Dublin Bay South By-Election

golfball37

I hope Gheoghagan wins. The media machine is behind Bacik and the dirt thrown at him was insignificant yet made out to be important. The female transfers means he has an uphill battle though I fear. I’d rather Boylan got elected ahead of Bacik being totally honest.

Bobtheman

At the moment I still think Geoghan will win. He will get transfers from FF and even labour. All three parties appeal in various ways to the well heeled but socially Liberal sets.
Though I'd say most people voting for bacik are not rampaging feminists like she is.

Red Silurian

In the 2020 election the greens and the two civil war parties pulled 63.9% of the first preference votes across 4 candidates

Simple maths show there would need to be at least a 13.9% swing away from the govt for them to lose this, fair enough a lot has changed in that time but I don't think it's enough for such a swing

My money is on the FG candidate as they were the highest of any party at 27.7%

KevRossi

Is there any TV debate with all candidates scheduled?

Annasopra

Bobtheman wrote: »

At the moment I still think Geoghan will win. He will get transfers from FF and even labour. All three parties appeal in various ways to the well heeled but socially Liberal sets.
Though I'd say most people voting for bacik are not rampaging feminists like she is.

Labour transfers wont come into play!!

Annasopra

KevRossi wrote: »

Is there any TV debate with all candidates scheduled?

Tonight on VM has had candidates in 2s

The Phantom Jipper

golfball37 wrote: »

I hope Gheoghagan wins. The media machine is behind Bacik and the dirt thrown at him was insignificant yet made out to be important. The female transfers means he has an uphill battle though I fear. I’d rather Boylan got elected ahead of Bacik being totally honest.

To be fair, him being knee deep in Renua is surely of importance to voters and I'd imagine would be a dealbreaker for many.

foxyladyxx

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.

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

This 100%. I had a canvasser from the Green Party at my door. I told her that in no corcumstances would I vote for a party in Government after the way MM was allowed to present the erroneous model to the cabinet with no backlash from any TD's in the three Government parties.

I told her that I would vote Labour as a protest vote. ( I can see many voting Sinn Fein however) . .She asked for my second vote. My answer was ''no''.

My neighbour is equally clued in and I heard him ranting at the male canvasser about how the unelected NPHET were given so much power ....he is a cantankerous old man at the best of times,

Bacik will romp it at this stage. the handling of NPHET will gift her the win.

Brussels Sprout

The whole "Bacik is a misandrist" argument being floated by some posters is a bit of a reach. It seems to rely mainly on a zero-sum mindset where any gains for women can only be won at the expense of men.

blanch152

Red Silurian wrote: »

In the 2020 election the greens and the two civil war parties pulled 63.9% of the first preference votes across 4 candidates

Simple maths show there would need to be at least a 13.9% swing away from the govt for them to lose this, fair enough a lot has changed in that time but I don't think it's enough for such a swing

My money is on the FG candidate as they were the highest of any party at 27.7%

The assumption in that is that the government parties would have transferred to one another. That didn't happen in the general election, and there is no reason to assume that it would happen in a by-election.

hatrickpatrick

L1011 wrote: »

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.

Why is pointing out an election candidate's bigotry such a controversial issue here, exactly? If James Geogheann had been on the record ten or twenty years ago as saying that married women shouldn't be allowed to be employed in the civil service, or some other such outdated and backwards garbage, would we be similarly "twisting justifications" for not liking him by pointing this out?

hatrickpatrick

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The whole "Bacik is a misandrist" argument being floated by some posters is a bit of a reach. It seems to rely mainly on a zero-sum mindset where any gains for women can only be won at the expense of men.

To say "women shouldn't be imprisoned for non-violent offences" as opposed to "people shouldn't be imprisoned for non-violent offences", and make the argument that judges should take gender into account when passing sentence, is out and out discrimination being called for. If you approach an issue which affects both genders with a view to changing it only for one of those genders, you are inherently discriminatory in your outlook. If you believe this to be justified, you are also bigoted in your outlook.

Apple the same criteria to any demographic group, by the way. This issue just happens to be gender-based. If somebody in the United States argued that white people should get a lesser prison sentence because statistically white people supposedly commit less crime, there would rightly be uproar. It's bigoted in the extreme to propose any form of demographic discrimination in any facet of public policy. End of.

blanch152

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The whole "Bacik is a misandrist" argument being floated by some posters is a bit of a reach. It seems to rely mainly on a zero-sum mindset where any gains for women can only be won at the expense of men.

Some of it is based on fury that the leading anti-government candidate doesn't come from SF or PBP.

Bacik isn't a particularly likeable person with a prickly personality, but that doesn't mean she wouldn't make a good TD.

I think there's a great post somewhere earlier round here about "the right looking for allies and the left looking for traitors."

Blut2

athlone573 wrote: »

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.

Paddypower.

athlone573

Blut2 wrote: »

Paddypower.

Yeah same on betfair but it's pretty atrocious value as a gambler. Thanks

AndrewJRenko

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To say "women shouldn't be imprisoned for non-violent offences" as opposed to "people shouldn't be imprisoned for non-violent offences", and make the argument that judges should take gender into account when passing sentence, is out and out discrimination being called for. If you approach an issue which affects both genders with a view to changing it only for one of those genders, you are inherently discriminatory in your outlook. If you believe this to be justified, you are also bigoted in your outlook.

Apple the same criteria to any demographic group, by the way. This issue just happens to be gender-based. If somebody in the United States argued that white people should get a lesser prison sentence because statistically white people supposedly commit less crime, there would rightly be uproar. It's bigoted in the extreme to propose any form of demographic discrimination in any facet of public policy. End of.

Where did she say anything about changing "for only one gender "? People should really stop making up fairy stories to try to rationalise their own personal preferences.

jm08

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To say "women shouldn't be imprisoned for non-violent offences" as opposed to "people shouldn't be imprisoned for non-violent offences", and make the argument that judges should take gender into account when passing sentence, is out and out discrimination being called for. If you approach an issue which affects both genders with a view to changing it only for one of those genders, you are inherently discriminatory in your outlook. If you believe this to be justified, you are also bigoted in your outlook.

Apple the same criteria to any demographic group, by the way. This issue just happens to be gender-based. If somebody in the United States argued that white people should get a lesser prison sentence because statistically white people supposedly commit less crime, there would rightly be uproar. It's bigoted in the extreme to propose any form of demographic discrimination in any facet of public policy. End of.

The conference that Bacik spoke at was hosted by the Irish Penal Reform Trust. That particular conference was to do with women in the penal system. As you will see from the link to the Irish Penal Reform Trust, they have hosted many conferences / publications on the penal services which cover the rights of people with disabilities, to Solitary Confinement to the Rights and Needs of Children and Families affected by Imprisonment which would have experts/advocates as speakers.


https://www.iprt.ie/

L1011

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is pointing out an election candidate's bigotry such a controversial issue here, exactly? If James Geogheann had been on the record ten or twenty years ago as saying that married women shouldn't be allowed to be employed in the civil service, or some other such outdated and backwards garbage, would we be similarly "twisting justifications" for not liking him by pointing this out?

What's being dragged up by the posters here is personal interpretations or unverifiable personal memories of things, not anything 'on the record'

iwasliedto

L1011 wrote: »

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.

I think all you need to do is look at Labour's record in power to find a reason not to vote for them. They have enabled FF and FG to run the country for too long, they have been found out and will find it difficult to rise in the polls with a lot of their traditional voters having deserted them.

Alan Kelly called to my door looking for the vote and I asked him how would he expect me to vote for Labour with their most recent record in government. He did not even try to justify it or defend it, says it all really. A vote for Ivan of the bicycle is a vote somewhere down the line to enable FG or FF to implement their right-wing policies.

rdwight

foxyladyxx wrote: »

This 100%. I had a canvasser from the Green Party at my door. I told her that in no corcumstances would I vote for a party in Government after the way MM was allowed to present the erroneous model to the cabinet with no backlash from any TD's in the three Government parties.

I told her that I would vote Labour as a protest vote. ( I can see many voting Sinn Fein however) . .She asked for my second vote. My answer was ''no''.

My neighbour is equally clued in and I heard him ranting at the male canvasser about how the unelected NPHET were given so much power ....he is a cantankerous old man at the best of times,

Bacik will romp it at this stage. the handling of NPHET will gift her the win.

That's one way of describing the two of ye.

rdwight

iwasliedto wrote: »

I think all you need to do is look at Labour's record in power to find a reason not to vote for them. They have enabled FF and FG to run the country for too long, they have been found out and will find it difficult to rise in the polls with a lot of their traditional voters having deserted them.

Alan Kelly called to my door looking for the vote and I asked him how would he expect me to vote for Labour with their most recent record in government. He did not even try to justify it or defend it, says it all really. A vote for Ivan of the bicycle is a vote somewhere down the line to enable FG or FF to implement their right-wing policies.

Who among the parties have a good record in government? Sinn Fein probably made fewest mistakes when in government in NI. Mainly because they abdicated responsibility by absenting themselves for 3 years.

hotmail.com

Labour now firmly a party of the middle class. Ivana is a lovely person who has championed very worthwhile causes, but I can't see her and many of the Labour Party these days connecting with working class voters.

Labour are now New Labour. They might as well fold up and merge with other parties.

jm08

hotmail.com wrote: »

Labour now firmly a party of the middle class. Ivana is a lovely person who has championed very worthwhile causes, but I can't see her and many of the Labour Party these days connecting with working class voters.

Labour are now New Labour. They might as well fold up and merge with other parties.

Labour have been New Labour since the 70s when joined by the likes of Justin Keating, David Thornley, John Horgan, Ruairi Quinn, Mary Robinson etc. etc. Although Dick Spring came from a traditional Labour background (his father was a TD), he went to private school and Trinity College and played rugby for Ireland - so not exactly a working class background.

Just for the record, I think Ruairi Quinn was a particularly good Minister for Finance and we were unfortunate that FF followed that Government and blew it all.

Bobtheman

The situation with covid is in flux. A lot of the EU might follow us. Yes we all have had enough but nobody wants blood on their hands.
The government is not following NPHET advice fully
See the antigen testing issue.
The Labour Party have not attacked NPHET so I fail to see how voting for them is a protest vote?!
In the end the stupidity of the electorate never ceases to amaze me. Some of those here who hate bacik voted to keep the seanad alive because they foolishly believed it would be reformed.
By doing so they kept bacik career alive.
The senead :departure lounge for the Dail or rest home for political hacks.

Bobtheman

jm08 wrote: »

Labour have been New Labour since the 70s when joined by the likes of Justin Keating, David Thornley, John Horgan, Ruairi Quinn, Mary Robinson etc. etc. Although Dick Spring came from a traditional Labour background (his father was a TD), he went to private school and Trinity College and played rugby for Ireland - so not exactly a working class background.

Just for the record, I think Ruairi Quinn was a particularly good Minister for Finance and we were unfortunate that FF followed that Government and blew it all.

I agree with you that he was a good minister for finance. It was a good government but the anti FF vote never forgave Labour for joining with FG. Also FF knows how thick the electorate can be and won on a tax reduction banner. Even though Quinn had broadened the tax bands which was the same thing.
If they had been re elected then I think we would not have has as much madness. Labour tended to be sensible on housing. However I still think we would have a housing boom and crash though not as bad. FG are more sensible than FF but they never said in 2002-7 that we needed to stop the boom. Rein it in. Call for cutbacks to stop over heating the economy.

AndrewJRenko

iwasliedto wrote: »

I think all you need to do is look at Labour's record in power to find a reason not to vote for them. They have enabled FF and FG to run the country for too long, they have been found out and will find it difficult to rise in the polls with a lot of their traditional voters having deserted them.

Alan Kelly called to my door looking for the vote and I asked him how would he expect me to vote for Labour with their most recent record in government. He did not even try to justify it or defend it, says it all really. A vote for Ivan of the bicycle is a vote somewhere down the line to enable FG or FF to implement their right-wing policies.

Yeah, why didn't they stay out of Government and take the easy route of complaining about everything and doing nothing. It's mad how we blame the minority parties for all the failings of Governments.

Darc19

rdwight wrote: »

Who among the parties have a good record in government? Sinn Fein probably made fewest mistakes when in government in NI. Mainly because they abdicated responsibility by absenting themselves for 3 years.

SF are not in government in Northern Ireland. It is governed from Westminster and they won't take any part in that.

There is "local government" in Northern and they share that with the DUP. Sort of like a county council with a bit more power.

No control over taxes, no control over health, no control over social welfare, very little control on policing and justice.


I suspect that FF and FG would not have a big issue with Bacik winning this as it will give impetus to the Labour party and frankly, if they start building some support again, it will most likely be taken from sf

Larbre34

Someone called Anetoo is suing RTÉ for being excluded from DBS TV debates.

Nope, never heard of him either.

Annasopra

Darc19 wrote: »

SF are not in government in Northern Ireland. It is governed from Westminster and they won't take any part in that.

There is "local government" in Northern and they share that with the DUP. Sort of like a county council with a bit more power.

No control over taxes, no control over health, no control over social welfare, very little control on policing and justice.


I suspect that FF and FG would not have a big issue with Bacik winning this as it will give impetus to the Labour party and frankly, if they start building some support again, it will most likely be taken from sf

No. There is a devolved government in Northern Ireland and Wales and Scotland.

Darc19

Annasopra wrote: »

No. There is a devolved government in Northern Ireland and Wales and Scotland.

It's government by name only, but because sf and DUP can agree on virtually nothing, most real management is from London.

hotmail.com

jm08 wrote: »

Labour have been New Labour since the 70s when joined by the likes of Justin Keating, David Thornley, John Horgan, Ruairi Quinn, Mary Robinson etc. etc. Although Dick Spring came from a traditional Labour background (his father was a TD), he went to private school and Trinity College and played rugby for Ireland - so not exactly a working class background.

Just for the record, I think Ruairi Quinn was a particularly good Minister for Finance and we were unfortunate that FF followed that Government and blew it all.

In one of Quinn's budgets, he raised the old age pension by 1 pound.

They made third level education free to all, which had to be rowed back on over the years.

Ending the fees only benefitted the middle class.

zimmermania

Bobtheman wrote: »

The situation with covid is in flux. A lot of the EU might follow us. Yes we all have had enough but nobody wants blood on their hands.
The government is not following NPHET advice fully
See the antigen testing issue.
The Labour Party have not attacked NPHET so I fail to see how voting for them is a protest vote?!
In the end the stupidity of the electorate never ceases to amaze me. Some of those here who hate bacik voted to keep the seanad alive because they foolishly believed it would be reformed.
By doing so they kept bacik career alive.
The senead :departure lounge for the Dail or rest home for political hacks.

The electorate are a diverse group of people who sometimes take a perverse delight in opposing government policy just for the sake of it.

The vote to retain the Senate was because a majority of those who voted could not vote to abolish the Senate because the government was seen to support its abolition.

Amost everyone agrees the Senate is a waste of money and yet we decided to retain it, its a jokeshop.

Good loser

Larbre34 wrote: »

Geoghegan will still win.

I think he's 8/11 with Paddy Power now. Was 11/10.

Jizique

Darc19 wrote: »

It's government by name only, but because sf and DUP can agree on virtually nothing, most real management is from London.

Bit like here with NPHET calling the shots

jm08

hotmail.com wrote: »

In one of Quinn's budgets, he raised the old age pension by 1 pound.

He changed the annual deficit of about 3% to an annual surplus of about 2%. Unemployment dropped from about 15% to 10%, which was unbelievable progress at the time.

They made third level education free to all, which had to be rowed back on over the years.

Ending the fees only benefitted the middle class.

It was rowed back heavily because of the crash. I don't understand how ending fees only benefitted the middle class. Surely everyone benefitted from no fees?

jm08

Darc19 wrote: »

SF are not in government in Northern Ireland. It is governed from Westminster and they won't take any part in that.

There is "local government" in Northern and they share that with the DUP. Sort of like a county council with a bit more power.

No control over taxes, no control over health, no control over social welfare, very little control on policing and justice.


I suspect that FF and FG would not have a big issue with Bacik winning this as it will give impetus to the Labour party and frankly, if they start building some support again, it will most likely be taken from sf

It will be a terrible blow to FG if they don't retain the seat. It would mean that they have no FG TD in one of the traditional heart lands of FG and with two seats in the 2016 election (E. Murphy & K. O'Connell).


I must say, I have never seen anything like the canvassing being done at the moment. For the General Election, Labour were the only ones who called to my door - I've had them all this time ringing the doorbell rather than just shoving something in the letterbox - and some of them twice (SF x 2, Greens x 2, Aontu x 1, Labour x 1, FG x 1, FF x 1, SD x 1).

iwasliedto

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, why didn't they stay out of Government and take the easy route of complaining about everything and doing nothing. It's mad how we blame the minority parties for all the failings of Governments.

If they had stayed out of government for one or two parliaments then they would have forced FF and FG together and then we could have a Labour-led government. They were only the minority party because they could not resist the chance to be a minority party, they did not have the vision or discipline to force FF/FG together. You would think they would have learned this at some stage but they just kept facilitating the larger parties until the electorate had had enough.

hotmail.com

jm08 wrote: »

He changed the annual deficit of about 3% to an annual surplus of about 2%. Unemployment dropped from about 15% to 10%, which was unbelievable progress at the time.





It was rowed back heavily because of the crash. I don't understand how ending fees only benefitted the middle class. Surely everyone benefitted from no fees?

The economy was beginning to change from the late 80s, the drop in unemployment was inevitable.

The less well off already got 3rd level education free through grants, as they still do now.

Labour could have targeted primary education but chose to give free fees to middle class people. It led to more middle class people sending their children to private secondary schools as they had more money in their pockets.

Every time Labour has been in government in Ireland, the gap between rich and poor has widened.

I just don't see them as a party of the Left or a party of the working man. Ivana reflects this change and the public know it.

Tidyboii

Vote No.1 Bill Badbody D.B.S!!

KevRossi

hotmail.com wrote: »

The economy was beginning to change from the late 80s, the drop in unemployment was inevitable.

The less well off already got 3rd level education free through grants, as they still do now.

Labour could have targeted primary education but chose to give free fees to middle class people. It led to more middle class people sending their children to private secondary schools as they had more money in their pockets.

Every time Labour has been in government in Ireland, the gap between rich and poor has widened.

I just don't see them as a party of the Left or a party of the working man. Ivana reflects this change and the public know it.

You've got dates and facts wrong here. The employment situation was as dire in 1991 when I finished college as at any other time. Most of us emigrated, incidentally almost all of us came back to Ireland within 15 years.

Free 3rd level education benefitted all. It may have freed up money for a small number of people to send kids to private school but it also massively increased the number of people going into further education. the results of that have had a very positive impact on the economy. It can just as easily be argued that higher disposable incomes led to people sending kids to private schools.

I could just as easily argue that every time Labour were in power, the overwhelming majority of people in this country (in fact all people) have come out financially better off. The gap between the poorest and the super rich has widened in all developed countries, Ireland is no different there.

AndrewJRenko

Arra sure lookit, it could happen to any of us. I'm forever losing track of the properties my trust fund is buying and selling.


https://www.ontheditch.com/james-geoghegan-trust-fund-carlisle-trust/

Marcusm

jm08 wrote: »

He changed the annual deficit of about 3% to an annual surplus of about 2%. Unemployment dropped from about 15% to 10%, which was unbelievable progress at the time.





It was rowed back heavily because of the crash. I don't understand how ending fees only benefitted the middle class. Surely everyone benefitted from no fees?

On the latter point, the question I would pose is whether a non-universal benefit should be made available without regard for need? As was the csse in the UK, free university fees resulted in those being the cheapest years of education for many (those who were privately educated). It is questionable whether that is the best allocation of resources. (And I saw this as someone who did not go to univesity at 17 solely because of the cost.)

Marcusm

jm08 wrote: »

It will be a terrible blow to FG if they don't retain the seat. It would mean that they have no FG TD in one of the traditional heart lands of FG and with two seats in the 2016 election (E. Murphy & K. O'Connell).


I must say, I have never seen anything like the canvassing being done at the moment. For the General Election, Labour were the only ones who called to my door - I've had them all this time ringing the doorbell rather than just shoving something in the letterbox - and some of them twice (SF x 2, Greens x 2, Aontu x 1, Labour x 1, FG x 1, FF x 1, SD x 1).

I run them all without discrimination.

KevRossi

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Arra sure lookit, it could happen to any of us. I'm forever losing track of the properties my trust fund is buying and selling.


https://www.ontheditch.com/james-geoghegan-trust-fund-carlisle-trust/

Bad timing releasing that today of they want to damage him. He has the weekend to evade and bluster his way out of it. If the story had been released early next week it would be a different matter, less time to get out of it.

AndrewJRenko

iwasliedto wrote: »

If they had stayed out of government for one or two parliaments then they would have forced FF and FG together and then we could have a Labour-led government. They were only the minority party because they could not resist the chance to be a minority party, they did not have the vision or discipline to force FF/FG together. You would think they would have learned this at some stage but they just kept facilitating the larger parties until the electorate had had enough.

Nice theory, but you're a little naive if you think this works in practice. It's a bit tricky to look the voter in the eye and say 'Give me your number one vote, so I can stay OUT of Government for two or three terms. I'll won't get any of my important policies implement while your kids are in school needing supports and your parents are expiring fast needing health services. But stick me, and everything will be great in 15-20 years.'.

It's a hard sell, to all but the most extreme purist lefties, and they're already committed to supporting the PBP to not be in Government.

It will be interesting to see what happens to SF support in ten years time, after they've had a stint at Government and realised that strangely enough, they don't have all the easy answers.

Marcusm

KevRossi wrote: »

Bad timing releasing that today of they want to damage him. He has the weekend to evade and bluster his way out of it. If the story had been released early next week it would be a different matter, less time to get out of it.

The Ansbacher/Carlisle Trust connection is a bit tenuous. It would be better to juxtapose his inheritance with the claims of voice of a homeless generation. Not entirely surprising that he would have such potential for inheritances in real life. It's the mendacity in claiming otherwise that marks him out as a fool.

athlone573

Marcusm wrote: »

The Ansbacher/Carlisle Trust connection is a bit tenuous. It would be better to juxtapose his inheritance with the claims of voice of a homeless generation. Not entirely surprising that he would have such potential for inheritances in real life. It's the mendacity in claiming otherwise that marks him out as a fool.

So his granda was wealthy and left him a house?

Par for the course with FG.

AndrewJRenko

athlone573 wrote: »

So his granda was wealthy and left him a house?

Par for the course with FG.

So do all FGers have trust funds?

kalych

athlone573 wrote: »

So his granda was wealthy and left him a house?

Par for the course with FG.

I guess that's not the problem, it's his insistence on being the 'voice of the generation locked out of the housing market' in government that people take offense with. Do as I say and not as I do type if stuff.