Red C Poll

alaimacerc

Godge wrote: »

I think, despite it having hit 30%, the independent vote will do well to reach 20% in the actual election.

Would do badly thereby, ITYM.

hatrickpatrick

CramCycle wrote: »

Do these opinion polls share where those, who responded what. are from?

Might make alot of this discussion clearer if they do

The Irish Times ones certainly do.
What specifically would interest you? Which counties?

CramCycle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The Irish Times ones certainly do.
What specifically would interest you? Which counties?

I thought they did but couldn't see it. People talk about opinion polls transferring into seats, and alot of the talk is in the old acceptance of transfer toxic parties, independents being a protest that will die out as we get closer. If the poll showed what constituencies were giving responses too, then it would be easier to comment on them.

Some have said renua have 2%, spread across the country, they will be lucky to get a seat at all. The greens at 2%, if concentrated in Dublin, will presumably get Eamonn in the door but can they get anyone else in anywhere?

Are the bounce backs for FG and labour in areas with strong incumbent TDs, likely to be reelected or is is a general overall support, two completely different stories are told by this.

Are FF staying the same everywhere or are there seismic fluctuations in areas that will gain them seats etc.

People say Sinn Fein will be lucky to make their popularity count in the polls due to transfer toxicity. Are they popular all over including areas without candidates or are they strong in areas with candidates are established, the latter gives you the likely seats, the former shows how badly that popularity could be represented on election day.

Is the popularity in Independents seen in areas without named independents?

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Makes sense. Again, I think our fundamental disagreement is that you believe the independent vote to be largely superficial or indeed artificial. Personally I'd like to think people are sick of the guillotine and being ignored by a cabinet which forces representatives to implement policies the clear majority of the people don't approve of.

Recall the joke about the market research that showed the customers wanted better products for free, yesterday? The clear majority of people want better public services, lower taxes, and government by omnicompetent plaster saints.

We've long established you'd like to think this, but what we're missing is any evidence this is meaningfully correlated to the independent vote. Or more to the point, to the "telling opinion pollsters they might vote for some entirely unspecified indie" factor. Lots of people voting for parties are unhappy about the use of the guillotine -- especially opposition parties, whoever that happens to be at any given time. Funnily enough. And very clearly people have reasons for voting indie that are more diverse than you can shake a fist at.

This article sums it up nicely IMO:
http://m.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/politics-failing-as-anger-thrives-30710555.html

The article correctly describes a fairly generalised discontent, but beyond that I don't think it at all supports your hypothesis. The thing is, there's very little sign that people actually want anything radically different. They want the same thing... but magically better. Centre-right voters are still voting centre-right, just in different permutations. The left still votes left, it's just a bit angrier and keener on opposition than on government. And the populist nationalists may be somewhat reconfiguring into... another bunch of populist nationalists. Obviously the categories aren't actually rigid -- witness the FF councillor reportedly flirting with SF, before ending up in Rnu. D'oh. But there's no broad realignment between the categories. Much less the emergence of a new Tea Party one.

hatrickpatrick

alaimacerc wrote: »

If someone said "the lamentably bad parties", my reaction would be be similar. Lack of useful clarity on your part is not confusion on mine.


The latter isn't an act of definition, it's ad hoc enumeration. I asked for a definition in the hope you might provide a somewhat objective one. Or repent of your own woolly usage! Long shots, perhaps, but worth a shot.

What specifically is wrong with the definition I provided? The establishment refers to powerful institutions / vested interests which are able to exercise power over citizens. Establishment parties comprise those who are willing to put the wishes of these vested interests above the will of the people. How could I make this definition more clear? I provided three obvious examples of such vested interests. Is it that you'd like more examples?

That's the most blatantly cherry-picked usage so far. A party you wouldn't oppose is, mysteriously, inherently "not establishment". Tell me, when other people use the phrase, according to their own personal criteria, do you not find yourself noting the utter inconsistency and self-serving nature of such? Or do you just nod along on the basis that essentially all the current parties are too "establishment", so the more rhetoric against them, the better?

I could very easily oppose a non-establishment party. Sinn Fein is a good example. I don't support them at all, but they are currently not establishment either. Many predict that they would abandon their manifesto in government - if they did not do this, they would remain non-establishment as they are now, but I would still oppose them.

Why are you choosing to ignore the definition I have provided?
An establishment party is one which supports established, powerful, vested institutions even when the majority of the people don't support their policies. They enable certain organisations or entities to exercise power over the ordinary citizenry, even when those ordinary citizenry are not ok with that.

FG is currently doing this in any number of ways - to take three examples: by appointing old political cronies to public boards, by refusing to tackle bonus culture in banks, by last year persistently covering up and defending problems within the Gardai and the justice system - in all three cases, the public did not support the institution being defended, and yet the government continued to defend them. It's fairly clear that the public by and large are not ok with political appointments to boards, are not ok with bonus culture in bailed out banks, are not ok with the breakdown in the justice system which was exposed last year. In all three cases, the government have failed to adequately tackle those vested interests, even though the public want them tackled. This is by definition anti-democratic. The establishment is being protected from the public will.

hatrickpatrick

This is from Wikipedia:

The Establishment generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds power or authority in a nation or organization. The Establishment may be a closed social group which selects its own members (as opposed to selection by merit or election) or specific entrenched elite structures, either in government or in specific institutions

The American Sociological Association states that the term is often used by those protesting a small group that dominates a larger organization. For example, in 1968 a group of academics set up the "Sociology Liberation Movement" to repudiate the leadership of the American Sociological Association, which they referred to as the "Establishment in American sociology".[1]

In fact, any relatively small class or group of people having control can be referred to as The Establishment; and conversely, in the jargon of sociology, anyone who does not belong to The Establishment may be labelled an "outsider".[2][3]

Pretty much exactly my definition of "The Establishment".

Establishment parties, support the aforementioned small groups with control, at the expense of the wishes of the wider citizenry.

I honestly don't see how I can make this any clearer...

alaimacerc

CramCycle wrote: »

People talk about opinion polls transferring into seats, and alot of the talk is in the old acceptance of transfer toxic parties, independents being a protest that will die out as we get closer. If the poll showed what constituencies were giving responses too, then it would be easier to comment on them.

They deliberately don't give that breakdown, as if it's spread over the country, the sample size in each constituency would be so small the margin of error would be huge. And worse if it's not spread over the country -- that would call into question whether the methodology was sound, for the purposes of gauging true national figures. Unfortunately if you want constituency polls, you have to commission them separately, which clearly is vastly more expensive to do.

Is the popularity in Independents seen in areas without named independents?

It's a good question. I suspect many are expressing this intention without any actual idea what their available candidates are (or are likely to be). "I like that Mick Wallace/Shane Ross/other, I'd vote for someone similar to that."

hatrickpatrick

alaimacerc wrote: »

They deliberately don't give that breakdown, as if it's spread over the country, the sample size in each constituency would be so small the margin of error would be huge. And worse if it's not spread over the country -- that would call into question whether the methodology was sound, for the purposes of gauging true national figures. Unfortunately if you want constituency polls, you have to commission them separately, which clearly is vastly more expensive to do.


It's a good question. I suspect many are expressing this intention without any actual idea what their available candidates are (or are likely to be). "I like that Mick Wallace/Shane Ross/other, I'd vote for someone similar to that."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll

See the numerous drop-down menus as you scroll the page? They let you filter the results by geographical area.
But go on claiming that the poll is trying to pull a fast one. Hope the straws you're clutching at aren't giving you any paper cuts

Zubeneschamali

Godge wrote: »

Some people previously angry with the government are moving back towards supporting them but there is a long way to the next election.

When people are angry, it is easy to say they will vote independent, SF or whatever protest vote is in the survey.

But in this latest RED C poll, 29% of SF supporters worry that a change of Government would stall any recovery. 34% of Independent voters. 47% of undecided voters.

There simply is no alternative government. The Opposition have utterly failed to present themselves as capable of taking over. SF have basically said they don't want to, and FF are still busy knifing each other in the back after 2011.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Establishment parties meaning the large parties which have consistently dominated political discourse in Ireland for many years, and have supported the establishment over citizens in terms of institutions (banks, the church, etc) and the EU. Currently comprising FF, FG, and Labour - in my perhaps controversial opinion SF would probably end up in the same category after any length of time in government. The Greens and PDs also comprised part of this when they were relevant.

So, basically, an establishment party is one that has actually had to deal with the realities of running the country, as opposed to the luxury of carping from the opposition benches about how the country should be run?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not at all. If a party emerged which put implementing the policies which the vast majority of Irish people want implemented, and abolishing those which the vast majority of citizens wand abolished, ahead of doing what select cliques and powerful vested interests want, I would not consider it an establishment party and would not oppose it. Of course, in order for this to happen, it's my belief that such a party would have to afford a far larger degree of freedom to its TDs - this isn't necessarily the case, but it would certainly seem to be.

The party whip wouldn't be a problem if the cabinet was committed to implementing what the people want as opposed to what it wants in the first place.

That bit in bold is what we vote for every few years in elections, and we get the governments that the vast majority of Irish people want.

I see now that you are not pro-independent as such but you are anti-establishment. There is a difference. You are also anti-democratic.

Quin_Dub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

When people are angry, it is easy to say they will vote independent, SF or whatever protest vote is in the survey.

But in this latest RED C poll, 29% of SF supporters worry that a change of Government would stall any recovery. 34% of Independent voters. 47% of undecided voters.

There simply is no alternative government. The Opposition have utterly failed to present themselves as capable of taking over. SF have basically said they don't want to, and FF are still busy knifing each other in the back after 2011.

Some interesting data there for sure...

The age groups with the highest concern over a change of government impacting the recovery are the younger groups - 54% and 56% for the 18-24 & 25-34 groups.

Despite 60-70% of those categories saying that they haven't felt the impact of the recovery yet.

Clearly they feel that they are most likely to actually get the benefits at some point under the current government.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

That bit in bold is what we vote for every few years in elections, and we get the governments that the vast majority of Irish people want.

Then why is it that between elections there is so much intense discontent and "buyer's remorse"? We may get the government we want in terms of people, we certainly don't get the government we want in terms of policies.

I see now that you are not pro-independent as such but you are anti-establishment. There is a difference. You are also anti-democratic.

I am pro-independent because independents are not whipped, ergo they must do as they believe a majority of their citizens want them to do as opposed to what the chairman of a bank or corporation asks them to do over a round of golf. Yes, that is anti-establishment. No, that is not anti-democratic.

Given that I advocate direct democracy as the ultimate ideal with an unwhipped parliament as a second best, I don't see how anyone could accuse me of being anti-democratic. There are a vast number of pejorative political jibes which could legitimately be hurled in my general direction, so why you have to resort to ones which are completely baseless is beyond me

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Then why is it that between elections there is so much intense discontent and "buyer's remorse"? We may get the government we want in terms of people, we certainly don't get the government we want in terms of policies.



I am pro-independent because independents are not whipped, ergo they must do as they believe a majority of their citizens want them to do as opposed to what the chairman of a bank or corporation asks them to do over a round of golf. Yes, that is anti-establishment. No, that is not anti-democratic.

Given that I advocate direct democracy as the ultimate ideal with an unwhipped parliament as a second best, I don't see how anyone could accuse me of being anti-democratic. There are a vast number of pejorative political jibes which could legitimately be hurled in my general direction, so why you have to resort to ones which are completely baseless is beyond me

Your belief in Independents is a mark of your naivity and gullibility.

To quote Edmund Burke 'Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing'

I find none of the current lot's big political ideas in the least impressive; they have exposed a few examples of corruption but these don't figure in the big scheme of things.

First Up

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Then why is it that between elections there is so much intense discontent and "buyer's remorse"? We may get the government we want in terms of people, we certainly don't get the government we want in terms of policies.



I am pro-independent because independents are not whipped, ergo they must do as they believe a majority of their citizens want them to do as opposed to what the chairman of a bank or corporation asks them to do over a round of golf. Yes, that is anti-establishment. No, that is not anti-democratic.

Given that I advocate direct democracy as the ultimate ideal with an unwhipped parliament as a second best, I don't see how anyone could accuse me of being anti-democratic. There are a vast number of pejorative political jibes which could legitimately be hurled in my general direction, so why you have to resort to ones which are completely baseless is beyond me

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, do you think we would be better served by a Dail comprised entirely of independents, each democratically elected and each with an electorate and a conscience to serve?

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll

See the numerous drop-down menus as you scroll the page? They let you filter the results by geographical area.

Interesting, and I didn't know they'd done that in this case, but a long way away from by-constituency: at the finest, it allows a five-way breakdown (four ways geographically). That will still, as I said, significantly increase the margin of error, as you now effectively have a sample size of 200, 250, 500, etc. But nothing like what you'd see if you were to try to use a 25-person subsample from each of the forty constituencies. Which would be hilariously inaccurate.

But go on claiming that the poll is trying to pull a fast one. Hope the straws you're clutching at aren't giving you any paper cuts

The straws you're using to construct that man, perhaps? That's not remotely like anything I actually said. Thus I would be hard pressed to "go on claiming" something I never claimed in the first instance!

alaimacerc

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But in this latest RED C poll, 29% of SF supporters worry that a change of Government would stall any recovery.

Makes perfect sense. SF don't want a change of government. They want a change of opposition!

Zubeneschamali

alaimacerc wrote: »

Makes perfect sense. SF don't want a change of government. They want a change of opposition!

I really dislike SF, but I am OK with them replacing FF, who are just pointless at this stage.

Quin_Dub

alaimacerc wrote: »

Makes perfect sense. SF don't want a change of government. They want a change of opposition!

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I really dislike SF, but I am OK with them replacing FF, who are just pointless at this stage.

Based on the latest poll results though , that is unlikely to happen..

Given the historical delta for those parties between poll results and electoral success, FF will be larger than SF after the next election.

SF would need to have clear daylight of about 10 points in the opinion polls to bridge their vote/poll gap.

FF will gather about 15% more actual votes/seats than they show in the polls , whereas SF will be 25-30% below their poll results..

That being said , The Carlow/Kilkenny bi-election will likely be a watershed moment for Micheal Martin and FF.

If FF get a seat I think it buys Martin time and maybe builds a bit of momentum..

If they don't do well, it will likely trigger a leadership challenge. A change of leadership could be a good thing for them but a lot depends on how divisive that change is..

If they can get the change through with little blood-letting I think FF might show some recovery , but if it gets messy it could accelerate the decline..

Zubeneschamali

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If they can get the change through with little blood-letting I think FF might show some recovery , but if it gets messy it could accelerate the decline..

It's already messy, with Martin abusing his TDs and someone leaking to the media within minutes (from a meeting of just 20 people).

Jawgap

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's already messy, with Martin abusing his TDs and someone leaking to the media within minutes (from a meeting of just 20 people).

All the parties' parliamentary party meetings leak like sieves (except the Shinners)

hardCopy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Then why is it that between elections there is so much intense discontent and "buyer's remorse"? We may get the government we want in terms of people, we certainly don't get the government we want in terms of policies.

How much of this buyer's remorse comes from people who actually voted for government parties? Most people I know IRL who complain and people I see screaming at the government on TV would never have voted for FG in a million years.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I am pro-independent because independents are not whipped, ergo they must do as they believe a majority of their citizens want them to do as opposed to what the chairman of a bank or corporation asks them to do over a round of golf. Yes, that is anti-establishment. No, that is not anti-democratic.

Our independents only have to worry about doing what a Quota's worth of their neighbours care about. Typically a quarter of the active voters in their constituency, that's a big jump to say they are mindful of what the majority of the country want.

hatrickpatrick

hardCopy wrote: »

How much of this buyer's remorse comes from people who actually voted for government parties? Most people I know IRL who complain and people I see screaming at the government on TV would never have voted for FG in a million years.

Well I and many of my friends voted for them (granted we can be considered politically naive since it was many of our first eligible election and some people's second) and I certainly wouldn't vote for them again in a million years. Sean Barrett, worst Ceann Comhairle since John O'Donoghue, Eamonn Gilmore, two faced liar as exposed by Wikileaks, Mary Mitchell O'Connor, condescending VFI lapdog.

That's when talking about individuals. When talking about parties as a whole which these individuals represent, FG = continuation of FF style cronyism and corruption, looking after their friends first and screwing everyone else. Labour = totally abandoning their principles and agreeing to go along with practically any BS from FG in order to remain in power. I would have had respect for Labour if they'd put their foot down over Alan Shatter, for instance.

Our independents only have to worry about doing what a Quota's worth of their neighbours care about. Typically a quarter of the active voters in their constituency, that's a big jump to say they are mindful of what the majority of the country want.

That's true of individual TDs, but if the next Dail comprises a majority of independents, then logically they are, all put together, representing a majority of the country.

I've said all along that this must be accompanied by proper devolution to local government in order to reduce pothole politics. If that were to happen, the TDs would vote on national issues as a majority of their constituents want them to, and all put together this would result in legislation being passed or not passed based on what the national electorate generally want.

hatrickpatrick

alaimacerc wrote: »

Interesting, and I didn't know they'd done that in this case, but a long way away from by-constituency: at the finest, it allows a five-way breakdown (four ways geographically). That will still, as I said, significantly increase the margin of error, as you now effectively have a sample size of 200, 250, 500, etc. But nothing like what you'd see if you were to try to use a 25-person subsample from each of the forty constituencies. Which would be hilariously inaccurate.

Interesting point. What we actually need then is a 1,000 person sample in each constituency nationwide.

The straws you're using to construct that man, perhaps? That's not remotely like anything I actually said. Thus I would be hard pressed to "go on claiming" something I never claimed in the first instance!

I got the impression you were implying that Red C poll results were being deliberately skewed or misrepresented by those publishing them. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I've said all along that this must be accompanied by proper devolution to local government in order to reduce pothole politics. If that were to happen, the TDs would vote on national issues as a majority of their constituents want them to, and all put together this would result in legislation being passed or not passed based on what the national electorate generally want.

I think that's a hopelessly naive view.

Let's take (say) hospital services. With the best will in the world, even if you devolve powers to local government, it won't be the county council that decides whether Roscommon hospital has an A&E, or Cavan has a cancer ward. You really think people won't elect independents on promises to retain or obtain such services?

Similarly roads, or factories, or whatever. Irish people vote in large numbers for the candidates who promise they'll deliver for the area. Unless you're planning to restructure government to the extent that the national government has no say whatsoever in local issues - and we haven't even touched on the fact that such reform as you've suggested is meaningless until local government can levy its own taxes, including income taxes - politics will remain local.

If we want people to stop voting for local-issue candidates, not only do we need proper devolution, we need a national list system - precisely the opposite of what you're asking for.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Interesting point. What we actually need then is a 1,000 person sample in each constituency nationwide.



I got the impression you were implying that Red C poll results were being deliberately skewed or misrepresented by those publishing them. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean?

I don't think you need a 1,000 person sample in every constituency because the size of the constituency is smaller. That being said, it is not a linear relationship, it is quite a complicated formula, and from what I recall, a sample size of 500 is considered good enough for a constituency-level poll. You still need to get a balance between young and old, male and female, working and non-working, etc. It is just the regional balance issue is less thus facilitating a reduced sample size. For example, in Dublin Central, you don't need to worry about an urban/rural balance. When you reduce the number of variables you need to control for as well as the population size, your required sample size for a particular confidence level is reduced.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think that's a hopelessly naive view.

Let's take (say) hospital services. With the best will in the world, even if you devolve powers to local government, it won't be the county council that decides whether Roscommon hospital has an A&E, or Cavan has a cancer ward. You really think people won't elect independents on promises to retain or obtain such services?

Similarly roads, or factories, or whatever. Irish people vote in large numbers for the candidates who promise they'll deliver for the area. Unless you're planning to restructure government to the extent that the national government has no say whatsoever in local issues - and we haven't even touched on the fact that such reform as you've suggested is meaningless until local government can levy its own taxes, including income taxes - politics will remain local.

Would that be a problem? You'd have to adjust constituency sizes to ensure that each local council would be able to raise enough revenue to fund services, or else give each LA significantly more say in how national taxes are distributed - it would take a lot of work to design, but you'd end up with a far more democratic system in my view. Local politicians for local issues, national politicians for national issues.

Think of it like the EU but on a much smaller scale. Each state pays a certain amount into the EU budget, but has its own budget as well. Why couldn't we do something like this with local government -> national government?

If we want people to stop voting for local-issue candidates, not only do we need proper devolution, we need a national list system - precisely the opposite of what you're asking for.

Or do as I've said above and fully devolve most power to local government.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

I don't think you need a 1,000 person sample in every constituency because the size of the constituency is smaller. That being said, it is not a linear relationship, it is quite a complicated formula, and from what I recall, a sample size of 500 is considered good enough for a constituency-level poll. You still need to get a balance between young and old, male and female, working and non-working, etc. It is just the regional balance issue is less thus facilitating a reduced sample size. For example, in Dublin Central, you don't need to worry about an urban/rural balance. When you reduce the number of variables you need to control for as well as the population size, your required sample size for a particular confidence level is reduced.

Makes sense. To be honest I've always found it philosophically troubling that groupthink is so extensive that a sample size of 1,000 is enough. Basically implies that you could take me, poll me, and apply my supposedly individual thinking to a vast swathe of people who share my demographic attributes.

We're getting into a weird area here, but it's a bit like questioning how free will could exist alongside time travel - if someone can come back from the future to try and influence my decisions, then that means that on a universal scale, my decisions were already somehow fixed in stone. Creepy stuff.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Would that be a problem?

Would what be a problem?

You'd have to adjust constituency sizes to ensure that each local council would be able to raise enough revenue to fund services...

Cancer services? Roads? Police? Prisons?

...or else give each LA significantly more say in how national taxes are distributed...

So your local government - elected specifically on the basis of running its own geographical area, not the country - is involved in decision-making about disbursement of funds on a national level?

...it would take a lot of work to design, but you'd end up with a far more democratic system in my view. Local politicians for local issues, national politicians for national issues.

Except that you've already proposed that the local politicians should get involved in national issues, and you still haven't explained how to prevent the national politicians from getting involved in local issues.

If one candidate tells the people of (say) Carlow that, if elected, he'll do XYZ for the country, and another candidate tells them that he'll do ABC for Carlow - you honestly think that people are going to say "hmm, I think I'll vote for the one who'll put the national interest first"? Because if so, you haven't explained how you're going to fix the electorate.

Think of it like the EU but on a much smaller scale. Each state pays a certain amount into the EU budget, but has its own budget as well. Why couldn't we do something like this with local government -> national government?

We could. I don't have a problem with devolution. My problem is with the idea that people will magically stop voting for whichever candidate promises to deliver for them.

I also think that the day local authorities in this country try to introduce income taxes is the day the entire country will erupt in flames. Irish people love taxes, as long as someone else is paying them.

Or do as I've said above and fully devolve most power to local government.

As a matter of interest, have you ever witnessed a local authority meeting?

You think our national politicians are gombeens...!

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To be honest I've always found it philosophically troubling that groupthink is so extensive that a sample size of 1,000 is enough. Basically implies that you could take me, poll me, and apply my supposedly individual thinking to a vast swathe of people who share my demographic attributes.

The demographics aspect is secondary. The fundamental idea is to randomly sample the entire population. It's impossible to do that in a strictly randomised manner, for obvious practical reasons, so you have to approximate it as best as you can. The tricky thing is doing that in a way that's not demographically biased. For example if you just wandered down O'Connell Street and grabbing people at random you'd clearly be skewing the survey in several important respects.

Nothing to do with "groupthink".

alaimacerc

Godge wrote: »

I don't think you need a 1,000 person sample in every constituency because the size of the constituency is smaller.

The rule of thumb is that margin of error is independent of population size until you're sampling over 5%. So I think they're just accepting a somewhat worse MoE (4-5%) for cost reasons.

It is just the regional balance issue is less thus facilitating a reduced sample size.

That aspect is true. But that's not reducing the MoE as such, it's just trying to ensure there's not a methodological bias on top of the sampling error.

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I got the impression you were implying that Red C poll results were being deliberately skewed or misrepresented by those publishing them.

No.

If that's not what you meant, what did you mean?

Here's what I said:

alaimacerc wrote: »

They deliberately don't give that breakdown, as if it's spread over the country, the sample size in each constituency would be so small the margin of error would be huge.

Which coincidentally enough, is also what I meant.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Makes sense. To be honest I've always found it philosophically troubling that groupthink is so extensive that a sample size of 1,000 is enough. Basically implies that you could take me, poll me, and apply my supposedly individual thinking to a vast swathe of people who share my demographic attributes.

We're getting into a weird area here, but it's a bit like questioning how free will could exist alongside time travel - if someone can come back from the future to try and influence my decisions, then that means that on a universal scale, my decisions were already somehow fixed in stone. Creepy stuff.

It is based around the normal distribution curve and the idea that while an individual human decision is not predictable, general human behaviour is. To be fair, there is significant research backing it up.

Nevertheless, you cannot control for individual human quirkiness which is why the result always comes with a caveat that it is correct within +/- 3%.

alaimacerc

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Based on the latest poll results though , that is unlikely to happen..

At the next election, I agree. SF will be broadly content if they're seen to be making progress towards that as a longer-term goal. In fact if they're the third-largest party it is in some way handy, because the pressure to prop up an coalition there's little enthusiasm for "in the national interest" will fall mainly on FF, rather than on them.

FF will gather about 15% more actual votes/seats than they show in the polls , whereas SF will be 25-30% below their poll results..

To which add a significant transfer differential.

If they don't do well, it will likely trigger a leadership challenge. A change of leadership could be a good thing for them but a lot depends on how divisive that change is..

Who on earth do they have in the Dáil at present who wouldn't be even worse than MM? I think they'd be better advised to hold off to the other side of the next election. It'll look less irresolutely internecine, and they'd hope to have at least some new blood available.

alaimacerc

Godge wrote: »

It is based around the normal distribution curve and the idea that while an individual human decision is not predictable, general human behaviour is. To be fair, there is significant research backing it up.

Nevertheless, you cannot control for individual human quirkiness which is why the result always comes with a caveat that it is correct within +/- 3%.

There's not even as much to it as that. Imagine pulling 1000 coloured beads beads at random out of a jar with 80,000 beads total inside. (Or 3m-odd, as the case may be.) Blue, red, deeper red... many, many shades of green... Cracked ones for the independents... You don't have to have a deep insight into the nature of the beads to be pretty confident you have a decent idea of what the composition of unseen beads is.

Quin_Dub

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Would that be a problem? You'd have to adjust constituency sizes to ensure that each local council would be able to raise enough revenue to fund services, or else give each LA significantly more say in how national taxes are distributed - it would take a lot of work to design, but you'd end up with a far more democratic system in my view. Local politicians for local issues, national politicians for national issues.

Think of it like the EU but on a much smaller scale. Each state pays a certain amount into the EU budget, but has its own budget as well. Why couldn't we do something like this with local government -> national government?



Or do as I've said above and fully devolve most power to local government.

So you are advocating the United States of Ireland ??

First Up

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So you are advocating the United States of Ireland ??

Good luck with getting an answer. I'm stil waiting for hatrick to say if he is advocating a Dail made up entirely of independents.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would what be a problem?

Allowing local government to levy its own taxes etc.

Cancer services? Roads? Police? Prisons? So your local government - elected specifically on the basis of running its own geographical area, not the country - is involved in decision-making about disbursement of funds on a national level? Except that you've already proposed that the local politicians should get involved in national issues, and you still haven't explained how to prevent the national politicians from getting involved in local issues.

What if, again, individual councils levied their own taxes to pay for those local services? And the national government only got involved in issues which affected the entire country?

If one candidate tells the people of (say) Carlow that, if elected, he'll do XYZ for the country, and another candidate tells them that he'll do ABC for Carlow - you honestly think that people are going to say "hmm, I think I'll vote for the one who'll put the national interest first"? Because if so, you haven't explained how you're going to fix the electorate. We could. I don't have a problem with devolution. My problem is with the idea that people will magically stop voting for whichever candidate promises to deliver for them.

My point is, if national government didn't have the power to do anything as local as fixing potholes etc, then even if a national politician promised to do ABC for Carlow, he or she would get into the Dail and discover that they had no remit over purely local issues.

I also think that the day local authorities in this country try to introduce income taxes is the day the entire country will erupt in flames.

If all of these powers and responsibilities were first removed from national government and given to local government, the amount of tax paid to the national exchequer would decrease substantially. If local taxes were simultaneously designed and implemented, people wouldn't see that big a difference in how much tax they were paying. I know there'll be the argument that areas with lower populations would pay less tax, but those areas would also require fewer services and less spending than more densely populated areas. As for disparity in income levels across the country, this would give all politicians a good incentive, at the local and national level, to try and ensure a fairer distribution of jobs, wealth etc geographically.

Irish people love taxes, as long as someone else is paying them. As a matter of interest, have you ever witnessed a local authority meeting?

You think our national politicians are gombeens...!

Of course I have. Sat in on many of them during the Save Our Seafront protests which I helped to organize in Dun Laoghaire and Sandycove circa 2005-2006. Main thing I noticed? Those who were independents at the time were far less likely to vote in favour of the monstrous development which a vast swathe of the local population opposed, but most of the parties supported. Why? Presumably because an independent candidate has less room to vote for hugely unpopular proposals. It shouldn't have taken so many months of sustained public opposition to finally get the proposal thrown out - if the parties had been more afraid of the public than of their vested interests, it would never have reached the finalisation stage that it did.

I think the ultimate difference of opinion regarding all this is whether you believe that people should get the policies they want, or the policies which others who are somehow regarded as knowing "what's best for us" want to impose on us. As a supporter of direct democracy, I'm more in favour of people deciding for themselves what's best for them and what they want, not leaving it to others who too often don't care about individuals.

It's like my argument against banning supplements like St John's Wort because some people might not read the label and might f*ck themselves up. I'm more in favour of erring on the side of responsible individuals who know what they want and should be allowed to make their own decisions, rather than the minority who are irresponsible. As far as I'm concerned, Ireland infantilizes its citizens far more than other countries do, and this thread is a perfect example of that. The main argument against independents seems to be that they would achieve exactly what I want them to achieve - quasi-direct democracy in which policies implemented line up far more with what people actually want - and that this would lead to policies which bring about armageddon. Said argument is based on the fundamental condescending assumption that Irish people are thick.

I don't buy that.

First Up wrote: »

Good luck with getting an answer. I'm stil waiting for hatrick to say if he is advocating a Dail made up entirely of independents.

I have already stated repeatedly that this is precisely what I would regard as ideal - as long as direct democracy is off the table, of course.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So you are advocating the United States of Ireland ??

I hadn't thought of it like this, but I suppose in a way yes. Although as it's being practised with a much smaller population and on a smaller scale, I don't think it's the best comparison.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Allowing local government to levy its own taxes etc.

What if, again, individual councils levied their own taxes to pay for those local services? And the national government only got involved in issues which affected the entire country?



My point is, if national government didn't have the power to do anything as local as fixing potholes etc, then even if a national politician promised to do ABC for Carlow, he or she would get into the Dail and discover that they had no remit over purely local issues.



If all of these powers and responsibilities were first removed from national government and given to local government, the amount of tax paid to the national exchequer would decrease substantially. If local taxes were simultaneously designed and implemented, people wouldn't see that big a difference in how much tax they were paying. I know there'll be the argument that areas with lower populations would pay less tax, but those areas would also require fewer services and less spending than more densely populated areas. As for disparity in income levels across the country, this would give all politicians a good incentive, at the local and national level, to try and ensure a fairer distribution of jobs, wealth etc geographically.



.

This wouldn't work even though as a Dubliner it would be so great to pay that much less tax or have public services beyond anything else in the country.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

This wouldn't work

Why not?

even though as a Dubliner it would be so great to pay that much less tax or have public services beyond anything else in the country.

Dublin has a much denser population, so the number of services required etc would be higher than elsewhere. Would this not offset the higher population paying more tax?

Besides, we don't have to take the federal Ireland idea to its absolute extreme (although I know you like to do this in order to rubbish alternative political systems). Why couldn't a happy medium be found which would allow for directly representative government / direct democracy without screwing over smaller constituencies?

First Up

So, 166 TDs, each elected on the basis of their local popularity and own priorities. From this do you envisage the election of a Taoiseach and Ministers? Will there be a cabinet? Would Ministries talk to each other to co-ordinate policies? How will legislation be framed and voted on?

Do explain; I am genuinely curious. And if you want to offer examples of where such a model can be observed in action, that would be great.

CramCycle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Dublin has a much denser population, so the number of services required etc would be higher than elsewhere. Would this not offset the higher population paying more tax?

No, in fact one of the main points of a national taxation pot is that the higher density regions, while they may need more services, due to increased demand, do not cost as much per person. The countryside on the other hand, while services are reduced, the limited amount that is there would cost far more per person.

I am far from an economist but this is my understanding.

Quin_Dub

CramCycle wrote: »

No, in fact one of the main points of a national taxation pot is that the higher density regions, while they may need more services, due to increased demand, do not cost as much per person. The countryside on the other hand, while services are reduced, the limited amount that is there would cost far more per person.

I am far from an economist but this is my understanding.

Exactly - And the idea of local gathered/retained taxation doesn't make a lot of sense either..

The more sparsely populated counties could never raise sufficient taxation to cover their costs , leading to increased subventions from Central government.

Cavan , Leitrim etc. would be even more disadvantaged than they are now in terms of funding and investment..

Leading to.........People in those counties voting for the guy that will bring in external investment or increase the Central funding via a National platform.....ergo - Voting for local issues , thereby defeating the purpose of the original idea.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Allowing local government to levy its own taxes etc.

Hand on heart: if you were to propose to people that they had to pay both local and national income taxes, how many do you think would buy in to the idea?

What if, again, individual councils levied their own taxes to pay for those local services?

So every local authority has a cancer hospital, and a children's hospital, and a prison, and is responsible for its own road maintenance (no NRA), and organises its own police force, and runs its own ambulance service - as well as having its own Revenue body?

Sounds super efficient.

My point is, if national government didn't have the power to do anything as local as fixing potholes etc...

National government doesn't have the power to fix potholes. Local authorities already have that responsibility. What you're talking about is devolving the responsibility for building and maintaining motorways to the local authorities.

Don't get me wrong: I believe we need proper devolved government, which requires local authority taxation. But I also believe that to do that, we need a higher calibre of local (and national!) politician, which in turn requires a higher calibre of voter.

Your solution is to vote for independents, ???, profit! This belief is predicated solely on the idea that whatever issue is currently exercising a substantial portion of the electorate enough to get them to make noise about is by far the single biggest priority and must be addressed at any cost - the vision of democracy that says that if a mob is shrieking something, it's automatically true.

Santa Cruz

The nearer we get to an election the more fixed will peoples mind be on their pockets. If in 12 months time unemployment is down by another 50000 people will be inclined to vote for the present government

road_high

Santa Cruz wrote: »

The nearer we get to an election the more fixed will peoples mind be on their pockets. If in 12 months time unemployment is down by another 50000 people will be inclined to vote for the present government

Defo. The other "options" looking increasing risky. The next budget will have to give back to working people and if it's fairly generous I'll gladly vote them back in tbh.

nesf

CramCycle wrote: »

No, in fact one of the main points of a national taxation pot is that the higher density regions, while they may need more services, due to increased demand, do not cost as much per person. The countryside on the other hand, while services are reduced, the limited amount that is there would cost far more per person.

I am far from an economist but this is my understanding.

It's a combination of two things, the first is you just more of some stuff per person in rural areas compared to urban, so roads and water pipes for instance, the second is some public services benefit a lot from economies of scale, they're cheaper or higher quality per person the more people you serve, pretty much anything here but the simple example is emergency services, Cork County has roughly double the population of Cork City but it has around 450 (about half and half full time and part time) firefighters to Cork City's 140 or so. They're similar but different problems.