General Election and Government Formation Megathread (see post #1)

Chips Lovell

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

This is correct. The only way to vote against a party with STV is to not give them a preference. Looking purely at first preference votes is misleading.

We're probably getting overly academic here, but it's probably more correct to say that the only way to vote against a party with STV is to give them the lowest possible preference (or give them no preference while giving everyone else a preference).

FrancieBrady

Chips Lovell wrote: »

We're probably getting overly academic here, but it's probably more correct to say that the only way to vote against a party with STV is to give them the lowest possible preference (or give them no preference while giving everyone else a preference).

Is that even an accurate way saying somebody 'voted against' a party though?

There is a long standing member of a party here that I have no time for, I do give their running mate a vote though.
Giving somebody no vote or a low preference is not necessarily a vote 'against a party' therefore

Chips Lovell

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is that even an accurate way saying somebody 'voted against' a party though?

If you give everyone else a higher preference, then it could be seen as saying "I'd rather anyone else over you". But you're right, it isn't necessarily a "vote against". It could also be read as "I don't mind you as my TD but I think all the others are better qualified for the job".

STV makes it pretty hard to "vote against" someone.

Sam Russell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

To treat any votes in a PR-STV system in this fashion is nuts. Ye should know better!

I voted FG, SF, Grn and SD and I wanted none of them in govt with FF.

You can't possibly know what people voted against. But we're very clear about WHO they voted for.

That is a long reply to a one word post.

It would be a huge statistical exercise to divine peoples intentions when voting in a STV election.

It would require access to the actual voting slips, and to assign weighting to each preference, and perhaps an assessment of each candidates perceived chances of election.

In simplistic terms, voting for a candidate with one's first choice is definitely a vote FOR that candidate, but it could and should not be construed as a vote AGAINST all other candidates. Just as a vote 'FOR CHANGE' cannot be divined from a vote where no party got over 25% of the first preferences.

STV is a simple system from a voters point of view - just put the candidates in the order of your preference. However, it allows all sorts of vote managements and voting strategy for the larger political parties.

RandomViewer

Podge_irl wrote: »

Would it matter if FG "talked" to SF? The chances of them agreeing on a program for government are infinitesimally small.

About 12 FG seats are dependant on Protestant votes in the border counties, FGSF was never a runner.

CrabRevolution

maynooth_rules wrote: »

What do those Green members who reject the PFG expect to happen afterwards exactly. Start flirting with SF who financed their manifesto on the back of a fag packet and who oppose all form of carbon taxes? Go back to the people where they can be assured of getting decimated as the FG,FF and SF transfers will all dry up (and most of their seats won were last seast in constituency). The worst day in government is better than the best day in opposition.

I was thinking about this at the start when people were categorising all non-FF/FG parties as one homogeneous "Left" group as though there'd be no issues with them all forming a government together since they all have identical viewpoints. A big example was the Greens Vs. SF.

SF's manifesto before the election had one page on farming; it said we'd continue doing what we're doing only with more government funding for farmers, and with a vague promise of becoming more sustainable at some point in the future. It even promised looser enforcement of EU agricultural regulations and fewer fines for non-compliance. This would be anathema to the Greens, who rightly or wrongly see agriculture as a major polluter and in need of major reform.

Same with carbon taxes, ending peat burning & bog cutting etc. SF, and Independents campaign on the basis that nothing will change about these things, other than getting more money from the government.

If there's a sizeable number of Greens who consider the PfG with FF/FG insufficiently "green", there's 0% chance they'd agree to join a government with parties for whom the environment doesn't even register beyond lip service.

feargale

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who refused to negotiate with FF in 48?

Coalition is fine when it is done right. The 'we won't talk to 25% of the electorate' haughtyness of the power swap parties is not democracy and is not a proper approach to coalition, which should not be about having domininance.

Michael Martin gave the game away when he (in the opinion of the mainstream media) opened the door to SF, on the night of the election (when projections where saying around 50 seats) what his view of 'coalition' was. It is all about having 'dominance' over smaller parties...the 'mud guards'.

BTW, I still think your contention that 75% voted against SF or 78% voted 'against' FG is nonsense, you cannot extrapolate that from the results.

Tell us about the enthusiasm SF showed for talking to FG.

"We will talk or not as we please to whom we please, but how dare you not talk to us when we talk to you." Or as those who are used to lording it always said: "speak when you are spoken to and not otherwise."

FrancieBrady

feargale wrote: »

Tell us about the enthusiasm SF showed for talking to FG.

"We will talk or not as we please to whom we please, but how dare you not talk to us when we talk to you." Or as those who are used to lording it always said: "speak when you are spoken to and not otherwise."

What?

Several times they said they were open to talking to anyone.

FrancieBrady

RandomViewer wrote: »

About 12 FG seats are dependant on Protestant votes in the border counties, FGSF was never a runner.

Heather Humphries works with SF, is photographed at events with SF and worked her way up through council without any rancour.

She attracts a huge vote from both communities.

I think that day is over tbh.

StupidLikeAFox

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

Several times they said they were open to talking to anyone.

What do you think FG and SF would have to talk about?

FrancieBrady

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

What do you think FG and SF would have to talk about?

Forming a coalition government?

StupidLikeAFox

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Forming a coalition government?

Well that was never going to happen and you know it. Mary Lou, SF and the SF membership would not stand for that. Same for FG and their membership. The parties are completely different - I don't know why Im even explaining this.

SF spent years saying that FF and FG (FFG) are the same parties - surely this coalition is the most logical step? Similarly SF spend years complaining about FG and talking about the need to get them out of governemnt, go on to win the popular vote and more seats than FG - but yet its FGs fault for not making an approach.

CrabRevolution

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Forming a coalition government?

It would be an utter waste of time and afterwards people would be asking why they even bothered. There's no chance they'd ever get close to an agreement.

It's not ignoring any section of the electorate either. If I won 51% of the vote and a majority of seats, am I obliged to ask all the other parties to form a government? Or would I be "ignoring" 49% of the electorate by forming a government by myself?

FrancieBrady

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Well that was never going to happen and you know it. Mary Lou, SF and the SF membership would not stand for that. Same for FG and their membership. The parties are completely different - I don't know why Im even explaining this.

SF spent years saying that FF and FG (FFG) are the same parties - surely this coalition is the most logical step? Similarly SF spend years complaining about FG and talking about the need to get them out of governemnt, go on to win the popular vote and more seats than FG - but yet its FGs fault for not making an approach.

Plenty of completely different party's have formed functioning governments.

Their is no onus to be the 'same'.

The idea is respect for competing mandates when a majority government cannot be formed.

Have FF and Fg respected mandates here...absolutely not.

L1011

RandomViewer wrote: »

About 12 FG seats are dependant on Protestant votes in the border counties, FGSF was never a runner.

Did you mean "1-2" rather than 12?

FG have McHugh in Donegal, Humphreys in Cavan Monaghan and O'Dowd in Louth as their entire representation in border counties. 3 TDs. (edit: 4, forget Feighan in Sligo Leitrim)

I'd say only the Cavan Monaghan seat, if any, has any real dependence on the Protestant vote in the area.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Plenty of completely different party's have formed functioning governments.

Their is no onus to be the 'same'.

The idea is respect for competing mandates when a majority government cannot be formed.

Have FF and Fg respected mandates here...absolutely not.

I would argue that Fine Gael have completely respected the competing mandate of Sinn Fein.

Firstly, Sinn Fein said all the way through the election that they wanted to get Fine Gael out of government, that was their number one priority to achieve. Secondly, on the night of the results, Mary-Lou made it absolutely clear that she wanted to form a left-wing government. Fine Gael respected that and respected the will of the people when well over 100 TDs got elected on an anti-FG platform and FG spoke about going into opposition.

What happened next was illustrative. Sinn Fein failed to get any momentum going on their coalition talks, in fact, they did very little and Mary-Lou went into hiding fairly quickly. Then Covid-19 took over and the country had a public health and economic crisis combined. FG realised that SF were never going to be able to form a government and offered themselves for talks if others were interested. Once again, they respected their own mandate for opposing SF and SF's mandate of FG out, by not talking to SF.

All of that led us to where we are today. At all times FG have respected SF's mandate, which was to get FG out. They got 25% support for that mandate, but if this deal goes through, that wasn't enough.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I would argue that Fine Gael have completely respected the competing mandate of Sinn Fein.

Firstly, Sinn Fein said all the way through the election that they wanted to get Fine Gael out of government, that was their number one priority to achieve. Secondly, on the night of the results, Mary-Lou made it absolutely clear that she wanted to form a left-wing government. Fine Gael respected that and respected the will of the people when well over 100 TDs got elected on an anti-FG platform and FG spoke about going into opposition.

What happened next was illustrative. Sinn Fein failed to get any momentum going on their coalition talks, in fact, they did very little and Mary-Lou went into hiding fairly quickly. Then Covid-19 took over and the country had a public health and economic crisis combined. FG realised that SF were never going to be able to form a government and offered themselves for talks if others were interested. Once again, they respected their own mandate for opposing SF and SF's mandate of FG out, by not talking to SF.

All of that led us to where we are today. At all times FG have respected SF's mandate, which was to get FG out. They got 25% support for that mandate, but if this deal goes through, that wasn't enough.

Everyone wanted FG out.

I think SF said they would talk to anyone after the election about forming a government. FF said they would not talk to FG or SF about coalition.

Larbre34

If everyone wanted FG out, they would not have got any votes from voters, ergo, everyone did not want FG out.

I can tell you that now, nobody is hoping more that this tri-partite deal is done than Sinn Féin. If it went to a new election in the coming weeks, they'd be looking at losing 15+ seats at a stroke.

On the RTÉ politics podcast today, Sorcha Ní Riada said she spoke to a senior FG executive member about the prospect of a new election and his reaction was 'its fine, its no problem if it happens'. She also said the immediate feeling she had from the Greens after the deal was announced, that the membership wouldn't pass it, had waned considerably, due to a) they can get some policies on the table and push them while inside the tent, or get bypassed and b) if they get blamed for precipitating another election, and with the polling strength of FG, their own vote would be savaged as well.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have FF and Fg respected mandates here...absolutely not.

What mandate are we talking about exactly?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Everyone wanted FG out.

21% of people didn't. We know that for sure and the last polls show Leo as the most preferred Taoiseach out of every party leader. In other words you are making it up.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Everyone wanted FG out.

I think SF said they would talk to anyone after the election about forming a government.

Classic. Everyone wanted FG out (false) but SF would talk to them about forming a government that would keep FG IN!

You need to think through your posts a little.

Jinglejangle69

markodaly wrote: »

Classic. Everyone wanted FG out (false) but SF would talk to them about forming a government that would keep FG IN!

You need to think through your posts a little.

Its actually hilarious!!


Mary Lou:

FF or FG back in government would be a disaster.

Mary Lou:

How dare FF and FG not talk to SF about forming a government.

Hmmmmm.

markodaly

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Its actually hilarious!!


Mary Lou:

FF or FG back in government would be a disaster.

Mary Lou:

How dare FF and FG not talk to SF about forming a government.

Hmmmmm.

Mary Lou actually thinks the people are idiots so will peddle this bull****.

Jinglejangle69

markodaly wrote: »

Mary Lou actually thinks the people are idiots so will peddle this bull****.

Sad thing is a lot do.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Classic. Everyone wanted FG out (false) but SF would talk to them about forming a government that would keep FG IN!

You need to think through your posts a little.

Which party didn't want FG out?

FG made it clear they didn't want SF or FF in government (John Delaney comment?)
Yet here they are negotiating with FF.

They don't want FF in government without monitoring...same as SF don't want FG in government without robust monitoring.

Coalition Government chapter 3.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which party didn't want FG out?

FG made it clear they didn't want SF or FF in government (John Delaney comment?)
Yet here they are negotiating with FF.

They don't want FF in government without monitoring...same as SF don't want FG in government without robust monitoring.

And here you are trying to U-turn like a tanker.

I quote you saying:

Everyone wanted FG out.

But then you go on and complain that FG will not talk to SF about forming a government.

These are irreconcilable statements, Francie. It is a pattern though.

Oh, but then you want FG in.... once SF can bring them to heal or something to that effect.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

And here you are trying to U-turn like a tanker.

I quote you saying:



But then you go on and complain that FG will not talk to SF about forming a government.

These are irreconcilable statements, Francie. It is a pattern though.

Oh, but then you want FG in.... once SF can bring them to heal or something to that effect.

They aren't in a political context.
If you want to take that position then your wrath should be addressed to all the main parties because they all said more or less the same thing.

FG - No to SF and letting FF back would be like letting John Delaney back to run the FAI etc etc
FF - No to SF and to FG
SF - NO to FF/FG together and would rather a government without either but willing to talk to anyone.

Those were basically the pre-election positions.

Now tell us who held closest to their pre-election statements?

*We were talking about political parties, so if you mis-understood 'everyone' int hat context I apologise, but I meant every other political party.

awec

Breezer wrote: »

I think you’re right. I voted Green this time, not as a protest but because I believe in their climate/transport policies. If they’re not going to implement them, what’s the point in voting for them again?

Then again I’m probably a bit unusual in that I actually wanted a FG/Green coalition. If I can’t get the Green bit anyway I’ll just vote for FG next time.

The Momentum wing of the Greens probably thinks I’m the devil.

I voted for the Green Party too. If they vote against this government formation on idealistic grounds then I won't waste my vote on them again.

There is no sense in voting for a party that cannot compromise on it's position, some of these party members saying they'll vote against it seem to be suffering from delusion.

blanch152

Breezer wrote: »

I think you’re right. I voted Green this time, not as a protest but because I believe in their climate/transport policies. If they’re not going to implement them, what’s the point in voting for them again?

Then again I’m probably a bit unusual in that I actually wanted a FG/Green coalition. If I can’t get the Green bit anyway I’ll just vote for FG next time.

The Momentum wing of the Greens probably thinks I’m the devil.

If there is another election because FF and the Greens reject the coalition, and Fine Gael run with the Programme for Government, I would probably end up in the same boat and have to switch vote from Green to Fine Gael.

Those are big ifs before it could happen, but they are not impossible. I haven't given FG a number one in a general election since.....can't remember, Labour 2002, Green in 2007, Labour in 2011, Greens since.....might have been before that.

maynooth_rules

blanch152 wrote: »

If there is another election because FF and the Greens reject the coalition, and Fine Gael run with the Programme for Government, I would probably end up in the same boat and have to switch vote from Green to Fine Gael.

Those are big ifs before it could happen, but they are not impossible. I haven't given FG a number one in a general election since.....can't remember, Labour 2002, Green in 2007, Labour in 2011, Greens since.....might have been before that.

I would be same. I voted Green in this election ( i hate the talk being put out there that Greens only snuck most seast because of left transfers from SF. I don't buy it). If they reject an opportunity to go into government, for a the safety essentially of oppoisition and not having a say in any decision, then I certainly wont be wasting a vote on them again

L1011

maynooth_rules wrote: »

I would be same. I voted Green in this election ( i hate the talk being put out there that Greens only snuck most seast because of left transfers from SF. I don't buy it)

But the numbers don't lie - their FPV did not get them 12 seats, it probably got them 4-5; the rest swept in on SFs massive transfers

Same with the SocDems going from 2->6 and the assorted hard left going from 1->5

Sam Russell

L1011 wrote: »

But the numbers don't lie - their FPV did not get them 12 seats, it probably got them 4-5; the rest swept in on SFs massive transfers

Same with the SocDems going from 2->6 and the assorted hard left going from 1->5

That is not how STV works. The votes the candidate gets are the ones that get them elected. It used to be SF got number ones but no transfers, but the Greens got number ones, but were very transfer friendly which took them over the line.

If I vote for Wacky Will, the anti-everything candidate, I do know his chances of getting elected are zero, but I can still vote Green* or SF* knowing that vote is equivalent to a number one to them as it will be transferred to them for definite, but I have registered an Anti Everything vote.

It is impossible the know why candidates get the votes they do - whether it is a personal vote, a party vote, or a parish pump vote or even a protest vote. It is probably better that we do not know.

Otherwise, a transfer on the ninth count will not be the same as a number one - but it is.


*There are other parties that might get my vote, and the named parties might not have got my vote - it is a secret ballot after all.:)

Ivefoundgod

There were a few constituencies where the Greens got decent transfers from SF candidates but that was generally only after all other left candidates were eliminated and not half as many as people seem to think. If you were to read some commentary here or on twitter you would think the only reason the greens have any seats is because of SF transfers. The reality is that the Greens got transfers from left and right, as Sam Russell says they are a transfer friendly party. In Carlow-Kilkenny for example Malcolm Noonan got in ahead of FFs Bobby Aylward in large part thanks to the transfers of PBP and FG candidates who were eliminated.

L1011

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is not how STV works.

???

That is entirely how STV works

SF had a significant vote surplus, which spilled primarily to the Greens, the SocDems and the hard left; where there were candidates to receive them.

SF are now going to be in that position again next time; as they will be running two or even three candidates in constituencies; hence those votes will not be going anywhere else.

Sam Russell

L1011 wrote: »

???

That is entirely how STV works

SF had a significant vote surplus, which spilled primarily to the Greens, the SocDems and the hard left; where there were candidates to receive them.

SF are now going to be in that position again next time; as they will be running two or even three candidates in constituencies; hence those votes will not be going anywhere else.

If a party runs too few candidates, then it misses out as happened to FF in Dun Laoghaire when Mary Hanafin was not elected. If it runs too many candidates it misses out as happens when the vote share is just not as expected. If it runs the wrong candidates - for example the wrong geography - two candidates from the north of the county and none from the south, it misses out. It is tricky for large parties. Small parties only run one candidate.

Both FG and FF were past masters at it - vote management was the technique. Garret the good advised FG to vote for his running mate knowing he would get transfers from all over the shop. As a consequence he returned two FG TDs when the first preference vote would have indicated only one. That is what MLM should have done, but it could be risky and neither get returned.

If you vote in the true order of your choice, then you get the closest to your preferred candidate.

ShamNNspace

Sam Russell wrote: »

If a party runs too few candidates, then it misses out as happened to FF in Dun Laoghaire when Mary Hanafin was not elected. If it runs too many candidates it misses out as happens when the vote share is just not as expected. If it runs the wrong candidates - for example the wrong geography - two candidates from the north of the county and none from the south, it misses out. It is tricky for large parties. Small parties only run one candidate.

Both FG and FF were past masters at it - vote management was the technique. Garret the good advised FG to vote for his running mate knowing he would get transfers from all over the shop. As a consequence he returned two FG TDs when the first preference vote would have indicated only one. That is what MLM should have done, but it could be risky and neither get returned.

If you vote in the true order of your choice, then you get the closest to your preferred candidate.

SF were burned in 2016 when padraig mac Lochlainn lost out in Donegal maybe it made them too cautious about running too many candidates

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They aren't in a political context.

Everyone wants FG out, but SF wants them to talk to them. Your words, not mine.

genericgoon

The SF to Green transfers story does not really stack up . On a GP seat by seat basis, you would have the following:

Carlow-Kilkenny: Probably yes. Votes to Malcolm Noonan via Adrienne Wallace (PBP) SF transfers were critical
Dublin Bay South: Definitely no. Eamon Ryan tops poll.
Dublin Central: Mostly no. Neasa Hourigan had strong initial vote + transfers from across spectrum, better with soft left. Closest competitors, Burke and Gannon gained more.
Dublin Fingal: No. Joe O'Brien mostly got in strong vote and soft left (SD) transfers
Dublin Rathdown: Definitely no. Catherine Martin tops poll
Dublin South Central: Mostly no. Patrick Costello gets in mostly on combined soft left vote (SD + Labour + GP)
Dublin South West. Mostly no. Francis Duffy mostly on soft left again
Dublin West: Mostly no. Roderic O'Gorman gets in on strong vote + soft left transfers. In fact, nearly loses seat to Ruth Coppinger on SF transfers
Dún Laoghaire: Ossian Smyth gets in before SF transfers matter (no SF TD).
Limerick: Mostly no. Brian Leddin mostly on soft left
Waterford: Probably yes: Marc Ó Cathasaigh over FG, SF votes helped but once again soft left more important.
Wicklow: Marginally, though mostly an anybody but FF/FG + strong showing got Matthews in.

So about 3 seats where SF could be argued to be an important factor?

Raw Numbers:
Lab 9612
PBP 6090
FF 5341
SD 5233
SF 5047
IND 4908
FG 4289

Based on the above, keeping Labour/SD voters happy would seem a bigger priority than SF voters. I also think a lot of their 1's in their South Dublin heartlands also probably came from disaffected FG voters. Honestly, they were helped greatly by poor FF/FG/SF ticket management.

charlie14

ShamNNspace wrote: »

SF were burned in 2016 when padraig mac Lochlainn lost out in Donegal maybe it made them too cautious about running too many candidates

From talking to people from Donegal back then there was quite a bit of speculation that the only burning done was to McLochlainn.

blanch152

L1011 wrote: »

???

That is entirely how STV works

SF had a significant vote surplus, which spilled primarily to the Greens, the SocDems and the hard left; where there were candidates to receive them.

SF are now going to be in that position again next time; as they will be running two or even three candidates in constituencies; hence those votes will not be going anywhere else.

You are correct in how STV works, you are also correct in that Sinn Fein transfers helped elect Green candidates. However, this may not be as significant as you think.

Take Carlow-Kilkenny for example. Kathleen Funchion had a surplus of 5,219 votes, only 562 of them went to the Green candidate on the second count, around 10%. Now, Noonan only finished 558 votes ahead of Aylward, so it made a difference. However, Aylward got even less from Funchion than Noonan, so if those votes go elsewhere, they aren't going to him. Noonan should still make it next time.

In Dublin West, O'Gorman got 470 votes (13% of the surplus) from Donnelly, but by the last count he was more than that ahead of Coppinger.

Similarly, in Wicklow, Matthews only got 430 from the surplus of 5,410 that John Brady had.

Where the Greens benefit is that they pick up preferences from everyone. No party dislikes them, but they don't benefit hugely from other parties. So while O'Gorman got a decent amount from Donnelly, Coppinger got a lot more. She was c900 ahead of O'Gorman on Count 2 after Donnelly's surplus, having been c600 behind on the first count, but through the rest of the counts, O'Gorman steadily picked up more votes from her than other candidates.

To sum up, here and there Sinn Fein transfers made a difference to the Greens, but I think that they made much more of a difference to PBP and other left parties. If the SF vote holds up and they run second candidates, I don't see it affecting the Greens that much, but it could seriously affect others.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Everyone wants FG out, but SF wants them to talk to them. Your words, not mine.

Bolded bit are not my words at all Mark...you made that up.


Here is the post I made that you over-reacted to.

franciebrady wrote:

Everyone wanted FG out.

I think SF said they would talk to anyone after the election about forming a government. FF said they would not talk to FG or SF about coalition.

Every one bar FG campaigned to remove the sitting government. I know that is hard to swallow if you are a FGer but it is true and perfectly factual.
I can get you quotes and links to back that up.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Every one bar FG campaigned to remove the sitting government. I know that is hard to swallow if you are a FGer but it is true and perfectly factual.
I can get you quotes and links to back that up.

Your are correct, it is absolutely true and perfectly factual. I agree with you.

However, what does it tell us about the 125 TDs elected on the platform of removing FG? It tells us that they aren't up to the job of governing by compromise in a coalition, unless they have FG to show them how it's done.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Your are correct, it is absolutely true and perfectly factual. I agree with you.

However, what does it tell us about the 125 TDs elected on the platform of removing FG? It tells us that they aren't up to the job of governing by compromise in a coalition, unless they have FG to show them how it's done.

FF are the lead party in the current attempt to form a government, effectively they will remove the current Taoiseach and replace him with their own, to show FG and the Greens 'how it is done'.

Whatever about that, there is no constitutional onus on anybody to form a government if they cannot reach consensus or if there is no point even trying.

Larbre34

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Bolded bit are not my words at all Mark...you made that up.


Here is the post I made that you over-reacted to.



Every one bar FG campaigned to remove the sitting government. I know that is hard to swallow if you are a FGer but it is true and perfectly factual.
I can get you quotes and links to back that up.

Yeah, that tends to be what outgoing opposition parties do.

However, the voters decide the actual destiny of the next parliament, the campaigns are dust then. If we were waiting for a clear majority for an outgoing opposition party, we'd be having general elections till the end of time.

namloc1980

Won't be bothered voting Green again. I support their climate and transport policies but if they're just going to hide away on the opposition benches then voting for them again is a waste of a vote.

ninebeanrows

A lot of the green vote is from a wealthy cohort. If they fail to go into government I'd expect a bounce of a few pts for FG

guyfawkes5

There is an opportunity cost here that a lot of the anti-PFG GP people I see on Twitter don't seem to confront.

From their point of view, collapsing the deal may end up creating a situation where SF and/or a weakened FF end up signing up to an agreement far more acceptable to an idealistic left worldview. However, I would think it's far more likely that their current role of king-makers to two cowed centrist parties is the best they will do and both the GP and their policies would suffer in a post-PFG world.

It must be incomprehensible to a typical well-off voter from the Dublin suburbs that lent their first preference to a GP candidate that the party would be so close to going into government with most of their signature policies (to the general public) intact, only to pull out because the agreement does things for homelessness, etc, but 'not enough'. A lot of voters I talked to pre-election aren't aware of or don't really think of the GP as a party of the left, and some are genuinely surprised when I raised it.

There have a lot of political capital right now that would be burned immediately upon rejecting a deal to go into government.

Johnny_BravoIII

If the GP doesn't enter government, it's over for them as a political party IMO.
I haven't met a person yet supportive of the anti-government view.
Quite frankly I think their traditional supported base would be disgusted

guyfawkes5

The personas of their current battle right now in their membership seems to be the older, wooly jumper geography teachers against the younger, woke, Extinction Rebellion types. The worrying thing is the latter just has to get to 33% to 'win'.

WishUWereHere

guyfawkes5 wrote: »

The personas of their current battle right now in their membership seems to be the older, wooly jumper geography teachers against the younger, woke, Extinction Rebellion types. The worrying thing is the latter just has to get to 33% to 'win'.

While I respect Your opinion, I hope they get their 33.31% and sink this charade of a pretentious government.