Red C Poll

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

That may well happen but I think you underestimate the uphill battle for independents.

I've always been told that I'm far too optimistic to be a Earthman, let alone an Irishman.

I have held the belief that independents/others have been hiding a lot of don't knows/won't votes which would traditionally have featured in opinion polls. In the past the don't knows would often have been up to 30% at this time of the electoral cycle - now they are 13%. A different indicator is that small parties (apart from SF) have not seen gains. Renua is only 2%, Greens 2-3%, SP and PBP negligible support. They should have got bigger chunks of the independent vote if it was really anti-establishment.

Is this necessarily true? If what's driving people to independents is the utter lack of accountability for the cabinet in a three line whip system, Greens and SF wouldn't be doing any better than other parties. Renua is seen by many in my generation as the antithesis of what we need, given that they were founded on a platform of social conservatism which most young voters reject, but made up of otherwise FG policy supporting TDs, which are also being rejected by those swinging towards independents.

Again you could easily be right, but there are reasons to believe you might not be, and I will once again err on the side of optimism

That means a decline looks inevitable. It will look worse than it is making it possible that a self-reinforcing trend will appear.

Can you explain this last point?

hatrickpatrick

alaimacerc wrote: »

A "handily vague term" indeed. If a term means anything, it means nothing. That wasn't a useful -- or even a usable -- definition.

Which part did you find confusing? Establishment parties uphold the power of the establishment. The establishment is comprised of institutions which wield power over the individual citizen. I cited the examples of the banks and the church - two entities whose desires have regularly triumphed over the will of the ordinary citizenry in terms of which policies are implemented and which are not. Any party which bends to the lobbying of these institutions even when a majority of the people are opposed can be considered an establishment party.

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Which part did you find confusing?

What part of "handily vague term" do you find to in any way resemble "oh no, I am hopelessly confused by this!"

Establishment parties uphold the power of the establishment.

Redundant definition is redundant.

Your argument is fundamentally with "parties", full stop, it seems to me. You're essentially just using "establishment" as a snarl word, in a way that contributes nothing to the meaning of what you're saying.

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again you could easily be right, but there are reasons to believe you might not be, and I will once again err on the side of optimism

Setting aside our fundamental disagreement about whether there's anything "optimistic" about the scenario you envisage, what on earth are these unspecified reasons? There's every reason to believe the indie "intending" vote is a ball of smoke, and these have been outlined in detail. We'd suppose otherwise because...?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I've always been told that I'm far too optimistic to be a Earthman, let alone an Irishman.



Is this necessarily true? If what's driving people to independents is the utter lack of accountability for the cabinet in a three line whip system, Greens and SF wouldn't be doing any better than other parties. Renua is seen by many in my generation as the antithesis of what we need, given that they were founded on a platform of social conservatism which most young voters reject, but made up of otherwise FG policy supporting TDs, which are also being rejected by those swinging towards independents.

There are many reasons people are voting independent. Those are only some of them. The other reasons people say they are voting independent or other include because they don't know, because they are angry with the government but not prepared to vote for another party etc. Many of those reasons will see some of them move back to FG and/or Labour closer to an election.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again you could easily be right, but there are reasons to believe you might not be, and I will once again err on the side of optimism



Can you explain this last point?

Simple. If the independent/others includes don't knows because of the way independents/others have got bigger in the last 10 years and it is an easy way to answer an opinion poll then those don't knows won't necessarily vote independent/others come election day.

hatrickpatrick

alaimacerc wrote: »

What part of "handily vague term" do you find to in any way resemble "oh no, I am hopelessly confused by this!"

if you regard my definition as vague, I can only assume you didn't understand it. I was being explicitly clear, and I listed the parties I would currently consider to be establishment apologists.

Redundant definition is redundant.

You're the one who asked for definitions. I first defined the establishment, and I subsequently defined establishment parties.

Your argument is fundamentally with "parties", full stop, it seems to me. You're essentially just using "establishment" as a snarl word, in a way that contributes nothing to the meaning of what you're saying.

Not at all. If a party emerged which put implementing the policies which the vast majority of Irish people want implemented, and abolishing those which the vast majority of citizens wand abolished, ahead of doing what select cliques and powerful vested interests want, I would not consider it an establishment party and would not oppose it. Of course, in order for this to happen, it's my belief that such a party would have to afford a far larger degree of freedom to its TDs - this isn't necessarily the case, but it would certainly seem to be.

The party whip wouldn't be a problem if the cabinet was committed to implementing what the people want as opposed to what it wants in the first place.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

There are many reasons people are voting independent. Those are only some of them. The other reasons people say they are voting independent or other include because they don't know, because they are angry with the government but not prepared to vote for another party etc. Many of those reasons will see some of them move back to FG and/or Labour closer to an election.





Simple. If the independent/others includes don't knows because of the way independents/others have got bigger in the last 10 years and it is an easy way to answer an opinion poll then those don't knows won't necessarily vote independent/others come election day.

Makes sense. Again, I think our fundamental disagreement is that you believe the independent vote to be largely superficial or indeed artificial. Personally I'd like to think people are sick of the guillotine and being ignored by a cabinet which forces representatives to implement policies the clear majority of the people don't approve of.

This article sums it up nicely IMO:
http://m.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/politics-failing-as-anger-thrives-30710555.html

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Makes sense. Again, I think our fundamental disagreement is that you believe the independent vote to be largely superficial or indeed artificial. Personally I'd like to think people are sick of the guillotine and being ignored by a cabinet which forces representatives to implement policies the clear majority of the people don't approve of.

This article sums it up nicely IMO:
http://m.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/politics-failing-as-anger-thrives-30710555.html

Oh, it contains the people you mention, just not to the extent reported in the opinion polls. I think, despite it having hit 30%, the independent vote will do well to reach 20% in the actual election.

CramCycle

Do these opinion polls share where those, who responded what. are from?

Might make alot of this discussion clearer if they do

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

if you regard my definition as vague, I can only assume you didn't understand it. I was being explicitly clear, and I listed the parties I would currently consider to be establishment apologists.

If someone said "the lamentably bad parties", my reaction would be be similar. Lack of useful clarity on your part is not confusion on mine.

You're the one who asked for definitions. I first defined the establishment, and I subsequently defined establishment parties.

The latter isn't an act of definition, it's ad hoc enumeration. I asked for a definition in the hope you might provide a somewhat objective one. Or repent of your own woolly usage! Long shots, perhaps, but worth a shot.

Not at all. If a party emerged which put implementing the policies which the vast majority of Irish people want implemented, and abolishing those which the vast majority of citizens wand abolished, ahead of doing what select cliques and powerful vested interests want, I would not consider it an establishment party and would not oppose it.

That's the most blatantly cherry-picked usage so far. A party you wouldn't oppose is, mysteriously, inherently "not establishment". Tell me, when other people use the phrase, according to their own personal criteria, do you not find yourself noting the utter inconsistency and self-serving nature of such? Or do you just nod along on the basis that essentially all the current parties are too "establishment", so the more rhetoric against them, the better?

alaimacerc

Godge wrote: »

I think, despite it having hit 30%, the independent vote will do well to reach 20% in the actual election.

Would do badly thereby, ITYM.

hatrickpatrick

CramCycle wrote: »

Do these opinion polls share where those, who responded what. are from?

Might make alot of this discussion clearer if they do

The Irish Times ones certainly do.
What specifically would interest you? Which counties?

CramCycle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The Irish Times ones certainly do.
What specifically would interest you? Which counties?

I thought they did but couldn't see it. People talk about opinion polls transferring into seats, and alot of the talk is in the old acceptance of transfer toxic parties, independents being a protest that will die out as we get closer. If the poll showed what constituencies were giving responses too, then it would be easier to comment on them.

Some have said renua have 2%, spread across the country, they will be lucky to get a seat at all. The greens at 2%, if concentrated in Dublin, will presumably get Eamonn in the door but can they get anyone else in anywhere?

Are the bounce backs for FG and labour in areas with strong incumbent TDs, likely to be reelected or is is a general overall support, two completely different stories are told by this.

Are FF staying the same everywhere or are there seismic fluctuations in areas that will gain them seats etc.

People say Sinn Fein will be lucky to make their popularity count in the polls due to transfer toxicity. Are they popular all over including areas without candidates or are they strong in areas with candidates are established, the latter gives you the likely seats, the former shows how badly that popularity could be represented on election day.

Is the popularity in Independents seen in areas without named independents?

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Makes sense. Again, I think our fundamental disagreement is that you believe the independent vote to be largely superficial or indeed artificial. Personally I'd like to think people are sick of the guillotine and being ignored by a cabinet which forces representatives to implement policies the clear majority of the people don't approve of.

Recall the joke about the market research that showed the customers wanted better products for free, yesterday? The clear majority of people want better public services, lower taxes, and government by omnicompetent plaster saints.

We've long established you'd like to think this, but what we're missing is any evidence this is meaningfully correlated to the independent vote. Or more to the point, to the "telling opinion pollsters they might vote for some entirely unspecified indie" factor. Lots of people voting for parties are unhappy about the use of the guillotine -- especially opposition parties, whoever that happens to be at any given time. Funnily enough. And very clearly people have reasons for voting indie that are more diverse than you can shake a fist at.

This article sums it up nicely IMO:
http://m.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/politics-failing-as-anger-thrives-30710555.html

The article correctly describes a fairly generalised discontent, but beyond that I don't think it at all supports your hypothesis. The thing is, there's very little sign that people actually want anything radically different. They want the same thing... but magically better. Centre-right voters are still voting centre-right, just in different permutations. The left still votes left, it's just a bit angrier and keener on opposition than on government. And the populist nationalists may be somewhat reconfiguring into... another bunch of populist nationalists. Obviously the categories aren't actually rigid -- witness the FF councillor reportedly flirting with SF, before ending up in Rnu. D'oh. But there's no broad realignment between the categories. Much less the emergence of a new Tea Party one.

hatrickpatrick

alaimacerc wrote: »

If someone said "the lamentably bad parties", my reaction would be be similar. Lack of useful clarity on your part is not confusion on mine.


The latter isn't an act of definition, it's ad hoc enumeration. I asked for a definition in the hope you might provide a somewhat objective one. Or repent of your own woolly usage! Long shots, perhaps, but worth a shot.

What specifically is wrong with the definition I provided? The establishment refers to powerful institutions / vested interests which are able to exercise power over citizens. Establishment parties comprise those who are willing to put the wishes of these vested interests above the will of the people. How could I make this definition more clear? I provided three obvious examples of such vested interests. Is it that you'd like more examples?

That's the most blatantly cherry-picked usage so far. A party you wouldn't oppose is, mysteriously, inherently "not establishment". Tell me, when other people use the phrase, according to their own personal criteria, do you not find yourself noting the utter inconsistency and self-serving nature of such? Or do you just nod along on the basis that essentially all the current parties are too "establishment", so the more rhetoric against them, the better?

I could very easily oppose a non-establishment party. Sinn Fein is a good example. I don't support them at all, but they are currently not establishment either. Many predict that they would abandon their manifesto in government - if they did not do this, they would remain non-establishment as they are now, but I would still oppose them.

Why are you choosing to ignore the definition I have provided?
An establishment party is one which supports established, powerful, vested institutions even when the majority of the people don't support their policies. They enable certain organisations or entities to exercise power over the ordinary citizenry, even when those ordinary citizenry are not ok with that.

FG is currently doing this in any number of ways - to take three examples: by appointing old political cronies to public boards, by refusing to tackle bonus culture in banks, by last year persistently covering up and defending problems within the Gardai and the justice system - in all three cases, the public did not support the institution being defended, and yet the government continued to defend them. It's fairly clear that the public by and large are not ok with political appointments to boards, are not ok with bonus culture in bailed out banks, are not ok with the breakdown in the justice system which was exposed last year. In all three cases, the government have failed to adequately tackle those vested interests, even though the public want them tackled. This is by definition anti-democratic. The establishment is being protected from the public will.

hatrickpatrick

This is from Wikipedia:

The Establishment generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds power or authority in a nation or organization. The Establishment may be a closed social group which selects its own members (as opposed to selection by merit or election) or specific entrenched elite structures, either in government or in specific institutions

The American Sociological Association states that the term is often used by those protesting a small group that dominates a larger organization. For example, in 1968 a group of academics set up the "Sociology Liberation Movement" to repudiate the leadership of the American Sociological Association, which they referred to as the "Establishment in American sociology".[1]

In fact, any relatively small class or group of people having control can be referred to as The Establishment; and conversely, in the jargon of sociology, anyone who does not belong to The Establishment may be labelled an "outsider".[2][3]

Pretty much exactly my definition of "The Establishment".

Establishment parties, support the aforementioned small groups with control, at the expense of the wishes of the wider citizenry.

I honestly don't see how I can make this any clearer...

alaimacerc

CramCycle wrote: »

People talk about opinion polls transferring into seats, and alot of the talk is in the old acceptance of transfer toxic parties, independents being a protest that will die out as we get closer. If the poll showed what constituencies were giving responses too, then it would be easier to comment on them.

They deliberately don't give that breakdown, as if it's spread over the country, the sample size in each constituency would be so small the margin of error would be huge. And worse if it's not spread over the country -- that would call into question whether the methodology was sound, for the purposes of gauging true national figures. Unfortunately if you want constituency polls, you have to commission them separately, which clearly is vastly more expensive to do.

Is the popularity in Independents seen in areas without named independents?

It's a good question. I suspect many are expressing this intention without any actual idea what their available candidates are (or are likely to be). "I like that Mick Wallace/Shane Ross/other, I'd vote for someone similar to that."

hatrickpatrick

alaimacerc wrote: »

They deliberately don't give that breakdown, as if it's spread over the country, the sample size in each constituency would be so small the margin of error would be huge. And worse if it's not spread over the country -- that would call into question whether the methodology was sound, for the purposes of gauging true national figures. Unfortunately if you want constituency polls, you have to commission them separately, which clearly is vastly more expensive to do.


It's a good question. I suspect many are expressing this intention without any actual idea what their available candidates are (or are likely to be). "I like that Mick Wallace/Shane Ross/other, I'd vote for someone similar to that."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll

See the numerous drop-down menus as you scroll the page? They let you filter the results by geographical area.
But go on claiming that the poll is trying to pull a fast one. Hope the straws you're clutching at aren't giving you any paper cuts

Zubeneschamali

Godge wrote: »

Some people previously angry with the government are moving back towards supporting them but there is a long way to the next election.

When people are angry, it is easy to say they will vote independent, SF or whatever protest vote is in the survey.

But in this latest RED C poll, 29% of SF supporters worry that a change of Government would stall any recovery. 34% of Independent voters. 47% of undecided voters.

There simply is no alternative government. The Opposition have utterly failed to present themselves as capable of taking over. SF have basically said they don't want to, and FF are still busy knifing each other in the back after 2011.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Establishment parties meaning the large parties which have consistently dominated political discourse in Ireland for many years, and have supported the establishment over citizens in terms of institutions (banks, the church, etc) and the EU. Currently comprising FF, FG, and Labour - in my perhaps controversial opinion SF would probably end up in the same category after any length of time in government. The Greens and PDs also comprised part of this when they were relevant.

So, basically, an establishment party is one that has actually had to deal with the realities of running the country, as opposed to the luxury of carping from the opposition benches about how the country should be run?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not at all. If a party emerged which put implementing the policies which the vast majority of Irish people want implemented, and abolishing those which the vast majority of citizens wand abolished, ahead of doing what select cliques and powerful vested interests want, I would not consider it an establishment party and would not oppose it. Of course, in order for this to happen, it's my belief that such a party would have to afford a far larger degree of freedom to its TDs - this isn't necessarily the case, but it would certainly seem to be.

The party whip wouldn't be a problem if the cabinet was committed to implementing what the people want as opposed to what it wants in the first place.

That bit in bold is what we vote for every few years in elections, and we get the governments that the vast majority of Irish people want.

I see now that you are not pro-independent as such but you are anti-establishment. There is a difference. You are also anti-democratic.

Quin_Dub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

When people are angry, it is easy to say they will vote independent, SF or whatever protest vote is in the survey.

But in this latest RED C poll, 29% of SF supporters worry that a change of Government would stall any recovery. 34% of Independent voters. 47% of undecided voters.

There simply is no alternative government. The Opposition have utterly failed to present themselves as capable of taking over. SF have basically said they don't want to, and FF are still busy knifing each other in the back after 2011.

Some interesting data there for sure...

The age groups with the highest concern over a change of government impacting the recovery are the younger groups - 54% and 56% for the 18-24 & 25-34 groups.

Despite 60-70% of those categories saying that they haven't felt the impact of the recovery yet.

Clearly they feel that they are most likely to actually get the benefits at some point under the current government.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

That bit in bold is what we vote for every few years in elections, and we get the governments that the vast majority of Irish people want.

Then why is it that between elections there is so much intense discontent and "buyer's remorse"? We may get the government we want in terms of people, we certainly don't get the government we want in terms of policies.

I see now that you are not pro-independent as such but you are anti-establishment. There is a difference. You are also anti-democratic.

I am pro-independent because independents are not whipped, ergo they must do as they believe a majority of their citizens want them to do as opposed to what the chairman of a bank or corporation asks them to do over a round of golf. Yes, that is anti-establishment. No, that is not anti-democratic.

Given that I advocate direct democracy as the ultimate ideal with an unwhipped parliament as a second best, I don't see how anyone could accuse me of being anti-democratic. There are a vast number of pejorative political jibes which could legitimately be hurled in my general direction, so why you have to resort to ones which are completely baseless is beyond me

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Then why is it that between elections there is so much intense discontent and "buyer's remorse"? We may get the government we want in terms of people, we certainly don't get the government we want in terms of policies.



I am pro-independent because independents are not whipped, ergo they must do as they believe a majority of their citizens want them to do as opposed to what the chairman of a bank or corporation asks them to do over a round of golf. Yes, that is anti-establishment. No, that is not anti-democratic.

Given that I advocate direct democracy as the ultimate ideal with an unwhipped parliament as a second best, I don't see how anyone could accuse me of being anti-democratic. There are a vast number of pejorative political jibes which could legitimately be hurled in my general direction, so why you have to resort to ones which are completely baseless is beyond me

Your belief in Independents is a mark of your naivity and gullibility.

To quote Edmund Burke 'Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing'

I find none of the current lot's big political ideas in the least impressive; they have exposed a few examples of corruption but these don't figure in the big scheme of things.

First Up

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Then why is it that between elections there is so much intense discontent and "buyer's remorse"? We may get the government we want in terms of people, we certainly don't get the government we want in terms of policies.



I am pro-independent because independents are not whipped, ergo they must do as they believe a majority of their citizens want them to do as opposed to what the chairman of a bank or corporation asks them to do over a round of golf. Yes, that is anti-establishment. No, that is not anti-democratic.

Given that I advocate direct democracy as the ultimate ideal with an unwhipped parliament as a second best, I don't see how anyone could accuse me of being anti-democratic. There are a vast number of pejorative political jibes which could legitimately be hurled in my general direction, so why you have to resort to ones which are completely baseless is beyond me

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, do you think we would be better served by a Dail comprised entirely of independents, each democratically elected and each with an electorate and a conscience to serve?

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll

See the numerous drop-down menus as you scroll the page? They let you filter the results by geographical area.

Interesting, and I didn't know they'd done that in this case, but a long way away from by-constituency: at the finest, it allows a five-way breakdown (four ways geographically). That will still, as I said, significantly increase the margin of error, as you now effectively have a sample size of 200, 250, 500, etc. But nothing like what you'd see if you were to try to use a 25-person subsample from each of the forty constituencies. Which would be hilariously inaccurate.

But go on claiming that the poll is trying to pull a fast one. Hope the straws you're clutching at aren't giving you any paper cuts

The straws you're using to construct that man, perhaps? That's not remotely like anything I actually said. Thus I would be hard pressed to "go on claiming" something I never claimed in the first instance!

alaimacerc

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But in this latest RED C poll, 29% of SF supporters worry that a change of Government would stall any recovery.

Makes perfect sense. SF don't want a change of government. They want a change of opposition!

Zubeneschamali

alaimacerc wrote: »

Makes perfect sense. SF don't want a change of government. They want a change of opposition!

I really dislike SF, but I am OK with them replacing FF, who are just pointless at this stage.

Quin_Dub

alaimacerc wrote: »

Makes perfect sense. SF don't want a change of government. They want a change of opposition!

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I really dislike SF, but I am OK with them replacing FF, who are just pointless at this stage.

Based on the latest poll results though , that is unlikely to happen..

Given the historical delta for those parties between poll results and electoral success, FF will be larger than SF after the next election.

SF would need to have clear daylight of about 10 points in the opinion polls to bridge their vote/poll gap.

FF will gather about 15% more actual votes/seats than they show in the polls , whereas SF will be 25-30% below their poll results..

That being said , The Carlow/Kilkenny bi-election will likely be a watershed moment for Micheal Martin and FF.

If FF get a seat I think it buys Martin time and maybe builds a bit of momentum..

If they don't do well, it will likely trigger a leadership challenge. A change of leadership could be a good thing for them but a lot depends on how divisive that change is..

If they can get the change through with little blood-letting I think FF might show some recovery , but if it gets messy it could accelerate the decline..

Zubeneschamali

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If they can get the change through with little blood-letting I think FF might show some recovery , but if it gets messy it could accelerate the decline..

It's already messy, with Martin abusing his TDs and someone leaking to the media within minutes (from a meeting of just 20 people).