Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI Poll (January 2010)

Spiritoftheseventies

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Do you mean No, we ought not to elect the government best positioned for the future ? ?

Im saying we need a change of government.

johnnyskeleton

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think they have to too. But therein lies the problem. There is a sense of complacency in Fine Gael that is staggering. These things that are common sense to you and I wont happen easily. I cant see Kenny passing on the goblet (is that the saying?) even though the party would benefit immensely.

Ive said it before and ill say it again: a sizable proportion of people don't care about policy so much as personality. They want someone to shout "look at me, Ill fix this!" Kenny generally seems to be the biggest reason people dont want to vote Fine Gael. Its obvious he must go. But this is politics and the obvious is distorted by interests.

My view on why he is not replaced by Bruton or Lee is that, while people outside the party don't like Kenny and see him as a weak leader, those inside the party see him as a strong leader who picked up the shattered remains of FG and made a united party out of them. Don't forget that unlike FF - whose only policy is to get re-elected and divvy out the goodies and will say anything to achieve and subsequently cover up those goals - FG have a wide variety of political and economic views in the party from the slightly (very slightly) left of centre to the extreme right. You have the George Lees who are all about reforming the country and making a better, socially inclusive country, and you have others like Leo Varadkar who are, well, noisy borderline racists who believe in Regan style economics.

So there is a disconnect between the party faithful who support Kenny and the majority of voters who would rather someone a bit more forthright and honest. It's a pity that the FG members can't see this for themselves, but I've tried to explain it to a few party members who look at me blankly as though I don't really understand politics. I guess I really don't understand internal party politics, but I think that they fail to understand the true politics of being elected.

I would disagree with you but I am relatively young so I spend most of my time around the "new generation" who seem to have a different attitude. This family voting thing is going out of fashion. As is joining a party just because your father did. I think that there is the 20% FF "lock in" but that its only an excuse. The small mindedness is fading away.

I agree, and nowadays the 20% hardcore FF supporters are not doing so because of some civil war hangover, but are so because FF are the party of power and membership of FF guarantees certain goodies in terms of career advancement, job opportunities, connections and favours. If FF were kept out of power for 10-15 years, I think we would start to see this 20% core group fall apart and FF would be forced to actually think up some policies.

As an example I would ask you to cast your mind back to the John O'Donoghue furore. There were people on this Politics forum - who by definition are interested in Politics - who said that they would vote for Labour solely on the basis of Gilmores actions that day. People want leadership! Kenny doesn't offer it. Its obvious that FG need to change him so as to give the people what they are so blatantly crying out for.

There's another theory too, which is that FG don't want to get into power. Taking the reigns now is taking a sip from the poisoned chalice. They may be in power for a few years but the anger currently directed against FF would shortly be directed against them - for no other reason than that they don't bring with them an amazing change (such as Obama promised but has yet failed to deliver on). Clearly they would be better in government, if only for a change, but I suspect that they might also be afraid of the corrosive effect of being in power at the moment. That i suspect is why they are not too forceful when it comes to opposing FF's hare brained schemes.

Liam Byrne

The headline is biased and misleading, IMHO......the "tough budget" has nothing to do with it....

The reason they should be cast aside is what they did BEFORE that; to land us in this mess.

And if newspapers are already forgetting to remind us about that, then God help us, we might well have to suffer this shower of con-men after the next election.

Newspapers should be reminding people about the FF links to EVERYTHING that landed us in this mess, not a "third time lucky" budget that actually helped a little (even though it was a forced hand due to the seperate NAMA con-job).

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Do you mean No, we ought not to elect the government best positioned for the future ? ?

Who's that then ? :rolleyes:

Don't bother answering, because FF could cause pretty much anything and you'd still believe they were the best.

I reckon we should elect people who are interested in the future, and in having a fair and solvent country; a government who wants to see white-collar scum exposed and jailed, expenses con-men kicked out, and those without tax clearance evicted from our Dail.

We need reform. FF have had years to implement it and are not interested in doing so. Let them rot.

irishh_bob

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, do you have any reason to suspect Kenny will be pressured out?

From where Im standing it would seem that it is merely those in political positions holding on for their political lives. Party before country, person before party. Kenny would prefer leading a weak coalition to not leading a strong majority.

I think this may be why Lee is under wraps. To much of a chance the backbenchers would be muffed that the newcomer gets all the attention. Lee was political gold imo, they just had to play him. But they didn't. Reeks of political infighting.

agree about ditching kenny , dont agree with you on george lee , IMO he has been populist in the extreme since being elected and has hedged his bets on every single issue , he waffles so much , anytime i hear him on radio or tv , i tune out , make leo varadakarr taoiseach

irishh_bob

maynooth_rules wrote: »

No matter how unpopular Fianna Fail become with the electorate, they will still have there core supporters who would rather die that vote for anyone else, that is around 20% of the population (scary, i know). But other than that, there are plenty of the electorate who have become completly disillusioned with Fianna Fail but could not bring themselves to vote for Fine Gael. There is a limit to how popular Fine Gael can be due to history/family reasons. I personally could never see the day that Fine Gael get a full majority, mainly because many irish people stick to their votes and wont budge on it. I don't think a change of leadership will make one bit of difference to Fine Gaels overall support.

the number one criteria when it comes to people deciding who to vote for in this country is what way thier family tree voted

Spiritoftheseventies

irishh_bob wrote: »

the number one criteria when it comes to people deciding who to vote for in this country is what way thier family tree voted

do you not think it comes down to civil war politics. Cant say i was ever influenced by family tree but am very influenced by my teaching in school.

Pride Fighter

Even with Fianna Fail in the low 20's they would have to be over 10 points behind Labour to have catastrophic seat loses and to be the third party in size.

Cannot see it happen but hopefully it does:)

Eliot Rosewater

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

people outside the party don't like Kenny and see him as a weak leader, those inside the party see him as a strong leader

Well you seem to have a more of an insiders view than me. Thats an interesting theory. But are those in Fine Gael that naive of the public? For example, do they think the parties doing well? In my opinion its doing terrible considering the circumstances, but perhaps the FGers think its great.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

membership of FF guarantees certain goodies in terms of career advancement, job opportunities, connections and favours.

Ive heard this before,from an honest source too. Does that kind of thing actually happen?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There's another theory too, which is that FG don't want to get into power.

I agree that thats the case. However I think its a terrible tactic. They're doing only moderately ok. As it stands theyre going to crawl into Government with Labour. If they had stuck their noses out and really pulled out all the guns, they could have got an outright majority in my opinion. It may have ended up with them being in Government sooner, before the recession is out, but at least they would have the credibility and a full 5 years to get the economy sorted.

They took the easy, totally complacent option. Theyve missed what may be the only opportunity to get a majority in the Dail for decades.

irishh_bob wrote: »

agree about ditching kenny , dont agree with you on george lee

My point is really that what the politicians say doesnt matter, once they inspire confidence. Most people wont listen or analyze what Less says. His very presence will inspire them to vote FG. Imo. Fundementally, most people dont care half as much about politics as you me and everyone else here does.

irishh_bob

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

do you not think it comes down to civil war politics. Cant say i was ever influenced by family tree but am very influenced by my teaching in school.

same thing , people vote based on which side thier forefathers took , dont know about dublin but this is still the biggest decider in rural ireland , no matter what anyone says

Liam Byrne

irishh_bob wrote: »

same thing , people vote based on which side thier forefathers took , dont know about dublin but this is still the biggest decider in rural ireland , no matter what anyone says

Can't speak for everyone, but I know my dad used to vote FF until Charvet Conm-man took over, after which he backed O'Malley.

Unfortunately, the PDs (a) went into power with FF and (b) abandoned their watchdog role, so that's them dead and buried. They also went too far in terms of privatisation (feck-all social protection for essential services) for my liking, so even if they were still around I wouldn't be following even Dad's footsteps.

If a person or party stands up, does good, doesn't have double-standards, and aims for accountability and a fairer society, my vote's 100% up for grabs.

It's up to them.

Spiritoftheseventies

irishh_bob wrote: »

same thing , people vote based on which side thier forefathers took , dont know about dublin but this is still the biggest decider in rural ireland , no matter what anyone says

Yes from the time Dev used some of the Bonds money from his fundraising trip to America in 1920s to set up the press have always been a bit suspicious of FF. That and what happened with the Big Fella another factor why I have never voted for them.

Sulmac

The headline in tomorrow's (well, today's) Irish Times:

Catholic Church 'should give up control of primary schools'

STEPHEN COLLINS Political Editor

Mon, Jan 25, 2010

IN THE wake of the Murphy report a majority of people believe that the Catholic Church should give up its control of the primary school system, according to the latest Irish Times /Ipsos, MRBI poll.

When asked about the issue, 61 per cent of people said the church should give up control of the school system, 28 per cent said it should maintain its position and 11 per cent had no opinion on the matter.

Fianna Fáil voters were most supportive of the church maintaining its current role, while Sinn Féin voters were the most hostile to it continuing to have control of the system.

There were no great differences in terms of age. Over 65s were marginally more supportive of the church’s position, but the views of the 18-24 age group were almost identical.

There was also a uniform response in terms of social class but there were some regional variations with voters in Dublin most strongly against continuing church control and voters in the rest of Leinster most supportive. This reflected a national urban/rural divide on the issue, with the response of people in urban areas more negative than those in rural areas.

The poll was taken on Monday and Tuesday of last week among a representative sample of 1,000 voters aged 18 and over in face-to-face interviews at 100 sampling points in all 43 constituencies. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 per cent.

When asked if their attitude to the Catholic Church had changed following the disclosures in the Murphy report about its handling of child abuse allegations, voters were almost equally divided. Forty-seven per cent of voters said their attitude to the church had become more negative; 47 per cent said it had not changed; 3 per cent said it had become more positive; and 3 per cent had no opinion.

Asked how they felt about the response of the church to the Murphy report, 74 per cent said the church had not responded adequately, 16 per cent said it had, and 10 per cent had no opinion.

People aged 65 and over were more inclined to believe that the church had responded adequately but even in this age group a large majority felt the response had not been adequate.

Voters in Dublin were strongest in the view that the church had not responded adequately while those in Connacht/Ulster were most inclined to the view that it had responded adequately.

In party political terms Fianna Fáil voters were more inclined to say the church had responded adequately but a substantial majority of party supporters still felt that it had not responded adequately.

Sinn Féin voters were the most negative about the church’s response.

The only positive aspect of the poll from the church’s point of view is that a majority of voters believe that it will change to prevent clerical child abuse from happening in the future.

In response to being asked if they thought the church would change to prevent abuse 52 per cent said they believed it would, 35 per cent said it would not and 13 per cent had no opinion.

As with the other questions on the Murphy report, Fianna Fáil voters were most inclined to the view that the church would change with 61 per cent of them believing that it would.

Fine Gael voters were almost equally inclined to the same view with 57 per cent saying the church would change.

Labour Party supporters were more negative, followed by the Greens with Sinn Féin voters the only ones to show a majority for the view that the church would not change.

In age terms those over 50 and the 18-24s were most inclined to the view that the church would change to prevent abuse in the future. Across the regions Dublin was again the most negative from the church’s point of view while Munster was the most positive.

© 2010 The Irish Times

I hope the government take note and act on this (though the chances of that with this government are slim to nil). It's a joke that in this day and age we still have religiously-run publicly-funded education.

Hand 'em all over to the state (or the local VECs, whichever), I say. Although what is needed in many towns across the country is a merger of primary and secondary schools. Most towns across the country should have one large secondary school that accepts all students with modern facilities; instead of small towns having several, poorly funded schools - with varying levels of segregation depending on who runs them. This would also save a decent amount of money, I'd imagine.

If people want religious education they can teach their own children or, better yet, pay for it themselves.

irishh_bob

Sulmac wrote: »

The headline in tomorrow's (well, today's) Irish Times:



I hope the government take note and act on this (though the chances of that with this government are slim to nil). It's a joke that in this day and age we still have religiously-run publicly-funded education.

Hand 'em all over to the state (or the local VECs, whichever), I say. Although what is needed in many towns across the country is a merger of primary and secondary schools. Most towns across the country should have one large secondary school that accepts all students with modern facilities; instead of small towns having several, poorly funded schools - with varying levels of segregation depending on who runs them. This would also save a decent amount of money, I'd imagine.

If people want religious education they can teach their own children or, better yet, pay for it themselves.

thier is indeed huge scope for the merging of schools ( particulary primary ) in rural ireland , in the parish i live , thier are three primary schools , the largest which is closest to the village has 90 pupils , the one closest to where i live has 30 pupils and the smallest one has around 25 pupils , were all three to be merged into the largest school , the furthest any student would have to travel is three miles miles yet suggest such a thing and before you could say the term UP IN ARMS , you would have a legion of canvassers knocking on doors with a petition , too many people in this country want a school , hospital , sports stadium or international airport within spitting distance , its time we got real , its the same with rural garda stations , were the closest one to where i live , to be closed , it would only mean the guards took an extra 5 mins to reach my house from the town ( larger ) garda station , as for the line about locals needing to know thier garda , since when are guards stationed in thier home town and since when do they mingle with the locals

PomBear

Is Labour/SF coalition a possibility? Labour could tip it over FG in that way and be a leading party for once

View

PomBear wrote: »

Is Labour/SF coalition a possibility? Labour could tip it over FG in that way and be a leading party for once

I'd doubt it. Their combined total would leave them well shy of anything approaching a majority.

Also, I'd imagine that Labour would have no intention of opening the door for SF. The SDLP, if you recall, got little thanks from the electorate of NI for helping bring SF in from the cold.

If anything, I'd suspect that a deal with SF would cost Labour votes.

PomBear

View wrote: »

I'd doubt it. Their combined total would leave them well shy of anything approaching a majority.

Also, I'd imagine that Labour would have no intention of opening the door for SF. The SDLP, if you recall, got little thanks from the electorate of NI for helping bring SF in from the cold.

If anything, I'd suspect that a deal with SF would cost Labour votes.

SF are the biggest party in NI, the SDLP had little to do bring that about.

Labour identify most with SF as they're both left wing, thats why my mind came across the thought.

irishh_bob

PomBear wrote: »

SF are the biggest party in NI, the SDLP had little to do bring that about.

Labour identify most with SF as they're both left wing, thats why my mind came across the thought.

but they represent two distinctly different kind of left wing voters

View

PomBear wrote: »

SF are the biggest party in NI, the SDLP had little to do bring that about.

The SDLP were bigger than SF prior to and at the start of the peace process. At the time, the SDLP - John Hume in particular - went out of their way to open the door for SF. Now, after the peace process, SF are bigger than the SDLP.

I'd imagine that Labour is not going to open any doors here for SF and run the risk of experiencing the SDLP's fate.

PomBear wrote: »

Labour identify most with SF as they're both left wing, thats why my mind came across the thought.

FF and FG are both right wing (or, at least, non-left wing). I'd doubt they identify with each other all that often.

Labour voter's have the second highest average socio-economic standard of living (After the Greens). I wouldn't say that Labour's voters would be all that thrilled about a deal with SF.

PomBear

View wrote: »

The SDLP were bigger than SF prior to and at the start of the peace process. At the time, the SDLP - John Hume in particular - went out of their way to open the door for SF. Now, after the peace process, SF are bigger than the SDLP.

I'd imagine that Labour is not going to open any doors here for SF and run the risk of experiencing the SDLP's fate.



FF and FG are both right wing (or, at least, non-left wing). I'd doubt they identify with each other all that often.

Labour voter's have the second highest average socio-economic standard of living (After the Greens). I wouldn't say that Labour's voters would be all that thrilled about a deal with SF.

True enough, agree with all that. I just believe Labour look after their policies more than what they believe will get them voted in or atleast save their seats. Thats the sad state that irish politics has been in for as long as I can remember that they care more about keeping/gaining seats then actually represent the people that vote for them

dvpower

PomBear wrote: »

Is Labour/SF coalition a possibility? Labour could tip it over FG in that way and be a leading party for once

The prospect of a LAB/SF coalition. That's enough to get FF re-elected.:eek:

johnnyskeleton

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well you seem to have a more of an insiders view than me. Thats an interesting theory. But are those in Fine Gael that naive of the public? For example, do they think the parties doing well? In my opinion its doing terrible considering the circumstances, but perhaps the FGers think its great.

I don't think they are that naieve of the public perception of Kenny, so much as entrenched in their own way of thinking. They are so used to getting in the region of 25-30% of the vote in a good election, so as far as they are concerned they are doing really well at the moment. This is reinforced by the fact that the Kenny's particular brand of vanilla unites the different fractions within the party and they are perhaps afraid that if he is gone the part will fragment.

Again, my pet theory is that they don't actually want to get into power just yet, so they don't want to peak too soon. IMO, they could end up not peaking at all at this rate, and I'd hate to see FF spin it that they fixed the economy or the like.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Ive heard this before,from an honest source too. Does that kind of thing actually happen?

FAS, Chambers of Commerce, government contracts, FF tent at the galway races. Occasionally over the last few years a non loyal FF lawyer was made a judge, but they are very much the exception to the rule.

Have no illusions; FG/Lab would be just as bad if they were in power for as long as FF.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I agree that thats the case. However I think its a terrible tactic. They're doing only moderately ok. As it stands theyre going to crawl into Government with Labour. If they had stuck their noses out and really pulled out all the guns, they could have got an outright majority in my opinion. It may have ended up with them being in Government sooner, before the recession is out, but at least they would have the credibility and a full 5 years to get the economy sorted.

They took the easy, totally complacent option. Theyve missed what may be the only opportunity to get a majority in the Dail for decades.

It's a risky strategy. The conventional wisdom is that FF run the country on pork barrel politics for a few years until the economy goes tits up, then FG/Lab get the country back on its feet taking a few years and a lot of painful decisions. When they finally have the country back on its feet, the country resents them. I suppose the best analogy is that of the strict father and the doting mother. FF, like the ever loving mother, gives the people what they want whenever they want it, even though it's not good for them. Then when they mess up the da takes off the belt. The public (the child in this analogy) will naturally prefer the mother and perhaps resent the father, even though in the long term the father is the one who instills a sense of right and wrong in the child.

So FG are saying to FF that they should clean up their own mess, rather than letting FG do all the dirty work only to come back with gifts for all the good children.

View

PomBear wrote: »

True enough, agree with all that. I just believe Labour look after their policies more than what they believe will get them voted in or atleast save their seats. Thats the sad state that irish politics has been in for as long as I can remember that they care more about keeping/gaining seats then actually represent the people that vote for them

I don't agree with that. Labour, like the other political parties, advocates a set of policies in their election manifesto. The presumption then is that:

1. people who vote for them either agree with their policies (or at least prefer them to those of other parties),
2. people who don't vote for them either disagree with their policies and/or prefer the policies of another party.

As such, Labour - should they end up in Government - would then see themselves as representing the people who vote for them by trying to implement those policies.

PS Yes, I admit there are voters who might vote for them because they like the local candidate and/or are engaging in tactical voting to keep someone else out, but these get counted in with the regular voters due to the difficulty of seperating them out.

PomBear

dvpower wrote: »

The prospect of a LAB/SF coalition. That's enough to get FF re-elected.:eek:

What else would you see?

PomBear

View wrote: »

I don't agree with that. Labour, like the other political parties, advocates a set of policies in their election manifesto. The presumption then is that:

1. people who vote for them either agree with their policies (or at least prefer them to those of other parties),
2. people who don't vote for them either disagree with their policies and/or prefer the policies of another party.

As such, Labour - should they end up in Government - would then see themselves as representing the people who vote for them by trying to implement those policies.

PS Yes, I admit there are voters who might vote for them because they like the local candidate and/or are engaging in tactical voting to keep someone else out, but these get counted in with the regular voters due to the difficulty of seperating them out.

You're talking as if there aren't people who vote FF/FG because their fathers or mothers do/did. People who vote for them because it's an easy option. People who SF because they're republican (or FF:p). There is tribal voting for tribal politics. Going by your basis, FF wouldn't have a vote. Lets be honest here, most the Irish voters are sheep who will do they're told. It'll be a long time we see something than FF or FG running the country

dvpower

PomBear wrote: »

What else would you see?

FG/LAB would appear to be likely. FG would be the senior partner moderating some of Labour's spending tendencies.

Edit: I've never voted FF in my life, but I would still prefer the current FF/GP government to a LAB/SF alternative.

Spiritoftheseventies

dvpower wrote: »

FG/LAB would appear to be likely. FG would be the senior partner moderating some of Labour's spending tendencies.

Edit: I've never voted FF in my life, but I would still prefer the current FF/GP government to a LAB/SF alternative.

is there any chance of SF being in Coalition?

eigrod

Jesus wept, but the people are being taken in.

If we have to face another 5-7 years of these cowboys, I think I'll just never bother voting again in my life.

This is frightening.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0130/poll.html

Poll shows jump in support for Fianna Fáil
Saturday, 30 January 2010 18:02
There has been a substantial increase in support for Fianna Fáil since the Budget, according to the latest opinion poll.

The Red C poll in tomorrow's Sunday Business Post shows the party's support up four points, while both Fine Gael and Sinn Féin have lost two points since the last Red C poll two months ago.

Support for Fianna Fáil is at 27%. Fine Gael, at 34%, remains well ahead of its main rival, although the gap has narrowed significantly.

AdvertisementSupport for Labour is unchanged at 17% and the Greens are also unchanged at 5% while Sinn Féin are now at 8%

Independents and others are unchanged at 9%.

Support for the government parties usually rises over Christmas when the Dáil is not sitting.

The next Red C poll in a month's time will give a better indication of whether the increase in Fianna Fáil support is a once off, or the start of a trend

Sulmac

I hope this is some kind of post-Christmas jump and only temporary (although, keep it in perspective, FG alone are still larger than FF/GP, and with Labour are well over half of the electorate).

I still fear what will happen to party support if we officially "emerge" from recession this year, like the Central Bank and others predict.

edit: If possible, could a mod change the thread title to "January 2010 opinion polls" or something like that? It seems I'm unable to. Thanks!

Euro_Kraut

eigrod wrote: »

If we have to face another 5-7 years of these cowboys, I think I'll just never bother voting again in my life.

That will teach them

You wont vote because some people disagree with your own voting intentions. Think you need to think this one through a little bit more.



FF are coming from a very low base, there always had to be slight bump at some point. The budget seems to have been relatively well received and the tough line on the public sector seems to be bearing fruit.

Also there may be a element of sympathy for Brain Lenihan reflected in these numbers.