GE Exit Poll 10 pm

ted1

omega man wrote: »

Has the SF / left coalition been completely ruled out yet or are they all too busy deflecting responsibility by still blaming FF and FG (this time for not going into government replacing the previous get them out!)??

No runner as they don’t have the numbers.

Jinglejangle69

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The giggle I had was when you claimed SF were raising the inheritance tax from 3% to 36%. You do know the rate is not 3% even now , many times higher.

Take a break from boards man.

Look at your post count and how long you spend here everyday slating FG.

There is more to life, leave your house and stop been a slave to your SF online comrades:)

Plumbthedepths

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Take a break from boards man.

Look at your post count and how long you spend here everyday slating FG.

There is more to life, leave your house and stop been a slave to your SF online comrades:)

Ah dude thanks for your concern, so did you learn what the rate of inheritance tax is ? Still think it's 3%?
Anyway have you an answer, or do you want to disappear for a while?

UDAWINNER

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Take a break from boards man.

Look at your post count and how long you spend here everyday slating FG.

There is more to life, leave your house and stop been a slave to your SF online comrades:)

pot calling the kettle black:D
you at fg hq still or are you been transferred with the merger?

UDAWINNER

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Did a great job in my opinion, put Louise O’Reilly in her box today and spoke sense all the way through.

First time I heard O’Reilly getting a new one chipped out for herself.

Well done Helen

must have watched a completely different programme. O'Reill well on top

Brendan Bendar

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Take a break from boards man.

Look at your post count and how long you spend here everyday slating FG.

There is more to life, leave your house and stop been a slave to your SF online comrades:)

Good call, jingle, the Shinners can’t seem to comprehend that one less seat than Ff and two more than Fg should put them into the mayors office, as it were.

They haven’t broken the State yet, not by a long chalk.

I wouldn’t open the gates to the big sheds just yet.

Yurt2

UDAWINNER wrote: »

pot calling the kettle black:D
you at fg hq still or are you been transferred with the merger?

I'm surprised FG haven't outsourced them all to India at this stage. They're so repetitious and predictable, after about 2 weeks training, you'd get as high quality posting content from some lad with a mustache in Bangalore.

Loafing Oaf

Was O'Reilly still pleading with FF to give SF a chance? Because that would be just as lame and behind the times as Helen McEntee saying it was up to SF to put a government together.

The broken the free state comment was embarrassing.

I know a few Sinn Fein supporters that think that too. It's a northern Sinn Fein comment. Big difference between them and the casual Sinn Fein voter in the south.

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Good call, jingle, the Shinners can’t seem to comprehend that one less seat than Ff and two more than Fg should put them into the mayors office, as it were.

They haven’t broken the State yet, not by a long chalk.

I wouldn’t open the gates to the big sheds just yet.

Good call? Playing the man instead of the ball, surprised you approve of that.

firemansam4

So the general consensus from many seems to be that Ireland voted for change and that the result should be respected.

Now there has been talk of a coalition between FG, FF and the Greens including some others maybe.
This has been blasted by many as being undemocratic and against the wishes of the people who voted for change.

But is this opinion justified?

If you put FF, FG and the Greens together they polled over 50% of the vote.
Now yes you could say that the Greens are a change but they clearly stated they will work with any party who would implement some of there green policies in there manifesto.
So the only real change then is some green policies and not the radical left wing change that is being claimed won the election.

efanton

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Good call, jingle, the Shinners can’t seem to comprehend that one less seat than Ff and two more than Fg should put them into the mayors office, as it were.

They haven’t broken the State yet, not by a long chalvk.

I wouldn’t open the gates to the big sheds just yet.

Totally agree with that statement.

I didn't vote SF only because there was no SF candidate in my constituency, if their had been they would have got my vote.
FG and FF have consistently failed at delivering the services and the benefits of an improving economy to the working people that they are entitled too. I personally see absolutely no point in voting for continued failure and incompetence. If FF and FG are not prepared to weed out those ministers that appear to be incapable of carrying out their duties, then I guess its up to me and other voters to ensure they do by refusing to vote for either party.

But if you agree with the above quote then you must also agree that the onus was from the very start on FF to form a government.
The first thing FF did was tell SF to try form a government, totally shirking their responsibilities. Now that SF did everything asked of them, tried to form a technically possible, but practically impossible government, the ball is firmly back in the FF court.

At the end of the day if the will of the electorate has to be recognised it means that 2 of the 3 leading parties FF SF FG MUST form a government.

FF doesn't want to form a coalition government with FG, they would much prefer a C&S agreement.
FG doesn't want a coalition government because this would place SF as the leading party on the opposition benches and elevate their position without FG also in opposition.
Neither FG or FF want to form a government with SF even though both combinations would work with the support of a 3rd party such as the Greens.

The simple truth is both FF and FG have tried to walk away from their responsibilities and are still trying to.

How could two parties that share the view that SF would be terrible for the country, and at the same time claim they have the country's interest at heart, but yet actively encourage SF to form a government, If they had the country's interest at heart they would have stepped in right away to ensure no such government was even a technical possibility from the very first day after the results came in.

We all know where this is going, FG are either going to have to cave in and form a coalition, or there will be another election within weeks.

I really hope FF and FG have thought this through, thoroughly and dispassionately, because for both another election is the very worst outcome for either of them.
SF will not make the same mistake again. They will field 2 candidates in most constituencies, they will be very clear on who is their number one and number two candidate so their vote is not diluted and they will have in place a transfers agreement with the smaller parties that they will need to form a government.
If I was Leo or Michael Martin I would be crapping myself because their next bad decision will result in political suicide for both of them.

They haven’t broken the State yet, not by a long chalk, but they definitely will if another election is called.

Edgware

efanton wrote: »

Totally agree with that statement.

I didn't vote SF only because there was no SF candidate in my constituency, if their had been they would have got my vote.
FG and FF have consistently failed at delivering the services and the benefits of an improving economy to the working people that they are entitled too. I personally see absolutely no point in voting for continued failure and incompetence. If FF and FG are not prepared to weed out those ministers that appear to be incapable of carrying out their duties, then I guess its up to me and other voters to ensure they do by refusing to vote for either party.

But if you agree with the above quote then you must also agree that the onus was from the very start on FF to form a government.
The first thing FF did was tell SF to try form a government, totally shirking their responsibilities. Now that SF did everything asked of them, tried to form a technically possible, but practically impossible government, the ball is firmly back in the FF court.

At the end of the day if the will of the electorate has to be recognised it means that 2 of the 3 leading parties FF SF FG MUST form a government.

FF doesn't want to form a coalition government with FG, they would much prefer a C&S agreement.
FG doesn't want a coalition government because this would place SF as the leading party on the opposition benches and elevate their position without FG also in opposition.
Neither FG or FF want to form a government with SF even though both combinations would work with the support of a 3rd party such as the Greens.

The simple truth is both FF and FG have tried to walk away from their responsibilities and are still trying to.

How could two parties that share the view that SF would be terrible for the country, and at the same time claim they have the country's interest at heart, but yet actively encourage SF to form a government, If they had the country's interest at heart they would have stepped in right away to ensure no such government was even a technical possibility from the very first day after the results came in.

We all know where this is going, FG are either going to have to cave in and form a coalition, or there will be another election within weeks.

I really hope FF and FG have thought this through, thoroughly and dispassionately, because for both another election is the very worst outcome for either of them.
SF will not make the same mistake again. They will field 2 candidates in most constituencies, they will be very clear on who is their number one and number two candidate so their vote is not diluted and they will have in place a transfers agreement with the smaller parties that they will need to form a government.
If I was Leo or Michael Martin I would be crapping myself because their next bad decision will result in political suicide for both of them.

They haven’t broken the State yet, not by a long chalk, but they definitely will if another election is called.

All the Shinners hoping for another election. Not going to happen.
Mary Lou has another four years widening her arse on the opposition bench

charlie14

efanton wrote: »

Totally agree with that statement.

I didn't vote SF only because there was no SF candidate in my constituency, if their had been they would have got my vote.
FG and FF have consistently failed at delivering the services and the benefits of an improving economy to the working people that they are entitled too. I personally see absolutely no point in voting for continued failure and incompetence. If FF and FG are not prepared to weed out those ministers that appear to be incapable of carrying out their duties, then I guess its up to me and other voters to ensure they do by refusing to vote for either party.

But if you agree with the above quote then you must also agree that the onus was from the very start on FF to form a government.
The first thing FF did was tell SF to try form a government, totally shirking their responsibilities. Now that SF did everything asked of them, tried to form a technically possible, but practically impossible government, the ball is firmly back in the FF court.

At the end of the day if the will of the electorate has to be recognised it means that 2 of the 3 leading parties FF SF FG MUST form a government.

FF doesn't want to form a coalition government with FG, they would much prefer a C&S agreement.
FG doesn't want a coalition government because this would place SF as the leading party on the opposition benches and elevate their position without FG also in opposition.
Neither FG or FF want to form a government with SF even though both combinations would work with the support of a 3rd party such as the Greens.

The simple truth is both FF and FG have tried to walk away from their responsibilities and are still trying to.

How could two parties that share the view that SF would be terrible for the country, and at the same time claim they have the country's interest at heart, but yet actively encourage SF to form a government, If they had the country's interest at heart they would have stepped in right away to ensure no such government was even a technical possibility from the very first day after the results came in.

We all know where this is going, FG are either going to have to cave in and form a coalition, or there will be another election within weeks.

I really hope FF and FG have thought this through, thoroughly and dispassionately, because for both another election is the very worst outcome for either of them.
SF will not make the same mistake again. They will field 2 candidates in most constituencies, they will be very clear on who is their number one and number two candidate so their vote is not diluted and they will have in place a transfers agreement with the smaller parties that they will need to form a government.
If I was Leo or Michael Martin I would be crapping myself because their next bad decision will result in political suicide for both of them.

They haven’t broken the State yet, not by a long chalk, but they definitely will if another election is called.

Very doubtful if another election would make a lot of difference to the numbers unless SF increased their FPV substantially.
Every election has it`s on dynamics and votes as as liable to drop as rise.A month ago there is no way SF believed their vote would go from falling by 5.7% to 9.5% in the recent local elections to 24.5 in this election.


SF could field two candidates in all constituencies but that can bring its own dangers by vote splitting. With the present vote in constituencies where they exceeded the quota they could pick up extra seats, but the likelihood that most of these would be at the expense of others of the left who won seats because of that surplus ending in a zero-sum game in relation to numbers.
Not that that would matter to SF as some of those on the left that gained by those surpluses seem keen to go into government anyway

efanton

Edgware wrote: »

All the Shinners hoping for another election. Not going to happen.
Mary Lou has another four years widening her arse on the opposition bench

Yet another irrelevant comment.

How could I be a 'Shinner' if I did not vote SF?

My post was posted from the perspective of the floating voter, those that are swinging towards SF, because like it or not with regards actual policy FF and FG have lost the plot and become irrelevant in that regard. If you are a diehard FG or FF voter you are going to vote for those parties no matter what so it would be stupid to say either party would ever be totally irrelevant.

Also I did not not state I was hoping for another election. Although if there is no significant movement by FG or FF in the next week that's probably what I would want. But these things take time, negotiations within parties and between parties take time so I would be reasonably happy to wait a week to see what is going to happen as long as the party's involved are actually using that time to find a solution.

So instead of assuming that everyone that posts something that isnt glowing in terms of FF and FG why not assume that maybe instead might be a floating voter that could possibly be persuaded.
FF and FG supporters on boards like this and social media are doing their own parties more damage than the actions of their TD's as far as I can see.

L1011

efanton wrote: »

I didn't vote SF only because there was no SF candidate in my constituency, if their had been they would have got my vote.

About 0.6% (its a small 3 seat a bit below average numbers) of the country live in the one constituency SF didn't run in.

There is a trend here of people who support SF policies saying they didn't vote for them. Its quite odd.

efanton

charlie14 wrote: »

Very doubtful if another election would make a lot of difference to the numbers unless SF increased their FPV substantially.
Every election has it`s on dynamics and votes as as liable to drop as rise.A month ago there is no way SF believed their vote would go from falling by 5.7% to 9.5% in the recent local elections to 24.5 in this election.


SF could field two candidates in all constituencies but that can bring its own dangers by vote splitting. With the present vote in constituencies where they exceeded the quota they could pick up extra seats, but the likelihood that most of these would be at the expense of others of the left who won seats because of that surplus ending in a zero-sum game in relation to numbers.
Not that that would matter to SF as some of those on the left that gained by those surpluses seem keen to go into government anyway

That's a fair and reasonable comment.

But don't you think with a subsequent election the Independent would loose significant numbers of seats, and even if FG and FF lost 5 or 6 seats between them the dynamic would change utterly?

Water John

Living in that one constituency, I cannot answer the question, if Liadh Ni Riada had run would she have got elected? Or would she get elected if there was another election?

L1011

Water John wrote: »

Living in that one constituency, I cannot answer the question, if Liadh Ni Riada had run would she have got elected? Or would she get elected if there was another election?

She probably would have been elected, based on the national performance. Their candidate and constituency selection was based on the May 2019 performance and assuming the first polls suggesting a huge boost were wrong.

Another election could have very, very different results. Different weather for one could make a significant change in rural constituencies.

threeball

efanton wrote: »

That's a fair and reasonable comment.

But don't you think with a subsequent election the Independent would loose significant numbers of seats, and even if FG and FF lost 5 or 6 seats between them the dynamic would change utterly?

FG could just field one candidate in every constituency except for the likes of Mayo where they'd get two. That would mean they could end up well over 40 seats even though they're at a low ebb. SF have peaked. They won't get more than they have a quite a few less is possible also. I wouldn't be surprised to see them slide back to third if we go again in the next month or two.

efanton

L1011 wrote: »

About 0.6% (its a small 3 seat a bit below average numbers) of the country live in the one constituency SF didn't run in.

There is a trend here of people who support SF policies saying they didn't vote for them. Its quite odd.

About 0.6% (its a small 3 seat a bit below average numbers) of the country live in the one constituency SF didn't run in.

I fail to see the relevance of that statement. what would be the relevance of that nationally, and more importantly what relevance does this have to the to my post?

The trend here in case you hadn't noticed is a lot of people like myself have swung to the left because FF and FG have ignored the majority of the population. They might keep their core supporters but they are literally driving away the floating voters who are crucial to any electoral win.
Instead of using ration debate and sensible arguments all people like you are doing is reinforcing that the decision to seek an alternative was the right thing to do.

What is quite odd is instead of trying to increase the support for the party which you support, you are doing the complete opposite.

charlie14

efanton wrote: »

That's a fair and reasonable comment.

But don't you think with a subsequent election the Independent would loose significant numbers of seats, and even if FG and FF lost 5 or 6 seats between them the dynamic would change utterly?

I was not talking about the Independents, although some of them could also be affected by SF running extra candidates to take advantage of those surpluses.
The zero-sum game I was referring to is the strong possibility of other parties of the left not having that surplus to avail off, where in effect SF would take their seats.


The vagaries of that happening could bizarrely actually increase FG and FF numbers in constituencies where they lost out on last seats due to that surplus electing Independent and candidates of the left.

L1011

efanton wrote: »

I fail to see the relevance of that statement. what would be the relevance of that nationally, and more importantly what relevance does this have to the to my post?

The trend here in case you hadn't noticed is a lot of people like myself have swung to the left because FF and FG have ignored the majority of the population. They might keep their core supporters but they are literally driving away the floating voters who are crucial to any electoral win.
Instead of using ration debate and sensible arguments all people like you are doing is reinforcing that the decision to seek an alternative was the right thing to do.

What is quite odd is instead of trying to increase the support for the party which you support, you are doing the complete opposite.

I just find it rather odd how hugely over-represented, proportionally, people from one single 3 seater are on here.

You have jumped to a hell of a lot of conclusions with the rest of your post. None of them accurate

efanton

Water John wrote: »

Living in that one constituency, I cannot answer the question, if Liadh Ni Riada had run would she have got elected? Or would she get elected if there was another election?

I dont know is the honest answer.
If she had stood I would have voted for her.

But this is a weird constituency. With the recent boundary changes, inevitably this means FF are guaranteed a seat, FF are guaranteed a seat and only the third seat could possibly be contestable but not as contestable as previously.
Ciaran McCarthy was well over 3000 votes shy of winning it so it couldn't be reasonably be expected that the 3rd seat seat would go to another party other than FF or FG, but stranger things have happened.

But one particular seat is irrelevant in a national election and my post was not talking about one single seat.

efanton

L1011 wrote: »

I just find it rather odd how hugely over-represented, proportionally, people from one single 3 seater are on here.

You have jumped to a hell of a lot of conclusions with the rest of your post. None of them accurate

Again I fail to see the relevance of your first statement.
I have no idea of your true identity or where you are from and the same goes for all other posters here. How are you getting that information I assumed this forum was supposed to be anonymous unless someone willingly decided to divulge personal information.


I havent jumped to a hell of a lot of conclusions with the rest of my post. Its an opinion, one you might not agree with, but there it is. The whole point of me posting is to actually get other peoples considered and supported opinions.
Surely as a moderator you would agree that's the point of this forum, or have I missed the point completely?

I fail to see how this is an unfair assessment of the current situation

FF doesn't want to form a coalition government with FG, they would much prefer a C&S agreement.
FG doesn't want a coalition government because this would place SF as the leading party on the opposition benches and elevate their position without FG also in opposition.
Neither FG or FF want to form a government with SF even though both combinations would work with the support of a 3rd party such as the Greens.

The simple truth is both FF and FG have tried to walk away from their responsibilities and are still trying to.

I then said the above, and I have yet to see anything in the media as to FF or FG either working together to form a government or working individually to form a government. I might be wrong and if so thats fair enough, point it out.
Otherwise to state that both appear to have walked away form their responsibilities seems to me to be a fair comment. Two of the three leading parties have to work together to form a government, there is no other possible way for a government to be formed. So why arent we hearing about that?

How could two parties that share the view that SF would be terrible for the country, and at the same time claim they have the country's interest at heart,
but yet actively encourage SF to form a government, If they had the country's interest at heart they would have stepped in right away to ensure no such government was even a technical possibility from the very first day after the results came in.

Again a reasonable comment. If SF is totally bad and the worst thing possible for the country, why give them the opportunity of forming a government. Surely stopping any possibility of that happening would have been a priority. If FF and FG were of a view that it was totally impossible for SF to form a government why have they not got stuck in to forming a government themselves, together or individually?
No conclusion was drawn, it was a question.

L1011

efanton wrote: »

Surely as a moderator you would agree that's the point of this forum, or have I missed the point completely?

I'm not a moderator of this forum

I don't see how any part of the rest of your post has any relevance to what was being discussed.

You jumped to incredibly inaccurate conclusions based on my post, and indeed you've done it again by assuming I'm a mod here.

Bannasidhe

Water John wrote: »

If I was composing a cross party list of oddballs who have got elected Mick Barry would be on it. There is no logic there, at all.

O'Cuiv seems to a small minority of FF TDs who think FF should go in with SF. He expresssed his view at the parliamentary party meeting and it didn't prevail.

But the 'oddball' Mick Barry actually represented his constituency and did the job he was paid to do (on the avg industrial wage) unlike Dara Murphy the FG TD who went missing off to Brussels double jobbing with the knowledge of his party and only showed in the Dail to fob in to claim his unvouched for expenses.

Give me an 'oddball' who works for his constituency over a money grabbing, grasping, spiv any day.

efanton

L1011 wrote: »

I'm not a moderator of this forum

I don't see how any part of the rest of your post has any relevance to what was being discussed.

You jumped to incredibly inaccurate conclusions based on my post, and indeed you've done it again by assuming I'm a mod here.

Now you have me totally confused.

I assumed you were a moderator simply because it has MODERATOR in big letters under your name. Why the title if it was not true? Was it a totally unreasonable conclusion?

I did not respond to one of your posts initially I was responding to .

Originally Posted by Brendan Bendar View Post
Good call, jingle, the Shinners can’t seem to comprehend that one less seat than Ff and two more than Fg should put them into the mayors office, as it were.

They haven’t broken the State yet, not by a long chalvk.

I wouldn’t open the gates to the big sheds just yet.

And I agreed with him. I was neither supporting or attacking any particular party or any one posting on this forum.

I then went on to pass comment of what might be potential outcomes and ask why FF and FG had not yet made any obvious moves to from a government.

My comments were totally relevant in response to the post that was made.


You then jumped in divulging personal information publicly about myself with a statistic about one single constituency that had absolutely no relevance to the point or questions I was making regarding the entire country.

Believe it or not, everyone who has not voted for FF or FG are not automatically SF supporters, but even if they were what relevance is that if they are asking direct questions, or for other peoples opinions.

I have absolutely no interest in pushing one party's policies or acting as an unpaid unrecognised activist for ANY party.

I will admit I like what SF have proposed with regards a housing policy. Of all the parties policies its the only one that makes sense to me given the size of the problem. I also see how in order to achieve that taxation of some kind would have to brought in. That doesn't mean I love EVERY policy that SF has.

Like many in this country I consider myself at the moment to be one of those voters that is prepared to be persuaded and vote differently from one election to the next depending on what policies appeal to me. I have voted Labour before, I have even voted FF in the past. I voted SD this time and yes if SF had had a candidate I would have voted for them in this election because I feel that housing and insurance are the two biggest issues. I am here to be informed by other peoples view point and consider every argument. I will not be persuaded by all of them but some of them will have a impact or bearing on my viewpoint. Being open minded is not a crime.

So instead of jumping to assumption maybe you need to read what I have written and more importantly to the posts I was responding to and questions I asked.
I have no interest whatsoever in this tit for tat nonsense that goes on between those that obviously support one particular party only, and who would never consider voting for another.


I notice you made absolutely no effort to answer any of my questions. Maybe you would like to take this opportunity to do so.

L1011

efanton wrote: »

Now you have me totally confused.

I assumed you were a moderator simply because it has MODERATOR in big capital letters under your name. Why the title if it was not true? Was it a totally unreasonable conclusion?

Under a moderators avatar it has "Mod:" at the forums they moderate. You have been here for eight years, it is reasonable to assume you understand some basics of the forum software which are unchanged for twenty two years.


If you state that there were no SF candidates in your constituency when there is only one constituency that is valid for, you provided the personal information. Nobody else.

efanton

L1011 wrote: »

Under a moderators avatar it has "Mod:" at the forums they moderate. You have been here for eight years, it is reasonable to assume you understand some basics of the forum software which are unchanged for twenty two years.


If you state that there were no SF candidates in your constituency when there is only one constituency that is valid for, you provided the personal information. Nobody else.

No I have been a member for eight years. Eight years ago after having some health issues I was looking for some locations that had easy access locally for trout fishing.

I then rarely if at all used the forum until this election.
I realised that this election was going to be somewhat different. I did not realise how different as it turned out, but posted a thread asking people what they though about voting SF and whether there was a swing in their direction and whether people that had never voted for them before were considering that.

I have only recently posted on this political forum in the hopes of being more informed and getting some answers to questions that I have not seen answered elsewhere.
Had you bothered to look up my post history that would have been plainly evident.
It seem you are well able to weed out information when it suits you.

But asserting that others are jumping to assumptions when in fact you yourself plainly are, strikes me as ironic.

I was not aware my constituency was the only constituency SF did not field a candidate.

But enough deflecting, why am I having to defend myself when you neither answered one of my questions or commented relevantly to them.