Red C Poll

Baggy Trousers

Godge wrote: »

They will need to get past the local elections to get fresh new candidates for a general election. That would give the government 3 to 3 and a half years.

No they will have a lot of disgruntled ex-TDs and ex-Councillors that can fill that gap. Many Labour TDs were first timers and will not appreciate only one term.

I actually think we will have 2 General Elections in 2016.

LuckyLloyd

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I'm sure the feeling among SF voters is mutual.

To be more accurate, I'm sure supporters from both sides will express mutual statements to the effect that they would never countenance voting the same way again if a deal was done but it's nonsense of the 'I'd be on the first plane out of the country if SF got in' degree.

FG are a party that believe in being in power. If they have to get into bed with SF to ensure that I'm sure they'll find a mealy mouthed explanation when the time comes. FF and Labour will prove to be no different in that regard.

And as far as that goes, the FG 'hardliners' will be there because voting for FG is a generational family heirloom type thing; and those that would turn their attentions to FF in such a scenario will go back when the time comes. Lots of grandstanding nonsense that means nothing.

Dyr

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Labour would be secretly delighted even with 14. I wouldn't be surprised if party chiefs are preparing themselves for a parliamentary party in the single digits after the next election.

You can't see where they're going to get TD's now, they're often dependent on transfers from candidates who will now finish above them in the next election

Maybe Lynch, Howlin, Penrose, Sherlock, Stagg, Kelly ( Though he must be in his 70's now)

Ren2k7

Bambi wrote: »

You can't see where they're going to get TD's now, they're often dependent on transfers from candidates who will now finish above them in the next election

Maybe Lynch, Howlin, Penrose, Sherlock, Stagg, Kelly ( Though he must be in his 70's now)

I saw one poll analysis which suggested Labour are one course to return something like 4 TD's, which of course would be an absolute catastrophe for the party. And those returned more so because of name recognition than anything else. Even iMoan looks set to struggle in her own constituency.

Dyr

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I saw one poll analysis which suggested Labour are one course to return something like 4 TD's, which of course would be an absolute catastrophe for the party. And those returned more so because of name recognition than anything else. Even iMoan looks set to struggle in her own constituency.

Penrose and Howlin are safe, thats it, as far as dead certs go, I think


Burtons never really had a safe seat, she may be scrapping with Leo for a place the last chopper out of dublin west, which will be a hugely satisfying spectacle

LuckyLloyd

Bambi wrote: »

Burtons never really had a safe seat, she may be scrapping with Leo for a place the last chopper out of dublin west, which will be a hugely satisfying spectacle

That I'd pay to see!!

alaimacerc

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If FG jump into bed with SF I will never vote FG again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I'm sure the feeling among SF voters is mutual.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Their wouldn't be the numbers for a SF/FF coalition, even if the two agreed to go into government together. And given the toxic stench that still emanates from the FFers it's unlikely the SF rank and file would agree to such a move.

I'd be surer about IWF's statement than Ren's much more sweeping ones. But obviously there are some SF supporters who'd be outraged with any deal with either of the centre-right parties. And there's very clearly also some who'd be selectively outraged about a deal with FG, but who're positively rubbing their hands at the idea of a "pan-Republican" government. Civil war politics isn't dead -- though it's been smelling funny for quite a while now.

Though conceivably you could see a SF/FF/Lab coalition but that's a very big if.

It is, but it's pretty much the only scenario beyond the "vote SF, you've always wanted to be the largest opposition party so you can hear the sound of Gerry Adam's voice more!" one.

Whatever the result the Indos will be key to forming the next government and I fear we may see a return to pork barrel gombeenism that typified the Bertie years and his sucking up to Healy Rae and Lowry, amongst others. Such is Ireland.

Such will be the responsibility of parties taking a sniffy "never go into coalition with that lot" attitude if it does, ultimately. The protestations of SF ("everyone else is toxic, not us!") being the leading example.

alaimacerc

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And as far as that goes, the FG 'hardliners' will be there because voting for FG is a generational family heirloom type thing; and those that would turn their attentions to FF in such a scenario will go back when the time comes. Lots of grandstanding nonsense that means nothing.

I'm not sure that's very internally consistent logic. If there's a generational legacy of voting for -- and being elected to! -- the civil war parties, and it's something to be treasured as an "heirloom" in the bizarre manner you suggest, surely a FG/FF coalition would be to negate the very possibility for "passing it down" to the next generation?

LuckyLloyd

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not sure that's very internally consistent logic. If there's a generational legacy of voting for -- and being elected to! -- the civil war parties, and it's something to be treasured as an "heirloom" in the bizarre manner you suggest, surely a FG/FF coalition would be to negate the very possibility for "passing it down" to the next generation?

Is the suggestion that both parties have generational cores of support bizarre?

FG and FF could have a coalition without joining together to create a singular party (though that would make a ton of sense at this point as there is no worthwhile difference between their makeup or outlook).

I may have misunderstood your last sentence as 'surely a FG / FF coalition would be to negate' is a little unclear.

alaimacerc

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Is the suggestion that both parties have generational cores of support bizarre?

No, not at all, that part is beyond dispute. Just the idea of it being an "heirloom", which is to impute a positive value to it, rather than a more sober assessment that it's an utter blight on the body politic.

FG and FF could have a coalition without joining together to create a singular party (though that would make a ton of sense at this point as there is no worthwhile difference between their makeup or outlook).

I may have misunderstood your last sentence as 'surely a FG / FF coalition would be to negate' is a little unclear.

The two being in coalition is negate the premise of a meaningful distinction between the two. "Vote for us, rather than the other lot with essentially identical policies that we're nonetheless fundamentally opposed, so we can go into coalition with them" utterly undermines their respective rationales to exist. As poor as those already are.

LuckyLloyd

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, not at all, that part is beyond dispute. Just the idea of it being an "heirloom", which is to impute a positive value to it, rather than a more sober assessment that it's an utter blight on the body politic.



The two being in coalition is negate the premise of a meaningful distinction between the two. "Vote for us, rather than the other lot with essentially identical policies that we're nonetheless fundamentally opposed, so we can go into coalition with them" utterly undermines their respective rationales to exist. As poor as those already are.

I think we fundamentally agree here!

I think they'd be willing to do just that if the alternative was a SF led government. It's a big part of why SF gaining ground could be a momentous positive for politics in the State. FG and FF joining together could really open up the space for real political debate and ultimately real political reform.

alaimacerc

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I think they'd be willing to do just that if the alternative was a SF led government. It's a big part of why SF gaining ground could be a momentous positive for politics in the State. FG and FF joining together could really open up the space for real political debate and ultimately real political reform.

You're essentially saying, then, that they should do this because it'd be bad for them, and good for you/SF. Which is somewhat a self-negating argument. Which isn't to rule out the possibility of them doing it anyway, for their own reasons. Like bums on ministerial seats.

The prospect of a "SF-led" government is hardly a scary prospect for the CW parties, for all the rhetoric about this. It would need one of them to be the "SF followers" in question, after all. Presumptively FF, on the basis of them being a similar shade of green for National Question mood music, and likely to be the smaller of the two next election. So in degrees of freedom terms, the decision is really more acutely one for FF. Would they look to support a FG in government, or SF? Alienate the civil war base of their party, or the economic and social conservative one? Or just sitzkreig in opposition until they get a set of choices they like better?

LuckyLloyd

alaimacerc wrote: »

You're essentially saying, then, that they should do this because it'd be bad for them, and good for you/SF. Which is somewhat a self-negating argument. Which isn't to rule out the possibility of them doing it anyway, for their own reasons. Like bums on ministerial seats.

The prospect of a "SF-led" government is hardly a scary prospect for the CW parties, for all the rhetoric about this. It would need one of them to be the "SF followers" in question, after all. Presumptively FF, on the basis of them being a similar shade of green for National Question mood music, and likely to be the smaller of the two next election. So in degrees of freedom terms, the decision is really more acutely one for FF. Would they look to support a FG in government, or SF? Alienate the civil war base of their party, or the economic and social conservative one? Or just sitzkreig in opposition until they get a set of choices they like better?

The next election is not the last election that SF contest however. We face a prospect of Labour being obliterated and SF being an even louder opposition participant with ~30 seats. There's also the possibility of a minority FG led government being formed which doesn't last long allowing SF to maintain momentum and gain more ground.

To put it more accurately, it seems we agree on the fact of FG and FF being leopards that argue over who has more spots being a negative for politics in this nation; and disagree on the percentage chances of them banding together to be in power if the numbers make sense.

We'll see how it pans out anyway.

alaimacerc

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The next election is not the last election that SF contest however. We face a prospect of Labour being obliterated and SF being an even louder opposition participant with ~30 seats. There's also the possibility of a minority FG led government being formed which doesn't last long allowing SF to maintain momentum and gain more ground.

I'm not sure that latter scenario works to SF's advantage, though. Might be the proverbial bucket of cold water over a drunk electorate's head.

For the next several elections at least, SF are going to have to face the reality that the majority of the country doesn't support them, or anyone they've said they're willing to work with in government. Either that has to change, or SF's "our way or the highway" inevitably must.

To put it more accurately, it seems we agree on the fact of FG and FF being leopards that argue over who has more spots being a negative for politics in this nation; and disagree on the percentage chances of them banding together to be in power if the numbers make sense.

Well, in the long run it seems almost certain. Or that FF and SF will merge, or that FF will split on those lines, to the same essential result. One main conservative party, and one main "notionally left with Irish characteristics" such. But in the long run we're all dead. It'd be nice to think we could have parties with ideologically clear choices, with less in the way of either CW baggage or SF's own ample supply. But reality is altogether messier.

Godge

Bambi wrote: »

Penrose and Howlin are safe, thats it, as far as dead certs go, I think


Burtons never really had a safe seat, she may be scrapping with Leo for a place the last chopper out of dublin west, which will be a hugely satisfying spectacle

There are two Castleknock seats in Dublin West and two Mulhuddart seats.

Varadkar is a cert for one of the Castleknock seats and Coppinger is a cert for one of the Mulhuddart seats.

After that, it is way too early to guess, but Donnelly must be in with a strong chance for the second Mulhuddart seat.

alaimacerc

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Enda said no to FF. Could come back to haunt him even though it would be a disgraceful move in my opinion though nothing shocks me anymore.

If FG and FF do go into coalition, it would "raise the whole tone" if at least one leader were to resign as part of the groundwork. Pop over to the other party HQ. Take a shufti. Don't come back.

Both at the same time would be little enough harm.

alaimacerc

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Yeah, we seem to have reached peak FF/FG and are now desperately looking for someone else to replace the two. Hence why SF are performing well in the polls.

No, I think hence why there's an independent "bubble" in the opinion polls at present. While Ross and Creighton continue to tout for business, conservative voters have not yet exhausted every possible avenue of voting for the same thing, and expecting a different result!

There's an element of FF support that has bled off to SF, but it's hardly the same people that have been "floating" between FF and FG. Or if it is, their political beliefs are so "fluid" as to challenge characterisation of them as "beliefs" in any meaningful sense at all. Plus lots of ex-Lab support, obviously.

alaimacerc

conorh91 wrote: »

To say or imply that FG are currently polling in, or at any margin 3% on either side of 24% implies that there is an equal chance of FG securing 24% as 27%, simply because it is within their margin of error.

I must have missed this memo that "anywhere" now means "anywhere with equally likelihood". What's the new word for "anywhere", then? "anywhere classic"?

Dyr

Godge wrote: »

There are two Castleknock seats in Dublin West and two Mulhuddart seats.

Varadkar is a cert for one of the Castleknock seats and Coppinger is a cert for one of the Mulhuddart seats.

After that, it is way too early to guess, but Donnelly must be in with a strong chance for the second Mulhuddart seat.

You'd imagine so, but FG's performance in the by election would make you wonder, given the volatility of the dublin voter. Granted they ran a complete spanner then

Godge

Bambi wrote: »

You'd imagine so, but FG's performance in the by election would make you wonder, given the volatility of the dublin voter. Granted they ran a complete spanner then

If you look at the local elections though, FG got 19.47% in the Castleknock ward and 13.02% in the Mulhuddart ward. Castleknock gets more voters out than Mulhuddart meaning the average is 17-18%. With the boost in the polls FG have had since, Varadkar is safe unless there is a backlash because of the "gay" aspect. If he does well enough on the first count and has no running mate, his surplus may keep Joan ahead of the pack for the last seat.

Ren2k7

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, I think hence why there's an independent "bubble" in the opinion polls at present. While Ross and Creighton continue to tout for business, conservative voters have not yet exhausted every possible avenue of voting for the same thing, and expecting a different result!

There's an element of FF support that has bled off to SF, but it's hardly the same people that have been "floating" between FF and FG. Or if it is, their political beliefs are so "fluid" as to challenge characterisation of them as "beliefs" in any meaningful sense at all. Plus lots of ex-Lab support, obviously.

You forget this is Ireland where former FG voters can quite easily hop over to SF it they feel the Shinners can better represent them. Much of the electorate are "floating voters", so don't be surprised when RedC claims SF are attracting a lot of FG voters.

alaimacerc

Ren2k7 wrote: »

You forget this is Ireland where former FG voters can quite easily hop over to SF it they feel the Shinners can better represent them. Much of the electorate are "floating voters", so don't be surprised when RedC claims SF are attracting a lot of FG voters.

I'm not saying it never has, never is, or never will happen! Just that I'm skeptical that direct switching between the two is by any means the predominant effect, as opposed to the others I mentioned. But time will tell, especially as we see how the vote for the indies holds up (or does not).

Zubeneschamali

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not saying it never has, never is, or never will happen! Just that I'm skeptical that direct switching between the two is by any means the predominant effect

Lots of the people who voted FG in 2011 were not FG supporters, they were just disgusted with FF. Many of them seem very disappointed that FG is also a political party full of politicians, but they are now sure that SF is an organization of saints and scholars.

Quin_Dub

The big issue is the 30% undecided , along with a large chunk of the "independent" vote..

40%+ of voters haven't decided yet.. An Improving economy and a reduction in the number of Governmental clangers over the next 6-9 months should see them move more towards FG/Lab.

Also , the fall-out from Greece (Syriza's total capitulation) should give FG/Lab more ammunition to pick holes in SF et al's Economic policies...

It will be interesting to see if there's any shift in the SF strategy around the EU and Economy now that Syriza have shown that going at the EU/ECB etc. head on does not work...

Flex

Godge wrote: »

There are two Castleknock seats in Dublin West and two Mulhuddart seats.

Varadkar is a cert for one of the Castleknock seats and Coppinger is a cert for one of the Mulhuddart seats.

After that, it is way too early to guess, but Donnelly must be in with a strong chance for the second Mulhuddart seat.

Im in Dublin West, my prediction would be similar. I expect Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and Socialist Party will each take a seat. Just cant see Labour getting enough to win one.

Godge

Flex wrote: »

Im in Dublin West, my prediction would be similar. I expect Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein and Socialist Party will each take a seat. Just cant see Labour getting enough to win one.

Yes but Joan Burton will pick up transfers in a way that Donnelly won't. For example if O'Gorman polls 8-9% of the vote and his second preferences are up for grabs with Donnelly and Burton left in the race they could go 2:1 to Burton.

FG votes, either Varadkar surplus or eliminated second candidate could go 10:1 to Burton over Donnelly.

Burton will be behind on first count, but she may be able to overhaul Donnelly by the end.

hatrickpatrick

Those of us who support an independent dominated Dail are going to have to find some way of campaigning which insures that transfers go to other independents. Will be interesting to see how that can be organised.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Those of us who support an independent dominated Dail are going to have to find some way of campaigning which insures that transfers go to other independents. Will be interesting to see how that can be organised.

So that somebody voting number 1 for Michael Healy-Rae can give their number 2 to Clare Daly and their number 3 to Michael Lowry and their number 4 to Thomas Pringle and their number 5 to Lucinda Creighton meaning they can vote for and against cronyism, for and against abortion, for and against anything you choose?

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

So that somebody voting number 1 for Michael Healy-Rae can give their number 2 to Clare Daly and their number 3 to Michael Lowry and their number 4 to Thomas Pringle and their number 5 to Lucinda Creighton meaning they can vote for and against cronyism, for and against abortion, for and against anything you choose?

Well personally my own priority would be to ensure that as many independents as possible get elected without voting for those whose behavior has been unethical in the past.

You already know my views on this, I won't get into yet another debate about it here. Point is, anyone who wants the next Dail to contain as many independents as possible will need to formulate some kind of strategy to prevent the transfers going all over the place and establishment parties being able to capitalise on that.

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Point is, anyone who wants the next Dail to contain as many independents as possible

Point is, anyone whose primary criterion for voting is that, has entirely missed the point. Of this whole "politics" lark in general. Might as well just vote for the DDI crowd...