Fianna Fail are back

Got a great laugh out of this

horsebox wrote: Who exactly are voting for these white collar criminals?

a couple of thoughts on it and from the press announcement yesterday. it would take a mass shooting of the martin family to wipe the smile off Michael's face, proper beaming. he knows it's a big coup for the party in an effort to try and move away from their horrific failings pre-2011. Donnelly has been quite vocal and articulate in his approach in the Dail, certainly a politician that has a lot of personal views rather than the standard of politicians that just flock to a stronger character. although he may have lost some respect from his own constituency for being a turncoat, I actually think he will be an important factor in helping FF gain more votes countrywide. he'll definitely become a front runner with FF and can only presume it was part of his conditions in joining them. but anyone else get that feeling that Donnelly has now started to believe his own hype? came across yesterday as a man who really loves the sound of his own voice

He said most of the people who voted for him are happy with the switch.

Really??
He got about 14,000 votes, so that means he has consulted/polled/engaged with at least 8,000 voters who are happy with the switch??

Great man or alternative facts?

*i know the PR voting system means he might not have got 14,000 votes directly, what with transfers etc, but you know what I mean.
The good people of Wicklow will

Who exactly are voting for these white collar criminals?

Well said deise. A sad state of affairs.

Edited by colemanY2K - 03 Feb 2017 at 9:03am

Het-field wrote: Drumcondra 69er wrote: The majority of parties that contest elections suggesting that they could lead a government end up in opposition so that's a facile point. Had FF had to support a minority FG government for reasons of "wearing the green jersey" only to then take an obstructionist position it would have potentially killed them off for good. Which would have been a bonus. You're essentially suggesting that the only option was the standard status quo where labour support an FG led government despite the fact that they'd get a kicking on the other side of it and it would give FF the opportunity to regroup from the opposition benches. It's exactly the sort of thinking that means politics is such a cluster f**k in this country. It was the best opportunity ever to change the status quo yet the whiff of power led labour to dive lemming like for the cliff. It's ludicrous to suggest labour's best option in 2011 was to simply be led into a coalition given where it got them. The evidence is there, there's no argument. Im not sure if we are still talking about the same thing here. If you are talking about Labour not losing to the extent that they did in 2016, by not going into opposition, I agree. And my posts beforehand attest to that. However, if you are suggesting that by going into opposition would have eventually led to a Labour Majority government, or a Labour led coalition, then I think you're wide of the mark. Labour had a choice when entering into Government, however they chose the easy road. The more difficult one would have been to seek a renegotiation of the bailout terms, as had been suggested, or looking at alternative solutions to the various cuts and charges which manifested themselves over the lifetime of the Government. Along with the ability to reign in Fine Gael with the threat of Government dissolution, the party actually enjoyed significant power. But chose stability, over strength. Yes, this may appear to be the "status quo", but I don't believe that there was much potential for growth within the Labour Party, especially as their capitalisation on FF demise, and the residual distrust of Sinn Fein, left them with 38 seats (post Nulty's election), and just over 19% of the vote in 2011. That was on their best day, and the fact that the North-East (apart from Galway) and the boarder region didn't return any Labour TDs, would suggest that it will be a long time before Labour make inroads there. To suggest that there was potential for growth to the level required for a majority government, or even a leader in a coalition would be far fetched. Yes, the best option in 2011, from a Party point of view would have been to remain in opposition, but one of three things would have happened. First, they would have had their growth stunted, as certain constituencies simply won't vote for Labour anyway. That is nothing to do with the election, but the Country's political culture. Second, they would have needed to enter Government in 2016, otherwise they would have become tarnished with the "opposition for opposition sake" tag. Third, a resurgent FF in 2016 would have attempted to muscle in on their territory, and reclaiming lost ground in rural territory where Labour have no cache, and as an alternative Sinn Fein would have taken those seats. I also maintain that FF's response in 2011 may well have been significantly different if a larger party like Labour had joined them on the opposition benches. I totally accept that life was made easier for them as a result of the outcome of Government formation, but the practicalities and pragmatics of the formation of the administration would have changed their approach. Labour don't enjoy the level of loyalty that FG/FF have. Traditionally, they have enjoyed 10-15% of the vote, with an occasions of spike. The ability for Labour to grow, over and above the 19% spikes would be out of keeping with their history, and out of step with the country's political culture. Its not a facile point to suggest that parties enter elections with no intention of Governance. There are numerous parties across Europe who want nothing to do with power, and derive their space from constant opposition. It is simply a lost election for those who are not in the shake up for Government formation, and Labour didn't lose the 2011 election.

I dunno why I'm even replying at this stage given that this back and forth has ceased convering any new ground at this stage. But just a couple of clarifications as you're either not reading my posts in full or else misunderstanding.

1.Thete was zero chance of renegotiating the bailout once it was in place and even if there was, a minority coalition partner wouldn't have had the influence to do it when they majority partner had no interest in doing so. So had they pushed for that, the only threat they could use was pulling out of government which in my opinion would have left them worse off then had they simply stayed in opposition.

2.I don't know if they could have ended up leading a left coalition in 2016 but they would have been in a far better position to try and build to there had they stayed in opposition. There's never been a left right divide in this country due to parochial civil war politics. This was the best chance to generate one. That's the crux of my argument.

3.Had FF had to support a minority FG government, as they are doing now, back in 2011,there wouldn't have been a resurgence in 2016. They essentially would have been hobbled as they couldn't credibly have opposed massively unpopular policies that had already been agreed on their watch. As it was, even from opposition they still had the second worst electoral result in their history.

4.Yes Labour would have had to enter government in 2016 either as the biggest party in a left coalition or as a junior partner in a centre right coalition. Either would have been a better proposition then entering government in 2011 as was borne out by their result in 2016.

5.I never said that some parties don't enter elections that they have expectation or desire to end up in power from. I said the majority that contest elections on a platform of wanting to lead a government still end up in opposition. Just because Labour contested the election in w011 on a platform of attempting to be the lead party doesn't mean they couldn't put their hands up, say we didn't get there but we can build from opposition rather than compromise ourselves in government. It was a lost election as it was given that the party has been decimated and will take a generation to gain back that ground.

Het-field wrote: Drumcondra 69er wrote:   Lot of ifs and buts there. We could go back and forth all day. As I said earlier, normal rules didn't apply in 11. Just regarding FF, my point earlier was that had Labour not entered government in 11, FF would have had no option but to back FG in implementing the troika policies. They may have been technically in opposition similar to today but they could not have blocked anything given that the programme had essentially been agreed on their watch. They couldn't have credibly acted as any sort of opposition due to the 'pragmatics of government' which is where Labour could have built from in my opinion. Ifs and buts are are serious importance when discussing political events.  The crucial thing is, Labour had spent months suggesting that they could lead a Government. The whole "Gilmore for Taoiseach" being the most obvious example. At a point where they had an ability to take significant role in a Government, which had the largest mandate in the history of the state, they would have lacked credibility if they were to claim that they were going to stay in opposition for the good of the people. It would have looked cowardly and cynical, and as talking out of both sides of their mouth. In the early years FF did play that role to an extent, as they knew that had to side with their own deal. Hence, they were not a thorn in the side of the Government over the first two years or so. But that would have changed if Labour had been pragmatically gunning from the opposition. It would have been painted in a certain way, but FF's would have been fairly obstructionist in order to maintain a hold on their role in opposition. FF work to suit themselves, and their strongest ability in 2011 was to look open minded and non-obstructionist. However, that would have been changed if Labour were there.

The majority of parties that contest elections suggesting that they could lead a government end up in opposition so that's a facile point.

Had FF had to support a minority FG government for reasons of "wearing the green jersey" only to then take an obstructionist position it would have potentially killed them off for good. Which would have been a bonus.

You're essentially suggesting that the only option was the standard status quo where labour support an FG led government despite the fact that they'd get a kicking on the other side of it and it would give FF the opportunity to regroup from the opposition benches. It's exactly the sort of thinking that means politics is such a cluster f**k in this country. It was the best opportunity ever to change the status quo yet the whiff of power led labour to dive lemming like for the cliff. It's ludicrous to suggest labour's best option in 2011 was to simply be led into a coalition given where it got them. The evidence is there, there's no argument.

Het-field wrote: Drumcondra 69er wrote: You started your post by agreeing with my point, saying "November 2010 dictated Government economic policy for years to come, and there was nothing they could do about it," So, if that's the case how can you then say "Labour had the numbers and the strength, and didn't use it in the way they should" See, Labour possibly returning to their old ways isn't what annoys the voters. What annoys the voters is when they betray those old ways such as they did by going in with FF after the Spring tide in 92 what again by going into a Troika led administration in 11. It took the merger with Democratic Left to get Labour back into any sort of shape after their previous wipeout (which was nowhere near as bad as this one). The other point is that the surge in support for SF and the harder left parties came from the vacuum Labour left when they went into power. You think Labour wouldn't have been leading the charge on water protests for example had they been in opposition? The likes of Unite broke their historical link with Labour and stopped contributing funds after 2011 were front and centre in that movement, it's inconceivable that Labour wouldn't have been. There was an opportunity to build there, there's obviously no guarantees but they played right into FG and FF's hands by going into that coalition. First, while the agenda was agreed, there were plenty of "nuts and bolts" matters which remained within the remit of the Government, and that the imperatives were guidelines. Labour could have played hard-ball on such matters, while playing a form of watch-dog on the FG aspect of the coalition. With their numbers, and their strength, that would not have been difficult. But it was their choice not to do that. I can understand the point about the vacuum. But I don't believe that Labour would have lurched to the left, in spite of the general groundswing towards the extremes. I think they would have attempted to play the role that had been their's between 2007-2011. However, that could, and might well have been outflanked by Sinn Fein, who were already lurching to the further left in 2009. The fringe parties have benefited from Labour's absence in opposition, sure, but they had already a foothold during Labour's sweep in 2011. The pragmatics of Government, and of Labour's members would have effectively ruled out becoming a mass movement of protest. Yes, an element would have gone that way, but the "Labour" aspect, would have preferred rhetoric, rather than public action. The Labour aspect would also have wanted Government at some point, as Labour don't shirk that responsibility, that many of the far left would, and want to. So it would just have been a matter of time. Finally, in 2016 we saw the resurgence of FF, from the opposition benches. FF were going into opposition in 2011 whatever happened, and in spite of their numbers, their resurgent strength relied on past memories. This naturally would have interfered with Labour, as both sides are populist enough to play whatever card swings well with the public. Also, Labour in 2011 won 37 seats. There is an argument that given their favour, and Gilmore's significant popularity as a leader with the public at the time, that that was it. That was in fact their ceiling. Labour's favour was strongly in the capital where they took 18 seats. They won almost nothing in Connaught, and that was at a time of unprecedented popularity. I think as a result that any move in results might have brought them up to 40 seats, but nothing more. Yes, coalition was a bad idea. But it was the only way forward. It would essentially delay the inevitable whereby Labour would be compelled to enter Government, and walk the walk, which would not allow for the emergence of the magic money fairy. The people wanted Labour in Government, and irregardless of my feelings towards them, they did what was right by responding to the calls of the people.  I take the point that labour would not have been beaten as badly, but I feel they were never likely to break 40 TD's, even with a second tenure of strong opposition.

Lot of ifs and buts there. We could go back and forth all day. As I said earlier, normal rules didn't apply in 11. Just regarding FF, my point earlier was that had Labour not entered government in 11, FF would have had no option but to back FG in implementing the troika policies. They may have been technically in opposition similar to today but they could not have blocked anything given that the programme had essentially been agreed on their watch. They couldn't have credibly acted as any sort of opposition due to the 'pragmatics of government' which is where Labour could have built from in my opinion.