6.7 % rate for the bailout.

whysomoody

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that last time we looked, the most respectable moneylenders were charging north of 8%.

That's a higher figure than might have been expected, but one thing it does is make us reluctant to actually use the facility, and keen to get back into the bond markets, because the minute the bond rates drop below 6.7% it makes no sense to draw against the facility any more.

Won't make sense if we're paying interest on the mere existence of the facility, though, and pretty bad if we have to draw down most or all of the facility.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

The "markets" will understand, its what they would do under similar circumstances - theyll probably welcome the surprising outbreak of common sense.

They will understand but they won't lend to us.

Scofflaw wrote: »

That makes more sense, since the EU member states are drumming the money up from other investors and their own sovereign funds. Still, unless the EU rate is much much higher than 5.2%, you're still not going to get within touching distance of 6.7% for the combination. Assuming two-thirds of the bailout is provided by the EU and by the member states, you'd need them to charge 7.83% on their portion to hit 6.7% overall, which is a figure you wouldn't bother describing as "averaging more than 5.2%".

I wonder if Fine Gael would "leak" scary numbers to damage the government...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Your posts are by far the most sensible on here. Good work.

ArtSmart

whysomoody wrote: »

They will understand but they won't lend to us.



Your posts are by far the most sensible on here. Good work.

well, the most measured in tone anyway...

ArtSmart

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/it%E2%80%99s-not-ireland-that-needs-a-bailout-%E2%80%93-it%E2%80%99s-the-european-lender-of-last-resort-the-ecb/

bit of a radical take, but what the heck at this stage...

Scofflaw

ArtSmart wrote: »

well, the most measured in tone anyway...

Me and Brian Lenihan both...

amused,
Scofflaw

hotmail.com

IF FG did leak this, why haven't the Government commented on the reports and made a vague statement that goes like " nothing has been decided, we're still in negotiations, going forward" - the usual mantra.

They've had several hours to address the reports and they've decided to let this story run.

ArtSmart

hotmail.com wrote: »

IF FG did leak this, why haven't the Government commented on the reports and made a vague statement that goes like " nothing has been decided, we're still in negotiations, going forward" - the usual mantra.

They've had several hours to address the reports and they've decided to let this story run.

xactly. RTE aint exactly small fry.

lightspeed

I have to ask the question of could ireland survive if we did not take this bail out from the IMF and let the bon holders go and f**k themselves.
Im guessing it would ultimately lead to ireland getting kicked out of the eu
but given the circumstances would that be so bad?
I found it interesting when RTE interviewed reporters that were in dublin when the IMF arrived. They were talking to a guy from switzerland and he said that it was interesting for them cause it makes him think what they might be like if they joined the EU.
Switzerland , Norway and i think Denamark are not in the EU. Norway had two referendums and said no but times.
So can we not default and adjust to live like the swiss?

th3 s1aught3r

I assume the people who are currently negotiating this on our behalf are the same people who brought us the banking guarantee "the cheapest ever" and the last 2 years of "green shoots". Surely these people have zero credability

Rubik.

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's pretty much what I'm saying - that if RTE were the first with it, then it has to not have had a very long lead time. If it didn't have much lead time, then RTE will have only taken it on board if the source was very credible - they wouldn't have run it from some randomer phoning in.

That, in turn, suggests a political manoeuvre - unfortunately, there's something to be gained for both FF and FG here, but the fact that Noonan had a release ready to go suggests the source was known to him, or that someone at RTE leaked it back to him. I'm not suggesting that he arranged it, but he may have lent it credibility, and he certainly intended to make political capital from it.

With the fate of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael currently at stake (the latter because if they can't win this election convincingly then they're barely credible as an opposition) I would be even more sceptical than usual of what appears in the media.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I wouldn't of thought RTE would run with this unless it came from a very senior Government source. Whoever leaked it would have known full well the public and media outcry that would follow, which might be of use around the negotiation table. Whether this would have any sway with the EU and particularly the IMF, I have my doubts.

ArtSmart

well, i'm beat. tomorrow is another day. em, hopefully.

goulders

Remember thr FF motto "A LOT DONE MORE TO DO" Well if u havent been done up to now then just bend over and take it like a man, because every man women and child in Ireland is going to be scre*** for generations to come

Scofflaw

hotmail.com wrote: »

IF FG did leak this, why haven't the Government commented on the reports and made a vague statement that goes like " nothing has been decided, we're still in negotiations, going forward" - the usual mantra.

They've had several hours to address the reports and they've decided to let this story run.

That'll be this one: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1126/breaking6.html

The interest rate for a nine-year EU/IMF loan would be lower than the 6.7 per cent being quoted in some reports today, a source involved in the talks has indicated.

The source said the interest rate was still under negotiation but would not be that high.

The loan of €85 billion would come from a number of different funds, some controlled by European Union institutions, others by the IMF. It is understood that the interest rate for the IMF portion of the loan will be in the region of 4.5 per cent, while the interest charged by EU bodies will be considerably higher.

Posted at 21.59 according to the site.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lightspeed

if fine gael get into power can they amend the agreement with the IMF?
How can they charge greece 2% and ireland 6.7% i dont understand?

bloopy

We are ruined.
Done for.
Oh Christ, I am done with civility.

Scofflaw

Rubik. wrote: »

I wouldn't of thought RTE would run with this unless it came from a very senior Government source. Whoever leaked it would have known full well the public and media outcry that would follow, which might be of use around the negotiation table. Whether this would have any sway with the EU and particularly the IMF, I have my doubts.

Personally, I would say "unless it came from a senior political source" - whether that senior political source is associated with the current government or with the government expected to be in office in a few months. As I said, I wouldn't care to lay money either way, because I know Fianna Fáil do this kind of thing, and I can see that Noonan's recent media behaviour follows an equally hard-nosed pattern.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sideshow Mark

lightspeed wrote: »

if fine gael get into power can they amend the agreement with the IMF?
How can they charge greece 2% and ireland 6.7% i dont understand?

Greece are charged a little over 5%, given the amount involved and where its mostly going I'd have thought we'd even be a little lower than that.

FG or whoever can simply refuse to take any more of the money, it doesn't come all at once.

Scofflaw

lightspeed wrote: »

if fine gael get into power can they amend the agreement with the IMF?
How can they charge greece 2% and ireland 6.7% i dont understand?

They charged Greece 5.2%, not 2%, and the 6.7% figure has been denied. However, they have said that the rate is likely to be higher than the Greek rate on the basis that the loan/facility will be available for 9 years rather than 3 as in the Greek case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BehindTheScenes

Scofflaw wrote: »

Me and Brian Lenihan both...

amused,
Scofflaw

Make sure not to lump yourself in with Lenihan, you do have credibility around here.

lightspeed

Scofflaw wrote: »

They charged Greece 5.2%, not 2%, and the 6.7% figure has been denied. However, they have said that the rate is likely to be higher than the Greek rate on the basis that the loan/facility will be available for 9 years rather than 3 as in the Greek case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sorry i thought i heard 2% on rte news i must have been mistaken though but its still does not make sense. 2 weeks ago it looked like ireland was the one holding the best cards and that we were doing the IMF a favour by agreeing to a bail out and then they charge an interest rate of 6.7%
its almost as if they want ireland to default so they can kick us out of the euro zone and send a message to other countries like spain and portugal.

NapoleonInRags

Does anyone else have the feeling of being strapped into a rollercoaster ride that we can't get out of....

Scofflaw

lightspeed wrote: »

sorry i thought i heard 2% on rte news i must have been mistaken though but its still does not make sense. 2 weeks ago it looked like ireland was the one holding the best cards and that we were doing the IMF a favour by agreeing to a bail out and then they charge an interest rate of 6.7%
its almost as if they want ireland to default so they can kick us out of the euro zone and send a message to other countries like spain and portugal.

Or as if the 6.7% figure was inaccurate. The problem is that we don't know what the rate will be. What we can say is that because of the way the money is raised, the member states' portion of it is always going to be more costly than the IMF bit.

The IMF have long-term reserves - quotas deposited by the countries involved when they join the IMF - so they aren't really paying any premium for the money they lend us.

The member states, though, are raising the money they lend us from private investors - mostly in Asia - so they have to borrow the money to lend us at whatever the best rates they can get happen to be. I doubt any private investor is willing to lend money towards the Irish bailout at rates of only 4.5%, so the EFSF part of the money will necessarily have a higher rate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bleg

Roller coasters are fun

Scofflaw

NapoleonInRags wrote: »

Does anyone else have the feeling of being strapped into a rollercoaster ride that we can't get out of....

We get off where everybody gets off (apart from those that choose to jump) - at the end of the ride when all the facts are known...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bob_Latchford

whats with the 9 year term? is this money (10 yr bonds) raised this year already? If so the rate would have been know a while ago and pretty much fixed.

Our friends in europe might not have been aware it was Ireland going to recieve it but they would have known it was Ireland or Portugal. Extra rate as they knew whiever took it would be in distressed state. Either way they have hardly gone out of their way to sweeten it. They must have know bondholders would have been in the firing line.

Irelands 10yr bonds went over 6% end of september when the rumours started to take.

Portugal are over 6% now, infact coincidental 6.7%

hmmmm

gollem_1975

NapoleonInRags wrote: »

Does anyone else have the feeling of being strapped into a rollercoaster ride that we can't get out of....

you're not being strapped into a rollercoaster.. you've always been on one.

some of us are creeping up to the top and don't know how steep its going to be on the other side.

some of us have already plummeted.

eventually the slope will level off and we will being to climb again.

David McWilliams eat your heart out

Scofflaw

Bob_Latchford wrote: »

whats with the 9 year term? is this money (10 yr bonds) raised this year already? If so the rate would have been know a while ago and pretty much fixed.

Our friends in europe might not have been aware it was Ireland going to recieve it but they would have known it was Ireland or Portugal. Extra rate as they knew whiever took it would be in distressed state. Either way they have hardly gone out of their way to sweeten it. They must have know bondholders would have been in the firing line.

Irelands 10yr bonds went over 6% end of september when the rumours started to take.

Portugal are over 6% now, infact coincidental 6.7%

hmmmm

We've had 6%, 7%, 6.7% - pick a spot on the dartboard, really.

The thing about the EFSF is that they haven't raised the money yet:

Interviewed in the Saturday edition of the French daily Le Monde , Mr Regling said the rescue will be funded with the backing of euro zone guarantees by institutional investors as well as central banks and sovereign funds, in Asia particularly.

“In general the Asians have been very positive,” he said.

Asked if delays on the Irish side were hampering preparations, Mr Regling said it would be easier to tell potential lenders he would have a requirement for billions of euro within months.

That means that the EFSF has to guess at what the Asian investors will ask as a rate to lend the money (well, they've obviously asked around, so it's an educated guess). If they offer Ireland the EFSF part of the money at 6%, and investors are only willing to lend at 6.5%, then as far as I can see the EFSF has to take the 0.5% hit. That's naturally going to incline them towards caution, given the current rate for Irish debt bonds on the secondary markets.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rubik.

The average interest rate payable on the bailout is expected to be in the region of 5.5%, but a higher rate will apply to any loans repayable over more than 3 years. However, the interest rate for any nine year EU-IMF loan would be lower than the 6.7% reported by RTE last night, according to a source involved in the talks.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/1127/1224284262419.html

Bob_Latchford

Scofflaw wrote: »

That means that the EFSF has to guess at what the Asian investors will ask as a rate to lend the money (well, they've obviously asked around, so it's an educated guess). If they offer Ireland the EFSF part of the money at 6%, and investors are only willing to lend at 6.5%, then as far as I can see the EFSF has to take the 0.5% hit. That's naturally going to incline them towards caution, given the current rate for Irish debt bonds on the secondary markets.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is Asian code for China or is it Asia?

Saying we are going to burn the bondholders and burn them severley, before trying to raise billions of euros of bonds is an interesting position!

Lets hope the realise the difference between banking and sovereign debt

jank

When I saw the figure on RTE i thought it was a misprint. Surely not even FF would accept this.

We have to default on the bank debt. There is nothing more to add.

Nonoperational

jank wrote: »

When I saw the figure on RTE i thought it was a misprint. Surely not even FF would accept this.

We have to default on the bank debt. There is nothing more to add.

Can we seperate bank and soverign with the guarantee though?

Scofflaw

Rubik. wrote: »

The average interest rate payable on the bailout is expected to be in the region of 5.5%, but a higher rate will apply to any loans repayable over more than 3 years. However, the interest rate for any nine year EU-IMF loan would be lower than the 6.7% reported by RTE last night, according to a source involved in the talks.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/1127/1224284262419.html

That sounds like a facility which we can dip into for loans repayable over different periods - so we could take out, say, €5bn over two years at 5%, and/or another €5bn at 5.5% over 6 years, and/or another €5bn over nine years at 6.25%.

That looks unsurprisingly like the standard way government debt is issued. If that's what's on offer, it's essentially a private bond market, with the usual rate differences between 2-year bonds and other periods, maximum of €85bn in the kitty (possibly renegotiable) - we don't need to go the bond markets unless they're offering us a better rate, so essentially what the facility does is cap the maximum we have to pay on debt, because if the two-year spread on the open market rises above what's on offer from our private bond market, we just say "no thanks" and borrow from it instead.

Truth is often stranger than fiction...although this is, of course, only speculation on my part. Still, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't make sense.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bob_Latchford

Scofflaw wrote: »

That sounds like a facility which we can dip into for loans repayable over different periods - so we could take out, say, €5bn over three years at 5%, and/or another €5bn at 5.5% over 6 years, and/or another €5bn over nine years at 6.25%.

That looks unsurprisingly like the standard way government debt is issued. If that's what's on offer, it's essentially a private bond market, with the usual rate differences between 2-year bonds and other periods.

Truth is often stranger than fiction...

cordially,
Scofflaw

I like speculating hope you dont mind

So youve got a range of yeilds. Low end at 5% (FF headline) and high end 6.7% (FG headline) for the ESFS fund which will be brought down slightly for the IMF part and UK/Sweden/Denmark parts. (so FF headline could be under 5%) :rolleyes:

Why cant we go straight to Asia

Scofflaw

Bob_Latchford wrote: »

I like speculating hope you dont mind

So youve got a range of yeilds. Low end at 5% (FF headline) and high end 6.7% (FG headline) for the ESFS fund which will be brought down slightly for the IMF part and UK/Sweden/Denmark parts. (so FF headline could be under 5%) :rolleyes:

Sort of - more that since we usually issue debt as 2, 5, and 10-year bonds on the open markets, and those are usually priced so that 2-year bonds have lower interest rates and 10-year bonds higher (longer term = more risk of the unexpected), this facility might - speculatively - be structured in exactly the same way. The facility is there purely to buy Irish debt - we issue a bond in the usual way, but only in this private market - at rates that don't vary over the life of the facility, but do vary with the period we issue a bond for.

So the headline figure is the average of all the rates for all the bond periods, but that rate may be derived from averaging the different bond periods in a very simple way - ie:

Bond Duration|Rate
1|4.5
2|5
3|5.5
4|6
5|6.1
6|6.2
7|6.3
8|6.4
9|6.5
Average|5.83

So the headline average there is 5.83%, but we could, by only taking money out as 2-year bonds, actually have a rate of 5%.

Bob_Latchford wrote: »

Why cant we go straight to Asia

Nowhere near as cool as having a private bond market...also, this would give us the EFSF between us and the investors. Speculatively.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jank

Scofflaw wrote: »

Truth is often stranger than fiction...although this is, of course, only speculation on my part. Still, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't make sense.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Now now now, down with that sort of thing.;)

Sand

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Interesting little piece on Bloomberg today. It illustrates what the alternative is rather than accepting a loan at 6.7% or anything near it in order to bail out our banks.

It would be interesting if Brian Lenihan has any advice for the Icelandic government on how to handle a bank crisis. Some sort of memoir of his time in office, his collected wisdom recorded for others to learn from.

Capt'n Midnight

ArtSmart wrote: »

Point is the proportion required of our yearly revenue intake to service a loan at this rate.

8.5 billion on interest a year for our economy = impoverishment.

Agreed

but are we mortgaging our future to cover for current spending in an attempt to have a budget that will be as gentle as possible

If they'd actually carried out the proposed changes back in 2008 when the problems were known about then we might have been working our way out already and entitled to slightly lower rates, less borrowing certainly

Capt'n Midnight

bleg wrote: »

Imagine paying 1/5 of your gross income on interest for your mortgage.

a lot of people don't have to imagine

The real problem is that we won't have anything to show for it

mark5

were not liked look at the way we treated the polish people when they came over here to look for work and got jobs on the building sites and in shops

hinault

We really need to focus our anger/frustration/annoyance toward the party who put this debt millstone around our necks.

Brian Lenihan, Seanie Fitzpatrick, Michael Fingleton, Eugene Sheehy, Brian Goggin, Brian Cowen.
The developers who borrowed irresponsibly and the clowns who allowed all this borrowing and lending to take place, John Hurley and Pat Neary.


Blaming German/French/British banks for loaning money to irish banks, or blaming investors for demanding interest on future loans is misguided.

The parties named above are the culpable ones.

K-9

This is win, win for Politics forum followers.

If RTE get it wrong, fecking RTE is to blame, not us.

If they are right, traitors!

sollar

bleg wrote: »

Roller coasters are fun

not if your on one for 9 years

dlofnep

mark5 wrote: »

were not liked look at the way we treated the polish people when they came over here to look for work and got jobs on the building sites and in shops

Speak for yourself. I treated Polish people just fine.

gandalf

The BBC are reporting the 6.7% rate this morning as well. Looks like the Government have failed to represent and fight for the Irish people yet again, so no surprise there.

whysomoody

Scofflaw wrote: »

That sounds like a facility which we can dip into for loans repayable over different periods - so we could take out, say, €5bn over two years at 5%, and/or another €5bn at 5.5% over 6 years, and/or another €5bn over nine years at 6.25%.

That looks unsurprisingly like the standard way government debt is issued. If that's what's on offer, it's essentially a private bond market, with the usual rate differences between 2-year bonds and other periods, maximum of €85bn in the kitty (possibly renegotiable) - we don't need to go the bond markets unless they're offering us a better rate, so essentially what the facility does is cap the maximum we have to pay on debt, because if the two-year spread on the open market rises above what's on offer from our private bond market, we just say "no thanks" and borrow from it instead.

Truth is often stranger than fiction...although this is, of course, only speculation on my part. Still, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't make sense.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That would seem to the case all right, it must surely be the case that the duration of the bond will make a huge difference. I wonder if we take out X amount over Y years will we be able to call it early? I wouldn't like to take say 5 years then be forced to continue with it even after we didnt need it. Obviously though the early call option would cost more so maybe best not to.

jmayo

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure - except that I can understand: (a) that the money is being borrowed partly from other lenders in the first place, and it's uncertain what rate they're charging; (b) that this is supposed to be a backstop solution that the government claims they don't need (unless they've retracted that claim); and (c) that given Ireland's track record, making the rate on the facility too attractive would tempt the government in the next four years to avail of it to prop up current spending.

Still, it could be a kite, it could simply be inaccurate, it could be a piece of political chicanery - I know Fianna Fáil will fly a kite to see the reaction, and pull its horns back in if it sees too negative a reaction. In this case, though, it makes more sense for them to leak any higher rates in order to put public pressure on their side - they can say "look, people won't accept this".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Why do I think someone is clutcthing at straws ?

puppetmaster wrote: »

...
Aswell as listening to the FF Idiots and their underhand tactics, why havent we heard any constructive response from the other Dips**ts. Do they now think that they should be a shoe in Cause FF has destroyed us. If thats the thinking, God help us all.

Obviously you haven't noticed Bruton, Varadker and Noonan out hinting that the bondholders must be made carry some of the can ?

jpfahy wrote: »

I posted a link to a youtube video at 23.40 and it was taken down almost immediately. Is there censorship here on boards?????

hmmmm.

Scofflaw wrote: »

...

That, in turn, suggests a political manoeuvre - unfortunately, there's something to be gained for both FF and FG here, but the fact that Noonan had a release ready to go suggests the source was known to him, or that someone at RTE leaked it back to him. I'm not suggesting that he arranged it, but he may have lent it credibility, and he certainly intended to make political capital from it.

With the fate of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael currently at stake (the latter because if they can't win this election convincingly then they're barely credible as an opposition) I would be even more sceptical than usual of what appears in the media.

cordially,
Scofflaw

For someone that chastises the rest of us for speculation and posting rumours you are not too bad at it yourself. :rolleyes:

You are over numerous posts giving legs to the rumour that FG have been involved in this leak and are doignit for political gain.

BTW I have through a source been hearing rumours out of the Dept of Finance and if I am able to manage that, why is it so inconceivable that well connected people in RTE and FG aren't getting information.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Personally, I would say "unless it came from a senior political source" - whether that senior political source is associated with the current government or with the government expected to be in office in a few months. As I said, I wouldn't care to lay money either way, because I know Fianna Fáil do this kind of thing, and I can see that Noonan's recent media behaviour follows an equally hard-nosed pattern.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And here we go again. :rolleyes:
What if I was to say it is senator boyle, yellow party finance spokesperson, that is leaking the information ?

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote: »

Why do I think someone is clutcthing at straws ?

Obviously you haven't noticed Bruton, Varadker and Noonan out hinting that the bondholders must be made carry some of the can ?

hmmmm.

For someone that chastises the rest of us for speculation and posting rumours you are not too bad at it yourself. :rolleyes:

The difference is that it's clearly marked as what it is - speculation based on rumour! I'm awfully sorry if it's insufficiently criticial of the current government for you to like it, though.

jmayo wrote: »

You are over numerous posts giving legs to the rumour that FG have been involved in this leak and are doignit for political gain.

BTW I have through a source been hearing rumours out of the Dept of Finance and if I am able to manage that, why is it so inconceivable that well connected people in RTE and FG aren't getting information.

And here we go again. :rolleyes:
What if I was to say it is senator boyle, yellow party finance spokesperson, that is leaking the information ?

I'd say that's possible too - as I said, I'm in the pretty happy position of knowing that more or less whatever happens, my preferred party won't be forming part of the next government, and will be lucky to return anyone to the Dáil at all. I can't see why any of the Greens would leak it, though, whereas I can see why Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael might.

If you're under the impression that I'm trying to "pin" this on Fine Gael, I'm afraid you're entirely mistaken again. Currently, I'd prefer a strong Fine Gael-led coalition with a minority Labour component - about the relative strengths of the 1990's Rainbow Coalition - to any form of the reverse, although I'll be putting my number 2 to Ruairi Quinn despite that, since if there is to be a strong Labour component I'd want to see Ruairi Quinn in there.

Out of interest, then, are you rooting for Fine Gael?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dannyboy83

I am rooting for a full FG majority.

Scofflaw - any particular reason why would you prefer to see Ruari Quinn involved?
And why do you want a Labour minority (or it simply that you think FG cannot have a full majority?)

ardmacha

While in one sense unfit for election owing to his previous penchant for drunk driving, Quinn was sensible enough as Minister of Finance. I also seem to recall an initiative for Public Service 2010 which aimed to make the PS the best in Europe by 2010. Now you can be cynical about the actual probablility of achieving this, but articulating the need is half the battle and there is little to suggest that subsequent FF ministers even saw this as desireable.

Rubik.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I am rooting for a full FG majority.

Scofflaw - any particular reason why would you prefer to see Ruari Quinn involved?
And why do you want a Labour minority (or it simply that you think FG cannot have a full majority?)

Whatever happens in the next General Election, there will not be a FG majority. John Drennan produced a supplement in The Sunday Independent, last month, with his seat by seat analysis of the outcome of the upcoming election.

His verdict - Labour 56, FG 54 and Fianna Fail 42. He may be wrong and it was pre-IMF so FF could well lose more seats, but the most likely outcome is a coalition of two parties of more or less the same size. Which is something we have never had before.

ardmacha

His verdict - Labour 56, FG 54 and Fianna Fail 42. He may be wrong

FG have credible candidates in pretty much every constituency. Labour have problems in regions further from Dublin and can lose votes to SF, whereas FG lose few votes to SF.