So Michael D IS running again!

An Ciarraioch

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I've been hearing about this supposed gap in the political market for what seems like decades and no-one has ever stepped into it. Surely the economic crisis of a decade ago was the moment for a political force along the lines you describe to emerge in Ireland if it was ever going to happen? As things stand, I don't see any particular reason for the establishment parties to 'mind the gap'...

But SF and AAA/PBP got a decent amount of traction with populist positions, especially post recession. I never thought myself that there's a market for the kind of ethnic chauvinism we've seen elsewhere, but Casey's comments gave me pause for thought. Maybe it was all internet hot air though. We'll see tomorrow I guess if he got anything of a bump.

10 o'clock, given the 8th Ref exit polls were pretty much on the money.

seamus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I've been hearing about this supposed gap in the political market for what seems like decades and no-one has ever stepped into it. Surely the economic crisis of a decade ago was the moment for a political force along the lines you describe to emerge in Ireland if it was ever going to happen? As things stand, I don't see any particular reason for the establishment parties to 'mind the gap'...

The gap is very specific, and the problem is that ideological and economic policies get bundled as one.

I'm sure Renua would have the right messaging on immigrants and travellers. But they'll have the wrong messaging on social policy and personal rights.

Irish people largely want a centrist country; one where people are looked after, where there's a sensible amount of regulation in all areas, and where the needs of society are appropriately balanced against the rights of the individual. As a nation it's not really in our psyche to rock the boat or stand out from the crowd, and that's reflected in our politics.

So it's very difficult for any party to take a hardline stance on immigration or social welfare without taking a hardline stance in other social and economic areas. Otherwise you end up with a mish-mash of policies that don't make any sense when taken as a whole.

Hurrache

AAA/PBP I think have hit their height, you don't hear much from them at all these days, you think they'd be making more hay coming into the winter between housing and hospital beds. I think labour are even ahead of them now, and I recall one recent poll which basically had them polling at such low numbers they weren't registering. Overall independents are down.

Zubeneschamali

hotmail.com wrote: »

The expected low turnout should lead to a conversation on the presidency itself.

It seems that many people in Ireland would be happy to see the thing completely abolished.

This was widely reported to be a recoronation for MichaelD and a walk-over for the Blasphemy change with no real opposition, and many people happy with that or at least resigned to it may have better things to be doing on the Friday of a Bank Holiday than voting in a race that was over before it started.

That does not imply at all that they disapprove of the office of President.

Chips Lovell

seamus wrote: »

So it's very difficult for any party to take a hardline stance on immigration or social welfare without taking a hardline stance in other social and economic areas. Otherwise you end up with a mish-mash of policies that don't make any sense when taken as a whole.

If there's one thing we've learnt over the past few years, it's that a mish-mash of policies that don't make any sense when taken as a whole is no hindrance to electoral success.

Sycamore Tree

Casey is going to do very well. A sure 2nd I reckon.

Hurrache

A bit of excitement I suppose at one polling station where Joan Burton has asked the sheriff to become involved. Due to the issues with the school in Tyrrelstown, where the community centre is which has been the polling station since it opened, the polling station was moved to the nearby secondary school. Apparently there's no signs etc indicating this or where it is apart from one on the fence of the original location.

In fairness very little info has been put out there about this change, I only knew about it as I saw a Fingal councillor mention it on twitter. I didn't hear it mentioned on any radio news bulletin or newspaper, so I imagine a lot of people were unawares.

Zubeneschamali

Pussyhands wrote: »

Deleted post.

Aw, did they vote for MichaelD after all?

I thought the youths were all going for Casey "for the craic"?

Loafing Oaf

hotmail.com wrote: »

The expected low turnout should lead to a conversation on the presidency itself.

It seems that many people in Ireland would be happy to see the thing completely abolished. Showing up at rugby matches and the like.. is it really worth the expense?

Or a different method of selecting the president in tandem with a scaling back of the role. But we've been asked not to discuss the office itself in this thread...

blackwhite

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Sinn Fein is basically now a mainstream liberal social democratic party along the lines of the SNP. It is pro-EU and shares pretty much nothing with far right nationalist parties in Europe and elsewhere.

Trump, Brexit, DUP, Le Pen, Salvini etc. are all essentially imperialist and white ethno-nationalist in nature while Sinn Fein is explicitly anti-imperialist and pluralist in nature.

It also has none of the conservative theocratic overtones of the European far right and is solidly supportive of same sex marriage, transgender rights and abortion rights.

Comparisons of Sinn Fein to the European far right are fatuous.

:pac::pac::pac:

Remind me of the last EU Treaty that SF campaigned in favour of?

VinLieger

hotmail.com wrote: »

The expected low turnout should lead to a conversation on the presidency itself.

It seems that many people in Ireland would be happy to see the thing completely abolished. Showing up at rugby matches and the like.. is it really worth the expense?

Many people will vote for Michael D today, but not with any great enthusiasm.

It wouldn't surprise me if we see a large percentage of spoiled votes.

Anyone suggesting abolishing it completely shows a serious naivety for the essential role it holds within the constitution as a safety valve

MrMusician18

hotmail.com wrote: »

The expected low turnout should lead to a conversation on the presidency itself.

It seems that many people in Ireland would be happy to see the thing completely abolished. Showing up at rugby matches and the like.. is it really worth the expense?

Many people will vote for Michael D today, but not with any great enthusiasm.

It wouldn't surprise me if we see a large percentage of spoiled votes.

I'd say if there is a low turnout, the conversation will turn on the nomination process, rather than the position.

Remember, the establishment didn't want an election at all.

seamus

VinLieger wrote: »

Anyone suggesting abolishing it completely shows a serious naivety for the essential role it holds within the constitution as a safety valve

Complaining about the money really does show that people don't know why the position is there at all.

In many companies, there are very senior people who have relatively little work to do, but get paid a very large sum of money.

These are people with a massive amount of knowledge and experience, but that knowledge and experience isn't necessarily needed on a constant basis.

The company pays them a decent salary to keep them hanging around, so that when this person's skills are needed, they are instantly available and exactly what the company needs.

If you don't pay that person to simply be "around", then they won't be available when you need them and the company is up sh1t creek.

This is quite analogous to the president. We pay him to be around when we need him. Which may not be often, but it's very damn important when it happens.
While it may seem like an extravagance, the role provides a function which is essential to our democracy, and the political and economic independence of the president is necessary for the role to function.

VinLieger

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Remember, the establishment didn't want an election at all.

Completely incorrect, neither FF nor FG had a candidate they felt could compete viably with MDH that was worth spending 200k+ on a campaign.

SF saw it as a way to gauge their support nationally and to also make the case for them to be considered a viable and core party worthy of government, this to them was worth the expense, they never expected to win.


The conspiracy theories about "the establishment" rigging the election etc are really just childish

Rhineshark

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

10 o'clock, given the 8th Ref exit polls were pretty much on the money.

They were, but the ref was a simple Yes/No with no messing about with transfers and candidate order. I'd say it might be a bit trickier when PR-STV is taken into account.

VinLieger

seamus wrote: »

While it may seem like an extravagance, the role provides a function which is essential to our democracy, and the political and economic independence of the president is necessary for the role to function.

Indeed its analagous to someone complaining about the cost of house, car or health insurance because they never need or use it.

VinLieger

Rhineshark wrote: »

They were, but the ref was a simple Yes/No with no messing about with transfers and candidate order. I'd say it might be a bit trickier when PR-STV is taken into account.

Thats really only in the case of it going beyond a first count.

Rhineshark

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats really only in the case of it going beyond a first count.

True. Not sure if it will or not yet. I'll be rather surprised if it doesn't if only because that would seem to be unusual.

VinLieger

Rhineshark wrote: »

True. Not sure if it will or not yet. I'll be rather surprised if it doesn't if only because that would seem to be unusual.

It would be unusual but not unsurprising considering the polls we saw, Ill admit Casey might have upset things to cause it to go beyond one but it still could easily happen.

Loafing Oaf

VinLieger wrote: »

SF saw it as a way to gauge their support nationally and to also make the case for them to be considered a viable and core party worthy of government, this to them was worth the expense

Regardless of what share of the vote/position in the field LNR attains?

VinLieger

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Regardless of what share of the vote/position in the field LNR attains?

No of course not if she does miserably then its a failure but thats a risk they took and they likely weighed it as worthwhile. I would argue that a failure of her getting less than 5% doesn't hurt them to the same tune as say her getting 13%+ would have helped them

Rhineshark

VinLieger wrote: »

No of course not if she does miserably then its a failure but thats a risk they took and they likely weighed it as worthwhile. I would argue that a failure of her getting less than 5% doesn't hurt them to the same tune as say her getting 13%+ would have helped them

Tbh, I doubt it will matter at all by next Friday.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

What I am saying is that internationally we are seeing the rise of nationalistic parties and nationalist sentiment again and it is happening on both sides of the traditional political spectrum. Trump is a sign of that, Brexit is a sign of that, Syriza is a sign of that, the Five-Star Movement and the League in Italy from opposite sides of the spectrum, the polarisation of Northern Irish politics with the demise of the SDLP and the UUP, with the rise of DUP and SF, Alternative fur Deutschland in Germany, the Polish government, the list goes on. In Ireland we have the rise of Sinn Fein.

All of these parties and movements share a sense of their nation being under attack and being against some class of generic outsiders, whether that is immigrants, the EU, unfair trading partners or the British.

It is deeply unsettling.

But in Germany, the Green are doing even better than the AfD. What seems to have happened there is that people are deserting the middle ground. I think what has happened that some of the centre parties tried to ape the AfD and lost the middle ground.

oscarBravo

Pussyhands wrote: »

I'm voting for Casey as a protest vote. He won't win. If it was a contest, I'd vote Miggledy but the only way my vote is heard is if it goes to Casey.

It's hard for me to express politely how stupid I think this sort of action is.

We saw it in the UK in the aftermath of Brexit when people voted to leave as a protest because they were sure that remain would win, only to bitterly regret their actions in the immediate aftermath.

Hell, we see it in microcosm every year when students apply for college courses they think they'll get the points for, instead of the courses they want to do.

A "protest vote" for a candidate who isn't the one you actually want to win is a grotesque act of stupidity and a dereliction of your civic duty. Yes, I know you have the right to vote in any way you see fit, but having the right to do something stupid doesn't make it not stupid.

Silentcorner

VinLieger wrote: »

Completely incorrect, neither FF nor FG had a candidate they felt could compete viably with MDH that was worth spending 200k+ on a campaign.

SF saw it as a way to gauge their support nationally and to also make the case for them to be considered a viable and core party worthy of government, this to them was worth the expense, they never expected to win.


The conspiracy theories about "the establishment" rigging the election etc are really just childish

Completely incorrect...neither FF nor FG have the resources to fund a national campaign, they didn't even attempt to identify a viable candidate, it is a money issue, simple as that!

We have locals and European elections in less than a year, we will have a GE in 2020 and not before.

B0jangles

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's hard for me to express politely how stupid I think this sort of action is.

We saw it in the UK in the aftermath of Brexit when people voted to leave as a protest because they were sure that remain would win, only to bitterly regret their actions in the immediate aftermath.

Hell, we see it in microcosm every year when students apply for college courses they think they'll get the points for, instead of the courses they want to do.

A "protest vote" for a candidate who isn't the one you actually want to win is a grotesque act of stupidity and a dereliction of your civic duty. Yes, I know you have the right to vote in any way you see fit, but having the right to do something stupid doesn't make it not stupid.

Yes, but you see by saying that voting like this is stupid, you've actually forced them to vote stupidly.

So in a way it's actually the fault of people who said voting Brexit/Trump etc was really really stupid, not the people who did the actual Brexit/Trump voting - those people had no choice...

Sam Russell

B0jangles wrote: »

Yes, but you see by saying that voting like this is stupid, you've actually forced them to vote stupidly.

So in a way it's actually the fault of people who said voting Brexit/Trump etc was really really stupid, not the people who did the actual Brexit/Trump voting - those people had no choice...

That turns logic on its head. No-one is forced to vote one way or the other. If it is stupid to vote a particular way, then it is stupid to vote that way. It is quite a leap to say - 'They forced me to vote stupidly because they said it was a stupid way to vote!'

It might be stupid not to vote, but that is a different line of reason.

Loafing Oaf

Rhineshark wrote: »

Tbh, I doubt it will matter at all by next Friday.

If the whole thing is irrelevant, why should SF bother running a candidate at all?

blanch152

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Sinn Fein is basically now a mainstream liberal social democratic party along the lines of the SNP. It is pro-EU and shares pretty much nothing with far right nationalist parties in Europe and elsewhere.

Trump, Brexit, DUP, Le Pen, Salvini etc. are all essentially imperialist and white ethno-nationalist in nature while Sinn Fein is explicitly anti-imperialist and pluralist in nature.

It also has none of the conservative theocratic overtones of the European far right and is solidly supportive of same sex marriage, transgender rights and abortion rights.

Comparisons of Sinn Fein to the European far right are fatuous.

I wasn't comparing Sinn Fein to the European far right. I didn't even mention Le Pen.

I was comparing Sinn Fein to Syriza, a deeply nationalistic party to which Sinn Fein have aligned themselves repeatedly. Then there is the Five Star Movement in Italy which favours public water, public transport, universal income and other left-wing policies.

This list of active nationalist parties in Europe includes Sinn Fein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_nationalist_parties_in_Europe

Roanmore

I voted earlier, on the table where the people were crossing off the names and giving out the papers the woman had her phone and a copy of the New Testament, should that be allowed given the nature of the referendum?
I look in to some other class rooms and there were no bibles there.