Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

General Irish politics discussion thread

1143144146148149263

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,350 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    …best of luck with getting recourse through the legal system, by the time such claims get knocked around the courts, and with builders and building companies that no longer exist, again, this is firmly based in political ideologies that advocate for deregulation and self regulation, this is the basis of our main political parties, and have been for many decades now…..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,961 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Single seat constituencies are the problem. Even with a sense of proportionality it still means decent chunks of people don't get represented. If you look at the potential labour vote in UK they're polling 40%ish but are on track to get well over 50% of the seats.

    Reform (even though an awful party) will end up with a good chunk of votes and few, if any, seats. Garbage system.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 144 ✭✭acceletor




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    As an example of local politics that are only local.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,849 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    FF tried to do away with PRSTV….twice. Fortunately the voters disagreed. The first time, in 1959, was the closest: 51.8% - 48.2%. They tried again 9 years later but the voters were definitely having none of it then: 60.8% - 39.2%



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Single seat PR is an OK system but small parties get left out.

    The more seats per constituency allows smaller parties to get elected representation. However, the more seats results in longer counts, but that is only once per election.

    An alternative is the list system. Each party puts forward a list and candidates are elected in order based on the parties votes. This gives a lot of power to the parties who draw up the list. The UK used this system for EU elections so surprise, Farage got elected first for his party.

    Some countries use a combination of list plus votes for individuals. Not sure how that works in practice, but it is better than FPTP.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,132 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2024/0703/1457978-june-exchequer-figures/

    Surplus of over €3 billion, government must be doing something right.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,281 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Single seat PR doesn't exist - its AV or IRV (instant runoff) depending on what you want to call it.

    You can't have proportionality without multiple seats.

    The single seat + PR correction pool ("alternate member") system Scotland/Wales/London use is sort of a worst of both worlds as you have the issues of list and the issues of FPTP.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,268 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Was our system originally conceived by Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson)?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,350 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    … due to a combination of policies implemented over decades, particularly in relation to fdi, i.e. its doing exactly what it was designed to do, and thankfully so…

    …noting, a surplus signifies money actually removed from the economy, i.e. put it back in asap…..



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I should have called STV - single transferable vote - which we use for the Presidential election. [It is a form of proportional voting.]

    Alternate vote only allows a second choice, which is not the same unless there are only three candidates.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,281 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    AV can allow as many choices as they want to give - the old London mayoral two vote option is not common (and is not what was being offered in the AV referendum in the UK - that was single seat, fully tranferrable vote)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,281 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Budget advanced by a week, all but confirming a late October or very early November election.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,835 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    The speculation seems to be for some time in early November.

    This move definitely suggests an autumn election alright - there is probably no other reason they would move the budget date.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,281 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Chambers is insisting its for EU reasons, but these EU reasons won't have come out of thin air three months before the budget.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,350 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    …ah handy one for ffg, theyve very little to be worrying about, again, the best way to change, is to stay the same!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,835 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    The moment I heard he'd moved the budget date, I thought that meant the election is on - there's no way they are going for a Spring 2025 election.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,562 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    I would say a November date is more likely as an Autumn election date risks the budget preps and passing. Conversely October now can be spent on the budget and getting it through the houses before the Dáil is dissolved setting up a November election nicely.

    Not sure how happy the greens are about this, seems they're getting shafted again by the Civil War parties



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,426 ✭✭✭HalloweenJack


    As has been the case for every junior coalition party in the history of the state. Its not even the first time it's happened to the Greens.

    It's in SF's interests to stay away from Government if they are not going to be the top dog; FFG always shuffle away and return at some point. The only good thing is that their respective vote shares don't seem to be reaching levels of old and they are being forced to work together, thus removing any doubt that they were ever really that different.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,350 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    …yup, staying the same definitely is the way forward for ireland…..



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,809 ✭✭✭rock22


    @HalloweenJack quote "FFG always shuffle away and return at some point. The only good thing is that their respective vote shares don't seem to be reaching levels of old and they are being forced to work together, thus removing any doubt that they were ever really that different."

    While i agree that there is little to separate the two parties today, the difference between them historically was massive. Support for or against the Treaty was a major defining societal viewpoint and it influenced your political allegiance but would also decide your news source , your friendships , your marriage and possibly your employment. In the fifties , and even in the sixties, I remember people who wouldn't read the opposite newspaper and in our village everyone was known as either a FF or FG supporter, whether they voted or not, based on their position on the Treaty. None of this should be surprising because these people were the participants or the children of participants in the civil war or the political views around it.

    Thankfully we have moved on , after a hundred years, where such distinctions (mostly) don't matter anymore.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,473 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Each system has its drawback.

    The biggest drawback with PR-STV is that you always get coalition governments, which is fine in a way, but governments are then weak and wont want to make any big decision on anything important. So we muddle away while kicking the can down the road when it comes to more important issues we need to tackle.

    FPTP, usually means a stronger government with a stronger mandate and they can make those harder decisions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,473 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Late October, early November election has been mooted for a while now. Forget the talk, its going to happen this year.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,426 ✭✭✭HalloweenJack


    In my own case, my mother's parents were born in the 30s and have voted against most recent referenda and would follow the Church's view on most thing as opposed to what politicians would say.

    However, come election time they always vote FF without a moment's hesitation. My father's parents were similarly unwavering FG voters while my parents have mostly voted Labour/DL/SD.

    The dilution of the civil war parties can only be a good thing, imo.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,281 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Except we can see that last line isn't vaguely true from the various FPTP countries around the world that have incredibly poor, weak and ineffective Governments.

    A "stronger Government" created by FPTP is going to be a party that is effectively its own coalition to begin with, and will suffer severe internal divisions that prevent divisive actions. And even if they do manage to make "harder decisions", they could easily be opposed by well over half of the electorate at the time.

    FPTP is awful in every single way and has no advantages.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,350 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    careful what you wish for there, coalitions actually bring far more diversity, including in decision making, they also generally create far more stable outcomes, as we can see whats been unfolding in our nearest neighbors, both the us and the uk are in serious trouble, with rising tensions and dysfunctionality

    yes all systems have drawbacks, but pr-stv really isnt all that bad when compared to others such as fptp, does the uk and the us truly look all that 'strong'!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,473 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Every party is going to have factions.
    Do you not think that FF or FG or even the Greens have factions?

    Tonight in the UK, Labour is going to win a landslide election, and they will have a huge mandate. I.e. they will have the power to 100% follow their manifesto and drive through what change they and the voters who elected them think is needed.

    Just because the Tories were awful doesn't mean the system itself is 100% bad. There can be advantages to each one.


    There are of course drawbacks to FPTP.

    It is not representative for example. One party on 40% of the vote can win a landslide. Another party with 15% of the vote might be lucky to get a few seats.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,835 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    There's not much evidence to suggest that coalition governments are weak. If the parties have a good working relationship, they can make firm and strong decisions.

    This idea of 'weak' coalition governments is rooted in the memory of coalition parties in the past who mostly hated each other and who barely got along.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,281 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The Tories had a huge mandate and haven't got their manifesto / Sunak's "five pledges" implemented in the slightest.

    Labour will not get 100% of their manifesto across either.

    The "strong government" thing is a lie; it does not happen and cannot be a benefit of FPTP because it doesn't exist in the first place.

    FPTP has no benefits, and huge downsides. It is a dumpster fire of a system, creating unrepresentative, unequal outcomes and encouraging "broad church" political parties that spend their time in power (and out) fighting internally and not getting anything done.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,473 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Oh for sure, coalitions give a broader range of views and wants, but that makes actual, real change very very hard to implement as all it takes then is one party to just veto the whole thing.

    Take for example our own situation of using the Citizens Assembly to come up with recommendations that the government rubber stamps. Why do we need this, when we have a Dail and Government in the first place?

    Because our governments are generally weak and don't want to be seen to push through any legislation that my be unpopular but might be better in the long run.

    The biggest manifestation of this weakness is the power our permanent government has. They actually run the country and many ministers will not go against their Sec Gen or tell them where to go. Just look at the Dept. of Justice and Helen McEntee. The immigration stuff at the moment is also going through the Dept. of An Taoiseach as Simon Harris wants to assert some control over it.



Advertisement