So according to the Sindo,its an FF-FG-Green-Grand coalition then ?

Loafing Oaf

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

FG voters hate FF.

This is going to be a difficult 5 yrs for both parties.

Last four seemed to run pretty smoothly. Plus there'll be an even stronger incentive than brexit to keep the show on the road this time...

ILoveYourVibes

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Last four seemed to run pretty smoothly. Plus there'll be an even stronger incentive than brexit to keep the show on the road this time...

No they didn't. They did if you have money though.

Brexit will devastate this country and its govt whoever is in power. We are going to go into recession big time.

Loafing Oaf

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

No they didn't. They did if you have money though.

In terms of relations between the parties. I thought that was what you were talking about

ILoveYourVibes

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

In terms of relations between the parties. I thought that was what you were talking about

Ah apologies i misunderstood.

Field east

Mortelaro wrote: »

To be fair to MM did he have any direct role in the run up to the 2008 crash?
There were a huge number of factors involved in it,not least poor central bank regulation,something fostered by several governments because internationally that was the thing then and We thought why not compete
Certainly FF being the predominant party in power can be blamed for being the steering eejits
MM probably had as much influence though on the Celtic tiger and crash as MLM had on the northern bank robbery
Ie None

For those boardies that say “ what did the current government do in the last nine years - nothing” . And then they continue on to list the no of hospital trolleys, no of homeless, etc. the same boardies never say “ what did the FF led government do in the previous nine - or was it twelve- years.” “ it ran the country into the ground”. THE HYPOCRACY of it.
So if a gov is in situation during a downturn it’s held totally responsible. BUT if a government is in situation during a period when the economy goes from a severe exchequer deficit to a healthy exchequer position - the gov gets no credit

is_that_so

Field east wrote: »

So if a gov is in situation during a downturn it’s held totally responsible. BUT if a government is in situation during a period when the economy goes from a severe exchequer deficit to a healthy exchequer position - the gov gets no credit

The electorate are very fickle, perhaps more so now than in the past. Anyone not in government and helps feed that with promises of instant solutions that invite even more disappointment. If you ride in on the work of a previous administration you claim the credit for it when it's good and blame them when it's bad. I wouldn't use hypocrisy in relation to any of this. It's really politics and a mixture of voter indifference towards politics and a human inclination to see all the failures.

is_that_so

average_runner wrote: »

Wont last 5 years and hand over the next government to.SF. Probably when the economy dives

Any deal IMO will be structured around the 3 year mark, long enough to get some things done but short enough to get themselves ready for another election. As for the economy this position here seems to be informed by the notion that every recession is 2008-2014. Many of them are little more than technical recessions and well within the scope of any government to deal with. Predicting an election result in a short space is tricky, guessing what the public mood might be in 3-5 years time impossible. Even as semi-competent government which addresses the issue of housing changes that dynamic completely.

Field east

is_that_so wrote: »

The electorate are very fickle, perhaps more so now than in the past. Anyone not in government and helps feed that with promises of instant solutions that invite even more disappointment. If you ride in on the work of a previous administration you claim the credit for it when it's good and blame them when it's bad. I wouldn't use hypocrisy in relation to any of this. It's really politics and a mixture of voter indifference towards politics and a human inclination to see all the failures.

That is a good analysis of it. But it is very seldom pointed out in the national media. TV presenters - especially on shows discussing politics - have a major responsibility here. For example -albeit a sort of symbolic one- in discussions on “ what have they done in the last nine years, nothing only increasing trolly numbers, increasing the no of homeless, etc” brigade, I have not once heard it mention that the current gov ran two ‘successful’ referenda - on two very controversial issues. Issues that previous gov did not face up to

feargale

satguy wrote: »

Dinny owns the sindo,, he also owns FG.

Most likely he ordered Leo to start talks with FF. There's a big state contract coming up to lay fiber optic cable, and Dinny wants it.

You mean FG have an army council too? Good God, what's the country coming to?

FrancieBrady

feargale wrote: »

You mean FG have an army council too? Good God, what's the country coming to?

Somebody else is pulling strings in FF FG because I am sure I heard Michael Martin say 'he would not go into government with FG' and Leo say he was taking the party happily into opposition. Yet here they are sitting down for talks today.

Shadowy figures or shadowy leaders?

is_that_so

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Somebody else is pulling strings in FF FG because I am sure I heard Michael Martin say 'he would not go into government with FG' and Leo say he was taking the party happily into opposition. Yet here they are sitting down for talks today.

Shadowy figures or shadowy leaders?

No just stated positions. Much as you like to stir imagined mischief, any possible deal would have to go to a party Ard Fheis for all possible government partners.

FrancieBrady

is_that_so wrote: »

No just stated positions. Much as you like to stir imagined mischief, any possible deal would have to go to a party Ard Fheis for all possible government partners.

'Mischief'?

Martin said on a number of occasions that he would NOT go into coalition with FG.

This morning he is entering talks with the FG leader about coalition. Who told him/voted for him, to do that?

jobeenfitz

FF and FG wiil go into Government for the power and gravy train. Its all they care about. Nothing else matters to them.

is_that_so

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Mischief'?

Martin said on a number of occasions that he would NOT go into coalition with FG.

This morning he is entering talks with the FG leader about coalition. Who told him/voted for him, to do that?

Again you're confusing the election with government forming. There is nothing to stop them having conversations nor is there any presumption that they will go anywhere so give up the faux outrage on behalf of FF & FG voters.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Mischief'?

Martin said on a number of occasions that he would NOT go into coalition with FG.

This morning he is entering talks with the FG leader about coalition. Who told him/voted for him, to do that?

How do you know its coalition they're talking about?
Are you a member of the FF Árd Comhairle:D

FrancieBrady

is_that_so wrote: »

Again you're confusing the election with government forming. There is nothing to stop them having conversations nor is there any presumption that they will go anywhere so give up the faux outrage on behalf of FF & FG voters.

So he holds to his promise on SF = OK
Breaks his promise on FG = OK too?

I just wish I had the atennae FG and FF voters seem to have to sort out the truth from the lie. Because curiously, I know FG and FF core voters will not show a whit of concern if MM an LV enter a coalition. It's almost as if it were pre-ordained.

Know what I mean?

JamesM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Mischief'?

Martin said on a number of occasions that he would NOT go into coalition with FG.

This morning he is entering talks with the FG leader about coalition. Who told him/voted for him, to do that?

Oh Francie ! You're still churning it out.
Is it not obvious that, even though FG and FF have been on opposite sides in the Dáil for nearly 100 years, the stability and economic future of our Country is at stake. Members of both parties, and the greater public, will be happy that their Dáil representatives are mature enough to cast aside their differences for the greater good of our Country.
75% of the Country did not vote for a party who showed their true colours within hours of the election results. A party who put their promises, relating to housing and health, down the list below their major objective, a united Ireland. The majority of the people on this Island do not want this in the near future.

UDAWINNER

Mortelaro wrote: »

How do you know its coalition they're talking about?
Are you a member of the FF Árd Comhairle:D

Well it ain't a C AND S Agreement:)

FrancieBrady

JamesM wrote: »

Oh Francie ! You're still churning it out.
Is it not obvious that, even though FG and FF have been on opposite sides in the Dáil for nearly 100 years, the stability and economic future of our Country is at stake. Members of both parties, and the greater public, will be happy that their Dáil representatives are mature enough to cast aside their differences for the greater good of our Country.
75% of the Country did not vote for a party who showed their true colours within hours of the election results. A party who put their promises, relating to housing and health, down the list below their major objective, a united Ireland. The majority of the people on this Island do not want this in the near future.

80% don't want FG and 78% don't want FF.
But somehow the majority want the two of them together???

Polling after the election has seen those percentages fall even further and SF's rising to 35%.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Mischief'?

Martin said on a number of occasions that he would NOT go into coalition with FG.

This morning he is entering talks with the FG leader about coalition. Who told him/voted for him, to do that?

SF said they'd form a left government, how's that going for them?

FrancieBrady

Augeo wrote: »

SF said they'd form a left government, how's that going for them?

They said they would try to form a government of the left. They did not 'promise' to.

So SF seemingly can't do what they said they'd try to do.
So some other parties need to step up

average_runner

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They said they would try to form a government of the left. They did not 'promise' to.

But no one agrees with their policies.




If FG are smart, they will sit back and let FF and SF try to form a government.

Eric Cartman

FrancieBrady wrote: »

80% don't want FG and 78% don't want FF.
But somehow the majority want the two of them together???

Polling after the election has seen those percentages fall even further and SF's rising to 35%.

wheres that from, doesn't mean 100% want SF either,

FrancieBrady

Augeo wrote: »

So SF seemingly can't do what they said they'd try to do.
So some other parties need to step up

Some other parties have to break a promise to their voters...yes.

Nobody is forcing them to do something they don't want to do. That is unhealthy democracy.

FrancieBrady

Eric Cartman wrote: »

wheres that from, doesn't mean 100% want SF either,

FG got 20% (approx) of the vote, FF got 22%(approx) of the vote. Do the maths.

I didn't for a second say SF got 100%

Eric Cartman

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FG got 20% (approx) of the vote, FF got 22%(approx) of the vote. Do the maths.

I didn't for a second say SF got 100%

voting is a positive preference, not a negative , 23% of people preferred a FF candidate , doesn't mean they absolutely didn't want an FG candidate , a FF FG coalition would suffice 44% of the countries preferred choice.

smurgen

Eric Cartman wrote: »

wheres that from, doesn't mean 100% want SF either,

Less people voted against SF as you like to frame it than against FF or FG.

FrancieBrady

Eric Cartman wrote: »

voting is a positive preference, not a negative , 23% of people preferred a FF candidate , doesn't mean they absolutely didn't want an FG candidate , a FF FG coalition would suffice 44% of the countries preferred choice.

Tell that to the poster who was asserting 75% did not vote for SF.

75% of the Country did not vote for a party who showed their true colours within hours of the election results.

Of that 23% how many can you say voted against/for them going in with FG or how many voted against/for them going with SF?

You cannot say, because the question wasn't asked.

average_runner

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FG got 20% (approx) of the vote, FF got 22%(approx) of the vote. Do the maths.

I didn't for a second say SF got 100%

So who do the people want ? If you were to add all the % of vote, which one is the highest?


FF+FG+GP or SF+other left wing?