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

Bannasidhe

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The three elections in the early Eighties happened because the Dáil numbers were too uncontrollable. Of course, no President has ever refused a dissolution, but Michael D could very well become the first, depending on how long or how serious the talks are.

But we did have a govt every time no?
22nd (1981), 23rd (1982), and 24th (1982) Dáils.
23rd lasted from March to Dec 1982.

I was wondering if there had ever been a situation where after a GE a govt couldn't be formed at all so although the Dáil convened it never elected a Taoiseach so the caretaker Taoiseach had to ask for it to be dissolved?

Interesting that 23d Dáil was a minority FF govt where Haughey need SF The Workers Party (aka The Stickies) and Tony Gregory to get him voted Taoiseach.

An FF leader became Taoiseach due to the support of a party with a Marxist-Leninist political ideology and an Ind TD who had been a member of the IRA and the Irish Republican Socialist Party.

Say what you like about him but Charlie Haughey was never a man to let moral principles or notions about who was "fit" to stop him getting FF into govt.

hotmail.com

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But we did have a govt every time no?
22nd (1981), 23rd (1982), and 24th (1982) Dáils.
23rd lasted from March to Dec 1982.

I was wondering if there had ever been a situation where after a GE a govt couldn't be formed at all so although the Dáil convened it never elected a Taoiseach so the caretaker Taoiseach had to ask for it to be dissolved?

Interesting that 23d Dáil was a minority FF govt where Haughey need SF The Workers Party (aka The Stickies) and Tony Gregory to get him voted Taoiseach.

An FF leader became Taoiseach due to the support of a party with a Marxist-Leninist political ideology and an Ind TD who had been a member of the IRA and the Irish Republican Socialist Party.

Say what you like about him but Charlie Haughey was never a man to let moral principles or notions about who was "fit" to stop him getting FF into govt.

In a word no, I think there was always a government formed after an election.

In the mid 90s we had a complete change of government without an election at all, when the Rainbow government came in when the FF Labour government lost its majority.

I think I read or heard that Mary Robinson was going to refuse an election at that point had Albert Reynolds sought one. Perhaps someone has more info on that.

So I suppose there is sort of a precedent for a president refusing an election.

An Ciarraioch

hotmail.com wrote: »

In a word no, I think there was always a government formed after an election.

In the mid 90s we had a complete change of government without an election at all, when the Rainbow government came in when the FF Labour government lost its majority.

I think I read or heard that Mary Robinson was going to refuse an election at that point had Albert Reynolds sought one. Perhaps someone has more info on that.

So I suppose there is sort of a precedent for a president refusing an election.

This has more detail on the Robinson debate:

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/can-martin-form-a-ff-government-if-president-refuses-to-dissolve-the-dail-37417548.html

redfacedbear

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was wondering if there had ever been a situation where after a GE a govt couldn't be formed at all so although the Dáil convened it never elected a Taoiseach so the caretaker Taoiseach had to ask for it to be dissolved?

It happened in Spain after the 2015 election - the outgoing Rajoy government stayed on as caretakers until after another election in 2016 produced a parliament capable of electing a government.

Belgium also recently went 18 months after an election before a government was installed, but I think they didn't require a new election that time.

Bannasidhe

redfacedbear wrote: »

It happened in Spain after the 2015 election - the outgoing Rajoy government stayed on as caretakers until after another election in 2016 produced a parliament capable of electing a government.

Belgium also recently went 18 months after an election before a government was installed, but I think they didn't require a new election that time.

Belgium seems to make a habit of having a caretaker govt for extended periods.

Interesting that here a govt has always been cobbled together one way or another - even if it's Haughey with Marxist and a Ra man support. :P

If we do end up having another election I think FF and FG will take the brunt of the blame, mainly as SF are winning the "we are really really trying" PR battle.
FG making it known they would prefer to warm the Opposition Benches could play very badly for them.

MrMusician18

While Varadkar is caretaker taoiseach, who leads the departments where the ministers have lost their seats? Do the same people continue on in a caretaker capacity, does Varadkar appoint new people, or does he take on the roles himself or pass out to surviving cabinet members

What happens if the Dail cannot elect a taoiseach, but there aren't enough surviving ministers from the previous administration to meet the minimum number of ministers as set out in the Constitution?

Bannasidhe

MrMusician18 wrote: »

While Varadkar is caretaker taoiseach, who leads the departments where the ministers have lost their seats? Do the same people continue on in a caretaker capacity, does Varadkar appoint new people, or does he take on the roles himself or pass out to surviving cabinet members

What happens if the Dail cannot elect a taoiseach, but there aren't enough surviving ministers from the previous administration to meet the minimum number of ministers as set out in the Constitution?

My understanding is everyone remain in post as a caretaker even if they lost their seat - but do not get paid the 'minister' salary just the ordinary TDs one (€96, 189) plus I assume the usual bevvy of generous expenses.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

The bright spark John Bruton Min for Finance, insisted on putting Vat on childrens shoes, Jim Kemmy couldn't vote for it.

Well Bruton wasn't bloody listening then on the day that dail was formed as in his speech outlining who he'd(Jim kemmy) vote for he said his vote wasn't a guarantee and he'd vote against the government if he wasn't happy. It's there on the dail record sure.

hotmail.com

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well Bruton wasn't bloody listening then on the day that dail was formed as in his speech outlining who he'd(Jim kemmy) vote for he said his vote wasn't a guarantee and he'd vote against the government if he wasn't happy. It's there on the dail record sure.

This policy showed how brain dead FG are and why they keep losing elections.

hotmail.com

MrMusician18 wrote: »

While Varadkar is caretaker taoiseach, who leads the departments where the ministers have lost their seats? Do the same people continue on in a caretaker capacity, does Varadkar appoint new people, or does he take on the roles himself or pass out to surviving cabinet members

What happens if the Dail cannot elect a taoiseach, but there aren't enough surviving ministers from the previous administration to meet the minimum number of ministers as set out in the Constitution?

I recall Enda Kenny was very annoyed that RTE kept referring to him as 'The Acting Taoiseach' during the weeks after the election in 2016. I presume RTE will use that title again for Leo after tomorrow's Dail vote.

Bannasidhe

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well Bruton wasn't bloody listening then on the day that dail was formed as in his speech outlining who he'd(Jim kemmy) vote for he said his vote wasn't a guarantee and he'd vote against the government if he wasn't happy. It's there on the dail record sure.

I still remember my Mam absolutely ranting about the proposed vat on children's shoes. She was furious. She still brings it up whenever FG are mentioned.

Itssoeasy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Belgium seems to make a habit of having a caretaker govt for extended periods.

Interesting that here a govt has always been cobbled together one way or another - even if it's Haughey with Marxist and a Ra man support. :P

If we do end up having another election I think FF and FG will take the brunt of the blame, mainly as SF are winning the "we are really really trying" PR battle.
FG making it known they would prefer to warm the Opposition Benches could play very badly for them.

Well SF can say they are really trying but it seems both FF and FG are saying "sure he barely tried lads" but we will see if that sticks.

I don't know who decided that was a good look for FG to say they'd love to go into opposition. I mean fair enough in the past both either FG or FF were in opposition as the other was in government but I doubt that either party is on record as saying they'd like to be in opposition.

L1011

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I still remember my Mam absolutely ranting about the proposed vat on children's shoes. She was furious. She still brings it up whenever FG are mentioned.

Does she also have the opinion that FF are unelectable since George Colley died? Because we may be siblings :pac:

My mothers interest in politics seems to have ended about 82/83 actually and I think she's still voting for the same type of candidates as then. Not the same ones, as they've moved. And nearly anyone in politics that long has retired!

SafeSurfer

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I still remember my Mam absolutely ranting about the proposed vat on children's shoes. She was furious. She still brings it up whenever FG are mentioned.

It was Garret FitzGerald’s joking answer to a journalists question that women with small feet could avoid the tax if they didn’t extend VAT to children’s shoes that did the real damage.

Itssoeasy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I still remember my Mam absolutely ranting about the proposed vat on children's shoes. She was furious. She still brings it up whenever FG are mentioned.

I've heard the same from people who were around at the time. Even all these years later. Some people clearly haven't forgotten. Didn't a CnaG minister propose raising the price of something in 1920s ? The first name Ernest is in my head over that thing.

L1011

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I've heard the same from people who were around at the time. Even all these years later. Some people clearly haven't forgotten. Didn't a CnaG minister propose raising the price of something in 1920s ? The first name Ernest is in my head over that thing.

Ernest Blythe, cut the pension.

Itssoeasy

L1011 wrote: »

Ernest Blythe, cut the pension.

That's it.

Bannasidhe

L1011 wrote: »

Does she also have the opinion that FF are unelectable since George Colley died? Because we may be siblings :pac:

My mothers interest in politics seems to have ended about 82/83 actually and I think she's still voting for the same type of candidates as then. Not the same ones, as they've moved. And nearly anyone in politics that long has retired!

She still won't have a word said against Charlie Haughey because he brought in the widows pension in '67 (?) which helped my grandmother who was widowed in 1963 aged only 51 and was struggling financially to put her two youngest through school and pay the mortgage. I don't think my grandfather had life insurance that covered it - maybe because the mortgage was with Cork Corporation not a bank.

Then in the 80s Haughey was "just the man to stand up to that b*tch Thatcher"

Hated Albert, Bertie, and although she had known Micheál since he was a small boy (he was 2 years behind my brother all through school and lives up the road from my Mam now) she thinks he's a nice enough man but still a sleeveen.
She voted SF and SD this time. Inconceivable a few years ago.

She had a fondness for Dr Garret Fitzgerald (as she always calls him) and couldn't understand why he was in FG. An educated gentleman like him.

Let's just say Hall's Pictorial Weekly when it was all Minister for Hardship and laying into FG was compulsory viewing in our house.

Umaro

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hated Albert, Bertie, and although she had known Micheál since he was a small boy (he was 2 years behind my brother all through school and lives up the road from my Mam now) she thinks he's a nice enough man but still a sleeveen.
She voted SF and SD this time. Inconceivable a few years ago.

I think my mother must be cut from the same cloth as yours, she was saying to me the other night that she couldn't trust MM because "he has the look of a sleeveen about him".

I wanted to take the piss out of her, but to be honest.... I see it!

BonnieSituation

blackwhite wrote: »

First piece of Seanad literature came in this week - from himself of course.
Straight into the bin. I can only imagine that it's voter apathy and poor turnout that allows him to keep getting back in.

That and the Seminary

Sawduck

Still vote for sf

road_high

road_high wrote: »

Oh right so these people died in Accomodation also. I’ve had family that have died too in the past few years- people sadly die it’s a fact of life. Society’s dropouts aren’t immune from dying.
But obviously the “government killing them on the streets” is a much snappier slant when you’ve a political axe to grind

I can't believe you're able to defend homelessness.

There is no need for homelessness in this country. None. Yet we have it. Why?

Successive FF/FF govts have failed to look after society. Which is their job.
Having a fear that SF will do worse, without any proof, or any recognition of the damage FF/FG have done and continue to do to society is the worst kind of battered woman syndrome.

road_high

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't believe you're able to defend homelessness.

There is no need for homelessness in this country. None. Yet we have it. Why?

Successive FF/FF govts have failed to look after society. Which is their job.
Having a fear that SF will do worse, without any proof, or any recognition of the damage FF/FG have done and continue to do to society is the worst kind of battered woman syndrome.

Who’s defending it? It’s a fact of life. Some people drop out of society despite every service being available and thrown at them. I can see that isn’t the “gubberments “ fault without the hysteria and hyperbole people like you are fixated on. As for SF ? They are economic dunces. You can to gave the fairyland level of free stuff they promised the extremely gullible without a hugely buoyant economy- you can’t have tax cuts and at the same time utopian social services. The fact they’re unproven is zero indicator of future success - that’s at best just wishful thinking

ELM327

Deleted User wrote: »

Why? I know people who have homes that died through drink/drug/addiction issues.

Why are you applying that condition to the homeless? Is it an innate snobbery? I know if I had to face the streets every day, with no where to go, I would certainly hit the bottle.

FYI, there were 222 deaths of homeless people over the last 4 years.

But to answer your question:

"A previous study of 343 deaths of homeless people over the five years from 2011 to 2015 found that drugs or alcohol were implicated in 57% of deaths"

Link: https://www.rte.ie/amp/1108153/

I'm trying to show that it's their own fault most of the time.
57% alcohol and drugs
I'd bet a large proportion of the rest refused a hostel bed.


I've worked with homeless charities in the past, even done the 24hr sleepout , but when you actually see the people affected, there are a lot more self inflicted homeless than hard done by stories.
And dont get me started on the "homeless" that are in hotels at our expense.

road_high

road_high wrote: »

Who’s defending it? It’s a fact of life. Some people drop out of society despite every service being available and thrown at them. I can see that isn’t the “gubberments “ fault without the hysteria and hyperbole people like you are fixated on. As for SF ? They are economic dunces. You can to gave the fairyland level of free stuff they promised the extremely gullible without a hugely buoyant economy- you can’t have tax cuts and at the same time utopian social services. The fact they’re unproven is zero indicator of future success - that’s at best just wishful thinking

"It found that homeless people had a mortality rate between three times to ten times that of the general population depending on the year and gender of the deceased.

The age of death was also young with an average age of 42 years and 37 years for women."

realdanbreen

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't believe you're able to defend homelessness.

There is no need for homelessness in this country. None. Yet we have it. Why?

Successive FF/FF govts have failed to look after society. Which is their job.
Having a fear that SF will do worse, without any proof, or any recognition of the damage FF/FG have done and continue to do to society is the worst kind of battered woman syndrome.

Most issues including homelessness could be addressed if everyone, and that means everyone, in this country gave 1% of their income to solve it. But despite all the hand wringing and pearl clutching and faux outrage many of the good citizens of the land of saints & scholars will not do so. FFS they tried to get the cost of water charges to be distributed equally and some of our TD's mobilised their followers against it!

realdanbreen

realdanbreen wrote: »

Most issues including homelessness could be addressed if everyone, and that means everyone, in this country gave 1% of their income to solve it. But despite all the hand wringing and pearl clutching and faux outrage many of the good citizens of the land of saints & scholars will not do so. FFS they tried to get the cost of water charges to be distributed equally and some of our TD's mobilised their followers against it!

I agree. Except the water bit. Which I won't go into as this thread would be massively derailed.


Public housing is the best option out there, but only if the local community services and amenities are put in place.

An Ciarraioch

Soc Dems will abstain in all four votes for Taoiseach, while Labour will do likewise for some, but may vote against others. Still no confirmation as to whether Sol-PBP will actually vote for Mary Lou.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/dáil-begins-voting-for-election-of-ceann-comhairle-1.4179572

An Ciarraioch

O'Fearghail re-elected Ceann Comhairle 130-28, and Sol-PBP will vote for Mary Lou for Taoiseach.

An Ciarraioch

McDonald now up to 45 confirmed votes, with three Left Independents (Connolly, Collins [Inds4Change] and Pringle).

Hodors Appletart

jcullen222 wrote: »

Mary Lou looks like the next Taoiseach.

She looks nothing like Michael Martin

An Ciarraioch

Bit premature that - even if Greens, Lab and Soc Dems get on board in later weeks, that only brings her up to 69.

eagle eye

Hodors Appletart wrote:

She looks nothing like Michael Martin

And that's a good thing. Martin is badly stained.

Itssoeasy

Lads who nominated and seconded Leo Varadkar ?

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

And that's a good thing. Martin is badly stained.

After the rather lengthy speech proposing Martin for Taoiseach I'm surprised it's not sainthood he's going for.
Jeeze... wished I lived in the country Micheál apparently built.

L1011

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Lads who nominated and seconded Leo Varadkar ?

Durkan and Emer Higgins

Bannasidhe

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Lads who nominated and seconded Leo Varadkar ?

Durkan and I don't know her name.
I'm pleased to say they were brief.

Itssoeasy

So that was Norma foley then the first time TD from Kerry then who canonised... sorry nominated Michael Martin then ? The seconder for FF still knows where his confirmation money is.

Bannasidhe

jcullen222 wrote: »

It looks like a toss-up between Mary Lou and Micheál. I’m hoping for Mary Lou though but it looks like Micheál may have the upper hand.

It would certainly be a shock if it was Leo - and no one would be more shocked than Leo.

An Ciarraioch

Numbers today will be 45, 37, 35 and 12 respectively.

Itssoeasy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

After the rather lengthy speech proposing Martin for Taoiseach I'm surprised it's not sainthood he's going for.
Jeeze... wished I lived in the country Micheál apparently built.

Well as much as I hate to say it Kerry people are used to standing and addressing a crowd in Dublin except it's normally in Croke park.

An Ciarraioch

It seems legally, the Dáil has 100 days from the GE date to elect a Taoiseach, which would make May 18th the maximum limit:

https://twitter.com/DrLauraDonaghy/status/1230526089451253760

Bannasidhe

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

It seems legally, the Dáil has 100 days from the GE date to elect a Taoiseach, which would make May 18th the maximum limit:

https://twitter.com/DrLauraDonaghy/status/1230526089451253760

I'm only half listening but I thought Fionnan Sheehan just said on RTE One there are no hard and fast rules about the election of a Taoiseach, that it's mainly convention.

L1011

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

It seems legally, the D has 100 days from the GE date to elect a Taoiseach, which would make May 18th the maximum limit:

https://twitter.com/DrLauraDonaghy/status/1230526089451253760

Without a source for the figure it's not much use really - I'm not sure there is such a requirement

Itssoeasy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm only half listening but I thought Fionnan Sheehan just said on RTE One there are no hard and fast rules about the election of a Taoiseach, that it's mainly convention.

L1011 wrote: »

Without a source for the figure it's not much use really - I'm not sure there is such a requirement

It's the first I've heard about there being a time limit involved in the government formation process.

Bannasidhe

This wafflefest is getting very tedious.
Is everyone getting 3ish minutes to go on and on and on when we all know there won't be a Taoiseach elected today?

Will this happen every time? :eek:

Riskymove

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It's the first I've heard about there being a time limit involved in the government formation process.

probably because there isn't one

eventually of course pressure will be on to dissolve the Dail if they cannot do it. It will not go on indefinitely

loyatemu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This wafflefest is getting very tedious.
Is everyone getting 3ish minutes to go on and on and on when we all know there won't be a Taoiseach elected today?

Will this happen every time? :eek:

by the 5th time it'll be "I hereby nominate Michael Martin, he's pretty good, I guess. Thank you."

Itssoeasy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This wafflefest is getting very tedious.
Is everyone getting 3ish minutes to go on and on and on when we all know there won't be a Taoiseach elected today?

Will this happen every time? :eek:

Having read a good few opening dail debates going back to the 1980's it seems outside that people nominated and the two deputies who are involved in that it does seem like if a TD wants to speak they can so yeah next time we could be going around the houses so to speak.

Itssoeasy

Riskymove wrote: »

probably because there isn't one

eventually of course pressure will be on to dissolve the Dail if they cannot do it. It will not go on indefinitely

It can't go on indefinitely but I was responding to the claim there is a 100 day limit which if it had been there you'd have assumed someone would have raised it before now.