General Irish politics discussion thread

For all the talk of FF and FG being domineering, the current coalition has been very stable and with no big bust ups between any of the three parties over the last four and a half years.

Do you not think they have chosen power in favour of principle several times.

Ordinarily a scandal like Varadkar's Official Secrets one or several others like Coveney's or Phil Hogan's would have brought most coalitions down or severely damaged them. Eyes have been shut and power held onto because the opposition was riding high in polls.

With SF out of the picture I wonder will that IMO clinging to power at any cost maintain?

Do you want Ireland to become like Italy then?

Those 'scandals' you mentioned were nothing burgers at the end of the day. Certainly nothing as serious as bringing down the government.

Its funny that you have such high standards for others, but SF can directly put children in harm's way by giving someone a reference to work with Children, and you man the barricades for days defending this.

Mark, I haven't 'defended it' for a second.
It is wholly and totally wrong for anyone to write a reference for a convicted abuser or for one under investigation.

Why do you keep saying I defended it?

But all in all they were nothing burgers, as I said.

Given the issues the country and the world has gone through over the last 4-5 years, they are really small fry.

Nobody remembers half that stuff you bang on about.

FF/PDs - Brought down by evidence given at a tribunal.
FF/Lab - Brought down when Labour walked out over the appointment of the Attorney General
FG/Inds - Brought down by FG themselves when a 2nd no confidence vote in Simon Harris was avoided

Three examples. Brought down on 'principles'.

Look at the scandals in this government and despite them they will do almost their full term and choose the timing of the GE and we are confidently told here pick up the baton and carry on after the next GE.
I

t's a legitimate question - if incompetence is no longer enough, what is enough now?

Nitpick: The FF/Lab coaltion was brought down over the appointment of the President of the High Court. The candidate concerned — Harry Whelehan — was the Attorney-General, but his appointment to that office was uncontroversial.

Apologies, the end of the sentence got chopped for some reason.
Point was the Labour party walked out on principle. Reynolds desperately tried to save the government but couldn't. Contrary to @blanch152 contention, the 'sex scandal' would not have mattered to him if Labour could ignore it.

Bigger nitpick: There was no FG/Ind coalition; the government concerned was a minority FG government. It has the support of a variable number of independents, but there was no agreement for government; none of them were in government positions; and even with independents it had no majority. It was in effect sustained in office by the decision of FF not to vote against it on confidence issues. Even if its true that Varadkar did cut and run, that didn't in any sense represent the collapse of a coalition; his fear would have been that FF would vote against the government, and FF weren't in coalition.

Again fair enough, but that government fell on an issue of competence. That of the MoH and FG's refusal to allow a vote on it in the Dáil

Biggest nitpick: None of these were issues of competence. The allegation against Whelehan was that he had tried to protect Brendan Smyth from extradition, which doesn't really go to competence. And the evidence given at the tribunal that brought down the FF/PD colation was Reynold's assertion that O'Malley was dishonest, which is a different (and much more serious), allegation than incompetence. (Reynolds, of course, gave that evidence knowing that it would leave the PDs no choice but to withdraw; in effect, it was Reynold's way of triggering an election at which he hoped to win a majority.)

Perhaps the thing that I think underlines my point, the circling of wagons around a protracted question about the Taoiseach.

I think genuinely it represents a sea change in politics here. What coalitions parties were prepared to stand over in that and other things should be of concern

Even if you have pivoted from your initial claim that Reynolds somehow took responsibility, (he didn't he tried vainly to get Labour to put it aside and allow him continue) you are proving the point here.

Once upon a time, impropriety was likely to damage or bring down a government.

Not any more. Especially if there is a strong in the polls opposition in the wings. That's a matter of concern.

Reynolds didn't resign because of that.
He resigned because he couldn't get another party to forget it. He took zero responsibility.

Your disingenuousness is patently transparent.

From what I have read the Russian agent is still in place.

That's not good. I wonder what they are doing about it?