# European Elections



## cremeegg (19 May 2014)

I have said before that the long term future in Irish politics is a Fine Gael versus Sinn Fein split.

Looking at today's opinion polls it is the short term future of Irish politics also.

Decide which side of the split you are on and vote accordingly, anything else is a wasted vote.


----------



## Sunny (19 May 2014)

I will wait until a General Election. People think so little of European and Local Elections that are willing to vote Sinn Fein in as a protest vote. Come General Election time, Sinn Fein will poll well until election day and then people will revert back to the main parties and independents as has happened previously. I admit that Sinn Fein are gaining in popularity as the older generation of SF politicians vanish but I don't see them getting into power anytime soon. Certianly not at the next election.


----------



## Purple (19 May 2014)

The Shinners are getting the protest vote, just like Labour last time, the Greens before that, Labour before that etc. 
Those who can’t handle reality protest against it. That’s about 20% of the electorate.
The rest of us may not like reality but we accept it and try to change it within the bounds of what’s possible. 
The worst thing the Shinners could do is get into power. They would then try to implement their anti-business policies (even more anti-business than Labour and the current government). The fallout would be a disaster for Ireland and for them.


----------



## Sunny (19 May 2014)

Purple said:


> The Shinners are getting the protest vote, just like Labour last time, the Greens before that, Labour before that etc.
> Those who can’t handle reality protest against it. That’s about 20% of the electorate.
> The rest of us may not like reality but we accept it and try to change it within the bounds of what’s possible.
> The worst thing the Shinners could do is get into power. They would then try to implement their anti-business policies (even more anti-business than Labour and the current government). The fallout would be a disaster for Ireland and for them.


 
Not so sure. Sinn Fein are the same as every political party. They say one thing in opposition and do another thing when in power. Compare their rethoric down South compared to what they have done in power up North. They have cut health spending, education and even welfare. They have defended water charges up North and despite giving out about the property tax down here, have done nothing to reduce the one in the North which is a lot higher. 

It's like Labour and FG with the burn the bondholders or ban the upward rent reviews slogans while in opposition. Once they get their feet behind the ministerial desk and the senior civil servants have a word, they all go native in the end and nothing changes. 

Now make Ming Flanagan and Mick Wallace leaders of the Country and we could have change!


----------



## Purple (19 May 2014)

Sunny said:


> Not so sure. Sinn Fein are the same as every political party. They say one thing in opposition and do another thing when in power. Compare their rethoric down South compared to what they have done in power up North. They have cut health spending, education and even welfare. They have defended water charges up North and despite giving out about the property tax down here, have done nothing to reduce the one in the North which is a lot higher.
> 
> It's like Labour and FG with the burn the bondholders or ban the upward rent reviews slogans while in opposition. Once they get their feet behind the ministerial desk and the senior civil servants have a word, they all go native in the end and nothing changes.
> 
> Now make Ming Flanagan and Mick Wallace leaders of the Country and we could have change!



This Labour/FG government has been very anti-business. They have increased CGT from 20% to 33% (a 65% increase) and CAT (including inheritance tax) by the same.
If they want jobs to be created then they shouldn't be taxing capital so excessively. They have also allowed rates to increase massively.
Then there's payroll taxes; they second most "progressive" in the OECD. The top 5% pay more than the bottom 40%. Hardly attractive for investment, be it domestic or foreign.
Labour want a wealth tax on top of that. The Shinners regard it as a core issue. There would be nothing left here if those mutton heads were in power.


----------



## so-crates (19 May 2014)

The difference would be between realism and vendetta. In fairness to the current government I think they did at least try to spread the taxation/austerity pain. They weren't determinedly anti-business, there just wasn't much wiggle-room in being pro anything. The Shinners, the People Against Profit and all other sundry soapbox enthusiasts in that corral refuse to see that and think that a vote-winning strategy is to foster and stoke the ill-founded resentment of people who are struggling, against what the soapbox enthusiasts almost portray [FONT=&quot][/FONT]as those with ill-gotten gains. It is a divisive, vindictive, short-term view which will, if implemented as policy, decimate the country again. It is more of the same sectarianism that SF have played up in the North to bolster their own support there.


----------



## Purple (19 May 2014)

so-crates said:


> The difference would be between realism and vendetta. In fairness to the current government I think they did at least try to spread the taxation/austerity pain. They weren't determinedly anti-business, there just wasn't much wiggle-room in being pro anything. The Shinners, the People Against Profit and all other sundry soapbox enthusiasts in that corral refuse to see that and think that a vote-winning strategy is to foster and stoke the ill-founded resentment of people who are struggling, against what the soapbox enthusiasts almost portray [FONT=&quot][/FONT]as those with ill-gotten gains. It is a divisive, vindictive, short-term view which will, if implemented as policy, decimate the country again. It is more of the same sectarianism that SF have played up in the North to bolster their own support there.



Yes, very well put.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 May 2014)

Purple said:


> This Labour/FG government has been very anti-business. They have increased CGT from 20% to 33% (a 65% increase) and CAT (including inheritance tax) by the same.
> If they want jobs to be created then they shouldn't be taxing capital so excessively. They have also allowed rates to increase massively.
> Then there's payroll taxes; they second most "progressive" in the OECD. The top 5% pay more than the bottom 40%. Hardly attractive for investment, be it domestic or foreign.



How are capital taxes such as CGT and CAT anti-business? 

Part of the reason for raising these taxes was to limit the increases in income taxes which they have done. 

They have brought stability to the economy which is probably the most important pro-business thing they could have done. 

I agree that income taxes are too high, but I would be all in favour of increasing CAT and using the proceeds to reduce income tax. There was an excellent article in the FT about abolishing the allowance for CAT completely and making all gifts and inheritances subject to income tax at the person's marginal rate. 

Why should earned income be taxed at 53% while a good part of unearned income is exempt and the balance taxed at only 33%?


----------



## Purple (20 May 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> How are capital taxes such as CGT and CAT anti-business?
> 
> Part of the reason for raising these taxes was to limit the increases in income taxes which they have done.
> 
> ...



The boys from the EU/IMF brought stability. Do you really think the government would have kept on the right path without them?

I don’t accept that income tax V Capital taxes is an either/or equation. Capital and it’s movement is the lubricant of the economy. Taxing it heavily slows everything down.
Income tax is way too high and that is causing its own set of problems but taking capital that should be invested in creating jobs and using it to pay for non wealth creating state services (no matter how necessary they are) is damaging to the economy and the country in the medium term.
Reducing taxes creates the environment where jobs are created. Reducing taxes on business (including rates) means they have money to employ people and grow their business. The government don’t seem to understand that. They say they do but their actions say differently.


----------



## cremeegg (20 May 2014)

Sunny said:


> I will wait until a General Election. People think so little of European and Local Elections that are willing to vote Sinn Fein in as a protest vote. Come General Election time, Sinn Fein will poll well until election day and then people will revert back to the main parties and independents as has happened previously. I admit that Sinn Fein are gaining in popularity as the older generation of SF politicians vanish but I don't see them getting into power anytime soon. Certianly not at the next election.



Until the recent campaign and polls I would have agreed with this. Now however the question is who are "the main parties". 

Can FF really be considered a main party anymore. Yes it has a nationwide structure but the heart has gone out of it. A large part of its reason for being was power, now that is gone and the prospect of power is gone. Its activists are old and tired.

After the last general election FF could have tacked right or left, but it stayed in the amorphous middle. That is only a tenable position for a large scale party, a party of power. Now it is too late for FF to go either left or right, the ground is occupied.

Labour, well they have a core constituency, public sector, trade union, middle class liberal. They have no hope of attracting a protest vote or the very small true socialist vote. It has no future as a main party.

Anyone can vote for SF. 

Protest voters, Paul Murphy is a mouth, Martin Ferris is a protest vote. 

Feminists Mary Lou and the two female European candidates. ( I was watching the EU candidates last night Liadh Ni Riada made Phil Prendergast look like a stuffed shirt. And as an aside Simon Harris made Deirdre Clune look clueless.) 

People with serious concerns about the direction of the economy, SF's official economic policies may be fantasy but Peirse Doherty comes across as the best informed alternative to the FG/EU line.


----------



## cork (22 May 2014)

cremeegg said:


> People with serious concerns about the direction of the economy, SF's official economic policies may be fantasy but Peirse Doherty comes across as the best informed alternative to the FG/EU line.



SF are pretty weak on the economy.

Adams is a disaster on things like economics and finance.
SFs economic policies are a bit all over the shop.
They like pretending they are an all Ireland party but have no problem with property taxes or water taxes in Northern Ireland.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2014)

So the Shinners and looney left look like getting nearly half the vote. 
Some people have short memories but others have no problem voting for people who blow up children. Then there's the people who vote for People before Logic. They are just stupid.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (24 May 2014)

That's called democracy Purple. Calling people stupid for exercising their democratic right is a harsh.

I'd be more critical of all the people who didn't bother to vote.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 May 2014)

I think where you have a system whereby the Masters of the Universe get found guilty of illegal acts involving 100s millions of euro and get commended by the judge for their selflessness and lack of avarice you should expect a protest vote.


----------



## Delboy (24 May 2014)

People are angry, and are showing that through the ballot box. I voted FG last time expecting some change to the way this country is run....and all we got was a few tweaks of the existing failed systems.

People before Logic seem to have done quiet badly IMO, given how angry people are. Very little increase in their vote.
And I think a lot of the Shinners now running for office were'nt even walking when the last bombs were going off in the North.

Why vote for FG/FF/Labour- it's just a continuation of the way things have always been


----------



## Marion (24 May 2014)

I found myself in the voting booth looking at a pile of people about whom I knew little or was aware of their limitations.

I gave 2 votes in the Local Election.

I gave one vote in the Europe Election. 

Normally, I might have amused myself by voting down the lists.

Marion


----------



## mandelbrot (25 May 2014)

PaddyBloggit said:


> That's called democracy Purple. Calling people stupid for exercising their democratic right is a harsh.
> 
> I'd be more critical of all the people who didn't bother to vote.



Well what's the point voting, if there's no-one I actually want to see in a position, and no-one who I'm sufficiently opposed to as would justify me attempting to rank the other wastes of space so as to effectively vote against them...?

There's a difference between being stupid, and just not caring.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (25 May 2014)

At least turn up and spoil your vote.


----------



## mandelbrot (25 May 2014)

PaddyBloggit said:


> At least turn up and spoil your vote.



Why?


----------



## PaddyBloggit (25 May 2014)

mandelbrot said:


> Why?



 why not?  There is ample choice on the voting slip.  Not bothering to vote only endorses the status quo.  The 50% who didn't bother to vote have no right to complain about the Government or its policies if they make no effort to engage by casting their votes.


----------



## mandelbrot (26 May 2014)

PaddyBloggit said:


> why not?  There is ample choice on the voting slip.  Not bothering to vote only endorses the status quo.  The 50% who didn't bother to vote have no right to complain about the Government or its policies if they make no effort to engage by casting their votes.



Maybe I'm a bit dense and need this one spelled out for me... Why is "turning up" and spoiling my vote any better than not engaging at all? If everyone of my mindset "turned up" and spoilt our votes would it magically result in a fundamental change in our political system?


----------



## Leper (26 May 2014)

PaddyBloggit said:


> why not?  There is ample choice on the voting slip.  Not bothering to vote only endorses the status quo.  The 50% who didn't bother to vote have no right to complain about the Government or its policies if they make no effort to engage by casting their votes.



1.The words "didn't bother" have relatively little relevance here.  With the amount of emigration foisted on this country many many people were unable to vote.  Do you think they should book flights back to Ireland just to vote?

2. There would be a fair amount of people whom for some reason or other could not vote either i.e. sick people, hospitalized, holidaymakers abroad, and the disgruntled.

3. I look on those who did not vote as people who were genuinely protesting against a choice of politicians who would scam them as against those who would rip them off.  I fully understand why people would not vote and empathise with them.

4. Those who spoilt their votes are included in my 3rd point above.  In the light of our "stroke" politicians it is obvious that the voters were ensuring that their votes would not be used.  We've seen what politicians do with their travel claims etc, God only knows what they would do with "available" votes.

Then we have the unopinionated braindead; those who will vote down party lines no matter whom or what is put up for election.  Do you think these deserve more respect than those who for one reason or another did not vote?

It is very easy to judge people while looking outward, but when one looks inward the playing field looks completely different.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (26 May 2014)

The right to vote is one that was hard earned and a right that isn't afforded to a lot of people in other contries.

I believe that people should (if physically possible) make the trip to the polling station to cast their vote. Staying at home doens't declare anything specific.

We'll just have to agree to differ on this one.


----------



## Purple (26 May 2014)

PaddyBloggit said:


> That's called democracy Purple. Calling people stupid for exercising their democratic right is a harsh.
> 
> I'd be more critical of all the people who didn't bother to vote.


I didn't say that they were stupid for exercising their right, I said they were stupid for the manner in which they exercised it. I have nothing against people having strong left-wing views, it is the hollow and nonsensical nature of the policies (or lack thereof) of the Looney Left that I have a problem with. 



Marion said:


> I found myself in the voting booth looking at a pile of people about whom I knew little or was aware of their limitations.


 Isn't that the case for most of us during local elections?


----------



## Sunny (26 May 2014)

Purple said:


> I didn't say that they were stupid for exercising their right, I said they were stupid for the manner in which they exercised it. I have nothing against people having strong left-wing views, it is the hollow and nonsensical nature of the policies (or lack thereof) of the Looney Left that I have a problem with.
> 
> Isn't that the case for most of us during local elections?


 
I agree but again, it wasn't the left wing loonies who got us into mess. The Irish Population has always voted centre parties. FF, FG, Labour, PD's, Greens were never left and right wing parties. They all had their ideologies but they all ended up falling back to the centre to try and appeal to the most voters. Considering the mess we are now in, can you really blame a large portion of the electorate from looking at alternatives. This isn't the electorates fault. It is the fault of centre parties for failing the electorate. And it's not just an Irish problem. We are seeing it across Europe. UKIP in Britain. The National Front in France. The Socilaists in Greece. People are now pushing towards to the extreme left and right because they feel that they are being ignored.


----------



## TarfHead (26 May 2014)

Marion said:


> I found myself in the voting booth looking at a pile of people about whom I knew little or was aware of their limitations.
> 
> ..
> 
> Normally, I might have amused myself by voting down the lists.



I normally vote all the way down the ballot, and Friday was no different.  I gave #13 to the person I least wanted to win a seat, and so on up to #1.  I do not claim this to be a rational way to use your vote; it gives me an opportunity to make a clear statement for how I feel about this individual.  Giving them #13 is, IMHO, more declarative that giving them nothing.

For the local elections, I am happy to vote for the Greens or Independents, but would not do so in a General Election.

Congratulations to Lynn Boylan on her achievement. That political endorphin rush is the best she's going to feel for the next 5 years.


----------



## so-crates (26 May 2014)

mandelbrot said:


> Maybe I'm a bit dense and need this one spelled out for me... Why is "turning up" and spoiling my vote any better than not engaging at all? If everyone of my mindset "turned up" and spoilt our votes would it magically result in a fundamental change in our political system?



No, but spoilt votes are still cast and counted (granted they are counted as spoilt but it means they are noticed). If you are consciously spoiling (as opposed to the unfortunates who accidentally spoil!) your vote you are consciously making a statement of disaffection with the system. If enough spoilt votes are cast they tend to make headlines and get additional attention. The classic example of where spoilt votes were taken note of (granted for the wrong reasons) was "Dustin the Turkey" in Tallaght. The spoil was large enough to garner attention in its own right - both nationally and internationally.

If you don't vote at all, is that a protest? Possibly. Out of the country? Possibly. Couldn't be arsed? Possibly. Improperly registered (i.e. registered to vote in more than one place)? Possibly - though the recent exercise in cleaning up the register has hopefully reduced that cohort somewhat. Basically who is to know. If you want to protest you need to vote. If you feel you can't express your protest fully in your choice of candidate then spoiling is a valid and explicit protest approach.


----------



## Purple (26 May 2014)

Sunny said:


> I agree but again, it wasn't the left wing loonies who got us into mess. The Irish Population has always voted centre parties. FF, FG, Labour, PD's, Greens were never left and right wing parties. They all had their ideologies but they all ended up falling back to the centre to try and appeal to the most voters. Considering the mess we are now in, can you really blame a large portion of the electorate from looking at alternatives. This isn't the electorates fault. It is the fault of centre parties for failing the electorate. And it's not just an Irish problem. We are seeing it across Europe. UKIP in Britain. The National Front in France. The Socilaists in Greece. People are now pushing towards to the extreme left and right because they feel that they are being ignored.


It wasn't the fact that the parties were centralist that screwed things up. It was the fact that they were incompetent and greedy and got into bed with incompetent and greedy developers, bankers, unions and builders (as well as retailers, publicans etc.). My problem is that the alternative offers no alternative. They are charlatans, snake-oil merchants.


----------



## Purple (26 May 2014)

+1 so-crates.


----------



## so-crates (26 May 2014)

Leper said:


> 1.The words "didn't bother" have relatively little relevance here.  With the amount of emigration foisted on this country many many people were unable to vote.  Do you think they should book flights back to Ireland just to vote?



I for one have certainly done so if I was abroad, not that I necessarily advocate that approach. I sincerely doubt though, that 50% of the electoral register has emigrated. That would amount to more than 1.5m people (excluding minors). Even if a third of that number have emigrated it still doesn't account for the majority of the non-voters -which would be on the high side frankly since net migration in this country has been in the region of 30k-40k pa and only in the last few years.



Leper said:


> 2. There would be a fair amount of people whom for some reason or other could not vote either i.e. sick people, hospitalized, holidaymakers abroad, and the disgruntled.


Disgruntled is not a reason you can't vote. Disgruntled is a reason you decide to stay at home and sit on your hands. 
Holidaymakers equally make a conscious choice to disengage and prioritise their holidays over their civic duty. Again this is unlikely to consist of 1.5m voters and their children on any one day, it might be 10,000-30,000 so I would argue that the number of voters choosing holidays over voting is vanishingly small in the scheme of things.
That leaves sick and hospitalized. That would consist of people who have chronic conditions and those who have acute conditions. Of the two, logically only those with acute conditions are likely to be unable to vote due to illness or injury. Again it is unlikely this constitutes a significant number of people on any one day. I doubt that 1.5m people are in hospital at any one point. I doubt that 10,000 are in hospital with acute conditions at any one point. Those with chronic conditions generally can avail of the postal vote - so if they chose not to vote, they are also failing in their civic duty. There would be a cohort in here who no longer have the capacity to vote due to mental decline but again we are not looking at a significant amount of people to make a good dint in that 1.5m you need to make up to validate your argument.



Leper said:


> 3. I look on those who did not vote as people who were genuinely protesting against a choice of politicians who would scam them as against those who would rip them off.  I fully understand why people would not vote and empathise with them.



I look on them as an undistinguishable and unknowable morass of different reasons - they have no voice because they choose not to speak. Unlike you I don't think most of them have left the country, are sick or are "protesting". I think if you want to protest you get out there and vote. I think the vast majority of them are indifferent and frankly lazy.



Leper said:


> 4. Those who spoilt their votes are included in my 3rd point above.  In the light of our "stroke" politicians it is obvious that the voters were ensuring that their votes would not be used.  We've seen what politicians do with their travel claims etc, God only knows what they would do with "available" votes.



Those who spoil their vote are genuinely and consciously protesting. Whether I agree or disagree with their protest is not an issue, I respect them and their choice. They have voted. (Even if they deface their vote in [broken link removed] )



Leper said:


> Then we have the unopinionated braindead; those who will vote down party lines no matter whom or what is put up for election.  Do you think these deserve more respect than those who for one reason or another did not vote?



Actually yes I do. Chances are they are opinionated and thankfully they are not "braindead". One may not agree with their choice but they believe in their party - if they choose to vote along party lines then they are as entitled to do that as the person who chooses to spoil their vote. What you are missing is that *they agree with their party*. That is a choice. That is an opinion. That is a valid reason to vote for the candidates they choose to vote for.



Leper said:


> It is very easy to judge people while looking outward, but when one looks inward the playing field looks completely different.


No point in looking inward. We are not all wired up to some brain reading machine which decides the outcome of the election based on our collective inner meanderings - and for the life of me I cannot think why anyone would want such a nightmarish dystopia. We either get out there and engage or we don't.


----------



## Sunny (26 May 2014)

Purple said:


> It wasn't the fact that the parties were centralist that screwed things up. It was the fact that they were incompetent and greedy and got into bed with incompetent and greedy developers, bankers, unions and builders (as well as retailers, publicans etc.). My problem is that the alternative offers no alternative. They are charlatans, snake-oil merchants.


 
So your alternative is to keep voting for the same parties because they are the best of a bad lot? 

I had lunch at the weekend with a couple I have known for years. Both professionals in good employment but not wealthy. The husband was always a member of FG and his wife was never interested in politics. Last year their daughter was diagnosed with terminal cancer. They have constant trips up and down to Dublin from Tipperary, they have large medical bills and two other children to worry about. They applied for a medical card for their terminally ill child but were refused. Now they can make sacrifices and survive but they do have to worry and stress about the household finances on top of a terminally ill child. And they are lucky in that they are relatively well off. They voted for independents (not sure if they were left wing or not) because they were disgusted with how they are treated by the State and this Government.

I couldn't argue with their logic or their anger. These were professional people who understand the economy and taxes and the need for austerity. However, as they said, even in times of austerity, there are choices to be made and how are they expected to vote for political parties who are giving mecical cards to wealthy and healthy under 6's while refusing a medical card to their terminally ill 9 year old daughter. 

The most amazing thing about all this is that FG and Labour seem surprised by the results. Why? Middle Class Ireland doesn't march and they don't ring Joe Duffy on a Tuesday Afternoon but that doesn't mean they are just going to lie there like good puppies and continue voting for the same rubbish. Look at how the justice controversaries were handled. There was utter comtempt for the general public in the way we were told there is nothing here and it is time to move on. 

This was just local and EU elections. The results wouldn't be the same in a General Election but that doesn't mean there hasn't been a shift in Irish politics and it is not because Irish voters are stupid or they really believe that Sinn Fein or a bunch of independents are a realistic alternative. It's because people are losing trust and faith in the political system as it stands. There has never been a bigger need for a new party who actually stands for something that people can get behind.


----------



## TarfHead (26 May 2014)

so-crates said:


> II look on them as an undistinguishable and unknowable morass of different reasons


 
A bit like those who vote independent. Especially at local elections.  Media commentators often ascribe one reason for an increase in support for Independents. IMHO, the reasons are much more varied and may even be contradictory.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 May 2014)

Sinn Fein,  UKIP, Front Nationale:  "Ourselves Alone" succinctly describes the rationale of all three.


----------



## Purple (26 May 2014)

Good post Sunny, and no argument from me. 
I agree completely that we need a new political party, or even two new parties. One left wing that actually represents the interests of the poor instead of middle income earners (like Shinn Fein but without the echo of Jackboots and the loony populist "tax the rich and everything will be fine" guff) and one that actually represents the interests of middle income earners in employment who want the efficient and competent delivery of state services and a political leadership who understand economics and are competent enough to deliver policies that are aligned to that understanding.

More than anything we need honesty and competence. We have had neither for a long time, if ever.


----------



## Sunny (26 May 2014)

Purple said:


> More than anything we need honesty and competence. We have had neither for a long time, if ever.


 
Pretty much sums it up. And then when I hear Enda Kenny say the next General Election will be a 'Humdinger', I despair. They really do believe is just a big game....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 May 2014)

So it has finally come to this - FF and FG falling over themselves to get into bed with SF, god help us Grizzly is even playing hard to get.

But this is a profound misreading of the democratic will of the Irish people.  Let me make the following speculation.  Let's say the parties which might form a government are FF/FG/SF/LAB/Greens. That's them in order of 1st prefs.  Now let us imagine the race for last pref.  Just among these 5 we read down a ballot and a party scores a last pref if it appears last or not at all - ok that means there can be more than one last pref.  My guess is that SF would win this last pref contest by a country mile - witness how a first pref win in the bi-election translated to a third place overall.

A great majority of people in this country are even more adamant that they do not want SF in power than they are passionate about who they do want.  

Of course Enda in particular would be aware of that but felt he had to play this card for tactical reasons; after all he would not be outflanked; FF were not going to say "SF Never".

Some might argue that SF in minority power would be house trained as in the North.  That is a bad miscalculation.  Consider SF's taxation policy.  Private Sector earners would be taxed at 58% on incomes over 100k whilst Public Sector earners would be taxed at 100%.  Taxation and most important things are not within the Stormont remit so the Northern experience is not relevant.

We need a new party for sure - one which has the principle that it simply could not share power with a party with SF type policies.  It was Bertie Ahern made this distinction - he was not against SF per se, he was against their policies.  Unfortunately a single issue anti abortion party is not the answer.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 May 2014)

And another thing.  Did you notice that SF got nearly 20% 1st prefs in the Euros and only 15% in the locals.  And it was broadly the same 51% of the electorate which voted.  This says that a very significant number of those who voted them for the pointless EP didn't trust them with any real power albeit local.

Similarly LMF tops an EP poll in MNW but I presume that even the people of MNW would not be this silly if they thought he would get some real power over their lives.


----------



## DB74 (27 May 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Similarly LMF tops an EP poll in MNW but I presume that even the people of MNW would not be this silly if they thought he would get some real power over their lives.



Sure how else can we get rid of him!


----------



## Firefly (27 May 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Consider SF's taxation policy.  Private Sector earners would be taxed at 58% on incomes over 100k whilst *Public Sector earners would be taxed at 100%*.



How would this be so under SF?


----------



## Purple (27 May 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Similarly LMF tops an EP poll in MNW but I presume that even the people of MNW would not be this silly if they thought he would get some real power over their lives.



Are you sure?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 May 2014)

Firefly said:


> How would this be so under SF?


PS salaries capped at 100k, same thing


----------



## Delboy (27 May 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> PS salaries capped at 100k, same thing



that'll work alright...'bright flight' I reckon


----------



## Purple (27 May 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> SoConsider SF's taxation policy.  Private Sector earners would be taxed at 58% on incomes over 100k whilst Public Sector earners would be taxed at 100%.  Taxation and most important things are not within the Stormont remit so the Northern experience is not relevant.



At the moment they pay 52% of their income over €32'800 in tax.
If the Shinners get in then they will pay an additional 7.5% on income over €100'000. That's 59.5%. 

Talk about an incentive not to work!


----------



## Firefly (27 May 2014)

I said it before and I'll say it again, all of these taxes will result in people with good jobs leaving these shores, not just the unemployed.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 May 2014)

The more you think of it the idea of a mainstream constitutional party coalescing  with SF is just plain illogical.  Coalition should be about parties linking up with those nearest to them in the spectrum.  The UK is a very good example.  The Lib-Dems fall naturally between the big two and can coalesce logically with either.

Irish politics has of course the civil war legacy and has developed a taboo against FF/FG coalitions.  So we have seen coalitions between Labour and either FG/FF which are not strictly logical as FF and FG are probably closer to each other than they are to Labour, now that the civil war is in the distant political past.  However, whilst slightly illogical it was probably better for democracy that a tension was maintained between the big two.

Now when it comes to SF that logic goes out the window, especially for FG.  

Paddy Power probably has it right - he goes odds on the next government to be a FF/FG coalition.

(The North situation should be completely ignored in this context.  That is not a voluntary coalition of like minded parties but a legally enforced sharing of rather limited powers; the reasons for such a bizarre formula are historic.)


----------



## Purple (27 May 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> (The North situation should be completely ignored in this context.  That is not a voluntary coalition of like minded parties but a legally enforced sharing of rather limited powers; the reasons for such a bizarre formula are historic.)


And that's a critical point in the context of SF already being in Government. They have no taxation powers and no other real power either. 
There is no office of the Deputy First Minister, there is just the Office of the First Minister and his deputy.


----------



## blueband (27 May 2014)

FF/FG coalitions? why not sure there is no real difference between them! same old twiddly dee twiddly dom middle of the road tired policies. however I cant see the new wave of young voters buying into it..they want change, not more of the same rubbish!


----------



## Purple (27 May 2014)

blueband said:


> FF/FG coalitions? why not sure there is no real difference between them! same old twiddly dee twiddly dom middle of the road tired policies. however I cant see the new wave of young voters buying into it..they want change, not more of the same rubbish!



Change, change, change... change to what?

The same mix of parish-pump politics, incompetence and populism but with a large dose of extremism and utter economic incompetence thrown in? 
Yep, that'll change things alright...


----------



## so-crates (27 May 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> And another thing.  Did you notice that SF got nearly 20% 1st prefs in the Euros and only 15% in the locals.  And it was broadly the same 51% of the electorate which voted.  This says that a very significant number of those who voted them for the pointless EP didn't trust them with any real power albeit local.
> 
> Similarly LMF tops an EP poll in MNW but I presume that even the people of MNW would not be this silly if they thought he would get some real power over their lives.



It is possible that the discrepancy in the percentage votes is partially a reflection of the granularity of the elections. The relationship between the number of candidates you are choosing from in local elections and European elections is at least 2 orders of magnitude (i.e. thousands of candidates as opposed to tens).


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 May 2014)

so-crates said:


> It is possible that the discrepancy in the percentage votes is partially a reflection of the granularity of the elections. The relationship between the number of candidates you are choosing from in local elections and European elections is at least 2 orders of magnitude (i.e. thousands of candidates as opposed to tens).


The difference is big, too big to be purely random.  Either some systemic bias as you suggest or an actual bias in voter's attitudes to the two polls, as I suggest.  My understanding (I didn't vote) is that a typical situation is that a voter would mark the two ballot papers at broadly the same time.  Clearly a lot of voters marked SF No 1 in the Euro ballot  and then turned to their local ballot and marked someone else No 1 despite the existence of SF candidates.  I don't think the number of candidates is relevant here, we are talking about party first preferences.

One possibility is that folk who vote SF would also have a tendency to favour independents and when they switched from the Euro ballot to the Local ballot they plumped for their favourite independent.  This explanation needs a further explanation as to why they didn't vote independent No 1 in the Euros.

I still feel that these people saw the Euro vote as a protest opportunity pure and simple.  When it came to the Local ballet something of more substance was at stake and on "mature reflection" they did not want a SF counselor.


----------



## cremeegg (27 May 2014)

I started this thread, before the elections, by saying Irish politics was moving to a straight choice between FG and SF.

The story of the election, which has been completely missed by most commentators, is that FF is not dead. They won more council seats than any other, they polled well in both bye-elections.

FG did very well, most significant was the bye-election win in Longford-Westmeath. 

SF polled well, they brought some new young female and impressive people onto the national stage, and they won a significant number of council seats. All a great base for the future.

Labour, Greens, Ming. Irrelevant. Nice people did well too Nessa Childers, Eamonn Ryan, Marion Harkin, irrelevant but nice.

I still believe that although FF did better than I expected they are vulnerable to being picked off by SF. They bright young ambitious people will not be queueing up to join FF.

A lot of FF voters will be more comfortable with SF than FG. If the Free Staters shot your grandfather you will not vote FG. Still.


----------



## cremeegg (27 May 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> So it has finally come to this - FF and FG falling over themselves to get into bed with SF, god help us Grizzly is even playing hard to get.
> 
> A great majority of people in this country are even more adamant that they do not want SF in power than they are passionate about who they do want.



I don't think that majority is as great as you think.


----------



## Purple (28 May 2014)

FF is a slightly left of centre, slightly liberal, slightly republican party. That position, despite the disastrous leadership of Bertie and their selling the citizens of the country out to developers and unions, is where the largest group of Irish people sit. FG is a little too socially conservative and Labour is a little too left-wing, liberal and urban. As long as the parties stay in those places then, over the medium term, FF will attract the largest vote. 
What we don’t have is a party that positions itself where the PD’s were when they were founded; socially the same as Labour and economically the same as FG. It would be interesting to see how big that market is (I know I’d be in it).


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 May 2014)

cremeegg said:


> I don't think that majority is as great as you think.


A majority nonetheless.  Ask the people "do you want to exclude party X from government at all costs?".  SF would leave the rest for dead in that contest.  FG in particular have grossly overreacted in making the decision to let SF out of quarantine.  Let's get real about what happened.  0 to 3 Euros sounds impressive - but a seismic shift?  I don't think so.  

The key figure is the 15.2% Local 1st pref vote.  This is less than recent opinion polls.  Also SF tend to do better in Locals rather than Generals.  Note that FF got 20 seats with 17.4% at the last General.  Given SFs poor share of transfers I don't see them increasing their seat count of 14 by very much, especially if FF have staged a Lazarus like recovery.

What will be the effect of FF/FG officially recognising SF?  Either of two.  Either this new found respectability will win over those who still identify SF with their all too recent violent past Or this will scare the bejaysuz out of those who were simply protesting and never really meant that they should get into power.


----------

