FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

blanch152 wrote: »

His point is perfectly correct.

80 votes are needed to form a government, as the Ceann Comhairle doesn't vote (some SF supporters have incorrectly calculated the number as 81 on these boards). That leaves 79 against.

Fine Gael and Fianna Fail have 72 votes between them. That leaves 87 TDs available to form a government that doesn't include either of the major parties. If Fine Gael or Fianna Fail end up back in government, it is because of the failure of those 87 TDs, who all opposed FG, to agree among themselves.

But it doesnt really leave 87 seats does it.

19 of those seats are Independent. We are all well aware that many of those went independent to save their own political ar$e, but in reality are PD, FF or FG in everything but name.
Does anyone honestly believe that although independent in name they are all ambivalent to which party they will support?

As it stands with Labour refusing to join any coalition, SF would require ALL parties except FF/FG to join a coalition and also require an additional 11 out of 19 Independent seats.

Suggesting a government could be formed without a least two of FF, SF or FG being involved is simply not a reality.

Bowie wrote: »

Do you think some people who voted SF/SD etc. likely previously voted FG?

Bowie wrote: »

Do you think some people who didn't vote FG this time did so in previous elections?

How does that affect the basic facts of the numbers of each party's seats in the Dail?

Bowie wrote: »

So did you lie or make a mistake when you said..

because now you seem to accept they are legitimate but you are dismissing them because you don't like them. That's not the same thing Blanch.

This is the last thing I am going to say on this, because I am sure that I am not the only one tired of the constant obfuscation and misrepresentation in the back and forth process that is being used here. So I will keep it as simple as I can.

FACT: I didn't lie
LEGITIMATE OPINION: My posts are being disingenuously misrepresented.

Bowie wrote: »

So I'm to ignore or put aside a FG councilor most definitely for a fact admiring fascists (while you try cast doubt) when all I've been asking is that you acknowledge it or maybe pass a view, because, now get this, of the seriousness of the covid pandemic, you think it's okay to make light of by lifting elements of the public address from lord of the Rings and Mean Girls? You are farcical.

FACT: A previously unknown FG councillor made a cryptic post on Twitter with a picture of what seemed to be a Blueshirt rally
SILLY UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION: This clearly demonstrates that FG admire fascists

FACT: Varadkar used quotations from contemporary movies in some of his speeches, sometimes the language was so ordinary (e.g. "there are no limits") that it can't be confirmed they were definitive movie references.
REASONABLE OPINION: Whether clumsy or not, these are genuine attempts to reach out to a broader audience than those who prefer Shakespearian quotations
UNSUBSTANTIATED CONSPIRACY THEORY: He was doing this to win a bet.
PETTY OPINION: This somehow means he lacks empathy and integrity

Bowie wrote: »

You are being dishonest here. I showed you links on homeless numbers having quadrupled in the last few years and links to articles explain the drops in homeless and A&E numbers dropping due to Covid 19. To keep ignoring this is dishonest and makes a sham of your 'argument'.

FACT: Homelessness numbers are falling in 2020
FACT: Homelessness numbers in the South are better on a per capita basis than in the North
FACT: The statistics on homelessness include people who would not be considered homeless in previous years.

UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION: FG are making a mess of homelessness

Bowie wrote: »

The evidence is in all the contracts Mr. O'Brien gets. That's not a conspiracy theory or do you think he never got any? you used Siteserv as an example of a conspiracy theory. It'l literally under investigation Blanch.

You have long been bereft of credibility but you can still raise a grin fair play.

FACT: Denis O'Brien has secured a number of State contracts
FACT: These contracts have been secured through a number of open procurement processes that have not been the subject of complaints to the relevant EU authorities
CONSPIRACY THEORY: Denis O'Brien got these contracts because he is something something friendly with FG.

Nobody disputes the facts, only all the rest is mostly nonsense.

is_that_so

blanch152 wrote: »

His point is perfectly correct.

80 votes are needed to form a government, as the Ceann Comhairle doesn't vote (some SF supporters have incorrectly calculated the number as 81 on these boards). That leaves 79 against.

Fine Gael and Fianna Fail have 72 votes between them. That leaves 87 TDs available to form a government that doesn't include either of the major parties. If Fine Gael or Fianna Fail end up back in government, it is because of the failure of those 87 TDs, who all opposed FG, to agree among themselves.

Well, 122 in theory, as FG are the only ones to say an absolute no to SF or 116 if Labour still say no. That would be the end of FF though.

blanch152 wrote: »

His point is perfectly correct.

80 votes are needed to form a government, as the Ceann Comhairle doesn't vote (some SF supporters have incorrectly calculated the number as 81 on these boards). That leaves 79 against.

Fine Gael and Fianna Fail have 72 votes between them. That leaves 87 TDs available to form a government that doesn't include either of the major parties. If Fine Gael or Fianna Fail end up back in government, it is because of the failure of those 87 TDs, who all opposed FG, to agree among themselves.

Do you think some people who didn't vote FG this time did so in previous elections?

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Is it more than 125??

Do you think some people who voted SF/SD etc. likely previously voted FG?

As I see it if the Greens reject a coalition there are only 3 option.

* unity government

* FF/SF government

* another election

Micheal Martin is already on the ropes, he will take what ever option he is left with no matter how much he might have protested against it previously. If he rejects a SF/FF coalition then he is history, the only FF leader never to have been Taoiseach, and that is/has been his only ambition even to the detriment of his own party.

FG, to be fair to them, have been quite clear, they will go into a coalition with FF and the Greens, but have always stated they are equally happy being in opposition. I think their biggest issue with a SF lead coalition that did not involve FF or FG was that they knew they would not be the leading party in opposition.

If another election must take place the FG and SF will increase the number of seats each have in the Dail, FF will lose seats.
The biggest issue will be will the smaller parties that SF might rely on gain sufficient seats in order for a SF lead coalition to be formed.

Mortelaro

efanton wrote: »

Not at all.
In a political system where either of the two biggest parties consistently had enough of a majority to form a government, if one was out the other was in. No consent was needed, it was either one or the other.
That was a simple reality of what was a essentially a two party political system.

With three parties now sharing the majority of the votes, the likelihood of any political party in the future gaining a majority sufficient enough to either form a government on their own, or pick up an additional dozen or so seats from a minor party or independents to form a government is highly unlikely.

You cannot use the swap word if there was neither consent or cooperation ,no matter how much you'd like to because its false and of course a slur on voters

As regards 'sharing' ,that's a more apt term going forward on what's happening but clearly means a job of work ahead for SF to have a majority of those elected who are prepared to work with them
Lots of compromise ahead methinks in this Dáil or the next or the one after that

blanch152 wrote: »

The first two issues you raise are silly. They are insubstantial nonsense issues. The pathetic whinging around Varadkar's speeches has been comprehensively addressed and shown to be a complete non-issue. On the second, a councillor supposedly admiring fascists is suddenly the biggest issue of concern to you in the middle of the coronavirus? Do you realise how laughable that is? Nonsense issues.

The third issue is the Ireland's call one. Why did we need it? We needed it in case the virus got out of control and there weren't enough healthcare workers and contract tracers available to the government. Similarly, provision was made for field hospitals around the country. None of it was needed or taken up. Do you know why? Have a guess.....it was because the government was relatively successful in addressing the coronavirus to the extent that it didn't need these reserves. What you see as a government failure thanks to your completely blinkered approach was actually a resounding success. The reserve strength wasn't needed because the first team got the job done. That is so obvious to most people that I haven't bothered commenting on a non-issue.

Immigration numbers, I provided the links and the data, and the subject was dropped by those whinging. Ditto the homeless numbers. In case you have missed them, here they are again:

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/homeless-figures-fall-572-fewer-22140444

"The number of homeless people is continuing to fall with a total of 9,335 homeless individuals, according to figures released by the Department of Housing."

We are doing far better on homelessness than our neighbours in the North, or the UK. That is the reality, those are the facts, the poverty industry want you to believe otherwise, and if anyone wants to foolishly fall for their propaganda, that's on them.

"There are no conspiracy theories about Mr. O'Brien. We know he has the ear of FG, we just don't know why."

Two sentences that contradict each other. Not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced by you to back this up. The evidence of procurement regulation in Ireland has been presented to you repeatedly. It is not clear to me whether you choose to ignore it, or whether you fail to understand it, either way you can't explain why there have been no complaints at all by anyone involved in the processes, hence it is a conspiracy theory without any evidential facts to support it.

To sum up, there is absolutely nothing of substance in any of the issues raised by you in that post, with the possible exception of a single throwaway remark from a single FG councillor.

So did you lie or make a mistake when you said..

Specifics are given and ignored?

I haven't seen that. I have seen madcap opinions masquerading as facts

because now you seem to accept they are legitimate but you are dismissing them because you don't like them. That's not the same thing Blanch.

So I'm to ignore or put aside a FG councilor most definitely for a fact admiring fascists (while you try cast doubt) when all I've been asking is that you acknowledge it or maybe pass a view, because, now get this, of the seriousness of the covid pandemic, you think it's okay to make light of by lifting elements of the public address from lord of the Rings and Mean Girls? You are farcical.

You are being dishonest here. I showed you links on homeless numbers having quadrupled in the last few years and links to articles explaining the expected drops in homeless and A&E numbers due to Covid 19. To keep ignoring this or claiming to have never seen any links is dishonest and makes a sham of your 'argument'.

The evidence is in all the contracts Mr. O'Brien gets. That's not a conspiracy theory or do you think he never got any? you used Siteserv as an example of a conspiracy theory. It's literally under investigation Blanch. The only thing that could possible be construed as a theory would be any thoughts on why?

An elected official admiring fascists is a throw away remark to be dismissed when it's Fine Gael. Got it. You've no issue or comment. That's unusual based on you all but creating your own others.

In short you make claims, get shown links, run away, then make the same claims at a later date claiming no links were provided.
You have long been bereft of credibility but you can still raise a grin fair play.

Mortelaro wrote: »

I'm not upset at all
A swap is consensual
At no election was there ever any evidence of cooperation between FF and FG to swap power
Out and out ground war between them always
Your description is a slur on the integrity of their voters and their decisions in the face of long proportional representation ballot papers
It's also completely false

Not at all.
In a political system where either of the two biggest parties consistently had enough of a majority to form a government, if one was out the other was in. No consent was needed, it was either one or the other.
That was a simple reality of what was a essentially a two party political system.

With three parties now sharing the majority of the votes, the likelihood of any political party in the future gaining a majority sufficient enough to either form a government on their own, or pick up an additional dozen or so seats from a minor party or independents to form a government is highly unlikely.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

It read like you were saying going with SF was akin to going in with Bertie/FF, which is what FG are looking to do.

Exactly, which is why I don't think anyone should be celebrating anything.

Bowie wrote: »

I think you responded to my comment by mistake. Also you don't seem to know how many seats are needed to form a government.

His point is perfectly correct.

80 votes are needed to form a government, as the Ceann Comhairle doesn't vote (some SF supporters have incorrectly calculated the number as 81 on these boards). That leaves 79 against.

Fine Gael and Fianna Fail have 72 votes between them. That leaves 87 TDs available to form a government that doesn't include either of the major parties. If Fine Gael or Fianna Fail end up back in government, it is because of the failure of those 87 TDs, who all opposed FG, to agree among themselves.

[Deleted User]

Bowie wrote: »

I think you responded to my comment by mistake. Also you don't seem to know how many seats are needed to form a government.

Is it more than 125??

landofthetree wrote: »

125 TDs aren't FG.

All these 125 TDs stood on a platform to kick FG out

So these 125 TDs are the ones ignoring the public. FG stood aside and let them try form a government. They didn't even hold talks FFS.

They can remove FG anytime but they can't agree to anything.

I think you responded to my comment by mistake. Also you don't seem to know how many seats are needed to form a government.

Bowie wrote: »

Yes you have.

Ireland's Call
Varadkar lifting lines from films
FG Councilor O'Leary admiring fascists

These are just in the last couple of weeks these are not 'imagined'.

Opinions on....things FG actually said and did. You are free to disagree, I'm not FG after all, but ignoring some and trying to dismiss others isn't genuine IMO.

Are you denying councilor O'Leary admired fascists?
You concede Varadkar lifted lines.
Do you deny over 70,000 applied for Ireland's call and only 111 were taken up on it? Which facts are you disputing here?

I've not been following immigration numbers. However you ran away when links were given on homeless numbers and links given as to why figures in homelessness and health/A&E were down during the pandemic, so your whinging about a lack of links is completely disingenuous IMO. And you shoveling that ****e again after running away when you got found out the last time is dishonest.
There are no conspiracy theories about Mr. O'Brien. We know he has the ear of FG, we just don't know why. The Sitserv deal is under investigation, do you think that's all down to shinners and them that don't want to work and a Twitter conspiracy?

The first two issues you raise are silly. They are insubstantial nonsense issues. The pathetic whinging around Varadkar's speeches has been comprehensively addressed and shown to be a complete non-issue. On the second, a councillor supposedly admiring fascists is suddenly the biggest issue of concern to you in the middle of the coronavirus? Do you realise how laughable that is? Nonsense issues.

The third issue is the Ireland's call one. Why did we need it? We needed it in case the virus got out of control and there weren't enough healthcare workers and contract tracers available to the government. Similarly, provision was made for field hospitals around the country. None of it was needed or taken up. Do you know why? Have a guess.....it was because the government was relatively successful in addressing the coronavirus to the extent that it didn't need these reserves. What you see as a government failure thanks to your completely blinkered approach was actually a resounding success. The reserve strength wasn't needed because the first team got the job done. That is so obvious to most people that I haven't bothered commenting on a non-issue.

Immigration numbers, I provided the links and the data, and the subject was dropped by those whinging. Ditto the homeless numbers. In case you have missed them, here they are again:

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/homeless-figures-fall-572-fewer-22140444

"The number of homeless people is continuing to fall with a total of 9,335 homeless individuals, according to figures released by the Department of Housing."

We are doing far better on homelessness than our neighbours in the North, or the UK. That is the reality, those are the facts, the poverty industry want you to believe otherwise, and if anyone wants to foolishly fall for their propaganda, that's on them.

"There are no conspiracy theories about Mr. O'Brien. We know he has the ear of FG, we just don't know why."

Two sentences that contradict each other. Not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced by you to back this up. The evidence of procurement regulation in Ireland has been presented to you repeatedly. It is not clear to me whether you choose to ignore it, or whether you fail to understand it, either way you can't explain why there have been no complaints at all by anyone involved in the processes, hence it is a conspiracy theory without any evidential facts to support it.

To sum up, there is absolutely nothing of substance in any of the issues raised by you in that post, with the possible exception of a single throwaway remark from a single FG councillor.

landofthetree

Bowie wrote: »

They still won't accept the reality that many who voted SF or SD or FF would have previously voted FG. Otherwise we'd see the same numbers for each party each election. Instead they seem to want to insult and ignore the views of the public, but hey, that's FG.

125 TDs aren't FG.

All these 125 TDs stood on a platform to kick FG out

So these 125 TDs are the ones ignoring the public. FG stood aside and let them try form a government. They didn't even hold talks FFS.

They can remove FG anytime but they can't agree to anything.

Mortelaro wrote: »

I'm not upset at all
A swap is consensual
At no election was there ever any evidence of cooperation between FF and FG to swap power
Out and out ground war between them always
Your description is a slur on the integrity of their voters and their decisions in the face of long proportional representation ballot papers
It's also completely false

Of course not, they sold themselves on their different names.
If you read the papers in the run up to the election you'd be hard pressed to distinguish a FF anti-SF story from a FG anti-SF story. Or find any stories on how the country was faring for that matter.
it's the electorate floats between the two. Insulting some of them for taking a third option is bratty. "a slur on the integrity of their voters and their decisions" is what many FG supporters spend their day doing.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has power changed/swapped between FF and FG since the foundation of the state?

Yep.

No slur in the truth.

You are upset because you are supporter, I get it. Doesn't alter the facts.

I'm not upset at all
A swap is consensual
At no election was there ever any evidence of cooperation between FF and FG to swap power
Out and out ground war between them always
Your description is a slur on the integrity of their voters and their decisions in the face of long proportional representation ballot papers
It's also completely false

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has power changed/swapped between FF and FG since the foundation of the state?

Yep.

No slur in the truth.

You are upset because you are supporter, I get it. Doesn't alter the facts.

They still won't accept the reality that many who voted SF or SD or FF would have previously voted FG. Otherwise we'd see the same numbers for each party each election. Instead they seem to want to insult and ignore the views of the public, but hey, that's FG.

christy c wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by what FG did, but their record is far from outstanding.What I mean is I wouldn't celebrate the change we have seen as it is not an improvement given the nonsense around cutting the pension age and LPT.

I must have misunderstood. It read like you were saying going with SF was akin to going in with Bertie/FF, which is what FG are looking to do, unless you believed FF had completely changed.

Mortelaro wrote: »

Did you even read the link I showed you on what welfare powers Scotland got?
No hand over there
Perhaps you can advise on why SF voted in Stormont to throw the following away to London
I'll post them :

Actions
We are:

designing a social security system with a strong local presence via the Social Security Scotland agency
engaging with people with experience of receiving benefits, to build a social security system that works for them
improving benefits for carers by increasing the Carer’s Allowance and introducing a Young Carer Grant and a payment for carers of more than one disabled child
improving benefits for disabled people and people with ill health, and confirming that no assessments will be carried out by the private sector
campaigning to maximise benefit take-up
delivering the Best Start Grant to increase support for low-income families with young children
delivering the Funeral Expense Assistance to provide critical financial support to people at a difficult time
providing help with heating costs and extending the Winter Fuel Payment to families with severely disabled children
supporting young people make the transition into work through the Job Start Payment
introducing a Scottish Child Payment for low income families, for children under six the first payments will be made by Christmas 2020 and full roll-out for under 16s by the end of 2022
allocating budget to local authorities to provide grants under the Scottish Welfare Fund
advising on and helping to fund support with housing costs
working to establish a guidance for definition of terminal illness for the purpose of disability assistance
working with the Department for Work and Pensions to introduce flexibilities to the way Universal Credit is paid
We have also:

developed a communications toolkit to help our partners inform their staff, clients and stakeholders about the new social security kit

I dont know why you even went beyond you first line, you addressed the issue quite clearly in you first line, Scotland and Scotland only got additional powers.

Did you even read the link I showed you on what welfare powers Scotland got?

And we all know the context and why this sop was thrown in Scotland's direction, the British government were bending over backwards to prevent Scottish people voting against Brexit. The Scottish independence referendum in 2014 had nearly voted to seek Scotland's independence.

Like I have said, the Northern Ireland executive have no power whatsoever with regards social welfare rates, or rules, that is the prerogative of the British government only, or the Northern Ireland Minister with the backing of the British Prime Minister.

The British gave the Scottish assembly additional powers but that required an act of parliament which you referenced

If you actually read the link you told me to read you will see this

Background
See which benefits have been devolved to the Scottish Government, and which remain reserved to the UK Government: responsibility for benefits: overview.

All benefits paid in Scotland were managed by the UK Government until April 2013, when Council Tax Reduction and the Scottish Welfare Fund were devolved.

Following the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, the Smith Commission recommended that the Scottish Parliament be given autonomy to determine the structure and value of a range of powers over disability, as well as the power to make administrative changes to Universal Credit and to vary the housing cost element. It also recommended that Scottish Parliament be given powers to create new benefits in areas of devolved responsibility, and top-up reserved ones.

These recommendations were made law by the Scotland Act 2016, whose bill received royal assent in March 2016. In that same month we published our vision for social security in Scotland.

We set up the Joint Ministerial Working Group on Welfare in February 2015 to provide a forum for discussion and to ensure that the welfare and employment-related aspects of the Act are implemented.

The Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 received royal assent in June 2018.

The British government have gifted the Scottish assembly additional powers, but they still reserve the right over these powers.
No such concession was given to either the Welsh assembly or the Northern Ireland Executive.

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

A.Its false and B.Its a slur on voters

Has power changed/swapped between FF and FG since the foundation of the state?

Yep.

No slur in the truth.

You are upset because you are supporter, I get it. Doesn't alter the facts.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Kindly stop using' a description I happen to believe happens? Are you joking?.

A.Its false and B.Its a slur on voters

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

Isn't that want FG did?

I'm not sure what you mean by what FG did, but their record is far from outstanding.What I mean is I wouldn't celebrate the change we have seen as it is not an improvement given the nonsense around cutting the pension age and LPT.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Isn't Mary-Lou on record that she wants a government without FF and FG?

I know you are probably surprised you are not allowed away with yet another misrepresentation.

She said her 'preference' was for a government without FF or FG.

christy c wrote: »

Leaving aside your power swap reference, I would celebrate it if it was an improvement. However given the nonsense we have heard regarding taxes, pensions, etc. we may as well give Bertie a ring to see if he'd like to deliver some change.

Isn't that what FG did?

Loafing Oaf

blanch152 wrote: »

Isn't Mary-Lou on record that she wants a government without FF and FG?

Why is she calling on them for talks now?

In fact, her whole election campaign was based on getting rid of the two big parties. Loads and loads of statements. If anyone is going back on their promise, it is her.

Just like Varadkar's John Delaney line, that's not a categorical promise not to undertake the action in question. The only one who crossed that red line here is Micheal Martin.

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you have a job in corporate speak? Change how government is done? Didn't Tony Blair promise that, or was it Boris Johnson, or both of them. Certainly, Trump promised it.

Empty soundbites like changing how government is done are generally used by the politicians with the least ideas about policy and the most ideas about image. Nothing to see in those kind of soundbites.

'Change the way we do business' 'an end to cronyism' 'no more quangos'

Was good enough for you when FG were at it. Seems you are buying into the 'political crisis' scaremongering crap too.

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

"We will not go into Govt with FG"

"Putting FF back in Govt would be like putting John Delaney back in charge of the FAI"

Are these the 2 chancer's of parties we want, thankfully less than 50% of the country wants either.

Isn't Mary-Lou on record that she wants a government without FF and FG?

Why is she calling on them for talks now?

In fact, her whole election campaign was based on getting rid of the two big parties. Loads and loads of statements. If anyone is going back on their promise, it is her.