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

ThunbergsAreGo · 17-06-2020 05:32PM

Roanmore wrote: »

Maybe FF ditch Martin, enter negotiations with SF and Greens?

But do they think they will get a better deal? Feels like they have got a good deal out of this. More so than FG, for example

Bellview · 17-06-2020 05:46PM

maynooth_rules wrote: »

What do those Green members who reject the PFG expect to happen afterwards exactly. Start flirting with SF who financed their manifesto on the back of a fag packet and who oppose all form of carbon taxes? Go back to the people where they can be assured of getting decimated as the FG,FF and SF transfers will all dry up (and most of their seats won were last seast in constituency). The worst day in government is better than the best day in opposition.

In fairness sf have a very environmental Program for government.. that made up on zero paper and ink.. Mary Lou is jumping with excitement at going into opposition regardless of what the public noises are

Roanmore · 17-06-2020 08:40PM

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

But do they think they will get a better deal? Feels like they have got a good deal out of this. More so than FG, for example

Maybe not but they’re getting criticised hugely for putting FG and FF back in again.
Maybe some of them can’t take the heat, the younger generation.

feargale · 17-06-2020 11:06PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Have to laugh at all the SF fans on social media taking shots at MM and LV for scraping in on the 6th or 8th counts in the GE as if it somehow makes them illegitimate. I'm 100% certain that SF would have much preferred to get 2 candidates over the line on the 8th count in all those constituencies where they ran just 1 candidate and polled c.2 quotas.

Yes, but you must understand that SF are challenged when it comes to doing sums. 25% of the people voted for SF, 75% voted against them. Therefore "the people voted for change," a la SF of course. Like in the North their armed friends had a mandate for murder when the SDLP were pissing on them at the polls.
FF almost got a majority of votes in 1948 and in 1973, but were outmanoeuvred by FG and others on both occasions. Did FF whinge and feel sorry for themselves? No, they took their beating like men.

hotmail.com · 17-06-2020 11:24PM

I think the Greens will ultimately enter government and Eamon will be deposed.

Unlike 2007 to 2011, I think they'll be more likely to leave government much earlier. So the likelihood of an early election is quite high. This may not suit FG, as by then memories of Corona could be forgotten.

FrancieBrady · 17-06-2020 11:25PM

feargale wrote: »

Yes, but you must understand that SF are challenged when it comes to doing sums. 25% of the people voted for SF, 75% voted against them. .

Does that mean 78% voted 'against' FG and 76% 'against' FF?

Sam Russell · 17-06-2020 11:43PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Does that mean 78% voted 'against' FG and 76% 'against' FF?

Yes.

Imreoir2 · 17-06-2020 11:45PM

Ivefoundgod wrote: »

Mind sharing a source?

Edit: Never mind, found it https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0617/1147994-green-party/

Key wording in the article however "Officials now have to check if each of the 2,627 applications came from a member with six-months standing." My friend would be included in that figure and they cannot vote.

2,627 registered for the special convention, this includes members still in their probationary period who are allowed to attend the convention but wont get a postal ballot.

BonnieSituation · 18-06-2020 12:01AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Does that mean 78% voted 'against' FG and 76% 'against' FF?

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes.

To treat any votes in a PR-STV system in this fashion is nuts. Ye should know better!

I voted FG, SF, Grn and SD and I wanted none of them in govt with FF.

You can't possibly know what people voted against. But we're very clear about WHO they voted for.

eagle eye · 18-06-2020 12:07AM

hotmail.com wrote:

Unlike 2007 to 2011, I think they'll be more likely to leave government much earlier. So the likelihood of an early election is quite high. This may not suit FG, as by then memories of Corona could be forgotten.

Wouldn't the memories of the coronavirus be a bad thing for FG with how awful they were and continue to manage it?

BonnieSituation · 18-06-2020 12:10AM

eagle eye wrote: »

Wouldn't the memories of the coronavirus be a bad thing for FG with how awful they were and continue to manage it?

And yet FG and Leo are enjoying Michael D levels of approval?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-times-poll-varadkar-to-leave-taoiseach-s-office-with-approval-numbers-off-the-charts-1.4279770

eagle eye · 18-06-2020 01:13AM

BonnieSituation wrote:

And yet FG and Leo are enjoying Michael D levels of approval?

Well since this whole covid-19 that my started I've realised that I am continually underestimating the stupidity of Irish people. If that s true then I'm still underestimating it.

BonnieSituation · 18-06-2020 01:33AM

eagle eye wrote: »

Well since this whole covid-19 that my started I've realised that I am continually underestimating the stupidity of Irish people. If that s true then I'm still underestimating it.

Seemingly.

Breezer · 18-06-2020 02:32AM

awec wrote: »

If the Greens scupper this government formation on idealistic grounds they'll pay the price at the next election.

I think you’re right. I voted Green this time, not as a protest but because I believe in their climate/transport policies. If they’re not going to implement them, what’s the point in voting for them again?

Then again I’m probably a bit unusual in that I actually wanted a FG/Green coalition. If I can’t get the Green bit anyway I’ll just vote for FG next time.

The Momentum wing of the Greens probably thinks I’m the devil.

feargale · 18-06-2020 03:10AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Does that mean 78% voted 'against' FG and 76% 'against' FF?

It does. Just by way of a basic lesson in democracy, in a multi-party system parties combine at will after an election to form coalitions. That's how it's done in Italy, the Netherlands, Finland etc etc. SF uniquely in all of Europe have a problem with that system. (Oops I almost forgot the British Tories.)
Question: should FF have objected to this in 1948 or in 1973? Answer please. Now I've answered your question. Would you pleasne answer mine? And as a bonus, were FF remiss in not whinging in 1948?

Peregrinus · 18-06-2020 03:22AM

Fianna Fail did whinge in 1948, and again in 1954. And they did more than whinge - when they got back into office after the second interparty government one of their earliest moves was to try to abolish the PRSTV electoral system and replace it with FPTP.

FrancieBrady · 18-06-2020 10:06AM

feargale wrote: »

It does. Just by way of a basic lesson in democracy, in a multi-party system parties combine at will after an election to form coalitions. That's how it's done in Italy, the Netherlands, Finland etc etc. SF uniquely in all of Europe have a problem with that system. (Oops I almost forgot the British Tories.)
Question: should FF have objected to this in 1948 or in 1973? Answer please. Now I've answered your question. Would you pleasne answer mine? And as a bonus, were FF remiss in not whinging in 1948?

Who refused to negotiate with FF in 48?

Coalition is fine when it is done right. The 'we won't talk to 25% of the electorate' haughtyness of the power swap parties is not democracy and is not a proper approach to coalition, which should not be about having domininance.

Michael Martin gave the game away when he (in the opinion of the mainstream media) opened the door to SF, on the night of the election (when projections where saying around 50 seats) what his view of 'coalition' was. It is all about having 'dominance' over smaller parties...the 'mud guards'.

BTW, I still think your contention that 75% voted against SF or 78% voted 'against' FG is nonsense, you cannot extrapolate that from the results.

Podge_irl · 18-06-2020 11:33AM

Would it matter if FG "talked" to SF? The chances of them agreeing on a program for government are infinitesimally small.

Brussels Sprout · 18-06-2020 11:50AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

BTW, I still think your contention that 75% voted against SF or 78% voted 'against' FG is nonsense, you cannot extrapolate that from the results.

This is correct. The only way to vote against a party with STV is to not give them a preference. Looking purely at first preference votes is misleading.

A good example of this was Joan Collins. She only received 6.5% of first preference votes in Dublin South-Central this year. This placed her in 6th place in a 4-seater after the first count. Catherine Byrne & Catherine Ardagh were 2nd & 3rd with 11.7% and 11% respectively.

Joan Collins was rejected by the voters so right? Wrong. She leap-frogged those other 2 candidates and got elected on the 6th count while they were both not elected.

Analysing first preference numbers alone can tell you who was popular but they can't quite tell you who was unpopular.

Chips Lovell · 18-06-2020 12:06PM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

This is correct. The only way to vote against a party with STV is to not give them a preference. Looking purely at first preference votes is misleading.

We're probably getting overly academic here, but it's probably more correct to say that the only way to vote against a party with STV is to give them the lowest possible preference (or give them no preference while giving everyone else a preference).

FrancieBrady · 18-06-2020 12:17PM

Chips Lovell wrote: »

We're probably getting overly academic here, but it's probably more correct to say that the only way to vote against a party with STV is to give them the lowest possible preference (or give them no preference while giving everyone else a preference).

Is that even an accurate way saying somebody 'voted against' a party though?

There is a long standing member of a party here that I have no time for, I do give their running mate a vote though.
Giving somebody no vote or a low preference is not necessarily a vote 'against a party' therefore

Chips Lovell · 18-06-2020 12:20PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is that even an accurate way saying somebody 'voted against' a party though?

If you give everyone else a higher preference, then it could be seen as saying "I'd rather anyone else over you". But you're right, it isn't necessarily a "vote against". It could also be read as "I don't mind you as my TD but I think all the others are better qualified for the job".

STV makes it pretty hard to "vote against" someone.

Sam Russell · 18-06-2020 12:41PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

To treat any votes in a PR-STV system in this fashion is nuts. Ye should know better!

I voted FG, SF, Grn and SD and I wanted none of them in govt with FF.

You can't possibly know what people voted against. But we're very clear about WHO they voted for.

That is a long reply to a one word post.

It would be a huge statistical exercise to divine peoples intentions when voting in a STV election.

It would require access to the actual voting slips, and to assign weighting to each preference, and perhaps an assessment of each candidates perceived chances of election.

In simplistic terms, voting for a candidate with one's first choice is definitely a vote FOR that candidate, but it could and should not be construed as a vote AGAINST all other candidates. Just as a vote 'FOR CHANGE' cannot be divined from a vote where no party got over 25% of the first preferences.

STV is a simple system from a voters point of view - just put the candidates in the order of your preference. However, it allows all sorts of vote managements and voting strategy for the larger political parties.

RandomViewer · 18-06-2020 12:55PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

Would it matter if FG "talked" to SF? The chances of them agreeing on a program for government are infinitesimally small.

About 12 FG seats are dependant on Protestant votes in the border counties, FGSF was never a runner.

CrabRevolution · 18-06-2020 01:09PM

maynooth_rules wrote: »

What do those Green members who reject the PFG expect to happen afterwards exactly. Start flirting with SF who financed their manifesto on the back of a fag packet and who oppose all form of carbon taxes? Go back to the people where they can be assured of getting decimated as the FG,FF and SF transfers will all dry up (and most of their seats won were last seast in constituency). The worst day in government is better than the best day in opposition.

I was thinking about this at the start when people were categorising all non-FF/FG parties as one homogeneous "Left" group as though there'd be no issues with them all forming a government together since they all have identical viewpoints. A big example was the Greens Vs. SF.

SF's manifesto before the election had one page on farming; it said we'd continue doing what we're doing only with more government funding for farmers, and with a vague promise of becoming more sustainable at some point in the future. It even promised looser enforcement of EU agricultural regulations and fewer fines for non-compliance. This would be anathema to the Greens, who rightly or wrongly see agriculture as a major polluter and in need of major reform.

Same with carbon taxes, ending peat burning & bog cutting etc. SF, and Independents campaign on the basis that nothing will change about these things, other than getting more money from the government.

If there's a sizeable number of Greens who consider the PfG with FF/FG insufficiently "green", there's 0% chance they'd agree to join a government with parties for whom the environment doesn't even register beyond lip service.

feargale · 18-06-2020 02:18PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who refused to negotiate with FF in 48?

Coalition is fine when it is done right. The 'we won't talk to 25% of the electorate' haughtyness of the power swap parties is not democracy and is not a proper approach to coalition, which should not be about having domininance.

Michael Martin gave the game away when he (in the opinion of the mainstream media) opened the door to SF, on the night of the election (when projections where saying around 50 seats) what his view of 'coalition' was. It is all about having 'dominance' over smaller parties...the 'mud guards'.

BTW, I still think your contention that 75% voted against SF or 78% voted 'against' FG is nonsense, you cannot extrapolate that from the results.

Tell us about the enthusiasm SF showed for talking to FG.

"We will talk or not as we please to whom we please, but how dare you not talk to us when we talk to you." Or as those who are used to lording it always said: "speak when you are spoken to and not otherwise."

FrancieBrady · 18-06-2020 02:35PM

feargale wrote: »

Tell us about the enthusiasm SF showed for talking to FG.

"We will talk or not as we please to whom we please, but how dare you not talk to us when we talk to you." Or as those who are used to lording it always said: "speak when you are spoken to and not otherwise."

What?

Several times they said they were open to talking to anyone.

FrancieBrady · 18-06-2020 02:41PM

RandomViewer wrote: »

About 12 FG seats are dependant on Protestant votes in the border counties, FGSF was never a runner.

Heather Humphries works with SF, is photographed at events with SF and worked her way up through council without any rancour.

She attracts a huge vote from both communities.

I think that day is over tbh.

StupidLikeAFox · 18-06-2020 03:04PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

Several times they said they were open to talking to anyone.

What do you think FG and SF would have to talk about?

FrancieBrady · 18-06-2020 03:14PM

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

What do you think FG and SF would have to talk about?

Forming a coalition government?

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

Comments