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
Is a Fianna Fail - Sinn Fein coalition inevitable?
Options
Comments
-
Fianna fail, no way.
How do people forget???? This time 10 years ago, we were fuked. Big time...
In December 2009, they had a third budget in 14 months. It was horrible. Google it.
But of course they blamed the 2008 economic downturn on everyone/everything but themselves.
I'll never forgive them, never.
Sure this housing crisis is a carryover from their decisions since the turn of the century.
And their leader did an excellent job behind the wheel at the department of health haha.
What a spoofer!!!!!0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »There's many an and or but in that blog. It's open to interpretation. Do you think there's a crisis? If yes, this discussion is pointless. If no, I disagree, as does the UN and Fine Gael along with any other political party including the Greens. So not sure why you are obsessing on this line when nobody but yourself and wheels seem to want to.
Basically the blog (by a very respected economist) demonstrates that the housing problem in Ireland is actually not as bad as the rest of Europe, and possibly a lot better. There is a huge amount of supporting hard information. Yet all you can respond is that there's many an and or but in that blog and a crisis soundbite? And you are calling another poster a dodger?
Everytime I hear one of the opposition politicians whining about record numbers of homeless people, I wonder whether they ever stop to think about the fact that we have record numbers of people who are not homeless, that the number of households in the country is at a record high?
The solutions to the housing crisis are simple (I would accept that there is a housing crisis rather than a homeless crisis). Firstly, allow the banks to make repossessions much more easily, freeing up supply for those who can afford to buy and reducing mortgage interest rates. Secondly, tell Dublin City Council to start allowing high-rise buildings between the canals. Thirdly, the local authorities in Dublin must ensure that all zoned land within the M50 is properly serviced. That means getting on with a whole load of things, including the new waste treatment plant in Donabate. Fourthly, the council should focus on redevelopment in the inner city with densification of its existing stock. Finally, good tenants must get security and tenure, but it has to be made much much easier to evict bad tenants. One of the reasons for the high rents is the inability to get rid of bad tenants. Both the housing market and the rental market must be liquid to function, that isn't the case at the moment.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »We don't know if SF would bankrupt the place. We know FF have and we know FG oversee worsening crises. I don't think it makes sense to stick with alternating between two not fit for purpose entities because SF might do something. Fair point for any reservations but are we to stick with the FF/FG combo because they've the experience? Be it SF or whom ever, we seriously need a break from FF/FG IMO.
Firstly, you're correct, we do not know if SF will bankrupt the place. As it is the future, we can only make assumptions based on what they have done/said.
Secondly, you said (paraphrasing) that you disagree with voting for FF/FG because SF might do something. I personally vote for FG, not because of what SF might do, but because of what they promise/promised to do. You only have to look at the nonsense they were proposing as "a fairer way" around the time of the bailout. Do you think the country as a whole would be better/worse off than we are now had we taken the SF approach?
Of course people like Pearse Doherty and SF supporters will bat that away with a "whatabout the homeless" soundbite, but it doesn't change the facts of why people will not vote SF.
Of course you are free to disagree with any/all of the above, but that is my opinion and one that is shared by others I have spoken to. The argument by some (not referring to you) seems to be "let SF in and they cannot do any worse", well for that to be true Ireland would have to be the worst country in the world, or at least worst developed country.
And I do agree with you, we need a break from the big 2, I just don't see who will give us that break from the current candidates.0 -
...and how are Sinn Fein going to fix that?FG haven't messed up on housing. Housing is going exactly as FG want it to go right now, this is what they are.
I've a house with a reasonable mortgage and I'm insulated from all this but any party that comes up with a plan that addresses housing for the average joe in a sustainable manner will get my vote.0 -
"The 2008 economic downturn" is a weird way of describing the biggest global economic crash in history.Fianna fail, no way.
How do people forget???? This time 10 years ago, we were fuked. Big time...
In December 2009, they had a third budget in 14 months. It was horrible. Google it.
But of course they blamed the 2008 economic downturn on everyone/everything but themselves.
I'll never forgive them, never.
Sure this housing crisis is a carryover from their decisions since the turn of the century.
And their leader did an excellent job behind the wheel at the department of health haha.
What a spoofer!!!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »"The 2008 economic downturn" is a weird way of describing the biggest global economic crash in history.
I thought the great depression held that title?0 -
Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »...and how are Sinn Fein going to fix that?
Hopefully they'll in the least stop it getting worse as is currently the case.
Fianna Fail will be the big danger IMO. If people are worried about giveaways to the taxpayers loss.
The main difference;
FG are happy to spend tax monies on a flawed series of policies, waste money in some cases, be it any area you choose, health, housing etc. where the problems not only persist but become worse.
SF will likely invest heavily in social housing, health, education etc. Will we get value for money? I don't know, but in the least we might stem the tide of worsening crises.
FF? a mix of the two, heavy on the 'looking after our own'.
Going into government with FF to get bums on seats never works out for the junior partner.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Hopefully they'll in the least stop it getting worse as is currently the case.
Fianna Fail will be the big danger IMO. If people are worried about giveaways to the taxpayers loss.
The main difference;
FG are happy to spend tax monies on a flawed series of policies, waste money in some cases, be it any area you choose, health, housing etc. where the problems not only persist but become worse.
SF will likely invest heavily in social housing, health, education etc. Will we get value for money? I don't know, but in the least we might stem the tide of worsening crises.
FF? a mix of the two, heavy on the 'looking after our own'.
Going into government with FF to get bums on seats never works out for the junior partner.
Health's budget is getting bigger every year. Do you see any improvements in it? Therefore your statement is incorrect.
In fact, reducing Health spending would see improvements. Allocate the money to competition driven clinics to take care of the routine procedures to bypass the public sector waste.0 -
Health's budget is getting bigger every year. Do you see any improvements in it? Therefore your statement is incorrect.
In fact, reducing Health spending would see improvements. Allocate the money to competition driven clinics to take care of the routine procedures to bypass the public sector waste.
So you know they won't put money into it and wouldn't improve it?
Where is this money to be allocated coming from, would you say anyone carrying out such an action would be investing in health?
Many agree there's too much money spent, in the wrong places, but it will still require investment I'd imagine. Maybe they take a leaf from FG's book and simply say, 'I don't know/nobody told us about it' when the money is spent and asked on what and why? Or maybe they'll keep an eye on public spending, hold themselves accountable? That would be another difference.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Hopefully they'll in the least stop it getting worse as is currently the case.
Things are getting worse? You really believe that? Things are getting better now, maybe not as quickly as everyone wants, maybe not in every sector and every place, but overall, things are definitely getting better.Matt Barrett wrote: »Fianna Fail will be the big danger IMO. If people are worried about giveaways to the taxpayers loss.
Yes, I agree, the big danger is that FF will give in to SF and form a government with them.Matt Barrett wrote: »The main difference;
FG are happy to spend tax monies on a flawed series of policies, waste money in some cases, be it any area you choose, health, housing etc. where the problems not only persist but become worse.
SF will likely invest heavily in social housing, health, education etc. Will we get value for money? I don't know, but in the least we might stem the tide of worsening crises.
FF? a mix of the two, heavy on the 'looking after our own'.
Yes, we all know that Sinn Fein will tax unicorns and rainbows to finance their investment on social housing and health. It won't work, because the unicorns and rainbows don't exist, and they have no idea how to spend the money.Matt Barrett wrote: »Going into government with FF to get bums on seats never works out for the junior partner.
Usually not, but for the PDs, it worked for a while. After the next election, even though SF will probably lose seats, they will have an opportunity to form a government. Ultimately it will come down to whether they will continue to hurl from the ditch or step up to play senior inter-county. My money is on them running away, but I could be wrong.0 -
Advertisement
-
Blanch....
Predicting the shinners will lose seats in the next election since 1997 (probably).0 -
How closely have you looked? Have you looked at the improvements in cancer survival rates or stroke survival rates? Have you looked at the increase in A&E patients seen each year?Health's budget is getting bigger every year. Do you see any improvements in it? Therefore your statement is incorrect.
Or do you get your information from Joe Duffy?In fact, reducing Health spending would see improvements. Allocate the money to competition driven clinics to take care of the routine procedures to bypass the public sector waste.
Speaking of Joe Duffy, have a listen to the lady on today's show who went to have her baby in a private hospital and ended up needing 14 further surgeries over the next three years to repair the damage they did to her. She lost her relationship and nearly lost her house at the hands of your beloved competition driven clinics.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »How closely have you looked? Have you looked at the improvements in cancer survival rates or stroke survival rates?
How closely have you looked? Improvements in medical technology and better screening (insurance companies offer a free heart screen service for example, as well as the cerivcal and bowel checks) are also factors in improved rates.
You have proved my point.
Prior to Mary Harney, cancer treatment was a mis-mash of local interests where every crossroads had cancer treatment.
She had the fore-sight to drive through the bull-shit and set up dedicated centres of excellence.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Have you looked at the increase in A&E patients seen each year?
Thanks again for proving my point. The HSE is so dysfunctional the solution to every medical need (emergency or not) is to land everyone in A&E, causing the bottlenecks there.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Speaking of Joe Duffy, have a listen to the lady on today's show who went to have her baby in a private hospital and ended up needing 14 further surgeries over the next three years to repair the damage they did to her. She lost her relationship and nearly lost her house at the hands of your beloved competition driven clinics.
And there are never no bad outcomes to medical procedures in public hospitals?0 -
Yes, the Cervical Check service (provided by the HSE) and the Bowel Check service (provided by the HSE) have played their part in improving cancer survival rates as well. And the improvements in medical technology (procured, maintained and used by the HSE) have been helpful too. Thanks for proving my point.How closely have you looked? Improvements in medical technology and better screening (insurance companies offer a free heart screen service for example, as well as the cerivcal and bowel checks) are also factors in improved rates.
You have proved my point.
Prior to Mary Harney, cancer treatment was a mis-mash of local interests where every crossroads had cancer treatment.
She had the fore-sight to drive through the bull-shit and set up dedicated centres of excellence.
And you're right about Harney and the centres of excellence (implemented and managed by the HSE) - but what's that got to do with privatisation?
You've noticed our population is increasing, right? You have a point about our over-dependance on EDs, but the fact remains that SVUH dealt with 6% more patients last year with the same resources as before.Thanks again for proving my point. The HSE is so dysfunctional the solution to every medical need (emergency or not) is to land everyone in A&E, causing the bottlenecks there.
Yes, of course there are - but you know how private hospitals work, right? They cherry-pick the nice, routine, profitable cases, and when things get tough, they dump the patient back on the public system. I spent a lot of time in Holles St in the past. A lot of the mums in there were tricky cases of twins that were dumped back on the public system by Mt Carmel. Look at how the private cosmetic clinics dump back on the public system when things go wrong. It's easy to run a profitable service when you don't have to clean up your own mess.And there are never no bad outcomes to medical procedures in public hospitals?0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »You've noticed our population is increasing, right? You have a point about our over-dependance on EDs, but the fact remains that SVUH dealt with 6% more patients last year with the same resources as before.
And the budgets are getting bigger every year. Ireland spends a huge amount of money per capita on health, despite being a young population.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Yes, of course there are - but you know how private hospitals work, right? They cherry-pick the nice, routine, profitable cases, and when things get tough, they dump the patient back on the public system. I spent a lot of time in Holles St in the past. A lot of the mums in there were tricky cases of twins that were dumped back on the public system by Mt Carmel. Look at how the private cosmetic clinics dump back on the public system when things go wrong. It's easy to run a profitable service when you don't have to clean up your own mess.
And that's the way it should be. Take the routine cases and care off the HSE and tender out to private hospitals. Doctors working in both systems always get far more done privately than same procedures publicly.
If things go wrong or for complex cases, this should be a slim-lined HSE's focus. So that the cost is not borne by one individual or hospital but by the pool of taxpayers, delivered in centres of excellence not centres that are opened for the benefit of staff.
Why does the HSE have 50 payroll offices around the country?
If you have a child coming into adult-hood, would you continue to pour unlimited amount of money at them? Of course you wouldn't, it destroys them.
The same should be the same for the HSE. Pouring money makes them worse and even more useless. A good cull of the system would do a world of wonders for everyone.0 -
And the budgets are getting bigger every year. Ireland spends a huge amount of money per capita on health, despite being a young population.
International comparisons are risky. You need to ensure that you're comparing like with like. UK does most services for people with disabilities through local authorities as social care, so it doesn't show as 'health spending' unlike in Ireland. Comparing the two figures is misleading.
We compare reasonable well to our peers on health spending, though we're still recovering from decades of under-investment in the 80s and the 90s.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30461-6/fulltext
I don't suppose you've any evidence of how this approach would be better or more efficient?And that's the way it should be. Take the routine cases and care off the HSE and tender out to private hospitals. Doctors working in both systems always get far more done privately than same procedures publicly.
If things go wrong or for complex cases, this should be a slim-lined HSE's focus. So that the cost is not borne by one individual or hospital but by the pool of taxpayers, delivered in centres of excellence not centres that are opened for the benefit of staff.
I dunno, but I guess it might be something to do with the fact that they're the biggest employer in the country with over 100k direct staff and a further 200k staff funded. Where did you get that figure from, btw?Why does the HSE have 50 payroll offices around the country?
Except the HSE isn't a child, or a business. It's a health service. Maybe you should do some research on what works for health services.If you have a child coming into adult-hood, would you continue to pour unlimited amount of money at them? Of course you wouldn't, it destroys them.
The same should be the same for the HSE. Pouring money makes them worse and even more useless. A good cull of the system would do a world of wonders for everyone.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »
I don't suppose you've any evidence of how this approach would be better or more efficient?
You are sitting about the house going blind with cataracts.
You are given a choice of waiting for endless years a HSE waiting list. Or you can go private through the National Treatment Purchase Fund at be seen in a few weeks. Which would you choose?
How's that for research for you.AndrewJRenko wrote: »I dunno, but I guess it might be something to do with the fact that they're the biggest employer in the country with over 100k direct staff and a further 200k staff funded. Where did you get that figure from, btw?
And that stops them from being more efficient? Look at the mess they made of PPARS. Their structure is such a mess (helped by tacking on various allowances and strike work-arounds, it was impossible to streamline into one IT system.AndrewJRenko wrote: »
Except the HSE isn't a child, or a business. It's a health service. Maybe you should do some research on what works for health services.
Maybe people like you should realize pouring money into the system does not work. It only allows them hire more managers and paper pushers that further hangs the system in red tape.
Health spending should be cut and cut drastically and the routine care tendered out.
Look at the Aras Attracta scandal. If that was a tendered practice, they would never again get a contract from the HSE and would rightly close and those 'managers' put on the dole and forever shunned by other employers. But because it a HSE facility, it cannot be got rid off and staff not sacked.0 -
Eh no, that's not research at all. That's a hypothetical scenario. Research would involve looking at how things have been done in other countries and seeing how successful or otherwise these have been before coming up with a solution. What you're doing is listening to Newstalk jocks and thinking that they know what they're talking about. Which they don't.You are sitting about the house going blind with cataracts.
You are given a choice of waiting for endless years a HSE waiting list. Or you can go private through the National Treatment Purchase Fund at be seen in a few weeks. Which would you choose?
How's that for research for you.
BTW, the answer to your question is of course that I'd choose to have my procedure on the NTPF if that was the quickest and cheapest option for me. I've used private healthcare in the past, and I'll probably use it again in the future. But you're asking the wrong question.
The real question is why we have a scheme like the NTPF that incentivises consultants to have long waiting lists in their public practice so they get paid a second time for treating the same patient in their private practice via NTPF?
It was actually the health boards that made a mess with PPARS. It pre-dated the HSE. It was the HSE that had the guts and the brains to put the project out of its misery and kill it off.
And that stops them from being more efficient? Look at the mess they made of PPARS. Their structure is such a mess (helped by tacking on various allowances and strike work-arounds, it was impossible to streamline into one IT system.
You do know that they've gone ahead with a combined payroll system since then, right? I think it is SAP Payroll, though I'm not certain of that. Like most public sector IT projects, you don't hear anything about it when it goes right.
So the +671 care staff (mostly health care assistants) hired last year don't count? And the +287 nursing and midwifery staff? And the +287 social care professionals? And the +171 medical / dental staff?Maybe people like you should realize pouring money into the system does not work. It only allows them hire more managers and paper pushers that further hangs the system in red tape.
Health spending should be cut and cut drastically and the routine care tendered out.
Look at the Aras Attracta scandal. If that was a tendered practice, they would never again get a contract from the HSE and would rightly close and those 'managers' put on the dole and forever shunned by other employers. But because it a HSE facility, it cannot be got rid off and staff not sacked.
They did sack the staff at Aras Attracta. And you really don't have a clue about how public sector tendering works if you think you can blacklist organisations.
So is there anything more behind your ideas, other than opinions?0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »@ wheeliebin, that's a bit unfair, you've been shown by multiple posters (and the very source you linked to) that your 21%/1 in 5 argument was based on nothing more than mere speculation with a little splash of wisfulness on your part.
People have posted over and over again giving detailed information as to why your statement is incorrect (the report you linked to said it was uncertain how many it applied to)
.
Are you saying 21% of those on the homeless list are not from outside the eu?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Eh no, that's not research at all. That's a hypothetical scenario. Research would involve looking at how things have been done in other countries and seeing how successful or otherwise these have been before coming up with a solution. What you're doing is listening to Newstalk jocks and thinking that they know what they're talking about. Which they don't.
BTW, the answer to your question is of course that I'd choose to have my procedure on the NTPF if that was the quickest and cheapest option for me. I've used private healthcare in the past, and I'll probably use it again in the future.
Thanks for proving my point. As I said the routine procedures should be stripped off the HSE and the associated paper pushing deadwood (maybe some of the 1000 excess HR mangers there for example) should be put out.AndrewJRenko wrote: »But you're asking the wrong question.
The real question is why we have a scheme like the NTPF that incentivises consultants to have long waiting lists in their public practice so they get paid a second time for treating the same patient in their private practice via NTPF?
Err, because without having consultants, there would be no NTPF.
Without NTPF, the HSE waiting lists would be even worse and by the time you are treated, you'd be blind.
You should be grateful consultants are willing to split their time private and public.AndrewJRenko wrote: »It was actually the health boards that made a mess with PPARS. It pre-dated the HSE. It was the HSE that had the guts and the brains to put the project out of its misery and kill it off.
You do know that they've gone ahead with a combined payroll system since then, right? I think it is SAP Payroll, though I'm not certain of that. Like most public sector IT projects, you don't hear anything about it when it goes right.
Their payroll is a mess. Have a look at the grade structure online. See how many different payroll offices they have to deal with queries.AndrewJRenko wrote: »So the +671 care staff (mostly health care assistants) hired last year don't count? And the +287 nursing and midwifery staff? And the +287 social care professionals? And the +171 medical / dental staff?
They did sack the staff at Aras Attracta. And you really don't have a clue about how public sector tendering works if you think you can blacklist organisations.
So is there anything more behind your ideas, other than opinions?
Thanks for proving my point.
If their tendering does not take into account past performance of a service provider says it all really on what we can expect from the public service model.0 -
If Mehall doe not get the Taoiseach job after the next GE, he will be replaced as leader of FF.
It has to be with SF
I cannot see any workable alternative for FF0 -
The only point this proves is that the current two tier system is madness - incentivising consultants to NOT treat public patients so they get paid a second time for treating the same patient. I'm not sure where you got the '1000 excess managers' from - probably from an off the cuff remark by a departing manager from about ten years ago. How about we rely on actual evidence rather than glib remarks?Thanks for proving my point. As I said the routine procedures should be stripped off the HSE and the associated paper pushing deadwood (maybe some of the 1000 excess HR mangers there for example) should be put out.
Who mentioned not having consultants? Of course we need consultants, and we need lots more consultants, and we probably need to pay them more than the current level given the vacancy levels and number of unqualified 'consultants' at present.Err, because without having consultants, there would be no NTPF.
Without NTPF, the HSE waiting lists would be even worse and by the time you are treated, you'd be blind.
You should be grateful consultants are willing to split their time private and public.
Tell us more about what the grade structure for an organisation of 100,000+ staff should look like? How many payroll offices do they have? How many should they have?Their payroll is a mess. Have a look at the grade structure online. See how many different payroll offices they have to deal with queries.Thanks for proving my point.
If their tendering does not take into account past performance of a service provider says it all really on what we can expect from the public service model.
How you about you read what I actually said rather than exaggerating for your own purposes? There is no 'public service model'. There is procurement law, Irish and European law.
You can indeed take past performance into account, when you have a fair method for judging this, one that doesn't penalise a vendor who hasn't worked for the organisation before or reward an organisation solely for past work for the same organisation.
If a provider does crap work, you don't pay them for THAT job. If you try blacklisting a provider, you'll find yourself at the wrong end of a Court injunction.
A fair method of assessing performance, whether for the tendering organisation or other organisations is fine.0 -
If Mehall doe not get the Taoiseach job after the next GE, he will be replaced as leader of FF.
It has to be with SF
I cannot see any workable alternative for FF
Despite any claims to a political ethos it may just be a matter of who's on top in the next FF/FG love in. For stability like.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Despite any claims to a political ethos it may just be a matter of who's on top in the next FF/FG love in. For stability like.
FF wont accept another FG led government.
I think they will have to bite the bullet as the current arrangement makes SF the defacto opposition.
The best way to destroy SF would be to bring them into coalition with FF (c.f. Progressive Democrats, Greens)0 -
FF wont accept another FG led government.
I think they will have to bite the bullet as the current arrangement makes SF the defacto opposition.
The best way to destroy SF would be to bring them into coalition with FF (c.f. Progressive Democrats, Greens)
I don't know about that. FF are happy enough now with that situation.
Sadly FF are still technically able to call themselves opposition as laughable as they are.
FF/FG will not risk giving SF such oxygen. FG would rather give defacto power to the party 'practically had us eating out of bins' because it helps protect the status quo. Giving SF a nod might destroy the FF/FG monopoly and that monopoly is more dear to their hearts than any political ethos or policies or faux morals they may feign association with or claim to be against.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I don't know about that. FF are happy enough now with that situation.
Sadly FF are still technically able to call themselves opposition as laughable as they are.
FF/FG will not risk giving SF such oxygen. FG would rather give defacto power to the party 'practically had us eating out of bins' because it helps protect the status quo. Giving SF a nod might destroy the FF/FG monopoly and that monopoly is more dear to their hearts than any political ethos or policies or faux morals they may feign association with or claim to be against.
FF cannot afford to either prop up another FG government or go into coalition with FG as their voters would desert them for other parties.
That leaves two options after the next elections.
(1) A coalition between FF and SF, because SF will have campaigned on the basis that a change is needed and going in with FG would be hypocritical.
(2) FG do really well and cobble enough from the Greens, Labour, SD and independents to form a stable government.
My money is on (1).0 -
FF cannot afford to either prop up another FG government or go into coalition with FG as their voters would desert them for other parties.
That leaves two options after the next elections.
(1) A coalition between FF and SF, because SF will have campaigned on the basis that a change is needed and going in with FG would be hypocritical.
(2) FG do really well and cobble enough from the Greens, Labour, SD and independents to form a stable government.
My money is on (1).
I both love and loathe that out come. I'd hate to see any party side with FF and I'd expect SF to come out the worse, however we badly need a change from FF/FG so any moves in that direction is a positive.
The kind of people who support FF, will continue to do so. They hardly support them because of their ethics. Not saying they don't get a share of floaters.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I both love and loathe that out come. I'd hate to see any party side with FF and I'd expect SF to come out the worse, however we badly need a change from FF/FG so any moves in that direction is a positive.
The kind of people who support FF, will continue to do so. They hardly support them because of their ethics. Not saying they don't get a share of floaters.
To be fair, other options are possible, though they have very low probability.
(3) A new FF leader might prop up a FG government for a few months to a year while they find their feet.
(4) Ditto a new FG leader if FG do really really badly and finish behind FF.
The other problem with these two options is that they will not offer any stability at all. After the last few years of a paralysed minority government, the one thing we need is for a government to have freedom to actually take decisions.0 -
Advertisement
-
FF cannot afford to either prop up another FG government or go into coalition with FG as their voters would desert them for other parties.
That leaves two options after the next elections.
(1) A coalition between FF and SF, because SF will have campaigned on the basis that a change is needed and going in with FG would be hypocritical.
(2) FG do really well and cobble enough from the Greens, Labour, SD and independents to form a stable government.
My money is on (1).
Both FF and FG are eyeing up their own versions of option 2, according to this article https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/fine-gael-tries-to-woo-potential-coalition-partners-1.3868595
However I agree with you that barring some extraordinary turnabout there is no way FF will have the numbers to form such a government. And at the moment it's looking like a longshot that FG will either.
If FF come in second behind FG again, they will face a range of unpalatable options, and I think it's quite likely that Martin will immediately resign and leave the choice to his successor. I wouldn't rule out a reprise of the current arrangement, on the basis that it would be the worst option for FF, apart from all the others.0
Advertisement