FF and FG, what's the difference?

James Brown · 04-06-2019 1:57pm #1

Interesting if not surprising clip from Prime Time on the RTE web today;

39% of Fine Gaelers saw no real policy difference (between FF and FG). "A pattern that we would not expect to find in any other European country" (1999)
https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2019/0604/1053365-watch-whats-the-difference-between-ff-and-fg/

The verdict seems to be you are with one or the other based on tradition, who your parents voted for. The only differences are in how they perceive themselves.

It works well for them I think. The voter feels like they are punishing one by voting for the other but sadly we get generally the same caliber of representation and it's unlikely to change.

Peregrinus · 05-06-2019 5:07am

Well, the data there seems to be 20 years old. And we don't know what percentage of FF supporters saw no difference.

But, yeah, it has often been noted that the two dominant political parties in Ireland have been basically centrist, and thus Ireland has had a succession of centrist governments pretty much from the foundation of the state. It's also observed that political preferences tend to be inherited, but obviously this isn't completely true, since if it were we would never have changes of government. There is a cohort of voters whose support for FF or FG varies from time to time, and it is likely that they are making voting decisions on technocratic grounds - the vote for the party whose leadership seems to them the more capable or competent, rather than choosing between them on policy or ideological grounds.

This could be changing; at the last election the combined FF/FG vote fell (marginally) below 50% for I think the first time ever. And the bulk of the non-centrist vote goes to parties or indepdendents that are, or at least see themselves as, left of centre. The effect of this is masked by the splintering of the left-of-centre vote. If a dominant left party could emerge to hoover up the bulk of the left-of-centre vote we might see a realigment along more normal European left-right patterns.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of party support by age group. It may be that the era of substantially inherited political preferences is - slowly- drawing to a close.

Eric Cartman · 05-06-2019 8:44am

FF are centerists who adopt social positions that they think are easy and popular to take , economically its very much look after our friends in the background and give money away to allat the front while shoring it up with stealth taxes.

FG are also centerists , however moving ever left socially to appeal to a younger fanbase which FF just never capitalised on. FG’s greatest strength is making rural landowners, the left and middle class professionals believe theyre ‘right wing’ anymore , lets them introduce social liberalisation without anyone calling them socialists . Fiscally they have done nothing vaugely right wing the last two election cycles and keep dangling a tax cut out to keep the core on side, while actually only delivering on social policy. Their ‘fiscal conservatism’ seems to come in the form of inaction (ala not building a load of social housing) rather than action that benefits the middle class/ rich.

I think modern FG more resembles blairite labour than the tories they are constantly accused of replicating, but those accusations are important to keep the core / rural support.

Modern FF are a party who’s core have to be dragged kicking and screaming into reluctantly embracing the modern world but the younger upcoming candidates and members truly do believe their ‘ireland for all’ message and embrace populism as long as they don’t stray too far from centre (like a dog on a short chain who goes to whatever side of the garden is warmer)

mattser · 05-06-2019 8:49am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Interesting if not surprising clip from Prime Time on the RTE web today;

The verdict seems to be you are with one or the other based on tradition, who your parents voted for. The only differences are in how they perceive themselves.

It works well for them I think. The voter feels like they are punishing one by voting for the other but sadly we get generally the same caliber of representation and it's unlikely to change.

So what's your alternative that's not sad ?

James Brown · 05-06-2019 1:43pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

FF are centerists who adopt social positions that they think are easy and popular to take , economically its very much look after our friends in the background and give money away to allat the front while shoring it up with stealth taxes.

FG are also centerists , however moving ever left socially to appeal to a younger fanbase which FF just never capitalised on. FG’s greatest strength is making rural landowners, the left and middle class professionals believe theyre ‘right wing’ anymore , lets them introduce social liberalisation without anyone calling them socialists . Fiscally they have done nothing vaugely right wing the last two election cycles and keep dangling a tax cut out to keep the core on side, while actually only delivering on social policy. Their ‘fiscal conservatism’ seems to come in the form of inaction (ala not building a load of social housing) rather than action that benefits the middle class/ rich.

I think modern FG more resembles blairite labour than the tories they are constantly accused of replicating, but those accusations are important to keep the core / rural support.

Modern FF are a party who’s core have to be dragged kicking and screaming into reluctantly embracing the modern world but the younger upcoming candidates and members truly do believe their ‘ireland for all’ message and embrace populism as long as they don’t stray too far from centre (like a dog on a short chain who goes to whatever side of the garden is warmer)

I would suggest policies that exacerbate the housing/homeless crises would be a good example.

James Brown · 05-06-2019 1:48pm

mattser wrote: »

So what's your alternative that's not sad ?

I'm of the opinion that neither do a great job and will lead us to another crash should we weather the current crises, exacerbated by both parties. That's sad to me, how about you?

I'll bite at the 'what would you do?' style non-counter. An administrative body to oversee the day to day running of the state where elected officials only have a hand in voting on key issues would be preferable. We have too much power in the hands of people who are either incompetent, crony or both.
Other than that I'd like to see a non-FF/FG government just to see how a government would fare without the cronies waiting in the wings with time honoured ways of doing our business badly.

Where do you stand, FF/FG similar?

[Deleted User] · 05-06-2019 1:51pm

They're near identical in terms of ideology. FG were classically associated as a rural party, FF the urban counterpart. This still holds true for many voters steadfast to generational loyalty.

James Brown · 05-06-2019 1:59pm

Deleted User wrote: »

They're near identical in terms of idealogy. FG were classically associated as a rural party, FF the urban counterpart. This still holds true for many voters steadfast to generational loyalty.

I always cite this chap I met while abroad. A group of us were discussing the crash, (this would have been about 2009/2010 or thereabouts).

"It was the banks that did it. I'm a Fianna Fail man like my father and his father before him. Fianna Faill will sort it out."

We need be rid of this point of family pride voter. As I say it's not, or shouldn't be football teams, supporting your team regardless of who the players are or how they perform.

Chips Lovell · 05-06-2019 6:19pm

Given the number of people I hear claiming that there's no difference between all political parties in the Dail, I don't think it's that surprising that a good chunk of people would see no difference between the two.

I don't think they're a million miles apart, but I would see some differences.

FG are more of the paternalistic, Christian Democrat school, with a touch of authoritarianism.

FF are a bit more slippery to pin down, primarily because they've often attempted to be all things to all people (which is why I think they've been historically the more successful of the two). Their "whatever you're having yourself" brand of politics managed to appeal to urban workers, rural farmers and big business.

FG wouldn't exactly be trailblazers on social issues, but probably still ahead of FF in terms of moving with the times. They'd also consider themselves more fiscally responsible but, when push comes to shove, I think they're not above handing out the goodies when staring down the barrel of an election.

micosoft · 05-06-2019 10:01pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would suggest policies that exacerbate the housing/homeless crises would be a good example.

What would they be? Is there a magic switch to create more housing? You seem to think policy changes happen in real time when the policy lag factor is at least five years and housing is about as long term as you can get.

In order to solve the housing problem today we would have had to start projects to service land and deliver public transport in 2010-13 as well as get people into trades to build the housing. If you had proposed that policy then when the same people complaining about the housing shortage were saying the country would never recover they would have been laughed at and voted out.

micosoft · 05-06-2019 10:03pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll bite at the 'what would you do?' style non-counter. An administrative body to oversee the day to day running of the state where elected officials only have a hand in voting on key issues would be preferable. We have too much power in the hands of people who are either incompetent, crony or both.
Other than that I'd like to see a non-FF/FG government just to see how a government would fare without the cronies waiting in the wings with time honoured ways of doing our business badly.

Where do you stand, FF/FG similar?

Basically the councils who already have a lot of power vs councillors?

non-FF/FG? Ok - we could put PbP in charge? Or we could wait for the emergence of a fascist party? You can always make things worse you know? Centrism and muddling along is not as bad as you imply.

Sonny noggs · 05-06-2019 10:05pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would suggest policies that exacerbate the housing/homeless crises would be a good example.

Where is my free house?

Peregrinus · 06-06-2019 2:40am

A lean towards centrism isn't all bad. Ireland's civil war ended with the emergence of a multi-party democracy, which is not how these things usually end. We got through the thirties without lapsing into fascism or authoritarianism which, for a small poor European state, makes us fairly unusual. And (these facts may be connected) the two centrist parties that we have are both fairly broad churches, capable of accommodating a range of different perspectives and ideological leanings, on the condition that each of them has to respect the others.

Ilovemycharlie · 06-06-2019 2:47am

FF are pro business.
FG are a bunch of *****

[Deleted User] · 06-06-2019 2:57am

FF gemerally make the mess and FG get to clean it up.

Larbre34 · 06-06-2019 3:04am

Ilovemycharlie wrote: »

FF are pro business.
FG are a bunch of *****

Funny, you could have stated the opposite and no one would bat an eyelid.

As for the earlier comment that FF is the urban party and FG the rural, my feeling was always the opposite too, from my south Dublin perspective, but then FG historically sewed up the Dun Laoghaires while FF were nailed on in the Donnycarneys.

My own opinion of where they diverged was that FG were for big business, industrialists, professionals and big agri interests, while FF were retailers, local business and aspirational civil servants and office workers. FF were also more catholic (indistinguishable during de Valera / McQuaid) while FG had more appeal to the prods and jews perhaps.

I know those were generalisations but these days their commonalities make me see a merger inevitable in the next 2 decades, while current differences are mainly social as now FG are gone to Labour levels of liberalism while FF retain a veneer of catholic conservatism.

Cal4567 · 06-06-2019 7:15am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I always cite this chap I met while abroad. A group of us were discussing the crash, (this would have been about 2009/2010 or thereabouts).

"It was the banks that did it. I'm a Fianna Fail man like my father and his father before him. Fianna Faill will sort it out."

We need be rid of this point of family pride voter. As I say it's not, or shouldn't be football teams, supporting your team regardless of who the players are or how they perform.

We are slowly getting away from this style of hereditary voting. We could do with getting away from it a lot quicker. 10 years the FF and FG gene pool will decrease enough for both parties to merge, holding a solid 35%, perhaps still even more?

Peregrinus · 06-06-2019 7:21am

Cal4567 wrote: »

We are slowly getting away from this style of hereditary voting. We could do with getting away from it a lot quicker. 10 years the FF and FG gene pool will decrease enough for both parties to merge, holding a solid 35%, perhaps still even more?

They won't necessarily merge; we could move to a European style party system that could accommodate two (or even more) economically centrist parties, one appealing (say) to rural voters and the other to urban, or one offering a socially liberal agenda and the other less so.

But I do suspect that they'll be less and less able to rely on a hereditary vote, and will have to find other ways to appeal to voters and attract their votes.

And, yeah, they could certainly hold 35% of the vote, or more. We are a fairly conservative (in the sense of cautious) nation. Neither the radical right nor the radical left have ever made huge political headway in Ireland; given a half-way acceptable centrist alternative we seem to quite like that.

Wheeliebin30 · 06-06-2019 7:29am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would suggest policies that exacerbate the housing/homeless crises would be a good example.

The most social houses were built last year than any in the last 11 years.

Hardly a sign of policies with the aim of increasing the myth that is homelessness.

James Brown · 06-06-2019 2:06pm

micosoft wrote: »

...

In order to solve the housing problem today we would have had to start projects to service land and deliver public transport in 2010-13 as well as get people into trades to build the housing. If you had proposed that policy then when the same people complaining about the housing shortage were saying the country would never recover they would have been laughed at and voted out.

I remember being told the same thing several years ago and here we are...still.

micosoft wrote: »

Basically the councils who already have a lot of power vs councillors?

non-FF/FG? Ok - we could put PbP in charge? Or we could wait for the emergence of a fascist party? You can always make things worse you know? Centrism and muddling along is not as bad as you imply.

I disagree. Record breaking crises year on year. Crises means bad, record breaking means worsening.

Peregrinus wrote: »

A lean towards centrism isn't all bad. Ireland's civil war ended with the emergence of a multi-party democracy, which is not how these things usually end. We got through the thirties without lapsing into fascism or authoritarianism which, for a small poor European state, makes us fairly unusual. And (these facts may be connected) the two centrist parties that we have are both fairly broad churches, capable of accommodating a range of different perspectives and ideological leanings, on the condition that each of them has to respect the others.

Centrism could be fine but FG specifically claim they believe the market will solve things, yet they dabble and play with it. Name a business outside housing were you can sell a product at a price people can't afford and the tax payer picks up the slack? FF would likely build but they are complicit with FG's policies. Currently we have two middle parties meeting in the middle. Two different partners would work better I would imagine.

James Brown · 06-06-2019 2:13pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

The most social houses were built last year than any in the last 11 years.

Hardly a sign of policies with the aim of increasing the myth that is homelessness.

If I build one tomorrow that's more social housing than I've ever built. One would be a record breaking amount in fact. If you don't believe there's a problem great stuff, Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and a lot of others disagree.
Look housing is well covered and certainly we know where each other stand.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Funny, you could have stated the opposite and no one would bat an eyelid.

As for the earlier comment that FF is the urban party and FG the rural, my feeling was always the opposite too, from my south Dublin perspective, but then FG historically sewed up the Dun Laoghaires while FF were nailed on in the Donnycarneys.

My own opinion of where they diverged was that FG were for big business, industrialists, professionals and big agri interests, while FF were retailers, local business and aspirational civil servants and office workers. FF were also more catholic (indistinguishable during de Valera / McQuaid) while FG had more appeal to the prods and jews perhaps.

I know those were generalisations but these days their commonalities make me see a merger inevitable in the next 2 decades, while current differences are mainly social as now FG are gone to Labour levels of liberalism while FF retain a veneer of catholic conservatism.

me too. I always saw FF as the farmers party.
I would love a merger. We'd get an opposition.

Phoebas · 06-06-2019 2:15pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Name a business outside housing were you can sell a product at a price people can't afford and the tax payer picks up the slack?

Healthcare.
Education.

James Brown · 06-06-2019 2:21pm

Phoebas wrote: »

Healthcare.
Education.

Renting out the spare room as a University are we, doing surgery in the granny flat?

blanch152 · 06-06-2019 3:16pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Name a business outside housing were you can sell a product at a price people can't afford and the tax payer picks up the slack?

Phoebas wrote: »

Healthcare.
Education.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Renting out the spare room as a University are we, doing surgery in the granny flat?

Phoebas is absolutely correct on this.

In relation to education, at second-level, every fee-paying school gets subsidised teachers paid by the taxpayer. However, the situation is even clearer at third level.

Have a look at Table 6.1 on page 52 of this Report:

https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/06/HEA-RFAM-Final-Interim-Report-062017.pdf

For laboratory-based courses, the true cost of a year's education is €11,082 in a university. Are you saying that the average person can afford this, and that the taxpayer is not picking up the 8k a year slack?

In relation to health, are you suggesting that hospitals are being subsidised by the VHI and other health insurers, when they charge the insurer for a public bed? I had thought that you believed that it was the other way round.

James Brown · 06-06-2019 3:40pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Phoebas is absolutely correct on this.

In relation to education, at second-level, every fee-paying school gets subsidised teachers paid by the taxpayer. However, the situation is even clearer at third level.

Have a look at Table 6.1 on page 52 of this Report:

https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/06/HEA-RFAM-Final-Interim-Report-062017.pdf

For laboratory-based courses, the true cost of a year's education is €11,082 in a university. Are you saying that the average person can afford this, and that the taxpayer is not picking up the 8k a year slack?

In relation to health, are you suggesting that hospitals are being subsidised by the VHI and other health insurers, when they charge the insurer for a public bed? I had thought that you believed that it was the other way round.

Health and education, re: housing would be comparable to affordable housing and social housing to varying degrees IMO.
My point was due to a lack of affordable and social we have a situation where 'customers' have little option outside of purchasing/renting privately and the 'customer' must then go cap in hand to the tax payer to meet so called 'free' market set pricing. Pricing that need never be lowered because the tax payer picks up the slack. Agree or disagree with the analogies, we have a situation where the price isn't necessarily based on what the consumer can or is willing to pay. If you need a car and all that's available are BMW prices, you get a bike.
Any road, FG/FF the same? I can't see much changing with a faux opposition. I'd reckon another election will bear similar results except maybe with FF on top.

Walter Bishop · 06-06-2019 3:42pm

At this stage it just seems to be down to whose grandfather/great-grandfather shot who during the Civil War.

James Brown · 06-06-2019 3:44pm

Walter Bishop wrote: »

At this stage it just seems to be down to whose grandfather/great-grandfather shot who during the Civil War.

Aye, saddening to see another brood of the same coming up.

blanch152 · 06-06-2019 4:12pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Health and education, re: housing would be comparable to affordable housing and social housing to varying degrees IMO.
My point was due to a lack of affordable and social we have a situation where 'customers' have little option outside of purchasing/renting privately and the 'customer' must then go cap in hand to the tax payer to meet so called 'free' market set pricing. Pricing that need never be lowered because the tax payer picks up the slack. Agree or disagree with the analogies, we have a situation where the price isn't necessarily based on what the consumer can or is willing to pay. If you need a car and all that's available are BMW prices, you get a bike.
Any road, FG/FF the same? I can't see much changing with a faux opposition. I'd reckon another election will bear similar results except maybe with FF on top.

I am getting more confused. Are you accepting that Phoebas was correct now? If so, will you amend your response?

Third-level education perfectly meets your criteria. If you qualify for third-level education (through the CAO) and can't afford the 3k fee, you must go cap in hand to the taxpayer for a SUSI grant. If you don't qualify for a SUSI grant, you must go and work part-time while going to college. It doesn't matter whether you want to pay €500 or €50,000, the price is fixed.

The whole point of public services and public service economics, is that the price isn't necessarily based on what the consumer can or is willing to pay.

When it comes to housing, the taxpayer will always have to pick up the slack. There is a reality here. If we are to have a future that is compatible with our climate change objectives, the idea of a three-bedroom house for all with a garden with room for a trampoline must be ended. Building apartments, shared living arrangements, in high-rise accommodation must become the new norm. That is why the current government have raised the regulations on new building heights. The failure of the previous local authorities to get on with this is the big problem. Hopefully, we will see change over the next few months, now that the electorate have thrown out many of the do-nothing councillors.

James Brown · 06-06-2019 4:21pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I am getting more confused. Are you accepting that Phoebas was correct now? If so, will you amend your response?
...

Is this all interests you?
Health and education are provided in degrees, by the tax payer. They are a different animal. You build and open your own private hospital and charge your own prices and see how you get on.
There is no other business outside of housing, (selling/renting) where a private concern or individual can go into business and put their wares on the market with confidence that if the customer can't afford the product, the tax payer will pick up the shortfall and this is encouraged by government IMO. Getting back to the point that FG indeed have right wing policies.

You've no interest in discussing FF/FG?

jimmycrackcorm · 06-06-2019 4:31pm

Walter Bishop wrote: »

At this stage it just seems to be down to whose grandfather/great-grandfather shot who during the Civil War.

Largely it's hard on parochialism. So people getting local FF councillors to fix their road vote FF TDs ( also rationale for Healy Rae's).
FG - fiscally conservative.
FF - fiscally irresponsible. (Wasn't it McCreevey who said, if I have it, I'll spend it.

blanch152 · 06-06-2019 4:41pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is this all interests you?
Health and education are provided in degrees, by the tax payer. They are a different animal. You build and open your own private hospital and charge your own prices and see how you get on.
There is no other business outside of housing, (selling/renting) where a private concern or individual can go into business and put their wares on the market with confidence that if the customer can't afford the product, the tax payer will pick up the shortfall and this is encouraged by government IMO. Getting back to the point that FG indeed have right wing policies.

You've no interest in discussing FF/FG?

Firstly, private hospitals are hoovering up patients from the public system through the NTPF. Secondly, government expenditure doesn't just include cash expenditure, it also includes tax expenditure where revenue is foregone through tax relief. There is significant tax relief available for both private health insurers and private hospital expenses, where money otherwise due to the taxpayer is diverted to subsidise the private operator.

There are many other similar examples across public expenditure. The argument that housing is unique is weak in the face of such examples.

As for FF/FG, I am following the debate with interest. Quite a few posters have pointed to significant differences between the two parties so I don't feel the need to add to (e.g. social policy, rural/urban divide, conservative catholic etc.). What does strike me is that these differences as suggested by others haven't really been rebutted but furthermore, they strike me as being more significant differences than the differences between parties such as the Socialist Party, People Before Profit, Independents for Change and the Social Democrats. To give another example, these differences also seem more significant than the ones between Sinn Fein and Aontu.

To conclude, if the thesis of the OP is that there should be an amalgamation between the two parties because they are similar, then I would respectfully suggest that the evidence presented on the thread isn't sufficient to back that up ahead of other prospective mergers.

FF and FG, what's the difference?

Comments