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

Peregrinus wrote: »

So you might think that by spoiling your vote you are at least registering a protest that will be recorded in some way, and somebody might take note of it.

In theory, if a really large number of people were unhappy and spoiled their votes, that would get some attention. Say the spoiled votes quadrupled from last time, people would sit up.

In practice this is not going to happen, but in practice your individual vote is extremely unlikely to matter anyway, so do whatever makes you feel better even if it is spoiling your vote.

sporina wrote: »

So, with the upcoming election, I cannot see anyone I would like to vote for..

In such a case, which is worse, to just not vote or to spoil your vote?

I am aware of the fact that people died for us to be able to vote etc.. but I don't wanna vote for someone just for the sake of it.. are spoilt votes counted as such?

Do you dislike all the candidates equally, or are some of them less worse for you than others?

hotmail.com wrote: »

So when parties make promises for the working classes it's considered populist, but when parties make promises for the middle classes, it's called elitist tax cuts.

I wouldn't say that's what "it's called", that's just the word I used. I can't find any figures on the individual median income in Ireland, but considering the median household income is €45k, I'm assuming that a huge portion of the workforce, possibly a majority, does not even make enough moneny to pay the current highest rate of tax. Raising the maxmimum band to €50k gives most of its benefits to those earning at least €50k (to whom it represents €3200 back per year). As you earn less, you receive less income back from it, and if you earn under €34k you receive no benefits at all.

Because of this, it's hard to see how a tax cut like this could be considered "populist" in any way, so I've called it elitist, as elitism is the opposite of populism. The SF plan to abolish USC under €30k concentrates far more benefits toward the poorer end of the workforce, although it also would cost the state a lot more money.

In truth, while I think it's a bit nuts that our upper tax band is so low, and I would personally benefit from this tax cut, I do have a hard time seeing it as anything other than regressive.

droidus wrote: »

There seems to be a somewhat crazed analysis here. I watched this with a few quite non-political people and they all thought Mary Lou did best. Vox pop on the radio this morning seemed to confirm that it did her no damage at least. Personally I think she scored the most direct hits, and was disciplined and clearest in her messaging.

SF may not gain as many seats as then polling suggests, but it won't be down to that debate, despite the desperate claims we're seeing in the media and some other places.

Perhaps that's the difference. An online forum devoted to discussing politics is going to be filled mostly with people who are very engaged and following the election closely, with few people who would identify as non-political.

Out of curiosity, what about her performance did they seem to think went so well? I personally thought he stumbling over the questions on the Criminal Court, her getting called out on Northern homeless rates, and her being caught out on the comments made about Paul Quinn were not a good look at all. I also was surprised to see her arguing so strongly against a carbon tax when her base is generally young and from the left, which are groups who tend to care a great deal about climate change.

MLMc did poorly last night but it wasn't the game changer that been reported by the wishful thinking media. Newstalk headlines this morning led with her poor or non-answers as the top news story which I don't think is reflective of the general mood in terms of national importance.

hurler32 wrote: »

People seem to miss the point many of the 25% of people that are planning to vote SF hardly watch terrestrial TV anymore and certainly dont watch RTE or listen to RTE radio. People are fed up with their lot now and blame Fine Gael in particular for it.

That's true of any party really, but I know that as someone who fits their demographic and doesn't really ever watch RTE outside of sports events, I still made the effort to watch this debate.

SF are blatantly populist and they make no apology about it … Eoin Ó Broin even wrote an article in defence of populism.

People claiming they aren't don't even seem to understand that they acknowledge themselves that they are..

hotmail.com wrote: »

So populism depends on how many people will be affected by the changes? This just doesn't make any sense.

The term populism is just some made up term in the last few years.

Every party is populist. You need to be popular to get elected.

And given that FG is far more likely to lead a government than SF, their tax cuts promises is even more reckless and stupid.

The idea that "populism" is a word made up in the last few years is objectively false. The term itself dates back to the 19th century, and the concept of it was very much considered in the foundation of the US government system back in the late 1700s.

I never said populism depends on how many people are affected by a change. I don't know how you managed to interpret that from what I said. Social housing is currently a populist issue, even though it would really only affect a small minority of people. Populism is also not the same thing as popular.

I don't know what point you're really trying to get at here with these comments, but you don't seem to really understand what populism means. Populism can have negative or positive connotations depending on who is using the term.

C14N wrote: »

The idea that "populism" is a word made up in the last few years is objectively false. The term itself dates back to the 19th century, and the concept of it was very much considered in the foundation of the US government system back in the late 1700s.

I never said populism depends on how many people are affected by a change. I don't know how you managed to interpret that from what I said. Social housing is currently a populist issue, even though it would really only affect a small minority of people. Populism is also not the same thing as popular.

I don't know what point you're really trying to get at here with these comments, but you don't seem to really understand what populism means. Populism can have negative or positive connotations depending on who is using the term.

It seems to me that anything is populist then if social housing is populist.

The term populism is new to Ireland in the last few years.

I suppose the point is that the term populism is a load of nonsense. Just say you don't agree with someone or their policies. Why try to demean it as 'populist'.

People have made their mind up I feel by this point.

The big question is will FF outperform FG and that seems likely at the moment.

He should have kept schtum until after Saturday if he had any loyalty.

As for his pension.


"Mr Noonan also addressed his own State pension of around €88,527 a year."



"All public servants get a pension when they've done 40 years which is about half the salary and you get a lump sum, so that's what I get as well," he said. He added he would have to live to 120 to receive the €2.7m his pension has been estimated to be worth.


Either he's losing it or he thinks we are all fools.
As former Minister of Finance he should know that €2.7m is the amount that would be needed in a private pension to draw €88,527 not the amount you expect to receive.

hotmail.com wrote: »

The term populism is just some made up term in the last few years.

In addition to being an handy way of dismissing something without engaging in a serious discussion about it, it also seems to me to have a more insidious purpose.

If policies that the voters will like are populist, and thus are not to be taken seriously, then the only policies that can be taken seriously are non-populist that the voters won't like (but no doubt, well-heeled vested interested will).

How convenient is that?

Jimmyireland wrote: »

Was she far wrong...

mansplaining
/ˈmanspleɪnɪŋ/
Learn to pronounce
nouninformal
noun: mansplaining

the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.
"your response is classic mansplaining"

Is she not well versed in a female equivalent of same?
Pot and kettle spring to mind.