General Irish politics discussion thread

The writer no doubt has contempt for the Green party, that in itself doesn't diminish what he has to say.

I'd argue that this is spot on analysis TBH. I know quite a few people who voted Green but are full on FG or FF in every way.

I didn't claim all of the article was true or on point, rather that some of the criticisms made will have to be answered at the next election. In the same way the Greens had to answer for their last stint in government.

We'll see come the election. I think the Greens will be given the same answer as they got after their last stint in government. And it will be for some of the reasons outlined in the article.

By the way, I never presented anything as 'data' I merely voiced an opinion.

He certainly has a 'different' understanding of the Greens as many people have differing understandings of other parties. These threads are awash with different understandings of the various political entities, nothing unusual there.

The 'reality' will be in the result of the next election. We shall see.

An extraordinary amount of analysis goes on across media without evidence.

It's an 'opinion piece'. I agree with some of his opinions. In my experience I have found that analysis to be largely true.

You are entitled to your view.

I think you will be surprised. Some of the changes that are difficult to accept will be beginning to bear fruit come 2025, and the Greens will do better than anyone thinks.

Even if I am wrong, the long-term changes that they make will last more than an electoral cycle and be difficult to reverse. For example, imaging a government reneging on climate tax or climate change targets? Will be slated everywhere, and not just in Ireland. Greens aren't interested solely in electoral success. Unlike others who talk about change, they are interested in making change.

If you wish to use a single pedantic understanding of 'analysis' work away.

And the reason minor coalition parties don't do well here is not that hard to analyse either.

It's because they utterly betray what they stand for. See Howlin excusing Labour for another example, with 'We did what had to be done...'.

The electorate are not stupid and understand perfectly.

That statement of yours ^ also comes under what I would call 'analysis', it is also a 'blanket statement' without data or back-up, on the the ability of the electorate to analyse what is going on. You either take it on board or you don't. I don't accept that analysis of the electorate as per my previous post.

Compromise is good, capitulation is bad and I think the electorate can recognise that.

Not helped by decades of parties saying one thing while doing the exact opposite when they win. How would you ask Michael Martin about coalition when he was saying he would never coalesce with the party he eventually coalesced with?

Won't change at the next election anyhow as the public voting for FG or FF will want to know if they are effectively re-electing the government.

It will certainly be interesting to hear the answers.

I don't think that there is any chance of what you are saying ever actually happening.

Look at the current opposition. Is there a single significant government measure that they have supported from the outset? How could any of them credibly go into government with any of FF, FG or Greens. There is no chance of such sophistication from the knee-jerk anti-everything in SF and PBP, but you would hope that Bacik or Cairns would actually play it a bit cleverer and show some support at some stage for the government, thereby giving themselves future credibility in government discussions.

They'll have as much credibility as FG and FF who coalesced after 100 years of being in opposition to one another.

And the 'anti everything' is sensationalist. There are many many thing done everyday by the government that do not raise objection.

Gilmore was an absolute idiot in the run-up to the 2011 election. Writing cheques left right and centre he knew he'd never be able to cash. Even a single-party Labour majority government (!) wouldn't have been able to do all the things he promised. The really crazy thing is that they would have done well in the election anyway without the outlandish promises. The damage he did to the party is probably irreperable. But he did get his "Gilmore for Taoiseach" posters on the lampposts which appears to have been the important thing.

I seem to recall it started well before the latter stage of the campaign. Did FG ever really look like a possible single-party government?