Would you vote differently?

johnnyskeleton

Theres a lot of talk in the media abouqt the results being a mess, too many independents, nit enough new parties, too left wing, too right wing etc.

Theres also talk of a new election before the end of the year or possibly in April.

If you knew in advance how it would shake out, would you have voted differently? Maybe in punishing labour we have opened the door to FG/FF duality again. Maybe people who voted independent this time would vote for an established party. Maybe more people would vote SD/Green/AAA.

I voted for a SD candidate believing he wouldnt even get his deposit back and he nearly got in. Other prefs for independents, fg and lab. I would probably vote the same way again. I dont like FG and Labour, but I just cant vote FF/SF or their genepools.

The reason I ask is because if Im a typical voter (not sure that I am), another election would be pointless.

TCDStudent1

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Theres a lot of talk in the media abouqt the results being a mess, too many independents, nit enough new parties, too left wing, too right wing etc.

Theres also talk of a new election before the end of the year or possibly in April.

If you knew in advance how it would shake out, would you have voted differently? Maybe in punishing labour we have opened the door to FG/FF duality again. Maybe people who voted independent this time would vote for an established party. Maybe more people would vote SD/Green/AAA.

I voted for a SD candidate believing he wouldnt even get his deposit back and he nearly got in. Other prefs for independents, fg and lab. I would probably vote the same way again. I dont like FG and Labour, but I just cant vote FF/SF or their genepools.

The reason I ask is because if Im a typical voter (not sure that I am), another election would be pointless.

I voted FG and labour (1, 2, 3). Would do the same again.

TripleC

I am happy with my decision to back the Government as the safest and most realistic option .

Funnily enough though, talking to a few friends at the weekend who were broadly happy about the Economy but voted Indo/SD in protest at Healthcare/Housing , several of them are actually horrified that they may have inadvertently allowed FF to sneak into the mix unsighted. The consensus seemed to be that they would either vote FG/Lab or else at least give them preferences.

Fr Tod Umptious

Well somethings will be different if we have a new election.

Kenny will not likely be leader of FG. Many here at least have said that Kenny dragged FG down this time.

Neither Burton nor Kelly will be in charge at Labour, well they shouldn't be at least, so that may have an effect.

Independents may not have the coffers to run another campaign so that will have an effect.

And as the other poster said (hopefully) people will be spooked by how close FF got to being in power.

I'll vote 1,2,3 FG again, 4 Lab and 5 Renua.

johnnyskeleton

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well somethings will be different if we have a new election.

Kenny will not likely be leader of FG. Many here at least have said that Kenny dragged FG down this time.

I wonder though how many people would have voted FG but then didn't because of Kenny? Or, perhaps more importantly, how many people who didn't vote FG would be swayed by a new shiny leader like John Bruton or Leo Varadkar?

Neither Burton nor Kelly will be in charge at Labour, well they shouldn't be at least, so that may have an effect.

Hard to say, really, Labour internal politics is a mystery. They did so badly that I would've expected Burton to shame resign by now. So they will put it to a vote and who knows what will go on there. Maybe it will all be blamed on Gilmore.

Independents may not have the coffers to run another campaign so that will have an effect.

True. On the other hand, SD, Greens, IA and Renua all got over 2% so will receive state funding. We might see the Healy Rae Party emerge as their vote comes closer to 2% nationally (I know, I know).

And as the other poster said (hopefully) people will be spooked by how close FF got to being in power.

That's another tricky area. There are two possible interpretations of the rise of FF. The first is that people voted FF to spite the FG/Lab government and will be horrified at how well FF did, nearly coming back to the largest party status. The other, more worrying, analysis, is that traditional FF voters didn't vote for them in 2011 out of protest but are coming back to the party now with all being forgiven. So in a new election we could be back to the Bertie Aherne years levels of support. That's really scary.

Buona Fortuna

I voted for a local independant and then 2,3,4 FG.

The independant's sole raison d'etre was a local issue dear to my heart, so yes I'd vote the same again.

Sleepy

I voted SD with second, third, fourth and fifth preferences going to FG/Lab and would vote the same way again.

swampgas

TripleC wrote: »

Funnily enough though, talking to a few friends at the weekend who were broadly happy about the Economy but voted Indo/SD in protest at Healthcare/Housing , several of them are actually horrified that they may have inadvertently allowed FF to sneak into the mix unsighted. The consensus seemed to be that they would either vote FG/Lab or else at least give them preferences.

Many people really don't get the way the voting system works. People seem to think their ballot paper is divided out somehow. There is no sensible way to make a protest vote, apart maybe from spoiling the paper.

You have to pick the best (of a bad lot), grit your teeth and go with it.

grindle

swampgas wrote: »

You have to pick the best (of a bad lot), grit your teeth and go with it.

That's why most people I know voted for independents - not out of protest but because those were the least objectionable candidates.

The notion that we should vote for the same old thing because if we don't we'll end up splitting the vote so much that FF might get back in or have too much of a say is a fairly damning indictment of our democracy/electoral system.
We're constantly being reminded by those who want a quick election with fairly clear winner/s that we shouldn't pick the least bad option, we should ignore the top 5-10 least bad options, pretend they don't exist and choose from the big two who're both deplorable.

swampgas

grindle wrote: »

That's why most people I know voted for independents - not out of protest but because those were the least objectionable candidates.

The notion that we should vote for the same old thing because if we don't we'll end up splitting the vote so much that FF might get back in or have too much of a say is a fairly damning indictment of our democracy/electoral system.
We're constantly being reminded by those who want a quick election with fairly clear winner/s that we shouldn't pick the least bad option, we should ignore the top 5-10 least bad options, pretend they don't exist and choose from the big two who're both deplorable.

If you think the independent is the least bad option, fair enough. My comment was addressed more to people who really do support (say) FG but aren't happy with some aspect of their performance so give a first preference to someone else. Bizarre.

ozmo

Had to be away on a day training the whole day and got back too late to vote...grr.. looks like I could even get a second chance in a couple months....

Ogogo

The larger part of me thinks that the people have spoken and it is now up to the newly elected representatives to act in a responsible way to govern the country. If they cant form a government and instead come back quickly with a new election I pity our choices but they should be voted out and replaced with fresh brains who can sit down sensibly and form a government.

It looks like the days of large parties having it mostly their own way are behind us and depending on how said large parties move forward now, that may not be a bad thing.

In answer to your question, I am pretty happy with my vote - but as I have eluded to above, I would likely reconsider if the current crew dont grow up.

Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's another tricky area. There are two possible interpretations of the rise of FF. The first is that people voted FF to spite the FG/Lab government and will be horrified at how well FF did, nearly coming back to the largest party status. The other, more worrying, analysis, is that traditional FF voters didn't vote for them in 2011 out of protest but are coming back to the party now with all being forgiven. So in a new election we could be back to the Bertie Aherne years levels of support. That's really scary.

A mix of the two, most likely, but with more of the latter than the former. The myth-making after the collapse did a fairly good job of muddying the waters sufficiently to allow people to believe FF was largely innocent, and we do know, after all, that the plurality of the Irish electorate voted FF regular as clockwork at every election up to 2011, more or less no matter what.

The election would seem to say that FF remain the 'natural party of government' here, but aren't yet fully forgiven. If we had another election in say two years or so, I can see FF tipping towards 60+ seats quite easily, with the troika a fading bad legend and the problems that led to the troika being waved away as "sure, they had a bit of bad luck" - all the easier in that much of the public never really grasped what those problems were anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fr Tod Umptious

Ogogo wrote: »

The larger part of me thinks that the people have spoken and it is now up to the newly elected representatives to act in a responsible way to govern the country. If they cant form a government and instead come back quickly with a new election I pity our choices but they should be voted out and replaced with fresh brains who can sit down sensibly and form a government.

It looks like the days of large parties having it mostly their own way are behind us and depending on how said large parties move forward now, that may not be a bad thing.

In answer to your question, I am pretty happy with my vote - but as I have eluded to above, I would likely reconsider if the current crew dont grow up.

Is that not what has just happened?
FG/Lab have been ‘voted out’ and no ‘new brains’ as you describe them have been selected to replace them.

Ogogo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Is that not what has just happened?
FG/Lab have been ‘voted out’ and no ‘new brains’ as you describe them have been selected to replace them.

Perhaps it is to an extent, but in as much as FG/Lab have lost ground the void hasnt been filled primarily by FF. This seems to have caught those parties by surprise as they appear to have a sense of entitlement regarding seats/control.

I dont know what the answer is but this does appear to be the new normal and all I am saying is that if you are a TD you need to work with it.

Strong and stable government is well and good if they are "doing the right thing" but looking back at some of things some of our "stronger" governments have done perhaps more legislative scrutiny isnt a bad thing.

For what its worth, I wouldnt want the job of a politician for any money.

LiamoSail

I voted Renua & FG.

I don't particularly like FG, but the reality is that we are voting for a Government, and to that aim there are only two realistic majority partners; FG and the corrupt FF.

A vote for a party with no interest in Governing is a waste IMO. Labour and Renua I believe would be willing to enter Government as junior partners. Sinn Fein IRA, AAA etc aren't, and so a vote for either only the aids the formation of a weaker FG or corrupt FF led government.

I would hope that those that voted for SF IRA of AAA would on reflection in a second election consider using their vote more proactively, and opt for a party whose aim is to govern rather than protest the governing of the country

BoJack Horseman

I don't think I would vote.

There are multiple blocks there that can form a government.
If they don't and call another election then a plague on all their houses.

I think a 2nd election would have a 10% lower turnout.

Centaur

grindle wrote: »

That's why most people I know voted for independents - not out of protest but because those were the least objectionable candidates.

The notion that we should vote for the same old thing because if we don't we'll end up splitting the vote so much that FF might get back in or have too much of a say is a fairly damning indictment of our democracy/electoral system.
We're constantly being reminded by those who want a quick election with fairly clear winner/s that we shouldn't pick the least bad option, we should ignore the top 5-10 least bad options, pretend they don't exist and choose from the big two who're both deplorable.

One of the problems with Independents is that they can have no influence unless they hold the balance of power, in which case they can get some extra goodies for their local constituency and guarantee a seat for life. This is a rather parochial attitude.



When smaller parties do go into coalition and manage to get some of their policies implemented, they end up being punished by the electorate for what they didn’t do.


If there is a damning indictment to be handed out it is not to our democracy/electoral system. It is to the electorate.

Sand

Cant see any reason to hold another election. I don't think the people will react any better to it than they did to the second European referendums - the people have spoken, the Dail needs to get on with it.

They can easily form another government. The only difference is the government will be held to account by the Dail and the peoples elected representatives. The government will need to transparently explain and evidence their policies to win support. This is the way governments should operate, and the way the Dail should operate.

If Irish politicians cant operate a government unless the Dail is muzzled and neutered, then it says alot for their competency.

Sand

Centaur wrote: »

One of the problems with Independents is that they can have no influence unless they hold the balance of power, in which case they can get some extra goodies for their local constituency and guarantee a seat for life. This is a rather parochial attitude.



When smaller parties do go into coalition and manage to get some of their policies implemented, they end up being punished by the electorate for what they didn’t do.


If there is a damning indictment to be handed out it is not to our democracy/electoral system. It is to the electorate.

"The people have lost the confidence of the government; the government has decided to dissolve the people, and to appoint another one."

Bertold Brecht

Independants are TDs with a vote in the Dail like any other TD. They can vote on an issue to reflect their constituents interests and views. Thats how representative democracy works.

eire4

No another election would not make any different to my vote.

Lockstep

I'll be voting the same way in Galway: Labour. SocDems, Greens, FG

downey2003

No. Would not change my vote. Delighted with 23 Sinn Fein seats.

Fr Tod Umptious

Sand wrote: »

Cant see any reason to hold another election. I don't think the people will react any better to it than they did to the second European referendums - the people have spoken, the Dail needs to get on with it.

They can easily form another government. The only difference is the government will be held to account by the Dail and the peoples elected representatives. The government will need to transparently explain and evidence their policies to win support. This is the way governments should operate, and the way the Dail should operate.

If Irish politicians cant operate a government unless the Dail is muzzled and neutered, then it says alot for their competency.

But what does "held to account" mean.

Be defeated for taking an unpopular but necessary budgetary decision ?

Have a decision on important location of health services defeated by a cohort of independents because that location is not in their part of the country ?

I'm not sure what a second election would solve but I'm not sure that a minority government with a sword of Damocles hanging over it's head would be very productive either.

Sand

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But what does "held to account" mean.

Be defeated for taking an unpopular but necessary budgetary decision ?

Have a decision on important location of health services defeated by a cohort of independents because that location is not in their part of the country ?

I'm not sure what a second election would solve but I'm not sure that a minority government with a sword of Damocles hanging over it's head would be very productive either.

How does anyone persuade someone to a course of action? Is it some sort of lost art or skill in the Dail?

If its necessary, then explain it and win support.

If the location of health services is important, then explain it and win support. And no, it being the Ministers constituency will not suffice as an explanation.

I mean I'm smiling here that you think any of the above decisions are currently made in the best interests of the country given the shenanigans of James Reilly and the rejigging of investment to his constituency against all expert advice. I was delighted to see Reilly lose his seat and Shortall keep hers.


If you really are interested in seeing genuine unpopular but necessary decisions made, then you should welcome the the prospect of the Government being accountable to the Dail as much as I do.

Thelomen Toblackai

I get the feeling parties like SD, PBP and SF down my way surprised a lot of people. SF almost took a FG seat here and SF traditionally would have had no hope in hell of a seat.

I think people might make even more of a move that way after seeing them do well and come close to gaining the seat. I think SF themselves definitely would campaign harder down here given how close it was.

So for my constituency I think if there was another election it would be a net loss for FG and gain for SF.

Fr Tod Umptious

Sand wrote: »

How does anyone persuade someone to a course of action? Is it some sort of lost art or skill in the Dail?

If its necessary, then explain it and win support.

If the location of health services is important, then explain it and win support. And no, it being the Ministers constituency will not suffice as an explanation.

I mean I'm smiling here that you think any of the above decisions are currently made in the best interests of the country given the shenanigans of James Reilly and the rejigging of investment to his constituency against all expert advice. I was delighted to see Reilly lose his seat and Shortall keep hers.


If you really are interested in seeing genuine unpopular but necessary decisions made, then you should welcome the the prospect of the Government being accountable to the Dail as much as I do.

Way oversimplification.

During this government employment went up, the economy grew, the bond yield went down etc.
And what happened ?
They got their holes handed to them ?
Why ?

Because for every thing the government did by doing A, B and C, there was the opposition candidates saying they should have done it by doing X, Y and Z, and if you vote for me I'll do it by X,Y and Z and it will be better for you.

So in your example for every rational explanation a government gives for doing something someone will he there to say there is a better way.

And no I don't think that this government made every decision in the best interest in the country and no government ever will, but by God its a much better place to live in than 5 years ago

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

If you really are interested in seeing genuine unpopular but necessary decisions made, then you should welcome the the prospect of the Government being accountable to the Dail as much as I do.

I'm not seeing the correlation, to be honest. Being accountable to the Dáil makes it far more likely that the government will err on the side of popularity rather than necessity.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

How does anyone persuade someone to a course of action? Is it some sort of lost art or skill in the Dail?

It hasn't been necessary - the government is always supported by the government coalition parties, which form a majority, so there hasn't been any need to persuade TDs from other parties.

It may well be that it being unnecessary to persuade the Dáil has, in turn, made politicians feel it's largely unnecessary to persuade the public.

cordially,
Scofflaw

piuswal

Sand wrote: »

"The people have lost the confidence of the government; the government has decided to dissolve the people, and to appoint another one."

Bertold Brecht

Independants are TDs with a vote in the Dail like any other TD. They can vote on an issue to reflect their constituents interests and views. Thats how representative democracy works.

They can vote, yes but what good is that when facing an overwhelming Government majority?

Now is their opportunity to come together and really influence the future.

Sand

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Way oversimplification.

During this government employment went up, the economy grew, the bond yield went down etc.
And what happened ?
They got their holes handed to them ?
Why ?

I would hazard it had something to do with them squandering the reform mandate they were given by treating the Dail like some irritating inconvenience, sacrificing any claim to be more honest than FF with corruption like Reilly primary care centres and the McNulty Seanad scandal, and finally they blew their claim to competence by being really terrible at corruption like the above, the Callinan debacle etc. The public didn't forget any of that, and they weighed it more important than some dubious claim to "recovery".

But supporters of the previous government simply refuse to acknowledge any of that. They prefer to feel sorry for themselves that they were punished for "making the hard decisions". In some ways, I am okay with that - they have no chance of recovering if they are unwilling to acknowledge their mistakes.

Because for every thing the government did by doing A, B and C, there was the opposition candidates saying they should have done it by doing X, Y and Z, and if you vote for me I'll do it by X,Y and Z and it will be better for you.

Wasn't it the FG claim that they would simultaneously cut taxes and improve public services? They blew their claim to fiscal responsibility with that one - the voters didn't buy more Bertienomics.

So in your example for every rational explanation a government gives for doing something someone will he there to say there is a better way.

And you know what? They might be right - that's why open, evidence based debate in the Dail helps lead to better governance. If the Government cannot win support for their policy, its a sign that they might need to re-examine it. The government doesn't need *every* TDs support, they simply need to persuade a majority of them.

We have different views, because you think the purpose of the Dail is to rubberstamp legislation proposed to them by the Government. I think the purpose of the Dail is to examine and test that legislation so really bad ideas are stopped at the first hurdle.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote:

Wasn't it the FG claim that they would simultaneously cut taxes and improve public services? They blew their claim to fiscal responsibility with that one - the voters didn't buy more Bertienomics.

On the other hand, they did buy more Bertie.

cordially,
Scofflaw

swampgas

Sand wrote: »

I would hazard it had something to do with them squandering the reform mandate they were given by treating the Dail like some irritating inconvenience, sacrificing any claim to be more honest than FF with corruption like Reilly primary care centres and the McNulty Seanad scandal, and finally they blew their claim to competence by being really terrible at corruption like the above, the Callinan debacle etc. The public didn't forget any of that, and they weighed it more important than some dubious claim to "recovery".

This. The brazen "business as usual" political cronyism and corruption that they engaged in was in stark contrast to the political reform that was promised.

It will be interesting to see if the next government will fall into the same trap.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not seeing the correlation, to be honest. Being accountable to the Dáil makes it far more likely that the government will err on the side of popularity rather than necessity.

Policies will have to be evidenced and well argued to win broad support - therefore better policies than the current system.

The electorate have consistently voted against economically irresponsible platforms (FG in 2007 and again 2016) and dishonest/incompetent/corrupt parties (FF/Greens in 2011 and FG/LAB in 2016) and for reform (ever decreasing share of establishment parties). They are also more socially liberal than the establishment parties (recent marriage referendum). The problem isn't following policies popular with the Irish electorate - its the corrupt party/civil service system imposing bad policies without review or debate, made without records or evidence.

Disgruntled Badger

Wouldn't it be nice to imagine that the politicians elected will reach for the chance to achieve actual democracy. Ruling by majority consent across parties. Then again these are the political classes, not actual leaders, we are talking about. party first - public second, with maybe one or two exceptions.

TCDStudent1

Sand wrote: »

Policies will have to be evidenced and well argued to win broad support - therefore better policies than the current system.

The electorate have consistently voted against economically irresponsible platforms (FG in 2007 and again 2016) and dishonest/incompetent/corrupt parties (FF/Greens in 2011 and FG/LAB in 2016) and for reform (ever decreasing share of establishment parties). They are also more socially liberal than the establishment parties (recent marriage referendum). The problem isn't following policies popular with the Irish electorate - its the corrupt party/civil service system imposing bad policies without review or debate, made without records or evidence.

Hmmm, FG are still the biggest party in 2016. It is a stretch to say that the electorate have voted against them.

Fr Tod Umptious

Sand wrote: »

I would hazard it had something to do with them squandering the reform mandate they were given by treating the Dail like some irritating inconvenience, sacrificing any claim to be more honest than FF with corruption like Reilly primary care centres and the McNulty Seanad scandal, and finally they blew their claim to competence by being really terrible at corruption like the above, the Callinan debacle etc. The public didn't forget any of that, and they weighed it more important than some dubious claim to "recovery".

But supporters of the previous government simply refuse to acknowledge any of that. They prefer to feel sorry for themselves that they were punished for "making the hard decisions". In some ways, I am okay with that - they have no chance of recovering if they are unwilling to acknowledge their mistakes.



Wasn't it the FG claim that they would simultaneously cut taxes and improve public services? They blew their claim to fiscal responsibility with that one - the voters didn't buy more Bertienomics.


And you know what? They might be right - that's why open, evidence based debate in the Dail helps lead to better governance. If the Government cannot win support for their policy, its a sign that they might need to re-examine it. The government doesn't need *every* TDs support, they simply need to persuade a majority of them.

We have different views, because you think the purpose of the Dail is to rubberstamp legislation proposed to them by the Government. I think the purpose of the Dail is to examine and test that legislation so really bad ideas are stopped at the first hurdle.

Its all well and good to hope for a parliament that will make all the right decisions and every bad policy is stopped at the first hurdle as you say.

But it does not look like that's what the people want.

The people want what's good for them and tend to go with the candidate who promises it best.

A AAA-PBP flyer came in the door last week.
It promised no water charges, no LPT, USC only after 70k, X thousand more nurses, Y thousand more teachers and ironically a "recall" of any TDs who broke promises.

Now the AAA-PBP guy did not get elected here but a hand full of his colleagues elsewhere did, with the very same message.

With a significant section of Irish voters its a case of "next man up" when it comes to promises.
Lab offered the moon and the stars, but only delivered a quarter moon, so they got destroyed, and were replaced by SF, AAA, SD and independent candidates.

So its "next man up" let's see how they do.
That's not the rejection of Bertienomics that you claim it is.

I really don't know what will become of the 32nd Dail.

FG could form a minority government with the support of FF, knowing full well that FF would pull the rug out from under them over a tough decision if they thought they could gain from it.

If FG don't form a government they will be accused of not acting in the national interest, if they do they will be accused of being power hungry and that the people voted not to have them in government.

FF are not willing to commit to anything for fear that SF will hold the opposition leadership and be the guy that constantly says "I will do X,Y and Z better than they do A,B and C."

SF and the other left parties don't want to be accountable.

Its a bit like the English Civil war or the French revolution.
They cut off the kings head and then did not know what to do without a king.

Jaggo

Sand wrote: »

corruption like Reilly primary care centres.

I take issue with this, I know it was portrayed in the media as corruption but look at the figures.

North County Dublin has 4-4.5% of the population, its nearest hospital is Beaumount one of the most overcrowded - with some of the longest waiting lists etc.
Of the first list of 160 primary health care centres, not one was located in his constituency. On the second batch of 160 again, not one was located in his constituency (originally, later 2 were).
An average constituency has 1 hospital and c 10 primary care centres, his had 0 and 0.
You make valid points about location of health services, it is pretty evident that c 10 of the smaller rural hospitals should have been closed and merged, exactly like was done in Dublin, the UK, France, Germany, Holland etc. and obviously they are kept open because of voting patterns.
I don't like what was done by the Minister in principle but in all honesty it seems fairly hard to understand why there were no services located there in the first place.

_Brian

A question.

Say your local FG candidate is a total waster. And the local FF candidate is an extremely hard working active community oriented worker.

Do people vote FG over FF in this case on principal resulting in being represented by a useless TD.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

Policies will have to be evidenced and well argued to win broad support - therefore better policies than the current system.

I think I see where our fundamental difference of opinion comes in: you think that voters are swayed by evidence and reasoned argument.

We'll agree to differ.

LiamoSail

_Brian wrote: »

A question.

Say your local FG candidate is a total waster. And the local FF candidate is an extremely hard working active community oriented worker.

Do people vote FG over FF in this case on principal resulting in being represented by a useless TD.

My opinion would be that the hard working FF member obviously see's no issue belonging to a corrupt party, which is tantamount to condoning it.

Irrespective of how he/she may appear to be working to better their community, they're part of an institution that bankrupted the country, and has been ridden with corruption. A vote for an FF candidate is a vote for Martin as Taoiseach, a man who was a senior Minister in the corrupt Government that bankrupted the country.

That candidate would want to be some local worker to justify that.

Mehapoy

Its amazing, if you had said in 2011 that we would go into an election in 2016 with unemployment at 8-9%, the deficit reduced, economic growth of 3-5% you would think fine dael would be on course to have an overall majority, instead they got a kicking...
I think people deserted fg(me among then) for the following reasons:
A) they promised to reform the dail and politics to be transparent and accountable to the people, in reality they did zilch except try to abolish the seanad in a ham fisted referendum
the same examples of cronyism were on display McNulty, David begg
C) the IW debacle with trying to bring charges of 500 plus at one stage and then the whole siteserv denis O'Brien example of cronyism again
D) total failure in health, Reilly was a busted flush and they went with their universal health insurance scheme without a proper plan..the primary care centre controversy where they lost roisin shorthall was another ff like play from the government
E) the perception/reality that nothing was done about the bondholders and repudiating the most odious of the debt
F) the banking enquiry debacle which was just a waste of 5 million and was a stroke to try to blame ff just before the election
G) record levels of homelessness and rental stresses and no plan to deal with it...we are supposed to be a 1st works country
H) the higher levels of charges for everything, property tax, water charges, license fee, motor tax as well as income tax
I) a lot of people realised the economy improved because of external factors nothing to do with the government yet they arrogantly claimed credit

Fr Tod Umptious

_Brian wrote: »

A question.

Say your local FG candidate is a total waster. And the local FF candidate is an extremely hard working active community oriented worker.

Do people vote FG over FF in this case on principal resulting in being represented by a useless TD.

In reality the total waster would rearly get elected in the first place.

Politicians put in hell of a lot of work trying to get elected and it starts from their first day in the Dail to their last.

A former FF TD came knocking about 3 years ago, sussing out the lie of the land after the boundary change, out area would have been new to him.

I challenged him on every aspect of the last FF government and he blamed the global economy and the opposition.
Not once did he acknowledged the mistakes that were made.

He never got a nomination in the end.

Last week the new FF candidate came knocking.
He admitted that mistakes were made, he said that they are building from the ground up, new young candidates.
When asked about Martin he admitted that he had baggage but that he was one of the only experienced guys left after 2011.

I was very impressed with him and his attitude.
I did not vote for him but he got elected.

That's the difference between the waster and the hard worker.

Carlos Orange

Same candidates same vote (except maybe swap 4/5). Different candidates I might move FF from 5 to 3. Assuming all the people elected are still candidates.

Zubeneschamali

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think I see where our fundamental difference of opinion comes in: you think that voters are swayed by evidence and reasoned argument.

And that the public wants good policy.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think I see where our fundamental difference of opinion comes in: you think that voters are swayed by evidence and reasoned argument.

We'll agree to differ.

It's slightly surprising to see Sand as the optimist here, but I'd have to say that historically, evidence and reasoned argument has not been the way to convince the voting public.

That's not to say that I wouldn't like to see more of it - I dearly would, and I'd like even more to see it being effective - but evidence and reasoned argument for the effectiveness of evidence and reasoned argument is in fairly short supply.

By and large, the public is quite time-poor when it comes to examining political argument, and not always equipped with the relevant knowledge or analytical tools to examine them properly. As such, the appearance of evidence and reasoned argument is often all the judgement is made on - and a sufficiently good appearance can hide a lot of poor evidence and reasoning, particularly if you throw in easy mental/emotional shortcuts that lead to the conclusion without needing the evidence and reason.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fr Tod Umptious

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's slightly surprising to see Sand as the optimist here, but I'd have to say that historically, evidence and reasoned argument has not been the way to convince the voting public.

That's not to say that I wouldn't like to see more of it - I dearly would, and I'd like even more to see it being effective - but evidence and reasoned argument for the effectiveness of evidence and reasoned argument is in fairly short supply.

By and large, the public is quite time-poor when it comes to examining political argument, and not always equipped with the relevant knowledge or analytical tools to examine them properly. As such, the appearance of evidence and reasoned argument is often all the judgement is made on - and a sufficiently good appearance can hide a lot of poor evidence and reasoning, particularly if you throw in easy mental/emotional shortcuts that lead to the conclusion without needing the evidence and reason.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think that's a very good point about us being time poor.

Political analysis can be pretty heavy going and most of us eventually just prefer a condensed set of points that lay out various positions.

This in turn helps the candidate when they tell us that the other crowd doing A, B and C is wrong compared to my X,Y and Z.

Sand

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's slightly surprising to see Sand as the optimist here, but I'd have to say that historically, evidence and reasoned argument has not been the way to convince the voting public.

You mistake my position in terms of optimism/pessimism. I'm for well thought out and argued policy making. I am against badly thought out, unargued, unrecorded solo runs by some small cabal late at night. We've had some experience of that not so long ago. And I mean as recently as the Callinan debacle, let alone the bank guarantee.

If you have faith in the latter sort of government, its not optimism. Its good old Irish Catholic blind faith in arrogant, distant, unaccountable institutions.

That people on this thread still pick up thanks for sneering at the maturity and intelligence of Irish voters (but never themselves, they are the smart exceptional ones) is depressing, but it demonstrates why establishment parties continue to decline.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

I'm for well thought out and argued policy making.

So am I. There's a difference between being in favour of something, and believing that it's going to happen.

That people on this thread still pick up thanks for sneering at the maturity and intelligence of Irish voters (but never themselves, they are the smart exceptional ones) is depressing, but it demonstrates why establishment parties continue to decline.

If you have evidence that Irish voters' decisions are informed by maturity and intelligence, by all means share it.

There is very little thought and argument required to advance the idea that clean water is a scarce resource, and that those who use more of a scarce resource should pay more. It's an objectively sensible policy - to which the Irish electorate responds with the carefully thought-through ripost "can't pay, won't pay".

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

So am I. There's a difference between being in favour of something, and believing that it's going to happen. If you have evidence that Irish voters' decisions are informed by maturity and intelligence, by all means share it.

There is very little thought and argument required to advance the idea that clean water is a scarce resource, and that those who use more of a scarce resource should pay more. It's an objectively sensible policy - to which the Irish electorate responds with the carefully thought-through ripost "can't pay, won't pay".

As an Irish voter, you're saying your decisions are not mature or intelligent? And your view on Irish water is "can't pay, won't pay"?

Or are you claiming to be a special unique snowflake?

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

You mistake my position in terms of optimism/pessimism. I'm for well thought out and argued policy making. I am against badly thought out, unargued, unrecorded solo runs by some small cabal late at night. We've had some experience of that not so long ago. And I mean as recently as the Callinan debacle, let alone the bank guarantee.

If you have faith in the latter sort of government, its not optimism. Its good old Irish Catholic blind faith in arrogant, distant, unaccountable institutions.

I don't think anyone is against well thought out and argued policy making, nor, I think, does anyone have any faith in the kind of 'duumvirate/triumvirate' policy decision-making we've regularly seen in recent years. I certainly can't think of anyone who would support such decision-making over well thought out and argued policy-making.

That people on this thread still pick up thanks for sneering at the maturity and intelligence of Irish voters (but never themselves, they are the smart exceptional ones) is depressing, but it demonstrates why establishment parties continue to decline.

I'd hardly regard it as sneering at the electorate to point out that they're not as interested in politics and policy as they are in their daily lives. We are exceptional - but not because we're smarter, purely because we're more interested than most people.

I'm not sure why that would have anything to do with the decline of the establishment parties, either - if it's a jab at me, it's poorly aimed. I don't support one of the establishment parties, nor ever have done in my voting life.

I'm hopeful that a minority government could lead to a situation where it's necessary to persuade the Dáil and the public of the need for a policy, since that would lead to a greater sense of involvement by the public in the policy setting of the nation. But all of political history suggests that an emotional argument is at least as likely to carry the day as a well-reasoned one, and realistically rather more likely to do so. As such, whoever needs to convince the public is more likely to opt for it, since it's also less work - and, in many cases, the persuader themselves may well have been persuaded by its emotional force rather than the reasoning.

cordially,
Scofflaw