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

guyfawkes5

What specific government combination would you prefer instead? Would you prefer another election right now? What party would you prefer to get stronger out of that election?

I'm not in love with the idea of the current coalition at all, and see a lot of compromises with the usual FG fingerprints all over them that I don't like, but it seems to me that this government is the best outcome with the least risk right now, and doing anything else is taking a very big chance and the attitude of 'anything else would be best' mistakes how much worse this could get.

beggars_bush

WishUWereHere wrote: »

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

The alternative is an election

WishUWereHere

beggars_bush wrote: »

The alternative is an election

And personally that’s what I would prefer,

guyfawkes5

During the pandemic? Less than five months after the previous one? When the polls tell us the two parties most likely to gain from the election are diametrically opposed to working with each other?

What positive outcome are you expecting out of it?

eagle eye

I don't think FF or FG want to go into government. I think they want everybody to think they tried really hard and then get a midweek election. The left got a big bump from a weekend election with students, who are mainly idealists, at home and able to vote.

charlie14

I cannot see a collection of Independents would be any more likely to collapse a government than this present Green Party.

L1011

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think FF or FG want to go into government. I think they want everybody to think they tried really hard and then get a midweek election. The left got a big bump from a weekend election with students, who are mainly idealists, at home and able to vote.

Considering basically everyone is at home currently and any election would be in summer; there would be bog all difference based on day of the week

guyfawkes5

Quite a few of the Green Party TDs either have less than a year's experience as councillor or no political experience at all. Generally working as a councillor is seen as useful in getting experience with coalition, compromise and politics in general.

I'd say it's totally fair to have doubts about them lasting the full term, especially when it comes to difficult confidence votes that will inevitably occur down the road.

Podge_irl

Are there any potential constitutional issues around calling an election when elements of a travel restriction are still in place? Not to mention the possibility (though receding) that the travel restrictions could get worse if there is an uptick in cases?

For Forks Sake

Podge_irl wrote: »

Are there any potential constitutional issues around calling an election when elements of a travel restriction are still in place? Not to mention the possibility (though receding) that the travel restrictions could get worse if there is an uptick in cases?

Travel restrictions are due to be lifted next Monday anyway

BonnieSituation

WishUWereHere wrote: »

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

33.31% is less than a third though...

33.3333333333333333333334% or so should do it however!

Like you though, I hope they get their (100/3)% + 1 vote and kill this possibility of FF being back in power.

namloc1980

Greens need to sort out their own house. Many of the younger members and councillors on social media aren't very exercised about traditional Green issues such as climate action and transport policy but are more interested in social justice type issues etc. Can see a split in the party at some point, especially if they reject this PfG and get wiped out in another election.

guyfawkes5

It's very hard to gauge what way the GP is leaning on ratifying this agreement.

The distribution of likes and retweets would have you believe it's a No landslide, but announcing on Twitter you're against a deal with establishment parties for not being sufficiently socialist/restributive is like moths to a flame.

The GP youth organisation has come out against the agreement by two thirds, but they only represent ~100 or so members if I recall.

Some GP TDs are leaking that they are confident of ratification.

Absolutely no idea what will happen.

Good loser

That FG TD from Dun Laoghaire is a real star - seriously intelligent.
She debated with Ml McNamara today on the Sarah McInerney Show and didn't put a foot wrong. Took care of Sarah too.


Fg easily have the smartest crew of TD's in the Dail.

hardybuck

Good loser wrote: »

That FG TD from Dun Laoghaire is a real star - seriously intelligent.
She debated with Ml McNamara today on the Sarah McInerney Show and didn't put a foot wrong. Took care of Sarah too.


Fg easily have the smartest crew of TD's in the Dail.

I think she's well able, and with the likes of Sarah it might be because she's quite similar to her.

Sarah's meat and drink is men over 50.

hardybuck

I feel like the Green Party have gotten a free pass regarding the ability of members in the North to have a say on the outcome of ROI affairs.

SF were rightly criticised for the same thing but no such criticism for the Greens.

c.p.w.g.w

hardybuck wrote: »

I feel like the Green Party have gotten a free pass regarding the ability of members in the North to have a say on the outcome of ROI affairs.

SF were rightly criticised for the same thing but no such criticism for the Greens.

Are the Green Party, a 1 island party like SF

hardybuck

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Are the Green Party, a 1 island party like SF

Yes, and their MLA's from Northern Ireland are giving their tuppence worth on the Government formation talks, and voting on the outcome.

awec

hardybuck wrote: »

I feel like the Green Party have gotten a free pass regarding the ability of members in the North to have a say on the outcome of ROI affairs.

SF were rightly criticised for the same thing but no such criticism for the Greens.

Will certainly make for interesting viewing if the GP end up voting no and it becomes apparent that the northern members were the difference.

I'm honestly pretty disappointed in the GP and how they've been conducting themselves.

StupidLikeAFox

hardybuck wrote: »

I feel like the Green Party have gotten a free pass regarding the ability of members in the North to have a say on the outcome of ROI affairs.

SF were rightly criticised for the same thing but no such criticism for the Greens.

I don't think they got a free pass, there has been lots of criticism around how much say the northern member will have in this vote

hardybuck

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I don't think they got a free pass, there has been lots of criticism around how much say the northern member will have in this vote

If they have I haven't seen it.

If that's true then perhaps it's more accurate to say that SF got a much tougher grilling over it.

BonnieSituation

hardybuck wrote: »

If they have I haven't seen it.

If that's true then perhaps it's more accurate to say that SF got a much tougher grilling over it.

TBF SF would get grilled about anything they do. It's not that surprising.

Having all-island input for me is to be welcomed and not panned. FG and FF really could learn from it.

awec

BonnieSituation wrote: »

TBF SF would get grilled about anything they do. It's not that surprising.

Having all-island input for me is to be welcomed and not panned. FG and FF really could learn from it.

Maybe, though it doesn't sit too comfortably with me. Essentially it's people who don't live in the state, who can't vote in the state, and who are unaffected by the majority of policies having undue influence on the makeup of our government.

It's very easy for northern GP members, councilors and MLAs to vote this down, none of them will suffer any consequences for doing so.

While input may be welcome, I think votes on things like this should be left to members resident in the state in question.

Itssoeasy

I know there is a Dáil Éireann sitting from the convention centre scheduled for this coming Saturday. The only business scheduled that I know of is election of a new Taoiseach. So, presumably if one party(presumably the greens are most likely) votes not to accept the deal then that sitting would be cancelled because it's main reason for happening can't go ahead.

Also, maybe it's an unanswerable question but if one Party and I'm not picking on the Green Party, but they have the most worrying noises about this deal, do we know what the next step exactly is ?

hardybuck

BonnieSituation wrote: »

TBF SF would get grilled about anything they do. It's not that surprising.

Having all-island input for me is to be welcomed and not panned. FG and FF really could learn from it.

I suppose that's a view some would have, but I'm personally pretty uncomfortable with stakeholders from another country, and elected officials from another country, having an influence on our Government's formation.

Peregrinus

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I know there is a Dáil Éireann sitting from the convention centre scheduled for this coming Saturday. The only business scheduled that I know of is election of a new Taoiseach. So, presumably if one party(presumably the greens are most likely) votes not to accept the deal then that sitting would be cancelled because it's main reason for happening can't go ahead.

Also, maybe it's an unanswerable question but if one Party and I'm not picking on the Green Party, but they have the most worrying noises about this deal, do we know what the next step exactly is ?

There'll have been contingency planning about this, though for obvious reasons no-one will be tallking publicly about them just yet.

Most likely there will be agreement to allow the formation of a minority government to keep essential state functions operating until an election can be held. This could be done, e.g., by the Greens abstaining on the motion to elect a Taoiseach, thus enabling the election by FF/FG of either Varadkar or Martin, but without a parliamentary majority that could allow them to get legislation through or get a budget approved. The new Taoiseach could appoint Seanad members, so enabling the Oireachtas to function to pass necessary legislation on which there was a sufficient cross-party agreement, and talks would immediately begin on the timing of an election (in which the Greens would be shredded, but that's another matter).

BonnieSituation

hardybuck wrote: »

I suppose that's a view some would have, but I'm personally pretty uncomfortable with stakeholders from another country, and elected officials from another country, having an influence on our Government's formation.

And that's where me and you differ.

It's not another country. Different jurisdiction of course...

Environmental issues don't stop at border.

BonnieSituation

awec wrote: »

Maybe, though it doesn't sit too comfortably with me. Essentially it's people who don't live in the state, who can't vote in the state, and who are unaffected by the majority of policies having undue influence on the makeup of our government.

It's very easy for northern GP members, councilors and MLAs to vote this down, none of them will suffer any consequences for doing so.

While input may be welcome, I think votes on things like this should be left to members resident in the state in question.

But there are consequences to them voting in favour as well. Every politician will look out for their own constituency whether north or south and if an MLA feels that the deal is bad for them then they should vote against it.

Likewise a Cork County Cllr if they feel it doesn't work for them then they should vote against it.

The GP have long been organised on an all-island basis, no point getting annoyed now about it.

Environmental issues don't stop at the border for a start.

Also, it highlights the fact that All-island party politics is something that we should be encouraging to dilute the extremes in all cases.

And personally, anything that stops Martin becoming Taoiseach and bringing FF back from the dead is to be welcomed.

Chips Lovell

hardybuck wrote: »

If they have I haven't seen it.

If that's true then perhaps it's more accurate to say that SF got a much tougher grilling over it.

Hadn't read any commentary about it here on this forum but have heard a lot of complaints in real life about it. "No representation without taxation" as one person put it.

Seth Brundle

hardybuck wrote: »

I suppose that's a view some would have, but I'm personally pretty uncomfortable with stakeholders from another country, and elected officials from another country, having an influence on our Government's formation.

Have you voiced similar concerns over FF or FG members from "another country" being involved in any party decisions?

hardybuck

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Have you voiced similar concerns over FF or FG members from "another country" being involved in any party decisions?

I don't think either party have elected officials from different jurisdictions influencing the outcome of our Government negotiations.

I also don't think either party have allowed a situation develop where members who aren't resident here can have such a significant impact.

No representation without taxation as the saying goes.

Seth Brundle

hardybuck wrote: »

I don't think either party have elected officials from different jurisdictions influencing the outcome of our Government negotiations.

I also don't think either party have allowed a situation develop where members who aren't resident here can have such a significant impact.

No representation without taxation as the saying goes.

Nonsense.
They're an all-Ireland party and this was known before going into negotiations.
SF are much the same - would you say that their NI membership should have no say in party policy wihtin the ROI?
FF & FG also presumably have members from outside the Republic that can vote on party policy.
I take it for granted that your objections are more towards the GP rather than the fact that some of their members who live in NI have a say in whether or not they form a coalition with FF & FG.

hardybuck

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Nonsense.
They're an all-Ireland party and this was known before going into negotiations.
SF are much the same - would you say that their NI membership should have no say in party policy wihtin the ROI?
FF & FG also presumably have members from outside the Republic that can vote on party policy.
I take it for granted that your objections are more towards the GP rather than the fact that some of their members who live in NI have a say in whether or not they form a coalition with FF & FG.

My original point was that SF got a hard time over this and the Greens haven't.

I think both of them deserve criticism over it as I'm uncomfortable with the idea of individuals who don't live here, and can't vote here, having a say in our affairs.

To your point about my stance towards the Greens, you shouldn't take that for granted, but I do think FF and FG have established more manageable procedures to enable them to enter Government.

Seth Brundle

hardybuck wrote: »

I think both of them deserve criticism over it as I'm uncomfortable with the idea of individuals who don't live here, and can't vote here, having a say in our affairs.

Those members don't have a say in our affairs.
They have a say as to whether their party can be part of a government.
The members have no say in day to day stuff.

For Forks Sake

When are the Greens due to count votes/announce a result?

Bishop of hope

For Forks Sake wrote: »

When are the Greens due to count votes/announce a result?

I think all are releasing their results on Friday after they all have voted and counted, as they don't want any result influencing the other.

Good loser

hardybuck wrote: »

My original point was that SF got a hard time over this and the Greens haven't.

I think both of them deserve criticism over it as I'm uncomfortable with the idea of individuals who don't live here, and can't vote here, having a say in our affairs.

To your point about my stance towards the Greens, you shouldn't take that for granted, but I do think FF and FG have established more manageable procedures to enable them to enter Government.

I would never vote Green.

Their policies, I feel, are generally somewhat theoretical, like people got together for a seminar to manufacture policies. And everything has to be complicated - maybe this is an Eamonn Ryan trait; he seems to think their policies are always clever and amenable to reason.

Hence the absurd need for a 2/3rds majority to accept the Program.
Having a need for 50% +1 would be away too obvious for them!

dundalkfc10

Good loser wrote: »

I would never vote Green.

Their policies, I feel, are generally somewhat theoretical, like people got together for a seminar to manufacture policies. And everything has to be complicated - maybe this is an Eamonn Ryan trait; he seems to think their policies are always clever and amenable to reason.

Hence the absurd need for a 2/3rds majority to accept the Program.
Having a need for 50% +1 would be away too obvious for them!

The members voted on 2/3rd majority when giving the chance.

hardybuck

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

The members voted on 2/3rd majority when giving the chance.

But when was that, a couple of years ago when they were a fraction of their current size?

Peregrinus

hardybuck wrote: »

But when was that, a couple of years ago when they were a fraction of their current size?

Possibly. But I don't see that that would matter. There's no reason why a rule that a decision to enter government requires a 2/3rds majority should be conditional on the party not growing signficantly larger than the size it is when the rule is adopted.

You could provide that expressly in the rule if you wanted to, but it would be a bizarre decision, in my view. And if that doesn't appear in the rule as adopted by the party, there is certainly no argument for reading it in.

dundalkfc10

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly. But I don't see that that would matter. There's no reason why a rule that a decision to enter government requires a 2/3rds majority should be conditional on the party not growing signficantly larger than the size it is when the rule is adopted.

You could provide that expressly in the rule if you wanted to, but it would be a bizarre decision, in my view. And if that doesn't appear in the rule as adopted by the party, there is certainly no argument for reading it in.

Ive seen people (on here aswell) who claim to have voted for Greens but they didnt know all party members on Island would get a vote

hardybuck

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly. But I don't see that that would matter. There's no reason why a rule that a decision to enter government requires a 2/3rds majority should be conditional on the party not growing signficantly larger than the size it is when the rule is adopted.

You could provide that expressly in the rule if you wanted to, but it would be a bizarre decision, in my view. And if that doesn't appear in the rule as adopted by the party, there is certainly no argument for reading it in.

It matters because you have a very high bar that you need to achieve before doing anything.

If we had the same thing for referenda for example, marriage equality and abortion wouldn't have passed.

Chips Lovell

Have frequently given the Greens a one or a two and was never aware of it. In fairness, it wasn't spoken of much until now, most likely because it wasn't an issue until now.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Updated the thread title to reflect that the thread is now more about government formation than the election. Thought about splitting out a new thread but couldn't really locate a good starting point.

Peregrinus

hardybuck wrote: »

It matters because you have a very high bar that you need to achieve before doing anything.

If we had the same thing for referenda for example, marriage equality and abortion wouldn't have passed.

Oh, sure. I don't think its a very good rule. I just don't think its goodness or badness is in any way affected by how large or small the membership of the Green Party is. There are plenty of arguments against it, but the fact that the party had fewer members when it adopted it than it has now is not one of them.

L1011

hardybuck wrote: »

But when was that, a couple of years ago when they were a fraction of their current size?

They had a mini split in 2010 and a general reduction in membership between 07-11 as far as I know so its unlikely they were that massively much smaller in membership.

hardybuck

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, sure. I don't think its a very good rule. I just don't think its goodness or badness is in any way affected by how large or small the membership of the Green Party is. There are plenty of arguments against it, but the fact that the party had fewer members when it adopted it than it has now is not one of them.

It means that the members of the Antrim Branch of the Northern Ireland Farmer's Union could have discreetly join and ensure that the Green Party never enter Government in either the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. Or your local GAA club for that matter.

L1011

hardybuck wrote: »

It means that the members of the Antrim Branch of the Northern Ireland Farmer's Union could have discreetly join and ensure that the Green Party never enter Government in either the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. Or your local GAA club for that matter.

The anti-carpetbagger period in most parties is usually long enough that any mass entryism should be detected and booted out before they gain voting rights.

hardybuck

L1011 wrote: »

The anti-carpetbagger period in most parties is usually long enough that any mass entryism should be detected and booted out before they gain voting rights.

What would I have to do, put in an application form and not say anything for 6 months until my probation period has passed?

hardybuck

L1011 wrote: »

They had a mini split in 2010 and a general reduction in membership between 07-11 as far as I know so its unlikely they were that massively much smaller in membership.

Apparently the membership doubled in size between Jan 2018 and mid 2019, and presumably bigger again in the run up to the 2020 election and the Extinction Rebellion movement.