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

At which point he and his ministers resign.

is_that_so wrote: »

It's because they promise stupid things or try to get their own way. The Greens, I think, were unlucky in the 2011 meltdown and will be back again. Coalition is compromise and dealing, even sacrificing some policies. If you're not prepared to do that don't pretend you are. Pretending it's not leads to punishment.

This is my view, but some folks I know who were Green supporters when I was younger refuse to vote for them because they comrpomised on some of their policies to get in certain other ones - and even the ones they did get weren't implemented the way they'd promised.

Meanwhile I'm sitting here screaming "They were the minority party!" Surely it's better to compromise, make a deal with a larger party, and get some of your policies in. Rather than stand on some purist high ground and get nothing done ever. If I want to vote for a party promising XYZ, they go into coalition and give up Y and Z in order to accomplish X, then that's achieving something. If they'd not compromised none of my wanted policies would have gotten in.

But I'd bet my savings they'd lose every vote in the following election for doing it.

Dytalus wrote: »

This is my view, but some folks I know who were Green supporters when I was younger refuse to vote for them because they comrpomised on some of their policies to get in certain other ones - and even the ones they did get weren't implemented the way they'd promised.

Meanwhile I'm sitting here screaming "They were the minority party!" Surely it's better to compromise, make a deal with a larger party, and get some of your policies in. Rather than stand on some purist high ground and get nothing done ever. If I want to vote for a party promising XYZ, they go into coalition and give up Y and Z in order to accomplish X, then that's achieving something. If they'd not compromised none of my wanted policies would have gotten in.

But I'd bet my savings they'd lose every vote in the following election for doing it.

There is no doubt in my mind that FF and FG circled the wagons when it looked like SF were going to become the main opposition party back when FF were in the doldrums.
I think it was deeply cynical that FG were happy to rehabilitate FF in return for stopping that from happening.
Their exclusionary politics has affected/influenced the national broadcaster now it is so unsubtle imo.
I live in hope that the opinion polls are reflecting a dissatisfaction with that and that people want real change.

In my oft time fevered imagination I wish for a perfect storm of the electorate wanting change and a UI/new Ireland debate happening all at the same time.

There would be no tranquil nirvana on this island as a result just somewhat normal politics ...finally.

As quick as night becomes day FF have changed tact on the pension age.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2020/scramble-for-grey-vote-with-pension-age-row-38880849.html

The planned increase in the State pension age to 67 will be deferred pending a review if Fianna Fáil takes power, Micheál Martin has promised.

Ah the soldiers of destiny and their populism.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is no doubt in my mind that FF and FG circled the wagons when it looked like SF were going to become the main opposition party back when FF were in the doldrums.
I think it was deeply cynical that FG were happy to rehabilitate FF in return for stopping that from happening.
Their exclusionary politics has affected/influenced the national broadcaster now it is so unsubtle imo.
I live in hope that the opinion polls are reflecting a dissatisfaction with that and that people want real change.

In my oft time fevered imagination I wish for a perfect storm of the electorate wanting change and a UI/new Ireland debate happening all at the same time.

There would be no tranquil nirvana on this island as a result just somewhat normal politics ...finally.

Total conspiracy theory.
This whole narrative about it being FFG bs SF just reminds me of the pathetic name referencing to Sinn Fein/IRA in the North to try to conflate them together.

Dravokivich wrote: »

Would the 20th Feb not be dependent on a Government forming?

Yes, possible outcomes;

(A) 1 party has a majority in the Dail and can form govt (Last time that happened was 1977)
or
(B) The largest party negotiates a coalition government deal (most likely outcome) with other smaller parties and/or independent TDs so they will support the largest party leader's nomination for Taoiseach.
or
(C) Alternatively, there could be a Confidence & Supply deal between the 2 largest parties as happened in the last Dail.

If no person can gain enough votes to become Taoiseach the Dail keeps voting until someone gets elected. In 2016 the election was in February but Enda Kenny was not voted Taoiseach until May. If after a certain period no-one is elected Taoiseach and there is no-chance of any deal being reached, the President dissolves the Dail and the country votes again. This has yet to happen.

In response to your first question, it's perfectly valid to only vote for one candidate. You can do so by placing the number one in the space for that candidate but an x is also allowable when only voting for one candidate also. You can vote for as few or as many as you like on the paper, but when it's more than one you must indicate the order of preference numerically.

Coveney is probably one of the worst politicians at constantly interrupting other speakers.

road_high wrote: »

Remember during the 8th Amendment debates- on the exit polls they asked people what influenced their decision- those tv debates influenced about 1% of voters.
All they are is a circus and have absolutely no influence on me as a voter. Who the hell wants to listen to Mary lou and her shouting over everyone as someone who was never even in government making any decisions ever

You are right... I would rather listen to Leo regale us about how"lucky" he was to have a house when he was 24!

Dytalus wrote: »

This is my view, but some folks I know who were Green supporters when I was younger refuse to vote for them because they comrpomised on some of their policies to get in certain other ones - and even the ones they did get weren't implemented the way they'd promised.

Meanwhile I'm sitting here screaming "They were the minority party!" Surely it's better to compromise, make a deal with a larger party, and get some of your policies in. Rather than stand on some purist high ground and get nothing done ever. If I want to vote for a party promising XYZ, they go into coalition and give up Y and Z in order to accomplish X, then that's achieving something. If they'd not compromised none of my wanted policies would have gotten in.

But I'd bet my savings they'd lose every vote in the following election for doing it.

I think a lot of people misrepresent smaller parties imploding as being down to their bigger government partner.

From the first of the modern coalitions in 1973 until the Spring tide Labour were not overly affected by being in government. Spring changed that and it was his decision to go in with FF that infuriated voters. The subsequent rainbow government was a fairly decent one. In 1997 voters showed what they thought of that FF move and they were pummelled.

In 2007 Sargeant said he would not go in with FF , did so and promptly resigned. It was their being part of the government seen as responsible for the collapse that wiped them out, unluckily IMO.
Then in 2011 we had the hubris of Gilmore and his threat to put manners on FG. They didn't and we know what happened there. Pretty much their own fault again.

The PDs are interesting in the sense that they lasted so long as a small party. For a long time they were just a little different to FF but even by 2007 they were indistinguishable.

If we want to look at how to be in coalition I would say the 1994-1997 is a good example, despite the ultimate poor outcome for Labour. If they can resist the temptation to promise wildly they can get back in again and without a massive fallout in the following election.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

It'll almost certainly take at least a month for a government to be formed, and it's premature to rule FG out of the equation.

Longer even! I'm just pointing out how the process works.

Basically he remains Taoiseach until someone else is elected

even if he lost his seat in the election

markodaly wrote: »

Quite an active imagination you have there. Where does labour fit into this scenario of yours as they were the 2nd largest party in the country back in 2011?
Do you have some inside information on this clever 'conspiracy'? :rolleyes:

Labour have shown they could always be controlled by the big two or squashed.

Would SF be similar, I don't know, but they obviously frighten the big two who close ranks if they get near. We'll see it again if the polls keep showing what they are now.

This myth again.

If FF is back its because opposition parties tripped over themselves and spent all their time being angry rather then be prepared to step up and govern.

As for SF, maybe if they spent less time back in the day berating the EU and standing side by side with the likes of Syriza or Hamas, the Irish people may have taken them more seriously.
This election will be a wake-up call for them.
They will be lucky to hang to what they have.

As to the debate, I personally don't care either way. It's better for FG if SF is there too, as SF will be going after the FF would-be voters.
But if this is a debate on who is the next leader of the country, SF won't be within an arses roar of this, so they shouldn't be there.

So to counter the theory that FG have essentially rehabilitated FF , you go on a rant about SF?

Just for clarity, I would be disappointed and cautious letting any one of the three govern on their own.