General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

blanch152 · 31-05-2019 12:03pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I wouldn't say toxic. They did terrible. Toxic would be FF after the IMF came or Maria Bailey after her claim became public. Not being as popular as you'd like doesn't make you toxic.
If FG can partner with FF after what they did and who they are, SF shouldn't be a problem for FF. In fact it will give FF more pull on the junior SF.

You are comparing the IMF arriving in the country as being on a par with Maria Bailey and a stupid compensation claim?

In my opinion, your post has lost all perspective. If the only thing that is making news about a bad government is that one of its backbench TDs made a compensation claim, then we really are short of bad news about a government.

McMurphy · 31-05-2019 1:17pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You are comparing the IMF arriving in the country as being on a par with Maria Bailey and a stupid compensation claim?

In my opinion, your post has lost all perspective. If the only thing that is making news about a bad government is that one of its backbench TDs made a compensation claim, then we really are short of bad news about a government.

Lol. You spelt "dodgy" wrong.

There's a whole lot more to this story than just some TD taking a claim, and you know it.

Claims that a poster lost all perspective?

Gas.

James Brown · 31-05-2019 1:43pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You are comparing the IMF arriving in the country as being on a par with Maria Bailey and a stupid compensation claim?

In my opinion, your post has lost all perspective. If the only thing that is making news about a bad government is that one of its backbench TDs made a compensation claim, then we really are short of bad news about a government.

I've not seen many who pose a question and their own answer and then get so heated about it.
It's tiresome having to explain to you what I guess you likely already know; I was giving examples of politically toxic.

While we're analysing each other, the various crises are still ongoing and still worsening. That story has sailed. FG have made a disaster worse and continue to do so and poor Eoghan Murphy is disappointed, great help to all concerned.
On Bailey, it's current. I would have thought anyone would be interested in it and if not, I don't see why a supporter of another party, the Greens(?), forgive me if I'm wrong, seems to want to dismiss it?
Making up a claim that I'm comparing Bailey or swing-gate to the IMF is ludicrous Blanch and quite frankly it smacks of desperation.

Chips Lovell · 31-05-2019 1:49pm

Mod Note

@blanch152, Matt Barrett and Johnny Dogs.

Cut out the bickering. If keep taking potshots at each other, we'll ban you all.

James Brown · 31-05-2019 1:57pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I still get the impression from the independent that this story, is ultimately going to lead towards a 2 for 1 (maybe more) ending.

Madigan should be 'candid' on swing fall case - Martin

I think Varadkar's inquiry will go the way of previous, he'll hope it dies down and she'll be kept off side for a while. There's nothing like a toothless inquiry or tribunal to kill off a troublesome story. You're seen to do something and can point to it if pressed.

McMurphy · 01-06-2019 8:29am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think Varadkar's inquiry will go the way of previous, he'll hope it dies down and she'll be kept off side for a while. There's nothing like a toothless inquiry or tribunal to kill off a troublesome story. You're seen to do something and can point to it if pressed.

Oh wait, there's more.

Apparently Leo is in receipt of a letter accompanying the initial cheque for €600 (the Dean initially offered Bailey) that she (Bailey) sent back to them.

The press are reporting that despite Bailey saying she was only after medical costs, the hotel responded by saying they'd pay certified costs (this was six months after the incident) Bailey returned the cheque issued by the hotel, and demanded a substantial sum of money instead, citing "for what would be the likely cost of treatment into the future" lol.

And despite her saying in the interview that she was only wanting to recoup certified medical expenses, the letter the Taosieach has been briefed on, demanded compensation for personal injury, loss, damage and inconvenience.

Kennedy's soon to speak with Madigan to establish if or how far her involvement in the whole thing goes.

It would certainly appear that Bailey was indulging in a bit of gouging.

Bad reflection. Very bad.

If Madigan is behind her actions, then there's two peas in a pod.

Two birds, one stone and all that.

McMurphy · 03-06-2019 11:29am

I see the indo have an article today featuring Pat McDonagh (he of Supermacs) and the knock on effects insurance/claims have on businesses.

The article references a couple of now withdrawn claims against the company,

Mr McDonagh's comments follow the recent withdrawal of a claim against the popular fast-food outlet.

A woman claimed she allegedly found a sharp object in her food, but dropped a personal injuries case against Supermac's after footage emerged of her dining in a hotel.

Supermac's had denied all liability and refused to settle the case. Her solicitors were contacted for comment.

Mr McDonagh said business owners were constantly up against it and called on the Government to show some "political will" to intervene.

"It's not a fair system and it's not a system you can rely on," he said.

Mr McDonagh admits there are genuine injuries - but he believes exaggerated claims are closing businesses down and lead to higher premiums.

It's fairly reminiscent of the Bailey case, as in the Dean also refused to accept liability, and refused to settle the case, opting to fight it instead.

You'd have to wonder if the indo has some info on the CCTV footage of that night, as they also make reference to how footage was pivotal in their case, even showing a clip of a guy staging a fall (obviously GDRP doesn't affect the indo or Supermacs)

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/no-consistency-no-justice-in-the-system-says-supermacs-boss-38173154.html

One wonders if we'll soon be gifted similar CCTV of an otherwise previously unknown TD and God knows who else in the swing gate incident?

James Brown · 03-06-2019 2:00pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I see the indo have an article today featuring Pat McDonagh (he of Supermacs) and the knock on effects insurance/claims have on businesses.

The article references a couple of now withdrawn claims against the company,

It's fairly reminiscent of the Bailey case, as in the Dean also refused to accept liability, and refused to settle the case, opting to fight it instead.

You'd have to wonder if the indo has some info on the CCTV footage of that night, as they also make reference to how footage was pivotal in their case, even showing a clip of a guy staging a fall (obviously GDRP doesn't affect the indo or Supermacs)

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/no-consistency-no-justice-in-the-system-says-supermacs-boss-38173154.html

One wonders if we'll soon be gifted similar CCTV of an otherwise previously unknown TD and God knows who else in the swing gate incident?

They do seem to be keeping the pilot light on. I don't think Leo will be let sweep this one under the rug.

McMurphy · 04-06-2019 1:44pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They do seem to be keeping the pilot light on. I don't think Leo will be let sweep this one under the rug.

Hard one to call Matt - the press seem to be suggesting that whatever the internal report comes up with, ie who was present on the night and possibly witnessed the whole thing - what role Madigan played in the claim, etc etc, will be kept under wraps, they won't be publishing the findings of the report publicly.

If true, same old same old.

The CCTV footage will be very telling if it sees the light of day on the web. Youd have to wonder if the indo will replicate that article they did with supermacs, and include the CCTV footage like they did with that other shyster staging his fall.

James Brown · 04-06-2019 2:04pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Hard one to call Matt - the press seem to be suggesting that whatever the internal report comes up with, ie who was present on the night and possibly witnessed the whole thing - what role Madigan played in the claim, etc etc, will be kept under wraps, they won't be publishing the findings of the report publicly.

If true, same old same old.

The CCTV footage will be very telling if it sees the light of day on the web. Youd have to wonder if the indo will replicate that article they did with supermacs, and include the CCTV footage like they did with that other shyster staging his fall.

TBF I never expected Varadkar to come out with any details. He'll sell it as an internal matter and keep it hid. However much dirt might come out of it there certainly isn't anything redeeming I'd warrant.
If the Indo has anything solid I'd say we're talking another week or so before it's released as Varadkar will let this die.

Cookie_Monster · 04-06-2019 11:39pm

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12237261
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/incoming-central-bank-chief-may-face-action-from-nz-watchdog-1.3912272

Gabriel Makhlouf referred to the NZ police now.

James Brown · 13-06-2019 2:19pm

I think Ireland is well placed to become a beacon of environmentalism. I understand many nations buy carbon credits but if we can be the poster boys and girls for the IMF and 'take one for the team' surely we can work harder and possibly more cost effectively in the long term when it comes to the environment? A high carbon tax and paying for plastic bags is a very cowboy approach IMO.

Ireland has spent €86.8m on carbon credits to meet emissions targets
Seán Fleming said it is "horrific" that €86.8m of Irish taxpayers' money has been spent purchasing carbon credits from other countries and labelled it "gross hypocrisy".

It has also emerged this morning that Ireland could have to pay €60m to "buy our way out of pretending" we are meeting renewable energy targets.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/0613/1055135-carbon-credits/

I wonder will it be the usual, used by FF to look oppositiony?
When I find out which SF/PBP lead council is behind this I'm going to give them the business.

markodaly · 13-06-2019 2:33pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

When I find out which SF/PBP lead council is behind this I'm going to give them the business.

You mean the parties fully against any carbon tax?

Idbatterim · 13-06-2019 2:41pm

So we all agree ff fg are pretty much the same thing. I propose simply swapping them out for one another until they learn problems here need addressing , not endless inaction. If they think simply not sinking the economy is good enough. Think again , imagine that fraud being removed as tAoiseach with a booming economy , down to his own outrageous failure. It will be priceless to see!

blanch152 · 13-06-2019 3:16pm

markodaly wrote: »

You mean the parties fully against any carbon tax?

How any party can oppose a carbon tax, given the findings regarding our slow progress on climate change, is mind-boggling.

James Brown · 13-06-2019 3:40pm

blanch152 wrote: »

How any party can oppose a carbon tax, given the findings regarding our slow progress on climate change, is mind-boggling.

Sure we can just buy more credits FG style. Sky's the limit ironically.

blanch152 · 13-06-2019 4:13pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sure we can just buy more credits FG style. Sky's the limit ironically.

Well, let us see.

https://www.thejournal.ie/carbon-tax-2-4563817-Mar2019/

The party you want to see in government - Fianna Fail - wanted "to remove a fixed recommendation on the level of carbon tax people will pay in the years ahead." Is your idea of them keeping Fine Gael in check that they will stop the introduction of a carbon tax.

They were not the only ones opposing it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/oireachtas-support-for-increased-carbon-taxes-ill-judged-1.3861346

People Before Profit have already nailed their colours to the mast. Expect to see another surge of protest politics, where they are against everything.

As always, it is not clear where Sinn Fein stand on this:

https://greennews.ie/sinn-fein-opposes-carbon-tax-rise-in-climate-action-report/

"Sinn Féin has said that the party will dissent from any carbon tax recommendations included in a much-awaited report from the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate Action."

In the end, however, they didn't dissent. A strange one. Buried in their position is a statement that "big polluters pay their fair share". Another variation on the theme that someone else should pay.

James Brown · 13-06-2019 4:28pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, let us see.

https://www.thejournal.ie/carbon-tax-2-4563817-Mar2019/

The party you want to see in government - Fianna Fail - wanted "to remove a fixed recommendation on the level of carbon tax people will pay in the years ahead." Is your idea of them keeping Fine Gael in check that they will stop the introduction of a carbon tax.

They were not the only ones opposing it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/oireachtas-support-for-increased-carbon-taxes-ill-judged-1.3861346

People Before Profit have already nailed their colours to the mast. Expect to see another surge of protest politics, where they are against everything.

As always, it is not clear where Sinn Fein stand on this:

https://greennews.ie/sinn-fein-opposes-carbon-tax-rise-in-climate-action-report/

"Sinn Féin has said that the party will dissent from any carbon tax recommendations included in a much-awaited report from the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate Action."

In the end, however, they didn't dissent. A strange one. Buried in their position is a statement that "big polluters pay their fair share". Another variation on the theme that someone else should pay.

Sorry I what now?
Seriously Blanch you are taking the mick with this. Can you simply speak on a topic without making it a Premier league match? FG are in government, propped up by FF, get use to people commenting on it.
FF are a bad 'opposition' party. I do not for one second believe my thoughts on this slipped by you.
Have you no interest is the blue elephant in the room? Is there any point in engaging on a news item relating to FG policy if you won't discuss FG's part in it?
As a person with strong views for environmental issues and a Green party supporter, where do you think FG, the government, should change tack, you don't even have to criticise them Blanch, but if you don't want to discuss it, opting for digs at everyone bar FG, I don't see the point in you wasting both our time.

blanch152 · 13-06-2019 5:28pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sorry I what now?
Seriously Blanch you are taking the mick with this. Can you simply speak on a topic without making it a Premier league match? FG are in government, propped up by FF, get use to people commenting on it.
FF are a bad 'opposition' party. I do not for one second believe my thoughts on this slipped by you.
Have you no interest is the blue elephant in the room? Is there any point in engaging on a news item relating to FG policy if you won't discuss FG's part in it?
As a person with strong views for environmental issues and a Green party supporter, where do you think FG, the government, should change tack, you don't even have to criticise them Blanch, but if you don't want to discuss it, opting for digs at everyone bar FG, I don't see the point in you wasting both our time.

I believe in increasing carbon taxes, this government have been too slow to act on this issue. I am on record several times criticising this government over their record on climate issues.

James Brown · 13-06-2019 5:58pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I believe in increasing carbon taxes, this government have been too slow to act on this issue. I am on record several times criticising this government over their record on climate issues.

That's great. Depends on how they spend the money for me. I can't see it as a disincentive but more a cost of doing business that will be passed to the public. Beyond FG, I'd like to see a real push on solar and wind. There's a lot of room to push for it. Also might be an idea to try get the likes of Musk and that crowd to set up a facility here. We were trying to push ourselves as an educated knowledge based workforce, be nice to see what incentives we could muster in that regard towards a greener economy.

blanch152 · 13-06-2019 6:06pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's great. Depends on how they spend the money for me. I can't see it as a disincentive but more a cost of doing business that will be passed to the public. Beyond FG, I'd like to see a real push on solar and wind. There's a lot of room to push for it. Also might be an idea to try get the likes of Musk and that crowd to set up a facility here. We were trying to push ourselves as an educated knowledge based workforce, be nice to see what incentives we could muster in that regard towards a greener economy.

and those are the reasons why I vote Green.

McMurphy · 15-06-2019 8:16am

What's the story on the report issued by leo into the (what appears from here at present) extremely dodgy insurance claim by Maria Bailey?

Following the revelations from both the press, and Maria's carcrash interview with SOR, the lack of clarity on it, and further - lack of action against Maria (removal of whip for example) leads me to assume that the report doesn't exonerate her - hence why it hasn't been finished yet (so FG say)

Further, I also assume that the report isn't favourable towards Josepha Madigan, and her involvement in the whole thing - this would possibly explain the lack of the report being finished (if you're gullible enough to believe that) and Maria Bailey being left in situ - as one would bring the other with them.

Leo isn't making the miscalculation of believing this will just go away is he?

McMurphy · 16-06-2019 10:24am

This will be very unwelcome news for Leo.

Opinion poll suggests five-point lead for Fianna F

Still, will take the focus of his lack of action on Maria Bailey I suppose.

is_that_so · 16-06-2019 10:26am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

This will be very unwelcome news for Leo.

Opinion poll suggests five-point lead for Fianna F

Still, will take the focus of his lack of action on Maria Bailey I suppose.

One party up, one party down, one party going nowhere. Only surprise is the alleged level of Green support. None of these numbers matter anyway until an election is called.

McMurphy · 16-06-2019 10:34am

is_that_so wrote: »

One party up, one party down, one party going nowhere. Only surprise is the alleged level of Green support. None of these numbers matter anyway until an election is called.

The bigger picture being, after the events of 2010/11 FG have - in only a few years made FF a viable option to govern the country.

is_that_so · 16-06-2019 10:36am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The bigger picture being, after the events of 2010/11 FG have - in only a few years made FF a viable option to govern the country.

It'll be one or the other and the other will probably enter into a support deal.

eire4 · 16-06-2019 10:25pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's great. Depends on how they spend the money for me. I can't see it as a disincentive but more a cost of doing business that will be passed to the public. Beyond FG, I'd like to see a real push on solar and wind. There's a lot of room to push for it. Also might be an idea to try get the likes of Musk and that crowd to set up a facility here. We were trying to push ourselves as an educated knowledge based workforce, be nice to see what incentives we could muster in that regard towards a greener economy.

Very much in agreement with you on solar and wind. We really need a concerted push to get off fossil fuels and onto renewal energy. Our record on climate as a country is very poor right now and beyond that we are going to get hurt very badly as a result economically if we do not start to get serious about moving to an energy policy that is geared towards getting us onto renewables 100% as soon as possible.

blanch152 · 16-06-2019 10:48pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The bigger picture being, after the events of 2010/11 FG have - in only a few years made FF a viable option to govern the country.

You, like so many others, have the wrong end of the stick here.

It says something about the opposition parties that FF are seen as the only alternative to FG.

The opinion poll you reference has the Greens within the margin of error of being the third largest party. That says two things, firstly the failure of FG on environmental issues, and secondly, the abysmal performance of the opposition parties in general.

Look at the poll. Sinn Fein are in freefall (in line with my predictions), the Social Democrats have made minimal impact, and Solidarity are within the margin of error of zero. Labour back up to 5% have a long way to go. It says something that none of those parties have been able to be coherent enough to take votes from the independents.

The true bigger picture is that with the country rejecting the government at this point in the election cycle, as they always do, it is dreadful that there is nowhere else but FF.

blanch152 · 16-06-2019 10:54pm

eire4 wrote: »

Very much in agreement with you on solar and wind. We really need a concerted push to get off fossil fuels and onto renewal energy. Our record on climate as a country is very poor right now and beyond that we are going to get hurt very badly as a result economically if we do not start to get serious about moving to an energy policy that is geared towards getting us onto renewables 100% as soon as possible.

100% agree, and the car crash of a thread on Green issues here only shows how far we have to go before people realise that things have to change.

Loafing Oaf · 17-06-2019 12:25pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You, like so many others, have the wrong end of the stick here.

It says something about the opposition parties that FF are seen as the only alternative to FG.
The true bigger picture is that with the country rejecting the government at this point in the election cycle, as they always do, it is dreadful that there is nowhere else but FF.

Isn't that ultimately the responsibility of the electorate? If you don't like any of the options on the political menu, you need to be getting into the kitchen and rustling something up yourself. I remember a discussion on Prime Time or somewhere about why there was no political party representing the 49.999% of the electorate who voted no in the divorce referendum. One political scientist just shrugged and said "That's up to the voters themselves."

James Brown · 17-06-2019 1:52pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You, like so many others, have the wrong end of the stick here.

It says something about the opposition parties that FF are seen as the only alternative to FG.

The opinion poll you reference has the Greens within the margin of error of being the third largest party. That says two things, firstly the failure of FG on environmental issues, and secondly, the abysmal performance of the opposition parties in general.

Look at the poll. Sinn Fein are in freefall (in line with my predictions), the Social Democrats have made minimal impact, and Solidarity are within the margin of error of zero. Labour back up to 5% have a long way to go. It says something that none of those parties have been able to be coherent enough to take votes from the independents.

The true bigger picture is that with the country rejecting the government at this point in the election cycle, as they always do, it is dreadful that there is nowhere else but FF.

FF see themselves as the opposition here. Also by the system we have FF are the main opposition here. Looking to blame smaller parties because FF went in with FG is distractionary and a waste of time. Surely FG and FF can think for themselves? SF/PBP/Lab etc. are not in government FG and pretty much FF are, FF the main opposition party. Fine Gael brought FF from the political abyss and gave them a say, which gives them attention and coverage. This raises their profile and tells the electorate FG are saying let bygones be bygones FF are alright now. SF/Lab/PBP didn't have a hand in that, it's all FG.

FF may edge out FG, they may not, but this was helped in a great way by FG and IMO I think FG would rather lose to FF than create a viable third option and FG stacked the deck this way on purpose, because there is little between FF/FG and they both want the same type of people looked after.

blanch152 · 17-06-2019 3:10pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Isn't that ultimately the responsibility of the electorate? If you don't like any of the options on the political menu, you need to be getting into the kitchen and rustling something up yourself. I remember a discussion on Prime Time or somewhere about why there was no political party representing the 49.999% of the electorate who voted no in the divorce referendum. One political scientist just shrugged and said "That's up to the voters themselves."

Well, yes, it is, to a certain extent, the fault of the electorate. However, the electorate choose, and at the end of the day, the electorate are right - that is democracy.

If enough sensible organised people can get together, then you can create a new political party - the Progressive Democrats were evidence of that. Similarly, if those in splintered groups have sense, they can merge - see the merger of Democratic Left and Labour for evidence.

Some of it is politician-led, some of it is grassroots led, the best movements combine both.

blanch152 · 17-06-2019 3:14pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

FF see themselves as the opposition here. Also by the system we have FF are the main opposition here. Looking to blame smaller parties because FF went in with FG is distractionary and a waste of time. Surely FG and FF can think for themselves? SF/PBP/Lab etc. are not in government FG and pretty much FF are, FF the main opposition party. Fine Gael brought FF from the political abyss and gave them a say, which gives them attention and coverage. This raises their profile and tells the electorate FG are saying let bygones be bygones FF are alright now. SF/Lab/PBP didn't have a hand in that, it's all FG.

FF may edge out FG, they may not, but this was helped in a great way by FG and IMO I think FG would rather lose to FF than create a viable third option and FG stacked the deck this way on purpose, because there is little between FF/FG and they both want the same type of people looked after.

Again, you are missing the point. People who are fed up with the current Fine Gael government, are looking around at the various options. Increasingly, many of them are choosing Fianna Fail and the Green Party.

That isn't on FF, FG or the Green Party, that is the result of the failure of the other parties to offer coherent alternatives. "We are not FG or FF" is not an election slogan that will get you anywhere, but it seems to be the one you are grasping at.

I am not blaming smaller parties for FF supporting FG, because that has nothing to do with why people vote. The blame for the lack of support for the smaller parties lies with the policies those smaller parties are putting forward.

Loafing Oaf · 17-06-2019 3:29pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, yes, it is, to a certain extent, the fault of the electorate. However, the electorate choose, and at the end of the day, the electorate are right - that is democracy.

If enough sensible organised people can get together, then you can create a new political party - the Progressive Democrats were evidence of that. Similarly, if those in splintered groups have sense, they can merge - see the merger of Democratic Left and Labour for evidence.

Some of it is politician-led, some of it is grassroots led, the best movements combine both.

But doesn't the failure of any new political force to come through on the centre or the right since the demise of the PDs strongly indicate that most non-left-wing voters are, fundamentally, reasonably satisfied with what they are getting from FF and FG? You talk of it being a desperate situation that there is no real alternative to FF and FG for (I presume you mean) centre- and right-leaning voters. But if those voters keep plumping for FF and FG in election after election, and turning up their noses at any purported 'alternative' such as Renua or Libertas, are we not forced to conclude that in the end they mustn't be all that desperate?

James Brown · 17-06-2019 3:54pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, you are missing the point. People who are fed up with the current Fine Gael government, are looking around at the various options. Increasingly, many of them are choosing Fianna Fail and the Green Party.

That isn't on FF, FG or the Green Party, that is the result of the failure of the other parties to offer coherent alternatives. "We are not FG or FF" is not an election slogan that will get you anywhere, but it seems to be the one you are grasping at.

I am not blaming smaller parties for FF supporting FG, because that has nothing to do with why people vote. The blame for the lack of support for the smaller parties lies with the policies those smaller parties are putting forward.

I agree to an extent, however I am talking about looking to put responsibility for FG/FF in current cahoots on Sinn Fein and parties with 5% and below in the polls.
The rise in popularity of FF has a hell of a lot to do with the current FF/FG agreement. If FG had not given FF purpose and prime placement they likely would have spent longer in the wilderness IMO.
People who float between better the devil you know and best of a bad lot, (which seem to be the deciding demographic) have been told that FF are alright now, because FG who lambasted them to get elected are now partnered with them. If they had not maybe we'd have had to run another election maybe not but I can't help but think the country and political future of the country might have moved ahead, for once, if FG hadn't of given FF a leg up. Now, we'll likely have same again next government but maybe with FF on top. All of this keeps any third viable option whomever they may be in the ha'penny place because FG support FF rather than let any other party become a threat IMO.
Yes, the people vote, but outside of hard core 'my party' voters, the floaters will drift from one better the devil you know to the other and FG brought FF back in the public eye.

blanch152 · 17-06-2019 4:00pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But doesn't the failure of any new political force to come through on the centre or the right since the demise of the PDs strongly indicate that most non-left-wing voters are, fundamentally, reasonably satisfied with what they are getting from FF and FG? You talk of it being a desperate situation that there is no real alternative to FF and FG for (I presume you mean) centre- and right-leaning voters. But if those voters keep plumping for FF and FG in election after election, and turning up their noses at any purported 'alternative' such as Renua or Libertas, are we not forced to conclude that in the end they mustn't be all that desperate?

No, you get me wrong. I agree with all that you say, except that I wasn't necessarily looking for a centre-right alternative. As a centrist voter, I have voted for FF, FG, Labour, Greens, PDs and Democratic Left at various times over the last three decades, more actually.

Apart from the Greens who I have voted for the last decade (except 2011), the problem now is that nobody else is offering a credible alternative to FF or FG, anywhere in the centre-left or centre-right. That failure is on those parties.

However, if you are talking about centre-right only, you are correct that the significant proportion of the electorate who vote that way appear more than satisfied with the offering of FG and FF.

James Brown · 17-06-2019 4:06pm

blanch152 wrote: »

No, you get me wrong. I agree with all that you say, except that I wasn't necessarily looking for a centre-right alternative. As a centrist voter, I have voted for FF, FG, Labour, Greens, PDs and Democratic Left at various times over the last three decades, more actually.

Apart from the Greens who I have voted for the last decade (except 2011), the problem now is that nobody else is offering a credible alternative to FF or FG, anywhere in the centre-left or centre-right. That failure is on those parties.

However, if you are talking about centre-right only, you are correct that the significant proportion of the electorate who vote that way appear more than satisfied with the offering of FG and FF.

Fair enough.
It's tough to find an alternative for sure. For me as long as there's a third option, I won't vote FF/FG.
The trouble with 'credible alternatives' is we cannot trust FF or FG to do what they say and on the current course the housing situation is set for further disaster, which it has long since passed the disaster mark, just not touching everyone yet but when it does the economy will meltdown. Part of me wants FG in power when that happens it might help us find alternatives. When we've a 'choice' between FF and FG we are stuck with FF or FG.

Podge_irl · 17-06-2019 4:45pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I agree to an extent, however I am talking about looking to put responsibility for FG/FF in current cahoots on Sinn Fein and parties with 5% and below in the polls.
The rise in popularity of FF has a hell of a lot to do with the current FF/FG agreement. If FG had not given FF purpose and prime placement they likely would have spent longer in the wilderness IMO.

This would be the wilderness of 24.3% of the vote and 44 TDs that they would have stayed in?

You have the history completely backwards. FF were already seen as a viable alternative, that is why we ended up with no majority government in the first place.

James Brown · 17-06-2019 4:55pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

This would be the wilderness of 24.3% of the vote and 44 TDs that they would have stayed in?

You have the history completely backwards. FF were already seen as a viable alternative, that is why we ended up with no majority government in the first place.

You're not getting my point.
Yes not enough to form a government. Why we have FF/FG at all is because of the FF/FG family voter dynasty. Not disputing that one bit. When an element will vote for their team no matter what you can't discuss them in the normal realms of logical people voting based on policy or who may be best suited IMO.
FF had their profile raised to catch the eye of the floaters that will put them over the top, as I've said previously. The floaters make or break it.

blanch152 · 17-06-2019 5:22pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're not getting my point.
Yes not enough to form a government. Why we have FF/FG at all is because of the FF/FG family voter dynasty. Not disputing that one bit. When an element will vote for their team no matter what you can't discuss them in the normal realms of logical people voting based on policy or who may be best suited IMO.
FF had their profile raised to catch the eye of the floaters that will put them over the top, as I've said previously. The floaters make or break it.

Don't necessarily agree with this.

A lot of the family FF and FG vote has gone to independents from the Lowrys to the Healy-Raes who are seen as remaining true to the "cause".

There are many young people and immigrants out there voting for FG and FF for the first ever time.

The family influence is overstated nowadays.

James Brown · 17-06-2019 5:31pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Don't necessarily agree with this.

A lot of the family FF and FG vote has gone to independents from the Lowrys to the Healy-Raes who are seen as remaining true to the "cause".

There are many young people and immigrants out there voting for FG and FF for the first ever time.

The family influence is overstated nowadays.

I think FF might have gone the way of Labour years ago were it not for the family based political dynasty and FG might even be middling.
As regards Lowry and his ilk that's parish pump. There'll always be votes based on local issues. The Healy Raes are skilled at it.

Look at it this way all it takes is FF or FG to ride the green wave with an initiative or two to wipe the Greens off the map for another decade.

Loafing Oaf · 17-06-2019 5:46pm

blanch152 wrote: »

No, you get me wrong. I agree with all that you say, except that I wasn't necessarily looking for a centre-right alternative. As a centrist voter, I have voted for FF, FG, Labour, Greens, PDs and Democratic Left at various times over the last three decades, more actually.

Apart from the Greens who I have voted for the last decade (except 2011), the problem now is that nobody else is offering a credible alternative to FF or FG, anywhere in the centre-left or centre-right. That failure is on those parties.

But isn't the 'credibilty' of a political party ultimately in the eye of the beholder? Are you saying here that there are a lot of moderate-left-leaning voters who feel obliged to vote for FF because they possess this nebulous quality whereas the Greens/Labour/SDs/whoever do not?

Surely the thing for such voters to do is to give their top preferences to the party or parties they feel closest to ideologically, irrespective of how 'credible' they are, and then give a lower preference to FF if they regard them as a lesser evil than FG.

Podge_irl · 17-06-2019 5:54pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're not getting my point.
Yes not enough to form a government. Why we have FF/FG at all is because of the FF/FG family voter dynasty. Not disputing that one bit. When an element will vote for their team no matter what you can't discuss them in the normal realms of logical people voting based on policy or who may be best suited IMO.
FF had their profile raised to catch the eye of the floaters that will put them over the top, as I've said previously. The floaters make or break it.

I did get your point. Your point, as stated, was simply incorrect. Any comment you make about FG bringing FF out of the "political wilderness" by going into the C&S arrangement is incorrect because by absolutely no definition is a quarter of the vote and over a quarter of the seats in the Dail the "Political Wilderness".

It is below FF's traditional vote and they remain very far below their traditional vote. The latest poll shows them a mere 3% above what they actually received in the last election. The C&S arrangement may certainly have partly contributed to that 3% potential rise in vote share, but that is a far cry from what you are actually saying.

FF, as a political force, were very much already back. There was clearly unhappiness with the previous FG/Lab government, but the electorate (for whatever reason) had already chosen FF as the best alternative long before the C&S arrangement.

FG have done plenty wrong, but continually banging on about the rise from the ashes of FF being their fault because of the C&S agreement is just fundamentally incorrect.

James Brown · 17-06-2019 6:16pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

I did get your point. Your point, as stated, was simply incorrect. Any comment you make about FG bringing FF out of the "political wilderness" by going into the C&S arrangement is incorrect because by absolutely no definition is a quarter of the vote and over a quarter of the seats in the Dail the "Political Wilderness".

It is below FF's traditional vote and they remain very far below their traditional vote. The latest poll shows them a mere 3% above what they actually received in the last election. The C&S arrangement may certainly have partly contributed to that 3% potential rise in vote share, but that is a far cry from what you are actually saying.

FF, as a political force, were very much already back. There was clearly unhappiness with the previous FG/Lab government, but the electorate (for whatever reason) had already chosen FF as the best alternative long before the C&S arrangement.

FG have done plenty wrong, but continually banging on about the rise from the ashes of FF being their fault because of the C&S agreement is just fundamentally incorrect.

By 'incorrect' you must mean you disagree. Fair enough.

Compared to PBP? No.
By FF standards, yes. I find it unlikely the average voter was all, 'You know what, IMF/economic meltdown aside, I'll give FF my vote'.

Labour shot themselves in the foot. People expected better and got FG lite.

I disagree as stated previously, lest I bang on further.

Podge_irl · 17-06-2019 6:44pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

By 'incorrect' you must mean you disagree. Fair enough.

Compared to PBP? No.
By FF standards, yes. I find it unlikely the average voter was all, 'You know what, IMF/economic meltdown aside, I'll give FF my vote'.

So your very strict definition of political wilderness starts above 25% but below 28%? The "average voter's" probability of voting for FF before and after the C&S has barely changed. So stop advocating it as something that has dragged FF back to political relevance as it flies in the face of the actual election results.

James Brown · 17-06-2019 7:26pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

So your very strict definition of political wilderness starts above 25% but below 28%? The "average voter's" probability of voting for FF before and after the C&S has barely changed. So stop advocating it as something that has dragged FF back to political relevance as it flies in the face of the actual election results.

My definition of political wilderness is falling from the sitting government to poor opposition level and unlikely to see government for many years only to be put back in with a say by Fine Gael. Look if you disagree, fair play, if you don't get my point I can't help you.

Loafing Oaf · 17-06-2019 7:50pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

My definition of political wilderness is falling from the sitting government to poor opposition level and unlikely to see government for many years only to be put back in with a say by Fine Gael.

I don't see how a government could have been formed in 2016 that was not grounded in some sort of arrangement between FF and FG, given that both parties had categorically ruled out any deal with SF. But supposing for argument's sake FG could somehow have managed it, it's not at all clear to me that FF would be in a weaker position as a result than they are under the current arrangement. FF has revelled in the role of populist opposition in the past, opportunistically hammering everything the government does, even though everyone knows they would likely be following very similar policies in office. IMO very possible that FF would have a clear and consistent lead over FG in the opinion polls if history had gone down that road.

James Brown · 17-06-2019 8:17pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I don't see how a government could have been formed in 2016 that was not grounded in some sort of arrangement between FF and FG, given that both parties had categorically ruled out any deal with SF. But supposing for argument's sake FG could somehow have managed it, it's not at all clear to me that FF would be in a weaker position as a result than they are under the current arrangement. FF has revelled in the role of populist opposition in the past, opportunistically hammering everything the government does, even though everyone knows they would likely be following very similar policies in office. IMO very possible that FF would have a clear and consistent lead over FG in the opinion polls if history had gone down that road.

We don't know. My opinion is FG helped FF in the last few years. Maybe they wouldn't be doing as well without the current arrangement making their opinion matter more than it might?
I think FF will have the upper hand next time. They can be as populist as they like if we see results for the tax payer. FG are stagnant and not for budging. We need a change, sadly that looks like FF.

Podge_irl · 18-06-2019 9:25am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

My definition of political wilderness is falling from the sitting government to poor opposition level and unlikely to see government for many years only to be put back in with a say by Fine Gael. Look if you disagree, fair play, if you don't get my point I can't help you.

I get your point entirely. Its just not grounded in any evidence whatsoever and in fact seems to have significant evidence against it in the nature of the last election results. Generally speaking if you are going to make a claim it would be good to explain the logic behind it - because clearly it can't be based on election results and opinion polls which are the most common source of info when it comes to discussions on the health of political parties. They were already the second biggest party and only a percentage point behind the biggest.

If your point is more philosophical in nature then fine, we can simply agree to disagree. But no actual data points to the current arrangement having any significant impact of the fortunes of FF.

blanch152 · 18-06-2019 11:09am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

My definition of political wilderness is falling from the sitting government to poor opposition level and unlikely to see government for many years only to be put back in with a say by Fine Gael. Look if you disagree, fair play, if you don't get my point I can't help you.

You keep blaming Fine Gael for giving Fianna Fail a say, but in reality it is the fault of the electorate. They voted in numbers - 25% - for Fianna Fail, while also voting in numbers for a collection of independents, Sinn Fein and Solidarity who had no wish (or indeed capability or capacity) to govern.

You cannot get away from the fact that those 25% of people who voted for Fianna Fail and the other c27% who voted for Sinn Fein, Solidarity and independents are actually the ones responsible for giving us this government.

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments