General Election and Government Formation Megathread (see post #1)

ThunbergsAreGo

jcullen222 wrote: »

SF want to work with all parties on climate. I think they’ll be able to wrangle a deal from the Greens.

She stated a firm no to Carbon Tax, they seem to be very opposed on climate change.

FrancieBrady

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

She stated a firm no to Carbon Tax, they seem to be very opposed on climate change.

I think P. Doherty explained as: No to a punitive tax until people have the services (transport etc) to make choices.

Which I would certainly agree with. The Greens are too 'tax happy'.

ninebeanrows

Looking like FF FG Green with Varadkar Tanaiste and Coveney getting foreign affairs / Brexit brief. Eamon Ryan getting Climate.

They might need few Indos to lock in full term

Varadkar may ask to stay on as Taoiseach until next Spring with mehole taking over.

Snow Garden

There wont be a 2nd election. Electorate is too volatile.

FF+FG+Greens is the likely government. No SDs.

FrancieBrady

As inevitable as it is, and was, that this would happen, maybe we will be spared a multi month dance. It's a pity we couldn't change the bull****ting culture among FF and FG. Who do they think they are fooling.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1230643296801701889

average_runner

FF and SF need to get their act together. They are the two biggest parties so the pressure is on them to sort it out.


FG have no right to go into power and instead sit on the opposition side.

Hodors Appletart

SDs might be tempted on board if Roisin was given Health and a promise of proper backing to get something (anything!) started to improve it.

Hodors Appletart

average_runner wrote: »

FF and SF need to get their act together. They are the two biggest parties so the pressure is on them to sort it out.

This has never been the case before, so why is it suddenly now?

All Coalitions in the history of the state have locked out the second largest party.

C&S wasn't a coalition, before anyone starts.

ThunbergsAreGo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think P. Doherty explained as: No to a punitive tax until people have the services (transport etc) to make choices.

Which I would certainly agree with. The Greens are too 'tax happy'.

Which is a firm no to a Carbon Tax.

I am not agreeing of disagreeing just showing a clear disagreement on a core value for the Greens

FrancieBrady

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Which is a firm no to a Carbon Tax.

I am not agreeing of disagreeing just showing a clear disagreement on a core value for the Greens

It will be interesting to see if FF/FG give them a Carbon Tax. The potential uproar from rural Ireland would be worse than it was for water charges.

Bannasidhe

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

SDs might be tempted on board if Roisin was given Health and a promise of proper backing to get something (anything!) started to improve it.

If the SDs went in with FF/FG I, for one, would not vote for them again.
If I wanted to vote for a party that claims to be on the Left but spends most of it's time propping up neo-liberal economic policies I could have just continued to vote for the LP.

LuckyLloyd

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As inevitable as it is, and was, that this would happen, maybe we will be spared a multi month dance. It's a pity we couldn't change the bull****ting culture among FF and FG. Who do they think they are fooling.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1230643296801701889

Looks like they didn’t enjoy Mary Lou having the last word in the Dail anyway!

average_runner

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

This has never been the case before, so why is it suddenly now?

All Coalitions in the history of the state have locked out the second largest party.

C&S wasn't a coalition, before anyone starts.

Doesn't have to be coalition, can do what FF did for FG in the last term, either FF support SF or vice versa

Dytalus

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Which is a firm no to a Carbon Tax.

I am not agreeing of disagreeing just showing a clear disagreement on a core value for the Greens

Not quite a no to any CT. They've mentioned they are in favour of a carbon tax, and won't abolish the current one - they simply won't agree to raise it until suitable alternatives (cheaper EVs & more charging points, better public transport, etc) are in place.

Whether that middle ground, maintain the status quo viewpoint is something the Greens could be convinced of is...admittedly unlikely. They're (quite rightly) adamant that major change needs to happen, and it has to happen now. What's more likely to work, IMO, is if the Greens went to SF with the Carbon Tax/Rebate system like what they have in Canada which uses some of the collected money to repay average citizens. It helps alleviate the regressive nature of a Carbon Tax - which is Sinn Féin's biggest complaint about it - while balancing the tax to target larger scale CO2 producers like corporate enterprises. Which is something else Sinn Féin might like.

Nobody, s'far as I can tell, has thought to propose that yet so it's not likely to be on the table - but it's a way to bridge the gap if the parties want to try and forge a left government.

average_runner

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

She stated a firm no to Carbon Tax, they seem to be very opposed on climate change.

No to Carbon tax doesn't mean against the climate. Maybe SF has policies to actually offer people alternatives like better public transport, instead of an easy tax that all will have to suffer.

LuckyLloyd

JamesM wrote: »

Leo gave a very dignified speech.
Micheál gave the speech of his life.
Mary Lou had no answer - she was stunned and could only rant - not going to be Taoiseach.

Also I find this post so funny. It’s amazing people can look at black and convince themselves to see white!

https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/1230603092502208527?s=20

dabestman1

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11009340/irish-pm-leo-varadkar-quits/

Don't think he'll be writing for that paper anytime soon:D

CrabRevolution

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Which is a firm no to a Carbon Tax.

I am not agreeing of disagreeing just showing a clear disagreement on a core value for the Greens

It's not just carbon tax, there's things like turf burning and farming too. SF's policies on these are to keep doing what we're currently doing, in addition to increased state funding and lower regulations and inspections. This is combined with some very vague promises about becoming more sustainable and environmental in future.

Not a chance that will wash with the greens.

eagle eye

The Greens shouldn't be able to implement things, they don't have enough seats to be able to do that. Better off with independents than Greens.

An Ciarraioch

12 seats "aren't enough to implement things"?

Hodors Appletart

eagle eye wrote: »

The Greens shouldn't be able to implement things, they don't have enough seats to be able to do that. Better off with independents than Greens.

If the agree a PFG then they will be able to implement things as agreed as part of a coalition. If they agree to go in to govt and some coalition partner reneges on that, then they could bring it down.

By your logic, independents have no entitlements to implement things, as they only have one seat, by definition.

Nonsense really.

eagle eye

An Ciarraioch wrote:

12 seats "aren't enough to implement things"?

There are more independents.

Dytalus

eagle eye wrote: »

There are more independents.

But, unlike the Greens, they don't have a unified set of policies. Just because there's more Independents doesn't mean they're all going to back the same thing, and it doesn't mean they have some unified mandate from their disparate voters. Everyone who voted for a Green knows that they have one hymn sheet they're singing from and they support that manifesto enough to vote for it.. The people who voted for Danny Healy Rae don't magically also support Cathal Berry.

It's lunacy to suggest the Greens shouldn't be able to implement things because they have 12 seats, but the Independents should when there's 19 of them when they're not a united group.

CrabRevolution

eagle eye wrote: »

The Greens shouldn't be able to implement things, they don't have enough seats to be able to do that. Better off with independents than Greens.

So the greens with 12 seats should be ignored as too small but the independents, each being effectively a party of 1 seat, are acceptable?

eagle eye

CrabRevolution wrote:

So the greens with 12 seats should be ignored as too small but the independents, each being effectively a party of 1 seat, are acceptable?

They won't be implementing national policy.

beggars_bush

I see Gerry Adams has been added to the SF negotiating team

What's next? Threatening to kneecap TDs?

An Ciarraioch

SF voters appear very vocal about the 29 abstentions for Mary Lou yesterday - surely it's preferable to put time and effort into government talks, rather than going through the Tá lobby and finding out later that the numbers aren't there?

An Ciarraioch

eagle eye wrote: »

They won't be implementing national policy.

Why not, given it's a national government?

eagle eye

An Ciarraioch wrote:

Why not, given it's a national government?

They'll be happy to get something for their own constituency.
All of us, the 93% who didn't vote for the Greens, should not have to face living in a country where their policies are implemented. There's no mandate for it.

Brussels Sprout

eagle eye wrote: »

They'll be happy to get something for their own constituency.
All of us, the 93% who didn't vote for the Greens, should not have to face living in a country where their policies are implemented. There's no mandate for it.

There's a lot to unpack here.

• If the Greens do form part of any government then they will have about as much influence on policy that their contribution to the coalition will allow in terms of seat numbers. They’d probably get 2 ministries in a FF/FG/Green government
• “the 93% who didn't vote for the Greens” – that’s not how democracy works in a Proportional Representation, multi-party system. Last time out I was unhappy with Michael Lowry and Shane Ross feathering the nests of their local constituencies. > 99% of the population didn’t vote for them but I accepted that that was the cost for their support for a semi-stable governing coalition
• “There's no mandate for it” – On the current numbers there’s no mandate for anything clear. In the case of each of FF, FG and SF >75% of the population didn’t’ vote for them but in all likelihood 2 of them will be in government eventually. More than half of people won’t have voted for either of the 2 largest parties in the government. This is how it usually goes in countries with PR systems. People have to get away from the old 2 big parties mindset. Those days are over.