Dublin Bay South By-Election

jm08

Yurt! wrote: »

Because pops going to prison is great news for the family unit?

Call me crazy, but when a custodial sentencing is warranted, there should be as much consistency between male and female sentences for the same crimes.

Well, id be all for pops to be dealt leniantly (and I'm pretty sure Ivana would as well) with if his crime is for shoplifting some baby's nappies rather than getting 3 months as happened to that Nigerian woman.

Sam Russell

KevRossi wrote: »

I think it's looking very much like Geoghegan will top the poll, Bacik next and the rest will be also rans. Next step is transfers. I think Bacik will do better than Geoghegan on this for various reasons.

But can she catch him?

What sort of a headstart do ye think does Geoghegan need to beat Bacik? The poll above gives him 27% to Bacik's 22%. I persoanlly don't think that's enough, I think he'd need to be 9 or 10 points ahead on the first count.

If people are going to put in a few preferences, then she has a very good chance, but if not, then it will help him.

Will also help Bacik if Byrne is the last to be eliminated as she'll transfer heavily to her.

It will be interesting. It's an insignificant by-election as it won't change the balance of power but it's fun to look at.

Well, looking at the poll figures for 1st and 2nd preferences, and adding them we have:

J G - 42%; IB - 31% ; LB 19%; CB 36%.

Now the second preferences would suggest who is transfer friendly and who is not, and so one would assume that getting a No 2 is indicative of getting a No 3 or a No 4 as a voter marks down the card. Clearly Claire Byrne is very transfer friendly and Lynne Boylan is not at all transfer friendly.

So the final shakedown will be between JG, IB, and CB. Now as the count goes on, the Labour and Green candidates will improve their vote (because they are transfer friendly) and keep ahead of the others (assuming JG is topping the first preference vote).

Now, it all depends on how the transfers go as to which two candidates are in the final shout. It is likely that no candidate will reach the quota.

From that, I would place CB and JG as the last two, but the figures posted are not accurate enough, or the race to close, to call the result.

Yurt2

jm08 wrote: »

Well, id be all for pops to be dealt leniantly (and I'm pretty sure Ivana would as well) with if his crime is for shoplifting some baby's nappies rather than getting 3 months as happened to that Nigerian woman.

Something tells me it doesn't keep her awake at night.

AndrewJRenko

Yurt! wrote: »

Something tells me it doesn't keep her awake at night.

Do you think rights for female prisoners keeps Mattie awake at night?

Yurt2

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think rights for female prisoners keeps Mattie awake at night?

Bit of a non-sequitur there.

KevRossi

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, looking at the poll figures for 1st and 2nd preferences, and adding them we have:

J G - 42%; IB - 31% ; LB 19%; CB 36%.

Now the second preferences would suggest who is transfer friendly and who is not, and so one would assume that getting a No 2 is indicative of getting a No 3 or a No 4 as a voter marks down the card. Clearly Claire Byrne is very transfer friendly and Lynne Boylan is not at all transfer friendly.

So the final shakedown will be between JG, IB, and CB. Now as the count goes on, the Labour and Green candidates will improve their vote (because they are transfer friendly) and keep ahead of the others (assuming JG is topping the first preference vote).

Now, it all depends on how the transfers go as to which two candidates are in the final shout. It is likely that no candidate will reach the quota.

From that, I would place CB and JG as the last two, but the figures posted are not accurate enough, or the race to close, to call the result.

That's not how it works. You can't just add up 100% of transfers to one candidate. Not even in a rough estimate.

You'd start eliminating the lower candidates first. Not sure about Conroy's votes, but SD/PBP/Ind etc. will almost all go left. But some of them won't transfer at all as a lot of people just tick '1' and that's it.

Then you start eliminating the others - the 'Big 5' of FG-Lab-GP-SF-FF.
I think Conroy will go first, (as FF are less transfer friendly of those who were eliminated), then Boylan. Not sure where Conroy's votes will go but should be evenly split.

Then Boylan goes (I'm pretty sure Byrne will be ahead of her, but I could be wrong), and she should transfer more to GP and Lab. But overall her votes won't transfer as much. I think she will have a lot of '1' only votes.

That leaves Byrne in 3rd place as she will be suffering from not having first preferences. Then I think she will transfer more heavily to Bacik for a number of reasons. Namely there's an older demographic in DBS who traditionally will vote alternatively to the big parties. Bacik is a progressive woman which is attractive to some as well. As I said, nothing will change in the Dail after this election so people can afford to vote for who they want.

That's why I think if Bacik can be within 8 points of Geoghegan after first preferences are counted, then she has a really good shot at it.

AndrewJRenko

KevRossi wrote: »

That's not how it works. You can't just add up 100% of transfers to one candidate. Not even in a rough estimate.

You'd start eliminating the lower candidates first. Not sure about Conroy's votes, but SD/PBP/Ind etc. will almost all go left. But some of them won't transfer at all as a lot of people just tick '1' and that's it.

Then you start eliminating the others - the 'Big 5' of FG-Lab-GP-SF-FF.
I think Conroy will go first, (as FF are less transfer friendly of those who were eliminated), then Boylan. Not sure where Conroy's votes will go but should be evenly split.

Then Boylan goes (I'm pretty sure Byrne will be ahead of her, but I could be wrong), and she should transfer more to GP and Lab. But overall her votes won't transfer as much. I think she will have a lot of '1' only votes.

That leaves Byrne in 3rd place as she will be suffering from not having first preferences. Then I think she will transfer more heavily to Bacik for a number of reasons. Namely there's an older demographic in DBS who traditionally will vote alternatively to the big parties. Bacik is a progressive woman which is attractive to some as well. As I said, nothing will change in the Dail after this election so people can afford to vote for who they want.

That's why I think if Bacik can be within 8 points of Geoghegan after first preferences are counted, then she has a really good shot at it.

It's likely to be a very interesting count, will be an interesting one to watch.

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Did you read her article? She's looking for access to open prison for women, something men have had for decades.

Looks like it was already covered by another poster, but the article also says

The services will develop a range of options to provide an effective alternative to custody and improved outcomes, for women; and enhanced integration for women offenders in the community.

She complained about there being no open prisons for women, but advocates for no prison at all.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're putting 2 + 2 together to make 17.

She doesn't say anything about male sentencing in that article, good,bad,or indifferent. She calls for changes to female sentencing in their own right, not relative to males.

She specifically does not call for female sentencing to be different to male. She is silent on male sentencing in the article.

Stop imposing your assumptions.

AJR, come on now. You're really clutching at straws now. She stays silent on male sentencing because she doesn't care about male sentencing. If she did care, she would be advocating for alternatives men, or at the very least, parents.

You are playing with words by saying she is silent on mens sentencing. By calling for non-custodial sentencing for women, she is supporting gender sentencing disparity which already exists and is pushing for more disparity in favour of women.

Do you support Ivanas views for non-custodial sentences for women?

El Tarangu

...Ghost... wrote: »

AJR, come on now. You're really clutching at straws now. She stays silent on male sentencing because she doesn't care about male sentencing. If she did care, she would be advocating for alternatives men, or at the very least, parents.

The conference was about imprisoned women, it would be a bit odd if Bacik started holding forth on a different topic - I think it might be yourself who is clutching at straws at this stage.

Sierra Oscar

Bacik is going to win this. The controversy over re-opening and the growing sense of incompetence surrounding the Government's handling of it has sunk Geoghegan. People are going to give the Government a bit of a kicking. Game over imho.

Sinn Féin vote is also underestimated in that poll and would be at odds with other private polling.

Sam Russell

KevRossi wrote: »

That's not how it works. You can't just add up 100% of transfers to one candidate. Not even in a rough estimate.

The numbers in the poll are little more than indicators (1st Pref have an accuracy of +- 4%, and second Pref probably +- 20%) so the figures are pretty close to guestimates.

Adding the second preferences is just using them as indicators of how transfer friendly a candidate is. If a candidate gets 25% of second preferences, then they are more transfer friendly than one who gets 6%.

Now as each candidate gets eliminated, the more friendly will get more transfers, and that will carry through. As the count moves on, these transfers get stronger, and other factors take control. For example, a left candidates votes will transfer to other left candidates, but not 100%. Some will not transfer, and many will transfer on personality, or name recognition.

Transfer friendly candidates will stay in the race longer, and all they needs to happen is they stay ahead of the last place and avoid elimination.

I do not have the transfer preferences for third or subsequent choices, but working with the numbers given, I still maintain that the last three will be JG, IB, and CB. The order at that point is impossible to guess, but I think it will be JG CB and IB.

It would be different if Hazel Chu and Kate O'Connell had been given the gig.

.

...Ghost...

El Tarangu wrote: »

The conference was about imprisoned women, it would be a bit odd if Bacik started holding forth on a different topic - I think it might be yourself who is clutching at straws at this stage.

You're missing the point completely. Looking AJRs post where he says Bacik "specifically does not call for female sentencing to be different to male" is word play and is a desperate attempt to hide Baciks motives. By seeking "alternatives to custodial sentences for women" she is by default seeking different sentencing to men.

Sam Russell

...Ghost... wrote: »

You're missing the point completely. Looking AJRs post where he says Bacik "specifically does not call for female sentencing to be different to male" is word play and is a desperate attempt to hide Baciks motives. By seeking "alternatives to custodial sentences for women" she is by default seeking different sentencing to men.

Judges frequently take domestic circumstances into account when sentencing. This results in women getting more lenient sentences because of family circumstances, not because they are female, but because they have family responsibilities.

I would think this is correct public policy. It is the judges duty to do this, having heard all the evidence.

Bobtheman

Cal4567 wrote: »

Bacik would appear to be another example of the modern urban metropolitan left, who focus on minority and identity politics issues while at the same time continuing to alienate existing working class communities. The middle classes in DBS see her as someone they can relate to, she sounds like them, and she may be the comfortable vehicle to row behind to give a bye election kicking to the sitting government, mainly over the housing issue.

This bye election is looking more and more like the typical UK version, which come up with shock results. Have their been any polls on 2nd preferences or is that too complicated?

I think this is clearly my perception of her. But to be fair to the Labour Party - if they had not been in government last time - FG would have really ran riot on cutting public expenditure rather than also having sizeable tax increases.
Where they failed in my eyes was doing anything radical bar the marriage referendum. They could have attempted a radical shake up of the HSE and the public sector. Not denying they made pay cuts but that was about it

jm08

Bobtheman wrote: »

I think this is clearly my perception of her. But to be fair to the Labour Party - if they had not been in government last time - FG would have really ran riot on cutting public expenditure rather than also having sizeable tax increases.
Where they failed in my eyes was doing anything radical bar the marriage referendum. They could have attempted a radical shake up of the HSE and the public sector. Not denying they made pay cuts but that was about it

Labour couldn't shake up the public service or HSE. They would be stopped dead in their tracks by the trade unions.

Bobtheman

jm08 wrote: »

Labour couldn't shake up the public service or HSE. They would be stopped dead in their tracks by the trade unions.

If they were allowed. I'm a public servant myself. I think a strike in the period 2008-14 would have been unlikely.
I'm just talking about a job by job evaluation. Those not doing a worthwhile job should have been given redundancy

...Ghost...

Sam Russell wrote: »

Judges frequently take domestic circumstances into account when sentencing. This results in women getting more lenient sentences because of family circumstances, not because they are female, but because they have family responsibilities.

I would think this is correct public policy. It is the judges duty to do this, having heard all the evidence.

A Judge should rightly consider the impact of sentencing and balance familial responsibilities against the crime itself. This would naturally lead to some women and perhaps even some men to be treated more leniently.

However, the report I linked a few post back takes this into account and still finds that men get much harsher sentences for the same crime. The abstract mentions this

We find significantly harsher sentences imposed on male offenders even after controlling for most case characteristics, including mitigating factors such as ‘caring responsibilities’.

To advocate for the closure of womens prisons, cancellation of custodial sentencing and convictions is quite literally asking for free passes for women. I can't even say "get out of jail free card", because there would be no jails for women. Bacik calls herself a feminist, but my observations over the years lead me to believe she is the man hating variety, so not really a feminist at all. It may be 30 years old, but her defiance at TCD by refusing to vote for a man shows she is undemocratic and is only out to serve herself and her ideals. Fcuk everyone else.

People have seen that in her for decades and that's why she keeps missing out on her seat. I only hope the protest vote against FG and FF aren't enough to push her past the finish line this time around.

Bobtheman

It would have also been better economics if we didn't cut HSE beds during the crash. The money should have been found to avoid that. Because we must have known we'd simply be reversing those cuts within 5 years at a higher price.

Bobtheman

jm08 wrote: »

Labour couldn't shake up the public service or HSE. They would be stopped dead in their tracks by the trade unions.

...Ghost... wrote: »

A Judge should rightly consider the impact of sentencing and balance familial responsibilities against the crime itself. This would naturally lead to some women and perhaps even some men to be treated more leniently.

However, the report I linked a few post back takes this into account and still finds that men get much harsher sentences for the same crime. The abstract mentions this


To advocate for the closure of womens prisons, cancellation of custodial sentencing and convictions is quite literally asking for free passes for women. I can't even say "get out of jail free card", because there would be no jails for women. Bacik calls herself a feminist, but my observations over the years lead me to believe she is the man hating variety, so not really a feminist at all. It may be 30 years old, but her defiance at TCD by refusing to vote for a man shows she is undemocratic and is only out to serve herself and her ideals. Fcuk everyone else.

People have seen that in her for decades and that's why she keeps missing out on her seat. I only hope the protest vote against FG and FF aren't enough to push her past the finish line this time around.

Firstly I would take nothing a student politician does seriously. We all had our head up our arse at that age.
Secondly I would not take a few stupid opinions as a base line for her whole career. She takes the labour party whip and remained a labour party member during austerity.

Bobtheman

jm08 wrote: »

Labour couldn't shake up the public service or HSE. They would be stop

7>

ped dead in their tracks by the trade unions.

...Ghost... wrote: »

A Judge should rightly consider the impact of sentencing and balance familial responsibilities against the crime itself. This would naturally lead to some women and perhaps even some men to be treated more leniently.

However, the report I linked a few post back takes this into account and still finds that men get much harsher sentences for the same crime. The abstract mentions this


To advocate for the closure of womens prisons, cancellation of custodial sentencing and convictions is quite literally asking for free passes for women. I can't even say "get out of jail free card", because there would be no jails for women. Bacik calls herself a feminist, but my observations over the years lead me to believe she is the man hating variety, so not really a feminist at all. It may be 30 years old, but her defiance at TCD by refusing to vote for a man shows she is undemocratic and is only out to serve herself and her ideals. Fcuk everyone else.

People have seen that in her for decades and that's why she keeps missing out on her seat. I only hope the protest vote against FG and FF aren't enough to push her past the finish line this time around.

Firstly I would take nothing a student politician does seriously. We all had our head up our arse at that age.
Secondly I would not take a few stupid opinions as a base line for her whole career. She takes the labour party whip and remained a labour party member during austerity.

blanch152

KevRossi wrote: »

That's not how it works. You can't just add up 100% of transfers to one candidate. Not even in a rough estimate.

You'd start eliminating the lower candidates first. Not sure about Conroy's votes, but SD/PBP/Ind etc. will almost all go left. But some of them won't transfer at all as a lot of people just tick '1' and that's it.

Then you start eliminating the others - the 'Big 5' of FG-Lab-GP-SF-FF.
I think Conroy will go first, (as FF are less transfer friendly of those who were eliminated), then Boylan. Not sure where Conroy's votes will go but should be evenly split.

Then Boylan goes (I'm pretty sure Byrne will be ahead of her, but I could be wrong), and she should transfer more to GP and Lab. But overall her votes won't transfer as much. I think she will have a lot of '1' only votes.

That leaves Byrne in 3rd place as she will be suffering from not having first preferences. Then I think she will transfer more heavily to Bacik for a number of reasons. Namely there's an older demographic in DBS who traditionally will vote alternatively to the big parties. Bacik is a progressive woman which is attractive to some as well. As I said, nothing will change in the Dail after this election so people can afford to vote for who they want.

That's why I think if Bacik can be within 8 points of Geoghegan after first preferences are counted, then she has a really good shot at it.

Pretty good summary of how it looks at this stage. Still a way to go.

The only thing missing is the non-transferables. Those who vote 1,2, then stop. I haven't researched it much, but they seem to be increasing in recent general elections. A quick check of one by-election, and I see that around 30% of Verona Murphy's FG vote didn't transfer to either FF or Labour in the Wexford by-election and those voters weren't choosing between SF and PBP.

Bacik could get a ration of 2:1 on transfers and fall short because of the amount of non-transferables.

Bobtheman

If she wins would be a big boost for Labour but she really only appeals to left intellectuals. Champagne socialists.
I can't see her helping Kelly attract a higher vote.
She is too right on about feminism as well.

jm08

Bobtheman wrote: »

If she wins would be a big boost for Labour but she really only appeals to left intellectuals. Champagne socialists.
I can't see her helping Kelly attract a higher vote.
She is too right on about feminism as well.

A bit like Ruairi Quinn then, who held a seat continuously in Dublin South East from 1982 to 2016 when he retired.

Darc19

Bobtheman wrote: »

If she wins would be a big boost for Labour but she really only appeals to left intellectuals. Champagne socialists.
I can't see her helping Kelly attract a higher vote.
She is too right on about feminism as well.

It's the positive affect that would give momentum to labour and if they can move from 5%/6% to 8%-10% on a national basis it would change a lot of calculations.

Kelly is going after the centre left votes that SF/IRA picked up last time because that voter didn't want FF or FG and labour were seen as weak.

blackwhite

Looking back at 2020 transfers.

Count 2 eliminated 3 INDs - 178 votes to distribute
5.6% non-transferable
18.5% SDs
24.7% to two other INDs (Dooley & Flynn)
11.2% LAB
11.2% FG
7.3% SPBP
7.3% REN
5.1% SF
5.1% FF
3.6% IFP

Count 3 Eliminated 1 IND (Dooley) and 1 IFP - 572 votes
7.2% non-transferable
25.5% REN
16.1% SF
14.5% SPBP
11.0% IND (Flynn)
10.5% SD
5.4% FG
5.4% LAB
4.4% FF

Count 4 eliminated 1 IND (Flynn) - 753 votes
9.0% non-transferable
19.3% SF
15.1% FG
14.6% LAB
12.7% FF
13.0% SPBP
10.2% SD
6.0% REN

Count 5 eliminated REN - 847 votes
29.6% non-transferable
30.6% FF
13.7% FG
8.6% LAB
6.7% SF
6.1% SD
4.6% SPBP

Count 6 eliminated SD & SPBP - 3,492 votes
12.0% non-transferable
39.6% LAB
32.1% SF
10.5% FG
5.8% FF

Count 7 eliminated LAB - 4,971 votes
21.2% non-transferable
39.8% FG
19.7% FF
19.3% SF

blackwhite

I also omitted above - Ryan's surplus after count 1.

28.8% FG
24.1% LAB
19.3% SD
11.7% FF
5.3% SF
4.9% SPBP
6.0% IND, IFP, REN


Some bits that jump out.

Labour voters transferring to FG fairly strongly - certainly backs up the thoughts that the current Labour vote in DBS is a more middle-class than working-class vote. Labour did well on transfers from SDs, but struggled comparatively from other, more far-left parties.
For Bacik to win, she needs to take a lot more of the Green transfers than Humphries did in 2020. Even if you take the combined SD & LAB transfers from Ryan's surplus, they come to approx 43% of his transfer - compared to 29% for FG. That might just be enough to bridge the gap to where Geoghegan will be after 1st preferences, but based on this weekend's poll it'll be very tight.


Smaller points
Mannix Flynn seems to draw supports from across the spectrum, as his transfers are spread all over.
Renua voters transferring to FF strongly - implies FF deemed more socially conservative

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

To advocate for the closure of womens prisons, cancellation of custodial sentencing and convictions is quite literally asking for free passes for women. I can't even say "get out of jail free card", because there would be no jails for women. Bacik calls herself a feminist, but my observations over the years lead me to believe she is the man hating variety, so not really a feminist at all. It may be 30 years old, but her defiance at TCD by refusing to vote for a man shows she is undemocratic and is only out to serve herself and her ideals. Fcuk everyone else.

People have seen that in her for decades and that's why she keeps missing out on her seat. I only hope the protest vote against FG and FF aren't enough to push her past the finish line this time around.

Except that she didn't call for the closure of women's prisons in any of the articles published here - so 'quite literally' it is absolutely NOT asking for free passes. That only exists in your imagination.

...Ghost... wrote: »

You're missing the point completely. Looking AJRs post where he says Bacik "specifically does not call for female sentencing to be different to male" is word play and is a desperate attempt to hide Baciks motives. By seeking "alternatives to custodial sentences for women" she is by default seeking different sentencing to men.

There is no 'by default'. She hasn't looked for 'different sentancing to me'. She looked for 'different sentancing'.

...Ghost... wrote: »

She complained about there being no open prisons for women, but advocates for no prison at all.

AJR, come on now. You're really clutching at straws now. She stays silent on male sentencing because she doesn't care about male sentencing. If she did care, she would be advocating for alternatives men, or at the very least, parents.

You are playing with words by saying she is silent on mens sentencing. By calling for non-custodial sentencing for women, she is supporting gender sentencing disparity which already exists and is pushing for more disparity in favour of women.

Do you support Ivanas views for non-custodial sentences for women?

You've stayed silent on world hunger and world peace, so obviously you don't care about world hunger and world peace, right? That's how the game works - if you're silent on anything, your opposition gets to make assumptions about what you mean.

She didn't call for 'non-custodial sentancing for women'. Here's what she actually called for;

The imprisonment of women must only be used as a last resort, when all other alternatives are deemed unsuitable. A review should be conducted of sentencing practices that currently result in many women receiving short custodial sentences for non-violent crimes. There should be greater use of alternatives to custody. An open prison should be provided for women. Increased support services in the community are needed to address the complex needs of many women offenders (including mental health issues and alcohol or drug addictions), and enable them to maintain links with their children and families.

What is plain as day here is that those having a go at Bacik on this issue, just like those dragging up 30 year old student voting tiff, couldn't give a toss about male sentancing or female sentancing. Their only interest is having a go at Bacik, in a fairly pathetic attempt to stir up opposition as she comes within striking distance of taking a TD seat.

If you had any interest in the sentancing issues, surely you'd have queried it, or engaged with her, or called her out publically, or set up an important conference on male sentancing or whatever.

No-one is fooled by the sudden interest in male sentancing equality. It's all about spreading FUD around Bacik.

Ironically, it's probably doing her more good than harm.

Annasopra

Byrne asking for transfers to Bacik

https://twitter.com/davidmurphyRTE/status/1410260755245637637?s=19

AndrewJRenko

Annasopra wrote: »

Byrne asking for transfers to Bacik

https://twitter.com/davidmurphyRTE/status/1410260755245637637?s=19

That's the game changer, and a big two fingers to Simon Harris and his request for solidarity from Government parties.

Blut2

Odds movements with the bookies between May 15th and today:

Geoghegan has gone from 1.33 to 1.73
Bacik has gone from 8.0 to 2.2
Boylan from 7.0 to 13.0
Byrne from 17.0 to 13.0

Pretty huge shortening in Bacik's odds.

And thats probably not taking into account Byrne asking for transfers to Bacik an hour ago, either.

Bobtheman

The greens are flakey at the best of times

athlone573

Blut2 wrote: »

Odds movements with the bookies between May 15th and today:

Geoghegan has gone from 1.33 to 1.73
Bacik has gone from 8.0 to 2.2
Boylan from 7.0 to 13.0
Byrne from 17.0 to 13.0

Pretty huge shortening in Bacik's odds.

And thats probably not taking into account Byrne asking for transfers to Bacik an hour ago, either.

Where are you seeing those odds Blut? I don't see it on BF exchange and the overround on the sportsbook looks a bit hefty.

scheister

I always find odds for elections interesting particularly.

To me this was a 3 horse race to start with FG/SF/Lab
To me James Geoghegan was too short priced at the start a cllr running against two senators and the old rule that governments rarely win bye elections. To me he should not have started odds on.

But looking further down the odds i feel sorry for PBP while they were never going to win this seat how are they behind the Justin Barrett and Dolores Cahill in the betting surly they have a better shot then those two who in my mind should not be allowed run for a bus due to their views

hatrickpatrick

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What is plain as day here is that those having a go at Bacik on this issue, just like those dragging up 30 year old student voting tiff, couldn't give a toss about male sentancing or female sentancing. Their only interest is having a go at Bacik, in a fairly pathetic attempt to stir up opposition as she comes within striking distance of taking a TD seat.

I gave Labour my #2 preference in the 2011 general election and my absolute disdain for Ivana Bacik based on her flagrant misandry was as strong then as it is now. This is not about party politics, she's an extremely bigoted individual.

From the run-up to the 2011 general election:

https://www.boards.ie/mobile/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70904610&postcount=32

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I read through her manifesto last night. She's one of the worst cases of misandry disguised as "feminism" I have ever seen.

Until she withdraws her stance on prison sentencing, I will never, ever vote for her. Equality means equality on everything, you have to take the rough with the smooth. Her opinions on crime make me sick. If a man does it it's because men are "prone" to it. If a woman does it, it's someone else's fault, or "she had no choice".

One document which was thrown around in that thread and has since been removed from her website is the following:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080828094622/https://www.ivanabacik.com/legislation/prison-building-programme-motion-on-thornton-hall

On the matter of the women’s prison at the Dóchas centre, which has already been raised by my colleagues, the Minister will be aware that Deputy O’Rourke and I chaired a seminar at the Oireachtas with Baroness Jean Corston, author of a major report in Britain last year on the sentencing of women. Baroness Corston established that women should not be imprisoned unless for crimes of violence. We know that only 8% of women committed under sentence in 2006 in Ireland - that is, 35 women - were committed for offences against the person. In that year there were 289 committals of women under immigration legislation. Most of the women who are currently in prison at the centre are on short-term sentences or on remand for immigration-related offences and not, in the majority of cases, for violent offences. Given that we know from previous studies that these women have an average of two to three children each, that makes 2,000 to 3,000 children in Ireland who are left motherless for a number of days, nights, weeks or months. I remind the Minister that best practice is to reduce significantly the imprisonment of women. Unfortunately, with this plan the imprisonment of women will increase significantly.

Flagrant sexism. It's ok for men to be sent to prison for lesser offences, but not women, because they're women. It's ok for children to be left without their parents because a parent is sent to prison - but only, of course, if that parent is their father.

There's plenty of woke sexism and bigotry in Irish politics at the moment unfortunately, but I can think of few examples quite as blatant and undisguised as this one.

KevRossi

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I gave Labour my #2 preference in the 2011 general election and my absolute disdain for Ivana Bacik based on her flagrant misandry was as strong then as it is now. This is not about party politics, she's an extremely bigoted individual.

From the run-up to the 2011 general election:

https://www.boards.ie/mobile/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70904610&postcount=32



One document which was thrown around in that thread and has since been removed from her website is the following:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080828094622/https://www.ivanabacik.com/legislation/prison-building-programme-motion-on-thornton-hall

On the matter of the women’s prison at the Dóchas centre, which has already been raised by my colleagues, the Minister will be aware that Deputy O’Rourke and I chaired a seminar at the Oireachtas with Baroness Jean Corston, author of a major report in Britain last year on the sentencing of women. Baroness Corston established that women should not be imprisoned unless for crimes of violence. We know that only 8% of women committed under sentence in 2006 in Ireland - that is, 35 women - were committed for offences against the person. In that year there were 289 committals of women under immigration legislation. Most of the women who are currently in prison at the centre are on short-term sentences or on remand for immigration-related offences and not, in the majority of cases, for violent offences. Given that we know from previous studies that these women have an average of two to three children each, that makes 2,000 to 3,000 children in Ireland who are left motherless for a number of days, nights, weeks or months. I remind the Minister that best practice is to reduce significantly the imprisonment of women. Unfortunately, with this plan the imprisonment of women will increase significantly.

Flagrant sexism. It's ok for men to be sent to prison for lesser offences, but not women, because they're women. It's ok for children to be left without their parents because a parent is sent to prison - but only, of course, if that parent is their father.

There's plenty of woke sexism and bigotry in Irish politics at the moment unfortunately, but I can think of few examples quite as blatant and undisguised as this one.

So we can make women CEO's of various corporations, they can then break the law as regards corruption, tax evasion, workers rights and malpractice all they want without the slightest risk of going to prison.

Seems they can also commit as many motoring offences as they wish as long as they don't intentionally hurt or kill anyone.

Can I then identify as a woman when I'm sitting in the dock on my 300th charge?

AndrewJRenko

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I gave Labour my #2 preference in the 2011 general election and my absolute disdain for Ivana Bacik based on her flagrant misandry was as strong then as it is now. This is not about party politics, she's an extremely bigoted individual.

From the run-up to the 2011 general election:

https://www.boards.ie/mobile/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70904610&postcount=32



One document which was thrown around in that thread and has since been removed from her website is the following:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080828094622/https://www.ivanabacik.com/legislation/prison-building-programme-motion-on-thornton-hall

On the matter of the women’s prison at the Dóchas centre, which has already been raised by my colleagues, the Minister will be aware that Deputy O’Rourke and I chaired a seminar at the Oireachtas with Baroness Jean Corston, author of a major report in Britain last year on the sentencing of women. Baroness Corston established that women should not be imprisoned unless for crimes of violence. We know that only 8% of women committed under sentence in 2006 in Ireland - that is, 35 women - were committed for offences against the person. In that year there were 289 committals of women under immigration legislation. Most of the women who are currently in prison at the centre are on short-term sentences or on remand for immigration-related offences and not, in the majority of cases, for violent offences. Given that we know from previous studies that these women have an average of two to three children each, that makes 2,000 to 3,000 children in Ireland who are left motherless for a number of days, nights, weeks or months. I remind the Minister that best practice is to reduce significantly the imprisonment of women. Unfortunately, with this plan the imprisonment of women will increase significantly.

Flagrant sexism. It's ok for men to be sent to prison for lesser offences, but not women, because they're women. It's ok for children to be left without their parents because a parent is sent to prison - but only, of course, if that parent is their father.

There's plenty of woke sexism and bigotry in Irish politics at the moment unfortunately, but I can think of few examples quite as blatant and undisguised as this one.

The irony of the thread title, given her persistent success in the Seanad elections over the past ten years.

Once again, I'll point out that she said nothing about men in that quote, so you're just making up stuff about "OK for men to be sent to prison" to suit your own agenda.

That quote is still available in the Oireachtas records btw - no conspiracy involved.

AndrewJRenko

KevRossi wrote: »

So we can make women CEO's of various corporations, they can then break the law as regards corruption, tax evasion, workers rights and malpractice all they want without the slightest risk of going to prison.

Seems they can also commit as many motoring offences as they wish as long as they don't intentionally hurt or kill anyone.

Can I then identify as a woman when I'm sitting in the dock on my 300th charge?

Which specific bit from her quotation gave you that impression?

Augme

Annasopra wrote: »

Byrne asking for transfers to Bacik

https://twitter.com/davidmurphyRTE/status/1410260755245637637?s=19

It will be fascinating to see the reaction to this. If it was Hazel Chu who said it the internet would go I to meltdown. I expect Byrne will get a pass though. Two fingers to Eamon Ryan as well.

Yurt2

KevRossi wrote: »

Can I then identify as a woman when I'm sitting in the dock on my 300th charge?

Rights related to gender recognition certification conferred by the Minister concerned are not retrospective. So, not you wouldn't be able to slip out of porridge by that avenue.


But, if one was very snakey they could conceivably apply for recognition as a female prior to a fraud spree and go about things that way (the legislation is dreadfully opaque -silent in fact- on what grounds a Minister will refuse a gender recognition certificate).

L1011

Coalition partners in Ireland have always (officially at least - there may have been some stepping aside in the past that I'm not aware of) competed against each at elections so there would be no expectation of saying to transfer to your partners.

FG/Labour had a deal for the 07 GE which did not assist Labour at all and didn't get the hoped for result - but that was from opposition.

Sam Russell

Augme wrote: »

It will be fascinating to see the reaction to this. If it was Hazel Chu who said it the internet would go I to meltdown. I expect Byrne will get a pass though. Two fingers to Eamon Ryan as well.

Well if Bacic reciprocates and says her second preferences should go to Byrne, then that will be a win for Byrne, as her transfers pass after she is eliminated.

L1011

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well if Bacic reciprocates and says her second preferences should go to Byrne, then that will be a win for Byrne, as her transfers pass after she is eliminated.

Bacik has requested her second prefs to go to the Greens and Soc Dems.

Annasopra

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well if Bacic reciprocates and says her second preferences should go to Byrne, then that will be a win for Byrne, as her transfers pass after she is eliminated.

Maybe but looking at the poll Byrne will more likely be eliminated before Bacik

Larbre34

Geoghegan will still win.

athlone573

Larbre34 wrote: »

Geoghegan will still win.

Its lookin like a 50 50 ball

expectationlost

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Bacik is going to win this. The controversy over re-opening and the growing sense of incompetence surrounding the Government's handling of it has sunk Geoghegan. People are going to give the Government a bit of a kicking. Game over imho.

why would they vote for Labour instead?

L1011

Its interesting to see that the "I just don't like Bacik" crowd have moved on from "she's unelectable, sure look at the record, she shouldn't run again" - when its actually a very solid electoral record at all levels - on to trying to twist decades old stuff to what they want it to mean when she starts polling solidly.

You don't like her - we get it. Its wasting everyones time trying to twist justifications for it. You're not going to vote for her (if you even live in DBS). Awful justifications as to why won't influence anyone else.

Marcusm

Augme wrote: »

It will be fascinating to see the reaction to this. If it was Hazel Chu who said it the internet would go I to meltdown. I expect Byrne will get a pass though. Two fingers to Eamon Ryan as well.

Claire Byrne is Ryan’s parliamentary assistant; I doubt she is on an unapproved manoeuvre.

Cal4567

L1011 wrote: »

Coalition partners in Ireland have always (officially at least - there may have been some stepping aside in the past that I'm not aware of) competed against each at elections so there would be no expectation of saying to transfer to your partners.

FG/Labour had a deal for the 07 GE which did not assist Labour at all and didn't get the hoped for result - but that was from opposition.

Sounds like the FG's team wet dream. Try to dismantle the only candidate they see as a threat. She's 'a failed candidate', get that point out there. Must be worried if they are resorting to this.

Looking at the poll, the 2nd and 3rd preferences are going to be crucial. Might Boylan's transfers even get Bacik over the line?

ancapailldorcha

Off topic posts removed and sanction issued. Please be civil and focus on the byelection.