Snap election?

dere34

I thought that the country needed change from FG and I had hope that FF had turned things around and could deliver. I thought MM deserved a crack of the whip. I am so disappointed. We need a new election ASAP and after that we need a border poll.

touts

dere34 wrote: »

I thought that the country needed change from FG and I had hope that FF had turned things around and could deliver. I thought MM deserved a crack of the whip. I am so disappointed. We need a new election ASAP and after that we need a border poll.

Election yes. And this golfgate fiasco could well be the final straw that brings that about.

Border poll? **** all chance. Only a vocal minority want it and more importantly true Republicans don't because they know it wont pass at the moment. That sort of a vote is a once in a generation vote and they won't blow it to keep a few yellow pack Republicans happy.

ILoveYourVibes

This govt won't last 4 yrs. No idea what will happen then.

yamaha4life

Realistically yep the plug needs to be plulled but its like jumping out of a plane without a parachute theres no alternative goverment to be had.

AllForIt

Well, y'all seem to be in favour of proportional representation, so you get what you deserve.

Whether you agree with Brexit or not, at least the UK don't have a PR system, and now have a government with a massive majority. I think that is proper order, and no one has ever convinced me otherwise.

There is noting worse imo than a coalition government, least of all the kind of one he have now, all due to PR.

The idea that 'everyone's views should be represented' is to me completely ridiculous. If you take one issue and you have diametrically opposed opinions on it, you can't have both views represented on it at the same time. Someone has to loose, and not have their views implemented by the state.

If there is a snap election, I will vote for one candidate, and one candidate only, if any at all. No 'second preference'. It's just so absurd. If you believe in the policy of one person, you can hardly vote for the policy of another when they are both campaigning against each other.

satguy

Yes please ..

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

. . . If there is a snap election, I will vote for one candidate, and one candidate only, if any at all. No 'second preference'. It's just so absurd. If you believe in the policy of one person, you can hardly vote for the policy of another when they are both campaigning against each other.

By assigning just one preference, you exercise less influence over the election result than you could.

You could take this policy to its logical conclusion by assigning no preferences at all.

markodaly

dere34 wrote: »

I thought that the country needed change from FG and I had hope that FF had turned things around and could deliver. I thought MM deserved a crack of the whip. I am so disappointed. We need a new election ASAP and after that we need a border poll.

Oh christ, an election .... and then a border poll.

Are you insane?

Tell me how

The idea of a border poll shows that it isn't just those in government that are talking waffle at this time.

Leaving aside Covid and the financial constraints that is going to create for the next 10 years, Brexit is such an impactful and emotive situation and has shown that a vote should only be held when very clear steps can be given as to what will happen if a vote called for a UI.

Think this government has next to zero confidence amongst the electorate but they are like a married couple who just found out both people were cheating but they have a mortgage, no savings and both are on reduced hours because of Covid and so must stay together.

There vote was split at the last election, no party has shown itself to be above the others and the resports last week that a witness in the Garda O'Donoghue trial spoke to SF leadership before giving evidence does not bode well for a government where the people sitting at cabinet are the ones making the decisions.

Pkiernan

Border poll?
Is building a wall one of the choices?

GT89

This government will last the full 4 years mark my word for it. I thought the same about the last government and was wrong. They will last.

AllForIt

Peregrinus wrote: »

You could take this policy to its logical conclusion by assigning no preferences at all.

Well if you read my post thoroughly, that's exactly what I said I may do.

Irishman80

Border poll?

Best of luck finding the annual 10-20 billion euro the North will need while their economy adjusts, if it ever will.

And that's assuming it will be a peaceful reunification.

Tell me how

AllForIt wrote: »

Well, y'all seem to be in favour of proportional representation, so you get what you deserve.

Whether you agree with Brexit or not, at least the UK don't have a PR system, and now have a government with a massive majority. I think that is proper order, and no one has ever convinced me otherwise.

There is noting worse imo than a coalition government, least of all the kind of one he have now, all due to PR.

The idea that 'everyone's views should be represented' is to me completely ridiculous. If you take one issue and you have diametrically opposed opinions on it, you can't have both views represented on it at the same time. Someone has to loose, and not have their views implemented by the state.

If there is a snap election, I will vote for one candidate, and one candidate only, if any at all. No 'second preference'. It's just so absurd. If you believe in the policy of one person, you can hardly vote for the policy of another when they are both campaigning against each other.

The UK is showing all the signs of FPTP voting and how it leads to zero challenges in many districts. If you don't think that impacts on the quality of representative which ends up being selected and their sense of obligation to their constituents then you are not paying attention to the evidence.

I'd much rather coalitions and a sense of engagement in the process from the electorate than the apathy that many in the UK feel.

Geuze

AllForIt wrote: »

Well, y'all seem to be in favour of proportional representation, so you get what you deserve.

Whether you agree with Brexit or not, at least the UK don't have a PR system, and now have a government with a massive majority. I think that is proper order, and no one has ever convinced me otherwise.

There is noting worse imo than a coalition government, least of all the kind of one he have now, all due to PR.

PR-STV is superior to FTPT, that is a settled issue.

We have had coalitions in Ireland for several decades.

The last single party Govt was in 1979??

That's 40 years ago now.

Coalitions are surely a sign of a mature society?

Peregrinus

Geuze wrote: »

PR-STV is superior to FTPT, that is a settled issue.

We have had coalitions in Ireland for several decades.

The last single party Govt was in 1979??

That's 40 years ago now.

Coalitions are surely a sign of a mature society?

The last single party majority government was from 1977-81. The general consensus was at the time, and is now, that it was a pretty dismal government.

The last single party minority government was 1987-89.

All governments since then have been multi-party. Over this period poor old coalition-ridden Ireland has experienced substantially more social progress and economic growth than the UK, with its solid tradition of single party governments that get a majority of seats despite being rejected by a majority of voters.

Coincidence? I think not!

AllForIt

Tell me how wrote: »

The UK is showing all the signs of FPTP voting and how it leads to zero challenges in many districts. If you don't think that impacts on the quality of representative which ends up being selected and their sense of obligation to their constituents then you are not paying attention to the evidence.

I'd much rather coalitions and a sense of engagement in the process from the electorate than the apathy that many in the UK feel.

Utter rubbish.

There is no apathy in the UK because the UK got what it wanted.

The apathy is from those who didn't get what they want, and feel, that somehow, even in a minority, they should still get what they want.

Of course loosing means you don't get representation. To expert to get representation no matter what is the wormy rhetoric of loosers.

Tell me how

AllForIt wrote: »

Utter rubbish.

There is no apathy in the UK because the UK got what it wanted.

The apathy is from those who didn't get what they want, and feel, that somehow, even in a minority, they should still get what they want.

Of course loosing means you don't get representation. To expert to get representation no matter what is the wormy rhetoric of loosers.

*losing/losers.

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

Utter rubbish.

There is no apathy in the UK because the UK got what it wanted.

Not really, no. The UK got a Tory government, despite the fact that a clear majority - 56% - voted not to have a Tory government. How is that the UK getting what it wants?

AllForIt wrote: »

The apathy is from those who didn't get what they want, and feel, that somehow, even in a minority, they should still get what they want.

The thing is, the people who didn't get what they want are not a minority. They're the majority.

AllForIt wrote: »

Of course loosing means you don't get representation. To expert to get representation no matter what is the wormy rhetoric of loosers.

Then you should oppose FPTP, AFI, not support it. Not only this time but nerarly always FPTP gives majority representation to the minority, and minority representation to the majority.

But I think you have missed Tell me How's point. His complaint wasn't that so much that people didn't get the representation that they voted for as that they got poor quality representatation. And that's unquestionably true, since so many voters live in safe seats where the MP is effectively chosen not by the voters but by the party selection committee, and party selection committees tend to favour qualities like mindless obedience and slavish loyalty that don't necessarily make for a good representative. The result is an awful lot of backbench MPs who are solid bone from ear to ear, who simply parrot talking points provided to them by party head office which they frequently do not or even cannot understand, and who pay no attention at all to the views or interests of their constituents. They're called "lobby fodder", and they're a long-established and long-recognised feature of the UK party system.

The parties like this because having too much talent and ambition on the backbenches is considered destabilising. But from time to time - like right now - it leads to a dearth of talent throughout the party that is seriously harmful to the country. Few would deny that we are living through a time which both sides of British politics have been characterised by characterised by extremely poor leadership, in which a second-rate party leader surrounds himself with third-rate people, and seeks to purge anyone whose talent or aptitude might threaten his position. Labour might be coming out of that - it's too soon to say - but the Tories are still mired in it. And it isn't serving the UK well.

All of this is a bit of a deviation from the topic of the thread, which is whether Ireland would benefit from a snap election. But it was you who introduced the question of whether we would be better off if our elections were conducted under the FPTP system. And we only have to look at the experience of our nearest neighbour for powerful evidence that, no, we would not be.

lawrencesummers

I like the way people suggest a boarder Poll as if to think the people in the South would or should have a vote.

The future of the North is for the people of the North to decide. If the people of the North decide democratically to become part of the South, then by all means give us in the South a vote to decide if we want that to happen.

Millionaire only not

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I like the way people suggest a boarder Poll as if to think the people in the South would or should have a vote.

The future of the North is for the people of the North to decide. If the people of the North decide democratically to become part of the South, then by all means give us in the South a vote to decide if we want that to happen.

Understand not all people in the south want the northern people to join us , our economy is bad enough besides taking on that black hole up there .

Boarder poll will people grow up with all that’s going on .

TheValeyard

Yeah, I do think there could be a snap election this Autumn alright.

dere34

It's looking likely now.

LostinBlanch

I think they'll try and ride it out and hold on for the next two years at least. Why two years you ask? Well that's when the new TD's and ministers pensions kick in.

christy c

Does anyone know if its even possible to have an election at the moment with current restrictions? How woild it work logistically? Possibly having it over 2 or 3 days might work.

Coillte_Bhoy

touts wrote: »

Election yes. And this golfgate fiasco could well be the final straw that brings that about.

Border poll? **** all chance. Only a vocal minority want it and more importantly true Republicans don't because they know it wont pass at the moment. That sort of a vote is a once in a generation vote and they won't blow it to keep a few yellow pack Republicans happy.

Wrong, can be held every 7 years after the first one

Irishman80

Irishman80 wrote: »

Border poll?

Best of luck finding the annual 10-20 billion euro the North will need while their economy adjusts, if it ever will.

And that's assuming it will be a peaceful reunification.

Westminster would subsidise it for an agreed period of time. They've wanted rid of it for decades.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Westminster would subsidise it for an agreed period of time. They've wanted rid of it for decades.

Yeah, definitely see that happening during a recession and with the Brexit mentality.

Brexiteers won't want to lose NI within the next 10 years because to do so will both indicate that Breixt lead to the split of the UK/NI and will giver further ammunition to separatists in Scotland.

Edgware

GT89 wrote: »

This government will last the full 4 years mark my word for it. I thought the same about the last government and was wrong. They will last.

Hang together or all hang separately

Dank Janniels

The Dail has only been in session for less than 2 months, doubt any of them wants to head out to the people again any time soon. Especially the 1s who seem to be invisible during the Covid crisis and the Gov formation talks

Tell me how

Covid itself is a valid reason not to have an election. Door to door campaigning can't happen, neither should leaflet drops.

And anyway, who has shown themselves that they would behave any differently? A government is only going to be formed with a combination of SF, FF, FG. None of them are in a position to appear all righteous.

I'd be happy to settle with the unmitigated disaster it has been so far in making everyone cop on for 12 months or so at least.