survive full term and have a hope of re-election they need to give some kind of tax cuts in the next budget and they need to start to look like they have a clue about how to properly sort out the Health Service.

hallelujajordan

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agreed - That'd would rightly be seen as pure electioneering...

People need to see the light at the end of the tunnel - There has to be some kind of "give back" in the next budget..

Not advocating the extremes of the socialist parties as I believe that would have catastrophic long term implications, but the government need to start rewarding the country for the last number of years of austerity...They have to find some high profile way of cutting taxes.

For example if they were to lay out a roadmap of plans to reduce USC and/or widen tax bands over the next few years with a small start in the next budget I think that would be a big help...

They also need to sort out the Health Dept - Reilly is clearly out of touch here...

The things he is advocating like universal health care, free care for children etc. are all very laudable , just not in the current economic situation.

Health has always been managed terribly by successive Governments , the boom years ministers just threw cash at it without ever addressing the fundamental structural issues..Reilly continues the theme of not addressing the underlying issues except now with a shrinking budget..

The limited budget needs to be spent MUCH more effectively...And stop talking about universal free anything for at least a few years yet....

TL;DR - If the government wants to survive full term and have a hope of re-election they need to give some kind of tax cuts in the next budget and they need to start to look like they have a clue about how to properly sort out the Health Service.

The trouble with this analysis is that it is correct. . There will likely be tax cuts in the next election, not because we can afford them but because the government know that they have only 2 budgets to buy back public support . . and the vicious cycle continues..

We should forget about broad-base tax cuts and lets start looking at how we can spend what we have more fairly...

Idbatterim

The trouble with this analysis is that it is correct. . There will likely be tax cuts in the next election, not because we can afford them but because the government know that they have only 2 budgets to buy back public support . . and the vicious cycle continues..

We should forget about broad-base tax cuts and lets start looking at how we can spend what we have more fairly...

The thing is, they have to buy back public support, what are they going to do, leave the door open for FF or SF to walk in uncontested? the question is how little can you give away so that you can be responsible with the economy but make sure you are returned to power? I dont think anything should be cut except the scandalous marginal rate, if there is any more money it should go to the actual vulnerable, job creation, policing etc, no where near as sexy as tax cuts and benefit increases for all though...

comongethappy

Well, by the end of this year there should* be a 1billion primary surplus & they project a 4-5 billion surplus by yr end 2015.

Plenty to play with, while keeping the budget in balance.

The taxbands have been static for a few years now (which costs people more than LPT but no one notices).

I think they can win back the people if they aggressively adjust income tax bands & tresholds , while keeping a firm control of expenditure.

Quin_Dub

comongethappy wrote: »

Well, by the end of this year there should* be a 1billion primary surplus & they project a 4-5 billion surplus by yr end 2015.

Plenty to play with, while keeping the budget in balance.

The taxbands have been static for a few years now (which costs people more than LPT but no one notices).

I think they can win back the people if they aggressively adjust income tax bands & tresholds , while keeping a firm control of expenditure.

I agree - If they widen the tax bands , specifically raising the entry level to the higher rate that would go a very long way to salving the voters that have shifted to the left in recent times... They should not touch the bottom of the lower rate or change the top rate, it's the middle that matters...

To stay in Government , they have to give something to the middle income groups , it's the 15%-20% or so of the electorate that voted SF/Others last week having voted for FG/Lab the last time around. The same group that voted FG/Lab at the last election having shifted from FF.

Idbatterim

The taxbands have been static for a few years now (which costs people more than LPT but no one notices).

I agree and have pointed this out and so have a few other posters recently, to hell with their mickey mouse water tax or LPT, taking E520 from every single E1000 makes the two look like an absolute irrelevance.

They should not touch the bottom of the lower rate or change the top rate, it's the middle that matters...

I agree that I wouldnt touch the bottom rate, the lower paid contribute virtually nothing, it has been hard fought for them to even contribute a tiny amount, there is no way I would undo that. But the top rate is problematic on a number of front, they should reduce it to 49% or so maximum, psychologically them thieving over half of your earnings is wrong, I think it is wrong at any amount and immoral, but from 33,000?! To be honest, I think having only 2 bands is ridiculous, I think the first should end around 30-35, k then up to 65-70k, then 100k plus and maybe a max one at 150k plus... I dont even think that is fair to be honestly, marginal rate earners are being bled dry to keep everyone else in a high standard of living, that wont change though... As in if what you paid in reflected welfare if you became unemployed or your pension, it would be different, but its gets you nothing in return, just feeding a never ending gravy train...

Quin_Dub

Idbatterim wrote: »

I agree and have pointed this out and so have a few other posters recently, to hell with their mickey mouse water tax or LPT, taking E520 from every single E1000 makes the two look like an absolute irrelevance.


I agree that I wouldnt touch the bottom rate, the lower paid contribute virtually nothing, it has been hard fought for them to even contribute a tiny amount, there is no way I would undo that. But the top rate is problematic on a number of front, they should reduce it to 49% or so maximum, psychologically them thieving over half of your earnings is wrong, I think it is wrong at any amount and immoral, but from 33,000?! To be honest, I think having only 2 bands is ridiculous, I think the first should end around 30-35, k then up to 65-70k, then 100k plus and maybe a max one at 150k plus... I dont even think that is fair to be honestly, marginal rate earners are being bled dry to keep everyone else in a high standard of living, that wont change though... As in if what you paid in reflected welfare if you became unemployed or your pension, it would be different, but its gets you nothing in return, just feeding a never ending gravy train...

Broadly speaking I wouldn't disagree with most of that at all..

The current bottom rate needs to begin moving towards 50k exit rate to be honest..

End-state they should have a base rate at about 35% running up to 50k earnings , next a 40% rate running to 100k , then a 45% rate running to ~150k and a top rate of 50% for everything above that..

With allowances , the "average industrial wage earner" would be paying an effective rate of about 16-17% - That seems fair and equitable to me..

It would take a few years to get to that though , would be too much to do that in 1 shot..

So , for the next budget , they should introduce the new top rate from the above @150k (the so-called Wealth tax) and extend the bottom rate to as close to 40k as the can afford.. BUT , they also need to articulate the plans to get to the end-state version as well over the subsequent 2-3 years..

That would make a real difference and also hit all the current socialist sound bites..

petronius

While two years is a very long time in politics - I can see some potential for the locals this year to have an impact
I think labour has performed so badly in government and being out of tune, that they will now be on a crusade to save their seats and some will - i think 15 seats for labour is realistic they may well do well on FG transfers but would be the
I think some of their seats will go to Independent Labour deputies
I think Fianna Fail will regain some of the seats and
Sinn Fein and the Left will surely take seats from Labour
I would say Sinn Fein would look at gaining 5 to 10 seats in the next election
from locals Chris Andrews(Dublin Bay South), Paul Donnelly(Dublin West), Eoin O'Brion(Dublin Mid West), and Maurice Quinlivan(Limerick) seem very well placed but 2nd seats in Cavan/Monaghan and Louth seem possible and targets in Waterford, Cork South, Wicklow, Dublin North Bay.
The Left PBP/SP/Ind Left
I find it harder for them to get new seats, Dublin South West, Cork City, Sligo more likely is independents who are left leaning may join them. They will also have to cope with the loss of Higgins, Coppinger could retain the seat but it will be a 6 way battle for 4 seats
And could Paul Murphy win a dail seat somewhere in dublin?

I think there is scope for a new party (centrist or right of centre) which could get a dozen seats or more around Creighton, Stephen Donnelly maybe Ross as well

A Rough seat guess for next time
FG 60
FF 40
LB 15
SF 25
Left 8
Ind 18 ( i guess there must be a couple of Green TDs next time out)

this scenario would leave FG-FF with a decision to make
if they got a few more seats each FG and LAB could be returned but I can see FG struggle to make 60 as is
the only plausible other combination is FG and SF
if there was a new political party of former FGers and Independents and former PDs it is possible that this could be a likely new coalition partner for FG

interesting times

goat2

Will the Euro/Local Election results be reflected in next General Election

i think that this result will be reflected, we have nothing to lose, i voted completely different this time and will next time also,
voted for a person who was in politics years last time,
this time i voted for new comers, and hope to do so next time, need new energy

Idbatterim

i think that this result will be reflected, we have nothing to lose, i voted completely different this time and will next time also,

I wouldnt agree with that, SF or FF calling the shots? Oh we sure do have something to lose!

Quin_Dub

petronius wrote: »

A Rough seat guess for next time
FG 60
FF 40
LB 15
SF 25
Left 8
Ind 18 ( i guess there must be a couple of Green TDs next time out)

I'd reckon that you could flip the SF/Ind numbers above...

I reckon we'll see a lot more independents next time around - They will be super transfer friendly...

Can't see SF breaking 20 in a GE meaning that no-one will be able to get a majority with a 2 party grouping so you'll likely end up with a minority FG/Lab government with a few independents(Lowry et al)giving them ~80 seats/votes.

So we'll end up having another election 12 months later...

goat2

now that sf are in in good numbers and were calling for easing costs on ordinary working people,
we have the chance to see if they will bring down the water charges, and property tax, i know we should pay for water but i fairer way would be to just charge far less and leave out all these meters which is costing us far more than they will ever collect,
so we will have to wait and see, now that they will have some say in what is happening

comongethappy

goat2 wrote: »

now that sf are in in good numbers and were calling for easing costs on ordinary working people,
we have the chance to see if they will bring down the water charges, and property tax, i know we should pay for water but i fairer way would be to just charge far less and leave out all these meters which is costing us far more than they will ever collect,
so we will have to wait and see, now that they will have some say in what is happening

Metering will be recouped in a couple of years & is the cornerstone in encouraging people to reduce usage, so is better than flat rates.

Its easy to "call" for tax reductions when you are in opposition.

Its different when there is a multi-billion deficit to close.

ciaran00

If you look at the the most recent election in India (May) The overwhelming influencer has been the impact of social media. Stat: After the 7th round of polling, there were 49 million Indian elections-related conversations on Twitter – more than double the 20 million Indian election-related conversations on Twitter for all of 2013. In 2009, Shashi Tharoor was the only Indian politician to have a Twitter account and had 6,000 followers.
This will be a much bigger player in influencing the electorate in the next general election.