General Irish politics discussion thread

…the more i learn about pr-stv, the more im also glad we have this in place, fptp is just truly awful, we need to make sure we protect this, or the lunes will eventually get in, on both the left and right…..

Single seat constituencies are the problem. Even with a sense of proportionality it still means decent chunks of people don't get represented. If you look at the potential labour vote in UK they're polling 40%ish but are on track to get well over 50% of the seats.

Reform (even though an awful party) will end up with a good chunk of votes and few, if any, seats. Garbage system.

Single seat PR doesn't exist - its AV or IRV (instant runoff) depending on what you want to call it.

You can't have proportionality without multiple seats.

The single seat + PR correction pool ("alternate member") system Scotland/Wales/London use is sort of a worst of both worlds as you have the issues of list and the issues of FPTP.

… due to a combination of policies implemented over decades, particularly in relation to fdi, i.e. its doing exactly what it was designed to do, and thankfully so…

…noting, a surplus signifies money actually removed from the economy, i.e. put it back in asap…..

AV can allow as many choices as they want to give - the old London mayoral two vote option is not common (and is not what was being offered in the AV referendum in the UK - that was single seat, fully tranferrable vote)

The speculation seems to be for some time in early November.

This move definitely suggests an autumn election alright - there is probably no other reason they would move the budget date.

…ah handy one for ffg, theyve very little to be worrying about, again, the best way to change, is to stay the same!

I would say a November date is more likely as an Autumn election date risks the budget preps and passing. Conversely October now can be spent on the budget and getting it through the houses before the Dáil is dissolved setting up a November election nicely.

Not sure how happy the greens are about this, seems they're getting shafted again by the Civil War parties

…yup, staying the same definitely is the way forward for ireland…..

Each system has its drawback.

The biggest drawback with PR-STV is that you always get coalition governments, which is fine in a way, but governments are then weak and wont want to make any big decision on anything important. So we muddle away while kicking the can down the road when it comes to more important issues we need to tackle.

FPTP, usually means a stronger government with a stronger mandate and they can make those harder decisions.

In my own case, my mother's parents were born in the 30s and have voted against most recent referenda and would follow the Church's view on most thing as opposed to what politicians would say.

However, come election time they always vote FF without a moment's hesitation. My father's parents were similarly unwavering FG voters while my parents have mostly voted Labour/DL/SD.

The dilution of the civil war parties can only be a good thing, imo.

careful what you wish for there, coalitions actually bring far more diversity, including in decision making, they also generally create far more stable outcomes, as we can see whats been unfolding in our nearest neighbors, both the us and the uk are in serious trouble, with rising tensions and dysfunctionality

yes all systems have drawbacks, but pr-stv really isnt all that bad when compared to others such as fptp, does the uk and the us truly look all that 'strong'!

There's not much evidence to suggest that coalition governments are weak. If the parties have a good working relationship, they can make firm and strong decisions.

This idea of 'weak' coalition governments is rooted in the memory of coalition parties in the past who mostly hated each other and who barely got along.

Oh for sure, coalitions give a broader range of views and wants, but that makes actual, real change very very hard to implement as all it takes then is one party to just veto the whole thing.

Take for example our own situation of using the Citizens Assembly to come up with recommendations that the government rubber stamps. Why do we need this, when we have a Dail and Government in the first place?

Because our governments are generally weak and don't want to be seen to push through any legislation that my be unpopular but might be better in the long run.

The biggest manifestation of this weakness is the power our permanent government has. They actually run the country and many ministers will not go against their Sec Gen or tell them where to go. Just look at the Dept. of Justice and Helen McEntee. The immigration stuff at the moment is also going through the Dept. of An Taoiseach as Simon Harris wants to assert some control over it.

@markodaly "real change very very hard to implement as all it takes then is one party to just veto the whole thing.

…

The biggest manifestation of this weakness is the power our permanent government has. They actually run the country and many ministers will not go against their Sec Gen or tell them where to go. Just look at the Dept. of Justice and Helen McEntee. The immigration stuff at the moment is also going through the Dept. of An Taoiseach as Simon Harris wants to assert some control over it. FG government?

On your criteria, Putin probably has the best form of government as he can rule by diktat. But thankfully, the measure of a government is not simply based on how easy it is to make and implement decisions.

Totally agree. I think as we clearly see in the US that FPTP is a toxic system which greatly facilitates extremist types getting elected and it makes it very open to extremist parties gaining governing power and all the damage that entails as we have been witnessing for years in the UK and we are now likely seeing coming to a horrific conclusion in the US.

Every party does indeed have factions, and that applies to the parties in FPTP systems too. In fact, it applies to them in spades.

In a PR system, the factions within government are largely represented by different parties, and the voters get to decide the relative strength of each party. Even for factions within parties, in the Irish system the voters get to express a judgement on that too; I get to choose which FF or FG or whatever candidate I will give my first preference to, and this determines which of the party's candidates get elected and which do not, and so voters decide the relative strenght of the factions within the party. Voters in an FPTP system have no similar right.

The result is that factions matter far more, and have far more power that is not conferred on them by voters, in an FPTP system than in a more democratic system.

The FPTP system does have the advantage, if you consider it an advantage, that a party that a majority of the voters has rejected gets a thumping majority to drive through the manifesto that failed to secure majority support among voters. But they also get a thumping majority not to drive through the manifesto, if they decide not not to, and to drive through things that weren't in the manifesto, if they decide to do that (which is mostly what they do; probably 90-95% of the legislation enacted at Westminster has not been put before the electorate in a manifesto). What they will actually use their majority to do is decided by a factional struggle within the party, and the voters have little to no say about it. Therefore the factions do not greatly care about the opinions of voters.

It's theoretically possible that the dominant faction would decide to use its dominance to deliver good long-term policy making. But the system is not set up to incentivise that; it incentivises the dominant faction to use its dominant position to secure the continuation of its own dominance. So there's no real reason to think that countries which have FPTP systems are, in general, better than other countries at forming and delivering good long-term policy. And a look at the recent history of the UK does nothing to subvert this analysis.