GE Exit Poll 10 pm

Hercule Poirot

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Thats a problem, yes. But not as big a problem as people electing career criminals as their representatives in the Dail.

Electing career criminals ahead of FFG candidates says more about the FFG candidates and the lack of faith those areas had in them if you ask me

efanton

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Thats a problem, yes. But not as big a problem as people electing career criminals as their representatives in the Dail.

I'd be curious as to whom you are referring too?
THats a genuine question, I cant think of any TD with multiple criminal offences.

Does fiddling Dail expenses count as a criminal offence?
If that's the case I could see what you are saying

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

That's not people are saying though. Some folk are suggesting (facetiously in most cases) that FF and FG merge because there is little genuine difference between them nowadays.

That doesn't apply to the parties on the left, because it's a broader church of political opinion.

The difference with FF/FG is that their members can generally act like grown ups and compromise within their parties, despite having quite varied views. With the plethora of parties on the left they instead throw their toys out of the pram and start their own party on nearly every difference of opinion or failed purity test.

I agree there is little genuine difference between FF/FG at this point but the same could be said between the 'champagne socialist' grouping of Labour & SD or the 'want everything & pay nothing' grouping of Solidarity & PBP & I4C & Workers. That would be 6 left parties down to 2. SF is a complete wildcard, as outside of unification their position swings between those two groups whatever way the popularity wind is blowing.

Boggles

Foxtrol wrote: »

The difference with FF/FG is that their members can generally act like grown ups and compromise within their parties, despite having quite varied views. With the plethora of parties on the left they instead throw their toys out of the pram and start their own party on nearly every difference of opinion or failed purity test.

I have Renua on the phone for you.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

The difference with FF/FG is that their members can generally act like grown ups and compromise within their parties, despite having quite varied views. With the plethora of parties on the left they instead throw their toys out of the pram and start their own party on nearly every difference of opinion or failed purity test.

I agree there is little genuine difference between FF/FG at this point but the same could be said between the 'champagne socialist' grouping of Labour & SD or the 'want everything & pay nothing' grouping of Solidarity & PBP & I4C & Workers. That would be 6 left parties down to 2. SF is a complete wildcard, as outside of unification their position swings between those two groups whatever way the popularity wind is blowing.

Irrespective of how you want to childish frame people who political opinions are different to yours, the point remains.

Jinglejangle69

McMurphy wrote: »

Big blow?

I wouldn't think so, they... do.... not....have...the... numbers, once again.....
they do not have the numbers to form a coalition of the left, and with FF FG locking them out by circling the wagons, I reckon MLMD, Doherty, Carthy and O'Reilly etc will be happy enough being handed the main opposition party role.

McDonald certainly don't hold back and say nowt if Tweedle Dum and Dee are presiding over some dodgy deal or a bit of the auld cronyism.

Apart from that, with/if SF are the main opposition party, and dum/dee are forced to coalesce together, they might actually work together to benefit the state and not each other or their developer buddies or their redacted mates with a 37 seat strong shinners breathing down their necks.

SF will also be building up serious momentum and when FF FG make their inevitable funk up, one will inevitably shaft the other in a blame game, in comes the election, one or the two of FFG will be obliterated, and the shinners will return more seats.

It's a win win for everyone all round, and an end to two party politics. Sure you couldn't beat it with a big thorny one

Why did Mary Lou say she's going to talk to the left parties and FF or FG would be a disaster if they got back into government.

Are you telling me she can't do simple maths or she was lying?

Suckit

The same people shouting IRA and Terrorism fail to realise that everyone that voted SF already knew all of those connections before they voted, repeating it over and over isn't likely to make much difference. However, they also know the stories of all the dodgy deals, the corruption allegations, the expensive tribunals, the quangos, the cronyism, the nepotism, the wage hikes, the ridiculous overspending, the hospital queues, the homelessness numbers and the hundreds of other things that can be associated with FFFG.
The reason that most people that voted for SF this time, is because they are sick to death of FF, FF, FF, FG, FG, FF, FF, FF, FG etc. and those stories.
If FFFG continue with their refusal to entertain anyone but each other, it will very likely serve to remind people exactly of which stories they may have forgotten too. But that hasn't been so much the case yet.
In any case, mud slinging seems a bit impotent when used after the horse has bolted.

FG would definitely seem to be the ones with the most to lose if SF became a regular feature with the majority of voters. After this election, I would be willing to bet that their recruitment has been in overdrive. Expect a lot of changes when they come to fruition.
FF are undoubtedly the biggest party in the country in terms of elections, FG generally get in when their regular voters are joined by protest votes. This time the protest votes went to SF for obvious reasons, and could easily again, as more and more people see FF and FG as the same party.
So the more sh*t acting by them, the better it is for SF.
FG may be in a position now to sit on the sidelines shouting instructions about who the onus is on, but as mentioned, I think it will only serve to drop their figures even more in a party that is already losing popularity, that seems like a pretty dodgy game to be playing.
Leo has delivered the 2nd worst election campaign the party has ever seen in it's entire history, yet they still seem reluctant to blame him, Harris and Murphy. But insist on blaming the C&S, and well, anything else that they can point at.
I wonder who they will blame when this all goes tits up for them too..

Jinglejangle69

Suckit wrote: »

The same people shouting IRA and Terrorism fail to realise that everyone that voted SF already knew all of those connections before they voted, repeating it over and over isn't likely to make much difference. However, they also know the stories of all the dodgy deals, the corruption allegations, the expensive tribunals, the quangos, the cronyism, the nepotism, the wage hikes, the ridiculous overspending, the hospital queues, the homelessness numbers and the hundreds of other things that can be associated with FFFG.
The reason that most people voted SF this time, is because they are sick to death of FF, FF, FF, FG, FG, FF, FF, FF, FG etc.
If FFFG continue with their refusal to entertain anyone but each other, it will very likely serve to remind people exactly of which stories they may have forgotten too. But that hasn't been so much the case yet.
In any case, mud slinging seems a bit impotent when used after the horse has bolted.

FG would definitely seem to be the ones with the most to lose if SF became a regular feature with the majority of voters. After this election, I would be willing to bet that their recruitment has been in overdrive. Expect a lot of changes when they come to fruition.
FF are undoubtedly the biggest party in the country in terms of elections, FG generally get in when their regular voters are joined by protest votes. This time the protest votes went to SF for obvious reasons, and could easily again, as more and more people see FF and FG as the same party.
So the more sh*t acting by them, the better it is for SF.
FG may be in a position now to sit on the sidelines shouting instructions about who the onus is on, but as mentiones, I think it will only serve to drop their figures even more in a party that is already losing popularity, that seems like a pretty dodgy game to be playing.
Leo has delivered the 2nd worst election campaign the party has ever seen in it's entire history, yet they still seem reluctant to blame him, Harris and Murphy. But insist on blaming the C&S, and well, anything else that they can point at.
I wonder who they will blame when this all goes tits up for them too..

Most people voted SF???????????

SafeSurfer

Suckit wrote: »

The same people shouting IRA and Terrorism fail to realise that everyone that voted SF already knew all of those connections before they voted, repeating it over and over isn't likely to make much difference. However, they also know the stories of all the dodgy deals, the corruption allegations, the expensive tribunals, the quangos, the cronyism, the nepotism, the wage hikes, the ridiculous overspending, the hospital queues, the homelessness numbers and the hundreds of other things that can be associated with FFFG.
The reason that most people voted SF this time, is because they are sick to death of FF, FF, FF, FG, FG, FF, FF, FF, FG etc.
If FFFG continue with their refusal to entertain anyone but each other, it will very likely serve to remind people exactly of which stories they may have forgotten too. But that hasn't been so much the case yet.
In any case, mud slinging seems a bit impotent when used after the horse has bolted.

FG would definitely seem to be the ones with the most to lose if SF became a regular feature with the majority of voters. After this election, I would be willing to bet that their recruitment has been in overdrive. Expect a lot of changes when they come to fruition.
FF are undoubtedly the biggest party in the country in terms of elections, FG generally get in when their regular voters are joined by protest votes. This time the protest votes went to SF for obvious reasons, and could easily again, as more and more people see FF and FG as the same party.
So the more sh*t acting by them, the better it is for SF.
FG may be in a position now to sit on the sidelines shouting instructions about who the onus is on, but as mentiones, I think it will only serve to drop their figures even more in a party that is already losing popularity, that seems like a pretty dodgy game to be playing.
Leo has delivered the 2nd worst election campaign the party has ever seen in it's entire history, yet they still seem reluctant to blame him, Harris and Murphy. But insist on blaming the C&S, and well, anything else that they can point at.
I wonder who they will blame when this all goes tits up for them too..

I think FF is the party that is really in trouble. If Irish politics is realigning left/right, becoming more polarised. Then FG is the natural counterweight to SF. In the same way that the UUP was overtaken by the more extreme DUP in the north.

Suckit

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Most people voted SF???????????

I think it was pretty obvious I meant of the people that voted for them but I changed it anyway, just for you.

Foxtrol

Boggles wrote: »

I have Renua on the phone for you.

That's why I chose the word many and left out Aontu on the list of left parties.

Outside of Renua and the PDs how many other parties have split off from centre/centre right parties?

I could have kept going with the list of random left parties that should coalesce together if they compromised.

Suckit

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think FF is the party that is really in trouble. If Irish politics is realigning left/right, becoming more polarised. Then FG is the natural counterweight to SF. In the same way that the UUP was overtaken by the more extreme DUP in the north.

While that may be true, I think FF are the bigger party and less likely to suffer as a result.

I guess time will tell.

maccored

SF have tried their utmost to get a government formed and represent those that voted for them. They were straight out of the traps arranging meetings - that's what I think people will remember if there's another election.

They probably also remember that ffg have really gave the two fingers to the people who voted for neither of them this time round by refusing the talk to SF about forming a government.

FF won't go in with sf and without fg or sf, can't make a gov so it's either a ff/fg gov next or its election. Ff and fg don't wish to do either of those so as this drags out it will be obvious where the issue will be

Water John

But MLM said FF or FG should not be in Govn't. Then she turns around and says she wants a deal with FF. That is what she has done this week.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

Irrespective of how you want to childish frame people who political opinions are different to yours, the point remains.

What point remains? You haven't put up anything to refute my argument that there is little difference between many left parties.

Take Catherine Murphy's political journey for example - she has been a member of the Workers' Party, Democratic Left, the Labour Party, and now Social Democrats. Can you tell me the big policy differences between those parties?

Solidarity & PBP & RISE are in an alliance but refuse to merge into one party. Again, can you tell me what are their big policy differences are?

McMurphy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Why did Mary Lou say she's going to talk to the left parties and FF or FG would be a disaster if they got back into government.

Are you telling me she can't do simple maths or she was lying?

I have read this, then reread it, and then read it again and it still doesn't make sense.

What exactly are you asking?

maccored

Water John wrote: »

But MLM said FF or FG should not be in Govn't. Then she turns around and says she wants a deal with FF. That is what she has done this week.

The theory (assumption ) might have been to build a left alliance of about 55 or so who would give sf the reins and then ask ff to fill out the numbers. As long as the left stuck together sf would probably get to do most of the things it's said it would. Not that simple in reality but I assume that was the rough plan

Foxtrol

maccored wrote: »

SF have tried their utmost to get a government formed and represent those that voted for them. They were straight out of the traps arranging meetings - that's what I think people will remember if there's another election.

They probably also remember that ffg have really gave the two fingers to the people who voted for neither of them this time round by refusing the talk to SF about forming a government.

FF won't go in with sf and without fg or sf, can't make a gov so it's either a ff/fg gov next or its election. Ff and fg don't wish to do either of those so as this drags out it will be obvious where the issue will be

Did people remember that SF made absolute no attempt to form a government last time?

During the election both FF and FG said they wouldn't go into government with SF, surely following what they told their voters is just as much 'represent those that voted for them'.

What voters should remember is that though making an attempt SF couldn't even get the left parties close to coming to an agreement. 'Vote left, transfer left' is nothing but a hollow hashtag if they can't come to an agreement post election. You're throwing votes or transfers away.

omega man

maccored wrote: »

SF have tried their utmost to get a government formed and represent those that voted for them. They were straight out of the traps arranging meetings - that's what I think people will remember if there's another election.

They probably also remember that ffg have really gave the two fingers to the people who voted for neither of them this time round by refusing the talk to SF about forming a government.

FF won't go in with sf and without fg or sf, can't make a gov so it's either a ff/fg gov next or its election. Ff and fg don't wish to do either of those so as this drags out it will be obvious where the issue will be

But who on the left has indicated an initial commitment for a SF led coalition?

McMurphy

Water John wrote: »

But MLM said FF or FG should not be in Govn't. Then she turns around and says she wants a deal with FF. That is what she has done this week.

I assume she is thinking along the lines of if either or are a governing party, if the shinners are with them, any shenanigans/corruption or cronyism they may be tempted to get up to can be kept an eye on.

It's like me saying my youngest son shouldn't be allowed to walk to the local shop on his own, but if I'm with him that's a different story.

ThunbergsAreGo

maccored wrote: »

SF have tried their utmost to get a government formed and represent those that voted for them. They were straight out of the traps arranging meetings - that's what I think people will remember if there's another election.

They probably also remember that ffg have really gave the two fingers to the people who voted for neither of them this time round by refusing the talk to SF about forming a government.

FF won't go in with sf and without fg or sf, can't make a gov so it's either a ff/fg gov next or its election. Ff and fg don't wish to do either of those so as this drags out it will be obvious where the issue will be

Arranging meetings? Jesus fair play, that's some steller work.

I'll remember their candidates refusing to pay rent, not believing in vaccines and glorifying the IRA

maccored

omega man wrote: »

But who on the left has indicated an initial commitment for a SF led coalition?

Unless you were a fly on the wall at meetings who knows ... but I think it was pbp who had said they would support mlmd as Taoiseach so it would be logical to do it in some way along those lines.

ted1

maccored wrote: »

SF have tried their utmost to get a government formed and represent those that voted for them. They were straight out of the traps arranging meetings - that's what I think people will remember if there's another election.

They probably also remember that ffg have really gave the two fingers to the people who voted for neither of them this time round by refusing the talk to SF about forming a government.

FF won't go in with sf and without fg or sf, can't make a gov so it's either a ff/fg gov next or its election. Ff and fg don't wish to do either of those so as this drags out it will be obvious where the issue will be

Since the election

SF, up the Ra.. people got really put off by this.
SF, we need Europe to pay for reunification. People are like WRF, mandate was housing and health. We made a mistake.

FF we won’t go to partnership with SF, fair play why would you go into a partner with a polar opposite party

FG, let SF go into government, it’ll be a **** storm they’ll fail and be wiped out next election


SF , blah blah people voted for change. No SF your vote grew by 10%. That’s all who voted for change for you. Far from a majority. You only had 24.5% and not enough like minded parties to form a government with

ted1

maccored wrote: »

Unless you were a fly on the wall at meetings who knows ... but I think it was pbp who had said they would support mlmd as Taoiseach so it would be logical to do it in some way along those lines.

PBP have said they prefer to be in opposition as it enables them to shout and comment

Jinglejangle69

Suckit wrote: »

I think it was pretty obvious I meant of the people that voted for them but I changed it anyway, just for you.

So you changed what you posted because it was wrong and I should have known that.

I'm not a mind reader.

maccored

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Arranging meetings? Jesus fair play, that's some steller work.

I'll remember their candidates refusing to pay rent, not believing in vaccines and glorifying the IRA

Aye - meetings and discussions are how parties tease out partnerships. Maybe a weird idea to some - the whole idea of discussion and trying to do right by the people who voted for them.

The PIRA were brave and courageous to many in the north. That's just the way it is and reasons why are clearly too complicated to comprehend, especially for people who didn't live through it so I think it's a bit lazy to say when you think of sf in the south, it reminds you of a conflict and the IRA. Fair dues to Humes for talking to Adams because without those two there wouldn't have been a GFA. the IRA were needed by many 40 years ago. They're gone for well over a decade and there aren't too many left in the sf leadership who would have been actively involved.
Bit lazy, a bit ingenious and says more about what you don't understand about sf rather than what you do

Jinglejangle69

maccored wrote: »

SF have tried their utmost to get a government formed and represent those that voted for them. They were straight out of the traps arranging meetings - that's what I think people will remember if there's another election.

They probably also remember that ffg have really gave the two fingers to the people who voted for neither of them this time round by refusing the talk to SF about forming a government.

FF won't go in with sf and without fg or sf, can't make a gov so it's either a ff/fg gov next or its election. Ff and fg don't wish to do either of those so as this drags out it will be obvious where the issue will be

But the numbers weren't there for a left government and everyone knew it, yet Mary Lou tried.

She was either lying or can't do maths.

maccored

ted1 wrote: »

Since the election

SF, up the Ra.. people got really put off by this.
SF, we need Europe to pay for reunification. People are like WRF, mandate was housing and health. We made a mistake.

FF we won’t go to partnership with SF, fair play why would you go into a partner with a polar opposite party

FG, let SF go into government, it’ll be a **** storm they’ll fail and be wiped out next election


SF , blah blah people voted for change. No SF your vote grew by 10%. That’s all who voted for change for you. Far from a majority. You only had 24.5% and not enough like minded parties to form a government with

What's all that about? Making up stuff doesn't really fly

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

What point remains? You haven't put up anything to refute my argument that there is little difference between many left parties.

Take Catherine Murphy's political journey for example - she has been a member of the Workers' Party, Democratic Left, the Labour Party, and now Social Democrats. Can you tell me the big policy differences between those parties?

Solidarity & PBP & RISE are in an alliance but refuse to merge into one party. Again, can you tell me what are their big policy differences are?

There's some overlap among the parties of the left. But it's still a broader range of opinion than that of modern day FF or FG according to some people.

Why are you so hung up on this. It's kind of silly.

Spanish Eyes

The reality is that besides a few kinda normals high up in SF and I give them a pass on that, the rest of the SF voters gave a no1 scratch to anyone with a SF logo.

Total protest vote. But the background of many of their candidates are just below the surface terrorists. Up the RA, we will take over the Free State, we won't pay our rent, Black and Tans etc. It will never change.

And that's only scratching the surface.

I don't blame people looking for change, but I do object to those who are still wedded to the RA. And there are many of them right now. Will take a while to cull that I think.