GE Exit Poll 10 pm

suicide_circus

how are the women doing in this election?

efanton

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise that FG were in a confidence and supply deal with FF and FF only wanted social welfare sweeties for the public. FF didn't want to have to deal with the negative reports from the harder left parties on this topic. increasing thresholds would have been good but FG have had their hands tied for the duration of their last term. FF deserve more abuse that they have got.
It was never in FGs DNA to give €5 increases in social welfare year after year while giving the working poor maybe 50 cent or 1 euro in tax reductions in the same budgets.
Those FG budgets were uncharacteristically un-FG type budgets.

Try reading my post again. Actually it would be to your beneficent to actually consider what other people say, and try to understand their point, before going on the attack with pure waffle and hyperbole

It wasn't the case that they would be giving something away, and certainly not giving away to those on social welfare that you seem to want to blame for everything. Those individuals are according to you are living in free housing provided by the state and so would never inherit property.

The point I was making is that FF and FG dramatically slashed the thresholds for inheritance, significantly below the typical cost of a home in the Dublin area. They hit hard the very people they claim to represent.

They could have raised the threshold but to balance that remove that threshold from subsequent properties when more than one property was bequeathed. The result would be the very people FG claim to represent would have significantly benefited without the government spending a single cent.

R.F.

FG on 28 now and FF 27

What is the predicted outlook for the remaining seats?

namloc1980

FF missed out on the last seat in Louth. They got no seat in a 5 seater after getting 14% of the vote, the quota was 16.7%! They are transfer toxic in this election. That means they are heading for 38 seats, SF have 37.

easypazz

rob316 wrote: »

80% of the electorate said no to FG, what is hard to understand about that? They have absolutely no mandate for government. They need to go to the opposition benches and recover under Coveney.

76% said no to SF, 78% said no to FF.

rob316

rob316 wrote: »

80% of the electorate said no to FG, what is hard to understand about that? They have absolutely no mandate for government. They need to go to the opposition benches and recover under Coveney.

This doesn't bear up to scrutiny. If you saw every ballot paper and saw FG candidates being given the last preference on those ballot papers then you could infer that 80% of the population said no to FG.
In the absence of that information all we can infer is that the majority would prefer other candidates to take seats in the Dail. That is PR-STV.

is_that_so

efanton wrote: »

They could have raised the threshold but to balance that remove that threshold from subsequent properties when more than one property was bequeathed. The result would be the very people FG claim to represent would have significantly benefited without the government spending a single cent.

Eh, the threshold is a lifetime threshold it's not per property.

easypazz

namloc1980 wrote: »

FF missed out on the last seat in Louth. They got no seat in a 5 seater after getting 14% of the vote! They are transfer toxic in this election. That means they are heading for 38 seats, SF have 37.

Delighted for FF.

efanton

efanton wrote: »

Try reading my post again. Actually it would be to your beneficent to actually consider what other people say, and try to understand their point, before going on the attack with pure waffle and hyperbole

It wasn't the case that they would be giving something away, and certainly not giving away to those on social welfare that you seem to want to blame for everything. Those individuals are according to you are living in free housing provided by the state and so would never inherit property.

The point I was making is that FF and FG dramatically slashed the thresholds for inheritance, significantly below the typical cost of a home in the Dublin area. They hit hard the very people they claim to represent.

They could have raised the threshold but to balance that remove that threshold from subsequent properties when more than one property was bequeathed. The result would be the very people FG claim to represent would have significantly benefited without the government spending a single cent.

I think you'll find that the amount they slashed it in year 2011 still left it above what houses were making in 2011 such was the state of the economy.

Suckit

rob316 wrote: »

80% of the electorate said no to FG, what is hard to understand about that? They have absolutely no mandate for government. They need to go to the opposition benches and recover under Coveney.

An FFFG coalition would be the far more obvious/sensible option. There is no point in either pretending any longer that they are different. No point in pretending that they dislike each others policies so much that they couldn't work with them. Their charade ha been blown wide open and now they have to say they couldn't work with each other while inside dying a little at the concept of forming one with SF.

It would suit SF better to watch the two of them take government. SF will be ready with candidates the next GE, and they would likely be even stronger.

blanch152

limnam wrote: »

I guess culling part/some of the waste is out of the question.

Do you seriously think that any of the left-wing parties will take on the unions?

Foxtrol

Yurt! wrote: »

I love the hubris and conceit in this post. The licking that FG are taking should be a big red flashing light that a huge swathe of the population aren't feeling the benefit of the economy expanding, and in many cases, their lives are getting more difficult.

Instead of taking a few days to gather their thoughts to see where things are going wrong, blue supporters deride people as idiots.

I've never been so glad to see party bomb at election. They really are just a Tory-boy treehouse club.

There's a famous quote in US political commentary - 'Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people' and at this stage I think it is safe to say that it is true for electorates all around the world.

Elections are won and lost on how people feel and as you pointed out the electorate in Ireland didn't feel good about the approach to a lot of aspects of government policy.

If there are any clear idiots in this election it was FG, for not being self-aware of the feelings of the electorate, but at the same time just because a sizable proportion of the electorate felt a certain way it doesn't mean that their reaction to them is any smarter.

The US got Trump largely due to the fact that many people weren't feeling the improving economy there and a decent proportion of those people have come to regret that vote. I'm not saying SF are anything like Trump in terms of policy but sometimes 'change' leads you to a place where you wish you'd stayed where you were.

namloc1980

R.F. wrote: »

FG on 28 now and FF 27

What is the predicted outlook for the remaining seats?

FF 38.
SF 37.
FG 35.

There's a chance FF finish on 37 because they are getting killed with transfers in the late rounds in the remaining counts. They are transfer toxic.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

They are now in possession of all or not part of a house worth in excess of 335k...

If your house is worth 335,000 to 600,000 and you leave it two of your kids they won't pay any inheritance tax as they both get an allowance of 310,000 unless this has changed in the last two years.

Also if the person inheriting has lived there for 3 years before the owner died they could inherit tax free, but it was tightened up in 2016 under the government of the day.

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is paying for it now Brendan?

What Louise will say Francie, instead of trying to protect the taxpayer.

“I need X million to sort out the Health Service”

“If you don’t give me that I can’t sort it out”.

Sooo.... there ya go.... can’t stir up ‘our members’ gotta look atter dem foooorst.

Put your hand in yer pocket pal

Muahahaha

Deleted User wrote: »

Thank you for allowing me to segway to this point: No previous Irish election has ever been the subject of so much social media campaigning as this one especially since the last main old media influencer has been directionless of late and is now owned by a company who couldn't care less about domestic politics.

It is also obvious that Irish mainstream politicians have no talent for social media which explains their unsuccessful rearguard actions in social media.
We now have a party of questionable integrity influencing power where most of their elected representatives are unknown quantities with respect to character or calibre.

From what Ive seen on the Facebook Ad Library the largest spend on social media ads were by FF anf FG. SF only spent a fraction of what FF and FG did- before polling day

FINE GAEL IS significantly outspending its rivals in the general election campaign when it comes to advertising on Facebook.

Figures made available through the Facebook Ad Library have shown the party spent more than €15,000 between promoting adverts from its own page and from Leo Varadkar’s account in the first week of campaigning.

In comparison, Fianna Fáil spent over €2,300 while Sinn Féin spent around €1,100 from 13 to 19 January.
https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1265760/

The Facebook Ad Library was created by the social media platform as part of efforts to improve transparency over who is funding online political advertisements.

The final figures are not in yet but right before polling day I saw FFG both on 60k+ spends on Facebook ads while SF were on 12k.

CIARAN_BOYLE

namloc1980 wrote: »

FF missed out on the last seat in Louth. They got no seat in a 5 seater after getting 14% of the vote, the quota was 16.7%! They are transfer toxic in this election. That means they are heading for 38 seats, SF have 37.

I'm counting 38 though it could fall to 37. Either way its certain now that no 2 of FF FG and SF can come together and form a government.

efanton

is_that_so wrote: »

Eh, the threshold is a lifetime threshold it's not per property.

I know its not per property, but it is per inheritor.

If I had 4 sons and daughters and I left four properties in my will, that threshold would be applied four times. My point was fix the benefit to the total amount bequeathed as opposed to each individual inheriting.
A government could easily raise the threshold dramatically, and offset the cost that way.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

From what Ive seen on the Facebook Ad Library the largest spend on social media ads were by FF anf FG. SF only spent a fraction of what FF and FG did- before polling day



The final figures are not in yet but right before polling day I saw FFG both on 60k+ spends on Facebook ads while SF were on 12k.

Who says their opponents used paid adverts on Facebook. An army of little voluntary worker bees humming away on the main social media platforms frequented by the Irish achieve the same ends.

BTW do you get paid by post? If you did you'd be on to a nice little earner. Don't sell yourself short.

LeinsterDub

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you seriously think that any of the left-wing parties will take on the unions?

Why would you need to take them on? This is a narrative when you're looking looking to cut. The left will be looking to expand services so they just need to control wages.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Making a note to myself to not strive to better myself, spend all my money and leave my offspring financially insecure.

Is building an inheritance for one’s children the only benefit of bettering oneself? There’s no other motivation to do so, such as giving yourself a comfortable life?

is_that_so

rob316 wrote: »

80% of the electorate said no to FG, what is hard to understand about that? They have absolutely no mandate for government. They need to go to the opposition benches and recover under Coveney.

Just as 75% said no to SF, almost 80% to FF and north of 90% for everyone else. It's an empty statistic. Now if you referred to seats instead you'd have a case. Can I also say I'm getting tired of people trotting out "mandate" as the 10 commandments. It doesn't exist save in vacuous political speeches. The only mandate any TD has is to represent their constituency the best they can. No voter says who they want to be anything other than a TD.

Dubh Geannain

namloc1980 wrote: »

FF 38.
SF 37.
FG 35.

There's a chance FF finish on 37 because they are getting killed with transfers in the late rounds in the remaining counts. They are transfer toxic.

And one of FFs was an automatic seat.

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

What Louise will say Francie, instead of trying to protect the taxpayer.

“I need X million to sort out the Health Service”

“If you don’t give me that I can’t sort it out”.

Sooo.... there ya go.... can’t stir up ‘our members’ gotta look atter dem foooorst.

Put your hand in yer pocket pal

Yes Brendan, but the question was:

Who is paying for it now?

amacca

Calhoun wrote: »

If we aren't going to resource and fund our education system properly and inline with our social-democratic model then something is seriously wrong. Especially when we have a teacher basically saying that the most in need are less important than children with normal outcomes.

Im not saying that at all ....you could try re-reading both posts, you seem to want to put words in my mouth yet again....im saying its not funded properly to achieve what I think you want.......So it seems we actually agree on that despite the fact anyone reading these would think we were having an argument

Calhoun wrote: »

Do you not think people like you are part of the problem? Rather than being supportive of putting in more investment you are basically saying that its not sustainable to deal with special need children? You are doing nothing to change my opinion on teachers views of special education children. The normal push from teachers is onto the parents.

Just how would you know what kind of person I am when you won't even read what I've written and insist on putting words into my mouth

Im not in a position to put in more investment.....Im not a dept mandarin/civil servant minister for education, I don't control how much investment is put into the system and I'm not arguing for a reduction...in fact I think this is now the third occasion where Ive said its underfunded....Im not sure how my position could be any clearer....would you please do someone the courtesy of reading what they've written rather than what you appear to want to read?

Calhoun wrote: »

You obviously have no experience in opening up autism units, more often than not the resistance from teachers is down to them wanting experienced ones going in and they spend the first year retraining.

You are right, I don't. but thats not really supporting your argument whatever it is...... is it. Also on the face of it teachers wanting to be trained properly to respond to a need rather than just wing it wouldn't be a black mark against them....but maybe i'm completely misunderstanding what you've written up there?

Calhoun wrote: »

I see a teacher and a part time farmer, all with the same old excuses for why we cannot have an inclusive environment pushing back onto parents as seems to be the standard procedure.

Interesting, you see incorrectly then....you are not even half right. I left teaching quite some time ago now, My OH still works as one, I do run a farm part-time (more hobby than anything) and I have a small business.........not that its of any relevance whatsoever or should be brought up I'm not going and deciding your points have less validity because of what I think you might do for a living....heres a handy tip, play the ball not the man.

My "excuse" for why an inclusive environment is hard to achieve comes down to said environment not being funded properly.......I wouldn't call it an excuse however, that would suggest it could actually be achieved if only the teachers would do something.....I'd call it reality....In the absence of funding/resources its nigh on impossible to deliver the support required, I believe I did the best I could, it was inadequate imo however given the environment and lack of resources I didn't see what else was humanly possible and still provide for my family, have some sort of life etc

Calhoun wrote: »

How much research have you done on the topic other than the inconvenience that was caused to you in the classroom? I suppose you need to focus on the farm so not much time for doing stuff like that.

Fistly inconvenience caused in the classroom is not research. Secondly I was asking a question as someone who has been on the other side, Theres no onus on me to have done any research to ask a question.....in fact asking a question could be classed as research it would be great if the person responding didn't put words in a persons mouth and make assumptions about them so they can aggressively respond to whatever it is they wanted the poster to have said.

Calhoun wrote: »

From an educational perspective children are guaranteed both an academic and social education and you may feel that its too much effort to strive for that but i am glad there are allot more out that do not.

I don't..there you go deciding what someones opinion is, you really need to stop reading something into a post because you want it to be there or it feeds some sort of outrage fetish.....I feel a classroom teacher can strive for that but won't have a snowballs chance in hell of actually achieving that without much more resourcing etc....you need more teachers, more resources, more hours etc etc its not a case of them being more efficient or creative imo....I don't believe it would achieve SFA without a complete change in the way things are done.

Calhoun wrote: »

Just to clarify on that you feel special needs children should have 1x1 teaching support even though we don't have the resources to teach them in a classroom of 30+ children. Its like its better if they are out of sight out of mind so you can focus on the normies.

Oh so you want to clarify something now rather than go on an unjustified rant. O.K. I see that when you clarify you also again assign an opinion you have as fact...nice

If I'm not mistaken did you not mention a student that wasn't toilet trained at 6 ......yes I totally feel thats a need that requires one to one support, a teacher can't teach the other 29 students (with absolutely no issues which is also completely unrealistic) and take on toilet training .....but a school could perhaps do something with one on one support or more funding/hours

Tbh I don't know, in my first post i was asking you what do you think the school should do....but that turned into a full blown attack

BTW you used the word "normies" ...not me, Thats a new one on me Ive never heard that used before

Calhoun wrote: »

I have not confused you, your a secondary school teacher from the midlands who is also a part time farmer perhaps a mistake to assume you voted FG but I took a shot in the dark as I wondered why you were so against looking after the most needy.

So you took a shot in the dark and basically lied about something you couldn't know and now you're doubling down by telling me what I do for a living and you're not confused??? You are incorrect on all three points above. For the record I wouldnt vote for any of FG, FF or SF as I wouldnt trust any of them as far as I'd throw them.

And I still think you must think Im another poster...some sort of avid right wing FG supporter with a hardon for SF bashing.....thats the only thing that could explain your irrational responses that or deliberate flaming.

thequarefellow

namloc1980 wrote: »

FF 38.
SF 37.
FG 35.

There's a chance FF finish on 37 because they are getting killed with transfers in the late rounds in the remaining counts. They are transfer toxic.

Very interesting!
Dublin Bay North: will Sean Haughey get bumped?

is_that_so

efanton wrote: »

I know its not per property, but it is per inheritor.

If I had 4 sons and daughters and I left four properties in my will, that threshold would be applied four times. My point was fix the benefit to the total amount bequeathed as opposed to each individual inheriting.
A government could easily raise the threshold dramatically, and offset the cost that way.

How is that threshold applied 4 times? It's applied once over a lifetime per person.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Is building an inheritance for one’s children the only benefit of bettering oneself? There’s no other motivation to do so, such as giving yourself a comfortable life?

bettering oneself so long as it can't be quantified monetarily can still continue but if the Euros are there to be taxed be sure that those on the left will look to be getting their sizable cut.

Muahahaha

Deleted User wrote: »

Who says their opponents used paid adverts on Facebook. An army of little voluntary worker bees humming away on the main social media platforms frequented by the Irish achieve the same ends.

BTW do you get paid by post? If you did you'd be on to a nice little earner. Don't sell yourself short.

So much salt in this post

is_that_so

Suckit wrote: »

An FFFG coalition would be the far more obvious/sensible option. There is no point in either pretending any longer that they are different. No point in pretending that they dislike each others policies so much that they couldn't work with them. Their charade ha been blown wide open and now they have to say they couldn't work with each other while inside dying a little at the concept of forming one with SF.

It would suit SF better to watch the two of them take government. SF will be ready with candidates the next GE, and they would likely be even stronger.

FG may end up as the smallest of the three so have to do precisely nothing. It will be up to the other two to figure it out.