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

salmocab · 20-05-2020 08:55AM

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

Is the result of this election not pretty much null and void at this stage?

To create a new government with a mandate which was given before the biggest crisis of our times would be strange.

Things have changed so much. A new election is needed.

I thought Olivia OLeary was off point in her piece yesterday about the people not forgiving FG if they went to the people.

Many people have a totally different perspective on the world and now understand the importance of competent government.

I’d say campaigning and expecting voters to go to vote Centers is the last thing we should have now. Your substantive point might be right although the null and void bit is a stretch.

Good loser · 21-05-2020 12:53AM

rob316 wrote: »

Talented? I guess when you ignore the housing, health, transport, sport and social protection ministers.

Health and Social Protection were good enough. Housing okay too.

Don't know the others.

Finance, Foreign Affairs and Justice as good as we've ever had.

Also rate Creed in Ag excellent

oceanman · 21-05-2020 08:50AM

Good loser wrote: »

Health and Social Protection were good enough. Housing okay too.

Don't know the others.

Finance, Foreign Affairs and Justice as good as we've ever had.

Also rate Creed in Ag excellent

health and housing were a total shambles...

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2020 11:35AM

oceanman wrote: »

health and housing were a total shambles...

Social Protection wasn't exactly well run either - there was a complete cock-up with Illness Benefit that ran for several months and many many Livelines.

Sam Russell · 21-05-2020 04:06PM

Good loser wrote: »

Health and Social Protection were good enough. Housing okay too.

Don't know the others.

Finance, Foreign Affairs and Justice as good as we've ever had.

Also rate Creed in Ag excellent

Health was a disaster ever since the regional health boards were joined to form the HSE with no rationalisation. Instead of reducing staff, they have steadily increased managerial staff at the higher levels. That dates back many governments. Why was the Children's Hospital such a fiasco?

Housing has been a disaster for decades. The failure to build ANY local authority houses for decades has moved housing into the private sector, and that means private landlords. That again goes back many governments, but no attempt to reverse this with the current administration.

Finance has been good in that we have recovered (well some have) from the crash of 2008. Revenue have performed well collecting tax.

Social Protection has been OK, but the continuing increases are draining the public purse. Childrens Allowance should be taxed as income at some level, but at least they have moved away from increased amounts per child for the larger number of children, and stopped paying for fictional children abroad. Bit of an own goal with the Public Service Card.

Transport was a total disaster with a useless minister, who was more interested in the Justice job, getting involved in Garda stations and judge appointments. No Metro, no Dart Underground, no Dart expansion, and no M20.

Not a great Government, but we have had worse. The caretaker one is making massive decisions and commitments without a mandate - hope we can unravel the bad ones..

Hope the next Gov will be better.

is_that_so · 21-05-2020 07:00PM

I see #NotMyTaoiseach is still trending on Twitter. Never let a dusty old Constitution get between reasoning faculties and outrage!

Nody · 21-05-2020 09:15PM

Biden has asked Amy Klobuchar to start the vice president vetting sticking to his promise of a female vice president.

markodaly · 22-05-2020 02:10AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Social Protection wasn't exactly well run either - there was a complete cock-up with Illness Benefit that ran for several months and many many Livelines.

Interesting point.
So, is this the fault of the minister himself, or the department? Or both?

Ministers come and go, every few years, so really its the fault of the department.
If there are system failures within it and they cannot implement a new scheme or they mess something up, what should be done?

A Minister cannot come in and fire half the department overnight, or at all ever... Unions will not have it.

It's a genuine question by the way. I would like to know why a minister is responsible for people, he/she did not hire, cannot replace, cannot discipline and cannot change their work practices or rules.

BonnieSituation · 22-05-2020 03:20AM

Ministers are responsible for policy. Civil servants are responsible for implementing said policy.

thequarefellow · 22-05-2020 09:53AM

Is it time for a 'Who would you vote for if a new election is called?' thread?

WishUWereHere · 22-05-2020 10:11AM

thequarefellow wrote: »

Is it time for a 'Who would you vote for if a new election is called?' thread?

Good point. And for me a real tough decision to be made.

maynooth_rules · 22-05-2020 10:56AM

thequarefellow wrote: »

Is it time for a 'Who would you vote for if a new election is called?' thread?

Personally id vote for a party that actually would be interested in forming a government, not sitting on the ditch. That would rule out Soc Dems, SF, PBP and possibly greens.

Sam Russell · 22-05-2020 11:14AM

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Personally id vote for a party that actually would be interested in forming a government, not sitting on the ditch. That would rule out Soc Dems, SF, PBP and possibly greens.

Well, the Greens currently have the opportunity to form a Gov, so if they do, then there will not be a vote. On the other hand, if they do not, then they will fall into the group that does not get your vote. Hmmm .... difficult.

L1011 · 22-05-2020 11:16AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, the Greens currently have the opportunity to form a Gov, so if they do, then there will not be a vote. On the other hand, if they do not, then they will fall into the group that does not get your vote. Hmmm .... difficult.

There's a difference between actually trying and not trying at all.

Sam Russell · 22-05-2020 11:21AM

L1011 wrote: »

There's a difference between actually trying and not trying at all.

True.

Good loser · 23-05-2020 01:54AM

oceanman wrote: »

health and housing were a total shambles...

Disagree. Who, in the last thirty years, was a better Minister for Health than Harris? Wasn't it Cowan referred to it as Angola?

Housing has been run as well as possible. There is not unlimited money to build limitless amounts of houses - and give to people more or less for free.
If loads of houses were built the prices would fall and nobody would want to buy. They must always be scarce and hard to get.
People always refer to the fifties and all the Council houses built then, but in those days Social Welfare did not comprise 30% of current Govt expenditure.
I've heard nobody suggest taking €5 bn per annum (or even €1 bn) from social welfare budget to increase public housing.
Murphy has done as well as the rest of them.

L1011 · 23-05-2020 02:09AM

Good loser wrote: »

Disagree. Who, in the last thirty years, was a better Minister for Health than Harris? Wasn't it Cowan referred to it as Angola?

Howlin? Although he got lucky timing wise as goes when legacy scandals that would have been challenging to handle (and Noonan didn't handle properly) popped up.

Martin's positives in the job are entirely cancelled by forming the HSE

BonnieSituation · 23-05-2020 03:40AM

Good loser wrote: »

Disagree. Who, in the last thirty years, was a better Minister for Health than Harris? Wasn't it Cowan referred to it as Angola?

Housing has been run as well as possible. There is not unlimited money to build limitless amounts of houses - and give to people more or less for free.
If loads of houses were built the prices would fall and nobody would want to buy. They must always be scarce and hard to get.
People always refer to the fifties and all the Council houses built then, but in those days Social Welfare did not comprise 30% of current Govt expenditure.
I've heard nobody suggest taking €5 bn per annum (or even €1 bn) from social welfare budget to increase public housing.
Murphy has done as well as the rest of them.

WHY?

Downlinz · 23-05-2020 03:50PM

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Personally id vote for a party that actually would be interested in forming a government, not sitting on the ditch. That would rule out Soc Dems, SF, PBP and possibly greens.

Every party held discussions on government formation with the exception of Labour, it's important not to equate refusing to be the 3rd piece in a FF/FG centre right coalition as not wanting to be in government.

SF, SD and one half of the greens are especially interested in being part of the countries first progressive government though I'm guessing you knew that already!

maynooth_rules · 23-05-2020 10:35PM

Downlinz wrote: »

Every party held discussions on government formation with the exception of Labour, it's important not to equate refusing to be the 3rd piece in a FF/FG centre right coalition as not wanting to be in government.

SF, SD and one half of the greens are especially interested in being part of the countries first progressive government though I'm guessing you knew that already!

Countries first progressive government is very much open to opinion. Having witnessed SF in action in the north, to think they would be progressive in the Republic is a bit of a stretch IMO. Just repeating the word 'change' in an election campaign does not make them progressive. The level of discussions that SF held was utterly minimal also. Yes the numbers were a stretch, but no real attempt was made.

CrabRevolution · 24-05-2020 03:51PM

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Countries first progressive government is very much open to opinion. Having witnessed SF in action in the north, to think they would be progressive in the Republic is a bit of a stretch IMO. Just repeating the word 'change' in an election campaign does not make them progressive. The level of discussions that SF held was utterly minimal also. Yes the numbers were a stretch, but no real attempt was made.

I think it was Eoin Ó Broin on the radio soon after the election saying "We've no problem joining a coalition with FG/FF; once it includes 50'000 social houses built a year, tax cuts, PS pay rises, social welfare rises, building hospitals, abolishing USC, no carbon tax, abolish property tax, more money for farmers, rent to be capped at 100 a week etc. But if we can't guarantee these things we'll walk away"

Effectively saying "we'll join a coalition once the other party has no say in actually governing the country. Their job will be to vote for all SF's policies in the Dáil"

That's tantamount to not attempting to form a government.

L1011 · 24-05-2020 04:01PM

Downlinz wrote: »

Every party held discussions on government formation with the exception of Labour, it's important not to equate refusing to be the 3rd piece in a FF/FG centre right coalition as not wanting to be in government.

SF, SD and one half of the greens are especially interested in being part of the countries first progressive government though I'm guessing you knew that already!

Labour made requests that would need to be discussed to enter negotiations with FF/FG, with no response provided to them.

More practical than talking to SF about the impossible numbers game they were trying to do

Good loser · 24-05-2020 06:50PM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I think it was Eoin Ó Broin on the radio soon after the election saying "We've no problem joining a coalition with FG/FF; once it includes 50'000 social houses built a year, tax cuts, PS pay rises, social welfare rises, building hospitals, abolishing USC, no carbon tax, abolish property tax, more money for farmers, rent to be capped at 100 a week etc. But if we can't guarantee these things we'll walk away"

Effectively saying "we'll join a coalition once the other party has no say in actually governing the country. Their job will be to vote for all SF's policies in the Dáil"

That's tantamount to not attempting to form a government.

If correct the arrogance of that statement from O'Broin is breathtaking.
His arithmetic doesn't match his arrogance though.
Alone the 50,000 houses would cost €16 billion - per annum!!
Absurd.

Seth Brundle · 24-05-2020 06:56PM

Good loser wrote: »

If correct the arrogance of that statement from O'Broin is breathtaking.
His arithmetic doesn't match his arrogance though.
Alone the 50,000 houses would cost €16 billion - per annum!!
Absurd.

Sure 50k houses over five years as suggested by Eoin is nothing. Ruth Coppinger wants 100k...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/housing-committee-target-50-000-homes-in-five-years-1.2689647

Good loser · 24-05-2020 07:26PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Sure 50k houses over five years as suggested by Eoin is nothing. Ruth Coppinger wants 100k...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/housing-committee-target-50-000-homes-in-five-years-1.2689647

I've read that It piece.
Crab R had said O'B said 50,000 per annum - that should be over 5 years I see now.
Even so that Committee report says €1.8bn per annum would supply 10,000 houses; this is absurd, the usual funny money, crap the fast talking O'Broin slips into discussions on housing. Take everything that man says with a spoon of salt. €1m will supply 3 houses; so €1 bn provides 3,000. So 10,000 per annum will cost € 3.3 billion.

CrabRevolution · 24-05-2020 07:38PM

Apologies if I caused any confusion, but my "50'000 a year" was figurative. I just knew it was some very high number...

Snow Garden · 24-05-2020 08:22PM

Watching the week in politics earlier, the SF TD who I did not recognise was very poor. Refused to answer the questions, stating the obvious continually, talking nonsense too and saying the government should increase the 350 payment and until end of year. They need to just shut up and prepare for opposition. Are they all coached to avoid the question? To be fair all the TDs were poor but the SF lad stood out. Awful moaner.

WishUWereHere · 30-05-2020 09:51PM

Snow Garden wrote: »

Watching the week in politics earlier, the SF TD who I did not recognise was very poor. Refused to answer the questions, stating the obvious continually, talking nonsense too and saying the government should increase the 350 payment and until end of year. They need to just shut up and prepare for opposition. Are they all coached to avoid the question? To be fair all the TDs were poor but the SF lad stood out. Awful moaner.

Hard to disagree with one word You say above. But in fairness to the SF bloke, I heard MLou also blabber her mouth off along the same lines. I wonder where they think the money is to come from? The trees, which are also wilting under the heat.

AOn the face being in oppositon? It hurts to have to admit it'll be probably the FFG & the taxing greens for the foreseeable future - unless we can have another election.

ninebeanrows · 31-05-2020 10:19AM

Leo should be brave and go to the country

How can he agree rotating Taoiseach when he us polling 35% and Mehole 15%?

Imreoir2 · 31-05-2020 02:24PM

Good loser wrote: »

If correct the arrogance of that statement from O'Broin is breathtaking.
His arithmetic doesn't match his arrogance though.
Alone the 50,000 houses would cost €16 billion - per annum!!
Absurd.

You think the cost price to build a house is €320,000? And that the state would hand them out for free?

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

Comments