General Election and Government Formation Megathread (see post #1)

is_that_so · 05-02-2020 5:20pm

Only dipped in and out of this. Varadkar seemed calm but she was doing the fighting talk to such an extent that she ignored the moderators. I did see the SCC comment but missed this. It seems very peevish TBH

C14N · 05-02-2020 5:21pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

Reducing the pension age back to 65 will still keep us with one of the oldest pensions in Europe.

I'm not sure how this is an extreme policy.

It's not extreme, it's just not very good. Many countries in Europe are currently in the process of increasing pension ages in response to aging populations. Below are some of Europe's countries with current or planned retirement ages the same or higher than ours:

Belgium: 67
Croation: 67
Czech: 67
Denmark: 72
France: 67
Germany: 67
Greece: 67
Iceland: 67
Italy: 67
Netherlands: 67 currently, but linked to life expectence going forward
Norway: 67
Spain: 67
Sweden: 67
UK: 69

Of course, many are also not doing it, but I'd expect them all to succumb sooner or later.

hotmail.com wrote: »

Greens have shown themselves to be conservative and far from radical when it comes to climate change.

I disagree. The Green Party is pushing for a fairly aggressive carbon tax, the highest I could find of any of the parties. I don't personally consider that "radical", but many others do, and it's certainly not conservative.

sid waddell wrote: »

What are the particular "populist" policies of the Social Democrats and Labour?

Also, can we make a distinction between positive populism and negative populism?

Positive populism of the type we see from People Before Profit etc. and perhaps Sinn Fein can at least mount pressure on a ruling party into modifying their positions to being more worker-friendly or redistributive in terms of tax or resources or more public service-orientated.

This is a general question not just aimed at the poster quoted here.

The negative populism of Trump etc. can poison and destroy whole societies.

The main one that jumps out to me is their promotion of strong rent controls, including a rent freeze, but I'll read up more on the rest of their platforms too to see if anything else jumps out.

Regarding positive and negative populism, that's entirely in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure a Trump or Brexit Party supporter would argue that their populism is positive and saving society.

sid waddell · 05-02-2020 5:23pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

Positive and negative populism.

This is more of a discussion on political ideology.

This is the issue with the term populism. One person's idea is seen as positive to some and hated by others.

Well I don't think, say, a massive investment in public housing is necessarily populist, but I think it has to be accompanied by other stuff within a broad framework for it to make sense.

Like, Ireland has a very low tax to GDP ratio, consistently at the bottom or almost at the bottom of the OECD.

Denmark by comparison has a tax to GDP ratio of around 45-50%, we're well down into the 20s.

What would be populist is to promise a massive programme of public house building while not increasing overall tax take or addressing skills shortages.

I guess the problem with left populism is that big promises (which would make sense within an overall framework where the money would be coming in to pay for them) are often accompanied by other promises which are not consistent, like bringing the pension age back to 65 or abolishing USC.

It seems to me that a state can't invest properly in infrastructure and public services without a high-ish overall tax take.

Negative populism to me is policies or rhetoric which vilifies certain sectors of society unfairly and/or attempts to increase prejudice against them and/or attempts to take away certain people's rights - ie. broad brush anti-immigrant or anti-Traveller or anti-LGBT or anti-"welfare sponger" etc. rhetoric.

Noel Grealish, Verona Murphy, Renua, Gemma O'Doherty etc., the National Party and Irexiteers etc. would be examples of this. FG have sort of occasionally flirted with it.

Bob Harris · 05-02-2020 5:24pm

Using the term 'these men' really should have been met by one of them asking her he she was assuming their gender.

droidus · 05-02-2020 5:25pm

C14N wrote: »

Perhaps that's the difference. An online forum devoted to discussing politics is going to be filled mostly with people who are very engaged and following the election closely, with few people who would identify as non-political.

Out of curiosity, what about her performance did they seem to think went so well? I personally thought he stumbling over the questions on the Criminal Court, her getting called out on Northern homeless rates, and her being caught out on the comments made about Paul Quinn were not a good look at all. I also was surprised to see her arguing so strongly against a carbon tax when her base is generally young and from the left, which are groups who tend to care a great deal about climate change.

Well, its the non-political people that count.

Calling out Varadkar and Martin for their near identical politics, Fianna Fail for bankrupting the country. If her intention was to cast them as the two strands of the status quo in an election where people want change, I think she succeeded. Quinn was the only solid hit against her.

The carbon tax is quite unpopular, and even in climate circles is seen as a panacea and a way to push the cost of the crisis onto normal people whilst ignoring the systemic issues. I don't think that's what she's arguing, but it's far from the worst thing about SF's environmental policies.

meeeeh · 05-02-2020 5:25pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

But every party spouts out nonsense and rubbish at every election. What makes SF's rubbish populist and not the others?

Oh yes they do. They are all populist in some aspects of their programme, SF just have a bit more. Problem with theirs is that they are promising a bit more of everything than other parties (excluding People Before Profit).

05-02-2020 5:26pm

Labour the least populist. They've taken a "we've learned from our mistakes" approach.

charlie14 · 05-02-2020 5:26pm

Doodah7 wrote: »

Question regarding the difficult situation in Tipperary with the death of one of the candidates. The election is to still go ahead in that constituency and apparently the deceased name will appear on the ballot paper (they are printed).

What happens to her votes as it is inevitable that some people will cast a preference beside her name? Say she topped the poll? Are these spoiled votes? Do they count as if she was alive and then discount her at the end?

TBH I haven`t a clue, but if the poor woman had died the morning of the election, the counts would have been carried out until she was either eliminated and her votes distributed, or she was elected.
If elected, there would have been a subsequent by-election.
Presuming the same will apply now.

C14N · 05-02-2020 5:31pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

Oh you'll go down the list and give everyone a preference!

I bet you have a fair idea who'll you'll vote for at this stage...

I always fill in the entire ballot for every one of our elections, even in the last MEP election when the ballot was enormous. Our voting system is probably the thing I'm most proud of politically, so I take advantage of it.

As for who is at the top, I have some idea, but it's still a bit of a toss-up between around 6 candidates. None of the parties or local independents are thrilling me, so which order they come in is still something I need to settle on.

hotmail.com · 05-02-2020 5:31pm

sid waddell wrote: »

Well I don't think, say, a massive investment in public housing is necessarily populist, but I think it has to be accompanied by other stuff within a broad framework for it to make sense.

Like, Ireland has a very low tax to GDP ratio, consistently at the bottom or almost at the bottom of the OECD.

Denmark by comparison has a tax to GDP ratio of around 45-50%, we're well down into the 20s.

What would be populist is to promise a massive programme of public house building while not increasing overall tax take or addressing skills shortages.

I guess the problem with left populism is that big promises (which would make sense within an overall framework where the money would be coming in to pay for them) are often accompanied by other promises which are not consistent, like bringing the pension age back to 65 or abolishing USC.

It seems to me that a state can't invest properly in infrastructure and public services without a high-ish overall tax take.

Negative populism to me is policies or rhetoric which vilifies certain sectors of society unfairly and/or attempts to increase prejudice against them and/or attempts to take away certain people's rights - ie. broad brush anti-immigrant or anti-Traveller or anti-LGBT or anti-"welfare sponger" etc. rhetoric.

Noel Grealish, Verona Murphy, Renua, Gemma O'Doherty etc., the National Party and Irexiteers etc. would be examples of this. FG have sort of occasionally flirted with it.

I just call these policies or political ideology and take it from there.

The term populism is too confusing and vague.

And even your point about negative populism and the racist people you mention ... a lot of people would agree with their rubbish and don't see it as negative.

C14N · 05-02-2020 5:39pm

droidus wrote: »

Well, its the non-political people that count.

Not necessarily, since they're less likely to vote.

droidus wrote: »

The carbon tax is quite unpopular, and even in climate circles is seen as a panacea and a way to push the cost of the crisis onto normal people whilst ignoring the systemic issues. I don't think that's what she's arguing, but it's far from the worst thing about SF's environmental policies.

I absolutely believe it's the worst thing about their environmental policy. A carbon tax is easily the most systematic change that can be made regarding the environment, and most of the cost is borne by industry, as industry causes far more carbon pollution than normal people. It specifically punishes companies that pollute and incentivises them to find carbon-free energy solutions. Pollution causes negative externalities that we all have to bear, and the tax offsets the damage it does to the economy. However, it would be better if the parties supporting it also supported giving it as a rebate to citizens, as is done in Canada, which effectively pays people for not using additional carbon.

sid waddell · 05-02-2020 5:44pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

I just call these policies or political ideology and take it from there.

The term populism is too confusing and vague.

And even your point about negative populism and the racist people you mention ... a lot of people would agree with their rubbish and don't see it as negative.

It is negative though as it is an attempt to remove certain freedoms from people and/or to vilify them and make them an "other" in society.

A lot of people agreed with Hitler when he vilified the Jews but it didn't mean it was a positive thing. What Hitler engaged in was obviously negative populism.

Campaigning for a re-introduction of the death penalty is negative populism i) because it seeks to remove the life of prisoners and ii) because there's no real evidence it works on any level as a deterrent to crime.

I would call it sado-populism.

Amirani · 05-02-2020 5:44pm

C14N wrote: »

However, it would be better if the parties supporting it also supported giving it as a rebate to citizens, as is done in Canada, which effectively pays people for not using additional carbon.

The Greens do propose this.

I'm not sure I agree though, I'd like it to be ringfenced and used to combat climate change. To keep it progressive, much of it can be dedicated to retrofitting the homes of the less well off and subsidising green energy for them to use.

droidus · 05-02-2020 5:53pm

C14N wrote: »

Not necessarily, since they're less likely to vote.

Wonks are a very small part of the electorate

I absolutely believe it's the worst thing about their environmental policy. A carbon tax is easily the most systematic change that can be made regarding the environment, and most of the cost is borne by industry, as industry causes far more carbon pollution than normal people. It specifically punishes companies that pollute and incentivises them to find carbon-free energy solutions. Pollution causes negative externalities that we all have to bear, and the tax offsets the damage it does to the economy. However, it would be better if the parties supporting it also supported giving it as a rebate to citizens, as is done in Canada, which effectively pays people for not using additional carbon.

Rightly or wrongly, carbon tax as it is currently framed in an irish context is seen as a tax on citizens. Any tax should be targeted upstream at major polluters, fossil profits, car manufacturers etc. and I completely agree with most of what you've said there. The fee and dividend model seems good, and I support a carbon tax in principle but it seems utterly perverse and inequitable to tax household's carbon emissions when the fossil industry in Europe is subsidized to the tune of €39 billion and the govt is pushing ahead with the disastrous Shannon LNG terminal.

Raconteuse · 05-02-2020 5:58pm

Can't stand that expression. It gets used when a man says nothing wrong, just he's a man and the woman on the receiving end doesn't like when it's shown that she's incorrect.

And if the man is being an arrogant git, it's not his being a man that's the issue - it's his being an arrogant git. An affliction found among both sexes.

hotmail.com · 05-02-2020 6:01pm

sid waddell wrote: »

It is negative though as it is an attempt to remove certain freedoms from people and/or to vilify them and make them an "other" in society.

A lot of people agreed with Hitler when he vilified the Jews but it didn't mean it was a positive thing. What Hitler engaged in was obviously negative populism.

Campaigning for a re-introduction of the death penalty is negative populism i) because it seeks to remove the life of prisoners and ii) because there's no real evidence it works on any level as a deterrent to crime.

I would call it sado-populism.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that some people see it differently from you and they wouldn't regard their views as populist.

A lot of people hold racist views, negative views of people from council houses etc. This is the reality.

AlanG · 05-02-2020 6:09pm

Both my wife and I found this expression very cringe-worthy in the way it was used last night. She was definitely treated no different than any other leader is such a debate and there were far fewer interruptions than during leaders questions.
It seemed like she had it planned to make the others look like some sort of old boys club picking on her but I think it will have backfired. Not wanting robust exchanges came across as very unreasonable after she had fought so hard to be included in the debate. I think if she hadn't got caught out so badly with the court and murder questions later on it would have been more of a talking point.

is_that_so · 05-02-2020 6:15pm

Not seeing any knife here at all. He just said he was a fan of Paschal but he didn't want to run and a reshuffle being needed goes without saying, even in Opposition.

sid waddell · 05-02-2020 6:19pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that some people see it differently from you and they wouldn't regard their views as populist.

A lot of people hold racist views, negative views of people from council houses etc. This is the reality.

But if that is so, they are wrong in that belief.

Pawwed Rig · 05-02-2020 6:33pm

That court and murder is part of a political debate in this country in 2020 makes me despair for the electorate

blanch152 · 05-02-2020 7:10pm

C14N wrote: »

Not necessarily, since they're less likely to vote.

I absolutely believe it's the worst thing about their environmental policy. A carbon tax is easily the most systematic change that can be made regarding the environment, and most of the cost is borne by industry, as industry causes far more carbon pollution than normal people. It specifically punishes companies that pollute and incentivises them to find carbon-free energy solutions. Pollution causes negative externalities that we all have to bear, and the tax offsets the damage it does to the economy. However, it would be better if the parties supporting it also supported giving it as a rebate to citizens, as is done in Canada, which effectively pays people for not using additional carbon.

Actually they do. The Greens suggest a flat rebate, meaning those who pollute suffer. FG are proposing a programme of retrofitting.

Sinn Fein are just playing to the entitlement class with their policy on this.

hotmail.com · 05-02-2020 7:38pm

sid waddell wrote: »

But if that is so, they are wrong in that belief.

So you get to decide that?

While I don't dispute racism is wrong, this type of self righteous has crept into economic ideas.

lozenges · 05-02-2020 7:48pm

Populist
Soc Dems - free GP care for anyone with a chronic illness
Fianna Fail - cut CGT to 25%

Least populist - Greens (carbon tax)

Sir Oxman · 05-02-2020 8:21pm

Harry McGee's final seat prediction in IT today:
Fianna Fáil: 53
Fine Gael: 38
Sinn Féin: 28
Labour Party: 8
Green Party: 14
Social Democrats: 3
Sol-PBP: 2
Others: 14

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

An Ciarraioch · 05-02-2020 8:34pm

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Harry McGee's final seat prediction in IT today:
Fianna Fáil: 53
Fine Gael: 38
Sinn Féin: 28
Labour Party: 8
Green Party: 14
Social Democrats: 3
Sol-PBP: 2
Others: 14

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

You can get 16/1 today on FF-Green-Lab-SD, which gets 78 seats here.

An Ciarraioch · 05-02-2020 8:40pm

Donegal poll in the Tír Conaill Tribune:

https://twitter.com/BarryWhyte85/status/1225135746866085893

is_that_so · 05-02-2020 8:45pm

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Harry McGee's final seat prediction in IT today:
Fianna Fáil: 53
Fine Gael: 38
Sinn Féin: 28
Labour Party: 8
Green Party: 14
Social Democrats: 3
Sol-PBP: 2
Others: 14

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

14 seats for Greens seems high but most of the rest is +/- a couple of seats. That looks like a FF+ coalition.

Water John · 05-02-2020 8:52pm

There will be about a half dozen Inds that FF can have arrangements with.
So FF + LB + SD + Green could be over the 80.

sid waddell · 05-02-2020 9:11pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

So you get to decide that?

While I don't dispute racism is wrong, this type of self righteous has crept into economic ideas.

Do people who are racist get to decide whether they are actually racist or not?

Most racists would not describe themselves as racist. They'd say it's merely their view.

zell12 · 05-02-2020 9:16pm

Ivan Yates seats prediction
Fianna Fáil: 60
Fine Gael: 32
Sinn Féin: 25
Green Party: 10
Labour Party: 7
Sol-PBP: 5
Social Democrats: 2
Aontu: 1
Independents: 18

General Election and Government Formation Megathread (see post #1)

Comments