Blaming and Demonising "Junior" Coalition Parties

Hodors Appletart

It's always been weird to me that the Junior partner in a coalition takes the brunt of blame and repercussions at the ballot box for the failings of the government of which they were part, often for a disproportionately long time afterwards.

The way I see it is, especially in PRSTV, is that what people consistently vote for is one of the larger parties, but to have their policies tempered somewhat (not fully!) by a smaller party, be it a more left-leaning Labour, or an environmentally concerned Greens, or a slightly more right of centre PDs in the past.

When these smaller parties run on a manifesto of XYZ, then go into government and manage to deliver X, it is more sensible to me that instead of people crying about them not delivering Y and Z, then it would make more sense to re-elect them and maybe they can deliver Y or Z the next time.

Instead of demonising them for not delivering fully, when in reality they need to compromise on their manifesto so they can deliver at least part of it as the junior partner. The alternative is not going into power in the first place - which we have seen parties doing, for fear of being crushed at the next election.

It seems a more sensible course of action is to encourage the smaller parties to go into a coalition government and not expect them to deliver on their full manifesto of promises within one 5 year cycle, rather take a longer term view where they are able to shape and mould then public thinking by delivering piece by piece on their goals, don't simply highlight the things they didn't get done, or castigate them when the larger party implements policies that seemingly fly in the face of the smaller party stance on certain issues.

Recognise that you can't "have it all" on the first go-around, and recognise that you might have to suck up some pretty unpalatable stuff too, but remain in the knowledge that you can deliver at least part of what you want to this time, and the next time, if the larger party wish to remain in power they may themselves have to compromise on more of your policies, because the stuff you delivered last time is now in place, so you hand should really be stronger to get the next part delivered the next time.

Idbatterim

True usually about the junior party , but fg for the current term are takeing most of the flak ...

Hodors Appletart

Idbatterim wrote: »

True usually about the junior party , but fg for the current term aretsking most of the flak ...

Because FF have played politics well on this government, they've allowed FG to make bad decisions and can easily say it wasn't their policies.

The optics are that FF are not in coalition here.

Idbatterim

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

Because FF have played politics well on this government, they've allowed FG to make bad decisions and can easily say it wasn't their policies.

The optics are that FF are not in coalition here.

Yeag good point. There is no way another supply and confidence scam can be foisted on the country. The cost is too high. Best case scenario, a strong coalition of ffg and if ff are sick of the housing etc , just have some red lines in what you will accept to enter government and pull the plug if the other party takes the piss

Hodors Appletart

Idbatterim wrote: »

Yeag good point. There is no way another supply and confidence scam can be foisted on the country.

If the numbers add up to one, it will happen.

suicide_circus

thats what junior coalition parties are for. they prostitute themselves making up the numbers for a sniff of power and in doing so abandon their principles and lose their support.

Hodors Appletart

suicide_circus wrote: »

thats what junior coalition parties are for. they prostitute themselves making up the numbers for a sniff of power and in doing so abandon their principles and lose their support.

And my argument is that this is the wrong way to view it, because it's self defeating.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

thats what junior coalition parties are for. they prostitute themselves making up the numbers for a sniff of power and in doing so abandon their principles and lose their support.

The Greens exemplify this, the art of fatal compromise. Went into coalition with FF and became a glorified mudguard party. Whatever respect I had for them went out the window, banding with gurriers who ploughed the country into the ground. It was no surprise they were decimated in the following election, and their reputation has hardly recovered since. Remember the PDs? Those who don't heed the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.

conorhal

Deleted User wrote: »

The Greens exemplify this, the art of fatal compromise. Went into coalition with FF and became a glorified mudguard party. Whatever respect I had for them went out the window, banding with gurriers who ploughed the country into the ground. It was no surprise they were decimated in the following election, and their reputation has hardly recovered since. Remember the PDs? Those who don't heed the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.

Jr. partners in governemnt are rarely punished for going into power, they're punished for clinging onto it long after they've compromised their core values to prop up a government that the people want gone, but they hang in there for the ministerial pension rather then walk away, despite their core base screaming for them to do so.

suicide_circus

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

And my argument is that this is the wrong way to view it, because it's self defeating.

but its their own supporters who feel betrayed by the compromises

osarusan

They are tempted by power, end up fairly/completely unable to implement their policies, and this costs them votes from people who see them as either unprincipled or just ineffective, and they haven't done anything to attract new votes either.

If they walk away when they realise they'll have to compromise too much, they get criticised for not having enough spine, and for causing a general election.

EDIT: With the exception of FF/FG coalitions, I wonder has there ever been a junior coalition partner who increased their share of the vote at the following general election.

El_Duderino 09

I completely agree on the point about junior party running on xyx and getting x implemented. I'm thinking of the green party when they went into government with FF. Persons, I don't hold it against a junior partner in coalition. But I know most people do. The Lib Dems in the UK will forever be in trouble over university fees. In my opinion they should have collapsed the government instead of raising uni fees.

I think it's fine for a junior party to run on xyz and only get x implemented. But they can't go completely against their ethos either. The Lib Dems signed an agreement that they would not raise uni fees, then agreed to raise uni fees as part of a Tory government. That's completely the wrong idea.

astrofool

What's the alternative? Perpetual elections?, move to a FPTP system so a majority can be reached without a ballot majority?

There's no point in voting for policies if the party behind them is never in power to implement them.

Idbatterim

actually I nearly think the electorate are most to blame, their small party goes into coalition and what? they are suprised that they dont have dictatorial powers and endless pots of money!

I dont know if this is purely and irish thing, the delusion! but its a lose / lost prospect , in terms of getting anything here to change as a politician. Kenny had a good chance after the bust and you would think given that he was close to retiring, he would want to leave a good legacy. You'll get nice pay and a pension etc. But the country is paralyzed with inaction...

Idbatterim

astrofool wrote: »

What's the alternative? Perpetual elections?, move to a FPTP system so a majority can be reached without a ballot majority?

There's no point in voting for policies if the party behind them is never in power to implement them.

in this country, maybe we should just hand FFG the power to run the country, no elections etc. What do we have? an appalling FFG with even worse alternatives? not a single credible party has emerged, despite decades of incompetence! It would probably save a lot of energy wasted in the dail, with those idiots arguing back and forth, when if they were in power, they would be doing the exact same thing!

El_Duderino 09

astrofool wrote: »

What's the alternative? Perpetual elections?, move to a FPTP system so a majority can be reached without a ballot majority?

There's no point in voting for policies if the party behind them is never in power to implement them.

I don't see it that way. I think it's fine to have a junior partner who has some influence on the government. I think it takes a reasonable expectation if what tge junior partner can achieve and what else they will have to vote for in order to achieve those things.

Idbatterim

maybe we should move to an english first past the post system!

Hodors Appletart

suicide_circus wrote: »

but its their own supporters who feel betrayed by the compromises

Yes, and I'm trying to argue that they shouldn't feel betrayed at all, they will have gotten some of their issues addressed, and the larger party will have had to hold their nose doing so, the corollary to that is nose holding on the side of the junior partner too, probably on a larger range of issues, because, you know, junior partner and all .

Hang in there, is what I'm saying. Keep voting for them, because if you do they will still retain that "kingmaker" role and whichever party wishes to be the Senior partner the next time, well they'll have to acquiesce on another of your manifesto goals. You've already got X done, and it will remain done. Now go and negotiate Y and Z, get one of them done, rinse and repeat.

Punishing the junior party for being the junior party in government is insanity in my opinion. Be glad for what you've got, stick around and you'll get more.

Loafing Oaf

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

Hang in there, is what I'm saying. Keep voting for them, because if you do they will still retain that "kingmaker" role and whichever party wishes to be the Senior partner the next time, well they'll have to acquiesce on another of your manifesto goals.

Is there not at least an argument for the left parties to stand their ground and telling FF and FG to coalesce, as they have (according to left ideology) much more in common with each other than with any of the left parties. Arguably if Labour had done this at various junctures in the past instead of going into coalition with FF and FG, it could have led to a transformation of the political system...

AndrewJRenko

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Arguably if Labour had done this at various junctures in the past instead of going into coalition with FF and FG, it could have led to a transformation of the political system...

Yes, it would have given control of Government to right-wing parties that would have sold off everything that wasn't nailed down, torn apart the social welfare protections for vulnerable people, destroyed employment rights for public servants and low paid staff.

Do you fancy telling the victims of these moves how the future transformation of the system is going to work for them?

Idbatterim

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, it would have given control of Government to right-wing parties that would have sold off everything that wasn't nailed down, torn apart the social welfare protections for vulnerable people, destroyed employment rights for public servants and low paid staff.

Do you fancy telling the victims of these moves how the future transformation of the system is going to work for them?

thats one way to look at it, or you see it from the other perspective!

Corca Baiscinn

Deleted User wrote: »

The Greens exemplify this, the art of fatal compromise. Went into coalition with FF and became a glorified mudguard party. Whatever respect I had for them went out the window, banding with gurriers who ploughed the country into the ground. It was no surprise they were decimated in the following election, and their reputation has hardly recovered since. Remember the PDs? Those who don't heed the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.

The Greens undoubtedly held on for too long but remember the country was in the grip of a recession, financial collapse, Bail-out, IMF, etc etc If they had baled out too early they would have been accused of running away when the going got tough. It was Greens first time in Gov so they lacked experience.

Re "their reputation has hardly recovered". it's true a lot of SM comments are vitriolic and reading them you would think there had been 66 Greens in Gov and not just 6. But they did remarkably well in the recent local elections and even have some councillors outside of the cities. Roderic O' Gorman won a seat in the By-Election so voters must be willing to give them a chance. Maybe it's all people who have turned 18 since 2011.

El_Duderino 09

I think people are over looking the fact that smaller parties are smaller because the people who bite for them are more selective and actually care about the things the party does.

People who vote FF are probably OK with a fair bit of corruption, Otherwise you wouldn't vote FF. Tories in the UK are OK with widening inequality, otherwise they wouldn't vote for the tories.

Best example is the Lib Dems voting for higher uni fees which is a policy that will obviously make it harder for poor people to go to uni and more people will take out a big loan and start work in debt. That means government doesn't have to pay as much for uni, i equality rises and banks get new customers for loans. 3 wins for lots of tory voters and the rest will just ignore it or simply not care. But the Lib Dems voters actual are about the impact of those things and they're more selective so they actually hold it against the Lib Dems when it comes to the next election.

People who would vote for a big party probably don't actually care about the things that the junior party gets hammered for.

Hodors Appletart

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think people are over looking the fact that smaller parties are smaller because the people who bite for them are more selective and actually care about the things the party does.

People who vote FF are probably OK with a fair bit of corruption, Otherwise you wouldn't vote FF. Tories in the UK are OK with widening inequality, otherwise they wouldn't vote for the tories.

Best example is the Lib Dems voting for higher uni fees which is a policy that will obviously make it harder for poor people to go to uni and more people will take out a big loan and start work in debt. That means government doesn't have to pay as much for uni, i equality rises and banks get new customers for loans. 3 wins for lots of tory voters and the rest will just ignore it or simply not care. But the Lib Dems voters actual are about the impact of those things and they're more selective so they actually hold it against the Lib Dems when it comes to the next election.

People who would vote for a big party probably don't actually care about the things that the junior party gets hammered for.

This makes sense in a FPTP system, but we have here a PRSTV, where you get to vote for multiple parties on a sliding scale of preference, so you can say yeah I prefer Large Party X for their overall outlook, but I wish they were a bit more into the climate change thing so I'll give the Greens a preference vote too, hoping that that is enough for the Greens to get to be the junior partner and deliver one or two of their overall manifesto promises.

In FPTP you only get to vote for one party, so you have to decide whether or not the Green policy is important enough to you. FPTP also leads to a "least worst" scenario, where you end up with people voting for one party simply because they "wouldn't ever" vote for the other lot. I think that happens less in PRSTV.

People voting for and expecting smaller parties to be able to implement their full manifesto as a junior coalition partner are on a hiding to nothing really. If the junior partner wins 8-12 seats, then that is 10-15% of the seats for the majority, so expecting them to deliver more than 20% of their manifesto is unrealisitc, and you should also be expecting them to have to suck up the senior partner implementing some policies that are steadfastly against what the junior party stands for, and not expect them to bring the government down for that reason.

suicide_circus

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

Yes, and I'm trying to argue that they shouldn't feel betrayed at all, they will have gotten some of their issues addressed, and the larger party will have had to hold their nose doing so, the corollary to that is nose holding on the side of the junior partner too, probably on a larger range of issues, because, you know, junior partner and all .

Hang in there, is what I'm saying. Keep voting for them, because if you do they will still retain that "kingmaker" role and whichever party wishes to be the Senior partner the next time, well they'll have to acquiesce on another of your manifesto goals. You've already got X done, and it will remain done. Now go and negotiate Y and Z, get one of them done, rinse and repeat.

Punishing the junior party for being the junior party in government is insanity in my opinion. Be glad for what you've got, stick around and you'll get more.

yep youre 100% correct. some people are more interested in ideological purity than actually grinding out the incremental wins. some politicians are only able for opposition because taking power involves compromise.

AndrewJRenko

suicide_circus wrote: »

yep youre 100% correct. some people are more interested in ideological purity than actually grinding out the incremental wins. some politicians are only able for opposition because taking power involves compromise.

I think it suits some people to remain in opposition for ever. Having to compromise is one factor, but having to be actually responsible for delivering with limited resources is probably the bigger factor. It's easy to be the expert in everything when you don't have to actually deliver anything.

suicide_circus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think it suits some people to remain in opposition for ever. Having to compromise is one factor, but having to be actually responsible for delivering with limited resources is probably the bigger factor. It's easy to be the expert in everything when you don't have to actually deliver anything.

professional hurlers on the ditch

AndrewJRenko

suicide_circus wrote: »

professional hurlers on the ditch

And if you want to know what happens when the hurler on the ditch is finally given a game on the field, have a look at our Transport, Tourism and Sport brief.

blanch152

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

People voting for and expecting smaller parties to be able to implement their full manifesto as a junior coalition partner are on a hiding to nothing really. If the junior partner wins 8-12 seats, then that is 10-15% of the seats for the majority, so expecting them to deliver more than 20% of their manifesto is unrealisitc, and you should also be expecting them to have to suck up the senior partner implementing some policies that are steadfastly against what the junior party stands for, and not expect them to bring the government down for that reason.

Excellent OP and with this later point, you have hit the nail on the head.

The Greens in government actually achieved many things. From the introduction of the carbon levy to the funding of retrofitting, they changed the agenda and brought climate change to the forefront of public discourse for the first time.

A related point to the issue of voting for a smaller party is that you don't have to agree with every single detail of their policies to vote for them, knowing that as a minority party their excesses will be moderated by one of the bigger parties.

I am voting Green because climate change is the biggest challenge for our country and the world, and that every government decision will be viewed through the lens of climate change if the Greens are in government. Yes, they have policies I disagree with, yes, I wouldn't trust them as much as FG to run the economy, but overall the next government needs the Greens more than any other party.

blanch152

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And if you want to know what happens when the hurler on the ditch is finally given a game on the field, have a look at our Transport, Tourism and Sport brief.

The other example is up North, where the perennial hurlers on every ditch (DUP and SF) are unable to run their own government.

Brendan Bendar

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

Because FF have played politics well on this government, they've allowed FG to make bad decisions and can easily say it wasn't their policies.

The optics are that FF are not in coalition here.

Only people who can’t see the big picture would swallow that.

As I see it, there was an extremely serious situation around Brexit,and rather than arguing and fighting during that very serious period in our history FF put the country first.

It was a brave decision, given the Bullhorn Brigade didn’t give a fuuuherke about the ‘big picture’ just try to screw the taxpayer and ignore what was going on around us, just keep pumping out populist bulldust with no intention of ever being in a position to implement anything.

However a certain coterie cannot understand that reasoning.

Like themselves they fail to see you can only spend what you bring in,and
everyone needs to contribute to have a stake in our society.