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

L1011 · 03-02-2020 02:34PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I think a merger as the smaller part of the Social Democrats is long past due. Time to wind it up.

Why would you merge as the "smaller part" of a smaller party?

LuckyLloyd · 03-02-2020 02:50PM

L1011 wrote: »

Why would you merge as the "smaller part" of a smaller party?

Because their brand has a toxicity about it.

L1011 · 03-02-2020 02:54PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Because their brand has a toxicity about it.

You might be able to sell a merged party name like the LibDems but a merger with SDs as the remaining brand would never get passed and you'd end up losing piles of the reps to a continuity party. Even the LibDems merger got left with two continuity parties!

LeinsterDub · 03-02-2020 03:00PM

pixelburp wrote: »

Still fascinated at how badly Labour has collapsed since the last coalition. IMO they need some new blood and fast, as this election looks to be another underwhelming result for them and I see a lot of grey heads on posters around the city. Brendan Howlin seems a non presence in the media. Is there even a chance the party could simply cease to be altogether?

The should merge into the SocDems and put themselves out of their misery

sid waddell · 03-02-2020 03:00PM

loyatemu wrote: »

Labour are the political wing of the trade union movement and that won't change.
The SDs understandably want to be able stand on a social democratic ticket without the baggage of having the unions on board. The problem Labour have is many (most?) younger voters aren't in a union and see them as irrelevant.

I'm not saying this isn't the case to some or perhaps a large extent, but it doesn't make sense that the electorate as a whole can be moving ever leftwards if people are simultaneously rejecting the idea of trade unions. If it is the case it's a massive case of cognitive dissonance.

LeinsterDub · 03-02-2020 03:02PM

L1011 wrote: »

You might be able to sell a merged party name like the LibDems but a merger with SDs as the remaining brand would never get passed and you'd end up losing piles of the reps to a continuity party. Even the LibDems merger got left with two continuity parties!

What about the Social Democratic and Labour Party

;)

L1011 · 03-02-2020 03:08PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What about the Social Democratic and Labour Party ;)

FF might be willing to sell the name if that merger completes!

is_that_so · 03-02-2020 03:16PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Because their brand has a toxicity about it.

Actually their level of seats is not too far off their more typical 10-12 seats and they are a definite refuge if people tire of the rest of the left. For now there's a degree of mea culpa about them and while they would be open to coalition I'd expect them to set very clear red lines fro participation and be prepared to walk if they were crossed.

CrabRevolution · 03-02-2020 03:19PM

sid waddell wrote: »

I'm not saying this isn't the case to some or perhaps a large extent, but it doesn't make sense that the electorate as a whole can be moving ever leftwards if people are simultaneously rejecting the idea of trade unions. If it is the case it's a massive case of cognitive dissonance.

I don't like using broad generalisations and "left this, right that", but "left" generally seems to have evolved to mean the state providing more and more for the population, and less to do with working. The "working" part of "working class" is becoming less and less relevant. Politicians can focus less on working conditions and rights if they know a good chunk of their audience aren't working (unemployed, proverbial "benefit scroungers", pensioners).

sid waddell · 03-02-2020 03:22PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

They don’t stand for anything unique on the political landscape and people know that whatever they say they stand for will be mostly jettisoned so they can get into a coalition, any coalition with anyone. So why would you rationally bother voting for them?

If you're in a coalition government any time, but especially in a time of economic crisis, you're not going to get all your policies implemented. That is a fact. The Greens crashed and burned in the 2007-2011 government and it appears people have come back to them in larger numbers than ever before.

Now there is certainly plenty of legitimate criticism that can be aimed at Labour, but they took the decision to go into government in 2011 knowing that by doing so they could act as a brake on Fine Gael's worst impulses, knowing that they would likely ssuffer at the next election. That's actually a country over party decision.

FG probably could have formed a government by themselves with independent help in 2011 and it would have been a much harsher government than turned out to be the case with Labour involvement.

It depends on how you see politics. If you're a party over country type of person, the obvious choice for Labour in 2011 would have been to stay out of government because by the time 2016 rolled around they might then have been in a position to even be the largest party. Standing on the sidelines criticising is the best way to build party support.

But they chose to get some of their policies implemented rather than throwing stones from the sidelines as FG slashed and burned on a much greater scale than would otherwise have been possible.

It's clear to me that SF want to stay out of government rather than be in it. A lot of their promises are extremely populist. If they're in government, they fear what would happen at the next election. It's so much easier for them to stand on the sidelines without any responsibility and watch their support grow.

Whatever people say about Labour, they've always been willing to walk the walk and go into government and actually try and do something. That's what politics should be about, not an endless cycle of standing back, throwing stones in a populist manner and refusing to get involved because you fear it might hurt your support in the longer term. That's what SF do.

And if by chance SF ever do go into government as a coalition partner, SF will be forced to compromise on their policies in the exact same way they have vilified Labour for doing. Because that's what happens in the real world of coalition government.

Labour's real problem to me is PR. They're **** at it and have never learned the art of defending themselves like they should have, despite the majority of the best governments in this state's history having Labour involvement.

is_that_so · 03-02-2020 03:23PM

pixelburp wrote: »

Still fascinated at how badly Labour has collapsed since the last coalition. IMO they need some new blood and fast, as this election looks to be another underwhelming result for them and I see a lot of grey heads on posters around the city. Brendan Howlin seems a non presence in the media. Is there even a chance the party could simply cease to be altogether?

They need to get people in place for the next election as most of the old guard will be off. With a Dail lasting long enough they'd also target building their local seats. If Nash and O'Riordain get in this time that at least gives them a sort of a base. I reckon they are stuck with Howlin for a good while as no heir is apparent.

sid waddell · 03-02-2020 03:32PM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I don't like using broad generalisations and "left this, right that", but "left" generally seems to have evolved to mean the state providing more and more for the population, and less to do with working. The "working" part of "working class" is becoming less and less relevant. Politicians can focus less on working conditions and rights if they know a good chunk of their audience aren't working (unemployed, proverbial "benefit scroungers", pensioners).

Policies that have as their logical outcome a social safety net which is so generous that it actually discourages working may to a certain extent be the case with SF and Solidarity etc. but it isn't the case with Labour. The Labour ideal is full employment with a strong workforce with strong rights, and a strong and reasonable social safety net for those who fall through the cracks, which supports people in need but doesn't actively discourage working. It's basically the Scandinavian model. But it can never be implemented overnight, and populist promises like SF make only lessen the chance of something like that model ever coming to reality.

Of course if SF are a coalition partner, they will have to row back on their promises in a big way. What then for them?

jem · 03-02-2020 03:37PM

Irish freedom party canidate standing in Tipp

sid waddell · 03-02-2020 03:38PM

is_that_so wrote: »

They need to get people in place for the next election as most of the old guard will be off. With a Dail lasting long enough they'd also target building their local seats. If Nash and O'Riordain get in this time that at least gives them a sort of a base. I reckon they are stuck with Howlin for a good while as no heir is apparent.

If he gets re-elected in Tipp, Kelly is probably the likeliest next leader because he's a bruiser, a populist and rural. He's not one bit afraid to talk himself up unapologetically. That's probably what they need in terms of leadership. I like Howlin and O'Riordain, but they're seen as "too nice", O'Riordain is seen as too urban, and to be honest both probably are too nice to be leader in the current dog eat dog political environment we see everywhere these days.

ancapailldorcha · 03-02-2020 03:39PM

Off topic and below standard posts deleted.

scrumqueen · 03-02-2020 03:44PM

sid waddell wrote: »

If he gets re-elected in Tipp, Kelly is probably the likeliest next leader because he's a bruiser, a populist and rural. He's not one bit afraid to talk himself up unapologetically. That's probably what they need in terms of leadership.

/SHUDDER

loyatemu · 03-02-2020 03:47PM

is_that_so wrote: »

They need to get people in place for the next election as most of the old guard will be off. With a Dail lasting long enough they'd also target building their local seats. If Nash and O'Riordain get in this time that at least gives them a sort of a base. I reckon they are stuck with Howlin for a good while as no heir is apparent.

I get the impression that young politically left-leaning people are more likely to join the Greens or SDs at the moment. Which is obviously a problem for Labour in the longer term.

is_that_so · 03-02-2020 03:57PM

loyatemu wrote: »

I get the impression that young politically left-leaning people are more likely to join the Greens or SDs at the moment. Which is obviously a problem for Labour in the longer term.

I don't see the number of members as being significant as most voters are not involved in politics in any way. The SDs seem to have turned into a catch all for all manner of people but have no national focus, as is clear by their support. The Greens are riding the environmental crest and will appeal to people on that basis. What Labour still have is a broader range of stances on social and other areas. That allows them to cover more of the centre than the other two and there is a fondness for the urban Labourite among the middle classes.

sid waddell · 03-02-2020 04:10PM

loyatemu wrote: »

I get the impression that young politically left-leaning people are more likely to join the Greens or SDs at the moment. Which is obviously a problem for Labour in the longer term.

The problem for the Social Democrats is that they really have no established party structure nationwide, they were effectively a pop up party like the PDs and the Democratic Left.

The PDs did OK for a while but they relied on high profile candidates with high name recognition, who had made their name mostly in Fianna Fail, rather than any real grass roots party which could continually produce new candidates. There was a similar dynamic at play with the Democratic Left.

After the initial strong burst of enthusiasm in 1987, the PDs continually lost vote share at every election from 1989 on and eventually withered away to nothing because they had nothing coming through from the grass roots, and because they had no real ideological raison d'etre - they came into existence in the first place because of a private FF falling out.

Democratic Left came about because of a falling out in the Worker's Party. Renua came about because of a falling out in Fine Gael. Aointu because off a falling out in Sinn Fein. The Social Democrats exist basically because of a falling out between Roisin Shortall and Labour.

The Social Democrats have good people involved, and a good few candidates I'd be willing to give a high vote to, in some cases a number one vote, if I were in their constituency.

But their two current TDs, Shortall and Byrne, are old and this might be their last Dail term presuming they get re-elected. Donnelly jumped ship very quickly in a way that probably wouldn't have happened had they been a more established party.

They need new candidates to be elected to have any hope of surviving long term, and while there might be a chance of that this time with Gannon and O'Tuathail and possibly O'Callaghan, they will inevitably run into difficulties as a party at some point down the tracks, and when that happens, they will face a battle for their very existence, their lack of ideological difference with Labour will become apparent, and people will ask why the SDs and Labour are two separate parties at all.

The one thing Labour has going for it is its history, tradition and established party structure. They are in extremely choppy waters currently but tradition can sustain a party through that until the wheel begins to turn.

SF's emergence means it will be more difficult for Labour to revitalise itself than before however.

Water John · 03-02-2020 04:13PM

It will be interesting as to where SF end up. The polls are showing a big trend towards them and some of that certainly will come through in votes and seats. One poll might be an aberration but a No of Polls, No.
In effect as a party they seemed to to have done nothing exceptional in terms of a causal link. It's like the voters found them.

AK could be a member of any party and is really more in the FF mould. If SocDems and LB were to merge then Roisin Shorthall should lead it. What truly damaged LB with its true labour base was the merger with the stickies. A lot of real ground workers walked away.

L1011 · 03-02-2020 04:18PM

sid waddell wrote: »

The problem for the Social Democrats is that they really have no established party structure nationwide, they were effectively a pop up party like the PDs and the Democratic Left.

The PDs did OK for a while but they relied on high profile candidates with high name recognition, who had made their name mostly in Fianna Fail, rather than any real grass roots party which could continually produce new candidates. There was a similar dynamic at play with the Democratic Left..

So - the lesson is don't use the word Democrat in your party name? National Progressive Democrats were also similarly short lived :pac:

cameramonkey · 03-02-2020 04:20PM

Water John wrote: »

It will be interesting as to where SF end up. The polls are showing a big trend towards them and some of that certainly will come through in votes and seats. One poll might be an aberration but a No of Polls, No.
In effect as a party they seemed to to have done nothing exceptional in terms of a causal link. It's like the voters found them.

AK could be a member of any party and is really more in the FF mould. If SocDems and LB were to merge then Roisin Shorthall should lead it. What truly damaged LB with its true labour base was the merger with the stickies. A lot of real ground workers walked away.

The merger with the sticks was a long time ago. They had really good elections since then. What damaged them like lots of left organisations was their desertion of their traditional base. When in power they also ignored any idea of justice and imposed dreadful cuts on the poor and marginalised. For that they deserve their fate.

Water John · 03-02-2020 04:24PM

That's what's difficult to reconcile, the Poll of Polls would have the likes of her getting a seat, coming from that base.

is_that_so · 03-02-2020 04:26PM

cameramonkey wrote: »

The merger with the sticks was a long time ago. They had really good elections since then. What damaged them like lots of left organisations was their desertion of their traditional base. When in power they also ignored any idea of justice and imposed dreadful cuts on the poor and marginalised. For that they deserve their fate.

It was overpromising and underdelivering along with suspect decisions- i.e. Spring in 1992.

Sierra Oscar · 03-02-2020 04:32PM

Water John wrote: »

That's what's difficult to reconcile, the Poll of Polls would have the likes of her getting a seat, coming from that base.

Same story in a whole raft of constituencies up and down the country.

What will end up happening is Sinn Féin candidates in 'heartland' areas will have a big surplus on election day. Big deal, they don't have the running mates in place so the irony is they will probably actually end up electing a second Fianna Fáil TD in these constituencies. I can't see their transfers going to Fine Gael and the smaller party candidates won't have the first preference votes to stay ahead as the counts go on.

It's hard to see where Sinn Féin will actually make decent seat gains. The vote seems to be concentrated in key constituencies where they could do very well in this election, but aren't fielding additional candidates as on a poor day they could split the vote and loose everything.

Sierra Oscar · 03-02-2020 04:36PM

Irish Times have an MRBI poll tonight.

https://twitter.com/fiachkelly/status/1224355664706838531

sid waddell · 03-02-2020 04:36PM

cameramonkey wrote: »

The merger with the sticks was a long time ago. They had really good elections since then. What damaged them like lots of left organisations was their desertion of their traditional base. When in power they also ignored any idea of justice and imposed dreadful cuts on the poor and marginalised. For that they deserve their fate.

Would it have been better for Labour's base for the party to have stood back and allowed Fine Gael single party government to have imposed far worse cuts, knowing that they'd likely have benefitted electorally in 2016? Because that was an option for them. FG could have formed a government with minority support in 2011. They had 76 seats.

Labour got 37 seats in 2011. Had they stayed out of government then they could certainly have pushed into the 40s if not even better in terms of seats in 2016.

Meanwhile FF crashed the economy and are about to walk back into power.

The Greens will likely return a record seat haul this time despite being FF's coalition partner between 2007 and 2011, standing pretty much idly by as FF brought in the Troika, the bailout and the cuts (and I absolutely accept it wasn't the Greens that crashed the economy, it was FF).

Labour seem to be judged by different standards to everybody else.

endainoz · 03-02-2020 04:57PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Irish Times have an MRBI poll tonight.

https://twitter.com/fiachkelly/status/1224355664706838531

This will be interesting, I think I'd be surprised if SF goes higher but I was surprised how hight they polled on Saturday too.

loyatemu · 03-02-2020 05:00PM

sid waddell wrote: »

Labour seem to be judged by different standards to everybody else.

the smaller party in a coalition always gets screwed - the Greens lost all their seats in 2016 and a lot of people still blame them for the crash. Labour's main problem is the rise of SF.

mrbrianj · 03-02-2020 05:05PM

Water John wrote: »

It will be interesting as to where SF end up. The polls are showing a big trend towards them and some of that certainly will come through in votes and seats. One poll might be an aberration but a No of Polls, No.
In effect as a party they seemed to to have done nothing exceptional in terms of a causal link. It's like the voters found them.

AK could be a member of any party and is really more in the FF mould. If SocDems and LB were to merge then Roisin Shorthall should lead it. What truly damaged LB with its true labour base was the merger with the stickies. A lot of real ground workers walked away.

Regards SF being found by the voters. I think its more to do with both LV and MM throwing out the "shinners are worse" line in response to every question on homelessness, waiting lists, C&S, multinational's non tax, banks, bail out and on and on. Whatever the question is, the stock response = Sf would only do worse - and quite likely that's right, but our electorate see through that. People see the failures of the last Dail (along with the good) and know more than simple sound bites and whataboutary isn't going to solve the housing crises or hospital waiting lists

All SF have to do is simply not be FG or FF.

BTW, I do think that a fair few people who say they will vote SF wont go that far and will vote Green when push comes to shove.

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

Comments