New Party: The Social Democrats.

Leslie91

What is Shane Ross doing now?... wasn't he to be getting together with Catherine and Roisin at one stage?, is there no other 'independent' grouping like the Soc Dems?...

I've heard 'Independent Alliance' bandied about but see nothing substantial online. If it exists does anybody have any links to who and what they are?

healthy_cynic

they talk about implementing a scandanavian style system but seem to want to exclude the part where those on low incomes pay tax at a rate like in sweeden

An Ciarraioch

Leslie91 wrote: »

What is Shane Ross doing now?... wasn't he to be getting together with Catherine and Roisin at one stage?, is there no other 'independent' grouping like the Soc Dems?...

I've heard 'Independent Alliance' bandied about but see nothing substantial online. If it exists does anybody have any links to who and what they are?

Fitzmaurice, Halligan, McGrath (Finian) and Fleming are the other TDs involved, also the Sindo's Carol Hunt.

touts

Leslie91 wrote: »

What is Shane Ross doing now?... wasn't he to be getting together with Catherine and Roisin at one stage?, is there no other 'independent' grouping like the Soc Dems?...

I've heard 'Independent Alliance' bandied about but see nothing substantial online. If it exists does anybody have any links to who and what they are?

He's the head (but not the head because they don't have a head as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know) of a grouping (in the loosest sense of the word as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know) of Independent TDs that will stand on a common platform (but without common policies as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know) in the next election in the hope of being king makers (but without a whip to keep them in line as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know) and maybe even be offered a place in cabinet (which they won't take as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know).

To summarise he's the head of what's left in the Dail that couldn't get on with others well enough to join or form a political party. I've feck all idea what they stand for because they all stand for different things. In fact the only thing they seem to agree on is that they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know

Leslie91

touts wrote: »

He's the head (but not the head because they don't have a head as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know) of a grouping (in the loosest sense of the word as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know) of Independent TDs that will stand on a common platform (but without common policies as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know) in the next election in the hope of being king makers (but without a whip to keep them in line as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know) and maybe even be offered a place in cabinet (which they won't take as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know).

To summarise he's the head of what's left in the Dail that couldn't get on with others well enough to join or form a political party. I've feck all idea what they stand for because they all stand for different things. In fact the only thing they seem to agree on is that they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know

Brilliant!!... that explains it, thanks.

seamus

Here's their pre-budget submission:
https://t.co/cjHjEN2Xww

Not sure what to make of it tbh. At the very least it's not completely off-the-wall like the AAA's and seems to be relatively smart, if not a little optimistic. They claim that abolishing Irish Water would, on balance after you take operating costs and the conservation grant into account, cost just €13m.

Which is of course dubious maths since the OpEx for water won't go away, it'll just go somewhere else.

They also plan to spend about €1.5bn without giving any real indication of where they'll get it from. There's some measures there to juggle around some income and expenditure measures such that they cancel each other out, but otherwise they want to spend €1.5bn without addressing the question of where that money comes from long-term.

FreudianSlippers

seamus wrote: »

They claim that abolishing Irish Water would, on balance after you take operating costs and the conservation grant into account, cost just €13m.

To put that into context, SF have estimated this will cost €210.5m (https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2015/Pre-Budget_October2015.pdf)

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

To put that into context, SF have estimated this will cost €210.5m (https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2015/Pre-Budget_October2015.pdf)

In fairness, that says

However the net cost to scrapping household water charges is €80.5 million.

The €130 million ringfenced for the so called Water Conservation Grant would be redundant.

K-9

touts wrote: »

He's the head (but not the head because they don't have a head as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know) of a grouping (in the loosest sense of the word as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know) of Independent TDs that will stand on a common platform (but without common policies as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know) in the next election in the hope of being king makers (but without a whip to keep them in line as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know) and maybe even be offered a place in cabinet (which they won't take as they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know).

To summarise he's the head of what's left in the Dail that couldn't get on with others well enough to join or form a political party. I've feck all idea what they stand for because they all stand for different things. In fact the only thing they seem to agree on is that they aren't a political party because political parties are bad don't you know

Ross and his group seem the real losers out of all this, seems just a rag tag of independents brought together to give them a brand name, and that's doubtful how much use it is. Independent Alliance isn't much use if nobody but political anoraks know it. People will still vote for Ross and Fitxmaurice because they know them anyway but it doesn't really help less recognised names.

As highlighted excellently by another poster is shows how impossible it is to unite independents into a meaningful group that could drive real change. The potential is there with some good performers but a big part they get elected is being, err, independent.

The only really new parties in the election will be basically breakaway groups from the Government parties, FG and Labour gene pool with a couple of additions.

Sam Russell

Wasn't Shane Ross a fanboy of Seanie FitzPatrick and the way he ran Anglo before it crashed the economy? Short memories! Iirc, he wanted Seanie brought in to help run the Government.

And is he not ex-FG?

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, that says

Thanks missed that, but a bit too late to put the grant genie back in the bottle isn't it?

Either way, both figures conveniently ignore the actual cost of provision of water services at over €1bn p.a. - where does that money come from?

Daith

seamus wrote: »

They also plan to spend about €1.5bn without giving any real indication of where they'll get it from. There's some measures there to juggle around some income and expenditure measures such that they cancel each other out, but otherwise they want to spend €1.5bn without addressing the question of where that money comes from long-term.

Indeed esp if they want to fund water infrastructure (and Irish Water staff!) through taxation again

Is their junk food tax really go to bring in that much

I suppose in terms of what their focus is as a party it's a good indication.

TheDoc

healthy_cynic wrote: »

they talk about implementing a scandanavian style system but seem to want to exclude the part where those on low incomes pay tax at a rate like in sweeden

Donnelly has been pretty clear when asked that taxation and changes come down the line. As he so rightly puts it, the irish people have no confidence that when asked for more tax or money, that a government will spend it properly.

Their first prong of change as he outlined on Newstalk last week, is investment. Start investing properly, whip the slack bloated public service into shape, so people can see real benefit and improvement in services, without having to pay a penny more.

And then those effects are the new standard, people will be less hostile when approached with tax changes, knowing a government can be trusted somewhat to spend it wisely.

They are definitely talking the talk in my book. For the first time a party with ideas and thoughts that things they want to see and do, that very much mirror my own opinions and thoughts.

If they get a candidate in my area they can more then happily have my vote.

BoJack Horseman

TheDoc wrote: »

Donnelly has been pretty clear when asked that taxation and changes come down the line

TBH, that's a fudge.

'Scandinavian' levels of expenditure here would require around €21 billion in extra taxation... every single year, forever.
(Danish government extracts around 48% of its GDP as tax... Ireland is around 36% and 1% of our GDP is €1.8bn)

Promising lavish expenditure paid for on a wing & a prayer makes Donnelly no different from the rest of the spend-happy populists in the Dail.
And as for the oft' promised "reform".... every politician promises it, then they have to do it & realise that the real power sits in Liberty Hall.

Stephen just manages to coat it in a tone conveying genuineness.
But the substance is vacant.

FreudianSlippers

TheDoc wrote: »

whip the slack bloated public service into shape, so people can see real benefit and improvement in services, without having to pay a penny more.

Until they outline a plan to remove the excessive power from the unions, this is pie-in-the-sky stuff though.

TheDoc

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

TBH, that's a fudge.

'Scandinavian' levels of expenditure here would require around €21 billion in extra taxation... every single year, forever.
(Danish government extracts around 48% of its GDP as tax... Ireland is around 36% and 1% of our GDP is €1.8bn)

Promising lavish expenditure paid for on a wing & a prayer makes Donnelly no different from the rest of the spend-happy populists in the Dail.
And as for the oft' promised "reform".... every politician promises it, then they have to do it & realise that the real power sits in Liberty Hall.

Stephen just manages to coat it in a tone conveying genuineness.
But the substance is vacant.

I'd imagine you probably need to listen to some of his address on national media and interviews, and he explains the ideology pretty well. Any question put to him, he seems to have a genuine answer for.

But they are not advocating for massive investment straight of the bat. I think some of their numbers and their budget submission is being taken out of context.

The SD's are also advocating, and as a pillarstone of their party ethos, is proper reform. Taking bloated, wasteful public arms and services, making them more efficent, more productive, proper management with a modern culture. So that in itself will have untold savings, where additional investment comes at a later stage, once the services and sector in question has gone through the culture shock, and is operating effectively.

I don't think any outragous promises are being made. Anytime I hear them speak they are delivering some hard truths the electorate need to hear. But a key point is them outlining how the public have no trust in government, and no trust in the administration and manamgement of our money. So there is a lengthy process of change and reform required, and then government investment, before even looking at the tax payer for increasing taxation.

But another pillarstone for them is that a strong economy and enterprise works hand in hand.

So while it's obvious that Ireland would in a cycle of government move to a Scandanavian model of expenditure, like really obvious, it's not impossible. But it requires a culture change of the public, but also strong enterprise and strong social development.

So while maybe a longterm goal to reach high level of investment, the point is it works in tandum with strong enterprise, where our standard of living would have increased and we would be earning more, and be totally capable of parting with more tax. but that is according to them the final phase of the plan, which could easily be over a decade away.

Point being though, it needs to start somewhere.

TheDoc

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Until they outline a plan to remove the excessive power from the unions, this is pie-in-the-sky stuff though.

Unions are doing well to remove that power from themselves.

At the end of the day public sector workers are employees of the state. And the state has been getting wise for a fair length of time.

There is an unfortunate timing issue in that there are certain workers operating certain RIDICULOUS contracts that you simply need to wait to retire. I know this from numerous family working in the public sector and BAULKING at the contracts they can get.

Contracts being provided are getting more modern and public sector workers are being exposed gradually to the real world. Nothing can happen over night though. but the SD's arn't promising that.

They are making no hiding on the fact their stuff would be a long term deployment, require massive change to outdated machines of the public sector and a real slog.

But I agree with them on the point that until someone comes along and starts it, nothing is ever really going to change.

Chips Lovell

TheDoc wrote: »

The SD's are also advocating, and as a pillarstone of their party ethos, is proper reform. Taking bloated, wasteful public arms and services, making them more efficent, more productive, proper management with a modern culture. So that in itself will have untold savings, where additional investment comes at a later stage, once the services and sector in question has gone through the culture shock, and is operating effectively.

TheDoc wrote: »

So while it's obvious that Ireland would in a cycle of government move to a Scandanavian model of expenditure, like really obvious, it's not impossible. But it requires a culture change of the public, but also strong enterprise and strong social development.

Have the Social Democrats furnished any evidence that the Irish public sector is more bloated and wasteful than its Scandinavian equivalents? If they have, I'd be curious to read it but at the moment it just sounds like the usual hot air from Donnelly.

BoJack Horseman

TheDoc wrote: »

I'd imagine you probably need to listen to some of his address on national media and interviews

I have, very often.
I'm one of the 6,000 odd voters to actually elected him to office (I won't be repeating the error).

I've asked questions to him & his office.... slightly tricky ones, around the issue of where the money comes from.... and of course, predictably ignored.

New politics?
Ha.

The SD's are also advocating, and as a pillarstone of their party ethos, is proper reform. Taking bloated, wasteful public arms and services, making them more efficent, more productive, proper management with a modern culture.

Did they mention how they will break the unions to deliver this nirvana?
No?
(forgetting that they are calling for an increase in PS worker numbers... not much savings there!)

As I said previously, "investment".... "reform".... mom & apple pie.
But no detail, no substance... other than a vague promise to take over €20bn extra a year from us.

TheDoc

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Have the Social Democrats furnished any evidence that the Irish public sector is more bloated and wasteful than its Scandinavian equivalents? If they have, I'd be curious to read it but at the moment it just sounds like the usual hot air from Donnelly.

Why does it need to be done in a comparison? You don't need comparison reports to identify wasteful spending and poor use of finances?

Not being smart in the slightest, but you only need to encounter public services on a regular basis to witness the waste and nonsense first hand. I'd have a lot of family working in the public sector, so I'd witness and get accounts of it also.

It's not a massive leap of logic to suggest that more money for the likes of health is just a total waste, when it is constantly behaving as reactionary, rather then tackling the core problems.

And that pretty much counts for most public services and offices.

K-9

Tbh while Scandivian countries are considered good example for public services I'm sure people there think there's loads of waste and given the big burden of taxation, I wouldn't blame them.

The problem in Ireland seems to be pay makes up a huge part of expenditure and maybe that's where the differences occur.

TheDoc

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I have, very often.
I'm one of the 6,000 odd voters to actually elected him to office (I won't be repeating the error).

I've asked questions to him & his office.... slightly tricky ones, around the issue of where the money comes from.... and of course, predictably ignored.

New politics?
Ha.

Well when I've heard him on media and he is being tasked with these questions, he seems to have pretty good answers that sound viable. He was on Moncrieff in the last few weeks. I thought it was a good interview and outlined their ideas pretty well.

Donnelly isn't in my area. But everytime I hear him he just strikes a chord with me. Be it in the Daíl or radio or whatever, just seems to always be speaking sense.

I'm also crying out for something in my area. Clare Daly is one of the most succesfull election on election candidates in my area playing on the populist issues each time, and berating anyone who hasn't spent half their life on welfare. My area (Swords) most politicans play and pander to the "lower class" and completely ignore the fact the area has just as many of the infamous "squeezed middle" as anyone else.

So anyone operating talking positively about enterprise and social development, and providing platforms to better ones self financially, is going to get my ear.

Did they mention how they will break the unions to deliver this nirvana?
No?
(forgetting that they are calling for an increase in PS worker numbers... not much savings there!)

As I said previously, "investment".... "reform".... mom & apple pie.
But no detail, no substance... other than a vague promise to take over €20bn extra a year from us.

Where is 20bn a year coming from?

BoJack Horseman

K-9 wrote: »

The problem in Ireland seems to be pay makes up a huge part of expenditure and maybe that's where the differences occur.

Its actually about normal.

core government expenditure is around €54bn
PS pay & pensions is just over €18bn..... so 1/3rd of expenditure.

Pay is over €14bn, with pension payments to retired PS staff costing around €3.5bn

the total bill used to be north of €20bn PA, so there has been in real terms a tangible reduction in the bill.

I dont have numbers, but last time I seen something on it, spending 1/3 on PS remuneration puts us around the middle.

Lockstep

I had a look through the SD's budget. Nothing particularly interesting: the usual "We'll put more money in X" and very little substantiation or innovative thinking.
Only thing that stood out was a claim they'd abolish water charges.

BoJack Horseman

TheDoc wrote: »

Where is 20bn a year coming from?

The Danish government takes back around 48% of its GDP as tax.
Ireland taxes back around 36% (according to the FinMin at last years budget)

so that 12% of GDP tax differential would in Ireland's context amount to:
12 x €1.85bn (our GDP is 185bn).... €22bn, per year, every year, always.

No thanks.

K-9

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Its actually about normal.

core government expenditure is around €54bn
PS pay & pensions is just over €18bn..... so 1/3rd of expenditure.

Pay is over €14bn, with pension payments to retired PS staff costing around €3.5bn

the total bill used to be north of €20bn PA, so there has been in real terms a tangible reduction in the bill.

I dont have numbers, but last time I seen something on it, spending 1/3 on PS remuneration puts us around the middle.

Maybe it is education that skews the reality, HSE doesn't help either.

Chips Lovell

TheDoc wrote: »

Why does it need to be done in a comparison? You don't need comparison reports to identify wasteful spending and poor use of finances?

Not being smart in the slightest, but you only need to encounter public services on a regular basis to witness the waste and nonsense first hand. I'd have a lot of family working in the public sector, so I'd witness and get accounts of it also.

You kind of made the comparison yourself by suggesting that if we tackled this alleged bloat and waste, Scandinavian levels of services would be possible.

I'd hope Donnelly would have more than opinion/anecdotal evidence to back up his assertions.

Sam Russell

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Its actually about normal.

core government expenditure is around €54bn
PS pay & pensions is just over €18bn..... so 1/3rd of expenditure.

Pay is over €14bn, with pension payments to retired PS staff costing around €3.5bn

the total bill used to be north of €20bn PA, so there has been in real terms a tangible reduction in the bill.

I dont have numbers, but last time I seen something on it, spending 1/3 on PS remuneration puts us around the middle.

But how much work that was done by public servants is now done by outside contractors/consultants?

Civil Servants now automatically outsource rather than have work done in-house. (I am talking about professional services such as law, architecture, economics, etc. etc.). Driving Licences are outsourced for example.

BoJack Horseman

Sam Russell wrote: »

But how much work that was done by public servants is now done by outside contractors/consultants?

No idea.... it was a paragraph from a dept of revenue pdf from last year.

I imagine outsourcing costs could well be hidden in operations budgets rather than staff budgets.

TheDoc

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The Danish government takes back around 48% of its GDP as tax.
Ireland taxes back around 36% (according to the FinMin at last years budget)

so that 12% of GDP tax differential would in Ireland's context amount to:
12 x €1.85bn (our GDP is 185bn).... €22bn, per year, every year, always.

No thanks.

I don't understand how you can compare the two sets of figures, and come up with that somehow the SD's are pledging to spend 22bn a year every year.

They've outlined there is an influence from there. But from nothing I've heard or read does it say they want to carbon copy that model. I also think you are taking that figure out of context based on our current situation.

The SD's do need to maybe provide some figures to make debate more tangible, but at the same time, it might/can be difficult to put a figure or price on some projections. A large part of their suggested vision is changing culture, changing mindsets, and making the public sector leaner and meaner.

I don't think you can put a figure on it right now, as the proposed savings could really be anything. But they should put a proposed figure down.

But I have to disagree with you taking a Danish figure, and somehow indicating that is relative to what we could see from the SD's proposals or ideas?

And even if it was, it could be easily two government lifecycles before that sort of number was in place, easily. And by then, a lot of work would have been done beforehand, that doesn't make that figure a big deal. But either or, don't think we can just take the Danish figure and somehow say that is how it will look here.

Chips Lovell

So they're promising Scandinavian levels of public services for less tax than the Scandinavians pay? Now that's impressive.

TheDoc

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

So they're promising Scandinavian levels of public services for less tax than the Scandinavians pay? Now that's impressive.

That's the thing, they are not.

Clearly seems like they need to promote their message better if that is what people are understanding or drawing from it.

They ideology is that social development is intrinsically tied to enterprise, and strong economic growth.

There is obvious influences from the existing Scandanavian models, but there was no mention I heard of a copy and paste, or anything of the sort. I actually explicitly read a quote from one of their members saying that while it's perfectly fine to have influences from success stories around the world, we should always look to be innovative and tailor solutions for ourselves.

Chips Lovell

Catherine Murphy may be off-message in that case:

The Nordic model of top public services for all is worth striving for

In my launch speech, I spoke about our vision and referenced the Nordic model of social democracy. There has been some confusion in certain parts of the media regarding what exactly the Nordic model is. In short it refers to the extensive provision of high-class, primarily universal public services funded by way of progressive taxation

Sam Russell

If half the 200,000 unemployed could be found productive employment (outside of Government cost) such that they paid tax etc., then there would be a saving of €1 billion/anum in basic dole, plus perhaps as much again in supports, and perhaps a contribution in taxes of a similar amount giving a net contribution to the state of €3 billion/anum. This would be a transformational amount of money.

With that amount, perhaps Scandinavian services could be afforded.

BoJack Horseman

TheDoc wrote: »

I don't understand how you can compare the two sets of figures, and come up with that somehow the SD's are pledging to spend 22bn a year every year.

I don't assume they are tbh.... I know they are lying.

Certainly if they want to pretend they want to deliver the "nordic model", without the taxation to back it up they are certainly talking out their back side.

This utopian "nordic model" is defined by Wikipedia thusly....

This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government; and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.

Sounds just like Ireland really.

The difference is that the Nords tax back 45%+ of their economy to redistribute where Ireland taxes back much less.

Stevie is pulling some rabbit out of his hat...
A massive increase in state expenditure, without the actual expenditure!

An Ciarraioch

Evidently any party can find an economist to approve their political perspective - SDs citing Stephen Kinsella and Brian Lucey, Renua utilising Cormac Lucey and the Adam Smith Institute.

p___

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I don't assume they are tbh.... I know they are lying.

Certainly if they want to pretend they want to deliver the "nordic model", without the taxation to back it up they are certainly talking out their back side.

This utopian "nordic model" is defined by Wikipedia


Sounds just like Ireland really.

The difference is that the Nords tax back 45%+ of their economy to redistribute where Ireland taxes back much less.

Stevie is pulling some rabbit out of his hat...
A massive increase in state expenditure, without the actual expenditure!

the nordics (Sweden anyway) redistribute it in a different way. They are definitely fairer in the way the treat people; if you don't work you do not get indefinite social welfare, you are given a job so that you contribute to your society. If you lose your job you get great benefits for the first while, this scales back gradually over a few years, getting lower and lower until eventually you are given nothing for free from the state, just offered a job or left to fend for yourself. This allows them to use the money they do collect a lot better than we do.

loyatemu

Sam Russell wrote: »

If half the 200,000 unemployed could be found productive employment (outside of Government cost) such that they paid tax etc., then there would be a saving of €1 billion/anum in basic dole, plus perhaps as much again in supports, and perhaps a contribution in taxes of a similar amount giving a net contribution to the state of €3 billion/anum. This would be a transformational amount of money.

With that amount, perhaps Scandinavian services could be afforded.

given that a large proportion of the existing workforce are net recipients, and the 200K remaining unemployed are unlikely to be out-of-work hospital consultants or CEOs those figures seem unlikely. There would be some saving but they're not going to suddenly become net-contributors.

Sam Russell

loyatemu wrote: »

given that a large proportion of the existing workforce are net recipients, and the 200K remaining unemployed are unlikely to be out-of-work hospital consultants or CEOs those figures seem unlikely. There would be some saving but they're not going to suddenly become net-contributors.

Exactly. Even if they were out of work hospital consultants, they would be paid out of the public purse so would not fit my model. If they were builders (plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc.) then we could be building the houses needed by the homeless - double win.

However in real terms we are far from this and so Scandinavian economics are for off.

expectationlost

interesting that Social Democrats still engaging with Right2Change policy proposls and these parties
Sinn Fein, Anti-Austerity Alliance, Social Democrats, People Before Profit Alliance, Workers Party, Communist Party, United Left, Direct Democracy Ireland http://www.right2change.ie/blog/right2change-unions-host-positive-political-pillar-meeting

Godge

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Have the Social Democrats furnished any evidence that the Irish public sector is more bloated and wasteful than its Scandinavian equivalents? If they have, I'd be curious to read it but at the moment it just sounds like the usual hot air from Donnelly.

In fact, any studies I have seen suggest that the Irish civil service is among the leanest in the OECD.

It is the high level of transfers - child benefit, medical cards, pensions, free travel, social welfare - that are behind our levels of expenditure.

An Ciarraioch

expectationlost wrote: »

interesting that Social Democrats still engaging with Right2Change policy proposls and these parties
Sinn Fein, Anti-Austerity Alliance, Social Democrats, People Before Profit Alliance, Workers Party, Communist Party, United Left, Direct Democracy Ireland http://www.right2change.ie/blog/right2change-unions-host-positive-political-pillar-meeting

Having set their stall out as being anti water charges, they'd have been hypocrites if they didn't at least come to the table. If we assume the GE is a write-off for them bar the three incumbents, it does raise the question of where they aim to build from for the local and Europeans - transfers and appeals to FF, FG and Lab voters or joining in a united inter-left bloc?

Lockstep

Some new Social Democrat candidates have come out

I've met Ken Curtin a few times, seems like a solid person. Very dubious about Leonard Kelly though if he wants referendums on fluoride.

expectationlost

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Having set their stall out as being anti water charges, they'd have been hypocrites if they didn't at least come to the table. If we assume the GE is a write-off for them bar the three incumbents, it does raise the question of where they aim to build from for the local and Europeans - transfers and appeals to FF, FG and Lab voters or joining in a united inter-left bloc?

they were only ever anti Irish Water for the moment

sportzstar

Any sign of any candidates in Donegal yet?

Boulevardier

Also, Dun Laoghaire should be prime territory for the SDs, but I have not seen any candidate come forward there yet.

An Ciarraioch

sportzstar wrote: »

Any sign of any candidates in Donegal yet?

Strangely, they've a separate Twitter account for Donegal, which suggests some local activity in the county.

Blut2

Boulevardier wrote: »

Also, Dun Laoghaire should be prime territory for the SDs, but I have not seen any candidate come forward there yet.

With Gilmore previously topping the polls, and not running in the next election, I would have thought Dun Laoghaire would be one of the top priorities for the SDs. Theres a very large liberal, middle class, centre-left vote gap in the market that they should easily slot into.

I still think (even as an east coast boy!) that the SD's need to be careful to not come across as completely Dublin centric.

They need to get the culchies voting for them.

Godge

Blut2 wrote: »

With Gilmore previously topping the polls, and not running in the next election, I would have thought Dun Laoghaire would be one of the top priorities for the SDs. Theres a very large liberal, middle class, centre-left vote gap in the market that they should easily slot into.

Gilmore's votes will be crucial in the election.

RBB, FG, FF and the Labour councillor will all have their eye on them but you would have thought the SDs would be interested. Problem with Dun Laoghaire is that it will be a three-seater. A candidate needs 25% of the first preference vote to get elected. An SD candidate would have to get ahead of RBB and pick up preferences from everywhere.