Red C Poll

marienbad

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you're saying you feel a government which has no accountability is the lesser of two evils against a government which is permanently accountable? Or are you suggesting that we have some third option I'm unaware of?

We have a government that is accountable (ask Bertie & co.) ,maybe not as accountable as you would like but don't go to the other extreme.And permanent accountability is just another phrase for paralysis

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Now in a proper parliamentary democracy, the government TDs would then say "right, well if you won't give us time to look at the legislation, we'll vote against it. And we'll keep voting against it until you give us time to look at it, and consider any proposed amendments. If we're still not happy, we'll reject it outright".

Given the "impressionistic" nature of your description of how the whip system and guillotine work, any indication of what "time to look at it" would be? Because the general gist I'm getting is that what you want is endless filibustering, paralysis, gridlock, and government that can't actually govern.

CramCycle

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not convinced about that. What's the magic size of constituency that prevents rampant localism across it? Or across a half or a third over it, given the immediate instincts of the political parties to carve up a constituency to run candidates from different ends of it.

65

I suspect you'd still get it even if we were down to Dublin, Rest of the Country 1, and Rest of the Country 2. Witness the Euros.

You would get more of the accountability without the localised rubbish because if they were using the local stuff for half the constituency then there 8 a chance they won't get it done for the other half. The idea would be that they would then focus on national issues only where people can look at the choices more objectively instead of "this **** me so I won't vote for them agaon", it would change to "tough choice but they either made the right 0 ne or the wrong one".

And you have to have enough seats for cabinet government, opposition, and backbench scrutiny in committees.

Between the oi reacts and the 65 TDS yes, surprised how much time will be there for them when the country TDS are not running to every mildly popular persons funeral and the likes of Shane Ross are turning up to talks on trying to reopen a swimming pool. An issue solely within the remit of the local council and people.

Go much below 100 and you start to look like an overgrown council chamber.

35 below would be nice.

alaimacerc

CramCycle wrote: »

65

So about 15-20 constituencies, with 2-3 county constituencies becoming the norm. Perfect recipe for "vote for the fellah from your own local place, not themuns from the other county(s)!" stumping.

Also, if you're forming a government with 33 people, what size do you make the cabinet? Is the committee system going to operate in any form whatsoever?

You would get more of the accountability without the localised rubbish because if they were using the local stuff for half the constituency then there 8 a chance they won't get it done for the other half.

Seems to me you're just lumping the local rubbish. By a larger factor than is workable, I think, while not actually even solving the essential problem.

hatrickpatrick

marienbad wrote: »

We have a government that is accountable (ask Bertie & co.) ,maybe not as accountable as you would like but don't go to the other extreme.And permanent accountability is just another phrase for paralysis

If we'd had permanent accountability we could have got rid of Bertie as soon as the economy started to tank rather than having to wait until after the IMF were called in.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Given the "impressionistic" nature of your description of how the whip system and guillotine work, any indication of what "time to look at it" would be?

As long as it takes to convince a majority of TDs that the legislation deserves to be passed.

Because the general gist I'm getting is that what you want is endless filibustering, paralysis, gridlock, and government that can't actually govern.

This would only happen if legislation coming from cabinet was so God-awful that TDs repeatedly shot it down. In that scenario the cabinet would end up being voted out by TDs and replaced by another one.

I still say gridlock is better than crappy governance.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If we'd had permanent accountability we could have got rid of Bertie as soon as the economy started to tank rather than having to wait until after the IMF were called in.

Wouldn't have stopped the IMF coming in. The guarantee was the wrong move in retrospect only; it appeared to be the right move at the time and I'm fairly certain no matter what the opposition at the time said, they would have done the same thing.

It transpired that Anglo had cooked the books well after the blanket was put in place.

As long as it takes to convince a majority of TDs that the legislation deserves to be passed.



This would only happen if legislation coming from cabinet was so God-awful that TDs repeatedly shot it down. In that scenario the cabinet would end up being voted out by TDs and replaced by another one.

I still say gridlock is better than crappy governance.

I take it you have never lived in the US. Gridlock and partisanship are way worse than what you perceive to be "crappy governance"

Quin_Dub

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This would only happen if legislation coming from cabinet was so God-awful that TDs repeatedly shot it down. In that scenario the cabinet would end up being voted out by TDs and replaced by another one.

I still say gridlock is better than crappy governance.

Not necessarily..

Look at the utter paralysis in the US with the Republicans blocking every piece of legislation just to spite Obama regardless of the quality or otherwise of the legislation.

Whilst , conceptually, giving every single TD the opportunity to run the rule over every piece of legislation seems like a hugely democratic thing to do , in reality , it just means nothing will ever get done as we'll get stuck in Analysis Paralysis over everything..

Also - Human nature as is it , everything will descend into the worst kind of pork-barrel side deals to get thing done...

We'll have Community centres and ring-roads of a standard not yet seen anywhere in the world.....

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Wouldn't have stopped the IMF coming in. The guarantee was the wrong move in retrospect only; it appeared to be the right move at the time and I'm fairly certain no matter what the opposition at the time said, they would have done the same thing.

It transpired that Anglo had cooked the books well after the blanket was put in place.

Regardless, we would still have got rid of FF long before they actually went, and perhaps begun repairing the economy at an earlier stage.

Do you deny that given the opportunity, the public would have voted them out earlier than Feb '11?

I take it you have never lived in the US. Gridlock and partisanship are way worse than what you perceive to be "crappy governance"

The US government is hardly more accountable than the Irish. Corporatism has overtaken democracy in the US - which is why I will always oppose further EU integration.

What I'm talking about only works on a local, national level.

Quin_Dub

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Regardless, we would still have got rid of FF long before they actually went, and perhaps begun repairing the economy at an earlier stage.

Do you deny that given the opportunity, the public would have voted them out earlier than Feb '11?




The US government is hardly more accountable than the Irish. Corporatism has overtaken democracy in the US - which is why I will always oppose further EU integration.

What I'm talking about only works on a local, national level.

But in your model it becomes even more parochial...

If there was a system of recall and open voting for every piece of legislation then TD's would spend their time "checking in" with their constituents for everything, making sure that they were happy every day to avoid the recall trigger..

So.. now , all the TD is concerned about it is keeping his constituents "onside" for ever , terrified that one wrong move (or a move they don't like , regardless of right or wrong) will get him the shepherds crook..

Might sound like accountability , but it's not, it's reverse micro-management , hundreds/thousands of people 2nd guessing the guy every single day , to the point that he does nothing for fear of offending somebody...


Not saying that the current system is perfect... Far from it , but what you are suggesting would just be a different kind of wrong..

Zubeneschamali

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What I'm talking about only works on a local, national level.

What you're talking about only works in your imagination.

Good thing it'll stay there.

ChicagoJoe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If we'd had permanent accountability we could have got rid of Bertie as soon as the economy started to tank rather than having to wait until after the IMF were called in.

Wouldn't have made the least bit of difference, Cowen would have taken over earlier that's all. And likewise Kenny isn't a tiny bit different from either of them as we have seen since 2011 with cronyism, broken promises etc FG and Labour in opposition were calling for even more tax breaks on property, lifting stamp duty on housing to throw more fuel on the out of control fire. But then all the ' experts ' in the ECB, IMF were cheering on these policies, Anglo Irish got a AAA rating 12 months before it went bust for God's sake.

FreudianSlippers

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Wouldn't have made the least bit of difference, Cowen would have taken over earlier that's all. And likewise Kenny isn't a tiny bit different from either of them as we have seen since 2011 with cronyism, broken promises etc FG and Labour in opposition were calling for even more tax breaks on property, lifting stamp duty on housing to throw more fuel on the out of control fire. But then all the ' experts ' in the ECB, IMF were cheering on these policies, Anglo Irish got a AAA rating 12 months before it went bust for God's sake.

That's the thing people don't seem to understand - no matter who was in government at the time, the blanket guarantee looked like a good idea because Anglo had effectively ensured they would be covered, knowing that they were on the brink of failure. Had anyone had proper insight into Anglo's books, they wouldn't have guaranteed it.

I don't care who was in government, this would have played out the same way or worse (if all banks were left to fail).

frankbrett

@namawinelake: Ambitious: Martin McGuinness sees 80-TD left-wing govt in 2016 with combination SF, "chastened" Labour and like-minded Independents.

Labour eh?

hatrickpatrick

Quin_Dub wrote: »

But in your model it becomes even more parochial…

I keep saying this, it wouldn't be parochial if local issues were removed from national government agenda and given to local government instead.

If there was a system of recall and open voting for every piece of legislation then TD's would spend their time "checking in" with their constituents for everything, making sure that they were happy every day to avoid the recall trigger..

So.. now , all the TD is concerned about it is keeping his constituents "onside" for ever , terrified that one wrong move (or a move they don't like , regardless of right or wrong) will get him the shepherds crook..

Precisely. Voting patterns in parliament would become truly representative of what people want.

Might sound like accountability , but it's not, it's reverse micro-management , hundreds/thousands of people 2nd guessing the guy every single day , to the point that he does nothing for fear of offending somebody…

It's not as ideal as direct democracy would be, but it's the closest thing on the table at the moment.

hatrickpatrick

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What you're talking about only works in your imagination.

Good thing it'll stay there.

The swiss have semi-direct democracy and it works pretty well for them. Why is this fact always ignored whenever this debate comes up?

Zubeneschamali

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The swiss have semi-direct democracy and it works pretty well for them. Why is this fact always ignored whenever this debate comes up?

I wasn't talking about semi-direct democracy, I was commenting on your mad notion of having a Dail entirely made up of independents.

There are a ton of political parties in Switzerland, the parties are even more explicitly included in the election process than they are here.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The swiss have semi-direct democracy and it works pretty well for them. Why is this fact always ignored whenever this debate comes up?

Very very confused.

I don't think any independents at all can be elected to the National Council in Switzerland. How is it comparable to your system? It seems as far as possible away from your system as one can go i.e. you want only independents, the Swiss only have political parties.

hatrickpatrick

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I wasn't talking about semi-direct democracy, I was commenting on your mad notion of having a Dail entirely made up of independents.

Same difference. A Dail full of TDs who are constantly checking in with their electorate, as has been prophesized here under my independent Dail idea, would ultimately result in direct democracy by proxy.

There are a ton of political parties in Switzerland, the parties are even more explicitly included in the election process than they are here.

True, but the people have far more of a direct say in how their country is run than we do.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Very very confused.

I don't think any independents at all can be elected to the National Council in Switzerland. How is it comparable to your system? It seems as far as possible away from your system as one can go i.e. you want only independents, the Swiss only have political parties.

If there were only independents in the Dail, and a system of popular recall for individuals, then as Quin_Dub said above, they would have to keep checking how their constituents wanted them to vote on various bills or risk being recalled. It would, in essence, be an indirect direct democracy.

Quin_Dub

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If there were only independents in the Dail, and a system of popular recall for individuals, then as Quin_Dub said above, they would have to keep checking how their constituents wanted them to vote on various bills or risk being recalled. It would, in essence, be an indirect direct democracy.

That is what I said , however I think that's a very bad thing...

Leadership by committee doesn't work , nothing gets done , hard decisions would be avoided and effective governance would grind to a halt..

Everybody checking back with their constituents would mean every trivial bit of legislation taking months to agree followed by various TD's holding up things until they get their little "rider" added to the bill so they can get it approved so you end up with bloated regulation full of exceptions and exclusions to appease individuals from all points of the compass.

Do the board members of a large corporate ask all the employees for their approval for every decision they make?

No they don't - Good ones take the time to explain the decisions to the staff so they understand the bigger picture and the larger plan etc. , but the buck stops with them , they make the calls..

That's how Government should work..

No question , our TD's could benefit from spending more time on the ground in their localities explaining legislation to their constituents and helping people understand the bigger picture and how it all hangs together..

That would be more useful time spent rather than holding clinics where people bitch and moan about pot-holes and street lights...

CramCycle

Quin_Dub wrote: »

No question , our TD's could benefit from spending more time on the ground in their localities explaining legislation to their constituents and helping people understand the bigger picture and how it all hangs together..

Even a statement clarifying each major decision would cover this, they don't want to do it as every announcement would have the opposition or extreme minorities going mental with odd alternatives that supposedly "would have" worked.

But I am starting to think they might need to, simple as this. We made decision A because it will lead to this, develop this and help that. There are negatives such as b and c but if we did not enact this legislation then here are the alternatives which would be just worse for reasons c, d, and e. We made the best decision on the evidence available at the time.

Quin_Dub

CramCycle wrote: »

Even a statement clarifying each major decision would cover this, they don't want to do it as every announcement would have the opposition or extreme minorities going mental with odd alternatives that supposedly "would have" worked.

But I am starting to think they might need to, simple as this. We made decision A because it will lead to this, develop this and help that. There are negatives such as b and c but if we did not enact this legislation then here are the alternatives which would be just worse for reasons c, d, and e. We made the best decision on the evidence available at the time.

Exactly - Monthly or quarterly "town-hall" meetings or even a regular Social media update explaining the decisions and the upstream and downstreams reasons why etc.

There needs to be more effort put in to explaining Government actions and decisions to the wider population.. People on the politics forum on Boards are not really the target audience.. It's everybody else..

hatrickpatrick

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That is what I said , however I think that's a very bad thing...

Leadership by committee doesn't work , nothing gets done , hard decisions would be avoided and effective governance would grind to a halt..

Everybody checking back with their constituents would mean every trivial bit of legislation taking months to agree followed by various TD's holding up things until they get their little "rider" added to the bill so they can get it approved so you end up with bloated regulation full of exceptions and exclusions to appease individuals from all points of the compass.

As long as we're not talking about local issues here, that's the point. As many people as possible would actually be happy with the laws which govern the country.

Do the board members of a large corporate ask all the employees for their approval for every decision they make?

No they don't - Good ones take the time to explain the decisions to the staff so they understand the bigger picture and the larger plan etc. , but the buck stops with them , they make the calls..

That's how Government should work..

That's your opinion. I believe in direct democracy where all of the people make all of the big decisions. It shouldn't be about someone else deciding what's best for us, it should be about us deciding what kind of country we want to live in.

No question , our TD's could benefit from spending more time on the ground in their localities explaining legislation to their constituents and helping people understand the bigger picture and how it all hangs together..

That would be more useful time spent rather than holding clinics where people bitch and moan about pot-holes and street lights...

Explaining is grand but what if a clear majority disagree with the legislation? In a democratic system, it should go.

Quin_Dub

Duplicate post...

Quin_Dub

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As long as we're not talking about local issues here, that's the point. As many people as possible would actually be happy with the laws which govern the country.

But in practice that's exactly what it would become.. Every guy horse trading their addendums to legislation to keep people sweet.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's your opinion. I believe in direct democracy where all of the people make all of the big decisions. It shouldn't be about someone else deciding what's best for us, it should be about us deciding what kind of country we want to live in.

I don't necessarily agree - It's not about abrogation of responsibilities it's about trusting that those that we elect have our best interests at heart and will make the correct, but sometimes unpalatable decisions.. I don't necessarily disagree with a more actively engaged populace at all.. but direct democracy for every piece of work that goes on in government would be utterly unworkable...

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Explaining is grand but what if a clear majority disagree with the legislation? In a democratic system, it should go.

2 things - They can go back and feedback the concerns , or more likely , do a better job of explaining why it's the right thing to do.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If there were only independents in the Dail, and a system of popular recall for individuals, then as Quin_Dub said above, they would have to keep checking how their constituents wanted them to vote on various bills or risk being recalled. It would, in essence, be an indirect direct democracy.

But that is the complete opposite of the system in Switzerland which you have previously held up as an example to all.

In reality your system has never been tried anywhere in the world since the limited electoral systems in Ancient Greece or Rome. In fact, it hasn't even been proposed by a reputable political scientist as a reasonable way forward. Why? Because simply it is a utopian dream based on false premises.

The closest analogy in modern times is the US Senate and House of Representatives, the country which invented pork-barrel politics and in which that notion has become infamous.

There is nothing in anything you have posted that would convince anyone to support your ideas.

hatrickpatrick

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree - It's not about abrogation of responsibilities it's about trusting that those that we elect have our best interests at heart and will make the correct, but sometimes unpalatable decisions.. I don't necessarily disagree with a more actively engaged populace at all.. but direct democracy for every piece of work that goes on in government would be utterly unworkable...

2 things - They can go back and feedback the concerns , or more likely , do a better job of explaining why it's the right thing to do.

I don't think we'll see eye to eye here no matter how long this debate goes on As a social libertarian, I don't want governments to decide what's best for me. I want them to implement the policies people want even if they don't necessarily believe those policies are the best ones. For example, the government itself clearly believes that keeping ecstasy illegal is the best thing for us, but if the majority of the people want it to be legal then it should be legal, end of. Now I'm not saying that's what the majority want - it could well be that people who do believe in the nanny state outnumber those who don't. As far as I know it's never been polled. But my basic principle is that in a democracy, people shouldn't have to follow laws that a clear majority of people do not agree with. Regardless of whether those laws are "best for us". We shouldn't be treated like children - I'm capable of deciding what I want, and even if it's not what's best for me, it's still what I want. Once you get into the condescending (not you personally, the argument in general) attitude of "I know what's good for you so let me decide how your life is run", in my opinion you've given away your freedom.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

But that is the complete opposite of the system in Switzerland which you have previously held up as an example to all.

How do you figure? Can you explain that?
From wiki:

"At the federal level, citizens can propose changes to the constitution (federal popular initiative) or ask for a referendum to be held on any law voted by the parliament

Now it goes on to explain that double majorities are required in some cases, and that a little like in the US, the majority of people nationwide may approve of something but a majority of cantons (regions) may not, in which case it doesn't get passed. But essentially, the people have a huge amount of direct say over how their country is run. A Dail full of independents, in my view, is simply a round-about way of implementing that, because, as has been said here, a Dail full of independents doesn't vote on anything without asking how their electorate wants it to be voted on.

I have said repeatedly that I favour the Swiss system. Getting rid of parties is simply a stepping stone - once you've done that, we can talk about real reform of the political system. Reform which no party will touch with a barge pole because it robs them of their power, but which independents will have to, because they're not getting elected again without listening.

Again, all of this will come down to whether such political reform is actually what people want. It may not be, and in a democratic spirit if the majority of the people don't want it then I believe those who do, like myself, should accept that. But we can't know the answer to that question until we're in a position to ask it.

Zubeneschamali

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I have said repeatedly that I favour the Swiss system. Getting rid of parties is simply a stepping stone - once you've done that, we can talk about real reform of the political system.

Once again - parties are absolutely central to the Swiss system. Getting rid of parties is not a step towards the Swiss system - getting rid of Independents might be.

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't think we'll see eye to eye here no matter how long this debate goes on

Then perhaps it's best it doesn't go on too much longer. Essentially what you want is direct democracy (or some greater amount thereof). But this is a thread about an opinion poll. What you're proposing isn't DD, it's "vote independent, any independent!" And your argument to connect these is essentially "ah sure trust me it'll work out grand", whenever presented with any meaningful comparisons.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How do you figure? Can you explain that?
From wiki:

"At the federal level, citizens can propose changes to the constitution (federal popular initiative) or ask for a referendum to be held on any law voted by the parliament

Now it goes on to explain that double majorities are required in some cases, and that a little like in the US, the majority of people nationwide may approve of something but a majority of cantons (regions) may not, in which case it doesn't get passed. But essentially, the people have a huge amount of direct say over how their country is run. A Dail full of independents, in my view, is simply a round-about way of implementing that, because, as has been said here, a Dail full of independents doesn't vote on anything without asking how their electorate wants it to be voted on.

I have said repeatedly that I favour the Swiss system. Getting rid of parties is simply a stepping stone - once you've done that, we can talk about real reform of the political system. Reform which no party will touch with a barge pole because it robs them of their power, but which independents will have to, because they're not getting elected again without listening.

Again, all of this will come down to whether such political reform is actually what people want. It may not be, and in a democratic spirit if the majority of the people don't want it then I believe those who do, like myself, should accept that. But we can't know the answer to that question until we're in a position to ask it.

Switzerland doesn't allow independent members of their Parliament as their electoral system precludes it.

You want a Dail composed completely of independents.

Two opposite ends of the spectrum. It amazes me that you keep harking back to Switzerland as some ideal when it is the complete opposite of what you want.

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But my basic principle is that in a democracy, people shouldn't have to follow laws that a clear majority of people do not agree with.

Pretty sure that a clear majority of people want lower taxes, and wouldn't pay them if they didn't have to. Likewise on greater public services. Or indeed, we need more borrowing, and should burn the bondholders. So essentially your proposal is to take the "promise the moon on a stick and five impossible things before breakfast" model we have at present, and speed it up immensely. In terms of turnover of politicians and governments at least. Not so much so in terms of passing legislative business -- which would essentially cease until everyone sobered up and re-invented political parties a short while later.

CramCycle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

but which independents will have to, because they're not getting elected again without listening.

What happens when the budget forces a tough decision and the polling is not clear, or public opinion is either completely divided or the masses scream for both options even though it is an impossibility?

If anything your system sounds like the worst of the current system, only amplified.

Godge

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/labour-boost-in-new-red-c-poll-31063516.html


Getting back on topic, the positive economic effects are being felt.

Figsy32

Godge wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/labour-boost-in-new-red-c-poll-31063516.html


Getting back on topic, the positive economic effects are being felt.

Are changes of 2% when the margin of error is 3% really a sign of anything being felt?

Godge

Figsy32 wrote: »

Are changes of 2% when the margin of error is 3% really a sign of anything being felt?

Never look at a poll in isolation. When the full details of the poll are up on the Red C site I will try and post a table (like in the OP) of the trends.

FG are up to 26% from 21% in December. Labour are up to 9% from 6% in December, meaning the government parties are up from 27% to 35% in three months.

That is a trend that shows quite a lot of significance.

Muahahaha

That latest RedC poll raised my eyebrows, seems FG/Lab are on a comeback. SF seem to have hit their high of 20-23% and FF are defintely stagnant at this stage.

One thing I havent heard any pollsters explain is how/why Independents went from 32 to 26ish so suddenly.

I think theres also a dark horse in Lucindas new Renua. Though widely slagged online I can see them taking 7 seats for certain and maybe up to 12. Like the Greens before them I'd think polls will underestimate their vote. If they can deliver 10 seats at the next election then Enda and Joan are almost certainly going to get into bed with them IMO

FalconGirl

Im sorry but FG really are thick. Just when they make their comeback they go at Sinn Fein with more unfounded allegations of sex abuse. The last time they were firing slurs at SF back in November they suffered serious dips in popularity as the public could see right through it.

Seriously, all they have to do is keep quiet and they are gaurenteed to hose in next year.

nice_guy80

FG need to shut Enda up.

He is a joke at this stage

conorh91

Godge wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/labour-boost-in-new-red-c-poll-31063516.html


Getting back on topic, the positive economic effects are being felt.

Daniel McConnell is possibly the worst interpreter of political developments since Justine McCarthy (Oh I know JMcC is still writing btw, I just stopped reading)

Bit of context please, Danny. The fact that SF have not dropped in support regardless of the sh1tstorm, is both worrying, and indicative of the major work the Govt parties need to undertake in the run-up to the next election.

Anyone who considers a 'no change' for SF good news, after the week they've had, needs their head examined.

It makes me despair to see people apparently ignore the devastating effects of child sexual abuse. After all we've apparently 'learned' since the abuse scandals of the Church, it would make you question how far we've really come, after all.

marienbad

FalconGirl wrote: »

Im sorry but FG really are thick. Just when they make their comeback they go at Sinn Fein with more unfounded allegations of sex abuse. The last time they were firing slurs at SF back in November they suffered serious dips in popularity as the public could see right through it.

Seriously, all they have to do is keep quiet and they are gaurenteed to hose in next year.

Unfounded allegations ??? What do you need a home movie ? Must everything be subservient to the Party ?

irishfeen

I think this is the start of a gradual recovery of the government parties - people ultimately fear change .. Even take the Scottish Referendum as an example.

Whatever anyone's says SF would be real change, I think their policies will come under massive scrutiny before the GE and I just don't think when people head to the polling station they let themselves go into the unknown. They will poll well in poorer parts of urban areas but will struggle majorly in the majority of rural constituencies.

I come from a rural part of Cork and already I hear people becoming very uneasy at the possibility of a SF government - the self employed including farmers in particuar seem to be very uneasy... "They will destroy the country.."

Sinn Fein will never hold such a core vote as Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil across the vast majority of the country.

jhegarty

I think the their faith is tied up what happens in Greece.

Either the Greeks will get a deal and the government will have egg on their faces or the Greeks won't get one and the government will be proved to be correct.

Field east

jhegarty wrote: »

I think the their faith is tied up what happens in Greece.

Either the Greeks will get a deal and the government will have egg on their faces or the Greeks won't get one and the government will be proved to be correct.

That's a bit of a throwaway statement. The Irish government have got several changes / deals agreed since the beginning of the bailout and the net effect was to save money- longer payback timescale, replacing some of the sources of the bailout finance with cheaper finance , etc. All of these instruments are available, and possibly more if it has circumstances unique to itself -eg a high level of the pop living away below the breadline due to totally insufficient financial supports and which some are saying is a or bordering on a serious humanitarian crisis - to the Greek Gov.
So my point is that if the Geeek Gov end up getting a similar deal to Ireland, but tweaked because of some circumstances unique to Greece, how then can you use 'the egg in the face' comment?
Was is not much more prudent to take the Irish approach and ' renegotiate 'your way through the deal - while at the same time trying to stabilise a 'rudderless ship that was holed away below the waterline '. For the time that was in it , the saying ' beggars ca'nt be choosers' comes to mind- as against the Greek approach of 'doing a dance with all guns blazing', making unilateral decisions where other key parties are involved while at the same time damaging the economy with millions leaving, interest rates rising, etc. 'Empty vessel make the most noise' comes to mind.
It must be remembered that the Greeks have a major advantage over Ireland in that it has much more information available to it than Ireland had when it got it's bailout deal so it should be able to get a more tailored deal .

Let's not forget the elephant in the room. The rest of us Europeans are being asked to pay up - and have paid up large amounts to date ( billions)- to largely make up for the taxes not collected. The Greek tax base and the effort made to collect it apparently is very poor if non existent

Henry94

Falling oil prices and a falling euro have given the economy a boost. If we had control over our interest rates we would be raising them to stop the economy over-heating. Instead the government are talking about tax cuts. That's Bertienomics. Have we learned nothing? I get that it's just to try to win the election so perhaps the best thing would be to have the election this summer. Bertie always hung on until the last minute buying off as many people as possible and it was very damaging.

By the way with all the money that's going to be available why has there been no talk about rebuilding the national pension reserve? Are we really just going to repeat the celtic tiger mistakes?

Timberrrrrrrr

nice_guy80 wrote: »

FG need to shut Enda up.

He is a joke at this stage

They need to get him out of leadership altogether imo.

Phoebas

conorh91 wrote: »

Daniel McConnell is possibly the worst interpreter of political developments since Justine McCarthy (Oh I know JMcC is still writing btw, I just stopped reading)

Bit of context please, Danny. The fact that SF have not dropped in support regardless of the sh1tstorm, is both worrying, and indicative of the major work the Govt parties need to undertake in the run-up to the next election.

Anyone who considers a 'no change' for SF good news, after the week they've had, needs their head examined.

It makes me despair to see people apparently ignore the devastating effects of child sexual abuse. After all we've apparently 'learned' since the abuse scandals of the Church, it would make you question how far we've really come, after all.

The latest poll - taken on Wednesday, a day after the Spotlight programme - shows a 3pct drop in SF support. That's not 'no change'.

I wouldn't attribute it to the sex abuse scandals 'though. Anyone who rejects SF on that issue would have already done so. An improving economy and a demonstration of what a hard line anti austerity party can actually achieve in Greece are probably more important drivers.

frankbrett

Henry94 wrote: »

Falling oil prices and a falling euro have given the economy a boost. If we had control over our interest rates we would be raising them to stop the economy over-heating. Instead the government are talking about tax cuts. That's Bertienomics. Have we learned nothing? I get that it's just to try to win the election so perhaps the best thing would be to have the election this summer. Bertie always hung on until the last minute buying off as many people as possible and it was very damaging.

By the way with all the money that's going to be available why has there been no talk about rebuilding the national pension reserve? Are we really just going to repeat the celtic tiger mistakes?

The NPRF doesn't exist any more in its original form. It is now the Irish Strategic Investment Fund and its mandate is more focused on domestic investment to kick start the economy rather than a sovereign wealth fund.

the groutch

just wait til people get their water bills in the letterbox, there will be a sudden drop in govt support again.

irishfeen

the groutch wrote: »

just wait til people get their water bills in the letterbox, there will be a sudden drop in govt support again.

I honestly don't know about that - seems if people are just fed up with it either way.. Yesterday they planned to have "thousands" March on Cork city and the papers reported barely 500 people.. The actions of some protesters in slightly militarising the events has put a massive amount of people off imo .. Then throwing a water balloon/forcing Joan Burton to stay in the car was hilarious at the start but when it sank in where that kind of carry on would lead us numbers at marches have declined massively.