FG & Labour must rule out coalition.

deiseguy

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
1,342
I have been posting on this all summer on other peoples threads but it is something I genuinely believe. FG and Labour must rule out coalition with anyone. They must grasp the oppurtunity to consign FF to history. There must be hundreds of threads castigating this government here and yet the only alternative that spoken about is a FG/Lab coalition. This is giving the electorate the easy option. "We'll put FG/Lab in they'll sort out the mess, it'll hurt but that's fine it gives us the excuse to push them out when the mess is cleaned up".

The time for this must be over. FG/Lab are not suitable bedfellows but whether its power hunger or national interest they seem to end up together more often than is healthy. The differences between them after the next election would cause so much friction in a government as to make the proposition untenable. They both have radically differing views on how the economy and public services should be managed and any attempt to shoehorn them together will be a disaster.

They need to honestly set out their stalls, starting shortly, aimed squarely at their own base support with no soft soaping of their more extreme tendencies to the right or left. And then they need to declare no coalition. Tell the electorate that they can either destroy FF or have them back in power its their choice. There will never be a better oppurtunity. The only possible crossover that they might agree is in relation to electoral reform. The clientelism that has made Irish politics so dysfunctional and given FF so much power needs to be removed as a political tool.
 


just4ever

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
374
What the hell are you talking about? Neither party will achieve an overall majority, all that will happen is we will reach a stalemate. In a PR STV system coalitions are nearly inevitable in modern times.
 

redger

Active member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
165
What the hell are you talking about? Neither party will achieve an overall majority, all that will happen is we will reach a stalemate. In a PR STV system coalitions are nearly inevitable in modern times.
J4E, I have the same affiliations as you, but he is right. They have to be killed off. If we are better than FF, and we are, then we are capable of putting the country first. The good of the country dictates that FF must be wiped out forever.

The story should be, and I have posted this elsewhere also -
There is no way in the world that FF will win the election. The only thing to be decided is whether the Taoiseach will be from FG or Labour. Thats it. Thats the choice.
This has not been grasped yet by the people, and its not being articulated in the media. But its the truth.
In reality, already, the contest is between FG and Lab. Its just that its not clear to the voters. We must make it clear. When we do, a further lump of the remaining FF vote will jump ship, to prevent their least favourite party winning. It barely matters which side they choose. We can end up with FF at sub 30 seats. FG with 60ish. Lab near 60, and SF with half of whats left .
SF will vote Gilmore. Then FF have to chose - who do they support, in the national interest. "come on FF, its up to ye. You must support one side or the other. Are you really going to cause a hung Dail, and another election. It will be seen to be your fault if there is a further election" If they chose a side, they are supporting either FG or Lab, and they are dead for ever. If they cause another unnecessary election, and the people know it, they are dead too.
 

Future Irish Leader

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
1,008
its obvious that its gonna be a FG labour coalition nothing else its almost certain . FG and Labour will have a massive majority of over 100 seats they are gonna be in for at least 10 years get used to it.
 

deiseguy

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
1,342
J4E, I have the same affiliations as you, but he is right. They have to be killed off. If we are better than FF, and we are, then we are capable of putting the country first. The good of the country dictates that FF must be wiped out forever.

The story should be, and I have posted this elsewhere also -
There is no way in the world that FF will win the election. The only thing to be decided is whether the Taoiseach will be from FG or Labour. Thats it. Thats the choice.
This has not been grasped yet by the people, and its not being articulated in the media. But its the truth.
In reality, already, the contest is between FG and Lab. Its just that its not clear to the voters. We must make it clear. When we do, a further lump of the remaining FF vote will jump ship, to prevent their least favourite party winning. It barely matters which side they choose. We can end up with FF at sub 30 seats. FG with 60ish. Lab near 60, and SF with half of whats left .
SF will vote Gilmore. Then FF have to chose - who do they support, in the national interest. "come on FF, its up to ye. You must support one side or the other. Are you really going to cause a hung Dail, and another election. It will be seen to be your fault if there is a further election" If they chose a side, they are supporting either FG or Lab, and they are dead for ever. If they cause another unnecessary election, and the people know it, they are dead too.
That is a possible outcome if the parties ran with the suggestion in the OP. Labour especially speak about their leader as having real potential as taoiseach its time for them to put their money where their mouth is and demand the mandate to install their man as taoiseach. Any other course of action from FG and Lab smacks of a lack of ambition in the current circumstances. Any other course of action will leave them always fighting over second and third in the long run. Now they have a real oppurtunity to end FF but they can only achieve it by working together to achieve completely opposite goals.
 

fool

Active member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
150
So which of the two parties should go into coalition with FF then?
It's highly unlikely that either of them could form a government any other way.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,197
What a stupid idea.
 

cricket

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
13,786
Labour should rule out coalition with FF , but also hold tough on an alliance with FG. Some of the right wing nuts in that party will have to be neutered first.
 

deiseguy

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
1,342
Labour should rule out coalition with FF , but also hold tough on an alliance with FG. Some of the right wing nuts in that party will have to be neutered first.
They should rule out coalition full-stop. Fight the election on the basis that they want to form a government on their own. Really go for it stand 120-130 candidates defy the voters to give FF any air and if they get it right the party I support will be in opposition for another 5 years. Even they come close they will be the strong leaders of the opposition and in position for a good tilt at at least a labour led government the next time.

P.S. I could say the same about some of the left wingnuts in your party.
 

Red_93

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
4,572
They should rule out coalition full-stop. Fight the election on the basis that they want to form a government on their own. Really go for it stand 120-130 candidates defy the voters to give FF any air and if they get it right the party I support will be in opposition for another 5 years. Even they come close they will be the strong leaders of the opposition and in position for a good tilt at at least a labour led government the next time.

P.S. I could say the same about some of the left wingnuts in your party.
This is a load of sh1t. no party will have 83+ seats after the next GE. And labour would be barking mad to run 120 - 130 candidates. that's basically be almost all our cllrs and TDs. And would cause us to lose seats. BTW, what left wing nuts. There are none in the oireachtas at the mo.
 

biteback

Active member
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
111
I couldn't agree more with the sentiments here.

By Fine Gael and Labour making it out to be a two horse race - purely between themselves - it will see some of the 25% of people who still support FF switch to either FG or Labour.

Neither FG or Labour would be likely to win enough seats on their own, but with the support of SF, a remaining Green or two and some independents they could make it over the magic number of 84.

deiseguy's suggestion is focused on destroying FF as much as possible, by reducing their ability to win back seats. By going as low as 30 seats it would make it very difficult for them to win back enough seats in the subsequent election to form government. As many people have pointed out, the knowledge that they would not be in power for as long as 10 years could be very damaging to the "natural party of government."
 

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,132
This is a load of sh1t. no party will have 83+ seats after the next GE. And labour would be barking mad to run 120 - 130 candidates. that's basically be almost all our cllrs and TDs. And would cause us to lose seats. BTW, what left wing nuts. There are none in the oireachtas at the mo.
I agree with you.

I get the impression that the original OP doesn't understand electoral politics. No party is likely to get an overall majority. It doesn't mean they won't try. But it is a long-shot.

His suggestion about running 120-130 candidates is idiotic. If a party runs too many candidates they commit electoral suicide, because they break up their vote so much that transfers go all over the place and seats that would have been won with a one or two seat strategy in a particular constituency would be lost if three were run. There is a delicate balancing act between running too few to gain maximum likely seats, and running too many and losing seats that should have been won.

A couple of examples come to mind:


  • Clann na Poblachta ran too many candidates in 1948 and instead of winning the majority they expected they limped in only with ten.
  • Labour in 1969 ran way too many candidates, split their votes badly, and didn't have the breakthrough they were expecting.(The 'Seventies will be socialist' message blew up in their faces through two many candidates. By both Labour and Fine Gael running separate campaigns, they allowed Fianna Fáil to win power again when if the opposition parties had run together they would have put Fianna Fáil out of power.)
  • Labour in 1992 ran too few candidates, so won 33 seats whereas they could have won 37 if they had ran more candidates strategically.
  • Fianna Fáil in the 1980s won a percentage in the mid to high 40s (44% to 47%) in every election, yet never won a majority. Bertie Ahern in contrast won a range of numbers from 39% to 42% yet on one occasion did look as though he was going to win a majority. Why? Because Bertie as leader cut the number of candidates Fianna Fáil ran. Haughey wasted votes by running too many candidates. Ahern ran tighter more focused more targeted campaigns with less candidates and so got a better 'bang for his buck' - he maximised the impact of all the party's votes. Unlike under Haughey none were wasted through running ridiculous numbers of seats.
The reality is that vote management, not number of candidates, is crucial to maximising the number of seats. Running 120-130 candidates would be electoral suicide for any party.

I suspect, BTW, that Labour's policy of running two candidates could backfire badly. It is something that should be done strategically, constituency by constituency. Proposing an automatic 2 is crazy. It will split the vote in some areas with fatal consequences. Labour is currently showing all the signs of repeating the 1969 mistakes by running too many candidates in the wrong locations. It also would need to carefully manage its vote. Vote management involves trial and error, knowing what votes you get in which place and working out how to balance the ticket. That needs a couple of practices to get right. The reason why FG and FF are good at it is simply because they have been doing it for years and so through trial and error have learnt how to do it ward by ward, area by area, etc. Labour are gambling that with no dry-run (ie, previous general elections to compare stats with where you tried to manage the vote before) they will somehow miraculously get it right first time. The trouble is that if they don't, it could go very badly wrong and cost seats it could have won if it simply ran a single candidate, or a prospective candidate and a sweeper, not two candidates it aims to get elected.

Finally, the OP's suggestion that Fine Gael and Labour should declare that they won't enter a coalition is crazy. The next government will be a coalition - the nature of modern Irish politics makes it unlikely to be otherwise. What he is saying is basically that FG and Labour should declare that they should be counted out of the race to form the next government, because that is exactly what the result would be. They would be handing Fianna Fáil five more years of government. Politically and tactically it would be insane.

And no, there are no extremist left people in the Labour Party in the Oireachtas right now.
 

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,132
I couldn't agree more with the sentiments here.

By Fine Gael and Labour making it out to be a two horse race - purely between themselves - it will see some of the 25% of people who still support FF switch to either FG or Labour.
If the future of planet earth depended on it, that 25% would not move from FF. That 25% is the hardcore FF vote that will vote for FF no matter what. A lot of them are the sort of people so ideologically and fanatically Fianna Fáil that they can't even bring themselves to transfer outside Fianna Fáil - they only vote 1, 2, 3 whatever for the FF candidates and then stop. And you think the fundamentalist FFers who would die for their beloved party and think de Valera was god would shift to vote for FG or Labour! :eek:

ROTFLMAO

NAMA hasn't made them switch. A series of tough budgets didn't make them switch. Savage cuts didn't make them switch. Cuts in their local school, their local hospital etc didn't make them switch. Do you honestly think those people are likely to switch because FG or Labour say 'no coalition'? They are not. They are rock solid dyed-in-the-wool FF groupies who have always supported the party and always will, no matter what.
 

Red_93

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
4,572
I agree with you.

I get the impression that the original OP doesn't understand electoral politics. No party is likely to get an overall majority. It doesn't mean they won't try. But it is a long-shot.

His suggestion about running 120-130 candidates is idiotic. If a party runs too many candidates they commit electoral suicide, because they break up their vote so much that transfers go all over the place and seats that would have been won with a one or two seat strategy in a particular constituency would be lost if three were run. There is a delicate balancing act between running too few to gain maximum likely seats, and running too many and losing seats that should have been won.

A couple of examples come to mind:


  • Clann na Poblachta ran too many candidates in 1948 and instead of winning the majority they expected they limped in only with ten.
  • Labour in 1969 ran way too many candidates, split their votes badly, and didn't have the breakthrough they were expecting.(The 'Seventies will be socialist' message blew up in their faces through two many candidates. By both Labour and Fine Gael running separate campaigns, they allowed Fianna Fáil to win power again when if the opposition parties had run together they would have put Fianna Fáil out of power.)
  • Labour in 1992 ran too few candidates, so won 33 seats whereas they could have won 37 if they had ran more candidates strategically.
  • Fianna Fáil in the 1980s won a percentage in the mid to high 40s (44% to 47%) in every election, yet never won a majority. Bertie Ahern in contrast won a range of numbers from 39% to 42% yet on one occasion did look as though he was going to win a majority. Why? Because Bertie as leader cut the number of candidates Fianna Fáil ran. Haughey wasted votes by running too many candidates. Ahern ran tighter more focused more targeted campaigns with less candidates and so got a better 'bang for his buck' - he maximised the impact of all the party's votes. Unlike under Haughey none were wasted through running ridiculous numbers of seats.
The reality is that vote management, not number of candidates, is crucial to maximising the number of seats. Running 120-130 candidates would be electoral suicide for any party.
Tose examples aren't really comparable to this election though, as I have explained below.
I suspect, BTW, that Labour's policy of running two candidates could backfire badly. It is something that should be done strategically, constituency by constituency. Proposing an automatic 2 is crazy. It will split the vote in some areas with fatal consequences. Labour is currently showing all the signs of repeating the 1969 mistakes by running too many candidates in the wrong locations.
No it isn't Tommy, it is not very similar at all to 1969 election - where labour ran over 90 candidates at a time when the dail was a lot smaller. In addition, idiotic decisions were taken in constituencies like DNW and DSC where the party ran as many candidates as there were seats - that is not going to happen this time around. Also, 2 or 3 candidates were run in constituencies where labour would have just barely been challenging for 1 seat. That will not happen either. Going by the local elections, had a GE been held on the same day, and only 1 candidate been run in each constituency, virtually all of our sitting TDs would have garnered at least a quota or more. I had this argument with an FGr on a thread on Limerick, who said that the 2 candidate strategy could cost Jan O'Sullivan her seat ahead of that 2 faced rat O'Donnell and that nobody Junior minister. I pointed out that labour would have around a quota anyway, and possibly more if you account for poll increases. You would expect this to split about 60-40 in favour of Jan - the sitting TD potential minister and only woman in the constituency, which is, incidentally what she got the last time - .6 of a quota. Now, if there aren't 2 labour seats, and jan is struggling, then the elimination of her running would push her ahead of Power and O'Donnell. Combine that with the fact that she normally does very well out of transfers, then you see that she isn't under threat by this strategy. That's just an example, but this can be said about most LP tds - they mostly have gotten a quota + last June, worst case scenario for most of them is that they take the last seat without reaching the quota.
It also would need to carefully manage its vote. Vote management involves trial and error, knowing what votes you get in which place and working out how to balance the ticket. That needs a couple of practices to get right. The reason why FG and FF are good at it is simply because they have been doing it for years and so through trial and error have learnt how to do it ward by ward, area by area, etc. Labour are gambling that with no dry-run (ie, previous general elections to compare stats with where you tried to manage the vote before) they will somehow miraculously get it right first time.
That's a fair point, but vote management is much easier with a well balanced ticket, and if you look at those selected so far, you'll notice that for the most part, the tickets tend to be geographically very well balanced.
The trouble is that if they don't, it could go very badly wrong and cost seats it could have won if it simply ran a single candidate, or a prospective candidate and a sweeper, not two candidates it aims to get elected.
Tommy, you work in the same building as these people and I'm sure you talk with them a lot, you clearly know full well that labour will not be aiming for 2 in every constituency where 2 are run. We would realistically be aiming for 2 in about 10 - 12 constituencies, and a third in DSC. The rest are just there to give it their best shot. If you look at the Spring Tide results - candidates topping polls with 1.2 or 1.3 quotas - wouldn't deliver 2 seats, but would at least give someone their shot, even if the end result would be the same.
Finally, the OP's suggestion that Fine Gael and Labour should declare that they won't enter a coalition is crazy. The next government will be a coalition - the nature of modern Irish politics makes it unlikely to be otherwise. What he is saying is basically that FG and Labour should declare that they should be counted out of the race to form the next government, because that is exactly what the result would be. They would be handing Fianna Fáil five more years of government. Politically and tactically it would be insane.
Absolutely, couldn't agree with you more.
And no, there are no extremist left people in the Labour Party in the Oireachtas right now.
There could be soon. The extreme right has their windbag in Lucinda Creighton, we might get ours soon enough if Pat Nulty can pull enough leftie votes from Joe Higgins and young votes from Varadkar.
 

Republican-Socialist

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
987
its obvious that its gonna be a FG labour coalition nothing else its almost certain . FG and Labour will have a massive majority of over 100 seats they are gonna be in for at least 10 years get used to it.
And here we see a real, true alternative to FF. The sheer humility and obvious political principles are immense. I look forward to seeing FF lose the next election, but I get the feeling the hatred FF have had to suffer will pale in comparison to what the mish-mash PD-Socialist/Blueshirt coalition is going to face. It will be good for the Irish people to see that these jokers are no real alternative and just as power hungry.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
96
Labour are already campaigning as an independent party on their own platform so FG have no choice but to. At this stage it is so far off an election that any talk of after the election outcome is premature. A lot of water will pass under the bridge between now and the election (Gov't will fall shortly after eventual by-elections I suspect, but who knows) Numbers will dictate everything 'in the national interest'
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top