General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

You, like so many others, have the wrong end of the stick here.

It says something about the opposition parties that FF are seen as the only alternative to FG.

The opinion poll you reference has the Greens within the margin of error of being the third largest party. That says two things, firstly the failure of FG on environmental issues, and secondly, the abysmal performance of the opposition parties in general.

Look at the poll. Sinn Fein are in freefall (in line with my predictions), the Social Democrats have made minimal impact, and Solidarity are within the margin of error of zero. Labour back up to 5% have a long way to go. It says something that none of those parties have been able to be coherent enough to take votes from the independents.

The true bigger picture is that with the country rejecting the government at this point in the election cycle, as they always do, it is dreadful that there is nowhere else but FF.

FF see themselves as the opposition here. Also by the system we have FF are the main opposition here. Looking to blame smaller parties because FF went in with FG is distractionary and a waste of time. Surely FG and FF can think for themselves? SF/PBP/Lab etc. are not in government FG and pretty much FF are, FF the main opposition party. Fine Gael brought FF from the political abyss and gave them a say, which gives them attention and coverage. This raises their profile and tells the electorate FG are saying let bygones be bygones FF are alright now. SF/Lab/PBP didn't have a hand in that, it's all FG.

FF may edge out FG, they may not, but this was helped in a great way by FG and IMO I think FG would rather lose to FF than create a viable third option and FG stacked the deck this way on purpose, because there is little between FF/FG and they both want the same type of people looked after.

blanch152

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Isn't that ultimately the responsibility of the electorate? If you don't like any of the options on the political menu, you need to be getting into the kitchen and rustling something up yourself. I remember a discussion on Prime Time or somewhere about why there was no political party representing the 49.999% of the electorate who voted no in the divorce referendum. One political scientist just shrugged and said "That's up to the voters themselves."

Well, yes, it is, to a certain extent, the fault of the electorate. However, the electorate choose, and at the end of the day, the electorate are right - that is democracy.

If enough sensible organised people can get together, then you can create a new political party - the Progressive Democrats were evidence of that. Similarly, if those in splintered groups have sense, they can merge - see the merger of Democratic Left and Labour for evidence.

Some of it is politician-led, some of it is grassroots led, the best movements combine both.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

FF see themselves as the opposition here. Also by the system we have FF are the main opposition here. Looking to blame smaller parties because FF went in with FG is distractionary and a waste of time. Surely FG and FF can think for themselves? SF/PBP/Lab etc. are not in government FG and pretty much FF are, FF the main opposition party. Fine Gael brought FF from the political abyss and gave them a say, which gives them attention and coverage. This raises their profile and tells the electorate FG are saying let bygones be bygones FF are alright now. SF/Lab/PBP didn't have a hand in that, it's all FG.

FF may edge out FG, they may not, but this was helped in a great way by FG and IMO I think FG would rather lose to FF than create a viable third option and FG stacked the deck this way on purpose, because there is little between FF/FG and they both want the same type of people looked after.

Again, you are missing the point. People who are fed up with the current Fine Gael government, are looking around at the various options. Increasingly, many of them are choosing Fianna Fail and the Green Party.

That isn't on FF, FG or the Green Party, that is the result of the failure of the other parties to offer coherent alternatives. "We are not FG or FF" is not an election slogan that will get you anywhere, but it seems to be the one you are grasping at.

I am not blaming smaller parties for FF supporting FG, because that has nothing to do with why people vote. The blame for the lack of support for the smaller parties lies with the policies those smaller parties are putting forward.

Loafing Oaf

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, yes, it is, to a certain extent, the fault of the electorate. However, the electorate choose, and at the end of the day, the electorate are right - that is democracy.

If enough sensible organised people can get together, then you can create a new political party - the Progressive Democrats were evidence of that. Similarly, if those in splintered groups have sense, they can merge - see the merger of Democratic Left and Labour for evidence.

Some of it is politician-led, some of it is grassroots led, the best movements combine both.

But doesn't the failure of any new political force to come through on the centre or the right since the demise of the PDs strongly indicate that most non-left-wing voters are, fundamentally, reasonably satisfied with what they are getting from FF and FG? You talk of it being a desperate situation that there is no real alternative to FF and FG for (I presume you mean) centre- and right-leaning voters. But if those voters keep plumping for FF and FG in election after election, and turning up their noses at any purported 'alternative' such as Renua or Libertas, are we not forced to conclude that in the end they mustn't be all that desperate?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, you are missing the point. People who are fed up with the current Fine Gael government, are looking around at the various options. Increasingly, many of them are choosing Fianna Fail and the Green Party.

That isn't on FF, FG or the Green Party, that is the result of the failure of the other parties to offer coherent alternatives. "We are not FG or FF" is not an election slogan that will get you anywhere, but it seems to be the one you are grasping at.

I am not blaming smaller parties for FF supporting FG, because that has nothing to do with why people vote. The blame for the lack of support for the smaller parties lies with the policies those smaller parties are putting forward.

I agree to an extent, however I am talking about looking to put responsibility for FG/FF in current cahoots on Sinn Fein and parties with 5% and below in the polls.
The rise in popularity of FF has a hell of a lot to do with the current FF/FG agreement. If FG had not given FF purpose and prime placement they likely would have spent longer in the wilderness IMO.
People who float between better the devil you know and best of a bad lot, (which seem to be the deciding demographic) have been told that FF are alright now, because FG who lambasted them to get elected are now partnered with them. If they had not maybe we'd have had to run another election maybe not but I can't help but think the country and political future of the country might have moved ahead, for once, if FG hadn't of given FF a leg up. Now, we'll likely have same again next government but maybe with FF on top. All of this keeps any third viable option whomever they may be in the ha'penny place because FG support FF rather than let any other party become a threat IMO.
Yes, the people vote, but outside of hard core 'my party' voters, the floaters will drift from one better the devil you know to the other and FG brought FF back in the public eye.

blanch152

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But doesn't the failure of any new political force to come through on the centre or the right since the demise of the PDs strongly indicate that most non-left-wing voters are, fundamentally, reasonably satisfied with what they are getting from FF and FG? You talk of it being a desperate situation that there is no real alternative to FF and FG for (I presume you mean) centre- and right-leaning voters. But if those voters keep plumping for FF and FG in election after election, and turning up their noses at any purported 'alternative' such as Renua or Libertas, are we not forced to conclude that in the end they mustn't be all that desperate?

No, you get me wrong. I agree with all that you say, except that I wasn't necessarily looking for a centre-right alternative. As a centrist voter, I have voted for FF, FG, Labour, Greens, PDs and Democratic Left at various times over the last three decades, more actually.

Apart from the Greens who I have voted for the last decade (except 2011), the problem now is that nobody else is offering a credible alternative to FF or FG, anywhere in the centre-left or centre-right. That failure is on those parties.

However, if you are talking about centre-right only, you are correct that the significant proportion of the electorate who vote that way appear more than satisfied with the offering of FG and FF.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

No, you get me wrong. I agree with all that you say, except that I wasn't necessarily looking for a centre-right alternative. As a centrist voter, I have voted for FF, FG, Labour, Greens, PDs and Democratic Left at various times over the last three decades, more actually.

Apart from the Greens who I have voted for the last decade (except 2011), the problem now is that nobody else is offering a credible alternative to FF or FG, anywhere in the centre-left or centre-right. That failure is on those parties.

However, if you are talking about centre-right only, you are correct that the significant proportion of the electorate who vote that way appear more than satisfied with the offering of FG and FF.

Fair enough.
It's tough to find an alternative for sure. For me as long as there's a third option, I won't vote FF/FG.
The trouble with 'credible alternatives' is we cannot trust FF or FG to do what they say and on the current course the housing situation is set for further disaster, which it has long since passed the disaster mark, just not touching everyone yet but when it does the economy will meltdown. Part of me wants FG in power when that happens it might help us find alternatives. When we've a 'choice' between FF and FG we are stuck with FF or FG.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I agree to an extent, however I am talking about looking to put responsibility for FG/FF in current cahoots on Sinn Fein and parties with 5% and below in the polls.
The rise in popularity of FF has a hell of a lot to do with the current FF/FG agreement. If FG had not given FF purpose and prime placement they likely would have spent longer in the wilderness IMO.

This would be the wilderness of 24.3% of the vote and 44 TDs that they would have stayed in?

You have the history completely backwards. FF were already seen as a viable alternative, that is why we ended up with no majority government in the first place.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

This would be the wilderness of 24.3% of the vote and 44 TDs that they would have stayed in?

You have the history completely backwards. FF were already seen as a viable alternative, that is why we ended up with no majority government in the first place.

You're not getting my point.
Yes not enough to form a government. Why we have FF/FG at all is because of the FF/FG family voter dynasty. Not disputing that one bit. When an element will vote for their team no matter what you can't discuss them in the normal realms of logical people voting based on policy or who may be best suited IMO.
FF had their profile raised to catch the eye of the floaters that will put them over the top, as I've said previously. The floaters make or break it.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're not getting my point.
Yes not enough to form a government. Why we have FF/FG at all is because of the FF/FG family voter dynasty. Not disputing that one bit. When an element will vote for their team no matter what you can't discuss them in the normal realms of logical people voting based on policy or who may be best suited IMO.
FF had their profile raised to catch the eye of the floaters that will put them over the top, as I've said previously. The floaters make or break it.

Don't necessarily agree with this.

A lot of the family FF and FG vote has gone to independents from the Lowrys to the Healy-Raes who are seen as remaining true to the "cause".

There are many young people and immigrants out there voting for FG and FF for the first ever time.

The family influence is overstated nowadays.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Don't necessarily agree with this.

A lot of the family FF and FG vote has gone to independents from the Lowrys to the Healy-Raes who are seen as remaining true to the "cause".

There are many young people and immigrants out there voting for FG and FF for the first ever time.

The family influence is overstated nowadays.

I think FF might have gone the way of Labour years ago were it not for the family based political dynasty and FG might even be middling.
As regards Lowry and his ilk that's parish pump. There'll always be votes based on local issues. The Healy Raes are skilled at it.

Look at it this way all it takes is FF or FG to ride the green wave with an initiative or two to wipe the Greens off the map for another decade.

Loafing Oaf

blanch152 wrote: »

No, you get me wrong. I agree with all that you say, except that I wasn't necessarily looking for a centre-right alternative. As a centrist voter, I have voted for FF, FG, Labour, Greens, PDs and Democratic Left at various times over the last three decades, more actually.

Apart from the Greens who I have voted for the last decade (except 2011), the problem now is that nobody else is offering a credible alternative to FF or FG, anywhere in the centre-left or centre-right. That failure is on those parties.

But isn't the 'credibilty' of a political party ultimately in the eye of the beholder? Are you saying here that there are a lot of moderate-left-leaning voters who feel obliged to vote for FF because they possess this nebulous quality whereas the Greens/Labour/SDs/whoever do not? Surely the thing for such voters to do is to give their top preferences to the party or parties they feel closest to ideologically, irrespective of how 'credible' they are, and then give a lower preference to FF if they regard them as a lesser evil than FG.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're not getting my point.
Yes not enough to form a government. Why we have FF/FG at all is because of the FF/FG family voter dynasty. Not disputing that one bit. When an element will vote for their team no matter what you can't discuss them in the normal realms of logical people voting based on policy or who may be best suited IMO.
FF had their profile raised to catch the eye of the floaters that will put them over the top, as I've said previously. The floaters make or break it.

I did get your point. Your point, as stated, was simply incorrect. Any comment you make about FG bringing FF out of the "political wilderness" by going into the C&S arrangement is incorrect because by absolutely no definition is a quarter of the vote and over a quarter of the seats in the Dail the "Political Wilderness".

It is below FF's traditional vote and they remain very far below their traditional vote. The latest poll shows them a mere 3% above what they actually received in the last election. The C&S arrangement may certainly have partly contributed to that 3% potential rise in vote share, but that is a far cry from what you are actually saying.

FF, as a political force, were very much already back. There was clearly unhappiness with the previous FG/Lab government, but the electorate (for whatever reason) had already chosen FF as the best alternative long before the C&S arrangement.


FG have done plenty wrong, but continually banging on about the rise from the ashes of FF being their fault because of the C&S agreement is just fundamentally incorrect.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

I did get your point. Your point, as stated, was simply incorrect. Any comment you make about FG bringing FF out of the "political wilderness" by going into the C&S arrangement is incorrect because by absolutely no definition is a quarter of the vote and over a quarter of the seats in the Dail the "Political Wilderness".

It is below FF's traditional vote and they remain very far below their traditional vote. The latest poll shows them a mere 3% above what they actually received in the last election. The C&S arrangement may certainly have partly contributed to that 3% potential rise in vote share, but that is a far cry from what you are actually saying.

FF, as a political force, were very much already back. There was clearly unhappiness with the previous FG/Lab government, but the electorate (for whatever reason) had already chosen FF as the best alternative long before the C&S arrangement.


FG have done plenty wrong, but continually banging on about the rise from the ashes of FF being their fault because of the C&S agreement is just fundamentally incorrect.

By 'incorrect' you must mean you disagree. Fair enough.

Compared to PBP? No.
By FF standards, yes. I find it unlikely the average voter was all, 'You know what, IMF/economic meltdown aside, I'll give FF my vote'.

Labour shot themselves in the foot. People expected better and got FG lite.

I disagree as stated previously, lest I bang on further.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

By 'incorrect' you must mean you disagree. Fair enough.

Compared to PBP? No.
By FF standards, yes. I find it unlikely the average voter was all, 'You know what, IMF/economic meltdown aside, I'll give FF my vote'.

So your very strict definition of political wilderness starts above 25% but below 28%? The "average voter's" probability of voting for FF before and after the C&S has barely changed. So stop advocating it as something that has dragged FF back to political relevance as it flies in the face of the actual election results.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

So your very strict definition of political wilderness starts above 25% but below 28%? The "average voter's" probability of voting for FF before and after the C&S has barely changed. So stop advocating it as something that has dragged FF back to political relevance as it flies in the face of the actual election results.

My definition of political wilderness is falling from the sitting government to poor opposition level and unlikely to see government for many years only to be put back in with a say by Fine Gael. Look if you disagree, fair play, if you don't get my point I can't help you.

Loafing Oaf

Matt Barrett wrote: »

My definition of political wilderness is falling from the sitting government to poor opposition level and unlikely to see government for many years only to be put back in with a say by Fine Gael.

I don't see how a government could have been formed in 2016 that was not grounded in some sort of arrangement between FF and FG, given that both parties had categorically ruled out any deal with SF. But supposing for argument's sake FG could somehow have managed it, it's not at all clear to me that FF would be in a weaker position as a result than they are under the current arrangement. FF has revelled in the role of populist opposition in the past, opportunistically hammering everything the government does, even though everyone knows they would likely be following very similar policies in office. IMO very possible that FF would have a clear and consistent lead over FG in the opinion polls if history had gone down that road.

James Brown

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I don't see how a government could have been formed in 2016 that was not grounded in some sort of arrangement between FF and FG, given that both parties had categorically ruled out any deal with SF. But supposing for argument's sake FG could somehow have managed it, it's not at all clear to me that FF would be in a weaker position as a result than they are under the current arrangement. FF has revelled in the role of populist opposition in the past, opportunistically hammering everything the government does, even though everyone knows they would likely be following very similar policies in office. IMO very possible that FF would have a clear and consistent lead over FG in the opinion polls if history had gone down that road.

We don't know. My opinion is FG helped FF in the last few years. Maybe they wouldn't be doing as well without the current arrangement making their opinion matter more than it might?
I think FF will have the upper hand next time. They can be as populist as they like if we see results for the tax payer. FG are stagnant and not for budging. We need a change, sadly that looks like FF.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

My definition of political wilderness is falling from the sitting government to poor opposition level and unlikely to see government for many years only to be put back in with a say by Fine Gael. Look if you disagree, fair play, if you don't get my point I can't help you.

I get your point entirely. Its just not grounded in any evidence whatsoever and in fact seems to have significant evidence against it in the nature of the last election results. Generally speaking if you are going to make a claim it would be good to explain the logic behind it - because clearly it can't be based on election results and opinion polls which are the most common source of info when it comes to discussions on the health of political parties. They were already the second biggest party and only a percentage point behind the biggest.

If your point is more philosophical in nature then fine, we can simply agree to disagree. But no actual data points to the current arrangement having any significant impact of the fortunes of FF.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

My definition of political wilderness is falling from the sitting government to poor opposition level and unlikely to see government for many years only to be put back in with a say by Fine Gael. Look if you disagree, fair play, if you don't get my point I can't help you.

You keep blaming Fine Gael for giving Fianna Fail a say, but in reality it is the fault of the electorate. They voted in numbers - 25% - for Fianna Fail, while also voting in numbers for a collection of independents, Sinn Fein and Solidarity who had no wish (or indeed capability or capacity) to govern.

You cannot get away from the fact that those 25% of people who voted for Fianna Fail and the other c27% who voted for Sinn Fein, Solidarity and independents are actually the ones responsible for giving us this government.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

....

If your point is more philosophical in nature then fine, we can simply agree to disagree. But no actual data points to the current arrangement having any significant impact of the fortunes of FF.

Nope I firmly believe FG helped FF's popularity. You've no data to say were they might sit without this deal.
Are you saying the deal didn't help FF?
How often would you say we've heard from MM or his crew over any other party or politician combined over the last few years? As much as Mary Lou, Gino or Daly or Howlin? More maybe? Who gets more air time for faux outrage?

blanch152 wrote: »

You keep blaming Fine Gael for giving Fianna Fail a say, but in reality it is the fault of the electorate. They voted in numbers - 25% - for Fianna Fail, while also voting in numbers for a collection of independents, Sinn Fein and Solidarity who had no wish (or indeed capability or capacity) to govern.

You cannot get away from the fact that those 25% of people who voted for Fianna Fail and the other c27% who voted for Sinn Fein, Solidarity and independents are actually the ones responsible for giving us this government.

Not getting away from anything. You and I covered this.
FG put the party that one of their member said had us 'practically eating out of bins' in a power position so they could remain in government. FF were the absolute worst, but good enough to partner with. Today FF are doing well not in any small way due to the publicity and notoriety of being in this unofficial power sharing agreement.
As I've said, this cuirrent situation is a consequence of how we voted, not what we voted for, even Varadkar is a caretaker until he faces the electorate.
The worse thing about having such a cosy 'opposition' is the myriad crises continue and we hear crony stories of varying degree every other week and we plod along anyway, you know for stability.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nope I firmly believe FG helped FF's popularity. You've no data to say were they might sit without this deal.
Are you saying the deal didn't help FF?

I think it helped incredibly minimally. You are correct that I have no data to say where they would sit without the deal. Nonetheless, considering their position has not significantly changed since the election (a point you really should acknowledge), you are either overselling the wilderness they were in or overselling their current relevance.

Is there any reason to expect the main opposition party (and that is what they already were) to show reduced support 3 years into the life-cycle of a government? I think history would show that opposition parties tend to be strongest around then. Maybe it is all a result of the C&S and without that FF would have lost support in opposition, but it seems like a bit of a reach. To think that the deal has significantly impacted FF then you would have to believe that without it they would have lost support since the last general election and I'm just not understanding why you think that would be the case.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

I think it helped incredibly minimally. You are correct that I have no data to say where they would sit without the deal. Nonetheless, considering their position has not significantly changed since the election (a point you really should acknowledge), you are either overselling the wilderness they were in or overselling their current relevance.

Is there any reason to expect the main opposition party (and that is what they already were) to show reduced support 3 years into the life-cycle of a government? I think history would show that opposition parties tend to be strongest around then. Maybe it is all a result of the C&S and without that FF would have lost support in opposition, but it seems like a bit of a reach. To think that the deal has significantly impacted FF then you would have to believe that without it they would have lost support since the last general election and I'm just not understanding why you think that would be the case.

Fair enough.
Same reply.

blanch152

Podge_irl wrote: »

I think it helped incredibly minimally. You are correct that I have no data to say where they would sit without the deal. Nonetheless, considering their position has not significantly changed since the election (a point you really should acknowledge), you are either overselling the wilderness they were in or overselling their current relevance.

Is there any reason to expect the main opposition party (and that is what they already were) to show reduced support 3 years into the life-cycle of a government? I think history would show that opposition parties tend to be strongest around then. Maybe it is all a result of the C&S and without that FF would have lost support in opposition, but it seems like a bit of a reach. To think that the deal has significantly impacted FF then you would have to believe that without it they would have lost support since the last general election and I'm just not understanding why you think that would be the case.

A good point. In fact, in nearly every single opinion poll since the 2016 election, FF have been within the margin of error vis-a-vis their 2016 performance. The evidence (and we are in an evidence-based forum) would therefore suggest that supporting FG has had no significant effect on FF.

A Shropshire Lad

Is there a big enough difference between FF and FG on policy that could be sold to voters at election time? Or is it just a case of let them have a go at it and then the next time we can vote the other crowd and let them have a go, etc, etc

James Brown

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Is there a big enough difference between FF and FG on policy that could be sold to voters at election time? Or is it just a case of let them have a go at it and then the next time we can vote the other crowd and let them have a go, etc, etc

Pretty much.
I think people should own their vote. If there's a third option on the ballot, considering FF/FG's appalling track records, 'no option' or 'best of a bad lot' or 'devil you know', doesn't cut it IMO.

McMurphy

I see the Maria Bailey compensation controversy has now evolved into a report about who ratted her out to the press, rather than the fact there's a story about her appearing to have been trying to pull a fast one.

Taoiseach hunts for 'leak' at centre of Maria Bailey swing row

The fact she's not already had her ass handed to her by the higher ups in the party leads me to believe it's because there's others involved in this mess too.

The investigation is also understood to be looking at what role, if any, Culture Minister Josepha Madigan played in the lawsuit.

Ms Bailey was represented by her brother's law firm, where the minister worked at the time of the incident.

During her radio interview, Ms Bailey claimed that she "put every faith in that legal system. And I was told I had a clear cut case".

Ms Madigan has refused to say whether she provided any advice to her colleague prior to leaving the law firm in June 2017.

Loafing Oaf

Check out the fancy socks on the FG guy on The Week in Politics!:P He clearly knows the way to his leader's heart...

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I see the Maria Bailey compensation controversy has now evolved into a report about who ratted her out to the press, rather than the fact there's a story about her appearing to have been trying to pull a fast one.

Taoiseach hunts for 'leak' at centre of Maria Bailey swing row

The fact she's not already had her ass handed to her by the higher ups in the party leads me to believe it's because there's others involved in this mess too.

Does anyone else care anymore about this? Seems to be a bit of a dead issue. More important things to think about.

christy c

blanch152 wrote: »

Does anyone else care anymore about this? Seems to be a bit of a dead issue. More important things to think about.

I think people care, like Margaret Cash it highlights a problem we all know exists. In this case scumbag compo culture.

I personally hope she's booted out of the party and booted out of the Dail by the electorate in the next GE.