Sinn Fein and how do they form a government dilemma

So are you saying that Micheal Martin did not tell the electorate he 'would never coalesce with FG?

That Leo Varadkar did not say that 'putting FF back in charge would be like putting Delaney back in charge of the FAI'?

They broke their word, and that has nothing to do with SF.

Why you are in denial of that or why you need to point over there, escapes me. Why try to divert away?

You are quick enough to call a spade a spade with regard to others, not the governing parties though.

I am stating a fact as have all the others I linked to.

You cannot accept the fact that effectively what we got since independence was a swapping of power between two parties, FF and FG. Why would I need to reference other parties failures to make a simple point?

I believe that FF and FG got lazy, arrogant and comfortable because of the inevitability of this swapping. And I think that has led to a toxicity in our politics that has had negative consequences for sections of society. The behaviour in protecting each other when they were forced to coalesce is also evidence of the arrogance at the heart of both parties.

Again you try and divert and point at other parties and call them 'my' party when I didn't vote for them in a GE until 2020. I voted for this swap right up to 2016. I was a part of the problem and up until then was not advocating for any change. Kenny's government was my final straw.

I said they were political enemies but that changed to using it as a distinguishing crutch and that eventually it was not real as it was all forgotten to allow a coalition.

It was you who introduced the idea that agreement was needed to swap power. I showed by posting dictionary definitions that this is only true if you use the word in particular contexts. As the other writers show it doesn't necessarily need collusion or agreement. That is your inference and what you seem to take offence at - your own specific meaning of the word.

Other writers/historians don't choose to use the same term...so what?

So where did I say any of this Finty, or are you sledgehammering my words to fit a narrative?

She certainly talked about FF and FG not wanting to talk about a coalition government because that is what actually happened.

BTW the claim was power swapped between FF and FG. It was not claimed that they colluded in this or agreed to do this. They certainly in my view became comfortable, arrogant and complacent that it was what happened. That is my view.

Do you accept that not many no confidence votes succeed and it hasn’t stopped many of the states political parties calling them?

The exceptionalism when it comes to SF is striking. Same with the poster trying to maintain that their opposition was ‘unusual’. Would not post any examples when asked because they knew there are examples of oppositions saying and doing the same things.

Fairly transparent stuff tbh.

The list of facts I posted shows that nobody has consistently won no confidence motions. But your exceptionalism makes you invent some specialness about SF motions when the actual explanation for them is not to win them but do incremental damage to the sitting government. Politics, as it has been since party politics began to those who know politics.

No amount of deflecting to something else gets away from the fact that all oppositions have used no confidence motions this way.

You are putting forward your opinion - at least that is what I think it is — as ‘ how dare that they swap power between them. So, given the figures re number of seats won by FF and FG at each election from the time that we became a sovereign state, what do you suggest FF and FG should have done ? Allow a government rainbow be formed with a number of independents helping out. Whatever government formation you might be suggesting you might suggest how long each suggested gov would last .

PS. . Keep in mind that it is the voting public that come up with the number of TDS ‘ for each party

You will have to elaborate on that. No idea how using a statuary function of the state used numerous times before by all parties 'sets' up anything.

I get you now. Gives rise to a few questions.

Why wouldn't SF or anyone else not be able to cry foul?

It hasn't after all stopped FG, FF and GN's, who have themselves used the function on numerous occasions. crying foul whenever SF, Lab or the other opposition parties who have called these votes.

How is using a function of the state setting a 'precedent' and what is the 'abuse' bar, how many motions of No Confidence are allowed in your brave new world?

Sounds dangerously close to wanting to cutail the independence of the Dáil tbh.

You called it an 'abuse' and a 'precedent has been set'.

It stands to reason (unless you think No Confidence votes shouldn't be allowed at all) that you have a threshold for an opposition.

When does it become 'abuse'?

And how would you guard against this abuse?

I suggest you are delving into dangerous territory here, so I am seeking clarity on what you want to do,

I agree, we are just having a discussion.

BTW 63 Deputies voted against the Confidence in H. McEntee motion. That is 63 mandated and democratically elected TD's who had No Confidence in her, not to mention those on the Government benches who were whipped into line after expressing no confidence in her either.

What 'abuse of rules and procedures'?

Government or you being annoyed at being called to account is not 'abuse of rules and procedures'.

Calling you out here, what 'rules' and 'procedures' specifically have been abused?

*Again...63 Deputies voted against the government motion. It was not just the Shinners therefore.

Abuse by calling multiple failed no-confidence motions. Do you think there needs to be a limit to no confidence motions to prevent parties like SF from abusing the procedure? Why would other parties be willing to govern with a party who abuses these systems?

The GP, for example, make it quite clear they want to govern, they generally vote along government lines, they don't bring down governments on a whim and see out terms, if SF need the numbers and GP have them, they'll go in together, SF are giving parties reasons not to trust them and will then wonder why they get left out in the cold for negotiations. There is no wrong or right limit to these procedural matters, people will know when they are being abused and when they aren't, holding a no-confidence motion that strengthens the minister's position and popularity is bad usage of such a procedure (and likely thought up as a way to deflect attention for an area where SF policy is weak). You blindly defending SF in these matters highlights your own naivety at politics, your usual constant deflection replies only highlight this further. I believe most who are close politics watchers understand these procedures (I would honestly suggest you join something similar to model UN or debating to see how it works in real life and how easy it is for someone to be disruptive and the procedure to resolve it, politics only works properly with good actors).

For the TLDR, there should be no limit on such procedures, those who abuse them should be treated as bad actors and excluded from policy negotiations. If you need a number to tell you what the limit is, you're already a bad actor. If you're wondering why other parties don't deal with SF, you're actively trying to deflect on one of the reasons why thus have no moral authority to expect other outcomes.

ML ‘s very focused selling point was that the nation /voters now want a CHANGE from the tired old FF or FG or FF/FG way of running the country with their carryon of arrogance and complacency, etc, etc.. So , answer me this, why did ML not deliver on what , she said , the nation wanted. The voting public seem to be happy with the continuation of this arrogance and complacency crack. I think the voting public are a bit more nuanced than making decisions on the basis of those two words - maybe they nip it even a factor in their decision re who to vote for

How many of the 'voting public' are happy?

Latest polling shows that the government parties do not command a majority.

So it's safe to say only a minority are 'happy'.

Neither of the two main parties have grown support since the last actual election either.

That is telling in itself.