What have we come to

FrancieBrady

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Correct. But for a route for FG to come to power, it would equally mean that SF have abandoned the 24% that voted for them. They did win the election after all.

All SF can do here is to try and form another alternative. They cannot force others to go into government with them.
They seemed to me to be straight out of the traps to investigate the potential.

Leo, is 'expecting to be/wanting to be the main opposition. Without even trying to fulfill the wish of the 22% who voted FG.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You will need to ask those who voted for D.Ellis and O'Snodaigh what influenced their vote.
You are the poster who is positing the theory that the young voter/new SF doesn't know about the 'past' now you seem to be saying they are voting for them 'because' of their past.

Could you stick to one theory or the other and stop bouncing around?

Here is the reason - the BASE of the SF support know these lads past which is the prime reason they vote for them, while the new SF voters are tricked into voting for them as they are told 'that was in the past' it is grand now.
Houses, Health, Social Welfare etc

The new SF voters got caught up in that hype as you did, and did not vote based on the past, but on the promise of change in future. Which is the wrong way to vote my opinion, it is like backing horse without seeing his past races - NI and so on

omega man

My own take is that neither SF or their traditional support base want to go into government yet their problem is that their new voters genuinely want them to break the mould and implement their pre-election promises, with the help of other left leaning parties and independents.

Plumbthedepths

Cupatae wrote: »

Im just saying if it goes to the polls again these could be potentially damaging to SF. That nnd having candidates roaring up the Ra ect isnt gonna help the situation either.

Candidate, not candidates. Still he was a gob****e for doing it.
Investors always watch potential new governments and policies. Democracy has to be blind to such considerations as to the feelings of investors though.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All SF can do here is to try and form another alternative. They cannot force others to go into government with them.
They seemed to me to be straight out of the traps to investigate the potential.

Leo, is 'expecting to be/wanting to be the main opposition. Without even trying to fulfill the wish of the 22% who voted FG.

Who said the 22% voted for FG to get them in government purely?

That was the aspiration but I also voted for them because I believed a collation could be formed between Labour FG Greens and SD.

Crucially I wanted a government without SF, I did not want them in and would have assumed FG would not go into collation with them as promised pre-election.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Here is the reason - the BASE of the SF support know these lads past which is the prime reason they vote for them, while the new SF voters are tricked into voting for them as they are told 'that was in the past' it is grand now.
Houses, Health, Social Welfare etc

The new SF voters got caught up in that hype as you did, and did not vote based on the past, but on the promise of change in future. Which is the wrong way to vote my opinion, it is like backing horse without seeing his past races - NI and so on

But you don't know that. You are guessing. From a rather condescending position if I may say so.

'The young are stupid and uneducated...unlike me hence I am going to go on a crusade to educate them.

Which flies in the face of the fact that every media organ of this state published details of the past in the lead up to the election.

And the electorate said?...well you don't need me to tell you what they said.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Who said the 22% voted for FG to get them in government purely?

That was the aspiration but I also voted for them because I believed a collation could be formed between Labour FG Greens and SD.

Crucially I wanted a government without SF, I did not want them in and would have assumed FG would not go into collation with them as promised pre-election.

You can't vote for a specific 'coalition'.

Jesus! :rolleyes:

MrMusician18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can't vote for a specific 'coalition'.

Jesus! :rolleyes:

You can vote for anything you like actually.

Whether they're realistic expectations or not (like SFs manifesto) is another matter.

Ush1

GreenandRed wrote: »

Which 'we'? Not the families paying extortionate rents trying to get a deposit. If they ever manage the deposit they get 2 or 3 % back from the banks to be repaid plus interest. Why not a smaller deposit to get them into the market for a cheaper house? Banks don't give a f**k about customer, their shareholders care even less.

We as in all citizens of the Republic. We are the majority shareholder.

FrancieBrady

MrMusician18 wrote: »

You can vote for anything you like actually.

Whether they're realistic expectations or not (like SFs manifesto) is another matter.

There is nowhere on the ballot paper where you can say 'I vote for a Labour FG Greens and SD coalition.

Silly buggers stuff now.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can't vote for a specific 'coalition'.

Jesus! :rolleyes:

You can vote for parties all who said they would not go into coalition with SF.

FG, Labour as I did.

Others may have voted FF for the same reason.

That is 50% of the seats of the dail between those three parties

Ush1

storker wrote: »

I always thought it was unfair, as it takes no account of ability to pay.

Owning property is by very definition wealth. The world over property is where wealth is contained so to tax it makes sense. I've never heard of any "left" party wanting to abolish what is a wealth tax.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is nowhere on the ballot paper where you can say 'I vote for a Labour FG Greens and SD coalition.

Silly buggers stuff now.

You are being deliberately disingenuous to that poster as you were to me.

Many people vote in terms of collation Labour FF etc.

Just as many who voted SF wanted FF/FG out and hoped for a left alliance and Green surge.

shesty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can't vote for a specific 'coalition'.

Jesus! :rolleyes:

This is Ireland...up to now, you could make a fair stab on who would up in coalition!!

storker

Ush1 wrote: »

Owning property is by very definition wealth. The world over property is where wealth is contained so to tax it makes sense. I've never heard of any "left" party wanting to abolish what is a wealth tax.

I've never understood that either. Only income, profits or purchases should be taxed.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

You are being deliberately disingenuous to that poster as you were to me.

Many people vote in terms of collation Labour FF etc.

Just as many who voted SF wanted FF/FG out and hoped for a left alliance and Green surge.

You vote for a party and give them permission to form/go into a coalition.

You DON'T and CAN'T vote for a specific coalition. Don't be ridiculous.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you don't know that. You are guessing. From a rather condescending position if I may say so.

'The young are stupid and uneducated...unlike me hence I am going to go on a crusade to educate them.

Which flies in the face of the fact that every media organ of this state published details of the past in the lead up to the election.

And the electorate said?...well you don't need me to tell you what they said.

I am not guessing I know what the hardcore base SF stereotype vote is

Much as I know the new SF votes reasons - they took a chance on them for the craic, used it as a protest vote, or are just too young to remember as much as others.

You are in the take a chance on them category.

And most of this new battle ground was fought on social media to impressionable young minds. An area where SF are years ahead of the other traditional parties.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You vote for a party and give them permission to form/go into a coalition.

You DON'T and CAN'T vote for a specific coalition. Don't be ridiculous.

Well I voted labour and FG because they said they would NOT go into coalition with SF. If they said they would I would have looked elsewhere.

In Irish politics most people know there is likely to be a coalition of one description or another. Some vote accordingly as I did.

I fail to see how this is so hard for you to believe.

Idbatterim

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All SF can do here is to try and form another alternative. They cannot force others to go into government with them.
They seemed to me to be straight out of the traps to investigate the potential.

Leo, is 'expecting to be/wanting to be the main opposition. Without even trying to fulfill the wish of the 22% who voted FG.

that prize prick varadkar, only got re-elected by the skin of his teeth. time to go, he can go do those private speeches, for tens of thousands an hour, he can tell them all, how he managed to lose power in a country , during a boom, with mostly laughable alternatives.

gormdubhgorm

shesty wrote: »

This is Ireland...up to now, you could make a fair stab on who would up in coalition!!

Yep FG, Labour, Greens SD was my hope - nice mix of centre right and centre left.

Nice balance. No 'yahoo' antics from TD's (hopefully)

That was my ideal mix. No SF or FF.

MrMusician18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is nowhere on the ballot paper where you can say 'I vote for a Labour FG Greens and SD coalition.

Silly buggers stuff now.

Nowhere on the ballot paper did it say vote SF for 100k houses either, but a lot of people did vote that way because of that.

Motivations for a vote can be for any reason under the sun. Everyone has the choice to use their vote, and exercise it, realistic expectations or not, as they see fit.

Idbatterim

for those of you talking about the markers and sentiment etc, sure should we just reduce their liability to zero? wouldnt that suit them better! LOL!

MrMusician18

Idbatterim wrote: »

that prize prick varadkar, only got re-elected by the skin of his teeth. time to go, he can go do those private speeches, for tens of thousands an hour, he can tell them all, how he managed to lose power in a country , during a boom, with mostly laughable alternatives.

Leo Varadkar was something like 250 votes short of the quota on the first count. His election was never in doubt. Skin of his teath me bollocks.

If you're going to be pig ignorant about someone, at least be right.

FrancieBrady

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Nowhere on the ballot paper did it say vote SF for 100k houses either, but a lot of people did vote that way because of that.

Who said the ballot paper said that?

People voted SF...end of. Unlike gormdubh you cnnot start saying x amount voted for them on the past and x amount voted on them for housing etc etc.

Motivations for a vote can be for any reason under the sun. Everyone has the choice to use their vote, and exercise it, realistic expectations or not, as they see fit.

Yes, that is true.

However, LEO, has decided, that his 22% is 'to go into opposition without even trying to form a government'.

Idbatterim

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Leo Varadkar was something like 250 votes short of the quota on the first count. His election was never in doubt. Skin of his teath me bollocks.

If you're going to be pig ignorant about someone, at least be right.

happy to be corrected if that is the case! Him being possibly the biggest failure of a Taoiseach we have ever had here, is subjective, but for my money, he is!

lets see leo, I have to make a decions, how will I go about that "oh, Ill fly a kite" that will tell me...

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am not guessing I know what the hardcore base SF stereotype vote is

Much as I know the new SF votes reasons - they took a chance on them for the craic, used it as a protest vote, or are just too young to remember as much as others.

You are in the take a chance on them category.

And most of this new battle ground was fought on social media to impressionable young minds. An area where SF are years ahead of the other traditional parties.

That is just more arrogant denigration of the electorate. Stop it please...accept the vote and don't be embarrassing yourself.

In your favour, you do seem to have stopped with the diatribe. I sense you are coming to terms with it all.

James Brown

shesty wrote: »

This is Ireland...up to now, you could make a fair stab on who would up in coalition!!

True. Thankfully We've choices with a chance. Hopefully the days of FF or FG are going.

jimmycrackcorm

blanch152 wrote: »

Sinn Fein's tax measures do not add up, so they will have to ditch the carbon tax promise anyway. The cyncial might think that they knew that before the election but promised it anyway.

Once they sit down with the dept of finance Wii will last out the reality of the pensions crisis, they will have to pull back on the pension age promise.
Is imagine they will try to put it off for a year or two but the knock on effects of postponing it will be greater with a quicker increasing of the retirement age.

The magic money tree will become undone very quickly.

We going to see a huge backtracking or negative effects from their unsustainable promises before too long.

Ush1

Idbatterim wrote: »

happy to be corrected if that is the case! Him being possibly the biggest failure of a Taoiseach we have ever had here, is subjective, but for my money, he is!

lets see leo, I have to make a decions, how will I go about that "oh, Ill fly a kite" that will tell me...

People have very short memories.

James Brown

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So do we install a government at the behest of investors, or do we still go the democratic route and let the voters have a say?

We had that and got a two tier crisis riddled nation.