Sinn Fein and how do they form a government dilemma

FF have to find out who they are themselves before they can differentiate themselves from anybody.

Martin has moved them far from their roots and recent exposures have shown that the party they became under Haughey and Ahern is still there to drag them down.

I don't think the electorate is going to stand for it if many more of them get exposed.

FG won 76 of 166 seats in 2011 with 36% of the vote, roughly where SF have been polling at recently. Would it be a stretch to say that if they got somewhere between 37-40% that they'd only need one of the smaller parties, or would transfers kill that possibility?

I'd be curious to hear of what posters feel will be the impact of the 10-20 extra seats, and if it will help any party in particular?

If I was SF though after the next election I wouldn’t be looking to PBP and other of their friends as when there was the nomination of Taoiseach in 2020, I have this memory of I think RBB saying they would vote for Mary Lou McDonald but I found the words and the tone very unnecessary from PBP. My point is if SF are in a position to go into government next time and they want to it last any length of time, then go a different route.

This is a prime example of learning the art. The Greens haven't, their insistence will lead to them being decimated at the next GE and another rebuild process for them.

They really need to look closely at playing a long game. Repetitive crash and burns really doesn't help them to achieve their visions.

SF didn't make a tactical decision to stay out of government. It was literally impossible for them to get to 80 seats given that FF and FG had ruled going into coalition talks with them. SF did hold coalition talks with a few of the smaller parties but it was basically a charade played out for the cameras. The dogs in the street knew that they couldn't cobble together the numbers.

Why would the Greens bring down the government next year? The longer they stay in the more influence they can have on government policy. The longer this government goes the more cycle lanes and greenways can be built all over the country (ie something broadly popular and tangible that they can point to come the next election). Also, bar a meteoric rise in the polls the majority of their new TDs will likely lose their seats - so they'd need a major bone of contention for them to vote for their own demise.

We're letting the political parties off lightly if we accept those answers. Coalitions are here to stay, and it's not unreasonable for parties to set out their stall at least in terms of basic principles and bottom lines beforehand. The traditional 'party manifesto' has very little value in the environment where coalitions of near equals are likely or inevitable.

As a tactical strategy, it probably is the best thing for the party, but it's a bit of a cowardly tactic - putting party strategy before the country.

That's my point.

Their 'raison d'etre' will have to sit on the sidelines for 4 yrs or longer and the Greens would have you believe we are in an emergency. Why commit hari kari if it is that much of an emegency?

Doesn't seem very astute to me. Surely their goal, given that we are probably not going to see a majority government for a lot of election cycles, would be to be in every coalition government in some form?

Instead by being too zealous they commit Hari Kari habitually. They insist on huge structural changes that just scares people instead of an incremental approach that people can go along with.

As a contrast, the SF strategy looks to be the smarter one re: longevity as a real contender for power. It was discused on Brendan O'Connor this morning in relation to FG FF strategy, with a commentator (not sure of the name) was making the point that by colescing FF FG have given the electorate no other choice but SF as an alternative.

The real concern for SF I would imagine is taking power and performing in a way that doesn't rule them out as an alternative for a long time.

We are talking 'politics' here and success in politics to be exact.

It may very well be an ' honourable and effective approach' (I don't believe it is either of those btw) but is it good 'politics'?

GP will be no less vulnerable in a coalition with SF than a coalition with FG or FF, I'd argue more so with SF given it could be their first time in power and there will be a lot of process issues to take flak over (should have consulted this person, bill was missing such detail, tender process wasn't ran correctly etc.).

But again, that's not what GP is after, if they are successful, their policies are adopted by bigger parties and they don't need to exist, they are not after power for powers sake, they're not (really) interested in a United Ireland or taxing wealth or building a socialist/capitalist society, their policies are whatever benefits the environment the most and are generally (not always as we see with things like LNG and nuclear) pragmatic about how it's achieved without any grudges to hinder that.

If it looked like the GP was gaining popularity, even to 10-15 TD, most of their policies would be adopted by bigger parties, as their policies are not as left/centre/right as others and can be tacked on by anyone (barring the extremes).

Either way, if they get the numbers, they're as likely to go in with SF as they are with FG or FF, they may expect more "give" from SF though on the programme for government.

The bigger question is which "redlines" SF will negotiate on to form a coalition.