# Who will form the next government? - The results



## Purple (9 Feb 2020)

For me the big story of this election is the death of Labour. They will have a rump of a few old timers but that’s it. Sad it see it happen to the oldest party in the country.

The Shinners would do best to stay out of power this time as reality wont suit their ideologically driven fanciful “just tax the rich and we’ll all be fine” policies. The danger for them is that they have sucked up votes from the independents and those votes will just float away by the next election.


----------



## Firefly (9 Feb 2020)

At the moment I think it's looking like FF/SF.

If they can agree on forming a government, I do hope SF have the decency to accept the mandate of the people and take health & housing and let's see how they get on!


----------



## Laughahalla (9 Feb 2020)

INM Bias and Media Bias in general helped SF. People didn't like being told who to vote for.


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2020)

Laughahalla said:


> INM Bias and Media Bias in general helped SF. People didn't like being told who to vote for.


The perception that FF were in a coalition with FG helped SF. An FF/SF government is the most likely outcome. If they had run more candidates Mary Lou would be the next Taoiseach


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2020)

The SF swing and the failure of FF to capitalise on the drop in support for FG is the big story.


----------



## blueband (9 Feb 2020)

looks like the two main center parties are running scared now.


----------



## Laughahalla (9 Feb 2020)

SF has the higest percentage of the popular vote. Wow.
FF will have more seats. 
Argument to be made for sharing role of Taoiseach between the two.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Feb 2020)

If you add in their support in the North, they are head and shoulders the most popular party on the island.


----------



## joe sod (9 Feb 2020)

Ruth Coppinger gone now aswell a surprising casualty of the Sinn Fein surge


----------



## Peanuts20 (10 Feb 2020)

Big story-1: Sinn Fein, I was listening to results in the car yesterday evening and some of them were wow moments. It's going to be interesting to see if they maintain that long term, especially as many of their new TDs had lost council elections over the summer. How much of it was a vote for something different and a brand rather then for individual candidates?. Can they keep their discipline, especially when they start putting 2nd candidates in to seats where one person romped home?. they failed miserably at council level to do so, infighting all over the country

2: FG- Leo's main political achievement will be to move FG to being the 3rd party in the state. He is detested outside of Dublin- how long before Coveny makes a move there?

3: FF- threading water- some new candidates, a 22 yr old in Cork is one example but Bertie's legacy prevails, they need to move to the next generation and fast but if Martin becomes Taoiseach it may not help long term

4: Labour- whats the point.? Interesting to see what Alan Kelly does when he surely becomes the next Leader. They'd be better of staying in opposition with him

5: Greens- party mostly of the Pale. Didn't really get traction out the country and that will hold them back

6: Soc Dems- another success story


----------



## michaelm (10 Feb 2020)

From my viewpoint a FF/FG/Green coalition may be the least worst option to prevent a rabble Left government.  The Greens would provide some political cover for the Old Guard but also would provide a comfortable/stable majority of seats in the Dáil and such a coalition would represent more than 50% of the popular vote, if only just.


----------



## Sunny (10 Feb 2020)

FF/FG can't happen. People already think they are the same. If they go into Government together, they might as well merge the parties. Not sure that would necessarily be a bad thing. If people are willing to move on from SF's past, can't imagine many people care about the Civil War.


----------



## odyssey06 (10 Feb 2020)

If FF\FG go into government now, and there's a global recession while they are in power and holding the baby, it will mean SF as by far the largest party at next election maybe even close to majority.


----------



## Laughahalla (10 Feb 2020)

I agree, FF/FG Can't happen. If they form a coalition then one of the two will not exist after the next election.


----------



## michaelm (10 Feb 2020)

Maybe FF & FG will put the country first and not permit a rabble Left government.  A lot can change in 5 years.  They may need to merge anyway to combat SF in a united Ireland general election


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2020)

The Shinners will have to go into government. SF/FF is the most likely option. FF will be gone within a decade if they do.


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2020)

michaelm said:


> Maybe FF & FG will put the country first and not permit a rabble Left government.  A lot can change in 5 years.  They may need to merge anyway to combat SF in a united Ireland general election


FF put the country first and look at what happened to them?
The Greens did the same before and they were wiped out.

Thee closer to reality to have to stand the less the electorate will like you.


----------



## Sunny (10 Feb 2020)

Part of me actually hopes SF actually gets into power just so people can actually see how they change like they do in the North. I just don't see how though. The price that FF will have to pay could be huge. I presume SF will demand finance. Can FF go into Government with SF Finance Minister and a slim majority? We will be voting again within months......


----------



## joe sod (10 Feb 2020)

How will the Sinn Fein hardliners like Dessie Ellis cope with the discipline of government and having to obey a whip. I dont think alot of the Sinn fein tds really want to be in government, they are afterall anti establishment, now they will be the establishment. Alot of the Sinn Fein new TDs were elected like the brexit party in the european parliament on a populist wave


----------



## Delboy (10 Feb 2020)

Sunny said:


> Part of me actually hopes SF actually gets into power just so people can actually see how they change like they do in the North. I just don't see how though. The price that FF will have to pay could be huge. I presume SF will demand finance. Can FF go into Government with SF Finance Minister and a slim majority? We will be voting again within months......


Which could well suit SF. Next time they'll have 2 in each constituency.

Give them Housing and Health, keep them away from Justice. Lets see the wind taken out of them when they take those 2 on!
Finance for either party as after all, it's FF we're talking about here!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> If you add in their support in the North, they are head and shoulders the most popular party on the island.


Absolutely.  And a dire warning to the 75% on the island, who are repulsed by everything that SF/IRA stand for, of what awaits them in a "united" Ireland.


----------



## Sunny (10 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Absolutely.  And a dire warning to the 75% on the island, who are repulsed by everything that SF/IRA stand for, of what awaits them in a "united" Ireland.



Wonder will IRA killers now get State funerals??


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Feb 2020)

SF is shouting out loud that they want to be in government. But I would guess that they have no intention of going into government. 


SF will argue that they couldn't accept the terms on offer. 

They would be much better off in opposition to some sort of FF/FG combo.


Brendan


----------



## Sunny (10 Feb 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> SF is shouting out loud that they want to be in government. But I would guess that they have no intention of going into government.
> 
> 
> SF will argue that they couldn't accept the terms on offer.
> ...




Then we vote again and SF could end up even more seats if they get more candidates in. I can't see any alternative other than FF/SF. Otherwise we go back go back to the polls and I think we will end up similar situation or worse where SF will get enough seats to make a SF and other left parties alliance work. 

I agree though. I am not sure how much they actually want to be in Government.... FF/FG can't happen. FF paid the price for confidence and supply agreement. A full alliance will lead to extinction.


----------



## Seagull (10 Feb 2020)

And people made rude comments about Trump and Brexit being voted in.


----------



## odyssey06 (10 Feb 2020)

Seagull said:


> And people made rude comments about Trump and Brexit being voted in.



I think all the knee-jerk anti British stuff that came out during Brexit, part of which the government fuelled with their donning of the green jersey, the virtual sneering from Phil Hogan ... when you stir stuff like that up it's gonna rebound in SF's favour.


----------



## blueband (10 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> The Shinners will have to go into government. SF/FF is the most likely option. FF will be gone within a decade if they do.


it would be the other way around, sf would be destroyed if they go into power with ff. look at the history of other parties that went in with ff, all ended up bad. ff are a toxic party and they would try to drag sf towards the center. thats not the change that people voted for.


----------



## Sunny (10 Feb 2020)

Seagull said:


> And people made rude comments about Trump and Brexit being voted in.



And I will make rude comments about this vote as well. We have voted in a party that is in Government in the North and has a crumbling health service. They are part of the Government that has decided that a Irish Language Act is an important enough issue to end power sharing for a couple of years rather than representing their people and fixing their everyday problems. So we elect them to sort out our health service. Ah democracy.....


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2020)

blueband said:


> it would be the other way around, sf would be destroyed if they go into power with ff. look at the history of other parties that went in with ff, all ended up bad. ff are a toxic party and they would try to drag sf towards the center. thats not the change that people voted for.


What change did people vote for?

Any Party that has acted in the National interest has been punished for it. FG under Alan Dukes, the Greens staying in power with FF to get the bailout structured and now FF keeping FG in power through the Brexit negotiations.
SF are a far left party but they are populist and savvy enough to play into the selfish short-termism that a sizable proportion of the electorate fall for. They targeted housing and health and Varadkar was too politically inept to sack both of them two years ago (whether they deserved it or not). Then they bribed the grey voters by telling them that they'd keep the pension age at 65. 
No matter what government is put in place we are looking at Bertie style pro-cyclical policies for the next 5-8 years with the resulting calamitous consequences. The people who usually suffer the most when that happens are the people who have the least.


----------



## blueband (10 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> What change did people vote for?
> 
> Any Party that has acted in the National interest has been punished for it. FG under Alan Dukes, the Greens staying in power with FF to get the bailout structured and now FF keeping FG in power through the Brexit negotiations.
> SF are a far left party but they are populist and savvy enough to play into the selfish short-termism that a sizable proportion of the electorate fall for. They targeted housing and health and Varadkar was too politically inept to sack both of them two years ago (whether they deserved it or not). Then they bribed the grey voters by telling them that they'd keep the pension age at 65.
> No matter what government is put in place we are looking at Bertie style pro-cyclical policies for the next 5-8 years with the resulting calamitous consequences. The people who usually suffer the most when that happens are the people who have the least.


that's your opinion and you are entitled to have it but I still say that going into a coalition to prop up ff would be disastrous for sf. they would end up loosing their core vote forever.


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2020)

blueband said:


> that's your opinion and you are entitled to have it but I still say that going into a coalition to prop up ff would be disastrous for sf. they would end up loosing their core vote forever.


Do SF have a core vote beyond the 10-15% they usually get?


----------



## blueband (10 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Do SF have a core vote beyond the 10-15% they usually get?


they do now...


----------



## odyssey06 (10 Feb 2020)

blueband said:


> they do now...



That's note a core vote. They've captured the swing vote I think, question is whether is now sticks to them.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> And a dire warning to the 75% on the island, who are repulsed by everything that SF/IRA stand for, of what awaits them in a "united" Ireland



I can't see the 75% having any difficulty forming a coalition to implement the oh-so-sensible and sane policies that has given us a €200bn debt, a housing market failure, never-ending hospital trolley crisis, can you?


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I can't see the 75% having any difficulty forming a coalition to implement the oh-so-sensible and sane policies that has given us a €200bn debt, a housing market failure, never-ending hospital trolley crisis, can you?


It was a massive expansion of the State's services and massive increases in the pay of those delivering those services which caused 90% of that debt. Are you suggesting that more taxes with a narrower tax base and more spending in an already overheating economy at full employment will result in a lower debt and a sounder economy? 
If so please point out an example of a country which has achieved this in the developed world in the last 50 years. Please don't point to scandinavian countries who have far higher income taxes on low and middle earners, property taxes and a much broader tax base.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that more taxes with a narrower tax base and more spending in an already overheating economy at full employment will result in a lower debt and a sounder economy?



Huh?? Im suggesting that if the 25% SF is acting as a "dire warning" to the other 75%, then the 75% should have no issue, and be prepared, in whatever shape or form, to enter government to save us from dire of SF and a UI.
Do you agree? If not, why not?


----------



## Sunny (11 Feb 2020)

Can we maybe stop repeating the same arguments across multiple threads?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> It was a massive expansion of the State's services and massive increases in the pay of those delivering those services which caused 90% of that debt.



Purple 

The ordinary budget deficits accounted for only 80% , not 90%, of the €200 bn debt.

The bailout of the depositors and bondholders  in Anglo and Irish Nationwide was responsible for about 15%,

AIB, ptsb and EBS was another 5% some of which we will probably recover. 

Brendan


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Huh?? Im suggesting that if the 25% SF is acting as a "dire warning" to the other 75%, then the 75% should have no issue, and be prepared, in whatever shape or form, to enter government to save us from dire of SF and a UI.
> Do you agree? If not, why not?


So you are not answering the question.


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Purple
> 
> The ordinary budget deficits accounted for only 80% , not 90%, of the €200 bn debt.
> 
> ...


Okay, 85% net (and increasing as our debt increases).


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

It's interesting that the two largest parties in the State are left wing republican parties.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Feb 2020)

Look on the bright side, we could have been facing the prospect of Grisly being the next Teashop    Ok, Grisly and his mates on the Falls Road will be calling the shots anyway, but just imagine him representing Ireland at the UN, say


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Grisly and his mates on the Falls Road will be calling the shots anyway


Of  course Gerry will deny ever calling any shots or even being near anyone when any shots were called...


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> So you are not answering the question.



Ok, my answer to your question is no. I assume what you have outlined is in some part the dire warning to the other 75%? 
If so, shouldn't the 75% take responsibility to save us from this?


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Of course Gerry will deny ever calling any shots or even being near anyone when any shots were called...



 That is a good one! My 'like' function is not available, but that made me laugh.


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Ok, my answer to your question is no.


So does that mean you oppose the narrowing of the tax base proposed by the Shinners, specifically the 5% tax increase on incomes over €140k and the abolition of property tax?


WolfeTone said:


> I assume what you have outlined is in some part the dire warning to the other 75%?
> If so, shouldn't the 75% take responsibility to save us from this?


They should not vote for far left parties like SF and Slogans before Reality (aka PBP).


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> So does that mean you oppose the narrowing of the tax base proposed by the Shinners, specifically the 5% tax increase on incomes over €140k and the abolition of property tax?



By raising additional taxes on wealth they propose to broaden the tax base.



Purple said:


> They should not vote for far left parties like SF and Slogans before Reality (aka PBP).



The 75% didn't vote for SF. Can you answer the question now, third time of asking - If a 25% vote for SF represents a dire warning, shouldn't the 75% in some shape or form be prepared to go into government to protect the Irish people from the dire of SF?


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> By raising additional taxes on wealth they propose to broaden the tax base.


That explains a lot... Taxing fewer people more is not broadening the tax base. 




WolfeTone said:


> The 75% didn't vote for SF. Can you answer the question now, third time of asking - If a 25% vote for SF represents a dire warning, shouldn't the 75% in some shape or form be prepared to go into government to protect the Irish people from the dire of SF?


 Part of that 75% are in a different country. Do you understand how that causes a problem when forming a government in one of them?
The Shinners and other far left parties have made significant gains in this country in the election. They made those gains on the basis of people wanting a "change". I think that the onus is on them to try to form a government. Turning the place into a socialist paradise like Venezuela will certainly be a change.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> That explains a lot... Taxing fewer people more is not broadening the tax base.



?? By introducing new revenue streams (wealth tax) that is broadening the tax base. 
I dont see how fewer people are being taxed?
Broadening the tax base can simply mean restructuring the tax code to generate more revenues. This could entail _lowering _tax rates or excluding certain sectors from tax _if _the subsequent consequence is to generate economic activity that in turn generates _additional _tax revenues from other revenue streams.
Btw, I have no idea if SF tax proposal on wealth will achieve this, only time will tell. 
Im minded to think that if wealth is to be taxed, it should start with the wealthiest and work down, rather than increasing tax rates from the bottom up.



Purple said:


> The Shinners and other far left parties have made significant gains in this country in the election. They made those gains on the basis of people wanting a "change". I think that the onus is on them to try to form a government.



I think the onus is on them also having achieved highest preference vote. But the reality is that the electorate has returned a block of 3 parties more or less equal. 
Media soundbites of the people wanting change are just that, soundbites. They do not form the basis of sound decision making.

If the consequences of a SF government are dire, then it is a complete abdication of responsibility of other parties, combining of 50%+1 _not _to try form a government on the basis of media soundbites of people wanting change. 

For my part, I think the dire warnings and depictions of economic collapse are just more soundbites propagated by people trying to pitch a sale about something they know very little about.


----------



## joe sod (11 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Ok, Grisly and his mates on the Falls Road will be calling the shots anyway, but just imagine him representing Ireland at the UN, say



Compared to some of the gangsters from other countries at the UN he would like Mother Theresa


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> ?? By introducing new revenue streams (wealth tax) that is broadening the tax base.
> I dont see how fewer people are being taxed?


Since the family home, pension funds, family farms and family businesses are excluded what's left other than the high earners who already pay more tax than in any other country in the developed world? How is taxing those same people even more broadening the tax base?


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

joe sod said:


> Compared to some of the gangsters from other countries at the UN he would like Mother Theresa


AH, the Jimmy Savile isn't as bad as Fred West argument.
I still wouldn't have let either of them babysit, would you?


----------



## Seagull (11 Feb 2020)

Broadening the tax base means having more people paying tax, not the same number of people paying more tax.


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

Seagull said:


> Broadening the tax base means having more people paying tax, not the same number of people paying more tax.


Shhh, you'll be on the list.

I'm on it already. When I disappear it will be because I'm a criminal. They might do a Jean McConville on me.
Best case is a few years in a reeducation camp. Long live the revolution!


----------



## Firefly (11 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Shhh, you'll be on the list.
> 
> I'm on it already. When I disappear it will be because I'm a criminal. They might do a Jean McConville on me.
> Best case is a few years in a reeducation camp. Long live the revolution!


Fear not me ole stock. We have a way to get our wealth out of the country should SF try to impose a wealth tax. It's a solution much debated on this site and even the bould _tecate_ has provided a step-by-step "how to" guide for. I for one have been a sceptic up until now. But no longer....

Ladies & Gentlemen, we have finally found a real use case for BITCOIN


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Feb 2020)

Seagull said:


> Broadening the tax base means having more people paying tax,



Yes it can mean that, but its a somewhat  incomplete understanding of the concept.
I take it we all agree that the tax base is all tax revenue streams? Income tax, VAT, USC, Corporation tax, property tax, motor tax, etc...etc...?
So invariably, we all pay taxes in some form or another. So getting _more_ people to pay tax when _everybody_ already pays tax is somewhat a contradiction.
Broadening the tax base is increasing, decreasing, eliminating, or introducing new tax codes that generate greater revenue streams than what existed before.
If tax codes are altered (increased, decreased, eliminated or new ones introduced) that result in lower revenues then the tax base is narrowed.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> Ladies & Gentlemen, we have finally found a real use case for BITCOIN



Back up 194% over twelve months...you are missing out.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes it can mean that, but its a somewhat simplified and incomplete understanding of the concept.
> I take it we all agree that the tax base is all tax revenue streams? Income tax, VAT, USC, Corporation tax, property tax, motor tax, etc...etc...?
> So invariably, we all pay taxes in some form or another. So getting _more_ people to pay tax when _everybody_ already pays tax is somewhat a contradiction.
> Broadening the tax base is increasing, decreasing, eliminating, or introducing new tax codes that generate greater revenue streams than what existed before.
> If tax codes are altered (increased, decreased, eliminated or new ones introduced) that result in lower revenues then the tax base is narrowed.



That's not broadening the tax base. There can be no other interpretation of broadening the tax base that increasing the different sources from which tax is levied \ due. What you have described is a deepening of existing tax base. You are confusing the sources of tax with the amount of tax \ qualitiative versus quantitative difference.
If you want to argue broadening of the tax base isn't needed, that's a different argument but what you are presenting here just doesn't tally with usual usage.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> There can be no other interpretation of broadening the tax base that increasing the different sources from which tax is levied \ due. What you have described is a deepening of existing tax base.



I understand the point, but in my view 'broadening' and 'deepening' is simply splitting hairs.
Limiting the definition of broadening the tax base to;


odyssey06 said:


> There can be no other interpretation of broadening the tax base that increasing the different sources from which tax is levied \ due.


 is incomplete.

For what purpose would a government want to broaden the tax base?
Obviously to raise additional revenues, correct? Those additional revenues can serve to provide additional services, or can be used to reduce tax rates on other sources to provide a more equitable tax system.

Additional sources of tax revenue can also be punitive. They can inadvertently have the opposite effect to raising revenue and instead reduce revenue streams - for what purpose is broadening the tax base through increasing the different sources then?

There is little to be gained from broadening the tax base if the knock on consequences on the total value of revenue streams are not considered.


----------



## losttheplot (11 Feb 2020)

A broad tax base would be more stable. We're overly reliant on corporation tax.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Feb 2020)

No broadening the tax base is not merely about the total amount of revenue. It is the difference between a diverse and concentrated asset portfolio.
No economist would say a country had a broad tax base if they were raising huge sums from a single source of tax eg over reliance on corporation tax.

No economist would say we were broadening our tax base by increasing corporation tax rate.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Feb 2020)

losttheplot said:


> A broad tax base would be more stable. We're overly reliant on corporation tax.



I agree, do you have any suggestions where to tax? 
Personally, I think the USC is a punitive charge that has stymied  economic activity. Removing this for low and middle income earners will be offset by taxes on increased consumption, profits and employment. It will have an enormous impact in provincial towns and villages that are struggling to feel any sense of recovery. The high street will get a much needed boost also.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> No broadening the tax base is not merely about the total amount of revenue. It is the difference between a diverse and concentrated asset portfolio



I agree, it is not merely about the total revenue. It is about the total revenue generated from a diverse and concentrated asset portfolio. 
But adding additional sources of revenue could inadvertently reduce total revenues overall. 
No economist would agree that adding additional sources of revenue that subsequently reduced overall revenue streams equated to broadening the tax base.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I agree, it is not merely about the total revenue. It is about the total revenue generated from a diverse and concentrated asset portfolio.
> But adding additional sources of revenue could inadvertently reduce total revenues overall.
> No economist would agree that adding additional sources of revenue that subsequently reduced overall revenue streams equated to broadening the tax base.



It has nothing to do with overall revenue going up or down.
It is a different measurement entirely.
Increasing tax revenue is not an increase a broadening of the tax base.
Its the difference between height and weight.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> It has nothing to do with overall revenue going up or down.



Not exclusively, no. The definition is much broader than that - an equitable and sustainable tax system is at the center of it also.

So for what purpose is the concept of 'broadening the tax base' ?


----------



## losttheplot (11 Feb 2020)

Less tax from more people would be more stable then more tax from less people. Property tax was one way of broadening the tax base. During the Bertie years more and more were taken out of the tax net. Stamp duty and Corporation tax got us through. Once they dried up, the party ended.

Imagine a single income household on 80k versus a 4 income house hold with 4 x 20k. In the single income house, one job loss could ruin them. The 4 income house could survive, with less money though.


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I understand the point, but in my view 'broadening' and 'deepening' is simply splitting hairs.
> Limiting the definition of broadening the tax base to;
> is incomplete.
> 
> ...


No, broadening the tax base is broadening the tax base. You may not like it but that's what it is. Charging the same people/sources more tax is not broadening.
How to broaden the tax base;
Property Tax on all properties, especially the family home.
Water charges; this is also a great environmental tax.
Get everyone into the income tax net. Everyone should pay some tax.
Get pensioners to pay the full rate of PRSI; they didn't make enough contributions to pay for their pension during their working life so why stop when they are retired?
Make childrens allowance taxable and maybe increase it by 10%. That way rich people aren't getting big social welfare payments from poor people.
Make sure large corporations pay 12.5% corporation tax.

We need to stop taxing work so much.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Feb 2020)

losttheplot said:


> Less tax from more people would be more stable then more tax from less people



Absolutely, but if you consider that everyone pays tax (a homeless person on the street pays VAT on the purchase of a coffee and sandwich) then more tax from the same amount of people is in effect the reality.

But for what purpose? Primarily to devise a fair and just taxation system. That is wholly subjective of course and sets the political discourse.

Outside of political discourse and what should be taxed or not, or what is the appropriate level of taxation, the tax base is sum of all the revenue sources on the available gross value of economic activity in the economy.
If additional sources of revenue (new taxes) are implemented and the consequences of those are to return a bigger slice of revenue in monetary terms for the State but from a smaller pie (economy retracts) the tax base has _narrowed_ - the ability of the State to raise additional revenues has diminished.
If additional sources of revenue return a bigger slice of revenue from a larger pie (economy expanding) the tax base has broadened - the ability of the State to raise additional revenues has increased.

Devising new sources of revenue from the economy is broadening the tax base in common parlance, but if the consequences of implementing those taxes are not considered then such an interpretation is incomplete.


----------



## josh8267 (12 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Get pensioners to pay the full rate of PRSI; they didn't make enough contributions to pay for their pension during their working life so why stop when they are retired?


You need to do quite a lot of reading up on who pays what when it comes to prsi,all of the prsi collected under class s including all collected under earned income landlords and so fort covers only 23% of the money paid out to cover s class pensions you and your employer pay the other 77%,


----------



## Leper (12 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Get pensioners to pay the full rate of PRSI; they didn't make enough contributions to pay for their pension during their working life so why stop when they are retired?



1. Again, Purple at his brilliant worst. Now the pensioners are the conscience of Ireland Ltd. Most of us pensioners worked through recession after recession; recessions became normal to us. So much so that the last recession in our eyes was a doddle.

If you've worked continuously from your teens until you're 65 you've earned your pension. I'd love to see any political party try to put that one (Purple's suggestion) over on us. Nobody's gettin' a silver spoon from me.

2. The new government isn't nearly formed yet. I think it will be some time with Mary Lou McDonald and her Sinn Féin involved. But, this can all be over-ridden fast if Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael decide to form a Grand Coalition and bring on board some others. It will be seen as a descendant of Lanigan's Ball, but they not communicating is sending out a message that they are not even interested.  Therefore, this is a cop-out from FF and FG. But, you never know, they probably still think they're the cavalry.

My take on all this (albeit at an early stage) all our politicians are confused and don't know what way to turn. For once, they've all got to think and avoid losing more ground.

For the record:- I did not vote SF,Green, FF,FG, LAB. I did vote for everybody else on the ticket.


----------



## blured (12 Feb 2020)

I think we can put the idea of any political party broadening the tax base in the current climate to bed. The list posted by Purple would be a great start, but its just not going to be implemented by any party as it would be wildly unpopular.

How much scope do we have from the EU to reduce VAT rates. I think as a first step we should look to reduce VAT (as a regressive tax) and offset this by removing the Income Tax/PAYE/Earned Income tax credits


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

josh8267 said:


> You need to do quite a lot of reading up on who pays what when it comes to prsi,all of the prsi collected under class s including all collected under earned income landlords and so fort covers only 23% of the money paid out to cover s class pensions you and your employer pay the other 77%,


The average person pays about €30 a week in PRSI. That contributes towards pensions, disability and many other forms of welfare. Therefore the contribution towards the state pension is maybe €10 a week. Including employers PRSI that could be €30 a week. To fund a €13,000 a year pension you'd need to be contributing about €255 a week for 40 years. source. I'll say it again; the average person comes nowhere near funding their own State pension. You would have to earn an average of €320,000 for 40 years to pay enough PRSI to contribute an average of €255 a week in total PRSI payments and given that only a small proportion of that goes towards the State pension you still wouldn't be funding it.


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> Most of us pensioners worked through recession after recession; recessions became normal to us. So much so that the last recession in our eyes was a doddle.


 More than any other group in Ireland you're the guys that caused the last recession and suffered least as a result.


Leper said:


> If you've worked continuously from your teens until you're 65 you've earned your pension.


 No you didn't; see my last post. 


Leper said:


> Nobody's gettin' a silver spoon from me.


No, you're getting it from those now in the workforce. I may be lucky enough to get the same. If so I'll say "thank you" to the young people who are funding the pension I didn't earn.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Charging the same people/sources more tax is not broadening.





Purple said:


> Get everyone into the income tax net. Everyone should pay some tax.



This is simply charging the same people/sources more tax. 



Purple said:


> Get pensioners to pay the full rate of PRSI



This is charging the same people/sources more tax



Purple said:


> Make childrens allowance taxable and maybe increase it by 10%



This is charging the same people/sources more tax.

This is the political discourse surrounding the concept of broadening the tax base. In it is insufficient.
All people are taxpayers. That some pay PAYE, others pay self-assessment, others pay tax on dividends, everyone pays VAT, some pay tax on rental income, others pay property tax, some pay high rates of USC, others pay low rates of USC, some pay motor tax, etc...etc...
It is all adjusting, tinkering, interfering, with the economic activity of an economy in order to extract as much revenue to pay for public services _without _negatively affecting, in the round, the value of that economic activity. 
Simply defining the tax base as the number of available sources of revenue is inadequate and insufficient.


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> This is simply charging the same people/sources more tax.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you serious?
Do you really not understand what broadening the tax base means? 
I find this hard to believe. Are you being deliberately obtuse? 



WolfeTone said:


> This is the political discourse surrounding the concept of broadening the tax base. In it is insufficient.
> All people are taxpayers. That some pay PAYE, others pay self-assessment, others pay tax on dividends, everyone pays VAT, some pay tax on rental income, others pay property tax, some pay high rates of USC, others pay low rates of USC, some pay motor tax, etc...etc...
> It is all adjusting, tinkering, interfering, with the economic activity of an economy in order to extract as much revenue to pay for public services _without _negatively affecting, in the round, the value of that economic activity.
> Simply defining the tax base as the number of available sources of revenue is inadequate and insufficient.


Nothing negatively affects the value of economic  activity more than taxing work. If you have a choice to work harder and/or longer but more than 50% of what you earn will be taken from you in payroll taxes that is a disincentive to work. If there is a tax on your property that is not a disincentive to work.

How would you define the tax base then? Is there dome formula that you can share?


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> How would you define the tax base then?



The tax base is the total value of assets and income that can be taxed in an economy.

Additional sources of revenue imposed that reduce that value, narrows the tax base.
Additional sources of revenue imposed that increase that value, broadens the base.

The different categories in which tax is collected - income tax, Corporation tax, VAT, Motor tax, VRT, property tax etc and the rates that are applicable at various points of income or applied to different asset classes, goods and services is the circus which drives the political discourse.


----------



## Leo (12 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Are you serious?
> Do you really not understand what broadening the tax base means?



This is someone who believes broadening and deepening are effectively the same thing!!



WolfeTone said:


> but in my view 'broadening' and 'deepening' is simply splitting hairs.


----------



## Sophrosyne (12 Feb 2020)

Are we jumping the gun?

Is a grand coalition possible?


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The tax base is the total value of assets and income that can be taxed in an economy.


No, that's the potential tax base.
The tax base is the proportion of that potential base which is actually taxed. 
If you only tax part of it, or tax part of it far more heavily than most other parts, then you have a narrow tax base.



WolfeTone said:


> Additional sources of revenue imposed that reduce that value, narrows the tax base.
> Additional sources of revenue imposed that increase that value, broadens the base.


That's incorrect.


----------



## Leper (12 Feb 2020)

Sophrosyne said:


> Are we jumping the gun?
> 
> Is a grand coalition possible?


]



A Grand Coalition is possible. Mr Varadkar is playing hard-to-get while Mr Martin will hop into the political bed of anybody who'll allow him to be Taoiseach.

I believe Mary Lou was caught on the hop and never believed she was in line head up the next government. I'm also wondering if she wants to head up the next government. When you are the top, there is only one way you can go.

I ain't sure that Mr Varadkar and Mr Martin will be leading Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil into the near future either. A Grand Coalition would be easier on FG supporters if Mr Varadkar was sacked.


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> ]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who is there in FF to replace Mr Martin? Biffo Jr.?!


----------



## Sophrosyne (12 Feb 2020)

I suppose I should have asked whether a grand coalition is _likely_.

The last arrangement wasn’t exactly a coalition but rather a supply and confidence agreement, which backfired on Fianna Fáil.

Most junior partners in Government fare badly.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> No, that's the potential tax base.
> The tax base is the proportion of that potential base which is actually taxed.
> If you only tax part of it, or tax part of it far more heavily than most other parts, then you have a narrow tax base.



I respectfully disagree. Inherent in your view is a failure to understand the nature of tax and taxation. 
In political discourse, what you have said is correct. Its part of the stick that politicians use to beat up on each other to point out the disproportionate disadvantages, real or perceived, that some sectors of society and the economy have to endure while others dont. 

Outside of political discourse, we are all taxpayers. The extent of which one part of the tax base is taxed over another will determine if the tax base broadens or narrows. 
The who gets taxed, by how much, and in what manner, is just the circus that determines the perceptions of an equitable system or not. 
I may think that an increase of tax on my income is unfair, but a tax on the value of my property is fair. Either way, it digs deeper into my disposable income. It is taxing the same person more tax. 

From a cold economic viewpoint, it is the impact of imposing, or not, particular tax categories, on given levels of income and assets that determines if the tax base broadens or narrows. 
The who pays what, when and by how much is political debate about equity and fairness. 
Its important to separate the two to understand the concept.


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

You are factually incorrect. This isn't a matter of your opinion or my opinion.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> You are factually incorrect. This isn't a matter of your opinion or my opinion.



We will agree to disagree so? 

The formation of the next government is driving alot of spin in the media.

Outside of this spin, ive tried to figure out a potential line up. It just doesn't seem possible without 2 of the 3 main parties agreeing to enter coalition with other small parties.


----------



## Sunny (12 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I respectfully disagree. Inherent in your view is a failure to understand the nature of tax and taxation.
> In political discourse, what you have said is correct. Its part of the stick that politicians use to beat up on each other to point out the disproportionate disadvantages, real or perceived, that some sectors of society and the economy have to endure while others dont.
> 
> Outside of political discourse, we are all taxpayers. The extent of which one part of the tax base is taxed over another will determine if the tax base broadens or narrows.
> ...



Its fine to respectfully disagree but you don't then accuse someone of having failing to understand the nature of tax and taxation. Every single thread seems to go down a complete rabbit hole....

For the avoidance of doubt and for the benefit of discussions here and in relation to the discussions will hear in the media, the tax base is where we get our tax revenues from. I don't care what the dictionary or what Investopedia say. That is what we are talking about.

When we say we have a narrow tax base, we are saying that a large % of our tax revenues come from corporation tax and income tax. And in that corporate tax bracket, most of our corporate tax comes from a small number of big companies. When we look at income tax, the majority of our taxes come from small number of earners and 50% pay of the earners pay almost 97% of income tax while the other 50% pay 3%. That is a narrow tax base. So if a small number of companies stop making profits or a small number our few high earners decide to leave the country, our tax revenues will take a huge hit.


----------



## michaelm (12 Feb 2020)

Sophrosyne said:


> Is a grand coalition possible?


For sure.  A FF/FG/Green government is, in my view, the least worst option now and it has shortened in the betting from 14/1 to 5/1 second favourite.  Martin wants to be Taoiseach, Leo want to stay FG leader and they only have to promise the Greens the world (making Ryan the Minister for Saving the Planet).  If FF and FG believe that a rabble Left government will destroy the country in kissing time then they must step up.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Feb 2020)

Sunny said:


> the tax base is where we get our tax revenues from.



Yes, have I suggested otherwise? 



Sunny said:


> I don't care what the dictionary or what Investopedia say



Thats part of the problem. Not caring what it actually means to broaden the tax base doesn't help. 
You have listed a series of % of % to demonstrate how the tax base is too narrow. Can you provide one succinct amendment to the tax system that would demonstrate how it would broaden, as distinct from why you think it would be more equitable?


----------



## Sunny (12 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, have I suggested otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are not dragging me into your endless discussions about some pedantic point. I don't even understand what you are asking for and to be honest I don't think you do either. Leave it to Purple and Firefly. They seem to be only two with the patience.


----------



## Firefly (12 Feb 2020)

michaelm said:


> A FF/FG/Green government is, in my view, the least worst option now



I agree with you, but it is clear to me that most people voted for a change of the guard. SF won this election on votes and had they had more candidates may have gotten a lot closer to an overall majority, IMO.

I therefore think a lot of people would be outraged should FF & FG form a coalition in order to prevent SF from entering government. 

I still have my doubts that SF actually want to enter government anyway and I think they know deep down that they'll be soon caught out. A FF & FG coalition would offer them a great excuse to stay in opposition, all the while moaning and growing their base with populist nonsense. 

Of course, if SF do get off the ditch and grab a hurley then the should be prepared to start delivering on their promises. Of course, yet again, they have another very convenient excuse in the near future with the Brexit negotiations should they need to blame someone else for their shortcomings..


----------



## Sunny (12 Feb 2020)

michaelm said:


> For sure.  A FF/FG/Green government is, in my view, the least worst option now and it has shortened in the betting from 14/1 to 5/1 second favourite.  Martin wants to be Taoiseach, Leo want to stay FG leader and they only have to promise the Greens the world (making Ryan the Minister for Saving the Planet).  If FF and FG believe that a rabble Left government will destroy the country in kissing time then they must step up.



I just cant see it. Confidence and supply damaged FF. A coalition would make them extinct. I think FG are happy to go into opposition and I don't blame them.


----------



## Firefly (12 Feb 2020)

Sunny said:


> You are not dragging me into your endless discussions about some pedantic point. I don't even understand what you are asking for and to be honest I don't think you do either. Leave it to Purple and Firefly. They seem to be only two with the patience.



Nah, I've had enough too Sunny


----------



## Firefly (12 Feb 2020)

Sunny said:


> I think FG are happy to go into opposition and I don't blame them.



FG just bought a big bag of popcorn 

_“That means people are saying to us that Fine Gael should go into opposition and we’re absolutely willing to do that.” _









						Election 2020: 'We were defeated in this election' - Fine Gael willing to go into opposition, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar says
					

FINE Gael now belongs on the Opposition benches while Sinn Féin must form a government capable of honouring their “remarkable promises” to the electorate, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has said.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> Nah, I've had enough too Sunny


Same here. Can't argue the facts when the other party has their own set of "alternative facts".


----------



## Leo (12 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> FG just bought a big bag of popcorn



It's likely a move that would give them best chance of a large majority next time round...  And they mightn't have to wait too long for that!


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

Leo said:


> It's likely a move that would give them best chance of a large majority next time round...  And they mightn't have to wait too long for that!


I think there will be another election within 6 months and the Shinners will get over 50 seats. Hopefully they won't burn down the Reichstag after that.


----------



## Seagull (12 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes it can mean that, but its a somewhat  incomplete understanding of the concept.
> I take it we all agree that the tax base is all tax revenue streams? Income tax, VAT, USC, Corporation tax, property tax, motor tax, etc...etc...?
> So invariably, we all pay taxes in some form or another. So getting _more_ people to pay tax when _everybody_ already pays tax is somewhat a contradiction.
> Broadening the tax base is increasing, decreasing, eliminating, or introducing new tax codes that generate greater revenue streams than what existed before.
> If tax codes are altered (increased, decreased, eliminated or new ones introduced) that result in lower revenues then the tax base is narrowed.


No. Broadening the tax base has a very simple definition. It's expanding the number of people paying tax. There is a very clear distinction between that and increasing tax revenue.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Feb 2020)

There is certainly a lot of posturing without any actual substance with regard the facts. 

The figures simply dont add up. The SF/Green/SD/Lab/PBP/Ind coalition simply wont work. 
There isnt the numbers for S & C

Either another election, or 2 out of 3 need to enter coalition. 
Given the public stance that is not likely, let alone any of three trying to convince their support base.


----------



## Sophrosyne (12 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> I think there will be another election within 6 months and the Shinners will get over 50 seats.



Or they could lose seats. David Cullinane didn't do the party any favours and the electorate might feel that SF is not quite ready after all.


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

Sophrosyne said:


> Or they could lose seats. David Cullinane didn't do the party any favours and the electorate might feel that SF is not quite ready after all.


They knew what they were voting for before him mask slipped and they’ll vote for it again


----------



## TarfHead (12 Feb 2020)

The only person who can call another election is the Taoiseach.  If the next Dáil can't elect a new one, that's Leo and there's no constitutional limit for how long that could last.


----------



## TarfHead (12 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> I think there will be another election within 6 months and the Shinners will get over 50 seats. Hopefully they won't burn down the Reichstag after that.



Unless they get to 81, it's moot.  The parties who want to avoid the _stink_ of coalescing with SF will likely want to avoid it when SF have a larger parliamentary party.


----------



## odyssey06 (12 Feb 2020)

Belgium went how long without a government... I think we just lock it out now on autopilot.


----------



## Sophrosyne (12 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Belgium went how long without a government... I think we just lock it out now on autopilot



But with Brexit negotiations imminent that might not be realistic.


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

Sophrosyne said:


> But with Brexit negotiations imminent that might not be realistic.


It might be the best option!


----------



## Sunny (12 Feb 2020)

TarfHead said:


> Unless they get to 81, it's moot.  The parties who want to avoid the _stink_ of coalescing with SF will likely want to avoid it when SF have a larger parliamentary party.



SF don't need to get to 81. They just need enough seats to make a coalition of the left viable. It is too fractured at the moment to make it work but it would be interesting in another election with them running more candidates. Even though, I doubt we would see the same vote again.


----------



## michaelm (12 Feb 2020)

80 would command a majority assuming someone else was Ceann Comhairle.


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

Sunny said:


> SF don't need to get to 81. They just need enough seats to make a coalition of the left viable. It is too fractured at the moment to make it work but it would be interesting in another election with them running more candidates. Even though, I doubt we would see the same vote again.


They'd probably make gains at the expense of some of the other far left parties but they would certainly take seats from FF and FG. If they just held the vote they got this time they'd get well over 40 seats.

And remember folks, Long live the Revolution!
Tá ár lá tagtha!!


----------



## Ceist Beag (12 Feb 2020)

TarfHead said:


> Unless they get to 81, it's moot.  The parties who want to avoid the _stink_ of coalescing with SF will likely want to avoid it when SF have a larger parliamentary party.


That's it really. If SF gain in another election it's more than likely going to be at a cost of other smaller left leaning parties. It's unlikely Labour or the Greens would go in with a much stronger SF so they would need to get to 70 odd which seems a long way off yet, thankfully (or at least hopefully!).
I think when they get a chance to reflect SF will see this as their best bet at getting into government.
It's really FF who will decide whether there will be another election or not I think.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> I think there will be another election within 6 months and the Shinners will get over 50 seats. Hopefully they won't burn down the Reichstag after that.


One of the few meaningful moments of the RTE coverage was a speculation of how many extra seats the 'Ra would have got if they had maxed their candidates. They came up with an extra 4.  
25 winning on first count sort of flattered them and we didn't quite get to see their transfer unfriendly attribute.  Though we do get a hint in that 2 of the 5 that did not get elected actually came 2nd in the first count.


----------



## Sunny (12 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> One of the few meaningful moments of the RTE coverage was a speculation of how many extra seats the 'Ra would have got if they had maxed their candidates. They came up with an extra 4.  25 winning on first count sort of flattered them and we didn't quite get to see their transfer unfriendly attribute.  Though we do get a hint in that 2 of the 5 that did not get elected actually came 2nd in the first count.



That is interesting on transfers. Hadn't realised that.


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

First they came for the X5 and Land Rover drivers and I said nothing because I don't have an X5 or Land Rover
Then they came for the Leinster Rugby season ticket holders and I said nothing because I'm not a Leinster Rugby season ticket holder
Then they came for the Landlords and I said nothing because I'm not a Landlord
Then they came for the Bankers and I said nothing because I'm not a Banker
Then they came for the people who sound like West Brit's and I said nothing because I don't sound like a West Brit
Then they came for the smart arses and there's nobody left to speak for me....


----------



## odyssey06 (12 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> One of the few meaningful moments of the RTE coverage was a speculation of how many extra seats the 'Ra would have got if they had maxed their candidates. They came up with an extra 4.  25 winning on first count sort of flattered them and we didn't quite get to see their transfer unfriendly attribute.  Though we do get a hint in that 2 of the 5 that did not get elected actually came 2nd in the first count.



Could be wrong on this, but I suspect the extra seats would come at the expense of their left wing potential coalition partners rather than FF \ FG \ Labour or even Greens.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> I agree with you, but it is clear to me that most people voted for a change of the guard. SF won this election on votes and had they had more candidates may have gotten a lot closer to an overall majority, IMO.
> 
> I therefore think a lot of people would be outraged should FF & FG form a coalition in order to prevent SF from entering government.


_Fly _we all wanted a change from that zombie confidence and supply nonsense.  But we should not accept the 'Ra mantra that this was a call from the people for "radical"  change.  I looked through the 1st prefs again and I struggle to come up with 30% wanting radical change.
Unless of course you call a FF/FG coalition a radical change.


----------



## Sunny (12 Feb 2020)

Yeah it wasnt a call for change. It was a pissed off vote. Cant really blame people either. Just wish it went to useless but well meaning like labour than scumbags like SF.


----------



## Firefly (12 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Fly _we all wanted a change from that zombie confidence and supply nonsense.  But we should not accept the 'Ra mantra that this was a call from the people for "radical"  change.  I looked through the 1st prefs again and I struggle to come up with 30% wanting radical change.
> Unless of course you call a FF/FG coalition a radical change.


I think SF in government would be the greatest "cut off your nose to spite your face" result in the history of the State.


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> I think SF in government would be the greatest "cut off your nose to spite your face" result in the history of the State.


Yep, it could all blow up in our face


----------



## Firefly (12 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> First they came for the X5 and Land Rover drivers and I said nothing because I don't have an X5 or Land Rover
> Then they came for the Leinster Rugby season ticket holders and I said nothing because I'm not a Leinster Rugby season ticket holder
> Then they came for the Landlords and I said nothing because I'm not a Landlord
> Then they came for the Bankers and I said nothing because I'm not a Banker
> ...



Don't worry Purple, I wouldn't buy a season ticket for Leinster either


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

Firefly said:


> Don't worry Purple, I wouldn't buy a season ticket for Leinster either


Are you keeping the X5?


----------



## joe sod (12 Feb 2020)

michaelm said:


> If FF and FG believe that a rabble Left government will destroy the country in kissing time then they must step up.



I think this is one of the most irrational themes among voters from listening to all the commentary, they are adamant that they wanted FF and FG out and that is why they voted SF. Before the election both FF and FG were adamant that they would not be going into government with SF and they are sticking to this line. Yet the very voters that voted for change and SF are incandescent with rage with FF and FG for not going into coalition, its as if they secretly want them in power so that they can continue to be the whipping boys and also because some of them are actually also fearful of SF in power.

Its like a child that wants to stay playing at the playground , the parents threaten that child that they are leaving and will leave him there, "ok i dont care im staying here", then as soon as the parents disappear around the corner the child realises he is alone and panics and starts screaming for his parents.


----------



## Sunny (12 Feb 2020)

__





						Log in or sign up to view
					

See posts, photos and more on Facebook.




					www.facebook.com


----------



## Sophrosyne (12 Feb 2020)

Brendan Howlin, who is stepping down from the leadership confirmed in an interview on 6.1 that the Labour Party would not form part of a left alliance. He said the membership were unanimous on this.

So a left alliance would require the support of all left parties, the Greens and 18 of the independents.


----------



## blueband (12 Feb 2020)

Sunny said:


> Yeah it wasnt a call for change. It was a pissed off vote. Cant really blame people either. Just wish it went to useless but well meaning like labour than scumbags like SF.


labour had their day in the sun and blew it by supporting water charges. people wont forgive them for that any time soon.


----------



## Sunny (12 Feb 2020)

blueband said:


> labour had their day in the sun and blew it by supporting water charges. people wont forgive them for that any time soon.



Forgive them for what? We should have water charges. But hey not in the country. We dont take to the streets over the USC because people are too busy working but God forbid we try to charge people for a utility.


----------



## Laughahalla (12 Feb 2020)

The water charge protests were not just about the charges, They were seen as another austerity tax. People were weary and this was seen as another bloody tax. It just happened to be called a water charge. I think whatever the charge was called it would have had people protesting.


----------



## Leper (12 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> First they came for the X5 and Land Rover drivers and I said nothing because I don't have an X5 or Land Rover
> Then they came for the Leinster Rugby season ticket holders and I said nothing because I'm not a Leinster Rugby season ticket holder
> Then they came for the Landlords and I said nothing because I'm not a Landlord
> Then they came for the Bankers and I said nothing because I'm not a Banker
> ...



To speak for you you don't need X5 or Land Rover drivers, neither do you need Leinster Rugby season ticket holders, you can do without the words of Landlords too, and you might as well throw in the Bankers and West Brits, you talk enough to speak for yourself, but if you're stuck give me a shout as I'm the best amateur character witness around to support anybody who is a good recruiter for the unions as you.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Could be wrong on this, but I suspect the extra seats would come at the expense of their left wing potential coalition partners rather than FF \ FG \ Labour or even Greens.



Salient observation. Has given me cause to rethink the conundrum.
It was the PBP that I considered would be most volatile in coalition, but if SF were to field additional candidates in a 2nd election, it could be at their expense.
That is something to focus the mind.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I looked through the 1st prefs again and I struggle to come up with 30% wanting radical change.



I agree. There is a lot of posturing at the moment. The Shinners have been propelled onto the big table. Its only right they play the part of people's revolution, for the moment. And only right that FF/FG succumb to that perception, for the moment.

But when the media furore starts to dissipate, as it will when the public start to tune out, the cold hard reality is no party is in any position, anywhere close, anytime soon, to form a government.



Sophrosyne said:


> Brendan Howlin, who is stepping down from the leadership confirmed in an interview on 6.1 that the Labour Party would not form part of a left alliance. He said the membership were unanimous on this.



Respect to Brendan, committed to providing a fair and just society. The Labour Party have good people, but they made the mistake of believing that the neo-liberal 'trickle down' ideology would provide the answers to social injustice.
They weren't the only ones, I believed it myself for a while.

I wouldn't pay too much store in what a resigning leader says, in fact I would tend to think the opposite is more likely.
Howlin is resigning on the basis of election results, not on the basis that he now accepts his principles were wrong.
What point the new Labour leader following the same path?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Feb 2020)

I don’t see any danger of the ‘Ra getting any share of power down here.  The center left have had the luxury of fighting it out between them in a Tweedle Dee contest for ever.  The luxury is now gone.  They will unite to stop the looney left 32 county socialist republicans getting traction. The center left are in a huge majority, only disguised by the faux rivalry.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Feb 2020)

Posting this from an Independent article...
In an early sign of the difficulties in forming a left-wing government, the party called Solidarity issued a statement yesterday clarifying that it did not attend a meeting with Sinn Féin. "The meeting today is just a meeting of *the People Before Profit component* of Solidarity - People Before Profit, with Sinn Féin, arranged between the two parties themselves," it said. Solidarity currently only has one TD, Mick Barry.


----------



## Purple (13 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I agree. There is a lot of posturing at the moment. The Shinners have been propelled onto the big table. Its only right they play the part of people's revolution, for the moment. And only right that FF/FG succumb to that perception, for the moment.
> 
> But when the media furore starts to dissipate, as it will when the public start to tune out, the cold hard reality is no party is in any position, anywhere close, anytime soon, to form a government.


 Agreed.



WolfeTone said:


> Respect to Brendan, committed to providing a fair and just society.


 Yep, but not much of a leader.



WolfeTone said:


> The Labour Party have good people, but they made the mistake of believing that the neo-liberal 'trickle down' ideology would provide the answers to social injustice.


 What on earth are you talking about? We live in one of the most socialist countries in Europe. The problem is that the apparatus State doesn't function well in certain areas for many various reasons. The mistake we make (and Howlin and most on the far left make) is thinking that money provides solutions to social injustice.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> We've been rich for the last 30.





Purple said:


> We live in one of the most socialist countries in Europe.



Has anyone told @Firefly?


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Feb 2020)

Labour made ridiculous irresponsible promises in the run up to the 2011 election, promising this and that and they other.
Eamon Gilmore and Pat Rabbite didn't care what lies they told as long as they got elected and got their cabinet seats and pensions.
The backfire on them was inevitable.
The Democratic Left \ Workers Party destroyed Labour from within.


----------



## elacsaplau (13 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone,

What are you talking about? Doesn't Firefly live in a different country? Come to think of it, how does the seamless border between the People's Republic and the Free State actually work? Has the solution to Brexit been staring us in the face all along?! How could Coveney, _one of our own like fella, _have missed it?


----------



## TarfHead (13 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> "The meeting today is just a meeting of *the People Before Profit component* of Solidarity - People Before Profit, with Sinn Féin, arranged between the two parties themselves," it said. Solidarity currently only has one TD, Mick Barry.



People's Front of Judea, Judean Popular People's front, etc.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Feb 2020)

elacsaplau said:


> What are you talking about? Doesn't Firefly live in a different country? Come to think of it, how does the seamless border between the People's Republic and the Free State actually work? Has the solution to Brexit been staring us in the face all along?! How could Coveney, _one of our own like fella, _have missed it?



 My 'Like' function has been turned off, I will have to contend with smileys.


----------



## Leo (13 Feb 2020)

blueband said:


> labour had their day in the sun and blew it by supporting water charges. people wont forgive them for that any time soon.



So people are protesting that by voting 'Ra, who's history in power in the north show they only increase such charges???


----------



## Purple (13 Feb 2020)

Laughahalla said:


> The water charge protests were not just about the charges, They were seen as another austerity tax. People were weary and this was seen as another bloody tax. It just happened to be called a water charge. I think whatever the charge was called it would have had people protesting.


Probably but aren't utility charges better than taxes on work?


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Probably but aren't utility charges better than taxes on work?



I think the government might have gotten it over the line if it had been a public utility... the future of the mongrel semi-state they stitched together looked to be sell off and huge increase in charges into the future. They wanted it to be a semi-state so they could get its borrowings off the government's books. Aside from the "cant pay wont pay brigade", there wasn't public confidence in Irish Water.

At this stage water charges have been abolished three times in some shape or form, whatever sense a proper utility with fair charges might make - it just ain't going to stick here.


----------



## elacsaplau (13 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> My 'Like' function has been turned off, I will have to contend with smileys.



You were obviously too liberal with your smileys. Did you ever figure that action would be required to curtail your excessive liberalism?


----------



## Purple (13 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> I think the government might have gotten it over the line if it had been a public utility... the future of the mongrel semi-state they stitched together looked to be sell off and huge increase in charges into the future. They wanted it to be a semi-state so they could get its borrowings off the government's books. Aside from the "cant pay wont pay brigade", there wasn't public confidence in Irish Water.
> 
> At this stage water charges have been abolished three times in some shape or form, whatever sense a proper utility with fair charges might make - it just ain't going to stick here.


Yep, so working people will continue to pay for their water costs through payroll taxes but they'll also continue to pay their neighbours water charges as well. The cost to the State of delivering water hasn't changed and the cost of upgrading our Victorian water infrastructure also hasn't changed.


----------



## Purple (13 Feb 2020)

I liked that elacsaplau's post for you Wolfie.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> I liked that elacsaplau's post for you Wolfie.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Yep, so working people will continue to pay for their water costs through payroll taxes but they'll also continue to pay their neighbours water charges as well. The cost to the State of delivering water hasn't changed and the cost of upgrading our Victorian water infrastructure also hasn't changed.



Yes, even more reason to be aggrieved at FG and Phil "I'm off to Brussels toodlepip" Hogan for the omnishables of how they attempted to bring the charges in and have - forgive the pun - poisoned the well for generations. It was obvious from the get go they weren't interested in fairness of charging or a better water infrastructure it was primarily about getting IW debts off the governments books. 
If it had been brought in by the Greens as a proper public utility to secure our water systems for the future I think it might have won grudging acceptance.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Feb 2020)

Some musings. 

Had chats with a former member and (unsuccessful) candidate of the Labour Party yesterday evening. He mentioned that there was talk of a Green/SD&LP/Aontú and a scatter of like-minded Indo's entering a pact to form a fourth block of some 30+ TD's 
This would really throw the cat amongst the pigeons. It also offers the prospect, albeit a real long-shot, of Eamonn Ryan being brokered as the next Taoiseach with 2 of the other 3 parties supporting in a coalition with neither leading the government. 
Radical stuff indeed, but considering the numbers, and the current positions of each party, is this a runner? 

Having said that, he was oblivious to the news that Howlin had resigned until he saw it on the news, so I take his insights with a pinch of salt.


----------



## michaelm (13 Feb 2020)

michaelm said:


> If FF and FG believe that a rabble Left government will destroy the country in kissing time then they must step up.





joe sod said:


> I think this is one of the most irrational themes among voters from listening to all the commentary . .


For clarity, FF and FG must both step up, and keep SF out.


----------



## Laughahalla (13 Feb 2020)

michaelm said:


> For clarity, FF and FG must both step up, and keep SF out.



SF won the same amount of seats as FF, SF also won the popular vote and could have had 10 more TD's had they ran more.
It is clear that a FF & FG coalition has been been rejected by the electorate .

It will most likely be a FF/SF coalition with a smaller party and a rotating SF/FF Taoiseach


----------



## michaelm (13 Feb 2020)

Laughahalla said:


> It is clear that a FF & FG coalition has been been rejected by the electorate .


That may be the prevailing narrative but in reality it's all as clear as mud.  FF/FG/Green would command a majority of seats and represent more than 50% of the popular vote.  It would be no less valid than some rabble Left government.


----------



## Seagull (13 Feb 2020)

I suspect that FF going into coalition with SF would result in a significant number of their voters automatically moving to FG come to the next election.


----------



## Leper (13 Feb 2020)

Laughahalla said:


> It is clear that a FF & FG coalition has been been rejected by the electorate .
> 
> It will most likely be a FF/SF coalition with a smaller party and a rotating SF/FF Taoiseach



1. It is not clear that a FF & FG coalition has been rejected. This is fallacy currently propagated by Leo Varadkar and Micheál Martin. In fact, the Grand Alliance of FF & FG + some Independents is a runner and perhaps will become more clear in the next week or two. My opinion is that Mr Martin and Mr Varadkar don't want another general election this year. If you were a card carrying member of FF or FG what would you be thinking?

2. I agree that the most likely outcome will be a FF/SF coalition. 

3. Don't be surprised if there is a change in the leadership of both FF & FG.  However, it's not a certainty.

I haven't delved into the life of Mary Lou yet.  All I know about her is from television appearances and newspaper articles. She tells a good story and looks great and appeals favourably to different human lifeforms in Ireland Ltd.


----------



## Purple (13 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> I haven't delved into the life of Mary Lou yet. All I know about her is from television appearances and newspaper articles. She tells a good story and looks great and appeals favourably to different human lifeforms in Ireland Ltd.


That expensive private school education in Notre Dame, Churchtown didn't go to waste. Sure it was only a short trip from her home in Rathgar. She's giving her kids the same start, fair play to her. With her smoked salmon socialist background it's a surprise she didn't join the Labour Party instead of Fianna Fáil. She is, without doubt a very smart and capable person.


----------



## TarfHead (13 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> She's giving her kids the same start, fair play to her.



I assume her husband's income is financing that, what with her only drawing the average industrial wage.

Her predecessor managed a home in Belfast, a holiday property in Donegal, an apartment in Clontarf (rent ?) and possible some residence in his then constituency of Louth.  All on the average industrial wage.

We need that talent in the Department of Finance.


----------



## Purple (13 Feb 2020)

TarfHead said:


> I assume her husband's income is financing that, what with her only drawing the average industrial wage.
> 
> Her predecessor managed a home in Belfast, a holiday property in Donegal, an apartment in Clontarf (rent ?) and possible some residence in his then constituency of Louth.  All on the average industrial wage.
> 
> We need that talent in the Department of Finance.


They might be paying for it with the €60k he got when Bord Gais was sold off as he worked for them at the time. I'm not sure where he works now. In fairness to Mary Lou she was against the selloff at the time.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Feb 2020)

Wiki said:
			
		

> In September 2003, McDonald attracted criticism when she spoke at a rally in Dublin to commemorate Seán Russell, an IRA leader with links to Nazi Germany.
> In June 2009, McDonald faced criticism after it emerged her campaign office was selling IRA souvenirs and memorabilia.
> In December 2015, McDonald initially backed Thomas "Slab" Murphy, who she described as a "good republican" despite him having been convicted on nine charges of tax evasion, following a trial held in the Special Criminal Court after the last person to testify against Murphy in a court was bludgeoned to death after a 1999 court case in Dublin.
> In March 2019, McDonald was criticised by some, including Fine Gael politician and incumbent Tánaiste Simon Coveney, for walking behind a banner in the New York City St. Patrick’s day parade which read "England Get Out of Ireland".


She's not all bad.


----------



## Purple (13 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> She's not all bad.


Not if you're a good Republican she isn't and we're all good republicans now.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Not if you're a good Republican she isn't and we're all good republicans now.



I'm a good *R*epublican too, if I lived in Boston.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Feb 2020)

THE FIANNA FÁIL parliamentary party has agreed not to enter into coalition talks with Sinn Féin, but it’s understood that it will consider a coalition with other parties








						Micheál Martin 'can't rule out another general election' after rejecting talks with Sinn Féin
					

Micheál Martin told a parliamentary party meeting that principles can’t change overnight.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## michaelm (13 Feb 2020)

michaelm said:


> A FF/FG/Green government . . has shortened in the betting from 14/1 to 5/1 second favourite.


Something off about quoting one's own posts but FF/FG/Green is now 7/4 favourite. . although, admittedly, the bookies got the election totally wrong.


----------



## Firefly (13 Feb 2020)

michaelm said:


> Something off about quoting one's own posts but FF/FG/Green is now 7/4 favourite. . although, admittedly, the bookies got the election totally wrong.


I wonder, as time passes, is the appetite for a SF led government starting to wane?

It could very well have been a protest vote but when the rubber hits the road, maybe those who voted for SF realise the promises made are not achievable without drastically increasing taxes & wrecking the economy. Never mind all the nefarious aspects.....

If FF & FG do form a coalition I would expect drastic increases in house building and someone to really focus on the HSE.

Sure, with FF proposing another SSIA, are we a few weeks away from the start of Celtic Tiger 2.0 ?


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Feb 2020)

PP odds 2/1 for second general election.

This has been changed to 15/8


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Feb 2020)

I just worry with the virus in China, and we're probably about due a global recession... I wouldn't want to be the ones in office when that hits. 
If FF & FG are in there together at that time, they'll end up so weak SF would have free reign after next election.


----------



## joe sod (13 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> I just worry with the virus in China, and we're probably about due a global recession... I wouldn't want to be the ones in office when that hits.
> If FF & FG are in there together at that time, they'll end up so weak SF would have free reign after next election.



I think there are many in FF also wary of this aspect as they were caught full square and circle in the GFC , and became victims of their own populist policies. SF successfully reminded voters of this just as voters were forgiving and forgetting about this . I think there is a very strong desire within FF to hang SF on their very own populism especially as a recession is probably due now anyways. I think this is genuine and not posturing . 
Therefore I think there will be no government for a long time, the uncertainty will probably hit the irish economy somewhat especially as brexit wheeling and dealing is going on in the backround. Then as another election happens much later in the year, the lust for SF populism will have waned as reality starts to dawn. The fact that FF only got 38 seats rather than 45 or 50 they were expecting has changed everything,


----------



## Laughahalla (13 Feb 2020)

FF won 37 seats. Not 38. Just sayin'


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Feb 2020)

Laughahalla said:


> FF won 37 seats. Not 38. Just sayin'


Tweedle dee/Tweedle dum won 72 seats, just sayin’


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Tweedle dee/Tweedle dum won 72 seats, just sayin’



Yep, and the posturing needs to end, they have a job to do, to get on with.


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Feb 2020)

It took over 2 months of negotiations to form the last government and that was with just two parties.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Feb 2020)

Sophrosyne said:


> It took over 2 months of negotiations to form the last government and that was with just two parties



Very true, but the numbers are even worse now. 
The numbers are not there for supply and confidence and there is zero appetite for it even if there were.

MM held the door ajar for a possible SF coalition last weekend, but has promptly shut that door today.
Whatever way you look at it, 2 out of the big 3 have to enter coalition together with others in order to form a government.
Its clear, FF/FG have ruled out SF. 
So they need to just get on with forming a coalition between themselves. It is natural, it is just, so just get on with it. There are far too many important issues to be getting on with for this phony posturing to continue for much longer, let alone another two months. 

If FF/FG go down the road of elongated negotiations, it will feed into the Tweedle-dum, Tweedle-dee narrative of same-old, same-old, politics.


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Whatever way you look at it, 2 out of the big 3 have to enter coalition together with others in order to form a government.
> Its clear, FF/FG have ruled out SF.
> So they need to just get on with forming a coalition between themselves. It is natural, it is just, so just get on with it. There are far too many important issues to be getting on with for this phony posturing to continue for much longer, let alone another two months.
> 
> If FF/FG go down the road of elongated negotiations, it will feed into the Tweedle-dum, Tweedle-dee narrative of same-old, same-old, politics.




They would have to decide policies first and then who will coalesce with whom and on what basis and then various comprises.

I wouldn't hold my breath.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Feb 2020)

I wouldn't hold my breath either. But the longer it takes and with SF on the sidelines willing to coalesce, but being excluded, the optics of that will only serve one interest, imo.


----------



## Leper (14 Feb 2020)

When I think about general elections down the years, the one thing that appalled me was the amount of people who would cast their vote for  one political party for no other reason than their parents did the same. They called it a traditional vote and nobody questioned why they voted that way. Where I came from originally everybody knew what way each household voted (you could do an accurate tally weeks before any election). Things changed in Ireland and suddenly there were referenda that divided family opinions. My family was a traditional FF voting one. FF were guaranteed 9 Number Ones, 9 Number Twos etc. I did a personal poll of all my sisters/brothers and their offspring yesterday and if the results of this were known not only my parents, but Eamon de Valera, Jack Lynch would turn in their graves.

Micheál Martin last Sunday advised in his last interview of the day that he was a democrat and the people had spoken and he hoped to move forward meaning that he would engage with SF (earlier he had said the opposite). Yesterday his parliamentary mates pulled the rug from under him and now we are informed FF won't talk with SF under any circumstances. So much for going forward. Coincidentally, FF are now doing a U-turn from their pre-election position with FG. The Labour party (or what remains of them - I nearly said what's left of them) have vowed to speak with nobody in the formation of the next Dáil.

The country probably doesn't need another general election soon. If there is, things could be more difficult for FF and FG - nobody knows. But, one thing we certainly know is that there is an enormous Protest Vote out there. At last, I see a thinking electorate that refuses to be taken for granted. In my view, this is unique and something I had wished for years.

I'd love to know what way our politicians are thinking on where it all went wrong; not just the TD's and former TD's, but senators, party hacks, traditional voters etc.

We know what went on:- the retention of USC, homelessness, inability to acquire mortgages, retirement age, poverty, health etc and that is before we think about politicians claiming compensation from falls from a hotel swing, elected representatives claiming money for non travel, non attendance and voting for others who were not in attendance in the Dáil sessions.

I would advise Mr Martin and Mr Varadkar to think for once, because if they don't they won't have to get up early in the mornings for too long more.


----------



## Purple (14 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> At last, I see a thinking electorate that refuses to be taken for granted. In my view, this is unique and something I had wished for years.


Thinking? People want a massive cut in taxes and a massive increase in spending and they are thinking? Will you go 'way out of that.


----------



## Leper (14 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Thinking? People want a massive cut in taxes and a massive increase in spending and they are thinking? Will you go 'way out of that.



I am away . . . . . . will be back for St-Patrick's Day.


----------



## Purple (14 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> I am away . . . . . . will be back for St-Patrick's Day.


Is the grass actually greened over there?


----------



## elacsaplau (14 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> (a) MM held the door ajar for a possible SF coalition last weekend,  (b) but has promptly shut that door today.



WolfeTone,

I know that you appreciate precision. So, for the avoidance of doubt.....

(a) is totally clear but (b) is not coz it leaves the possible interpretation that it was MM himself who promptly shut the door - i.e. a proactive action on his part. My understanding is that the door was firmly shut for him - otherwise, FF members would be experiencing civil war again - this time, just within the confines of the party faithful! There would, as 't were, be little going forward, going forward!


----------



## Leo (14 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> Yesterday his parliamentary mates pulled the rug from under him and now we are informed FF won't talk with SF under any circumstances. So much for going forward.



The problem is SF are still so tainted, permeated, and by all accounts controlled by a subversive element heavily and actively involved in criminal activity that many would see engaging with them as a significant backward step for a modern society to take.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Feb 2020)

elacsaplau said:


> My understanding is that the door was firmly shut for him



You are correct _elacsaplau _. That is a more accurate assessment of events occurring.


----------



## josh8267 (14 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Is the grass actually greened over there?


Greenest thing in Ireland has to be someone whose Name begins with a so called color
Talking about color
purple is not a color, there is no beam of pure light that looks purple
There is no light wavelength that corresponds to purple
The human eye can't tell what really  going on ,Ireland must be full of purples
Purple is Oven ready having being plucked by the so call responsible people,


----------



## Purple (14 Feb 2020)

Leo said:


> The problem is SF are still so tainted, permeated, and by all accounts controlled by a subversive element heavily and actively involved in criminal activity that many would see engaging with them as a significant backward step for a modern society to take.


I would not vote for a party which went into coalition with the Shinners.


----------



## Leo (14 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> I would not vote for a party which went into coalition with the Shinners.



I'd share that view, and from what MM has said over the last day or so, a lot of the FF faithful are of the same opinion.


----------



## michaelm (14 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> If FF & FG are in there together at that time, they'll end up so weak SF would have free reign after next election.


I don't buy the 'let them in this time in case they get in next time' argument.  If a grand coalition can put a few, admittedly major, things right over 5 years they can face the electorate from a strong position.  If the electorate then choose to scuttle the country then so be it.


----------



## Leo (14 Feb 2020)

michaelm said:


> If a grand coalition can put a few, admittedly major, things right over 5 years they can face the electorate from a strong position.



I see two challenges there. First, such a coalition lasting 5 years could be tricky. Secondly, the expectations of a growing section of the electorate are so unrealistic that anything actually achievable within a 5 year time frame will still be regarded as a failure.


----------



## michaelm (14 Feb 2020)

While SF got a plurality of 1st pref. votes (24.5%) there is little difference between FF & FG (combined 43.1%) and, in the not to distant future, they will probably either have to merge or co-ordinate during elections, and get used to being in government together.


----------



## Sunny (14 Feb 2020)

michaelm said:


> I don't buy the 'let them in this time in case they get in next time' argument.  If a grand coalition can put a few, admittedly major, things right over 5 years they can face the electorate from a strong position.  If the electorate then choose to scuttle the country then so be it.



It would destroy both FF and FG. Look at it at the moment. Look at how much money we are spending on houses and health. Everyone has been condemning FG for spending the windfall corporation tax to increase current spending. Social welfare increases. Very limited tax cuts. No changes to property tax. No water charges.  And what happens when the election comes up? They get portrayed as right wing nut jobs and that message is accepted by a large proportion of the population. Health will not be solved in 5 years. Housing will not be solved in 5 years. By nobody and with any amount of money. And whatever would be achieved would be forgotten by the time SF reminded people how they 'won' the last election and were denied a chance of Government. 

The only way I can see FG agreeing to a coalition with FF would be another election and the same result where is no other option but even then, I don't see a 5 year Government term. Let them run another election with everyone knowing that FF and FG will not enter Government with SF but will enter Government with each other if they have to.  At least people will know the consequence of their vote when it comes to Government formation.


----------



## josh8267 (14 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Thinking? People want a massive cut in taxes and a massive increase in spending and they are thinking? Will you go 'way out of that.


people expecting FF/FG to deliver on there  promises causes the above do you agree,


----------



## Purple (14 Feb 2020)

josh8267 said:


> people expecting FF/FG to deliver on there  promises causes the above do you agree,


Sheer stupidity caused the above. It's akin to finding that the chemo isn't curing your cancer as quickly as you'd hoped for and deciding that Crystals and Faith Healing is a better option. Thankfully there's a Darwinian outcome in that scenario.


----------



## josh8267 (14 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Sheer stupidity caused the above. It's akin to finding that the chemo isn't curing your cancer as quickly as you'd hoped for and deciding that Crystals and Faith Healing is a better option. Thankfully there's a Darwinian outcome in that scenario.


So you are a Supporter of sheer stupidity aka FF/FG,


----------



## Purple (14 Feb 2020)

josh8267 said:


> So you are a Supporter of sheer stupidity aka FF/FG,


I've asked you multiple times who you voted for. Given the reality of who is on the ballot paper who do you choose?
If you are not going to answer that but rather persist with the half-smart comments dressed up as cynical wisdom then you're just wasting everyone's time posting here. 
You don't support FF or FG  or Labour or SF or the other far left parties. Who did you vote for?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Feb 2020)

michaelm said:


> I don't buy the 'let them in this time in case they get in next time' argument.  If a grand coalition can put a few, admittedly major, things right over 5 years they can face the electorate from a strong position.  If the electorate then choose to scuttle the country then so be it.


Absolutely!   This is what I have argued and is articulated much better by Stephen Collins in today's IT.
It is also pointed out that the combined republican/socialist vote here is no more than 30%.  The combined FF/FG vote is 43%.  In the UK Labour got 32% on their Marxist platform and the Tories got 43%.  Everyone over there interprets this as a thumping rejection of Marxism and a ringing endorsement of Bojo.

The SF surge was sensational, but the sensation should be put in perspective and should not be allowed to drive the consequences.  The overwhelming majority reject SF/'Ra.


----------



## Leper (14 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Is the grass actually greened over there?



What grass?


----------



## Purple (14 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> What grass?


The metaphorical grass.


----------



## Leper (14 Feb 2020)

Leo said:


> The problem is SF are still so tainted, permeated, and by all accounts controlled by a subversive element heavily and actively involved in criminal activity that many would see engaging with them as a significant backward step for a modern society to take.



. . . . . all the more reason the electorate decided to protest, for once!


----------



## Leper (14 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> The metaphorical grass.



. . . . . you're losing me again . . . . well you lost me years ago!


----------



## Purple (14 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> . . . . . you're losing me again . . . . well you lost me years ago!


I lost you or you just lost it?


----------



## josh8267 (14 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> I've asked you multiple times who you voted for. Given the reality of who is on the ballot paper who do you choose?
> If you are not going to answer that but rather persist with the half-smart comments dressed up as cynical wisdom then you're just wasting everyone's time posting here.
> You don't support FF or FG  or Labour or SF or the other far left parties. Who did you vote for?


I had planned to vote for the green party,along with Independent as the best option in my neck of the woods,
Up to now I have voter for the following parties  FG/FF/Lab will not be voting for them ever again until the put a system in place to look after people who pay Pay Related Social Insurance through payroll ,
I and many like me recived a fair % when I found my self out of work for around seven or eight months back around 1984/5,
FF/FG/LAB took it away and squandered it on buying votes since then,
Just for the record I did not vote on Saturday , a good friend was home from Germany  asked me if I was interested in travelling to Germany with them on Friday so I missed the vote, The greens I was going to vote for got knocked out early the Independent got elected on first count with a few thousand to spare,
both FF/FG TDs that I used to vote for got knocked out,
At the door I asked both FF/FG canvassers to make sure to send the message back to the TDs  they would not be getting my vote until the started to restore PRSI like it was when I needed it,
Both FF/FG canvassors kind of refused to do so saying they were getting a very good reception at the doors for( there)parties , long may it continue,


----------



## Sophrosyne (14 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Absolutely! This is what I have argued and is articulated much better by Stephen Collins in today's IT.
> It is also pointed out that the combined republican/socialist vote here is no more than 30%. The combined FF/FG vote is 43%. In the UK Labour got 32% on their Marxist platform and the Tories got 43%. Everyone over there interprets this as a thumping rejection of Marxism and a ringing endorsement of Bojo.
> 
> The SF surge was sensational, but the sensation should be put in perspective and should not be allowed to drive the consequences. The overwhelming majority reject SF/'Ra.



I agree Duke.

This article by Michael Marsh, Emeritus Professor, TCD examines the left swing and what is “the left”. For instance does “left” include the Green Party?

“This now near equality of left and right in national terms is far from being the case across the country.”, he observes.


----------



## Leo (14 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> . . . . . all the more reason the electorate decided to protest, for once!



I don't get what you mean there?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Feb 2020)

Sophrosyne said:


> This article by Michael Marsh, Emeritus Professor, TCD examines the left swing and what is “the left”. For instance *does “left” include the Green Party?*


Interesting.  Well I don't think Dublin Bay South is "left" (ask the _Boss_) and I don't think Dun Laoghaire is left (ask the _Duke_).  So it is certainly problematic to count the Greens as left.  (the Duke did not vote Green, I hasten to clarify).  In fact is being Green not the ultimate in Bourgeois indulgence?


----------



## Sophrosyne (14 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> In fact is being Green not the ultimate in Bourgeois indulgence?



Yes indeed!

So in the case of the share of 1st preference votes:

FF  22.20%
FG 20.90%
GP 07.10%
Total 50.20%.

Of the 19 independents, at least 9 or 10 are part of the FF/FG/PD gene pool.

This site shows the national and individual constituency vote and the progress of candidates through the various counts and how the transfers went.


----------



## Leper (14 Feb 2020)

Leo said:


> I don't get what you mean there?



I don't believe the huge shift to supporting SF just happened in the past few weeks. I believe much of it was protest.


----------



## blueband (14 Feb 2020)

the way I see it panning out is like this...the two center parties will go into coalition togeather, they will drag in the "new age hippies" with them to make up the numbers. this can only be a good thing for sf as it will make them the largest opposition party...all they have to do is sit back and watch the wheels come off the wagon!


----------



## Sophrosyne (14 Feb 2020)

blueband said:


> the two center parties will go into coalition togeather



I wouldn't take that as a given.


----------



## josh8267 (14 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Interesting.  Well I don't think Dublin Bay South is "left" (ask the _Boss_) and I don't think Dun Laoghaire is left (ask the _Duke_).  So it is certainly problematic to count the Greens as left.  (the Duke did not vote Green, I hasten to clarify).  In fact is being Green not the ultimate in Bourgeois indulgence?


The greens will be the party to bring fairness into the political system halting the movement to the extreme left/extreme right,The greens would not have being bullied by the extreme left over water charges or bullied by the extreme right over bringing fairness into the political system,Me think,


----------



## joe sod (14 Feb 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> In fact is being Green not the ultimate in Bourgeois indulgence?



but what is "Bourgeois" in the irish context? FF and FG could definitely not be classed as bourgeois whereas the Tories probably could be, maybe only Charlie Haughey lived up to it with the big house in Kinsealy and the horses and the charvet shirts. Not in a million years could a Trump like figure get elected in Ireland, I think it boils down to our innate begrudgery.


----------



## Leo (17 Feb 2020)

Leper said:


> I don't believe the huge shift to supporting SF just happened in the past few weeks. I believe much of it was protest.



I'd agree their base support is indeed far lower. A Telegraph article over the weekend spoke to a few who voted their way but already regret it after the 'up the 'ra' chants. I think a lot of the commentary is right in that people want change, but they don't want radical change, so you get warning shots to the system like the Peter Casey presidential vote or the shinners this time.


----------



## joe sod (17 Feb 2020)

looks like FG are now ruling out coalition with FF, some of their TDs were revolting at the idea and want to go into opposition. So after this election no party appears to want to go into government. Maybe the electorate has become too fickle and ruling the country has become too difficult and politically dangerous therefore it is much better to be in opposition.  SF proved this so dramatically in this new era of populism.


----------



## odyssey06 (17 Feb 2020)

Have you a link to that update about FG? The info on RTE is quite vague about exactly what the parliamentary party agreed or did not agree to.

Edit... meeting still ongoing...








						Fine Gael party meeting hears strong objections to forming government with Fianna Fáil
					

Fine Gael's parliamentary party meeting has heard strong calls not to go into government with Fianna Fáil.




					www.breakingnews.ie


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (18 Feb 2020)

Apparently Sinn Féin is Gaelic for Ourselves Alone.  How can they complain if folk don't want to go into coalition with them?  

_(from cartoon in IT)_


----------

