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

Peregrinus

hardybuck wrote: »

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

Put in an application form and pay your sub and you can say anything you like during your probation. You just can't vote until the probationary period has expired and your membership has been approved (which may not happen until later).

hmmm

Good loser wrote: »

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 2/3rd is potentially a useful crutch in negotiations.

"We've a high bar to clear, any chance of another concession to our policies"

Unfortunately you do have to know when you've won everything which can be expected, and not sit there moaning when all your policies don't get included. I'm confused as to what the people in the Greens who are voting "no" are after - if getting into government and being able to influence government policies is not what they want, what do they want? A program for government is only theoretical and will change to suit circumstances, sitting around the cabinet table is what matters.

L1011

hardybuck wrote: »

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

Should still be able to notice a trend in where people are joining from.

hardybuck

L1011 wrote: »

Should still be able to notice a trend in where people are joining from.

While your theory sounds reasonable, it requires someone to actually do that analysis and be the gatekeeper.

Given that their membership numbers have grown so aggressively in the last 1-2 years it would appear that there was fairly unfettered access.

hardybuck

hmmm wrote: »

The 2/3rd is potentially a useful crutch in negotiations.

"We've a high bar to clear, any chance of another concession to our policies"

Unfortunately you do have to know when you've won everything which can be expected, and not sit there moaning when all your policies don't get included. I'm confused as to what the people in the Greens who are voting "no" are after - if getting into government and being able to influence government policies is not what they want, what do they want? A program for government is only theoretical and will change to suit circumstances, sitting around the cabinet table is what matters.

I think we'll know a lot more about the Green membership tomorrow, and I suspect the party won't know until then themselves.

It would appear that there is a group within the membership that are anti-establishment and wouldn't ever support a party being in Government.

blackwhite

hmmm wrote: »

The 2/3rd is potentially a useful crutch in negotiations.

"We've a high bar to clear, any chance of another concession to our policies"

Unfortunately you do have to know when you've won everything which can be expected, and not sit there moaning when all your policies don't get included. I'm confused as to what the people in the Greens who are voting "no" are after - if getting into government and being able to influence government policies is not what they want, what do they want? A program for government is only theoretical and will change to suit circumstances, sitting around the cabinet table is what matters.

To be allowed shout from the sidelines in ideological purity - without the need to ever take responsibility and face having to make hard choices.

L1011

hardybuck wrote: »

While your theory sounds reasonable, it requires someone to actually do that analysis and be the gatekeeper.

Given that their membership numbers have grown so aggressively in the last 1-2 years it would appear that there was fairly unfettered access.

Parties usually have a small number (sometimes 1) of membership officer(s); the hypothetical situation of a large number joining from one area would still be noticed.

hardybuck

L1011 wrote: »

Parties usually have a small number (sometimes 1) of membership officer(s); the hypothetical situation of a large number joining from one area would still be noticed.

The point remains that their numbers have surged which may have left them very vulnerable.

My example of members of the Antrim Branch of the Farmer's Union was facetious to highlight the potential weaknesses within their structures and approach. However presumably if IFA members from across Ireland signed up they'd be grand.

As it stands about 700 people in Northern Ireland were entitled to a vote, and about 200 registered for one. God knows what they lean but the leader of the Green Party in Northern Ireland has called for a 'No' vote. This intervention might lead to political chaos in the Republic which is pretty farcical.

Peregrinus

1. There is no evidence at all, that I am aware of, that there has been any attempt at "branch-stacking" in the Greens. The large growth in membership occurred well before the present situation arise and is fairly clearly attributable to other factors.

2. All minority parties have to decide what their purpose is, and how they can best advance their cause. It is not a given that entering government is the only, or the best, way to do this, especially entering as a minority partner in a multi-party government. An alternative strategy is to act as a ginger group - a party which, by advocating a particular position, can put pressure on the major parties to move towards that position. This strategy can be very successful. Exhibit A: UKIP. Never held office, and their electoral performance has been derisory. But their central policy platform has been achieved.

(Not that I'm comparing the Greens to UKIP generally. Just making the point that if your interest is in securing a particular policy outcome, acting as a ginger group can be an effective strategy.)

3. Not saying that those Greens who vote 'no' are committed to a vision of the Greens as a ginger group. There could be other justifications for such a strategy. The only condition that must be satisfied before you can find such a policy at least worth considering is that you should not be of the view that securing the spoils of office is the only political objective that has any value. And Green members, pretty much by defintion, are not of that view because, if they were, they would have joined FF or FG.

None of which is to say that I would advocate a "no" vote. I think it will be disastrous for the Greens, and probably for the causes that they seek to advance. But Green members could take the opposite view, and the reason for that would not necessasrily be that they are anti-establishment, or opposed to being in government, or that they won't face hard choices. This is itself a very hard choice.

BonnieSituation

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.

And you reckon that such an outlandish occurrence happened yeah?

A load of UFU codgers went, "I know what we could do..."

Maybe that's what Ian Marshall was up to when he became senator.

I think you've cracked it wide open!

---

Do you not agree with the all island dimension in General or just in this case?

BonnieSituation

hardybuck wrote: »

I think we'll know a lot more about the Green membership tomorrow, and I suspect the party won't know until then themselves.

It would appear that there is a group within the membership that are anti-establishment and wouldn't ever support a party being in Government.

As is their right surely?

BonnieSituation

hardybuck wrote: »

The point remains that their numbers have surged which may have left them very vulnerable.

My example of members of the Antrim Branch of the Farmer's Union was facetious to highlight the potential weaknesses within their structures and approach. However presumably if IFA members from across Ireland signed up they'd be grand.

As it stands about 700 people in Northern Ireland were entitled to a vote, and about 200 registered for one. God knows what they lean but the leader of the Green Party in Northern Ireland has called for a 'No' vote. This intervention might lead to political chaos in the Republic which is pretty farcical.

How will it lead to chaos?

Nothing at all is happening in our political system that is unpredictable.

The Seanad case notwithstanding which should proceed anyway to provide needed clarity.

But yeah, the Constitution is holding up pretty well. I don't feel any chaos about the place.

hmmm

Peregrinus wrote: »

2. All minority parties have to decide what their purpose is, and how they can best advance their cause. It is not a given that entering government is the only, or the best, way to do this, especially entering as a minority partner in a multi-party government.

The only parties I've seen be really successful at this tend to be parties which have an extreme position which becomes moderately acceptable by virtue of having an elected representative. The goal is a mobilisation of the masses to undermine the political system entirely.

The Greens (at least the original Greens who were interested in environmental issues) strike me as a party which need to be in power with the ability to tweak policies in their direction (e.g. redirecting road spending to cycle lanes & walking, 7% emission reductions, renewable incentives). They were unfortunate to get caught up in the 2008 crisis which needed "big" ideas, but in general their best work was done at the detailed policy level.

The newer Greens are full of big ideas ("social housing built by councils and not private builders!", "occupied territories"). That's all very well if you have a reasonable chance of getting a majority, but the ragtag group of left-wing parties saying exactly the same thing have got nowhere pitching exactly the same ideas. The public are interested in these ideas in a general sense, but ultimately whether housing is built by councils or private builders, or whether we import from Israel or not, are issues the public couldn't really give a toss about. The Greens are potentially sacrificing the ability to actually implement real change, and I suspect a lot of the original environmentalist Greens are going to be really frustrated if they are led into the opposition.

hardybuck

BonnieSituation wrote: »

How will it lead to chaos?

Nothing at all is happening in our political system that is unpredictable.

The Seanad case notwithstanding which should proceed anyway to provide needed clarity.

But yeah, the Constitution is holding up pretty well. I don't feel any chaos about the place.

Do you honestly not understand how they'll be chaos if we don't have a new Government next week?

hardybuck

BonnieSituation wrote: »

As is their right surely?

Absolutely, but the Parliamentary Party have entered into negotiations with a view towards entering Government. They've recommended to their members that the Green Party enter into Government, while allowing members join who will never agree to such a development.

If you're going to let members with that type of view join, it's probably an oversight to retain a 2/3rds rule that makes getting agreement extremely difficult.

guyfawkes5

For Forks Sake wrote: »

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

Vote counting starts at noon Friday for all parties and the Greens expect to be done at around 6 or 7 pm.

BonnieSituation

hardybuck wrote: »

Do you honestly not understand how they'll be chaos if we don't have a new Government next week?

Well, there won't be chaos.

Seeing as you think there will be, tell me what chaos will ensue?

BonnieSituation

hardybuck wrote: »

Absolutely, but the Parliamentary Party have entered into negotiations with a view towards entering Government. They've recommended to their members that the Green Party enter into Government, while allowing members join who will never agree to such a development.

If you're going to let members with that type of view join, it's probably an oversight to retain a 2/3rds rule that makes getting agreement extremely difficult.

I don't really think you've thought this through or have a handle on the logistics of the situation.

guyfawkes5

hmmm wrote: »

The only parties I've seen be really successful at this tend to be parties which have an extreme position which becomes moderately acceptable by virtue of having an elected representative. The goal is a mobilisation of the masses to undermine the political system entirely.

The Greens (at least the original Greens who were interested in environmental issues) strike me as a party which need to be in power with the ability to tweak policies in their direction (e.g. redirecting road spending to cycle lanes & walking, 7% emission reductions, renewable incentives). They were unfortunate to get caught up in the 2008 crisis which needed "big" ideas, but in general their best work was done at the detailed policy level.

The newer Greens are full of big ideas ("social housing built by councils and not private builders!", "occupied territories"). That's all very well if you have a reasonable chance of getting a majority, but the ragtag group of left-wing parties saying exactly the same thing have got nowhere pitching exactly the same ideas. The public are interested in these ideas in a general sense, but ultimately whether housing is built by councils or private builders, or whether we import from Israel or not, are issues the public couldn't really give a toss about. The Greens are potentially sacrificing the ability to actually implement real change, and I suspect a lot of the original environmentalist Greens are going to be really frustrated if they are led into the opposition.

From reading their statements, a lot of the prominent 'No' advocates see the GP as a general left movement and would weigh not getting their way on homeless, etc, similarly to environmental goals.

I suspect some of the older members of the party and a huge proportion of their voters don't see things this way and will be pretty confused and angry if the GP rejects an agreement that gave them so much in their 'core' policy areas. A fair few people I've talked to that have voted Green don't even realise the party is a solidly left wing one.

Inquitus

hardybuck wrote: »

Do you honestly not understand how they'll be chaos if we don't have a new Government next week?

I expect a new election if the Greens reject the Program for Government.

Water John

Any chance most Green TDs would still go into Govn't if something over 60% voted yes?
Another option is FF will start talks with SF.

L1011

Water John wrote: »

Any chance most Green TDs would still go into Govn't if something over 60% voted yes?
Another option is FF will start talks with SF.

Would require the party to actually split. Which does appear almost inevitable anyway, but there is still admin effort involved in doing such a thing.

Imreoir2

Water John wrote: »

Any chance most Green TDs would still go into Govn't if something over 60% voted yes?
Another option is FF will start talks with SF.

No, the party rules require the 2/3 threshold be passed to go into government. If its say 62% in favour, then the party can't go in.

hotmail.com

All the talk is that the Greens will approve going into government, so if that doesn't happen, it will come as a surprise.

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.

Yes, coalition is fine when it's done "our way."

Now for another easy sums lesson. Suppose a pub is for sale at €100,000 and there are three interested parties, Leo, Micheàl and Mary Lou. Mary Lou can raise €80,000 and no more. Micheál and Leo can each raise €50,0(00 and decide to pool their money and go 50/50. Any problem with that? If you have I can only say I'm glad you weren't taught sums in the national school by the SOB who taught me.

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.

Yes, coalition is fine when it's done "our way."

Now for another easy sums lesson. Suppose a pub is for sale at €100,000 and there are three interested parties, Leo, Micheàl and Mary Lou. Mary Lou can raise €80,000 and no more. Micheál and Leo can each raise €50,0(00 and decide to pool their money and go 50/50. Any problem with that? If you have I can only say I'm glad you weren't taught sums in the national school by the SOB who taught me.

WishUWereHere

hotmail.com wrote: »

All the talk is that the Greens will approve going into government, so if that doesn't happen, it will come as a surprise.

Not doubting you but what’s your source on”all the talk”?

hotmail.com

WishUWereHere wrote: »

Not doubting you but what’s your source on”all the talk”?

RTE News tonight.

FrancieBrady

feargale wrote: »

Yes, coalition is fine when it's done "our way''.

Coalition is fine when there is mutual respect..not when one dominates the other and uses them like dustmats and whipping boys.

Darc19

hotmail.com wrote: »

All the talk is that the Greens will approve going into government, so if that doesn't happen, it will come as a surprise.

The guesstimate by one green party councillor is close to 80% in favour and certainly over 75%.

guyfawkes5

It seems Leo was told this as well as he was fairly confident of it passing earlier today.

zimmermania

guyfawkes5 wrote: »

It seems Leo was told this as well as he was fairly confident of it passing earlier today.

It is very unlikely that Leo would be told anything other than someones opinion that the motion to enter government would pass.

It may not pass and we may have a GE and the Greens could lose more than half the seats.

guyfawkes5

Of course. I just meant senior GP figures probably told him they're confident, not that he's aware of the vote tallies so far.

Darc19

zimmermania wrote: »

It is very unlikely that Leo would be told anything other than someones opinion that the motion to enter government would pass.

It may not pass and we may have a GE and the Greens could lose more than half the seats.

Opposite.

Very likely that he was given hourly updates. But those within the green party knew early today that it was going to pass easily.

This evening it was suggested that it was very comfortable margin with 80/20 being mentioned. Though I think it will be closer to 75/25.

Saoise McHughs interview with Ivan Yates was seen as a car crash by many. Completely out of her depth.

Even Pascal was confident enough to put his name forward to lead the finance group of ministers in the EU.

charlie14

Darc19 wrote: »

Opposite.

Very likely that he was given hourly updates. But those within the green party knew early today that it was going to pass easily.

This evening it was suggested that it was very comfortable margin with 80/20 being mentioned. Though I think it will be closer to 75/25.

Saoise McHughs interview with Ivan Yates was seen as a car crash by many. Completely out of her depth.

Even Pascal was confident enough to put his name forward to lead the finance group of ministers in the EU.

Saoirse McHugh could open her own scrapyard at this stage.

Darc19

charlie14 wrote: »

Saoirse McHugh could open her own scrapyard at this stage.

Maybe l'm being cynical, but maybe she was put on the show by those supporting the deal.

It really was bad and Ivan was taking it easy on her.

touts

I'm hearing Fianna Fail may have a smaller yes percentage than the Greens but it will still pass. But they may struggle to get over 60%. Very active No campaign by their Ogra wing. And it's all getting very bitter. People campaigning for No have been expelled from official Facebook groups and their posts deleted which really pissed off some members. You could find a split in the party with a couple of TDs going independent.

Ivefoundgod

FF have no need to get over 60% though. It does seem the Greens are very confident its going to get over the line. Hopefully it does as it would be a major blow for Eamon and the party if it doesn't IMO.

hardybuck

charlie14 wrote: »

Saoirse McHugh could open her own scrapyard at this stage.

I'm not sure how she's even relevant at this stage, apart from the fact that she makes loads of controversial statements which contradict party policy.

hotmail.com

touts wrote: »

I'm hearing Fianna Fail may have a smaller yes percentage than the Greens but it will still pass. But they may struggle to get over 60%. Very active No campaign by their Ogra wing. And it's all getting very bitter. People campaigning for No have been expelled from official Facebook groups and their posts deleted which really pissed off some members. You could find a split in the party with a couple of TDs going independent.

They'll all fall into line after the vote I suspect. They could be offered a role in committees to keep them quiet.

Imreoir2

touts wrote: »

I'm hearing Fianna Fail may have a smaller yes percentage than the Greens but it will still pass. But they may struggle to get over 60%. Very active No campaign by their Ogra wing. And it's all getting very bitter. People campaigning for No have been expelled from official Facebook groups and their posts deleted which really pissed off some members. You could find a split in the party with a couple of TDs going independent.

Yes, it was bitter and many dirty tricks were used. But there is no chance of any TDs jumping ship, they are all just there for the pension.

FrancieBrady

hotmail.com wrote: »

They'll all fall into line after the vote I suspect. They could be offered a role in committees to keep them quiet.

Isn't the plan to throw out junior ministeries like confetti?

hardybuck

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Isn't the plan to throw out junior ministeries like confetti?

They'll have to in order to keep people involved/on side.

Imreoir2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Isn't the plan to throw out junior ministeries like confetti?

Of course, every councilor in the country has been offered a seat in the Seanad too, and some of them even believe they will get one.

ThunbergsAreGo

hardybuck wrote: »

I'm not sure how she's even relevant at this stage, apart from the fact that she makes loads of controversial statements which contradict party policy.

Jesus, that was a hilarious interview.

Like a petulant child. As an aside, what does McHugh work as? I just hear candidiate

hardybuck

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Yes, it was bitter and many dirty tricks were used. But there is no chance of any TDs jumping ship, they are all just there for the pension.

Supposedly they have sight of individual results in each constituency. This means that MM will know who pulled their weight and supported this and who didn't.

guyfawkes5

touts wrote: »

You could find a split in the party with a couple of TDs going independent.

There'd be a fair bit of irony there as a lot of the problem in the FF and FG camps is their sense of identity being threatened by going into coalition with the Old Enemy... so you might get people that are 'so Fianna Fail' they leave the Fianna Fail party.

hardybuck

guyfawkes5 wrote: »

There'd be a fair bit of irony there as a lot of the problem in the FF and FG camps is their sense of identity being threatened by going into coalition with the Old Enemy... so you might get people that are 'so Fianna Fail' they leave the Fianna Fail party.

FG have been driven by a younger group of TDs in their 30s and 40s for the last few years.

It would appear that FF haven't moved with the times - which is also something which appeals to a decent chunk of their support base who didn't want marriage equality/abortion referendum etc.

I think there will be definite tension about going in with the 'Old Enemy' but also a tension about new issues like climate change etc.

hardybuck

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Jesus, that was a hilarious interview.

Like a petulant child. As an aside, what does McHugh work as? I just hear candidiate

Candidate for what - the next election whenever it comes around? Maybe she'll get into the Seanad if the Greens accept this thing - but another party would have put manners on her a long time ago.

Ivefoundgod

No way in hell is Eamon giving a Seanad seat to someone like Saoirse. She has consistently undermined his position and his party for months if not years.