'Shock Poll' Sinn Fein now on 35%

Seathrun66

STB. wrote: »

You might want to read what Labour actually said.

The numbers are not there. You know it, I know it. If it was a runner, it would have happened and been put forward by Mary Lou already. I think Eoin O'Broin (a fine politician btw) admitted as much when he referred to some of the independents as being gene pool FF/FG.

The only place to retreat for hardened SF dreamers like yourself is to the opposition benches where 75% of the electorate where happy to see ya's. It's were SF perform best.

Unless you are in a position to debunk the reality that SF have had no meaningful talks to provide an alternative formation ? No ?

So, continued obfuscation. You made an incorrect statement that you can't back up and bluster is your response.

And btw I'm not SF. They were my fifth preference in Galway West.

I just simply have no truck with people who spout nonsensical generalisations. And that's it, time to crash out.

Seathrun66

Idbatterim wrote: »

SHy do people think greens will be hammered if they go into government? I don’t think they will. Labour voters were delusional, I don’t think k green voters are for the most part. Go into government and if Dublin metro isn’t started in 2021 or whenever is currently planned , pull the plug on government!

Going into govt with FF/SF would have been seen as a change and they'd do well from it.

A coalition with FF/FG would be seen as regressive and they'd be the fall guys at the next election.

They've rebuilt in the last decade and a misjudgement now could undo all that progress. The Greens have a chance of garnering much of the youth vote and becoming as significant a party as the other three. The wrong coalition will set them back several years.

STB.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Again, it's 43% of the electorate. False statistics for the third time.

SF/Greens/SD/Labour, etc have decent and capable representatives who I'd trust more with the scrupulous administration of this country than FF/FG. History doesn't teat the latter pair well.

FF 38 seats out of 160 = 23.75%
FG 35 seats out of 160 = 21.87%

Totaled together is 45.62% of the seats in Dáil Eireann. or rounded as they do these days 46%.

The electorate vote for their candidates and the successful candidates are rewarded with these things called seats. Its called proportional representation and is the way it works in ROI. What do seats make ??

I can talk you through how to divide 38 by 160 and multiply by 100, if you wish ?

Seathrun66 wrote: »

I just simply have no truck with people who spout nonsensical generalisations. And that's it, time to crash out.

I'd be more worried with the inability to grasp basic maths if I were you. The simple fact that FF returned 38 seats (not 37 as you are incorrectly trying to pass) seems to have also passed you by.

Seathrun66

STB. wrote: »

FF 38 seats out of 160 = 23.75%
FG 35 seats out of 160 = 21.87%

Totaled together is 45.62% of the seats in Dáil Eireann. or rounded as they do these days 46%.

The electorate vote for their candidates and the successful candidates are rewarded with these things called seats. Its called proportional representation and is the way it work in ROI. What do seats make ??

I can talk you through how to divide 38 by 160 and multiply by 100, if you wish ?

You've twice said FF & FG had electorate votes of 46%. Not seats but first preference votes. The actual figure is 43.1%.

We've enough falsehoods about without adding to them. Please desist.

Seathrun66

STB. wrote: »

FF 38 seats out of 160 = 23.75%
FG 35 seats out of 160 = 21.87%

Totaled together is 45.62% of the seats in Dáil Eireann. or rounded as they do these days 46%.

The electorate vote for their candidates and the successful candidates are rewarded with these things called seats. Its called proportional representation and is the way it works in ROI. What do seats make ??

I can talk you through how to divide 38 by 160 and multiply by 100, if you wish ?



I'd be more worried with the inability to grasp basic maths if I were you. The simple fact that FF returned 38 seats (not 37 as you are incorrectly trying to pass) seems to have also passed you by.

FF had 37 TDs elected. The Ceann Comhairle was re-elected automatically and is not on the FF benches.

Thus it's FF 37 SF 37.

It ain't hard.

STB.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

You've twice said FF & FG had electorate votes of 46%. Not seats but first preference votes. The actual figure is 43.1%.

We've enough falsehoods about without adding to them. Please desist.

You better go back and read my responses. I made no mention of first preference votes.

Its a sad days and age when the electoral system and basic maths has to be explained to some people.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

FF had 37 TDs elected. The Ceann Comhairle was re-elected automatically and is not on the FF benches.

Thus it's FF 37 SF 37.

It ain't hard.

FF had 38 TD's elected. That one is automatically re-elected does not detract from that. They are the single biggest party based on seats filled.

Its that simple.

The Muppet

STB. wrote: »

Comparatively to whom ?

What message the voters sent ? A minority of voters ?

Governments are formed by seats, 46% of them are held by FF & FG.



The electorates vote is measured in seats in Dáil Eireann. No other way.



Correction FF 38 SF 37. The siting Ceann Comhairle (elected by members of the Dáil) is deemed automatically to have been re-elected by their constituency at that general election to protect the constitution of this country. This has been the case since 1937.

You can bury your head in the sand all you like . The Electorate sent a clear message , agreed PR diluted that message but all parties know what the majority of people dont want.

If the Parties have any doubt another election should clear it up for them.

Maewyn Succat

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Again, it's 43% of the electorate. False statistics for the third time.

SF/Greens/SD/Labour, etc have decent and capable representatives who I'd trust more with the scrupulous administration of this country than FF/FG. History doesn't teat the latter pair well.

SF + Greens + SD + Labour = 61 seats. They would need at the very least another 19 seats to form a government. Where do these come from? 80 seats is the minimum needed to form a government but it would be a very unstable government with this mix of parties in my opinion so to form anything that could be considered stable they would need to be aiming to closer to 90 seats which is never going to happen.

Why do you think history has not treated FF/FG well? I never really understood this argument. Do you not think Ireland has progressed in the last hundred years? Maybe google what Ireland was like in the 1920's....

is_that_so

The Muppet wrote: »

You can bury your head in the sand all you like . The Electorate sent a clear message , agreed PR diluted that message but all parties know what the majority of people dont want.

If the Parties have any doubt another election should clear it up for them.

It's more likely to muddy the waters even more. The electorate just voted, what that vote supposedly means has nothing to do with what government can be formed.

Seathrun66

STB. wrote: »

You better go back and read my responses. I made no mention of first preference votes.

Its a sad days and age when the electoral system and basic maths has to be explained to some people.



FF had 38 TD's elected. That one is automatically re-elected does not detract from that. They are the single biggest party based on seats filled.

Its that simple.

You said 46% of electorate's votes. Verbatim. Incorrect, FG and FF got 43.1%.

Ceann Comhairle is neutral, not FF.
Therefore FF 37, SF 37

Read the constitution. Bluster and false info doesn't work.

Seathrun66

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

SF + Greens + SD + Labour = 61 seats. They would need at the very least another 19 seats to form a government. Where do these come from? 80 seats is the minimum needed to form a government but it would be a very unstable government with this mix of parties in my opinion so to form anything that could be considered stable they would need to be aiming to closer to 90 seats which is never going to happen.

Why do you think history has not treated FF/FG well? I never really understood this argument. Do you not think Ireland has progressed in the last hundred years? Maybe google what Ireland was like in the 1920's....

MLM got 45 votes (including some independents & PBP) for the Taoiseach vote. Add in Labour, Greens & SDs and you have 69. They could scramble together 11 independents with certain promises and assurances given but it's tenuous and would be a shaky coalition.

My preference is FF/SF/Greens/Soc Dems with Ryan having the Environment, O'Bruin Housing & Shortall Health. If not possible then another election is preferable to a grand coalition.

The endemic corruption and failure to provide for all is indicitave of maladministration. FF & FG are not leaving a good legacy.

The Muppet

is_that_so wrote: »

It's more likely to muddy the waters even more. The electorate just voted, what that vote supposedly means has nothing to do with what government can be formed.

Why would it be more likely to muddy the waters? I think it would be very likely to clear up the current mess particularly if parties were upfront about who they would go into government with afterwards.

Theres no supposedly about it , Its very clear what the majority of the electorate voted for .

blanch152

The Muppet wrote: »

Why would it be more likely to muddy the waters? I think it would be very likely to clear up the current mess particularly if parties were upfront about who they would go into government with afterwards.

Theres no supposedly about it , Its very clear what the majority of the electorate voted for .

It isn't very clear.

A majority voted for anyone but Sinn Fein. Another majority voted for anyone but Fine Gael. A third majority voted for anyone but Fianna Fail.

tipptom

is_that_so wrote: »

It's more likely to muddy the waters even more. The electorate just voted, what that vote supposedly means has nothing to do with what government can be formed.

If that poll on Sunday had showed that sort of gains for FF instead of SF Michael Martin would have be running to the shed for the posters by now.

BluePlanet

blanch152 wrote: »

It isn't very clear.

A majority voted for anyone but Sinn Fein. Another majority voted for anyone but Fine Gael. A third majority voted for anyone but Fianna Fail.

It's pretty clear they essentially voted for a FF/SF/FG coalition.
The reason we don't have one is due to gamesmanship and egos.

The Muppet

blanch152 wrote: »

It isn't very clear.

A majority voted for anyone but Sinn Fein. Another majority voted for anyone but Fine Gael. A third majority voted for anyone but Fianna Fail.

Its clear to everyone what the electorate voted for . The poll here suggests the electorate still want that implemented. It will be a brave party to go against that

"
Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination"


Andrew Lang

hatrickpatrick

Apologies, this post didn't show up in my quoted posts and then I went on the piss over the weekend, only just saw it now in the quote list!

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay, some examples? I can personally think of Ballymun, which had high density accommodation, and it was horrendous. It created a generation of people outside of society. It is now starting to look like a decent place thanks to that exact process you are outlining.

I can't readily think of very many others.

Examples of rebuilding social housing with fewer units than before? O'Devaney Gardens is the most high profile and obvious recent example. Original estate was

Other examples I can think of:

Chamber Street
Sheriff Street
St Michael's, Inchicore
Charlemont Street (and the gentrification of that is having knock on effects on the surrounding area, see the debacle over The Bernard Shaw in which An Bord Pleanala literally stated in their report that it was out of character with "the emerging pattern of development in the area" which is a code word for "now that the council estate has been replaced with luxury, expensive apartments, we can't have this kind of thing anymore)

I can see lots of counterexamples whenever I drive to Dublin though. I see areas that were greenfield that have now got lots of apartments built on them. The vast swathe that was the Dunleary golf course of old seems now home to hundreds of homes for thousands of people. All private development I think.

Exactly, so they do absolutely nothing to solve the crisis among people who can't afford private rents. We need more state subsidised housing where the price is determined by what people can afford to pay without having their quality of life decimated, rather than the highest rent people are willing to pay out of sheer desperation. That's the entire point I've been making.

Didn't that fail because Sinn Fein wasn't happy with the balance of public to private housing planned? Not that that's the main problem though, the main problem is the ungodly length of time it takes to get from plan to turning the first sod.

That's exactly what I'm saying! SF and the majority of DCC at the time voted to increase the proportion of public housing relative to private housing in the redevelopment, Fine Gael's housing department said no, the project stalled for years while the left leaning council fought with the neoliberal central government over allowing the project to go ahead with a decent proportion of social housing.

Last year, DCC reached an agreement with Bartra to increase the number of affordable units on the site and Eoghan Murphy literally went out of his way to throw spanners in the works. Because Fine Gael do not believe in building publicly owned social housing and have attempted to minimise how much of it is built in literally every single regeneration project, which is why so many have stalled as the left leaning DCC from 2014 onwards refused to bow to pressure from the central government to sell public land to private developers and add the new, redeveloped complexes to the ever growing list of places which are too expensive for average people to live in!

In fairness isn't it a bit more complicated than that these days? It would be easy to go for even more urban sprawl - developing Dublin housing out at Rockbrook, Newcastle, Lucan, Summerseat, and Kilnamonagh. That has always been the way in the past. But at this stage the urban sprawl has grown to 11km from the city center without any sufficient transport infrastructure to match.

I've never advocated urban sprawl. I'm advocating more high rise social housing with a far larger net of people who qualify to live in it. Not just the worst off in society, but average workers and young people who can't afford to pay four figure sums for one bedroom flats. That would achieve social integration without leaving anyone to pay the obscene rents private landlords are asking for.

You say this as if it is something new, but house prices are no greater than they were in 2007 (adjusted for inflation). House prices took a dip, along with everything during the recession. Now that the recession is firmly over they have gone back up to their heady prices. What's different?

Rents are. The cost of renting in Dublin breached the Celtic Tiger peak in early 2018 and has snowballed uncontrollably in the two years since then. And it's really in the last year that they have hyperinflated to truly astonishing levels, which in my view is why the government's (and the left's) fortunes changed so much in between the local elections and the general election. If you knew anyone who was househunting for a place to rent in Dublin last summer you'd know what I'm talking about - anyone whose lease was terminated for one reason or another faced a seller's market in which rents were five or six hundred euro higher than they had been paying.

You say this as if it is something worth emulating. There were plenty of regions that became St. Teresa's Garden-esque degenerate hotbeds of crime. This is one thing that has mercifully been mostly gotten rid of (though not totally). How can we guarantee that such developments don't end up like before?

There were also plenty of places which didn't. Off the top of my head, on the southside: Pearse Street, Mercer/Cuffe Street, Bishop Street, Ringsend, Beech Hill, Charlemont Street, Grove Road, Sallynoggin, Ballybrack, Monkstown Farm, Rathmines. On the North Side: Constitution Hill, Marino, Dominick Street, North Strand, Croke Villas, several complexes in Phibsborough. I've easily listed 2,000 flats and houses if you combine all of the social housing projects in that list and I assume the number is far, far higher (those red brick blocks with the external stairwells house 24 flats each, the other examples are more variable but in my southside examples alone I have 16 of them, and that doesn't include the large complexes at Pearse, Ringsend and Mercer Street or the huge estates of Sallynoggin and Ballybrack.

None of these areas turned into ghettoes of organised crime. They may have had more antisocial behaviour and related issues than 'posh' areas but they were and are by no means sh!tholes as others are trying to claim, and as Fintan O'Toole pointed out in the article I linked previously, they were created because the state recognised that many people would never be able to get onto the private market's ladder. That is far, far more true today than it was in the 1930s when the project began, so to abandon public housing at this time in Ireland's history is insane. And for those who advocate doing so, the "I'm alright Jack" attitude is repulsively palpable. Which is why FG were turned on by an entire generation of young people who are being crucified by greedy pr!cks in the private rental market who FG are directly facilitating.

As far as preventing future St Teresa's Gardens type crime sinkholes, the solution there should be obvious - reform the justice system so we stop allowing criminal gangs to get going and failing to deter people from engaging in violent crime, by actually punishing people who are convicted of same instead of giving suspended sentences to every scumbag who comes before the courts after being caught doing anything from kicking the sh!t out of someone for no reason to organised assaults, burglaries and so on.

Fine Gael, by the way, are the ones who sold a site which had previously been zoned for building a new prison in 2005 by Michael MacDowell, on the grounds that "we don't think locking criminals up is the right thing to do anymore". No joke. Fine Gael did that. Anyone who thinks they actually want to solve social problems is having a f*cking laugh, perpetuating a new generation of down-and-outs by leaving everyone to the mercy of landlords and vulture funds, and presiding over a justice system which responds to every type of crime with a slap on the wrist. How anyone can imagine that FG's policies are good for avoiding future crime issues boggles my mind.

I also advocated broadening the social housing net extensively so that far more people from different socioeconomic groups would qualify for it and the power of landlords to fleece people would be decimated. Housing should simply not be geared towards making a profit for the provider, it should be geared towards providing housing for the end user. It's as simple as that. The entire base of the current housing system is both immoral and unworkable as far as I and many other left wing voters are concerned. The model of the 1930s replaced vast swathes of privately rented slums with large swathes of publicly rented flats and houses, and that's exactly what we need to do again.

RandomName2

Seathrun66 wrote: »

So, continued obfuscation. You made an incorrect statement that you can't back up and bluster is your response.

And btw I'm not SF. They were my fifth preference in Galway West.

I just simply have no truck with people who spout nonsensical generalisations. And that's it, time to crash out.

The statement that no other party would talk to SF is incorrect.

Did any party seriously talk to SF about forming a government? No.

That's cutting through all your daft obfuscating ranting rambling mad bluster. That's it, time to cash out.

RandomName2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Apologies, this post didn't show up in my quoted posts and then I went on the piss over the weekend, only just saw it now in the quote list!

Interesting reply!

But surely the high rental prices are mainly due to demand outpacing supply?

Also why did some areas fall into complete anarchy and some public housing thrive? Was it an issue of volume? I find it hard to believe that it was due to lax criminal laws.

Why have FG pursued this policy? Do they not believe the public exchequer can adequately foot the bill of construction (that would seem odd if the land was originally public - the cost of land would presumably be the main expense in general).

hatrickpatrick

Apologies, I just realised I forgot to fill in the figures for O'Devaney. This part of my post:

Examples of rebuilding social housing with fewer units than before? O'Devaney Gardens is the most high profile and obvious recent example. Original estate was

I wrote before checking the figures and then forgot to actually go back and add them in So, to finish that sentence:

Examples of rebuilding social housing with fewer units than before? O'Devaney Gardens is the most high profile and obvious recent example. Original estate was 272 flats, all publicly owned, all rented at discounted rents specific to what each tenant could afford based on means testing.
The new estate will consist of 800 flats, but only 240 will be council housing. My point is, where are residents of the other 32 flats from the old development supposed to go - and, on top of that, what about accomodating the new generation of people who can't afford council rents? This is one of many examples where we're actively reducing the amount of public housing we have, at a time when we should be exponentially increasing it. And Dublin City Council voted to massively increase the proportion of social housing in this development, only to be blocked by Fine Gael's housing minister Eoghan Murphy, while at the same time himself and Leo were doing the rounds with their smug "we're slowly trying to fix the problem" bullsh!t. This went down like a lead balloon with people my age. One of them was previously living in Stoneybatter until the rent became too much for her, and that was in digs FFS. She had to move back in with her family following this. And she was a very enthusiastic SF voter in this election that we've just had. Do you imagine that this is a coincidence? She, and many others like her, could see the government intentionally fuelling the displacement of lower income folk from the places they had come to call home, by refusing to build subsidised housing in those areas and actively reducing the stock of it, while rents were soaring and people like her were left with no choice but to abandon their independence and return to their family home.

Again, it's not surprising that FG pursued such a policy. What's bizarre is their mixture of lashing out at the electorate for "not understanding" the positives of their policies, and acting extremely shocked and surprised that young people have rejected them in such overwhelming numbers.

hatrickpatrick

RandomName2 wrote: »

Interesting reply!

But surely the high rental prices are mainly due to demand outpacing supply?

Also why did some areas fall into complete anarchy and some public housing thrive? Was it an issue of volume? I find it hard to believe that it was due to lax criminal laws.

Why have FG pursued this policy? Do they not believe the public exchequer can adequately foot the bill of construction (that would seem odd if the land was originally public - the cost of land would presumably be the main expense in general).

I'm just heading out the door but I'll reply to this one tonight or tomorrow, I've seen it on-thread now so Boards' lagging search function won't thwart this debate again I do actually have answers to all of these questions. The latter one is very simple, they don't ideologically believe that the state has a role in protecting ordinary peoples' quality of life. The former has to do with which estates were integrated and which were not, as well as with which estates were chosen for targeting by the Dunne family when they first imported heroin into the state and which were not. There's also, strange though it might seem, the issue of layout and design - some estates are laid out in a way which is far more conducive to community building versus isolation, and others are not. I can tell you straight away that none of the answers preclude building future social housing while implementing mitigating solutions that will prevent the descent into social sinkholes from being repeated, I just don't have time to type it all up at the moment!

STB.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

You said 46% of electorate's votes. Verbatim. Incorrect, FG and FF got 43.1%.

Ceann Comhairle is neutral, not FF.
Therefore FF 37, SF 37

Read the constitution. Bluster and false info doesn't work.

I said 46% of the electorate votes which are measured in seats which is the only measure that is of any importance. The only way votes are measured in the formation of government is in the form of seats. So please stop quoting percentages of first preference votes as they have no value in government formation. How many times do you need the electoral system to be explained to you ? If you do not understand proportional representation and that only 160 seats can be filled, I suggest you google it.

FF have 38 seats. The CC is automatically returned in order to protect the constitution (since 1937). His or her's seat is not neutral when it comes down to the formation of government. Neither is it discounted when describing the party with the most seats. I am not the first to correct you in this thread. AND I am not going to explain it to you again.

At this stage you are trolling or you are someone who refuses to acknowledge the democratic process.

RandomName2

STB. wrote: »

I said 46% of the electorate votes which are measured in seats which is the only measure that is of any importance. The only way votes are measured in the formation of government is in the form of seats. So please stop quoting percentages of first preference votes as they have no value in government formation. How many times do you need the electoral system to be explained to you ? If you do not understand proportional representation and that only 160 seats can be filled, I suggest you google it.

FF have 38 seats. The CC is automatically returned in order to protect the constitution (since 1937). His or her's seat is not neutral when it comes down to the formation of government. Neither is it discounted when describing the party with the most seats. I am not the first to correct you in this thread. AND I am not going to explain it to you again.

At this stage you are trolling or you are someone who refuses to acknowledge the democratic process.

FFS don't encourage him.

He's being a pedant in relation to the numbers in order have an opportunity to say that opponents of Sinn Fein are rambling idiots.

Seathrun66

STB. wrote: »

I said 46% of the electorate votes which are measured in seats which is the only measure that is of any importance. The only way votes are measured in the formation of government is in the form of seats. So please stop quoting percentages of first preference votes as they have no value in government formation. How many times do you need the electoral system to be explained to you ? If you do not understand proportional representation and that only 160 seats can be filled, I suggest you google it.

Not what you said. As before FF & FG got 43.1% of the electoral votes, not the 46% you said. Seats weren't mentioned in your initial post so Stalinist retrospective editing ain't cool. Ditto for your other factual errors.

FF have 38 seats. The CC is automatically returned in order to protect the constitution (since 1937). His or her's seat is not neutral when it comes down to the formation of government. Neither is it discounted when describing the party with the most seats. I am not the first to correct you in this thread. AND I am not going to explain it to you again.

At this stage you are trolling or you are someone who refuses to acknowledge the democratic process.

Pleased you'll not explain again as you've a fundamental lack of understanding of the CC role. He's neutral. It's not at all difficult and he won't be supporting FF in forming a government. From the Oireachtas site:

On assuming office, and to ensure his unique role of presiding impartially over the proceedings, the Ceann Comhairle by tradition precludes himself from active participation in politics but remains free to make representations on behalf of constituents

In the pub or office you can invent statistics and come up with invented information that people may not challenge you on. Here you've been found out several times and by several people. Best to stop digging......

Seathrun66

RandomName2 wrote: »

FFS don't encourage him.

He's being a pedant in relation to the numbers in order have an opportunity to say that opponents of Sinn Fein are rambling idiots.

Adding 3% on to the voting numbers for FF/FG requires noting. Had SF been claiming 28% instead of 25% I've no doubt people would have remarked upon it.

I'm not a supporter of SF. Closer to SD/Labour/Greens. And I respect people from all parties. I have friends and family across the political divide and no suggestion that opponents of SF are rambling idiots. But hey, hard not to observe that STB is doing a good impersonation of one.

RandomName2

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Adding 3% on to the voting numbers for FF/FG requires noting. Had SF been claiming 28% instead of 25% I've no doubt people would have remarked upon it.

That's 24.5% not 25%. Your false statistics have no sway here.
Inset something about rambling nonsense.

There's two pages of neither you nor STB. making any real points.

The substantive point is that SF beat FG and FF in the popular vote.
FF and FG combined are about twice the size of SF (either in seats or vote, take your pick).

SF needs either FF or FG if they want to form a government.

None of the other parties really count in terms of either numbers or popularity.

The only serious government formation discussions so far have been between FF and FG, everything else is just noise.

Everybody already knows this already anyway. The attempts at point scoring is tiresome.

STB.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Pleased you'll not explain again as you've a fundamental lack of understanding of the CC role. He's neutral. It's not at all difficult and he won't be supporting FF in forming a government. From the Oireachtas site:

On assuming office, and to ensure his unique role of presiding impartially over the proceedings, the Ceann Comhairle by tradition precludes himself from active participation in politics but remains free to make representations on behalf of constituents

In the pub or office you can invent statistics and come up with invented information that people may not challenge you on. Here you've been found out several times and by several people. Best to stop digging......

The neutrality of the CC role in Dáil debates has no bearing on him being included in the numbers being returned to Dáil Eireann. It has a bearing on the number of TD seats FF have when forming a government. They have 38, they need a min of 42 to form a government.

And you needed that explained to you, at least 7 times on this thread.

The same way that you needed it explained to you time and time again that first preference vote percentages that you keep quoting have no bearing on what forms government which is seats, the only measurement used to return candidates by the electorate.

You are a troll and an ignornant one. Please educate yourself, before you post again, for your own dignity.

STB.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Adding 3% on to the voting numbers for FF/FG requires noting. Had SF been claiming 28% instead of 25% I've no doubt people would have remarked upon it.

I'm not a supporter of SF. Closer to SD/Labour/Greens. And I respect people from all parties. I have friends and family across the political divide and no suggestion that opponents of SF are rambling idiots. But hey, hard not to observe that STB is doing a good impersonation of one.

There is only one idiot here.

First preference figures are irrelevant. Our system is proportional representation. I realise that those words might be a bit big for you.

Seat percentages are the ONLY measurement. FF returned 38. FG 35. Thats 46% of the 160 seats the electorate vote for. Its as simple as yourself.

Idbatterim

“it should be geared towards providing housing for the end user. It's as simple as that. The entire base of the current housing system is both immoral and unworkable as far as I and many other left wing voters are concerned. The model of the 1930s replaced vast swathes of privately rented slums with large swathes of publicly rented flats and houses, and that's exactly what we need to do again.”

Brilliant post. I’d probably be described as right wing. But the housing situation is a vulgar disgrace, you know what that Doesn’t even begin to do it justice. No non homewowner here should ever forget what Fg have done. They will never have my vote again. All the dell boys and the other extreme of vulture funds looking for their pound of flesh on a most basic human need, it’s grotesque and who facilitated them ? The Irish government , voted by the people , to represent the people ! Ff or fg , ffg , I don’t give a fcuk. If they are in this term and don’t do what their body is telling them not to do , they are looking at potential terminal wipeout!

Selling out your own generation varadkar you despicable rat !

Seathrun66

STB. wrote: »

Ah "change", that golden word that keeps popping up.

I don't know if its deliberate or what, but 75% of the electorate did not buy into SF's flavour of change.

The two centre right parties hold 46% of the electorates vote. Plus ca change, eh.

This wasn't you?

No seats referred to but the incorrect percentage of votes. You can always go back and edit it.