nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why not have another GE

Mike_C

So FF say they won’t talk to SF because they said they would pre election. They also said they wouldn’t go back into gov with FG. The numbers therefore don’t add up for any minority gov so why not just call election no 2 now......see if the people really want change

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

decky1

It seems a lot of people are throwing their toys out of the pram cos they did'nt get their own way,people wanted a change , let's see what happens --give them a chance to prove themselves , why would people want the same thing again with ff and fg and then spend the next few years giving out about the cos they have'nt kept their promises, every one relax and let's see what comes, SF have a lot in front of them, best of luck to them.

First Up

Wanderer78 wrote:

So public institutions and systems create little or no wealth via public investments?

They do but the money they use to invest comes from the tax collected from the wealth creating parts of the economy. Or else they borrow it and repay it from the tax collected from the wealth creating parts of the economy.

SafeSurfer

washman3 wrote: »

Totally different. No comparison at all actually.
And i would argue that while FF and FG may not have a 'war chest' of 15 million they definately 'have the ear' of people that could dwarf this figure.
Quick example, Denis O'Brien with FG.

The only difference is your bias towards one.

Sinn Fein have, or had until recently their own newspaper which was much more biased than any media outlet you care to mention.
Both An Poblacht and the Irish Independent were available for the public to buy.

schmoo2k

Fann Linn wrote: »

So you think less than a week in that people have changed their minds already.

Not so much - but the folks who really don't want SF (or FF or FG) will vote with stronger transfers to "anyone but"...

e.g. Folks might vote 1,2,3,4 for FG/FF instead of 1,2 FF (or 1,2 for FG).

The stats we really need to look at are the transfers.

Wanderer78

First Up wrote:

They do but the money they use to invest comes from the tax collected from the wealth creating parts of the economy. Or else they borrow it and repay it from the tax collected from the wealth creating parts of the economy.

Two of the most common methods of money creation are via government created bonds and bank created credit, the latter being the most common, so..... your explanation is the simplified method, commonly used in the highly questionable world of neoclassical economics

First Up

Wanderer78 wrote:

Two of the most common methods of money creation are via government created bonds and bank created credit, the latter being the most common, so..... your explanation is the simplified method, commonly used in the highly questionable world of neoclassical economics

Neither is wealth creation - just forms of borrowing which I already covered.

We can debate your opinion of neoclassical economics some other time but if you want to set out how you think the Ourselves Alone party should approach the subject, feel free to elaborate.

Edgware

decky1 wrote: »

It seems a lot of people are throwing their toys out of the pram cos they did'nt get their own way,people wanted a change , let's see what happens --give them a chance to prove themselves , why would people want the same thing again with ff and fg and then spend the next few years giving out about the cos they have'nt kept their promises, every one relax and let's see what comes, SF have a lot in front of them, best of luck to them.

They'll get a chance when they can make up the numbers. Until then join the queue

pure.conya

dxhound2005 wrote: »

But they seem to be sticking to their promise that they would not go into government with SF. And getting criticised for standing by their principles.

likely playing hardball than anything else

titan18

woohoo!!! wrote: »

There'll be another election, but the nicieties have to be observed, otherwise one risks the wrath of an electorate who are no mood for cute hoors party first shenanigans.

Well, I mean FF put country first imo the last time (and I'm not a FF supporter really) by agreeing to do confidence and supply with FG to avoid another election then and got hammered for it this time. Why would they do something similar again when it costs them.

[Deleted User]

decky1 wrote: »

It seems a lot of people are throwing their toys out of the pram cos they did'nt get their own way,people wanted a change , let's see what happens --give them a chance to prove themselves , why would people want the same thing again with ff and fg and then spend the next few years giving out about the cos they have'nt kept their promises, every one relax and let's see what comes, SF have a lot in front of them, best of luck to them.

So, a party that got less than 25% of the vote wants to call the shots? What about the 41% who voted for the status quo?

First Up

There are interesting parallels between the election result and the Brexit referendum in the UK.

The vote here is described as being for "change" but to what and how? SF haven't said anything other than promised to make it "better". As the saying goes, an objective without a plan is just a wish.

Meanwhile the Brexit voters just said they want to leave. They haven't said where they want to arrive

schmoo2k

Deleted User wrote: »

So, a party that got less than 25% of the vote wants to call the shots? What about the 41% who voted for the status quo?

That 41% only counts if they all voted 1,2,3,4 for FF + FG. If they voted 1,2 FF or 1,2 for FG then they don't count towards that 41% figure.

Its probably what SF fear if there is another GE - that all the FF folks will vote 3,4 for FG (and vice versa) the next time around.

I would wager there were very few 1,2 SF 3,4 FF ballots - so why should FF roll back on their promise to their voters to not go into government with SF?

The real stats to look at are the transfers between the parties WRT to another GE...

First Up

The only workable government from the current arithmetic is a FF/FG + strays coalition. There is no other arrangement that could have a coherent programme for government.

That would give stability for as long as it lasts but it would also annoy the "change" voters so who know after that.

But we could be seeing the long desired end of "Civil War" politics and economic and social issues finally becoming the points of difference.

That would be a good thing

Spanish Eyes

First Up wrote: »

The only workable government from the current arithmetic is a FF/FG + strays coalition. There is no other arrangement that could have a coherent programme for government.

That would give stability for as long as it lasts but it would also annoy the "change" voters so who know after that.

But we could be seeing the long desired end of "Civil War" politics and economic and social issues finally becoming the points of difference.

That would be a good thing

It is looking like an optimum arrangement for FF/FG.

FFG supporters want nothing to do with SF. But SF cannot form a Government alone. (bet they are sighing with relief, and getting their vocal chords sorted for a big moan).

So let's see. I know the perception is that people want things sorted. Maybe if FFG + get their act together at last, they may just steal the thunder of the radical voices who to be fair, half the time did not know who they were voting for on a named basis anyway. Frenzy!

Boggles

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

they may just steal the thunder of the radical voices who to be fair, half the time did not know who they were voting for on a named basis anyway. Frenzy!

The 2 main issues were health and housing.

Are we that fúcked as a country.

That a coherent housing policy and a functioning health service is seen as "radical"?

Duke of Url

I don’t know if this was asked but how long do they have to form a new government?

schmoo2k

Duke of Url wrote: »

I don’t know if this was asked but how long do they have to form a new government?

As long as it takes...

Boggles

Duke of Url wrote: »

I don’t know if this was asked but how long do they have to form a new government?

It took 589 days in Belgium when something similar happened.

Oddly the country ran pretty much okay without a government.

Food for thought there.

[Deleted User]

Boggles wrote: »

It took 589 days in Belgium when something similar happened.

Oddly the country ran pretty much okay without a government.

Food for thought there.

Shades of “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister”. The civil servants run the country.

schmoo2k

Deleted User wrote: »

Shades of “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister”. The civil servants run the country.

I think you will find the "servants" didn't change...

schmoo2k

Delighted for Hodnett

gmisk

schmoo2k wrote: »

Delighted for Hodnett

Who is that? Confused...

schmoo2k

gmisk wrote: »

Who is that? Confused...

LOL watching the Munster game! (first cap and got a try FWIW - yes I posted to wrong thread)

Spanish Eyes

Boggles wrote: »

The 2 main issues were health and housing.

Are we that fúcked as a country.

That a coherent housing policy and a functioning health service is seen as "radical"?

I think we were getting there somehow with housing. It takes time really and we all know that. But the instagram generation want it NOW. But Anyway.

Health will never be solved whilst the Unions decide what is best for those who are sick. Any solutions to this? Many have tried but few have succeeded. A SF Government won't solve it either IMV.

BarryD2

MaryLou has some neck lecturing the other bigger parties on not wishing to involve SF whilst also trying to dictate to the smaller ones.
I’m not a FFFG voter but they’ve gone up in my estimation. We don’t need the toxic politics of nationalism down here.

SafeSurfer

One thing consider with an enlarged Sinn Fein leading the opposition is their ability to agitate through labour disputes as many union activists seem to be also Sinn Fein members. Maybe this has been a deliberate strategy to place members in key roles within trade unions. Positions which previously would have been dominated by Labour members.

Gringo180

SafeSurfer wrote: »

One thing consider with an enlarged Sinn Fein leading the opposition is their ability to agitate through labour disputes as many union activists seem to be also Sinn Fein members. Maybe this has been a deliberate strategy to place members in key roles within trade unions. Positions which previously would have been dominated by Labour members.

Just goes to show that the main parties have moved away from the working class people whereas Sinn Fein have not abandoned them. Labour have showed already in the recent past that they hold the working class with utter contempt as do FF and FG.

[Deleted User]

Gringo180 wrote: »

Just goes to show that the main parties have moved away from the working class people whereas Sinn Fein have not abandoned them. Labour have showed already in the recent past that they hold the working class with utter contempt as do FF and FG.

Sinn Fein and the Left are planking themselves at the thought that they might, just might, be put in a position to put their policies into play. It’s one thing shouting from the sidelines. It’s another game putting their policies to the test!

Edgware

BarryD2 wrote: »

MaryLou has some neck lecturing the other bigger parties on not wishing to involve SF whilst also trying to dictate to the smaller ones.
I’m not a FFFG voter but they’ve gone up in my estimation. We don’t need the toxic politics of nationalism down here.

Mammy knows best

CobraClan

So if there is another election, do you think RTE will exclude Mary Lou again from the leaders debate? Wouldn't surprise me!