From top: Polling patterns 2011-2015; Dan Boyle
Ignore the polls, Sinn Féin, the new parties and the ‘Megaphone Left’.
The next General Election will probably give us more of the same (minus Labour).
Dan Boyle writes:
One of staples of silly season journalism is predicting the outcome of the next general election, and from that the resulting government. They usually tend to be wildly wrong. So knowing the existence of the practice and the latitude that accompanies such prognostications, these are my somewhat modest predictions.
Between them Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil will have a majority of votes and Dáil seats. A bare majority, a long way short of the 90% levels that were once achieved.
While we’ve become more socially liberal, we remain an economically conservative people. FG/FF support reflects that. Most of us want to believe that low taxation can deliver good public services. More worryingly, many of us are also prepared to accept growing inequality as a unavoidable consequence of economic advancement.
Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil will be quite close to each other in terms of seats. It shouldn’t be a surprise if FF has the greater numbers.
Sinn Féin will make a further advance, perhaps an extra dozen seats. This will fit in with their masterplan but the progress will seem less fluent that it has been. There would be a couple of reasons for this. Opinion polls overstate SF support. Some say they will support the party for a shock effect, others want to but not enough to vote. The other factor is that the declared support seems to be stabilising, in Northern Ireland, as much as it is the Republic.
The SF masterplan will only see the party enter government if it is to be the majority of such a government. That won’t happen in 2016. Their hope is that it can happen from 2020 onwards. That would have to be subject to further analysis.
Labour seems to heading to a single figure representation in the next Dáil. The party’s lowest ever representation in Dáil Éireann. In many ways this is sad. As the longest established party in the country its decline should not be celebrated. For much of the history of the State, the party has offered the only political outlet for those who wanted to think and be otherwise, in this often all too stultifying country.
The political activist in me has less sympathy. Labour hugely over promised in 2011, believing a conceit that a window existed for it to become the largest party in the Dáil. This hubris has been what has led to its fate at the next general election.
Which brings us to the independents and ‘others’. That convenient catch all category that doesn’t tell us an awful lot. It’s the plague on all their houses vote, a vote that is itself split and split pretty evenly.
About half this vote is for newly emerging and non-traditional parties. Ten TDs would now carry these affiliations. This number is likely to double in a new Dáil. Renua and the Social Democrats will add to their numbers but not significantly, not having had a long enough lead in time. The next parliament will determine whether either party can be sustainable into the future.
There will be a Green Party presence again in the next Dáil. Whether this will be a plural presence will depend on circumstances.
Apparently the other left wings parties, who for convenience I will refer to as the Megaphone Left, are in discussion about presenting a united front. There is an obvious logic in this but it is unlikely to deliver many additional seats. Mick Barry in Cork North Central would benefit from such an arrangement. The other question is whether Clare Daly, Joan Collins, Mick Wallace or Seamus Healy will involve themselves in such an alliance.
Which brings us to the Maverick independents. I suspect that despite the larger vote, it will dissipate between a larger number of candidates and not deliver too many additional TDs.
Many independent TDs are and have been strong and excellent representatives. Too many though are blowhards, riding a zeitgeist of public disgust at a political system unwilling to reform itself.
As to what government we will have, it will involve Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. It may be a coalition. It may be a supply and confidence arrangement. There may be a rotating Taoiseach. The one certain outcome is that there will not be a natural coming together of these parties. That may take another five years
Dan Boyle is a former Green Party TD. Follow him on Twitter: @sendanboyle
You had me up until Dan Boyle.
Which suggests that its probably better not to have.
Après moi le dégôut
‘More worryingly, many of us are also prepared to accept growing inequality as a unavoidable consequence of economic advancement.’
who’s this ‘us’ you’re on about? it’s not me, or anyone i know.
Us is the Irish electorate. It’s a fairly standard way of putting forward an argument…inclusive. He’s not blaming you personally scottser!
and since when have the irish electorate acted in concert as a homogenous, unified bloc? i smell an oxymoron.
How many elections did FF win in the 90s/00s again?
what, to form a government on their own? none.
“Most of us want to believe that low taxation can deliver good public services. ”
We don’t have low taxes here. It’s a myth.
Here –
http://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/Press/PressPublicationsdoclib3.nsf/vPages/Newsroom~new-ibec-report-debunking-irish-income-tax-myths-29-09-2014/$file/Debunking+Irish+income+tax+myths.pdf
“Low Taxation” and “low levels of Income Tax” are not the same thing. There is much more to the tax system than income tax.
Indeed.
However, we don’t have low income tax, nor do we have low taxation.
‘IBEC puts forward two graphs (Figures 2 and 3) to show that Irish personal taxation is much higher than in the EU-27. They use data selectively and exclude large parts of personal taxation.
‘They exclude a large portion of personal taxation; namely, social insurance or PRSI. In almost all other European countries, PRSI plays a much greater role than income tax. In the EU, PRSI makes up 37 percent of total personal taxation; in Ireland, it makes up only 12 percent. In seven countries, revenue from PRSI is higher than revenue from income tax. In the Netherlands, income tax raises €46 billion; social insurance, however, raises €63 billion.
…
‘The effective Irish personal tax rate is about mid-table – below the EU average. PAYE workers would have to pay more than €1.9 billion more to reach the EU average.’
And the big ole elephant in the room is how much employers don’t pay in social insurance contributions – ‘Employers’ PRSI would have to nearly treble to reach the EU-average – or an extra €8 billion. Now you know why we don’t have the public services and income supports that other countries have.’
http://notesonthefront.typepad.com/politicaleconomy/2014/09/ibec-has-published-a-paper-entitled-debunking-irish-income-tax-myths-at-its-core-it-contains-misleading-highly-select.html
I’ll have a read of that, thanks.
I think the average earner, on the average industrial wage is already squeezed with enough taxes, between income tax, USC, PRSI.. not to mind the cost of living here.
10k P.A. RTE were reporting there yesterday to run a family car in this country.
That would be a good read.
If people are claiming we have hugely high taxes, but we clearly don’t have the Scandinavian level of resources… There’s a gap there somewhere.
This OECD research suggests that we do typically have a tax burden below the OECD average but that our tax structure is the most progressive in the OECD.
http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-burdens-on-labour-income-continue-to-rise-across-the-oecd.htm
Thanks for the links and the bit o’ readin’ like
Correct. We actually have high levels of tax with low levels of public service.
Did you look at the OECD link above?
Until you earn 167% of the average wage, you have less than the average tax burden for OECD countries.
Take a look at the tax structure graphs.
We are not high-tax.
Exactly that, there is more to tax system – the distribution of tax money. Or rather mis-distribution.
“4. Is Ireland a low tax country?
It has been claimed that Ireland is a low income tax country compared to our neighbours. In Section 2 we showed that Ireland as a proportion of both GDP and GNP levies more income taxation than most European countries and well above the EU average. The analysis in the following section shows that the aggregate is only part of the story. For average or below average earners Ireland is indeed a low income tax country. For those earning from just under 40,000 per annum (120% above the average wage), however, Ireland has levels of income tax which are well above the OECD average.”
Allegedly we have the most progressive tax system in the OECD.
Our income tax statistics are skewed by the fact those on lower incomes pay bugger all in income tax.
In most other western countries, all earners pay meaningful income tax.
Medium earners pay less than their OECD equivalents
“Apparently the other left wings parties, who for
delightfully antagonistic purposesconvenience I will refer to as the Megaphone Left”Enjoy these reads.
Not to be confused with I agree with everything he says, some of you lot.
…worryingly, I broadly agree with Dan’s analysis…maybe I’ll be ok after a cup of coffee.
Why worryingly?
This is plain political analysis from someone who has “played the game” so to speak.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes.
What analysis?
“As to what government we will have, it will involve Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. It may be a coalition. It may be a supply and confidence arrangement. There may be a rotating Taoiseach. The one certain outcome is that there will not be a natural coming together of these parties. That may take another five years”
Translated:
The next government will involve the two most well-known parties in the state because the odds of them returning zero TDs are astronomically low.
We may see a coalition because we’ve seen coalitions in every government in the lifetime of half the electorate.
There may be a supply and confidence arrangement because that’s what the word coalition means in Ireland.
There might be a rotating taoiseach because ‘might’ is not a prediction, but a statement of possible outcomes, such as ‘we might see Gerry Adams as taoiseach’ because that wouldn’t be illegal.
The one absolutely certain, nothing-else-can-happen outcome is that two allegedly ideologically opposed groups who hate each other might not come together naturally. Unless they do. But it might require another five years to do so. Or it might not.
As analysis goes, it’s not a terrible cheesecake.
that’s about the size of it. or not, as the case may be.
It might very well be. Of course it could equally be something else. Either way, it’ll be something.
Common or garden analysis there from political failure Boyle.
More interesting from the graphs shown is that since the start of 2015 (approx) Sinn Fein support is in anti-phase to that Labour & Fine Gael. When their support go down (govt loses support) Sinn Fein gains and vice-versa. The support for Independents/Fianna Fail appears to be decoupled from that of the govt parties. Sinn Fein would appear to be the real opposition already.
I’m thinking I’m gonna go with Dan’s opinion over yours.
Mostly because the crux of your argument is “Labour go down, Sinn Fein go up”.
Which suggests that Labour voters will migrate to Sinn Fein, which is to fundamentally misunderstand the voter bases of both parties.
A large amount of the Labour vote will not vote for Sinn Fein.
Fianna Fail will benefit from Labour’s demise too.
And the “real” opposition is a gang of independants.
It’s absurd to say Labour voters won’t vote for Sinn Fein when that is exactly where a large percentage of Sinn Fein’s growth has come from. The poorer/working class vote has left Labour for good and moved to Sinn Fein. How else to explain Sinn Fein’s growth? They have had to take their percentage increase from somewhere, and it has not come from Fianna Fail (their percentages since the last election have largely not changed), and is unlikely to have come from Fine Gael.
How would their percentages from the last election have changed? We’ve not had an election since to measure those percentages. Also, if your percentages are at that point on the dial marked “Party Annihilated by Electorate”, it indicates that there are undecided voters lying around for SF or others to hoover up, they don’t necessarily have to be taking all of them from any other specific party.
First up, I didn’t say most of that, either respond to what I wrote or just go shout in a room somewhere.
Labour have traditionally enjoyed had a sizable middle-class suburban support.
That support most likely won’t just start handing number 1’s to Sinn Fein.
Most likely they will lean towards Fianna Fail or one of the Newbies.
I guarantee that Cathrine Murphy and Stephen Donnelly will do better out of a Labour collapse than any Sinn Fein candidate in their constituency. And Róisín Shorthall will do some good business too.
That’s what I’m talking about. Not everybody is middle class and at that, not all working class voters are willing to vote for Sinn Fein.
Fianna Fail are coming back hard in the next election. They will get votes from Labour and Fine Gael. If you don’t believe that because of polls then either you aren’t following politics long or you haven’t been paying attention.
I fear you might be right about FF. There is a often a uniquely personal nature to some of the criticism of the govt (don’t get me wrong, much criticism is deserved) which feels like it is coming from a tribal FF source.
If you are economically conservative (and I think Dan is correct that many of us are) and you are unhappy with the govt. (and there certainly are reasons to be) you really only have FF as option.
I agree with you, Medium Sized C – most of Labour’s support seems to come from middle-class people, more social democrat than socialist, most of whom would never, ever vote for Sinn Féin.
…methinks classter, thou doth protest too much…you protest about name calling and personal attacks that you perceive are directed at you or your party yet you have used the term ‘tribal FFers’ over the past few days. ..the use of the word tribal betrays a deep disdain. You also don’t seem to have been paying attention…Lucinda or Shane are offering a home for disaffected ‘economically conservative’…or maybe you are not allowed to mention the war.
A lot of older FF voters didn’t vote the last time around, they couldn’t vote for FF but wouldn’t give their vote to anyone else, some of them will vote the next election , maybe all of them which scary as it may be ,would give FF a higher vote than anyone expects.
Unfair, bisted, I think.
I have a disdain for tribal voters in general – I reckon it defeats the whole purpose. I specifically mentioned ‘tribal FF/FG/Lab/SF’ voters in a thread earlier.
The reason the tribal FF comes up more often is because 1) there has always been more of them than any single other party, 2) it is difficult to credibly make any argument (even playing Devil’s Advocate) for FF given what we have all experienced over the last decade and a half and 3) because FG & Labour are in govt.
I am not talking about criticism of the govt but certain types of convoluted criticism.
bisted, you are also correct that I have not being paying attention to Renua
I suspect and hope that they will be a non-event.
Ermm, you kinda lost me at “I guarantee”.
You do know Stephen Donnelly got elected and the SF candidate lost out by something like a few dozen votes?
Timmins and Ferris are unelectable at present, which leaves the SF candidate, who will run again, and a couple of dubious “Independents” in prime position to be elected next time out.
So my point is, Donnelly can’t be elected twice in the one election and the SF candidate will most likely be elected and therefore, SF will have done considerably “better out of a Labour collapse”.
Oh and Dan, it takes a “Blowhard” to know a “blowhard”. There was a meme going around a few years ago regarding Dick Roche which seems to apply to you too; You’re 10lbs of Shiite in a 5lb bag!
What a load of nonsense, although to be fair I only read as far as “They usually tend to be wildly wrong. ”
Dan the man, you have excelled…… in something………..or other.
The Green Party, servants to the Fianna Failure govt…
…I must say I got a laugh out of Dan’s bit of wishful thinking on the Greens getting a TD in the next election.
Sounds like you’d prefer a party to stay fanatical in opposition forever than compromise and advance the views of their voters, as I’m sure those voters voted for.
“There will be a Green Party presence again in the next Dáil.” –Dan Boyle today
“let’s not presume what the election result will be. That’s what happened in 2007.” — Dan Boyle in 2011 when the Greens were polling at 2% in a poll with 3% error margins.
“More worryingly, many of us are also prepared to accept growing inequality as a unavoidable consequence of economic advancement.” — Dan Boyle today
“The future will always be uncertain. We shouldn’t burden it with prophecies of doom.” — Dan Boyle last month.
You are implying a contradiction that isn’t there.
That might be personal bias – I would regard a prediction where the 0.1% have obscene amounts of personal wealth while the 99.9% are screwed over to provide it as being a prophecy of doom myself. I suppose your milage may vary…
Well, it used it to be 1% V 99% so the sans culottes are gaining the edge over the plutocrats
“who for convenience I will refer to as the Megaphone Left” — Dan Boyle today
“this was the mad couch… For those who engineer these situations there is an inherent logic to this. Politics is about perception. Only an idealist would think that politics should have depth, coherence or even honesty.” — Dan Boyle three weeks ago
You are implying a contradiction that isn’t there.
Actually, that’s not pointing out a contradiction. It’s pointing out that Dan’s perfectly happy with “the mad couch” until he’s the one being made to sit on it.
Suggesting that a specific proportion of the left are without much substance is not the same as putting everybody outside the mainstream on the ‘mad couch’.
I hardly think the Greens are in the mainstream classter.
And frankly, given some of their policies, the mad couch is the right place for them.
Unless you think that vaccination and fluoridation are dangerous practices and that homeopathy ought to be a treatment used by the HSE…
I agree with you on fluoridation/vaccination & homeopathy, Mark. I’d be very disappointed to hear that those policies are advocated in the GReen Party manifesto for the next election.
They’re not and they haven’t been. That’s part of the misrepresentation. Never included in manifesto. There are a group of obsessives who drool over a ten year old internal draft document, and exaggerate and interpret as they want to.
They’re not on the manifesto for the next election.
That does not mean they were never party policy, nor does that mean that Dan isn’t a proponent of them:
http://web.archive.org/web/20061212034326/http://www.greenparty.ie/en/policies/health
“Protection of Alternative Healthcare
We support the continuing availability of traditional, herbal and homoeopathatic remedies. We would seek to review the functions and recommendations of the Irish Medicines Board in relation to these remedies.”
“No to Fluoridation and enforced Mass Medication
It is our belief that the principle of enforced mass medication is flawed. We would seek to promote freedom of choice by keeping our food supplies and water supplies as natural as possible. We would discontinue the addition of fluoride to our water supplies.
Questioning the Benefits of Immunisation
There are significant question marks about the effectiveness of mass immunisation programs. We would launch a major study of the benefits of these programs looking at all aspects of health.”
Web archive. That doesn’t tell you anything? Questioning effectiveness is not advocating they be stopped. Insisting the involvement of bodies like the Medicine Board is totally irresponsible isn’t it? These policies were never included in manifestos and yes all have subsequently been reviewed.
And even after that was santised for the 2007 elections, it still wasn’t exactly scientifically sound (or, for that matter, truthful about the evidence).
http://web.archive.org/web/20071124001709/http://www.greenparty.ie/en/policies/health__1/3_health_prevention_and_promotion
“The Green Party has always opposed the fluoridation of water supplies and the latest evidence emerging from the united States fully vindicates our position. In Government we would immediately ban water fluoridation.”
Ah Dan, that is a bit of a shame.
The current healthy policy is carefully but not convincingly worded in realation to those topics – homeopathy, fluoridation & vaccination.
That isn’t the current health policy. All of those areas have been reviewed. In government we sought no such changes.
I’ve just read the current health policy from the website which is why I said, ‘carefully but not convincingly’.
The rough edges have been sanded off but enough is left to to convince the die-hard nutties imo.
It speaks about scientific & alternative medicine as merely different concepts or paradigms, either of which is valid.
It doesn’t reject fluoridation altogether but hints at further research & It ‘acknowledges the continuing concerns…associated with fluoridation’. It also hints at replacing fluoridation with ‘targeted public programmes’.
It supports vaccination but is ‘opposed to compulsory immunisation’,
https://greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Green-Party-Health-Policy_June-2015.pdf
As I say each has been reviewed. And each will be kept under review. In fact I think the policy has yet to be ratified. My personal view is that absolutes on either side of these issues shouldn’t be entertained.
Rejecting absolutes is all well and good until you find something that absolutely does not work (homeopathy) or something that absolutely does work (vaccinations) or something that has absolutely no credible scientific evidence against it and large amounts of credible scientific evidence for it (fluoridation).
There is a line between having an open mind and promoting woo science as actual medicine and crossing it leads to very real suffering, whether that be something like increased tooth decay and its associated side effects; or something more tragic like children dying from measles; or something downright predatory like people charging sick people for water and calling it medical care with the tacit approval of the state.
And you may – and have – protrayed this as being some sort of absolutist extremist position, but bluntly, that’s nonsense. Evidence-based medicine says that what you personally, and what your party as a whole, have been advocating for is utter nonsense that does nothing but harm.
The recent debate between yourself, Mr Boyle, and Ciara King highlights theres still far too much of a tolerance for the entirely nonsensical use of homeopathy. Its fine being open minded when it isnt harmful, however when your party suggests its acceptable to legitimise a product that simply cannot have any effect and is therefore fraudulent you’re not being open minded.
You seem to think that policy being reviewed (aka reworded) and being kept under review detaches yourself and your party from all responsibility for the promotion of utterly irresponsible frauds is ridiculous. What exactly are you waiting on to review before you eject all references to homeopathy or anti-vaccination? Surely it cant be evidence of efficiency there has been endless studies showing that the product is no better than placebo. Nor can you be waiting for evidence that there is no legitimate case for non-medical exemptions to vaccinations as that has been here for decades.
If the greens want to court the environmentally-conscious scientifically educated vote surely a purge of this woo should be a priority (although given your recent choice of MEP candidate shows that the party dont agree with my analysis)
+Lan.
Woo discredits us all.
You are implying a contradiction that isn’t there.
Actually, I’m just highlighting how dodgy his “analysis” has been in this area in the past.
MSC I think you are confused. Mark is perfectly correct to point out Boyle’s hypocrisy.
Which hypocrisy?
I believe Monsieur Mercille would prefer to describe Dan’s “Megaphone left” as the second coming of Martin Luther King. #Meritocracy
Enjoy these posts, Dan.
The Megaphone left will turn on each other. The Judean People’s Front think the People’s Front of Judea are splitters. They may be right.
There was a poster on here who outlined a few weeks ago that the hard left would rather stay ‘pure’ and up on the high horse than ever going into government and compromising. The hard right here in the US is the same.
They all purge the ‘non believers’ and then wonder why nothing gets done.
I enjoyed the post and the comments here.
I’m largely in agreement with Dan, but I don’t see the SF gaining that many extra seats next election.
I’ll campaign against the fuppers. I won’t be having some guy who lets paedos and rapists loose into another country, Ireland, from the North, UK. Fupp you Gerry, you’ll never be in any of the top seats in this country *shakes fist*
In addition to not even remembering where they killed people.
Anyone got a graph of the same going back to the previous election…?
Clampers, you forgot to mention that they are also cold blooded murderers.
Why, I’ve not used the Troubles to have a go at the Shinners before, why should I now ya big silly billy?
I laugh at the hypocritical Irish who seem to have no issue with murder. I think you are the silly billy Clampers!
I never said I had no issue with it. I said I don’t use it to batter the Shinners with.
Big difference.
BTW, have you ever debated with a Shinner and used any of the actions of “the troubles”? If you have, you’ll know it closes the whole thing down, the debate, and no one gets no where.
* dopes Basil Fawlty impression and goose steps away shouting ‘dont mention the war’ * :)
‘The altar of liberty totters when it is cemented only with blood’
Liberals dont build altars, religious do.
Thanks for the feedback. I feel I need to clear some misunderstandings that seem to exist about what I’ve written. In the first instance I’m identifying trends about what is likely to happen rather than what I want to see happen. I’m doing so in ball park terms. Any attempt to be more precise would require another level of arrogance.
The traits I identify with the general electorate are predominant opinions, not my opinions. I am saddened that they exist. I seek to persuade those who hold such opinions how dangerous and contradictory such views are.
The analysis of a Green return to Dáil isn’t mine but that of Adrian Kavanagh of NUI Maynooth. The Greens did win 80000 votes in the European Elections. Not wanting something to happen doesn’t mean that it won’t.
Finally, Mark, I get that you think that I’m responsible for everything that’s wrong with the country. I can live with that. You should too.
another +1
Dan, don’t be silly, you’re not responsible for everything that’s wrong with this country. You’re just a good example of everything that’s wrong with Irish Politics. Things like the weather, the climate, the accents, the flora and fauna, you’re not responsible for any of these.
And yes, Dan, we all have to live with that. It’s nice that your state pension lets you do so in comfort, it’s obviously the best possible use for our taxes.
Why is Dan a ‘a good example of everything that’s wrong with Irish Politics’?
If I had to pick a list of the weakness of Irish politics, I might list the following:
Tribal nature: FF/FG/Lab/SF depending on your family
A tendancy for seats to pass between generation within families
An excessive proportion of TDs from the a small number of professions – publican, teacher, small-time landlord
Rural TDs have a disproportionate influence
An excessive focus on one-off local issues rather than national policy
Do you disagree with these?
Which of these is Dan an example of?
Dan’s an example of:
– a politician who was not elected as a TD being appointed as a Senator by the Taoiseach despite an obvious electoral mandate to remove him from office (a mandate shown again when he ran for MEP in 2009 and again when he ran for the Dail in 2011 and again when he ran for the Seanad in 2011 and again when he ran for Cork City Council in 2014).
– a politician whose personal views on policy areas have no basis in scientific fact and when he’s called on that in public he attacks people personally even when they have qualifications in the area he’s talking about (an area he usually holds no qualifications in and on several occasions has scant knowledge of):
https://twitter.com/sendboyle/status/519444811624218625
https://twitter.com/sendboyle/status/535571013833355264
https://twitter.com/sendboyle/status/399100143691395072
https://twitter.com/sendboyle/status/460912425580363777
https://twitter.com/carolmhunt/status/535224384517341186
All of which would be trivial if he was just some bloke propping up the end of the bar, but when you see that in someone who had a vote in the oireachtas where we pass actual laws, it’s a problem.
(I’d disagree about the excessive proportion bit by the way, because it’s not the problem; it’s a symptom of the problem. The actual problem is that we have TDs who aren’t qualified. We’ve had _one_ Minister of Finance who had qualifications in Economics, for example)
Oh no my confidence has been dented. I have seriously failed as a human being. Whatever my grasp on science I will never be able to misrepresent as well as Mark can.
Kinda proving his point there, Dan,
His point being he hates me. His problem not mine. He’s selective. Apparently I don’t have the right to disagree with people.
You realise that those examples I gave were not dialogues between you and me Dan, but public dialogues between yourself and others, such as Dr. David Grimes? Pointing to things you said and the context in which you said them is pretty much the direct opposite of misrepresentation…
Dan, I don’t hate you. I would have to care a lot more to work up to hate. I think you represent what’s wrong with Irish Politics, I think your antiintellectualism and woo-merchanting is downright dangerous, I think you’re happily writing self-contradicting puff pieces for broadsheet that lower its quality, and I think you have failed to take on board the complete rejection you’ve been given by the electorate in several successive election attempts since 2007. But these don’t qualify as hate. As I said earlier, the only time you cross my mind is when you, personally, decide to write public comments up on here.
And I think it says a lot – and indicates strongly why you keep failing to be elected – that you believe that all of the above qualifies as hatred.
You’re giving a fairly pathetic example of not caring Mark. I’ve only contested elections for a minority party knowing that election was less likely than most. Sometimes I was successful other times I wasn’t. I secured many votes and a significant %. I’m glad I put myself forward. I was honoured to be representative. Those who hate hate. I’ve long realised I’ll never change that.
Being appointed to the Seanad is part of the system laid out in the constitution voted in by the Irish people & re-affirmed recently (even if reform would be a positive thing).
I am disappointed to hear Dan’s views may be anti-fluoridation, anti-immunisation and pro-homeopathy.
You are still guilty of personal attacks & hyperbole which are both currently a much bigger risk to Irish politics than a few nutty opinions.
They are not my views. But I am open to discussions on those and many others topics. If alternatives exist they should be considered. I find the type of bullying, or least intellectual arrogance, that Mark engages in to be sad.
https://twitter.com/sendboyle/status/519444811624218625
https://twitter.com/sendboyle/status/399100143691395072
https://twitter.com/sendboyle/status/460912425580363777
https://twitter.com/sendboyle/status/535205814118928385
Mark, so you’re holding it against him that he engaged in the democratic process – sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully? Engage with him on the issues by all means, but do not disrespect his involvement in the process. At its best, that can be the most noble part of the whole thing.
The same process could be turned on you; advocating for guns and NOT running for any kind of democratic mandate? You went before a government committee to advocate policy without being elected. I happen to agree with you generally about that issue, but what gives you the right to an opinion over someone who was voted for by the electorate, whatever their views? We can all play the man and not the ball. Why shouldn’t you just be labelled a gun lobbyist and dismissed then?
Debate him on the issues – don’t be cheap because he got involved.
Same could be said of Mercille tbh.
No Kieran, I’m saying that his appointment to the Seanad after the electorate had directly indicated that they did not want him in public office is an example of a thing that is wrong with the Irish political system. The subsequent failures to be elected to pubic office were presented to indicate that the electorate’s view in 2007 was not a one-off kneejerk reaction, but a sustained belief. I don’t blame him for running at all, I think that’s laudable. His appointment by the Taoiseach is the one occasion I’d cite as being the wrong thing to do.
True, but I didn’t ask for that. That committee invited submissions from the general public. I gave mine (as did hundreds of others). I was invited to appear there purely on the basis of that submission. I was a member of no group, I claimed to represent noone (and if you watch the video, that was indicated at the time) and I only spoke on the technical aspects of the Act. There was absolutely no representation involved (and the law was determined by those on the other side of the table, none of whom I had any influence over beyond what was presented, and all that presentation material is FOI-able and my specific material has been published already on the net).
TL;DR: Anyone involved in public policy making at any level should be scrutinised. And I thought so at the time and behaved accordingly. Which is the minimum standard you should expect from anyone doing that kind of thing.
+1 loving Dan
Thanks for the heads-up, Dan. I’ll schedule my departure for late 2019.
Thanks for your concerns Mark. It will please you to know that comfort is lacking in my life. Now where did I put that birch….
Sadly Dan, we derive happiness from when comfort is not lacking in our lives, as opposed to deriving it from when it is lacking in yours despite our investment. So please proceed with your russian sauna as you wish, but alas, it, like most things in your day to day life, matter not a jot to the rest of us. We’re too busy even now dealing with the fallout from the last time your party was in Government.
Yes Mark I can see how indifferent to my life you are….
Indeed you can Dan, since the only time in your life that you hear from me is when you post on a site I read daily, thereby interjecting yourself into things deliberately.
He’s “interjecting” now, is he?
Right so.
Wide berth, Mark needs room, he be trollin’ aul Dan ! :)
Well, you could say interposed I suppose, but honestly the effect is so jarring that interject seemed the more appropriate verb, since we don’t have a verb that means “to vomit suddenly into someone’s eyeballs”…
Comedy gold. I hope Dan is having a good old chuckle.
Yes Mark I can see how indifferent to my life you are…. To
Dan,
can I just say, as a staunch Green supporter, that you do get into public spats which are avoidable and it does nobody any good. I don’t think Mark has made one valid point and in fact has gotten very personal while claiming it’s not personal. Really he’s best ignored.
What I’m saying is focus on the job at hand, debate (not argue) with people who are open to debate and get the Green message out there.
You’re right. I instinctively want to engage even with obvious trolls. Part of me wants to tease. Can’t stand the out of context arguing that’s engaged in.
The “teasing” is wasted on them, they don’t get subtlety. They are typing responses before you make a point.
Be careful!
Mark has guns…
*easy cheapshots using the sins of others to tar one man*
Sound familiar, Mark?
Sounds very familiar Kieran, I’ve heard it often. However, there’s a difference between what I’ve said here and what you’ve just said. In short:
What I did was citation. I cited Dan’s own publications where he specifically stated the direct opposite to what he has claimed here (for example, here he has said he is not anti-fluoridation; I cited several examples where he wrote in public that he was and argued the position against qualified doctors and scientists who were pointing out why he was wrong. The form of the citation even included the context so that he was not being misrepresented by a quote taken out of context – you can see the entire published conversation at those links).
Whereas what you did was defamation. You hypothesised that because I have firearms licences, I might use those firearms to commit a crime, which is a direct statement about my character (I’m sorry, that sounds terribly precious but I can’t think of a better wording) without supporting evidence and despite evidence to the contrary, ironically, in the form of those firearms licences which require senior Gardai to sign off on someone as not being a danger to the public or the peace before such licences can be issued.
(I’m not saying defamation in the “I’m gonna sue” sense by the way, we’ve all got better things to be getting on with and thicker skins than that; I’m just using the terms in order to differentiate between the act of citing evidence and letting it speak for itself; and the act of saying something without evidence).
Dan I thought your analysis was good and interesting but I also think it was fair for mark to point out the hypocrisy in your “Megaphone left” comment considering what you said 3 weeks ago. One thing that I think will result from a FF+FG gov would be a growing chasm between rural an urban voters. With Rural plus Upper class urban v Middle and lower class urban. Cant see FF making much in roads in Urban areas. I can also see the Social democrats making a bigger impact than Renua.
I don’t see it Eamon. The Soc. Dems will do better than Renua but I also think they have both left it too late.
I don’t know. Between the new ‘right’ party, the new ‘left’ party, the ‘grouping’ of leftists, the Socialists, the ex-FG, etc etc, I think they could cancel each other out as ‘Whatever it is, I’m against it’ background noise. And then it will come down to the individual candidates.
Would be nice to see a broader range of views in the Dail and in government, but the Irish people generally comes down to ‘who ya know’ and ‘who promises me more’.
The “megaphone left” are the navel -gazing faddish radicals that engage in rabble rousing rhetoric and self indulgent posturing.
BOYLE – waster.
Also – Dan. Could you please give us an opinion on the shocking lack of reform in the Senate since the people gave it a last-minute reprieve?
Because Enda remains in a sulk about it. We could be entering an interesting period where the Seanad and the Dáil could have different compositions that in itself will strengthen the Seanad.
Best of luck to party of muck
And shit and urine and leaves
Sorry but Ireland will have no truck
With your wobbles, bobs and weaves
Go back to nature, legislature is not
The habitat (for you). Get that?