FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

All day and all night John, I have to chuckle ,John, when I hear these handpumps looking for evidence on stuff.

Very reticent when asked for evidence on the issues you quite rightly point out.

Like who actually runs the show.

Not those two boilers MLMDor MO’ N.....

Not in a million years.

So you demand evidence for claims, but yet you seem to provide non when making claims yourself.

Hypocrite or what?

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

All day and all night John, I have to chuckle ,John, when I hear these handpumps looking for evidence on stuff.

Very reticent when asked for evidence on the issues you quite rightly point out.

Like who actually runs the show.

Not those two boilers MLMDor MO’ N.....

Not in a million years.

Says Brendan who has been insinuating stuff about others since joining.

That gave me a giggle.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

First one you had since the middle of March,Francesco.

Hammering the keyboard up in the Square since then.

Must be a team leader by now surely.

QED among many other QED's.

It's ok for Brendi to insinuate and point, but not for others it seems. Oh the arrogance.

efanton wrote: »

looks like FG are getting very jittery.

As per topic heading FG have spent nearly 150 days since the election result were announced doing a little as possible and delaying as much as possible and it looks like their delaying tactics are now going to bite them in the ar$e hard.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/programme-for-government-must-include-fiscal-responsibility-varadkar-1.4269097

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/next-week-before-programme-for-government-likely-to-be-agreed--varadkar-1003142.html




Leo thought he could play hardball with both FF and the Green's hoping they would roll over at the last minute and still form a government in time for important legislation to be put before the Dail.

It now looks likely that no government will be formed, and Leo has already gone into damage limitation mode, rolling out the first of many excuses as to why FG could not compromise nor reach a consensus with his would be coalition partners.

With no agreement this week, and it unlikely a government can be formed, given that a postal vote will take up to two weeks for a postal vote to take place for the FG FF and Green parties, there are now only a matter of days. a week at most for him to form a government. At this stage I think the Green's will double down on Leo's hardball tactics and play it out until the very last minute, and even then its looking like they will not give ground on a few issues.

So the only question left to ask is when does he take a trip to the Park and admit he has failed to from a government, and ask the President call for a new election. No doubt he will delay and do nothing ( a bit of a theme forming here), for the next week and wait till the last minute on Friday week.

We will see then if FG get 35% of the vote, I highly doubt it.
Roll on GE2.

So the FF SF Govt is off too?
The greens might get involved in that round of fornication too if it gains traction, but I wonder how many of their reps want an election either.
FF and the greens have both lost ground in the polls, I'd say there will be a deal done myself now, but FG will be aware that if they give too much to the greens they will vex their rural base.
That might just be the biggest stumbling block.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So the FF SF Govt is off too?
The greens might get involved in that round of fornication too if it gains traction, but I wonder how many of their reps want an election either.
FF and the greens have both lost ground in the polls, I'd say there will be a deal done myself now, but FG will be aware that if they give too much to the greens they will vex their rural base.
That might just be the biggest stumbling block.

I seriously think any coalition between FF and SF wit Micheal Martin at the wheel is not even remotely possible.

To me it looks like almost every party has come to the opinion that GE2 is the only way to sort it out.

I mean put it this way, which parties have something to lose if another election happens. It's a very short list FF and FG.

FF might quickly save themselves by pulling the ejection handle on Michael Martin, but if they could do that quickly and have a new leader in place before the leaders debates then not only will their chances improve, but a coalition deal with SF might even be on the cards.

Meanwhile FG are going to be left on their lonesome. Its unlikely the Green's of FF would go round two in coalition talks so who else will play with FG. If FG doubled their seats they would still be ten shy of being able to form a government, and to be honest who truly thinks that even achievable.

Its really down to how may extra seats will SF gain, and how many seats will the smalller left of centre parties gain.

THese were the seats won in the January election
SF 37
FF 38
FG 35
Greens 12
Lab 6
PBP 5
SD 6
AON 1
IND 19
And of course last but not least Joan Collins who doesnt know whether she is an independent or a political party all to herself. 1

If SF wanted to go in government without either FF or FG then they and the other parties other parties (Lab, Greens, PBP, SD, AON) would need to win an extra 13 seats between them. That's certainly very possible especially if the FF vote collapsed.

If FF changed leadership and their vote did not collapse, and the were agreeable to to a coalition with SF ( a lot of IF's I know) then a SF/FF coalition could well be on the cards, but personally I think it more likely that the FF vote will slide even more. What SF might gain FF will probably lose so we would be back to where we are now with a third party being required and FF wanting a coalition with SF.

Having said all that, the electorate are not as stupid as some might claim. Knowing that a very split vote will result in FG trying to form yet another failed coalition they might go all out and drop the independent vote and with those extra seats going to parties instead a SF lead coalition that does not include FF or FG could well be on the cards.

Very hard to tell. It all depends on whether the electorate will vote tactically or not. My suspicion is that they will, knowing that the outcome can only result in a FF/FG coalition of some kind, or a SF lead government.

efanton wrote: »

There is a large section of FF that openly support the idea of a SF/FF coalition.
But large certainly does not mean majority.

If FF take another hammering during an election then they are more likely to be open to a SF/FF coalition, but then you have the problem of SF gaining seats, FF losing seats and together not having the 80 seats between them.
If there is a leadership contest within FF, which seems inevitable, I think its going to become quickly clear whether a SF/FF coalition is even possible. My personal opinion is by openly admitting that a SF coalition is possible FF would save the seats they have and might even increase seats. It would all depend on the leadership contest within FF and what falls out of that.

If FF take a hammering in a new election, I personally think they'll not go in with anyone.
They will definitely want a new leader at that stage and will console themselves on the back benches in a hope of rebuilding off of Govt unpopularity during the next Dail.
FG might just do as they say and leave it to SF if they increase their vote and seats, see how they scramble something together.
SF might actually be serious about governing and being in control, but the penny anti left aren't imo, they're just mostly mouthpieces.
SF are going to get it hard to take anybody on board with them being the major party.
I can't see FF or FG backing MLMD as Taoiseach at any price.

An election now will throw up a completely different result. There's no guarantee that Sf will increase and Fg will pull back lost seats.

Edgware wrote: »

An election now will throw up a completely different result. There's no guarantee that Sf will increase and Fg will pull back lost seats.

THeres' no guarantee of anything in an election.

But if SF field candidates in more constituencies, and possibly two in some, its extremely likely they will increase their vote, especially if there was a pre-agreed transfer policy between parties that would support a SF government. I mentioned this in my previous post.

I agree FG are likely to gain a few more seats if they dont feck it up during the election campaign and they stick to arguing policies rather than hurling insults as they did in the last election. They will get a small bounce from the covid crisis, but when the election campaign and debates turn to actual policies I dont think that bounce will be as great as some FG supporter think.

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Which parties will support a SF government?

If there are any they have been awful quiet lately?

All the parties except FF and FG were approached immediately after the results were announced. The only party that flat out refused, were the Labour party, but they refused offers from FF and FG as well.
Does that mean all those parties would go into coalition with SF there's absolutely no way of telling, but I doubt any of them would refuse to enter talks just as the Greens have done with FF/FG.
Entering coalition talks is not a commitment to forming government as FG are about to find out.

Remember SF were short just 13 seats if those they approached had agreed, and they chose not to try approach and get support from independents.
So if SF and those parties gain 13 seats between them in a upcoming election then a government that does not include either FF or FG is certainly a possibility.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/simon-harris-denies-fine-gael-is-trying-to-gauge-potential-outcome-of-second-election-1003287.html

simon harris denies fine gael is trying to gauge potential outcome of second election

efanton wrote: »

The simple truth is the way Irish State tenders work is quite quirky.
I have experience of this, working in a team that provided IT security solutions to every county council in the country. The best price is not the only factor regarding the award of a contract. If you can offer additional support for instance any time any day for instance, or other additional benefits you could possibly still win a tender even though your price was not the lowest.

That is not 'quirky' that is just par of the course for any tendering service.
No point low balling a product but then adding in lots of €€€ for support and maintenance after the fact.

The point I am making here is simple, the more experience you have of submitting tenders, the more knowledge you have of how tenders are awarded, the better your chances are of winning a tender. If DOB has extensive prior knowledge of how the tender system works and has additional knowledge that might not be immediately apparent to others but is still available to them, it is more likely that he will win a tender than another bidder that has less experience or knowledge.

Again, I am not sure what the problem with this is. DoB has experience in tendering and winning state contracts. Who knew!?
All that is above board and legal. He doesn't have experience in say state contracts given out by say, South Africa or Australia, so less likely to win those again local businesses that know those processes and jurisdictions. Again, this is not exactly news or new.

Obviously DOB has many contacts, and can draw on many knowledgeable sources within government and in the public sector. and it would not be illegal for him to be be provided additional information as long as that information was available to all other tenderer, but sometimes that information is not easy to find.

Well, you are assuming of course that he has some direct line into the Irish civil service.

Did DOB bribe a public representative in the mobile phone license tender, of course he did, there absolute proof of that. In fact FG publicly published account show that sums of money and political donations were returned to ESAT short after that donation was paid to FG and was made public. Somehow though that donation still made it way to FG at a later stage. Michael Lowry is now a convicted criminal, due to this bribery.

Yes, this is common public knowledge and this incident occurred in 1996, that was 24 years ago and the state tendering process has undergone multiple reforms with many more checks and balances including oversight from the EU since then. If the best people can do is point to something that happened a quarter of a century ago, then dare I say, they are wasting their time.

Did DOB bribe is subsequent tenders? well there is no evidence of that.

Correct, yet we have our resident comedians thinking otherwise, with no proof mind.

Making the sort of accusations is a really silly thing to do for those that are making them. If there is no provable evidence, then you cant make the claim.

Correct. I wish you would direct this part of the post against your fellow SF fanboys.

However as stated earlier with extensive knowledge of how the tendering system works, and what additional technical and after sales support offered might significantly improve the chance of success with a particular tender, there might not be a need to for bribes.

Oh hold on now. Are you saying that the best tender should not win?
Equating better after sales, support, longer maintenance terms are the same as taking a bribe?

Those that game the system for social welfare supports are not breaking the law they just understand the system better. The same goes for business. Those that know how to game the system, be it tenders, tax, government supports whatever have a distinct advantage, and although what they do might be considered in a grey area, it is not illegal.

You are conflating the issues now.
It's like this:
Tax avoidance is legal.
Tax evasion is illegal.

You are drawing some parallel that because DoB has built up his business knowledge and acumen that its like the latter, tax evasion when its actually like tax avoidance, something totally legal and above board.

Provide the evidence and you probably will see not only criminal persecutions, but political head roll and possibly a government fall. Without evidence then you are resorting to the same tactics as those that claim the IRA are somehow in control of SF, or that certain past TD's were past members of the IRA.
Its the same argument, accusations without evidence, and without evidence they simply should not be made even if you believe them to be true.

Well, it's a good thing that I never stated that the IRA controlled SF.

It will be funny when the day arrives that DoB will win a state contract with SF in Power! :p