GE Exit Poll 10 pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

How do you establish the scenario that people ‘voted for change’and that suddenly other people who voted for other parties voted also voted for change??

Can you square that circle for us.

To me anyway, a poor auld tosser, it’s very close and inconclusive.

You need to tell us how you arrive at your conclusions.

Can you recall any election in your lifetime where there has been a similar shift from the two party system we have had for decades.

Do you think people voted for SF out of sympathy, a bit of a joke, or could it be it was a demand for a radical change in the way politics are done in this country and the lack of government action on the issues that concern and affect them most.

I have absolutely no doubt that many who voted for SF were not voting for SF
because they are SF supporters or believe totally in SF policies. They voted SF because FF and FG simply did not address what the people of this country want addressing, namely housing, healthcare, insurance and childcare. SF were the only possible party that could have got the numbers of seats to make that a reality and they came within a hairs breadth of delivering that change. SF now know it is possible and they will not make any mistake in the next general election. FF and FG have abandoned a huge section of the electorate and because of that voters will vote for an alternative.

The issue is quite simple really and the FF and FG supporters on this forum bear this out. FF and FG are quite happy to continue on as is, without apology, without acknowledging they truly fecked up in recent governments, and without any drive to correct past mistake or change existing policies. They dont care about the effect their policies are having on the majority of the population. They have never been inclined to change policies even though they are not working because that would be a show of weakness or error and rather than admit they got it wrong their misplaced pride will force them to their own destruction.

Roll on the next general election, now that the electorate have seen how close SF got to breaking the two party cartel running this country it will only encourage even more to abandon FF and FG.

omega man wrote: »

What if they get their act together and make strides in housing, health etc?
Thats a risk from SF. In a few years they might be less relevant.

They'd have to make pretty big strides imo. Housing was younger voters no.1 issue going into the election and it's most likely the biggest reason they voted for a change from the old guard.

As the old guard have decided to exclude the younger voters preferred party from government, let's hope they do a bang up job improving those voter's lot before the next election.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The majority of people voted for the centre right parties and we will get a centre right Government, I don't see the problem really.

The majority of people aged 18 to 65 voted for SF. If you don't see the problem, not much else I can say.

If the houses get built and the health service improves what's the difference who gets it done.

I genuinely hope they do get sorted, regardless of party. It's just both parties have had so long to sort them and...well...

We are already a welfare state if SF were in charge it would become a lot worse.

Guess we'll never know if that will come to pass, will we? For now, let's just say SF are untested in that regard and the other two are well tested.

dark crystal wrote: »

The majority of people aged 18 to 65 voted for SF. If you don't see the problem, not much else I can say.

It still only adds up to 25% of voters. Other parties have had much bigger gains in the past.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Not back to square one. Using some of the 200,000 empty properties, or buying some of the cheap properties away from Dublin. The people relocating will be in the same position as private buyers from Dublin who will be their neighbours.

And again only until their new houses in Dublin are built and ready for them to occupy.

And this is exactly why they will fail.

Buying property is the worst possible way, of providing new social housing.
Its more expensive, it doesn't create jobs, and are you seriously trying to tell me there is 200,000 empty habitable homes available?

There's absolutely no way that its is possible to buy 100,000 homes in a five year period, and even it it was all they would be doing is driving the cost of those home upwards.

Building those homes on the other hand make much more sense. The government has sufficient land already to do so so straight away the cost of site is removed from the final cost.
As all materials to build a home are taxed, along with all labour those costs are also deductible from the final cost.

If there ever was a prime example of a government squandering taxpayers money, there it is. FG would sooner put money in to the pockets of property speculators than actually address the problem of housing in an meaningful and cost effective manner.


But it gets worse. Far Far worse.
Lets look at the proposed home build scheme of FG, to build 6000 homes every year for 5 years

FG allocated €750 million in 2018 to the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund for a new housing finance “vehicle” to be known as Home Building Finance Ireland (HBFI). out of that they expected 6000 homes to be built. They intend this scheme to run over multiple years.
Now think about that. What FG are trying to tell us is that they could get a private developer to build 6000 homes at a cost of €125,000 each on private land, at market rates. Total pie in the sky we would be told if SF came up with that plan.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/budget-2018-3-800-social-homes-to-be-built-next-year-1.3245541

But lets play along. If FG intended to spend €750 million a year for 5 years they would spend in total €3.75 BILLION and deliver a maximum of 30,000 homes
SF said that would increase that funding by 6.5 billion giving a total sum of €10.25 BILLION. Divide that by 100,000 homes that SF promised to deliver and that gives a final cost of €102,500 per home. Factor in that there was no cost for the site and remove taxes and the final cost per home is almost IDENTICAL to the costing that FG used.

Yet FG and their supporters jeer at SF proposal to build 100,000 homes with an ADDITIONAL €6.5 billion.

You just have to laugh, a serious belly ache laugh, at the stupidity of these FG supporters that will not actually sit down and do the numbers themselves before shooting their mouth off.

Not only are they prepared to squander billions buying up property in an ever diminishing market, but they criticise SF for using the very same figures they themselves use with regards to building new homes.

There are enough empty houses to cater for 10,000 homeless. Enough to offer a choice of three to every one of the 10,000. If none suited their needs, they could remain in whatever accommodation they are in presently, until their new house in Dublin is built and ready for occupation.

As I said before this puts them in the same boat as private buyers from Dublin who have bought in different counties.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Do you have a link for this?

Not a link to that specifically, but a breakdown of the votes
https://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-most-popular-party-age-groups-4998864-Feb2020/

SD Mets with FF and outcome is...


https://twitter.com/SeanDefoe/status/1228048335354941440?s=20

Off topic... what is the cost to the tax payer for holding another GE?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Do you have a link for this?

https://www.redcresearch.ie/general-election-2020-younger-voters-flock-to-sinn-fein/

https://www.rte.ie/news/election-2020/2020/0209/1114117-exit-poll-analysis/

Both exit poll analysis. For some reason, actual age demographic voting data is proving rather elusive! Just to add, the exit poll analysis actually underestimated the SF vote...

I think however, anyone reading or watching the election coverage saw quite clearly how popular SF were with the younger demographic. On RTE, they showed the data and made quite strong reference to the fact SF were the most popular party for those under 65, which was surprising (especially the 45 to 65 age demographic.)

Surely this was common knowledge though?

dark crystal wrote: »

Surely this was common knowledge though?

It was just your use of the word majority. I knew you didn't mean that more than 50% of voters in that age group voted SF. But it could be read that way.