Leo is the new king of Ireland.

El Tarangu

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The real scandal is the acceptance of his behavior and his lack of anything new, considering his hard pushed PR as a young firebrand who gets things done.
He's the quintessential 'stay the course, nothing to see here' old guard(a) conservative.

I would agree that he didn't exactly set the world alight in any of portfolios as a minister, but he announced that there would be an abortion referendum within one week of taking office - an issue that his predecessors would only deal with by means of a 10-foot barge pole.

charlie14

El Tarangu wrote: »

I would agree that he didn't exactly set the world alight in any of portfolios as a minister, but he announced that there would be an abortion referendum within one week of taking office - an issue that his predecessors would only deal with by means of a 10-foot barge pole.

I would not be too impressed with him in his time as a minister either, and the time had come where this referendum was unavoidable regardless of who was Taoiseach.

After hearing snippets of Coveney today I imagine he has perhaps a better understanding now of why it has been dealt with at times by means of a long barge pole.

It is one issue that has the potential for losing votes rather than gaining them.
That could be a particular problem for Varadkar within his own party now with Coveney putting his oar in the water, considering in the recent dealership vote Coveney received 2/3 backing of the FG membership as opposed to Varadkar`s 1/3.

Jawgap

El Tarangu wrote: »

I would agree that he didn't exactly set the world alight in any of portfolios as a minister, but he announced that there would be an abortion referendum within one week of taking office - an issue that his predecessors would only deal with by means of a 10-foot barge pole.

I think the referendum was going to happen regardless.

Certainly he did nothing as a minister - the priority seemed to be to avoid controversy and the easiest way to do that was to do nothing.

charlie14

blackwhite wrote: »

I can't see any path to either FG or FF getting 80+ seats in the near future.

There's two coalition possibilities I can see if the SoT analysis was borne out - assuming a desire to avoid a minority Govt with another confidence & supply agreement, and assuming that FG and FF remain resistant to forming a coalition together.

FG+Lab+Soc Dems - only 4 more seats then needed to hit the 80 - possibly a tie-in with the Greens and a couple of Indos would be enough.

FF + SF + Lab + Soc Dems - would still need to find another 7 to go with them. I can't see PBP/AAA/Solidarity (or whatever new label they have taken on by then) actually growing up and being willing to compromise with anyone else, so it leaves them fishing for the Indos as well.

Neither strike me as likely to be overly stable - but for as long as we have approx 10% of the Dail comprised of independents we aren't going to see any Govts formed with more than a 3/4 seat majority (unless of course, FF & FG jump in together - but I don't see FF agreeing to that anytime soon).

I would not see it being just FF not jumping into a coalition. I would not see FG doing it either.

On that analysis and allowing for the all buts and maybes going FG`s way that would only leave them with four seats short of a majority when combined with Labour and the Social Democrats.
I would have serious doubts that Labour would even consider a coalition with FG anytime soon after the mauling they received from the 2011-2016 coalition.
With Roisin Shorthall and Catherine Murphy fronting the Social Democrats I would not see that union being likely either.

blackwhite

charlie14 wrote: »

I would not see it being just FF not jumping into a coalition. I would not see FG doing it either.

I'd say whoever was the bigger would be willing to do it (or make all the public overtures at least), but the smaller would balk.

charlie14 wrote: »

On that analysis and allowing for the all buts and maybes going FG`s way that would only leave them with four seats short of a majority when combined with Labour and the Social Democrats.
I would have serious doubts that Labour would even consider a coalition with FG anytime soon after the mauling they received from the 2011-2016 coalition.
With Roisin Shortall and Catherine Murphy fronting the Social Democrats I would not see that union being likely either.

With a rising economy I could see both Labour convincing themselves that they could go in without suffering at the polls, and with there being enough in the pot for them to achieve some of their policy goals.

As for the SocDems, both Shorthall and Murphy are at an age where one more full term Dail would most likely see them to retirement, so re-election in 2023/4/5 could possibly be a much smaller consideration for them than the opportunity to actually implement some of their policies.

charlie14

blackwhite wrote: »

I'd say whoever was the bigger would be willing to do it (or make all the public overtures at least), but the smaller would balk.




With a rising economy I could see both Labour convincing themselves that they could go in without suffering at the polls, and with there being enough in the pot for them to achieve some of their policy goals.

As for the SocDems, both Shorthall and Murphy are at an age where one more full term Dail would most likely see them to retirement, so re-election in 2023/4/5 could possibly be a much smaller consideration for them than the opportunity to actually implement some of their policies.

You may be correct, but from the mauling they received I very much doubt even if their parliamentary members wished too, their membership would give them the backing anytime soon.
Shortall and Murphy, regardless of how anyone may judge them politically, come across as very ethical politicians who have constantly criticised FG policy.
Perhaps if both were younger they would consider a partnership with FG, but as the next GE most likely will be their last outing I would have my doubts

blackwhite

charlie14 wrote: »

You may be correct, but from the mauling they received I very much doubt even if their parliamentary members wished too, their membership would give them the backing anytime soon.
Shortall and Murphy, regardless of how anyone may judge them politically, come across as very ethical politicians who have constantly criticised FG policy.
Perhaps if both were younger they would consider a partnership with FG, but as the next GE most likely will be their last outing I would have my doubts

WRT to the SocDems, how Shortall and Murphy define behaving "ethically" is the crunch question.

Which politician is serving their supporters better:
- one who rejects the opportunity to be a minority partner in a coalition, resulting in a Government which implements policies of which 50% would have been opposed by that politician
- one who enters into a coalition, where the Government now implements policies of which only 30% would have been opposed by that politician, but they also get 20% of their core "wish list" implemented that would never have seen the light of day if they hadn't compromised on other issues ?


Failing gaining an absolute majority, no party can get 100% of their policies implemented. You can compromise with another party and get some of your policies implemented in return for allowing them implement some other policies that might not fit your views/desires, or you can refuse to compromise and take the risk that whatever Govt is formed will implement policies that are very far removed from what your supporters actually want.


To me, it's far more "ethical" for a small party to take the difficult (and often politically damaging) decision to join Govt in an effort to influence policies to be closer to what their supporters want.

Others prefer their politicians to refuse to compromise on anything - even if that results in the actual policies that the Govt will implement being further removed from what that politician and their supporters actually want. It's certainly the easier option to take - but I'd strongly dispute that it's "ethical."

Ultimately, the purpose of politics is to try and get your policies implemented. I'd give Murphy and Shortall enough credit to think they'd prefer to head to their retirement having actually seen some of their policies put into action, rather than simply hurling on the ditch.

Idbatterim

charlie14 wrote: »

I would not see it being just FF not jumping into a coalition. I would not see FG doing it either.

On that analysis and allowing for the all buts and maybes going FG`s way that would only leave them with four seats short of a majority when combined with Labour and the Social Democrats.
I would have serious doubts that Labour would even consider a coalition with FG anytime soon after the mauling they received from the 2011-2016 coalition.
With Roisin Shorthall and Catherine Murphy fronting the Social Democrats I would not see that union being likely either.

hopefully renua win a few seats this time round. We do not need labour or social democrat types in there offering nothing new, IMO...

With a rising economy I could see both Labour convincing themselves that they could go in without suffering at the polls, and with there being enough in the pot for them to achieve some of their policy goals.

If they do they, I would say the want water tight guarantees or as close as you can get. The backlash they received was laughable, but you cant tell the many idiots that voted for them, that they are idiots or you risk never receiving their vote again...

charlie14

blackwhite wrote: »

WRT to the SocDems, how Shortall and Murphy define behaving "ethically" is the crunch question.

Which politician is serving their supporters better:
- one who rejects the opportunity to be a minority partner in a coalition, resulting in a Government which implements policies of which 50% would have been opposed by that politician
- one who enters into a coalition, where the Government now implements policies of which only 30% would have been opposed by that politician, but they also get 20% of their core "wish list" implemented that would never have seen the light of day if they hadn't compromised on other issues ?


Failing gaining an absolute majority, no party can get 100% of their policies implemented. You can compromise with another party and get some of your policies implemented in return for allowing them implement some other policies that might not fit your views/desires, or you can refuse to compromise and take the risk that whatever Govt is formed will implement policies that are very far removed from what your supporters actually want.


To me, it's far more "ethical" for a small party to take the difficult (and often politically damaging) decision to join Govt in an effort to influence policies to be closer to what their supporters want.

Others prefer their politicians to refuse to compromise on anything - even if that results in the actual policies that the Govt will implement being further removed from what that politician and their supporters actually want. It's certainly the easier option to take - but I'd strongly dispute that it's "ethical."

Ultimately, the purpose of politics is to try and get your policies implemented. I'd give Murphy and Shortall enough credit to think they'd prefer to head to their retirement having actually seen some of their policies put into action, rather than simply hurling on the ditch.

If Shortall and Murphy are genuine in their intent of growing the SocDems, and I assume they are, the are around long enough to know the fate that has befallen junior partners in coalition. Especially considering what happened to Labour GE 2016.
As the PD`s and the Greens have shown the best way to grow a party is in opposition.
As both Shortall and Murphy are most likely not going to contest a GE after the next, I imagine they would take both those into consideration.

If they were both independents and intended running again, then I could see them more readily joining a coalition to benefit their own constituencies similar to Ross and Halligan.

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

hopefully renua win a few seats this time round. We do not need labour or social democrat types in there offering nothing new, IMO...

If they do they, I would say the want water tight guarantees or as close as you can get. The backlash they received was laughable, but you cant tell the many idiots that voted for them, that they are idiots or you risk never receiving their vote again...

I cannot see Renua doing much next time around tbh, and after the way FG went after them in targeting their seats 2016, even if they did, it would require some serious bullet biting for them to go into coalition with FG.

Be interesting though to see if the upcoming referendum gives them a boost and if it does, at whose expense.

FreudianSlippers

I mean what actually are Renua, FG but more socially conservative?

Wanderer78

FreudianSlippers wrote:

I mean what actually are Renua, FG but more socially conservative?

Who?

FreudianSlippers

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Who?

Renua... the party that we've been talking about in the last few posts.

Wanderer78

FreudianSlippers wrote:

Renua... the party that we've been talking about in the last few posts.

I know, I know, bad joke

seamus

Renua are a dead duck. They were basically a vehicle for Lucinda Creighton to try and launch her own party. Without her they have no public appeal.

They've been tagged as "Catholic Fine Gael" and that's not going away. No harm to have a right-wing conservative party flopping around, but there's no appetite for American-style conservatism in Ireland.

Idbatterim

seamus wrote: »

Renua are a dead duck. They were basically a vehicle for Lucinda Creighton to try and launch her own party. Without her they have no public appeal.

They've been tagged as "Catholic Fine Gael" and that's not going away. No harm to have a right-wing conservative party flopping around, but there's no appetite for American-style conservatism in Ireland.

Renua this time round as opposed to the last election, they have dumped the flat tax policy as basically they reckoned the electorate were too stupid to get their head around it and they are right. They Have received a few hundred thousand in funding as they received over 2% of the vote at the last election...

Wanderer78

Idbatterim wrote: »

Renua this time round as opposed to the last election, they have dumped the flat tax policy as basically they reckoned the electorate were too stupid to get their head around it and they are right. They Have received a few hundred thousand in funding as they received over 2% of the vote at the last election...

michael hudson has done research to show flat taxes cause great damage to economy's

FreudianSlippers

Wanderer78 wrote: »

michael hudson has done research to show flat taxes cause great damage to economy's

Meh, it's biased at best. Flat tax with negative income tax is the way to go, but I agree with Idbatterm, the electorate are way too stupid to get their head around that concept.

Wanderer78

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Meh, it's biased at best. Flat tax with negative income tax is the way to go, but I agree with Idbatterm, the electorate are way too stupid to get their head around that concept.

id be wary of that, but i will agree, since hudson is a Marxist, it would indeed be biased but since im a lefty, that would probably make be biased to, like all other opinions.

Idbatterim

if FG now dont pull a FF and overheat the economy and Varadkar was talking about this yesterday, the opposition calling for exactly what they did during the boom, more and more spending. Then barring a disastrous brexit and economic turmoil, which the way things are going, we couldnt blame FG on.

How do FF get back into the picture? they must hate playing second fiddle. one of their ministers said they may pull the plug over the housing crisis. This is the only way I can see FF potentially winning a lot of votes, from those absolutely screwed by the housing crisis. But they would have to have their own credible plan in place. And as a person screwed by the housing crisis, I would vote for them. FG endless talk isnt much use for hundreds of thousands of us... As a previous FG voter, if they think pathetic cuts to outrageous levels of income tax worth a few euro a week will buy me off, when the cost of rent or far more so now with the cap, property prices are rising through the roof, they are out of their mind. No party actually represents the working man, (other than renua who currently have no seats and likely will only be very small fry even next election)...

I think there is no appetite for an election. FG will most likely win the most seats next election, followed by FF, if the two of them cant agree, the people wont want another election.

The main reason I am very interested in Renua is, they are an alternative. the others are just all occupying the same space. Maybe with the abortion referendum out of the way, if it is passed, they will win more seats as that issue will have been put to bed... They are putting a lot of effort into their policies, campaigning etc. I just wonder if they would be far better off relaunching and under a new name and after the abortion referendum...

yeah just searched for the below, they receive E250,000 a year for the lift time of the government. They will really need to get their message out their come election time, social media will be critical. They can have all of the great plans they want, but people need to know about them!!!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/renua-gets-250000-in-state-funding-a-year-despite-returning-no-tds-35021367.html

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

Renua this time round as opposed to the last election, they have dumped the flat tax policy as basically they reckoned the electorate were too stupid to get their head around it and they are right. They Have received a few hundred thousand in funding as they received over 2% of the vote at the last election...

First impressions tend to stick. Probably more so in the case of a new political party.
Because of the original founders Renua`s is Conservative Catholic Fine Gael.

They ran 26 candidates and received 46,522 votes (2.18%) but won no seats.
Whereas the Green Party ran 40 candidates, received 57,997 votes (2.72%) and won 2 seats in adjacent constituencies, Dublin Bay South and Dublin Rathdown.

At face value looking at those statistics it could be said Renua were unfortunate not to win at least one seat, but I would be of the opinion that it is not as simple as misfortune.
For me the Greens won seats in an area where their policies attracted votes that were area specific too those two constituencies, whereas Renua`s support was more countrywide based, and therein lies the problem for Renua.

Would Renua nua attract more voters by losing the tag of Conservative Catholic Fine Gael and still hold on to the electorate that voted for them under that tag ?
I somehow doubt they would, and with the upcoming referendum I imagine they will be very tempted to go with holding what they have and hoping to add to it during the referendum campaign with an eye to the next general election.

Edward M

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Meh, it's biased at best. Flat tax with negative income tax is the way to go, but I agree with Idbatterm, the electorate are way too stupid to get their head around that concept.

Maybe Leo and FG are way too smart to suggest it. Given the range of income of most of the electorate here I wouldn't be too sure how stupid they might be, given that most studies I have seen have shown that the more well off are the only gainers from a flat tax regime.
Even Renua weren't long in removing their calculator from their website when basic calculations showed this up.
It wouldn't be hard to figure out the income bracket of anyone supporting such a regime I think.

Idbatterim

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

the social democrats, renua etc launched when there was real appetite for change. Does anyone believe any new party could launch here and actually win say 20-25% of the seats, so that they could be king makers?

Because that to me, is as ambitious as it could get. It actually looks like FF or FG could continually destroy the economy and they will always have a significant enough core vote...

Idbatterim

Edward M wrote: »

Maybe Leo and FG are way too smart to suggest it. Given the range of income of most of the electorate here I wouldn't be too sure how stupid they might be, given that most studies I have seen have shown that the more well off are the only gainers from a flat tax regime.
Even Renua weren't long in removing their calculator from their website when basic calculations showed this up.
It wouldn't be hard to figure out the income bracket of anyone supporting such a regime I think.

the thing is taxing income from a low rate at 51% is ridiculously anti enterprise and employment. Its not good for the country or any one in it! Of course many people wouldnt agree with it, we have nearly a million people paying virtually nothing into the system via way of direct taxation. We have low hundreds of thousands being abused, because in terms of voters numbers, they are a small enough percentage and thus can be abused...

I would like to see current accurate figures, it would be interesting...

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

"No one in this world, far as I know - and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me - has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby" - H. L. Mencken..

But then again there is the opening sentence of Dick Tuck`s concession speech following a loss in the race for the California State Seanate which suggests Mencken may not have been entirely correct.

"The people have spoken, the bastards":)

GuiltyAir

I have a four year ban on prognostication in politics, and I'm only a quarter of the way through.

James Brown

Fine Gael need only stay the course. Don't do anything too much to rock the boat. They've ran out of road on the pro choice issue but doing well on practically selling it like their hand is being forced but they'll grudgingly go ahead while being both for and against any change. Fence sitting at its best considering the public becoming tired of inaction.
It'll be politics 101 as they both celebrate any win while any disgruntled FG lifers are told 'our hands were tied'.

I predict a signed and sealed FG/FF government with only egos likely to bring it down. Really depends on how the cream and gravy is distributed.

If ever the majority of voters relialise a growing economy does not necessarily mean better quality of life, we might see some changes.

CruelCoin

piplip87 wrote: »

Leos approval rating in a large part is down to his handling of Brexit. Irish people love sticking it to the Brits and DUP.

I'd reckon it's more down to the Fine Gael traditional base of middle classes finally having someone championing for them.

Leo says that the dole suckers have had enough, and for once i can get my snout in the trough filled with my taxes?
Happy days, i like him!

Idbatterim

one thing that I have noticed is, people are getting absolutely sick of the lack of government inaction here. The difference here, unlike most other countries is, there is no proper political alternatives... if you are centre or centre right.

Secondly, I see many people on the journal commenting, that they want USC abolished, now on the one had I was opposed to that, as in a way, it is madness. BUT BUT, its no more mad than throwing hundreds of millions onto welfare rises every year, in fact, its far more fair and a far more productive use of money.

Given what I mentioned earlier with Renua and their flat tax, you would wonder if only simple messages seem to work with the Irish electorate, that they run with abolishing the USC, that FG have now abandoned...

there is no point in being too niche here. I would be targeting something dramatic like USC abolition and actually allowing people to buy property at non extortionate amounts and the only thing stopping that, is political will... (also reducing cost of child care etc)... To hell with going after the left vote, they are already over served. FF and FF are catch alls. hence nothing every gets done here!

Idbatterim

CruelCoin wrote: »

I'd reckon it's more down to the Fine Gael traditional base of middle classes finally having someone championing for them.

Leo says that the dole suckers have had enough, and for once i can get my snout in the trough filled with my taxes?
Happy days, i like him!

Right. I am middle class! Words mean nothing. If the sheeple are that easily fooled, they deserve it. We live a country where low earners lose over half their income over a laughable €34,800 like its the wolf of f**cking wallstreet life when you hit that amount. They gave long term welfare careerists a bigger rise two budgets ago, than a worker on about 33,000 received in a USC cut... I believe this happened after the the Castleknock Waffler made similar claims to rewarding people that work... :rolleyes: