Why do we punish the smaller parties, but not the big boys?

Grudaire

antoobrien wrote: »

There's a dead link to a story from 2004 if you're interested.

So they had been working on this for 3 years before they got into power and they "wanted it and were actively working on it."

Stop this nonsense, there's far better things to bash the green party about - and farmers already think that the Greens hate them :rolleyes:

antoobrien

Cliste wrote: »

So they had been working on this for 3 years before they got into power and they "wanted it and were actively working on it."

Stop this nonsense, there's far better things to bash the green party about - and farmers already think know that the Greens hate them :rolleyes:

Hysterical, anybody in rural Ireland knows that a party set up by a Dublin schoolteacher will more than likely not be kind to them.

Btw here's the IFAs response to the climate bill that the greens published in 2010:

Mr Bryan said: "The climate change proposals must fully recognise the many positives around agriculture, especially our sustainable model of farming and the carbon sink in both our permanent pasture and our forestry. These benefits and those accruing from bio-energy and other renewables must be allocated directly to agriculture as part of this legislation."

Of course the fact that this kind of thing has to be pointed out to a green is worrying.

Cody Pomeray

It is daft to say we punish the smaller parties.
An electorate isn't going to have an emotional dislike for a small party just because it is a small party.

It is more true to say that the broad electorate tends to resent highly ideological parties frog leaping to power, especially when its ideology or identity is not broadly appreciated by the voters.

"Smallness" was only one (and probably irrelevant) characteristic of the PDs, Greens, and Labour.

A far more relevant characteristic was that they were all highly ideological. And none of their ideologies were particularly mainstream, with the possible exception of the PDs in their early years (when voters identified them as members of the governing party of the day anyway). And when the PDs began to develop into a party of a distinct political identity, they too were seen as having an unfair access to power, and were annihilated.

But this thesis explains why junior coalition partners don't attract new votes, not why their historical voters fall away.

Again, it comes back to ideology. Historic voters seem to resent a dilution and a corruption of the party's founding principles. They resent the betrayal, and vote elsewhere in future.

It isn't so much that Ireland hates its junior coalition partner to be a small party. It just hates ideological parties accessing power without a mandate.

BlatentCheek

People who vote for the smaller parties generally want an alternative to the policies and practice that characterise FF and FG.
People who vote for FF and FG support, or at least accept, the policies and practices that characterise them.

The smaller party has the least say in Govt. so the people who put them in as minority partner feel betrayed when they get the opposite of what they voted for.

Ideological opponents like Labour and FG could never make a coalition work at a time of massive crisis without one side selling out its ideals and it was never going to be the larger partner: that the Labour leadership couldn't see this before entering government was incredible, in the literal sense that it's actually difficult to believe that they didn't make the decision to sell out at this early stage.

Greens joining FF made much more sense as there was loads of money at the time to entertain their green policies while the green parties economic policies were vague enough, as are some members of FFs when they're trawling for votes, to avoid incompatibility on policy. However the practices that characterised FF and by extension the Green/FF coalition - incompetence, cronyism and outright corruption - were distasteful enough to plenty of people who voted for the greens to erode their support even before the coalition oversaw the ruin of the country and seemed unable to do anything about it.

PRAF

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It is daft to say we punish the smaller parties.
An electorate isn't going to have an emotional dislike for a small party just because it is a small party.

It is more true to say that the broad electorate tends to resent highly ideological parties frog leaping to power, especially when its ideology or identity is not broadly appreciated by the voters.

"Smallness" was only one (and probably irrelevant) characteristic of the PDs, Greens, and Labour.

A far more relevant characteristic was that they were all highly ideological. And none of their ideologies were particularly mainstream, with the possible exception of the PDs in their early years (when voters identified them as members of the governing party of the day anyway). And when the PDs began to develop into a party of a distinct political identity, they too were seen as having an unfair access to power, and were annihilated.

But this thesis explains why junior coalition partners don't attract new votes, not why their historical voters fall away.

Again, it comes back to ideology. Historic voters seem to resent a dilution and a corruption of the party's founding principles. They resent the betrayal, and vote elsewhere in future.

It isn't so much that Ireland hates its junior coalition partner to be a small party. It just hates ideological parties accessing power without a mandate.

Very good post. Once a smaller (usually ideologically driven) party gets access to power it is doomed because:
- mainstream voters (FF&FG) will resent that smaller party getting their policies implemented. The opposition will relentlessly attack the smaller party in the hopes of getting them to jump ship. This will put a negative focus on the smaller party and will lead to negative media attention, negative public sentiment, etc. It becomes a vicious circle of negativity and means they will get little or no mainstream votes in terms of first, second, or third preferences
- existing core voters (e.g. those of the PDs, Greens, etc.) are usually very ideologically driven. They have sky high hopes going into govt and somehow feel that they will get all of their policies implemented. It is practically impossible to achieve and ultimately they will be disappointed and feel betrayed

Does the above doom Ireland to a constant cycle of FF & FG govts for ever more? Are we not mature enough as a society / democracy to embrace ideological rather than parish pump politics?

PRAF

antoobrien wrote: »

Unfortunately no, the proposals don't seem to be available. I only remember it because of advice a few of the neighbours got regarding their lands if the proposals ever went ahead.

Anto, this sounds like a "bog standard Irish knee jerk reaction, with the normal innuendos, vested interests, veiled references". An distinguished Boards poster accussed me of this on a different thread recently :P

There's a lot to have a go at the Greens over, however, this is not one of them IMO.

If anything, Ireland's laws around access to our rivers, mountains, lakes, monuments, etc are too skewed in favour of landowners. We have some ridiculous situations whereby farmers are effectively trying to steal land from public companies (e.g. in north Kerry where they are trying to do a land grab of an old railway line) in order to prevent hikers going anywhere near their land. It's f***ing crazy if you ask me

I'm not in favour of unfetterred access to private lands. However, surely some form of reasonable compromise is in the interests of both farmers and recreational walkers.

antoobrien

PRAF wrote: »

Anto, this sounds like a "bog standard Irish knee jerk reaction, with the normal innuendos, vested interests, veiled references". An distinguished Boards poster accussed me of this on a different thread recently :P

So getting repeating legal advice is an innuendo now. I wonder why I bother sometimes.

PRAF

antoobrien wrote: »

So getting repeating legal advice is an innuendo now. I wonder why I bother sometimes.

You said that the Greens in govt (2007 to 2010) were actively working on plans to allow unfettered access to private farms. All you have to validate your assertion is a dead link to something from back in 2004 and your word that a neighbour had got advice along those lines. Not exactly a smoking gun is it

Grudaire

antoobrien wrote: »

Hysterical, anybody in rural Ireland knows that a party set up by a Dublin schoolteacher will more than likely not be kind to them.

That's a very close minded attitude.

Does the party need to be set up by a farmer? Or run by a farmer? Is the Green Party going to be tainted by it's founders occupations in your eyes forever?

antoobrien wrote: »

Btw here's the IFAs response to the climate bill that the greens published in 2010:

Of course the fact that this kind of thing has to be pointed out to a green is worrying.

I'm not sure what I'm meant to be reading there, it's a submission about the bill asking for something to be included...? Here's the link where I assume you got that tibit: http://www.farmersjournal.ie/site/farming-Reaction-to-Climate-Change-Bill-proposals-12263.html

"IFA president John Bryan warned the Climate Change Bill must not damage the development of sustainable farming."

antoobrien

Cliste wrote: »

That's a very close minded attitude.

It's based on 7 years listening to Dubs spout crap about rural Ireland based on attitudes that were around before their grandparents left the tenements. The ignorance shown by most of them to where exactly their food comes from and how it's produced is astounding. I was left wondering by one woman did she actually believe that milk just appeared in cartons and spuds in the bag in the shops. She wasn't impressed when I suggested that she audition for fair city.

And you think I'm narrow minded because I don't think it's a good idea for people that have these kinds of people voting for them to have a say in how the countryside is run.

Cliste wrote: »

Does the party need to be set up by a farmer? Or run by a farmer? Is the Green Party going to be tainted by it's founders occupations in your eyes forever?

If it's fair to do it to FF over dev (and it seems to be a legitimate position here in politics), it's fair to do it to the greens, labour, libertas or any other political organisation. After all we have to hold them all to the same standards.

sheesh

Cliste wrote: »

The voting public don't seem to follow any traditional logic when actually voting.

A massive factor is the combination of inertia and the fact that the largest parties have very strong local structures. A lot of people vote FF or FG because they always have, or they know someone who got something (eg planning permission - or less cynically a pothole filled) off the FF/FG candidate.

this I think is the real reason. A large Grass roots organisation and a large bank of people/families who 'always voted fianna fail' they get their base 20% of the vote. FG have a similar but smaller outfit. the rest of the parties have less extensive party structures.

Grudaire

antoobrien wrote: »

And you think I'm narrow minded because I don't think it's a good idea for people that have these kinds of people voting for them to have a say in how the countryside is run.

I really don't think that anyone you are referring to is a Green supporter (if they even do vote!)

antoobrien wrote: »

If it's fair to do it to FF over dev (and it seems to be a legitimate position here in politics), it's fair to do it to the greens, labour, libertas or any other political organisation. After all we have to hold them all to the same standards.

Is it done to Fianna Fáil over Dev? Jaysus there is far far better things (generally brown and used to post things) to bash FF over!

And Libertas is really one major personality who established the party!


And given the extremest roots of most parties in the country - surely a school teacher is actually preferable (also I'm taking your word for the school-teacher beginnings here)

Grudaire

sheesh wrote: »

this I think is the real reason. A large Grass roots organisation and a large bank of people/families who 'always voted fianna fail' they get their base 20% of the vote. FG have a similar but smaller outfit. the rest of the parties have less extensive party structures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsnLyHKWtrg

I love this clip!

PRAF

sheesh wrote: »

this I think is the real reason. A large Grass roots organisation and a large bank of people/families who 'always voted fianna fail' they get their base 20% of the vote. FG have a similar but smaller outfit. the rest of the parties have less extensive party structures.

I think this answers why FF & FG attract the lions share of the votes. However, it doesn't quite explain why smaller parties manage to win a number of seats in the Dail and then get wiped out as soon as they enter in government. There is definitely a bit of 'punishment' being dished out, the reasons for which were explained quite well by Cody Pomeray

Ultimately, I think we have a flawed democracy here in Ireland. Of course every type of democracy is flawed in some way. Ours is flawed in terms of being very parish pump orientated which leads to low level corruption, clientelism, NIMBYism, as well as weak and painfully flow decision making.

Unfortunately, a lot of possible solutions to this (e.g. much smaller number of TDs, the addition of some form of 'list system', abolition of the whip system, increased power for Dail committees, an executive style president, etc.) might just be a little too radical for Ireland to accept.

FamousSeamus

PRAF wrote: »

Ultimately, I think we have a flawed democracy here in Ireland. Of course every type of democracy is flawed in some way. Ours is flawed in terms of being very parish pump orientated which leads to low level corruption, clientelism, NIMBYism, as well as weak and painfully flow decision making.

Agree, although i saw it as a more civil war mentality where you remain loyal to a certain party. This will change though, the younger generation are alot more aware of politics (or a think they are I'm prob very wrong here!!) and will become more like the swing vote in the US where we'll vote on who is best as opposed to who family vote for.

Then again it might never change, who knows!!