Why not have another GE

mloc123

Fann Linn wrote: »

Shows how poor the opposition was that they couldn't beat them. Yes?

I think one thing is for sure, people didn't scrutinise the candidates they voted for... They didn't look beyond the SF logo

First Up

Fann Linn wrote: »

Shows how poor the opposition was that they couldn't beat them. Yes?

I think it says more about those who voted SF than it does about their opponents.

Loafing Oaf

mloc123 wrote: »

Looking at the quality of the SF candidates that they ran...IRA prisoners

You think SF voters see this as a negative?

Fann Linn

First Up wrote: »

I think it says more about those who voted SF than it does about their opponents.

We beg to differ.

mloc123

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You think SF voters see this as a negative?

That is old SF right? In the past... They have no links to the IRA or the people they murdered now? Modern SF and their voters are just left wing socialists...

Fann Linn

mloc123 wrote: »

That is old SF right? In the past... They have no links to the IRA or the people they murdered now? Modern SF and their voters are just left wing socialists...

Or disgruntled FFG/LP voters.

Shefwedfan

mloc123 wrote: »

That is old SF right? In the past... They have no links to the IRA or the people they murdered now? Modern SF and their voters are just left wing socialists...

FF could say the same and they have no links to the crash and this is a modern FF

Fann Linn

Shefwedfan wrote: »

FF could say the same and they have no links to the crash and this is a modern FF

MM is the direct link.

boege

Fann Linn wrote: »

MM is the direct link.

Have to agree, was surprised to see MM leading FF into this election.

Soccer equivalent of firing the team and keeping the manager.....a bit strange to say the least

SafeSurfer

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

The Good Friday Agreement put an end to the IRA campaign and brought SF into the political mainstream in both parts of the island.
We, in the south, were happy enough with it and voted overwhelmingly in favour.
Apparently our support for it has become more nuanced since.
It was ok to have SF participating as long as they were a minority party.
But when they had the cheek to challenge and even beat FF and FG, we suddenly are questioning their democratic credentials.
I understand the politics of this. Mutt and Jeff want to keep their two step going and can't if SF interrupt.
But if they were doing their job right in the first place the electorate wouldn't be deserting them in such numbers.
SF's election result is a symptom of the problems within the FF/FG duopoly, it is not the cause.
SF will continue to prosper for as long as they refuse to address the cause.

Does your analysis explain why the “failed duopoly” trounced Sinn Fein in the locals and Europeans just 8 months ago?

Didn’t think so.

1st dalkey dalkey

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Does your analysis explain why the “failed duopoly” trounced Sinn Fein in the locals and Europeans just 8 months ago?

Didn’t think so.

Possibly because the European and Local elections have little impact on the issues they thought important in the recent election.
Housing and Health are issues for central government, not for EU or local politicians.
If I am correct on that, it merely strengthens my point about the failure of the Duopoly.
SF were a fringe party before the crash. Their rise was facilitated by the failures of the Duopoly. Maybe you have some other theory explaining it?

piplip87

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

Possibly because the European and Local elections have little impact on the issues they thought important in the recent election.
Housing and Health are issues for central government, not for EU or local politicians.
If I am correct on that, it merely strengthens my point about the failure of the Duopoly.
SF were a fringe party before the crash. Their rise was facilitated by the failures of the Duopoly. Maybe you have some other theory explaining it?

The rise of SF is pure populism. They are promising:

1). 100,000 social and affordable houses.
2) More hospital consultants, reform of the health service, Free GP care for all.
3) Taking on landlords
4) Taxing the rich more
5) Doing away with Property Tax
6) Increasing employer PRSI
7) Introducing a living wage
8) Increasing the dole to 250 a week.
9) Few public transport

The thing about all of these promises is that to implement them you set of a chain reaction. Examples:

100,000 social and affordable houses is great but again you have people like O'Brion rejecting the need for high-rise in Dublin, you also have the Vacent site tax here which is apart of the funding model for this yet the numbers of the Vacent site tax do not add up. You also have SF taking on developers so yes 100,000 social and affordable homes but what about those who do not qualify for either ? Will there be social houses for those who cannot or choose not to work in employment hubs around the country which will still leave many people commuting.

2) Health reform.. Recruiting more consultants but then hitting them with another income tax, making the average consultant pay nearly 90,000 in taxes.... It's not going to attract more here and it will scare those away.

3) If you take on small Landlords, some who have inherited a property they will sell up and companies will buy thus increasing rent.

4) Again this could lead to a brain drain. Alot of those on salaries over 140,000 are doctor's, top end Tech workers, High managers and financial service workers.. They are in demand all over the world of the talent leaves so do their companies leaving thousands out of work.

5)While property tax needs reform, to implement such a tax cut when we have a housing crisis is irresponsible. It's a wealth tax in essence.

6) Again increasing employer PRSI will possibly delay payrises for people, price off goods and services will increase to cover the cost of this. Again it sounds good but not very well taught out.

7) Yes making all employees have a living wage sounds good. Implementing this along with an increase with employer PRSI, will lead to an increase in prices thus pushing up the amount of money somebody needs for a living wage. Also small businesses who may not be making much profit as it is will now have to shoulder this cost, which will lead to job losses.

8) Now this is laughable but it sure gets those who suffer from chronic laziness out to vote. I'd say SF topped polls in unemployment hotspots all over the country on the back of this one..... Certainly increase disability payments etc but to increase jobseekers would be a laugh.

9) Free public transport.... Sounds fantastic but try telling that to somebody travelling from Cavan to Sandyford everyday.... They drive because the alternative is a 6 hour bus and Luas commute everyday while it might be 2 hours in the car..... Again it sounds great but people.in the commuter belt drive because of poor service.... Or work is just too long with public transport...

If all of the above where implemented it would lead to job losses, another recession and then they would double corporation tax to compensate for the lost revenues, which will lead to further job losses.....

In short the manifesto, interviews and soundbites sound good but there is little.or no substance which I'm glad 60% of the electorate seen through.

1st dalkey dalkey

I didn't read any of the manifestos.
I never do.
They are mere wish lists and everyone knows from decades of experience that they are never implemented as presented.
And that goes for every party.
I do read the papers and their take on the manifestos. It appears that every party was complaining about every other parties manifesto. Inaccurate, not costed, not implementable, every which way.
I expect most voters are similarly unimpressed by manifestos. But there probably are some gullible people who do believe them. I doubt that number would stretch to 24% of the population.
And none of that addresses the real point. Why are the voters deserting the duopoly in such huge numbers?
In the 80's elections they regularly got over 80% of votes cast between them. Last election they got 44%.

tjhook

Fann Linn wrote: »

MM is the direct link.

I agree. And Dessie Elils is a direct link from Sinn Fein to terrorism. We just have to pick our poison - I know which is more toxic to me.

smurgen

This is a hilarious error and looks at the degree that the media are waiting to pounce on Sinn Fein. Mortified for the Irish times.

https://twitter.com/davidcochrane/status/1232571726187368448?s=19