Dublin Bay South By-Election

PhilOssophy

To be honest, I am tired of career protest politicians sitting in the opposition benches bleating about how everything is wrong and earning more than they could ever dream of with their level of education.

Maybe we need to see how Mr "Up the RA" gets on as Minister for Health. Or Pearse in Finance when he realises where wealth is generated in this country as it is.

Lets see where the money comes out of, and if indeed it is as simple as taxing corporations and the wealthy (in their mind, those earning over 60k, paying for everything they own, getting nothing for nothing) to pay their many promises on everything for everyone.

expectationlost

this election is about one seat, where it will probably stay in the same party

Blut2

Blut2 wrote: »

Hopefully SF will be in coalition with some of the more mainstream left-wing parties like Labour, the Greens and the SocDems. If those parties have a decent number of TDs at the time they should keep SF from doing anything too crazy. And they'll bring some previous government experience to the table. An SF one-party government, or even worse SF and PBP, would be where things would really go of the rails I'd say.

I don't mind if they go in with Labour, no offence to any Labour Party supporters but that party is already hobbling towards the grave.

My main concern is what happens after Sinn Fein inevitably fails to meet expectations of the most vulnerable people in society? We can look to the legacy of Mitterand in France -- the great expectation after having unified the Left, the crushing disappointment, and the ensuing disaster for French socialism.

I hope the genuine Irish Left will be wiser than to participate in any coalition with SF. Let them take Labour and the Soc Dems, I wish them the best of luck, adieu!

Sorry, that's off topic. But in a way it's not, because SF's performance in DBS, of all places, is a good measure of appetite for change

RandomViewer

Blut2 wrote: »

Hopefully SF will be in coalition with some of the more mainstream left-wing parties like Labour, the Greens and the SocDems. If those parties have a decent number of TDs at the time they should keep SF from doing anything too crazy. And they'll bring some previous government experience to the table. An SF one-party government, or even worse SF and PBP, would be where things would really go of the rails I'd say.

Greens are not Left, truth be told nearly every member of the Green party would be the sort of person you'd have found joining the church 40 years ago,

PommieBast

RandomViewer wrote: »

Greens are not Left, truth be told nearly every member of the Green party would be the sort of person you'd have found joining the church 40 years ago,

Not sure the same can be said of Green voters though..

Sam Russell

RandomViewer wrote: »

Greens are not Left, truth be told nearly every member of the Green party would be the sort of person you'd have found joining the church 40 years ago,

I think that is not true.

Many are very much left wing I would have thought, and would certainly consider themselves social democrats.

They are not populists - that is true, and many of the current 'left' parties are just populists - being against LPT (property is wealth and should be taxed - fundamental left wing policy), and being against water charges (again a usage charge to pay for infrastructure - they are not against electricity or gas charges).

They recognise that money has to be found to pay for their proposals, and are not in the 'free money' wing of the PBP, SF, or other 'left wing' parties. They are very much in favour of financial responsibility with regard to the environment - which is becoming ever more urgent. Now - is that left wing?

RandomViewer

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think that is not true.

Many are very much left wing I would have thought, and would certainly consider themselves social democrats.

They are not populists - that is true, and many of the current 'left' parties are just populists - being against LPT (property is wealth and should be taxed - fundamental left wing policy), and being against water charges (again a usage charge to pay for infrastructure - they are not against electricity or gas charges).

They recognise that money has to be found to pay for their proposals, and are not in the 'free money' wing of the PBP, SF, or other 'left wing' parties. They are very much in favour of financial responsibility with regard to the environment - which is becoming ever more urgent. Now - is that left wing?

You seem to be avoiding my assertion that many Green party representative are of a mindset which formerly manifested itself in the church " do as I say not as I do"

PhilOssophy

RandomViewer wrote: »

You seem to be avoiding my assertion that many Green party representative are of a mindset which formerly manifested itself in the church " do as I say not as I do"

I agree. Its like the Green Party is the latest fad cult for them. There's a certain element of virtue signallers in the Green Party, that is absolutely undeniable. Remember the time they flew that enormous balloon of Donald Trump over from the UK (by Hazel Chu's own admission) for some protest they were holding?

I'm sure for every one of them who live a green life and espouse the values of such, there's another who is all over social media saying that they are vegan and cyclists and a friend of the earth, and yet hop on planes everywhere without a seconds thought. I know a few of these myself.

blackwhite

Blut2 wrote: »

Hopefully SF will be in coalition with some of the more mainstream left-wing parties like Labour, the Greens and the SocDems. If those parties have a decent number of TDs at the time they should keep SF from doing anything too crazy. And they'll bring some previous government experience to the table. An SF one-party government, or even worse SF and PBP, would be where things would really go of the rails I'd say.

The first step of going into a coalition is negotiating a PfG with prospective coalition partners.

PBP can barely agree amongst themselves on where to go to lunch without the threat of a split - the concept of having to compromise on anything in order to a agree a coalition would be beyond them.

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

PBP can barely agree amongst themselves on where to go to lunch without the threat of a split - the concept of having to compromise on anything in order to a agree a coalition would be beyond them.

They argue a lot, that's true, but their arguments have a theoretical basis grounded in core ethical beliefs.

Our system rewards parties whose debates revolve around seeking power. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have no theoretical underpinning. They are in the business of getting elected, no more than that.

The Left has real ideas That's their downfall.

Larbre34

Green Party voters in Ireland, are everyone.

At the moment, we are in the third Green tide, the first of which was around the late 80s/early 90s.

What happens is, thanks to our PR-STV, every so often, voters for actual parties send a preference to Green candidates. As time goes on, those preferences get a wee bit higher, because as time passes, the voter forgets the damage that voting Green does, both to their pockets and to the delivery of homes and businesses and energy and roads and stuff and so they throw them a preference to feel better about themselves. Then, whoops, quite by accident, all that largesse adds up to 12 seats!

And then the next election comes around and all that is fresh in people's minds and so the tide goes out again.

The Greens policy is to try and penalise people for just about everything, to empty pockets, reduce choice and to inflict shame. Whereas the actual parties have the good sense to incentivise positive environmental behaviour and put a green hue on all their policies rather than bashing people over the head with a big green bat.

And so in the 2024 locals and Europeans and the 2025 General election, thats precisley what I expect to happen again.

blackwhite

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

They argue a lot, that's true, but their arguments have a theoretical basis grounded in core ethical beliefs.

Our system rewards parties whose debates revolve around seeking power. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have no theoretical underpinning. They are in the business of getting elected, no more than that.

The Left has real ideas That's their downfall.

Nonsense. Any serious party should be focused on being able to get as much of their policies implemented as possible. FF, FG, Labour - and lately the Greens and SF, all realise that you can only implement policies if you get into power.

Both FF and FG have broad centrist ideoligies, with FF having typically leaned centre-left and FG leaning centre-right. But both parties (and the same can be said for Labour) have always realised that getting some of your wish-list and compromising on other elements is better than refusing to compromise and getting nothing.

SF have, IMO, veered far too much into populism in chasing votes, but ultimately it's the same pragmatism underpinning them as well. You can't implement your core policies by shouting on the sidelines, and they've made it clear that their aim is to get into power.

Much of the Irish left are blind slaves to their ideology, and see any sort of compromise on any issue (minor or major) as a betrayal.
They'd much rather achieve nothing but be able to pat each other on the back for remaining ideologically pure.

Brussels Sprout

Larbre34 wrote: »

What happens is, thanks to our PR-STV, every so often, voters for actual parties send a preference to Green candidates. As time goes on, those preferences get a wee bit higher, because as time passes, the voter forgets the damage that voting Green does, both to their pockets and to the delivery of homes and businesses and energy and roads and stuff and so they throw them a preference to feel better about themselves. Then, whoops, quite by accident, all that largesse adds up to 12 seats!

Wow. Condescending much? It's also flat out wrong. The Greens got the fourth highest number of first preference votes in the last election and ended up with the fourth highest number of seats.

You make it sound like if people need to rely on lower preference votes to get elected then they are somehow illegitimate, despite the fact that probably 80% of the TDs required transfers to get elected. That included many ministers, for example:

• Leo Varadkar (5th count),
• Paschal Donohue (9th count - didn't reach the quota),
• Simon Harris (15th count - didn't reach the quota),
• Michael McGrath (8th count - didn't reach the quota)
• Stephen Donnelly (15th count - didn't reach the quota)

(all members of "actual parties")

L1011

The recent, clearly SF led narrative that you are somehow less legitimate if you don't get in on the first count is going to come back and bite them hard if they, as looks almost guaranteed, end up getting a significant number of second seats - as those will often end up being one early and one late, or both late in the count.

Sam Russell

L1011 wrote: »

The recent, clearly SF led narrative that you are somehow less legitimate if you don't get in on the first count is going to come back and bite them hard if they, as looks almost guaranteed, end up getting a significant number of second seats - as those will often end up being one early and one late, or both late in the count.

A TD that gets elected on the first count, or elected as not having reached the quota is just as much a TD. That is how STV works. To claim otherwise is to not understand this.

SF also claimed they won the GE by getting the most seats, but they still ended up in opposition, having only got a quarter of the first preferences.

Trying to game the STV/multi seat system is tricky and has caught out many that have tried - too many candidates and split the vote and too few and miss out.

El Tarangu

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

They argue a lot, that's true, but their arguments have a theoretical basis grounded in core ethical beliefs.

...
The Left has real ideas That's their downfall.

Is this the case, though? As another poster pointed out, all of the hard-left parties in Ireland are in favour of reducing or abolishing property taxes. While this is the anathema of left wing ideology, it is something that is quite popular among voters.

breezy1985

El Tarangu wrote: »

Is this the case, though? As another poster pointed out, all of the hard-left parties in Ireland are in favour of reducing or abolishing property taxes. While this is the anathema of left wing ideology, it is something that is quite popular among voters.

From what I can remember in the last GE Labour were the only party brave enough to say they would not lower taxes. Everyone everyone went for populism

AndrewJRenko

blackwhite wrote: »

The first step of going into a coalition is negotiating a PfG with prospective coalition partners.

PBP can barely agree amongst themselves on where to go to lunch without the threat of a split - the concept of having to compromise on anything in order to a agree a coalition would be beyond them.

At a guess, PBP will play SF at SF's own game - they'll stay out of Govt on their left flank, snapping and snapping for the duration about any practical compromises, and claiming the mantle of the 'true left' just as SF did to Labour.

Good loser

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

They will definitely lose support when they enter government. Two reasons especiallly jump out:

For the record, I didn't say it was easily solved. I said "all they have to do is...". That doesn't mean that it's easy.

It's analogous to an oil tanker going in the wrong direction. In order to get it back on track all you have to do is turn it around. That's not an easy task but unless you do it you're not going to solve the issue. Right now FF/FG are trying to turn that oil tanker by firing up the engines to make it go faster but have decided that using the rudder to steer it is off limits.

There's no difference between the two highlighted positions.
Your tanker analogy does not correspond. When you say 'all you have to do is turn it around' the clear implication is that this is a simple manoeuvre.

Annasopra

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

At a guess, PBP will play SF at SF's own game - they'll stay out of Govt on their left flank, snapping and snapping for the duration about any practical compromises, and claiming the mantle of the 'true left' just as SF did to Labour.

Honestly I am beginning to think at the next election that all the small left parties will be crushed by SF dominance. SF will want 2nd seats where Labour, Soc Dems, PBP, Solidarity, Greens have seats and you may end with almost no left opposition at all. The current group of TDs from PBP, Solidarity, Greens, Soc Dems snd less so labour all benefited from SFs surpluses. If SF run many 2nd candidates there wont be spare surpluses. My thinking is that PBP/Sol, Labour, Soc Dems will all get 3ish seats and Greens 0. So it would be optimstic to think PBP could play that game.

breezy1985

Annasopra wrote: »

Honestly I am beginning to think at the next election that all the small left parties will be crushed by SF dominance. SF will want 2nd seats where Labour, Soc Dems, PBP, Solidarity, Greens have seats and you may end with almost no left opposition at all. The current group of TDs from PBP, Solidarity, Greens, Soc Dems snd less so labour all benefited from SFs surpluses. If SF run many 2nd candidates there wont be spare surpluses. My thinking is that PBP/Sol, Labour, Soc Dems will all get 3ish seats and Greens 0. So it would be optimstic to think PBP could play that game.

I think most of the ones still hanging on are strong at a local level though so some will hang on but certainly the Dublin PBP/Sol+ TDs benifited from a lack of available SF transfers

blackwhite

RBB will still get a seat

Outside of that Bríd Smith might sneak the final seat in Dublin South Central if SF only run two candidates there, and Gino Kenny is in a similar situation in Dublin Mid-West.

Paul Murphy might squeeze the final seat in Dublin SW with the Greens missing out, but hard to see where he gets the transfers to hang on into the later counts if SF have a strong second candidate

Yurt2

PhilOssophy wrote: »

To be honest, I am tired of career protest politicians sitting in the opposition benches bleating about how everything is wrong and earning more than they could ever dream of with their level of education.

Maybe we need to see how Mr "Up the RA" gets on as Minister for Health. Or Pearse in Finance when he realises where wealth is generated in this country as it is.

Lets see where the money comes out of, and if indeed it is as simple as taxing corporations and the wealthy (in their mind, those earning over 60k, paying for everything they own, getting nothing for nothing) to pay their many promises on everything for everyone.

This is a white noise angryman post. There's plenty of dunderheaded TDs on the government side of the house and always has been that are promoted way above their station if we're parsing through their education. Who can forget Bertie trying to make out he was a graduate of the London School of Economics when all he did was register for a course or Simon Harris the college dropout?

We're a parliamentary democracy, do you want the opposition to throw a ticker-tape parade for the government every day?

Immature white noise.

Yurt2

Dempo1 wrote: »

I think Leo loosing the plot, From pronouncements on a united Ireland ( never seemed to care till recently ), 40k homes a year ( since when did FG give a damn about home ownership, O yes, when they brought in property Tax, silly me ), and then today announcing the Pandemic is over during a very tetchy interview on the week in politics. Perhaps this by-election getting to him or could it be the Polls? Something certainly seems to be very distracting him.

A second SF seat in ground zero upper middle-class FG territory isn't just a black eye, it's the beginning of the end for Varadkar.

Whispers (and this is second-hand info) that internally he's regarded as a busted flush in FG, his hollow sneery Macronist style just isn't popular. It was fine as long as people thought the party was going in the right direction electorally, but it's going the opposite way.

He's done a great deal of damage to FG as a political movement (never mind twiddling his thumbs as the rolling sh*tbomb of housing annoys more people by the day). Many don't want to admit it as they all hopped aboard the hype train when he was elected, but they'll have a hard time shaking the image he created for the party. This is how he'll be regarded in time.

Larbre34

Annasopra wrote: »

Honestly I am beginning to think at the next election that all the small left parties will be crushed by SF dominance. SF will want 2nd seats where Labour, Soc Dems, PBP, Solidarity, Greens have seats and you may end with almost no left opposition at all. The current group of TDs from PBP, Solidarity, Greens, Soc Dems snd less so labour all benefited from SFs surpluses. If SF run many 2nd candidates there wont be spare surpluses. My thinking is that PBP/Sol, Labour, Soc Dems will all get 3ish seats and Greens 0. So it would be optimstic to think PBP could play that game.

Not so sure. One thing the far lefties and left independents have is name recognition, lots of media face time. That counts for a huge amount.

SF have 37 seats. Most people would be hard pressed to name 10 of them. Like me, they probably only rate half that number again as serious operators.

SF have had their protest vote. In this Dáil, they are being scrutinised for substance and talent. Unless they can start doing very much better for candidates than the likes of a Violet Anne Wynne or a Brian Stanley or a Rose Conway Walsh, I would suggest there is no certainty whatsoever of them taking out the Brid Smyths and the Gino Kennys to add second, or even first seats.

Certainly stunts like last night's will live long in voter's memories.

PhilOssophy

Yurt! wrote: »

This is a white noise angryman post. There's plenty of dunderheaded TDs on the government side of the house and always has been that are promoted way above their station if we're parsing through their education. Who can forget Bertie trying to make out he was a graduate of the London School of Economics when all he did was register for a course or Simon Harris the college dropout?

We're a parliamentary democracy, do you want the opposition to throw a ticker-tape parade for the government every day?

Immature white noise.

Did I say somewhere that there wasn't idiots in the government? Eoghan Murphy, James Reilly, etc are springing to mind as I have already pointed out in earlier posts.

But at least they aren't just sitting in the bleachers complaining and making a salary they wouldn't earn outside the 4 walls in the process. Its like the lad in every club, who complains about everything but does nothing. The opposition benches are full of these career complainers.

Put them in to bat and see how easy they find it.

RandomViewer

breezy1985 wrote: »

From what I can remember in the last GE Labour were the only party brave enough to say they would not lower taxes. Everyone everyone went for populism

Tackling the misuse of tax money is what they should be doing, cronies getting money for nothing has to stop, the likes of Redacted and Johnny the dwarf on the state tit is just wrong

timmyntc

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Did I say somewhere that there wasn't idiots in the government? Eoghan Murphy, James Reilly, etc are springing to mind as I have already pointed out in earlier posts.

But at least they aren't just sitting in the bleachers complaining and making a salary they wouldn't earn outside the 4 walls in the process. Its like the lad in every club, who complains about everything but does nothing. The opposition benches are full of these career complainers.

Put them in to bat and see how easy they find it.

The whole point of opposition is to complain about every thing the government does wrong. Thats literally the point of the job - if they agreed with all the governments actions then there would be no opposition.

Were FG or FF in opposition those people you mentioned would be doing just that, "sitting in the bleachers complaining and making a salary".
No party in this country (or any country) has a full bench of quality TDs, there are always plenty just there to make up the numbers. Its not unique to one party either, just look at all the candidates for this by-election.

PhilOssophy

timmyntc wrote: »

The whole point of opposition is to complain about every thing the government does wrong. Thats literally the point of the job - if they agreed with all the governments actions then there would be no opposition.

Were FG or FF in opposition those people you mentioned would be doing just that, "sitting in the bleachers complaining and making a salary".
No party in this country (or any country) has a full bench of quality TDs, there are always plenty just there to make up the numbers. Its not unique to one party either, just look at all the candidates for this by-election.

I will repeat myself, as I said already I know parties have plenty of useless people. Lets face it, what clever person would want to do the job of a TD.

But the difference is, when FG/FF in opposition, they complain about stuff and then at least try to do what they complained about in opposition. The easiest thing in the world is to sit in a PBP/SF/Independent Dail seat, have no desire whatsoever to govern, and trouser a salary for literally spending your life bickering and doing nothing to help.

Yurt2

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I will repeat myself, as I said already I know parties have plenty of useless people. Lets face it, what clever person would want to do the job of a TD.

But the difference is, when FG/FF in opposition, they complain about stuff and then at least try to do what they complained about in opposition. The easiest thing in the world is to sit in a PBP/SF/Independent Dail seat, have no desire whatsoever to govern, and trouser a salary for literally spending your life bickering and doing nothing to help.

This is more white noise. Seriously.

PhilOssophy

Yurt! wrote: »

This is more white noise. Seriously.

Is that the best you could offer as a counter argument? Lame.

breezy1985

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I will repeat myself, as I said already I know parties have plenty of useless people. Lets face it, what clever person would want to do the job of a TD.

But the difference is, when FG/FF in opposition, they complain about stuff and then at least try to do what they complained about in opposition. The easiest thing in the world is to sit in a PBP/SF/Independent Dail seat, have no desire whatsoever to govern, and trouser a salary for literally spending your life bickering and doing nothing to help.

What really puts me off most of those groups is they spend more time during elections making cheap attacks on the so called "fake left" parties like Labour just to win cheap votes rather than attack the actual right

Yurt2

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Is that the best you could offer as a counter argument? Lame.

Your argument isn't even an arguement in the first place. So there's nothing to do with it. It's literally white noise angryman stuff you're repeating from someone else.

You're heading for a SF government next time out btw. So I'm not sure how you'll express your white noise there.

timmyntc

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I will repeat myself, as I said already I know parties have plenty of useless people. Lets face it, what clever person would want to do the job of a TD.

But the difference is, when FG/FF in opposition, they complain about stuff and then at least try to do what they complained about in opposition. The easiest thing in the world is to sit in a PBP/SF/Independent Dail seat, have no desire whatsoever to govern, and trouser a salary for literally spending your life bickering and doing nothing to help.

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Is that the best you could offer as a counter argument? Lame.

The absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Just because SF and other opposition parties havent been in govt doesnt mean they would flip flop on every position (unlike FF/FG, who having been in govt and opposition, we know they only flipflop on some positions).

You are trying to use a total lack of evidence to support your point - you or I or anyone does not know what PBP/SF/Independents would do if in govt, so unless you can support your points you can stop posting.

Yurt2

breezy1985 wrote: »

What really puts me off most of those groups is they spend more time during elections making cheap attacks on the so called "fake left" parties like Labour just to win cheap votes rather than attack the actual right

I have an aversion to the alphabet soup parties for my own reasons, but Labour haven't been a Labour party for a couple of decades. They're like someone wearing an Atari t-shirt when Atari has been dead for years.

The zombification of the grand old parties of the left is a phenomenon all across Europe.

I don't know what individuals Aodhán Ó Ríordáin or Alan Kelly think about when they put their head to the pillow each evening, but it's not the conditions of working people of the country.

It's a hollowed out legacy brand.

PhilOssophy

timmyntc wrote: »

The absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Just because SF and other opposition parties havent been in govt doesnt mean they would flip flop on every position (unlike FF/FG, who having been in govt and opposition, we know they only flipflop on some positions).

You are trying to use a total lack of evidence to support your point - you or I or anyone does not know what PBP/SF/Independents would do if in govt, so unless you can support your points you can stop posting.

You won't tell me to stop posting, thank you. This is an opinion board and if you don't agree, tell me why I am wrong rather than telling me to stop posting.

How can I be expected to support a claim when SF had a perfect opportunity to put up and shut up after the last election and chose not to even make any attempt to form a government?

I stand by my original point - there are career opposition TD's who only ever want that - because being in government means making difficult and unpopular decisions.


If you have a problem with my opinion, that's your problem.

timmyntc

PhilOssophy wrote: »

You won't tell me to stop posting, thank you. This is an opinion board and if you don't agree, tell me why I am wrong rather than telling me to stop posting.

My opinion is there are career opposition TD's who only ever want that - because being in government means making difficult and unpopular decisions.

How can I be expected to support a claim when SF had a perfect opportunity to put up and shut up after the last election and chose not to even make any attempt to form a government?

If you have a problem with my opinion, that's your problem.

I have already told you why you are wrong. IIRC SF did attempt to form a government, PBP et al wouldnt go for it, FG would not, and neither would FF. The numbers weren't there. But dont let that get in the way of your SF bashing - which is not really relevant to this thread either.

PhilOssophy

timmyntc wrote: »

I have already told you why you are wrong. IIRC SF did attempt to form a government, PBP et al wouldnt go for it, FG would not, and neither would FF. The numbers weren't there. But dont let that get in the way of your SF bashing - which is not really relevant to this thread either.

I'm not bashing SF - I'm saying there are lots of TD's who are guilty of this. The most guilty being the former FF/FG ones who threw their toys out of the pram to spend their lives as Independents.

I don't think SF tried any harder than FF/FG did to form a government with them in all honesty.

But anyway, back to the subject.

Annasopra

Nominations closed

15 Candidates

https://www.dublincityreturningofficer.com/

blanch152

timmyntc wrote: »

I have already told you why you are wrong. IIRC SF did attempt to form a government, PBP et al wouldnt go for it, FG would not, and neither would FF. The numbers weren't there. But dont let that get in the way of your SF bashing - which is not really relevant to this thread either.

https://www.pbp.ie/open-letter-to-sinn-fein/


In fact it was the other way round. PBP wrote to Sinn Fein several times seeking talks, (see link for one example) but Sinn Fein never seriously responded. The problem for Sinn Fein was that PBP were the only party who were willing to talk to them. Nobody else wanted any truck with them.

blackwhite

Hadn’t heard that Cahill was running.

Herself and Barrett will be splitting the massive pool of right-wing conspiracy theorist votes

Brussels Sprout

blackwhite wrote: »

Hadn’t heard that Cahill was running.

Herself and Barrett will be splitting the massive pool of right-wing conspiracy theorist votes

There's a Renua candidate as well. She doesn't appear to have a twitter account so I can't tell how much of a Head The Ball she is.

Renua + IFP got 2.2% of the vote in the constituency last year. It'll be interesting to see if Renua + IFP + NP get higher than that this time around.

I have a sneaking suspicion that they will. That election was held prior to the Pandemic and I think there is a certain percentage of the population who have spent far too much time during lockdown reading conspiracy theories online who will be drawn to those parties.

Sam Russell

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

There's a Renua candidate as well. She doesn't appear to have a twitter account so I can't tell how much of a Head The Ball she is.

Renua + IFP got 2.2% of the vote in the constituency last year. It'll be interesting to see if Renua + IFP + NP get higher than that this time around.

I have a sneaking suspicion that they will. That election was held prior to the Pandemic and I think there is a certain percentage of the population who have spent far too much time during lockdown reading conspiracy theories online who will be drawn to those parties.

Three similar candidates, pursuing similar agendas will get more votes than each would get if only one were to run. Each has voters that would give one a chance but not the others - surely they have a few non-political friends. However, it is unlikely that their combined vote will be in any way decisive.

This is a byelection with a quota of 50%, so any successful candidate will not get that quota without significant transfers. Where they come from will be important for the major parties. Of the fifteen candidates, at least 10 are no-hopers.

PhilOssophy

Sam Russell wrote: »

Of the fifteen candidates, at least 10 are no-hopers.

I reckon 12. Only 3 candidates have any hope of winning this - Geoghegan, Bacik and Boylan.

Sam Russell

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I reckon 12. Only 3 candidates have any hope of winning this - Geoghegan, Bacik and Boylan.

Just because you are not in the top three does not make you a no-hoper. Much can happen between now and election day.

Peregrine

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I reckon 12. Only 3 candidates have any hope of winning this - Geoghegan, Bacik and Boylan.

While Claire Byrne didn't have much of a chance of getting elected when she was nominated, she's been gaining ground whereas Bacik has been losing it. I don't think Byrne will win but I wouldn't put her in the same category as the rest.

Peregrine

Peregrine wrote: »

While Claire Byrne didn't have much of a chance of getting elected when she was nominated, she's been gaining ground whereas Bacik has been losing it. I don't think Byrne will win but I wouldn't put her in the same category as the rest.

Yeah, I put a fiver on Byrne last week, I don't really gamble but Paddy Power were offering 33/1 which seemed a bit nuts. She's 6/1 now.

I don't wanna be pushing gambling in people's faces either, but since we don't have polls, they're somewhat useful

No other big changes, Geoghegan still clear favourite.
https://www.paddypower.com/politics/irish-politics

PhilOssophy

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yeah, I put a fiver on Byrne last week, I don't really gamble but Paddy Power were offering 33/1 which seemed a bit nuts. She's 6/1 now.

I don't wanna be pushing gambling in people's faces either, but since we don't have polls, they're somewhat useful

No other big changes, Geoghegan still clear favourite.
https://www.paddypower.com/politics/irish-politics

You must not have been the only one with the idea! I actually forgot her from my 3 above to be honest. But she's an outsider and not worth a punt at 6/1. At 33/1, I can see why you did it!

breezy1985

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yeah, I put a fiver on Byrne last week, I don't really gamble but Paddy Power were offering 33/1 which seemed a bit nuts. She's 6/1 now.

I don't wanna be pushing gambling in people's faces either, but since we don't have polls, they're somewhat useful

No other big changes, Geoghegan still clear favourite.
https://www.paddypower.com/politics/irish-politics

You clearly were not involved in the US election thread at around 3am on the night

Annasopra

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

There's a Renua candidate as well. She doesn't appear to have a twitter account so I can't tell how much of a Head The Ball she is.

Renua + IFP got 2.2% of the vote in the constituency last year. It'll be interesting to see if Renua + IFP + NP get higher than that this time around.

I have a sneaking suspicion that they will. That election was held prior to the Pandemic and I think there is a certain percentage of the population who have spent far too much time during lockdown reading conspiracy theories online who will be drawn to those parties.

Shes running on an anti lockdown platform. All 3 of them are to an extent.