Dublin Bay South By-Election

Podge_irl

No one was doing any kind of deal with FF in 2011. They were utterly toxic.

Blut2

Bobtheman wrote: »

I just think the labour party were a bit too anxious to get bums on mercs by rushing into government in 2011. Though they were as cynical as **** with their tesco ads. I know the manifesto says otherwise but how many punters read a manifesto?!
If they sat back and allowed FG/FF to do a deal they would have been in prime position for 2016. Instead we now have a large lunatic left. With the small lab and SDP presenting reasonable policies.
Though I know SF have a lot of decent policies they somehow expect to improve services and cut taxes?!

With the benefit of hindsight we have now, and focusing on the present - absolutely, we'd be in a much, much better place now as a country if FF&FG had been in their current semi-merged position on the right a few years ago, and Labour were currently the dominant left-wing opposition party waiting to go into government instead of the relative extremism of SF.


But I don't think in 2011 it was as easy a decision as people these days like to make out. Its highly likely that without Labour in government putting a break on FG in 2011-2016 we'd have gotten even more, harder, austerity. So while it may have killed support for Labour going into government, they really were living up to their ideals by at least attempting to mitigate some of the damage done to the most vulnerable in society.

Annasopra

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is populism.

How is promising taxing the (very) wealthy, but not the rest, and then increasing services, building more houses, plus whatever you want yourself nor populism?

Works for Healy-Rae and the left parties like PBP.

Yep

Sheer populism. Property tax is a wealth tax and its laughable that so called Irish socialists oppose a wealth tax. The reality is if you want high quality public services then you need a decent tax base to pay for those. SF claims to be left wing but then often holds these populist right wing views on tax.

AndrewJRenko

Bobtheman wrote: »

I just think the labour party were a bit too anxious to get bums on mercs by rushing into government in 2011. Though they were as cynical as **** with their tesco ads. I know the manifesto says otherwise but how many punters read a manifesto?!
If they sat back and allowed FG/FF to do a deal they would have been in prime position for 2016. Instead we now have a large lunatic left. With the small lab and SDP presenting reasonable policies.
Though I know SF have a lot of decent policies they somehow expect to improve services and cut taxes?!

The Mercs are a thing of the past. All except the high security risk Ministers (Taoiseach, Tanaiste, Justice) provide their own cars.

FF and FG would never have done a deal in 2011. FG would have done a deal with Shane Ross's gang, Healy Raes and a couple of others. That's all they would have needed. They would have stripped every possible asset out of the State for a firesale, and ripped out every possible social support, leaving Labour's cuts to young people's dole and single parents in the ha'penny place.

retalivity wrote: »

Politics at a low-level are (for the most part) people who are not good enough to do well in business/their careers, who may have a famous name or some recognition locally, looking for a cushy number. At a high-level, it's for people who want the power, to paraphrase a certain AK. The former means you get people like Norma Foley & Simon Harris in cabinets, the latter gets you Pascal Donahue.
I have a grudging respect for people who stand for election and are elected to represent people, until the realisation hits after a while that they are all in it for themselves. FF/FG/SF/Greens/Lab whatever, its all the same modus operandi just coming from a different angle.
Bacik is a career politician under a Labour banner, been doing this for years and know how it works. I am ex-trinity and know what shes like, but wouls still like to see her win as a black eye to the govt. But being in DBS, what does she have to do to maintain/grow her vote? Pressure on the govt to build houses? To what end does anything actually change?

What's wrong with being a career politician? Why shouldn't any politician be focused on making a decent career out of it?

iwasliedto

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Has a party ever refused the option of forming a stable government when it was offered to them? The only instance that I can think of is FF refusing in 2016 when FG offered it to them. Sinn Fein's current position isn't as a result of some 4D chess strategy on their behalf. They've basically been locked out of any potential coalition talks, through no choice of their own, since they grew to a decent size in 2011.

Generally parties do not refuse the offer of going into coalition for a number of reasons:

1. The whole point of going into politics is to go into government some day.
2. Your voters generally vote for you because they want you to go into government. Turning it down may cost you support in future.
3. There is no guarantee that if you wait for a better opportunity that it will come along any time soon. 5 years is a long time to wait.

Hindsight is great. Everyone can make perfect strategic decisions with the benefit of seeing how they would play out. That's not the way things work though.

As you pointed out FF stayed out of government for strategic reasons so you have answered your own question.



SF and many left parties have long though about strategies to force FF/FG into power. It's not rocket science or 4D chess but it does take discipline and an ability to resist the shiny baubles of power in the short term. It is true that FF/FG inept decision to lock SF out of power has been a great advantage to SF and has driven their growth.



I have no doubt that SF would have been accepted by FF or FG as government partners if SF rolled over like the Greens or Labour.





1. The point of going into politics is getting your policies implemented, going into power is useless if you end up like Labour or the Greens. Sitting in government implementing FF/FG policy.
2. Voters vote for you because they want certain policies implemented to better their lives. If you get into power and ignore those that placed their trust in you then they will not vote for you. See Labour and the Greens.

3.There is no guarantee of anything in politics.

AndrewJRenko

iwasliedto wrote: »

As you pointed out FF stayed out of government for strategic reasons so you have answered your own question.

The fact that FF had just bankrupted the country might have had something to do with the decision not to go into government.

If voters want your policies implemented, they need to give you the numbers to do just that.

When they give you enough votes to be a small part of a coalition, it's a tad hypocritical to be asking why their policies didn't get implemented.

Brussels Sprout

iwasliedto wrote: »

It's not rocket science or 4D chess but it does take discipline and an ability to resist the shiny baubles of power in the short term.

It's not difficult to resist something that you were never offered.

iwasliedto wrote: »

I have no doubt that SF would have been accepted by FF or FG as government partners if SF rolled over like the Greens or Labour.

The PDs didn't "roll over" for FF and they still opted to go into government with them repeatedly.

FF & FG have both instead tried to discredit SF as a party for decades. You can still see it in the sneering tones that they use to address SF TDs in the Dail. Every election then they'd roll out The Greatest Hits of "Remember the IRA". They couldn't then turn around and offer SF a coalition deal. Besides as long as one of them was in power and the other was the largest party in opposition they could impede SF from competing with them.

That trick finally failed in 2020 and is unlikely to ever work again in the future. You can already see FF in particular beginning to soften on SF as they realise that they could very well end up going into coalition with them in the near future. I highly doubt that FF will rule out going into coalition with SF in the run up to the next election, like they have always done in the past.

iwasliedto wrote: »

1. The point of going into politics is getting your policies implemented, going into power is useless if you end up like Labour or the Greens. Sitting in government implementing FF/FG policy.
2. Voters vote for you because they want certain policies implemented to better their lives. If you get into power and ignore those that placed their trust in you then they will not vote for you. See Labour and the Greens.
3.There is no guarantee of anything in politics.

Our voting system and number of parties means that it's practically impossible to win an overall majority. Therefore any party going into government is going to have to sacrifice some of their pre-election promises.

It's the easiest thing in the world for Sinn Fein to cast judgements on the likes of Labour and The Greens for coalescing with FF/FG and compromising on many of their own policies. Right now they can be all things to all people. One day though, they will go into government, perhaps very soon, and then they will have to compromise and thereby disappoint some of their supporters, just like everyone else.

AndrewJRenko

Hello pigeons, meet my cat.

KevRossi

scheister wrote: »

I dont think selling the houses was the issue but what was done with the money afterwards. The issue was more the housing stock was not replenished with the proceeds from the sales

Houses are sold at a fraction of what they are worth. It's just a huge transfer of public assets into private hands. Those houses can then be sold to the highest bidder, pulling as much money as possible out of hard pressed workers who are prepared to pay a mortgage, or who cannot get on some social housing scheme.

The difference in lack of housing still needs to be made up by future generations of taxpayers. It's an ongoing circle. It makes no economic sense. By all means ensure people are housed from cradle to the grave, but don't abuse it by flogging a valuable state asset for 20% of it's true value.

If FFG sold €10 billion worth of state assets to some vulture fund for €2 billion, the likes of SF/PBP/ etc. would be on the barricades and rightly so.

scheister

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Hello pigeons, meet my cat.

it has moved again slight FG now evens Lab 4/5

AndrewJRenko

KevRossi wrote: »

Houses are sold at a fraction of what they are worth. It's just a huge transfer of public assets into private hands. Those houses can then be sold to the highest bidder, pulling as much money as possible out of hard pressed workers who are prepared to pay a mortgage, or who cannot get on some social housing scheme.

The difference in lack of housing still needs to be made up by future generations of taxpayers. It's an ongoing circle. It makes no economic sense. By all means ensure people are housed from cradle to the grave, but don't abuse it by flogging a valuable state asset for 20% of it's true value.

If FFG sold €10 billion worth of state assets to some vulture fund for €2 billion, the likes of SF/PBP/ etc. would be on the barricades and rightly so.

That's not true.

From https://www.gov.ie/en/service/12558-incremental-tenant-purchase-scheme-for-existing-local-authority-houses/

Your local authority will also place a charge on your house called an ‘incremental purchase charge’. This charge will be equal to the discount you get on the price of the house.

The charge will remain in place for 20, 25 or 30 years (depending on the discount given).

blackwhite

https://twitter.com/dub14blockers/status/1411313295307546625?s=21


Strange letter to be putting her name to, vowing to fight for the right to park on footpaths

AndrewJRenko

Is this what they call a false flag attack?

https://twitter.com/brian_daly/status/1411414829018062865

fullstop

Poor old Brigid Purcell not able to string a sentence together on RTÉ debate, completely out of her depth.

iwasliedto

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is this what they call a false flag attack?

https://twitter.com/brian_daly/status/1411414829018062865

Could be Geoghegan doing a nixer for his pals in the smoking business.

WishUWereHere

iwasliedto wrote: »

Could be Geoghegan doing a nixer for his pals in the smoking business.

I am from Newbridge, so am writing this an outsider:

Just watched TWIP.

I HAD hope for the PBP candidate Bridget Purcell. However, She hymned & hawed far too much - truly awful imho. Likewise Deirdre Conroe. Therefore both non-votable

For me being a lifelong Labour supporter, who swore ( after Gilmore &.burton) never to vote them again, seeing Bacik standing turns my stomach.

Of the 7 in the studio, I’d have to say Sarah Durkan came across as the most astute.

Another thing. Why would an independent candidate stand but not make themselves available for an interview?

fullstop

WishUWereHere wrote: »

I am from Newbridge, so am writing this an outsider:

Just watched TWIP.

I HAD hope for the PBP candidate Bridget Purcell. However, She hymned & hawed far too much - truly awful imho. Likewise Deirdre Conroe. Therefore both non-votable

For me being a lifelong Labour supporter, who swore ( after Gilmore &.burton) never to vote them again, seeing Bacik standing turns my stomach.

Of the 7 in the studio, I’d have to say Sarah Durkan came across as the most astute.

Another thing. Why would an independent candidate stand but not make themselves available for an interview?

Likes of Dolores Cahill only running to keep their name in public id say.

WishUWereHere

Also very disappointed that RTE didn’t pursue the Strand Road issues with the green Claire Byrne. For me she got away lightly there.

Bubbaclaus

WishUWereHere wrote: »

Another thing. Why would an independent candidate stand but not make themselves available for an interview?

Probably wanting nothing to do with "fake news mainstream media" or some rubbish to that effect.

Blut2

Blut2 wrote: »

Odds movements with the bookies between May 15th and today[Jun 30th]:

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.

Update on these:

Bacik is now down to 1.67
Geoghegan further up to 2.25
Boylan up to 17.0
Byrne to 26.0

Bacik now the firm favourite. Quite a move from her 8.0 initial long odds. Presumably the parties internal data is showing things very favorably for her and the money is following that.

Brussels Sprout

Blut2 wrote: »

Bacik now the firm favourite. Quite a move from her 8.0 initial long odds. Presumably the parties internal data is showing things very favorably for her and the money is following that.

Was wondering if parties could still do their fake polling given the kerfuffle over it in the past few weeks.

KevRossi

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's not true.

From https://www.gov.ie/en/service/12558-incremental-tenant-purchase-scheme-for-existing-local-authority-houses/

It's still a huge transfer of wealth from public ownership to private ownership at a heavily discounted price. It doesn't work long term.

WishUWereHere wrote: »

Also very disappointed that RTE didn’t pursue the Strand Road issues with the green Claire Byrne. For me she got away lightly there.

Her stance on it is well known, it's not ambiguous.

WishUWereHere

KevRossi wrote: »

It's still a huge transfer of wealth from public ownership to private ownership at a heavily discounted price. It doesn't work long term.



Her stance on it is well known, it's not ambiguous.

As I said I am from outside the constituency boundaries. And I don’t know Her stance. TWIP was on national television so for me her stance should have been aired.

iwasliedto

It is interesting to look back on the Dublin Mid West by-election from 2019 and see some very similar trends in reporting to the DBS race. In these two reports which are pretty similar, they push the line that FG will be front runners with the Labour party and the Greens forecast to have a strong vote. Both reports got it spectacularly wrong with the Labour party brand being so toxic that even a well-known candidate like Tuffy had a dismal outing. neither report forecast the very strong performance of Ward. I could not find the betting odds for the election but it would be interesting to see if the odds followed the reports and put FG in as favourites.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1125/1094997-dublin-mid-west-by-election/
https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/arid-30965822.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dublin_Mid-West_by-election

Of course, the two constituencies are very different, the questions are can FG shake off the inadequacies of their candidate?
Can Labour shake off the toxic brand and record low countrywide poll numbers with a recognised candidate? Can SF move into middle-class south Dublin and get some of that young vote?

Marcusm

I had never seen Claire Byrne interviewed or debate before. I thought she performed well, had assumed she was a place holder candidate. Can see that EvRyan would plan her as his replacement. For me, Geoghegan displayed his chinless wonder/empty suit appropriately (but I am biased). Deirdre Conroy should have prepared better and made no positive impact.

Surprised Ivana Bacik was so accepting of Portobello drinking, will lose some votes there. Sarah Durban performed well. Brigid Purcell will look back on this and the Tonight Show performance with regret in the future. No doubt she’s well meaning.

Edit: Forgot to mention Lynn Boylan but in fairness her performance was forgettable. I expected her to have a greater impact.

Jizique

Marcusm wrote: »

Edit: Forgot to mention Lynn Boylan but in fairness her performance was forgettable. I expected her to have a greater impact.

Lynn is another empty suit, I don’t think her heart is in it as she has her eye on DSW, and hard to know how keen Chris is on her getting a big vote.

Annasopra

iwasliedto wrote: »

It is interesting to look back on the Dublin Mid West by-election from 2019 and see some very similar trends in reporting to the DBS race. In these two reports which are pretty similar, they push the line that FG will be front runners with the Labour party and the Greens forecast to have a strong vote. Both reports got it spectacularly wrong with the Labour party brand being so toxic that even a well-known candidate like Tuffy had a dismal outing. neither report forecast the very strong performance of Ward. I could not find the betting odds for the election but it would be interesting to see if the odds followed the reports and put FG in as favourites.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1125/1094997-dublin-mid-west-by-election/
https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/arid-30965822.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dublin_Mid-West_by-election

Of course, the two constituencies are very different, the questions are can FG shake off the inadequacies of their candidate?
Can Labour shake off the toxic brand and record low countrywide poll numbers with a recognised candidate? Can SF move into middle-class south Dublin and get some of that young vote?

I dont think thats a comparable situation because there wasnt a published poll in Dublin Mid West.

iwasliedto

Annasopra wrote: »

I dont think thats a comparable situation because there wasnt a published poll in Dublin Mid West.

I think there has been only one poll with 500 participants. It will be interesting to see how accurate it is. It just under a 5% margin of error .

L1011

The bulk of the 2019 reportage on Labour doing better than expected is about Dublin Fingal (came third) and Wexford (came second), not Dublin Mid West and it wasn't based on pre-polling either.

Yurt2

KevRossi wrote: »

It's still a huge transfer of wealth from public ownership to private ownership at a heavily discounted price. It doesn't work long term.

If they are paying back the discount over a 20/25/30 year term how can you characterise it as a *huge* transfer of wealth?

It's a roundabout mortgage assisted by the council essentially where otherwise they wouldn't be able to access one.

Those availing of it also can't sell it on before the term is up and take advantage of house price inflation. That's the real *wealth* element of owning a house, which you will instinctually understand. And those that are part of the scheme have limited access to it.

If they were handed over a property at a discount with no provisions to clawback the discount on the market price and were free to flip it any time without the state benefitting you may have had a stronger point. You're couching your point in hyperbolic language there I'd submit

AndrewJRenko

KevRossi wrote: »

It's still a huge transfer of wealth from public ownership to private ownership at a heavily discounted price. It doesn't work long term.

The theory is that it brings stability to those communities, as people have much more of a stake in their surroundings. They don't need support or subsidisation from the State in the future.

Obviously, if (as Thatcher did), you don't reinvest the funds in more social housing, then you end up with far less social housing in the long term.

AndrewJRenko

Marcusm wrote: »

I had never seen Claire Byrne interviewed or debate before. I thought she performed well, had assumed she was a place holder candidate. Can see that EvRyan would plan her as his replacement. For me, Geoghegan displayed his chinless wonder/empty suit appropriately (but I am biased). Deirdre Conroy should have prepared better and made no positive impact.

Surprised Ivana Bacik was so accepting of Portobello drinking, will lose some votes there.

Might also gain her a few votes too.

Conroy was even worse that I suspected.

Larbre34

PBP are just like SF. Once you get below the brains trust of the top 5 or 6 operators in the party there is just a chasm of untalent.

Annasopra

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Might also gain her a few votes too.

Conroy was even worse that I suspected.

Conroy doesnt come across well at all. There was an Irish Times article where she was moaning about other candidates and how underappreciated she is.

WishUWereHere

Annasopra wrote: »

Conroy doesnt come across well at all. There was an Irish Times article where she was moaning about other candidates and how underappreciated she is.

I recorded the WIP & just looked at it again. Purely my opinion, but aside from Durkan, none of the other studio candidates came across well. Indeed including the independents who declined an interview with RTE. I would say the standard of potential politicians is very poor. To watch the PBP candidate stutter the way she did made me think she would be better off as a cast member of a Monty Python sketch. Conroe looked like she was reading a script. Geoghegan was too cocky. As someone said above, Boylan came across as not really interested.

For me to read above that Bacik is leading must surely be a joke. And if she is the leading contender. Then people really have short memories.

KevRossi

Lynn Boylan is originally from Tallaght, she lives in Clondalkin. Sean Crowe is in Dublin SW, he is 64, he would be 67 at the next GE if the Dail runs its full term (yes, that's for another discussion). So 72 if he's in government for one term (on the basis SF form the next government).

Will he want to do that, or will he hand it over to Boylan before the next GE? Is she just on a profile raising mission, or do SF intend going for a 2nd seat in Dublin SW. So does she really want to win that seat, as unlikely as it is? I get the impression she's just profile raising, she knows she has no hope of getting the seat.

Marcusm

Philip Ryan in the Indo has given the debate to Geoghegan and Byrne as the best performers 6/10. He comments on Heoghegan calling out Justin Barrett’s anti-immigrant comments on VT. it’s fair to note that he was the only one to do so but I suspect anyone else would just have ignored it on the basis of who he is and what he stands for. Conroy was lower than Purcell which I think is probably about right. Durkan was poorly ranked and Boylan/Bacik tied.

Marcusm

KevRossi wrote: »

Lynn Boylan is originally from Tallaght, she lives in Clondalkin. Sean Crowe is in Dublin SW, he is 64, he would be 67 at the next GE if the Dail runs its full term (yes, that's for another discussion). So 72 if he's in government for one term (on the basis SF form the next government).

Will he want to do that, or will he hand it over to Boylan before the next GE? Is she just on a profile raising mission, or do SF intend going for a 2nd seat in Dublin SW. So does she really want to win that seat, as unlikely as it is? I get the impression she's just profile raising, she knows she has no hope of getting the seat.

I thought Lynn Boylan makes a point about having been born/raised in the Iveagh Buildings. Perhaps it was only very early childhood.

expectationlost

Marcusm wrote: »

I thought Lynn Boylan makes a point about having been born/raised in the Iveagh Buildings. Perhaps it was only very early childhood.

0-2 years. https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/1115511865126391808

jimmycrackcorm

Bizarre that Lynn Boylan is even contesting this election. Are SF trying to create a new healy-rae family dynasty?

Marcusm

I have just read that Ivana Bacik was featured on an RTE programme “National Treasures” last night and that FG are fuming. I can understand why. It’s not the sort of thing I would ever watch but I can imagine the humanising/personal narrative effect. I guess it shows that RTE’s programming side is not aligned with current affairs.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

I guess it shows that RTE’s programming side is not aligned with current affairs.

Not aligned eh :pac:

Brussels Sprout

iwasliedto wrote: »

I think there has been only one poll with 500 participants. It will be interesting to see how accurate it is. It just under a 5% margin of error .

Even with with that MoE SF haven't a hope. And I say that as someone who took a punt on Boylan at 7/1 a month ago. It's a 2 horse race now.

Larbre34 wrote: »

PBP are just like SF. Once you get below the brains trust of the top 5 or 6 operators in the party there is just a chasm of untalent.

This is true for pretty much all parties, the only difference being that that the morons hide it a bit better in some of the other parties.

Marcusm wrote: »

Philip Ryan in the Indo has given the debate to Geoghegan and Byrne as the best performers 6/10.

Well, there's a shock :rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko

Marcusm wrote: »

I have just read that Ivana Bacik was featured on an RTE programme “National Treasures” last night and that FG are fuming. I can understand why. It’s not the sort of thing I would ever watch but I can imagine the humanising/personal narrative effect. I guess it shows that RTE’s programming side is not aligned with current affairs.

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Not aligned eh :pac:

That series started weeks ago, and at a guess, was scheduled for the summer season long before Murphy resigned. Not everything is a conspiracy.

AndrewJRenko

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Bizarre that Lynn Boylan is even contesting this election. Are SF trying to create a new healy-rae family dynasty?

I don't think they ever thought they had a reasonable chance of winning. She was put in as a well known, public face, the softer side of FG, someone who could give them a respectable showing, rather than take the seat.

She's make a serious shot at DSW in the next election.

AndrewJRenko

WishUWereHere wrote: »

I would say the standard of potential politicians is very poor. To watch the PBP candidate stutter the way she did made me think she would be better off as a cast member of a Monty Python sketch.
.

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

This is true for pretty much all parties, the only difference being that that the morons hide it a bit better in some of the other parties.

I don't think that's fair at all. Facing the national media in a forum like this is very, very difficult. Smaller parties are less likely to have someone who has cut their teeth on the local Council and with local media.

Her poor media appearance tells you relatively little about how smart she is or isn't, or how good a TD she would be.

Beechwoodspark

Just for info folks

SF already have a husband and wife combo in the dail

David cullinane and Kathleen funchion

Beechwoodspark

This ff candidate is useless

Bad reflection on the director of election for this ocallaghan

scheister

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Just for info folks

SF already have a husband and wife combo in the dail

David cullinane and Kathleen funchion

Per Wikipedia David cullinane and Kathleen funchion are divorced

Beechwoodspark

scheister wrote: »

Per Wikipedia David cullinane and Kathleen funchion are divorced

Apologies - I was not aware of that.