cactus flower wrote:

I may be wrong as we don't have the full poll results, but I think the percentage for the parties is based on how people say they would vote, and the percentage for the party leaders is a satisfaction/performance rating. Hence the 67% for Gilmore. The two therefore are not really comparable in relation to EK and the FG vote.

I still think that any FG leader is going to handicapped with a negative vote in this kind of poll. Labour leaders have always had better satisfaction ratings in these kind of polls than FG ones.
Maybe you have a point with Enda on TV, and it is said that he comes across much better in the flesh than on the box. Sad that we are reduced to such trivilaties but they do need to do some work - and fast.

Respvblica wrote:

I still think that any FG leader is going to handicapped with a negative vote in this kind of poll. Labour leaders have always had better satisfaction ratings in these kind of polls than FG ones.
Maybe you have a point with Enda on TV, and it is said that he comes across much better in the flesh than on the box. Sad that we are reduced to such trivilaties but they do need to do some work - and fast.

I understand and appreciate your view on the fact that an Taoiseach should not be an overly centralising or indeed presidential figure as this would be at odds with the parliamentary system we have in place in this country. However, wouldn't you agree that it is desirable that an Taoiseach enjoys a significant degree of support with the people as a means by which he/she can act as the cohering and stabilising force within the government, especially coalition government. How can a Taoiseach expect to effectively supervise the government in concert with other parties if he/she is in a weak position with the people? Surely the government would lack a directing force in that situation.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Respvblica wrote:

I still think that any FG leader is going to handicapped with a negative vote in this kind of poll. Labour leaders have always had better satisfaction ratings in these kind of polls than FG ones.
Maybe you have a point with Enda on TV, and it is said that he comes across much better in the flesh than on the box. Sad that we are reduced to such trivilaties but they do need to do some work - and fast.

I understand and appreciate your view on the fact that an Taoiseach should not be an overly centralising or indeed presidential figure as this would be at odds with the parliamentary system we have in place in this country. However, wouldn't you agree that it is desirable that an Taoiseach enjoys a significant degree of support with the people as a means by which he/she can act as the cohering and stabilising force within the government, especially coalition government. How can a Taoiseach expect to effectively supervise the government in concert with other parties if he/she is in a weak position with the people? Surely the government would lack a directing force in that situation.

Thats a very good point. You should see however the graphs showing the satisfaction ratings for John Bruton before and after he became Taoiseach. I think there is an inherant bias against the leader of the oppostion in these kind of polls and as such discard them.
On the otherhand it could be that FG are just consistantly bad at handling the image of their leader. Its seems low in their priorities.

FF are incomparably good at spin and vote management and devote far more energy and intellect to it than to small things like policy development or social and economic strategy. It has worked for them, along with their ability until now to represent themselves as a broad church party with good day to day economic management skills (I'm not saying this is true, but they convey it). FG have a lot to overcome there: plus there is the confusion of a fundamentally right wing party in bed with Labour, that probably created the space for the PDs temporary existence.

I would expect FG to move clearly to the right now. The potential results in terms of electoral response are unknown, but it doesn't appear likely that they would sweep the board. And where will the rightward move of FG leave Labour?

The bizarre alliance of FG and Labour has always puzzled me: is it just a "righteous vs. dodgy" alliance: if so, I can't see it weathering the serious economic and political storms coming.

cactus flower wrote:

FF are incomparably good at spin and vote management and devote far more energy and intellect to it than to small things like policy development or social and economic strategy. It has worked for them, along with their ability until now to represent themselves as a broad church party with good day to day economic management skills (I'm not saying this is true, but they convey it). FG have a lot to overcome there: plus there is the confusion of a fundamentally right wing party in bed with Labour, that probably created the space for the PDs temporary existence.

I would expect FG to move clearly to the right now. The potential results in terms of electoral response are unknown, but it doesn't appear likely that they would sweep the board. And where will the rightward move of FG leave Labour?

The bizarre alliance of FG and Labour has always puzzled me: is it just a "righteous vs. dodgy" alliance: if so, I can't see it weathering the serious economic and political storms coming.

Well this is where they have to focus on areas where they agree and compromise where they cant. Labour are going to have to accept some cuts. If Labour act with the attitude of Ruari Quinn and De Rossa in 1994, then all is grand.

Party politics is a very complex system and to be objective you need to look at it from differing angle. Sometimes commentators make the mistake by looking at it from just one angle. In regards to state involvement and redistribution of wealth it may seem that FF are actually closer to Labour than FG. But such a unidimensional view does not take into account other dimensions. These can be ideological or merely personal/social.

What FG should do now is annimate the country with a program of reform that does not endanger their core principals of "christain democracy, internationalism, conservativism and civicism". Both Labour and FG have been out of power for long enough to be outside teh establishment. If they were smart they would shape the country to their advantage. I'm not saying that is is necessarily good for the people at large, but why should they stand by institutions which favour FF. Personally I think that FG would inspie labour and left-wing voters (and even some ordinary FFers) if they presented institutional reform at the local and national level. You know what I'm talking about here with localism, balances of power and direct democracy. Such a move does not have to be seen as radical. It is merely the logical conclusion of pursuing a policy which wants more efficiency and accountability.
FG have an appeal that they want to put the interests of the country ahead of their own. They should be alive to the fact that very soon we are going to starting from ground zero and now is a perfect opportunity to right the wrongs of so many years of mis-rule.

This kind of thing is perhaps almost as much a problem for Enda Kenny as the dodgy haircut:

Quote :

13/01/2009 - 12:56:49
Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny has refused to back calls for a new general election by his Labour Party counterpart.

Eamon Gilmore has called for an election to allow voters to choose the Government they want to guide Ireland through the current economic recession.

He says the country cannot afford to continue with the current "incompetent" Government for another three years.

However, speaking in Limerick today, Mr Kenny said he would not support such calls as the country is already facing local elections, European elections, two by-elections and a re-run of the Lisbon Treaty referendum this year.

cactus flower wrote:

This kind of thing is perhaps almost as much a problem for Enda Kenny as the dodgy haircut:

Quote :

13/01/2009 - 12:56:49
Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny has refused to back calls for a new general election by his Labour Party counterpart.

Eamon Gilmore has called for an election to allow voters to choose the Government they want to guide Ireland through the current economic recession.

He says the country cannot afford to continue with the current "incompetent" Government for another three years.

However, speaking in Limerick today, Mr Kenny said he would not support such calls as the country is already facing local elections, European elections, two by-elections and a re-run of the Lisbon Treaty referendum this year.

Good point. For me its worse than any image problem. Perhaps FG do need a change of leader then.

Respvblica wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Respvblica wrote:

I still think that any FG leader is going to handicapped with a negative vote in this kind of poll. Labour leaders have always had better satisfaction ratings in these kind of polls than FG ones.
Maybe you have a point with Enda on TV, and it is said that he comes across much better in the flesh than on the box. Sad that we are reduced to such trivilaties but they do need to do some work - and fast.

I understand and appreciate your view on the fact that an Taoiseach should not be an overly centralising or indeed presidential figure as this would be at odds with the parliamentary system we have in place in this country. However, wouldn't you agree that it is desirable that an Taoiseach enjoys a significant degree of support with the people as a means by which he/she can act as the cohering and stabilising force within the government, especially coalition government. How can a Taoiseach expect to effectively supervise the government in concert with other parties if he/she is in a weak position with the people? Surely the government would lack a directing force in that situation.

Thats a very good point. You should see however the graphs showing the satisfaction ratings for John Bruton before and after he became Taoiseach. I think there is an inherant bias against the leader of the oppostion in these kind of polls and as such discard them.
On the otherhand it could be that FG are just consistantly bad at handling the image of their leader. Its seems low in their priorities.

Remember that in reality FF has around 35-38% support when you add in soft and hard. (The soft has left them right now.) The FF-FG rivalry means that even if FG had Jesus Christ or Nelson Mandela as leader that FF block would automatically deem him bad, incompetent, etc. (Curiously polls show FGers don't direct the same personalised attitude towards FF leaders and often can give them fair ratings if they do OK.) In contrast as Labour was once in government with FF FFers give Labour leaders good ratings, in effect to love bomb them and say 'you know we really do like you lot. Come in with us again'. So FG leaders in opposition, bar the odd spectacular figure like Garret FitzGerald, invariably end up in the 30s or 40s. There is an inverse reaction between FFers' declarations in the satisfaction states and whether that leader is seen as a threat to FF. The less of a threat you are sometimes they more FF will give you good 'marks' whereas the more of a threat you are the lower they mark you. (It is known as 'inverse popularity'.) Kenny scares FF. The reason he does is because he has a couple of dangerous - from FF's point of view - attributes.

1. He makes good use of people. (He was the one who picked Richard Bruton for Finance Spokesperson, for example. Previously under Noonan Bruton had been Education spokesman.)

2. He has picked an extremely good background team, one FF fears.

3. That team has delivered bad results . . . for FF. They delivered the highest comparative seat increase in Irish political history for FG in the 2007 general election, bringing the party from flatlining to coming very close to government, something FF believed FG would need two elections to do. They pick great candidates in the right areas, run superb campaigns, make very clever strategic choices, and have a habit of winning. (Kenny is the first FG leader in FG history to beat FF in seats in any election, ever (the Europeans in 2004).) Ironically one of Kenny's biggest fans was B. Ahern. He said he thought Kenny had assembled a team he feared and that Kenny was able to play a great trick - play the soft-spoken quy without much gumption and then unleash campaigns that caught FF cold in the locals, in by-elections, in European elections, and in a general election.

That's why FF target him. Bring Kenny down and you break up a team that have shown they know how to challenge FF. They tried something similar in the 1980s when they spread stories about how Garret FitzGerald was a puppet of the so-called 'National Handlers' led by Bill O'Herlihy, FG's team at the time that gave FF all sorts of problems. Kenny may not be an intellectual, but he knows how to assemble teams FF fears. And that why FFers like to deliver endless personal on him. Get him and you get his team.

Papal Knight wrote:

Respvblica wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Respvblica wrote:

I still think that any FG leader is going to handicapped with a negative vote in this kind of poll. Labour leaders have always had better satisfaction ratings in these kind of polls than FG ones.
Maybe you have a point with Enda on TV, and it is said that he comes across much better in the flesh than on the box. Sad that we are reduced to such trivilaties but they do need to do some work - and fast.

I understand and appreciate your view on the fact that an Taoiseach should not be an overly centralising or indeed presidential figure as this would be at odds with the parliamentary system we have in place in this country. However, wouldn't you agree that it is desirable that an Taoiseach enjoys a significant degree of support with the people as a means by which he/she can act as the cohering and stabilising force within the government, especially coalition government. How can a Taoiseach expect to effectively supervise the government in concert with other parties if he/she is in a weak position with the people? Surely the government would lack a directing force in that situation.

Thats a very good point. You should see however the graphs showing the satisfaction ratings for John Bruton before and after he became Taoiseach. I think there is an inherant bias against the leader of the oppostion in these kind of polls and as such discard them.
On the otherhand it could be that FG are just consistantly bad at handling the image of their leader. Its seems low in their priorities.

Remember that in reality FF has around 35-38% support when you add in soft and hard. (The soft has left them right now.) The FF-FG rivalry means that even if FG had Jesus Christ or Nelson Mandela as leader that FF block would automatically deem him bad, incompetent, etc. (Curiously polls show FGers don't direct the same personalised attitude towards FF leaders and often can give them fair ratings if they do OK.) In contrast as Labour was once in government with FF FFers give Labour leaders good ratings, in effect to love bomb them and say 'you know we really do like you lot. Come in with us again'. So FG leaders in opposition, bar the odd spectacular figure like Garret FitzGerald, invariably end up in the 30s or 40s. There is an inverse reaction between FFers' declarations in the satisfaction states and whether that leader is seen as a threat to FF. The less of a threat you are sometimes they more FF will give you good 'marks' whereas the more of a threat you are the lower they mark you. (It is known as 'inverse popularity'.) Kenny scares FF.

Don't know about that, but he fuckin scares me.

Front of the Tribune today -

FF: 28 (-2)
FG: 33 (-2)

Lab: 14 (nc)
GP: 8 (+3)
Ind: 8 (nc)
SF: 9 (+1)
-------------
= 39%

It's nearly getting there with the Left Wing Party that is emerging there now - the Rainbow Left - a hybrid of Green/Red/Nationalism/Independent that I couldn't see having any problems working.

Before launching such a collage on the Electorate, it might be wiser to wait until both FG and FF are truly ransacked and routed by which time (next Christmas) the electorate will have been thoroughly educated in resources, public policy, finance, culture and international trade.

I can't wait.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Front of the Tribune today -

FF: 28 (-2)
FG: 33 (-2)

Lab: 14 (nc)
GP: 8 (+3)
Ind: 8 (nc)
SF: 9 (+1)
-------------
= 39%

It's nearly getting there with the Left Wing Party that is emerging there now - the Rainbow Left - a hybrid of Green/Red/Nationalism/Independent that I couldn't see having any problems working.

Before launching such a collage on the Electorate, it might be wiser to wait until both FG and FF are truly ransacked and routed by which time (next Christmas) the electorate will have been thoroughly educated in resources, public policy, finance, culture and international trade.

I can't wait.

I'm afraid you must and for quite a while I suspect.

This poll is driving the nuts on P.ie... well, more nuts.
Half of them have decided that if the poll shows FG down and the Greens up that the pollsters must be wrong.
The other half reckon that its the electorate are wrong.

I'm not in the least bit surprised to see the Greens up 3%, but I am surprised to see no improvement for Labour.

There's a SF poster on pie who always says the results for SF are positive - whatever the numbers. In his or her absence from this premier site, I have to say the results for SF aren't too bad. But, then again, they ain't too great either. Interesting to see Labour's numbers hold and I'm somewhat bemused by the Green results.

As always, they're essentially meaningless without a full blooded contest. The locals will tell us more. As far as I can tell, SF in Monaghan don't seem to running any more candidates than usual. I suppose FG will be looking to pick up more seats and, if the poll results are any indication, the Green might be pick a new seat or two.

eoinmn wrote:

This poll is driving the nuts on P.ie... well, more nuts.
Half of them have decided that if the poll shows FG down and the Greens up that the pollsters must be wrong.
The other half reckon that its the electorate are wrong.

I'm not in the least bit surprised to see the Greens up 3%, but I am surprised to see no improvement for Labour.

The Greens are doing a good job in Government, it should be no surprise that they're up.

tonys wrote:

The Greens are doing a good job in Government, it should be no surprise that they're up.

You are far too rational Tonys!
But there is also the a couple of other factors such as
people don't blame the Greens for the housing bubble, bank deregulation, etc.
and many people really really dislike P McKenna, to the extent that if she says something bad about the Greens, that makes these people look at the Greens favourably.

eoinmn wrote:

tonys wrote:

The Greens are doing a good job in Government, it should be no surprise that they're up.

You are far too rational Tonys!

I have been accused of that in the past, even of having an unaccountable and somewhat boring dependency on “facts”.

Agree with the rest of your post too.

eoinmn wrote:

tonys wrote:

The Greens are doing a good job in Government, it should be no surprise that they're up.

You are far too rational Tonys!
But there is also the a couple of other factors such as
people don't blame the Greens for the housing bubble, bank deregulation, etc.
and many people really really dislike P McKenna, to the extent that if she says something bad about the Greens, that makes these people look at the Greens favourably.

Can she be used strategically as a secret weapon to gain more votes?? The Irish are a funny lot. Is there anyone handy in SF or Labour like that ??

Good observation about Labour - anyone know why they're not up ?

And as rockyracoon says, it's not so significant unless it's the Real Thing in which case tonys is probably right and the poll just before the next election will be (again)

FF: 42 (+14)
FG: 23 (-10)

Lab: 14 (nc)
GP: 6 (+3)
Ind: 6 (nc) ---> FF
SF: 9 (nc)
-------------
= 35%

(apologies to the editors of the SBP who always read MN after mass - the poll was theirs and is on the front page too)

Auditor #9 wrote:

Good observation about Labour - anyone know why they're not up ?

I think most of us here on MN have been impressed by Joan Burton lately.
But we're nerds.
Do most voters know who Joan Burton is? Or if they do, have they been listening to her?
That's the only reason I can think of.

eoinmn wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Good observation about Labour - anyone know why they're not up ?

I think most of us here on MN have been impressed by Joan Burton lately.
But we're nerds.
Do most voters know who Joan Burton is? Or if they do, have they been listening to her?
That's the only reason I can think of.

In fairness these politicians are not as visible as you might think - us nerds might watch 'em on Everything but the Six One news is about the only place you'll see them where Burton and Bruton can be seen saying

"house prices ...... tax ......... banking.....liquidity ........... SMEs .............. CFDs ..... GDP.... "



While Hanafin just on the radio ends pleasantly with "we're providing 30m more this year for income support supplements....

Auditor #9 wrote:

eoinmn wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Good observation about Labour - anyone know why they're not up ?

I think most of us here on MN have been impressed by Joan Burton lately.
But we're nerds.
Do most voters know who Joan Burton is? Or if they do, have they been listening to her?
That's the only reason I can think of.

In fairness these politicians are not as visible as you might think - us nerds might watch 'em on Everything but the Six One news is about the only place you'll see them where Burton and Bruton can be seen saying

"house prices ...... tax ......... banking.....liquidity ........... SMEs .............. CFDs ..... GDP.... "

This is true and as an added extra she has the face & voice to back up her sentiments.

I am biased about Joan Burton....she really does irk me but I have met too many people who have confirmed my prejudice. My slanted take on her is that she never finishes sentences and takes an eternity to make her point. And when the point is finished (in about 2017) the non-political listener has grandchildren

Why are Labour not up? I think the answer to that is that people know well that they could still keep FF in power after the next election.

The next election is going to play out like a referendum with only tow choices. Do you want FF or do you want FG? Thats all it boils down to.
Forget the rest -waste of time really.
FG are down but if they can maintain a competent image than I cant see then drop below 30 anymore.

Respvblica wrote:

Why are Labour not up? I think the answer to that is that people know well that they could still keep FF in power after the next election.

The next election is going to play out like a referendum with only tow choices. Do you want FF or do you want FG? Thats all it boils down to.
Forget the rest -waste of time really.
FG are down but if they can maintain a competent image than I cant see then drop below 30 anymore.

The results are very good for FG and Labour and very bad for FF. The trick in reading polls is to understand two things

- trend
- expected movements.

The key to this poll is expected movements. December/January are always for want of an alternative way of explaining it, good months for government and bad months for oppositions. The reason is to do with the public attention span and media opportunities. When the Dáil is in session the opposition can use it to attack the government, with the media joining in. So normally in Dáil terms governments fall and oppositions rise. The corollary is true at this time of year.

- The Dáil is not in session, limiting media exposure.
- Poll corrs themselves go on holidays so the amount of political coverage goes down.
- The public are surrounded by distractions (Christmas, New Year, sales, holidays) and so focus less on current affairs.

So end of January polls usually show opposition falls and government rises. (FF in recent years have gone up by 3-4% in January polls.)

The government has faced a tough time, tough enough probably to cancel out the natural rise that occurs at this time. So FF could have expected a small rise or at worst no change. Dropping in January is contrary to normal January movements. FF will be worried by this poll, not because they are at 28% but because at the 'cushion poll' (the poll which gives them a lift which they then lose in the following 3 months) they went down. If they go down now by 2, it suggests the potential for a larger fall in the negative months (Feb, March, April).

FG and Labour will be very happy with the result. Both could have expected a drop. Labour had none and FG had only 2%, less than half the drop they could have expected in a January poll. So even in a month when they get less coverage than at other times of the year, in a month when political coverage in the media is way down and when the journalists who would normally cover political stories are on holidays, their downward move is in the range 0-2%, far better than would normally be expected.

Quite simply, FF went down where in January they invariably go up. FG went down by half the amount they could have expected them to fall, and Labour stayed stable. So FG and Labour are well placed to gain considerably in the backlash against government cuts, and FF are far below where they would want to be before cuts are announced. On these numbers FF would lose 20+ seats, FG gain around 12-15 and Labour gain 4-5.

As for the Greens and SF, their movements are largely irrelevant. They have two types of supporters, the committed and the transfers. Movements among small parties only indicate supporter movements and supporter movements on their own don't win seats as their support level by definition is too small to have many safe seats. Small parties often increase support but lose seats, or vice-versa. In a coalition they will be relying on transfers from the other party. (Remember the Rainbow lost even through FG did very well because Labour tanked.) So if FF are tanking, then a host of their seats will be lost as they will not have the additional transfers they need to win or hold seats. Trevor arguably is the only seat where supporters alone could deliver it.

The rule of thumb is simple: if in government you cannot go up in January, you are in trouble. That is the month when the cards are stacked in your favour. If in opposition you drop 0-2% in the month when the cards are stacked against you, you stand to make considerable gains later in the year. And if you are below 10%, poll movements don't matter much because they still on their own cannot get you seats. You need transfers for that, so you are inextricably linked with the appeal of your coalition partner.

If I was a FF supporter I would be happy with these numbers. Considering everything it shows that people still think they are the most capable to deal with a bad economic crisis.

If I were a SF supporter I would be happy as well.

As regards FG, there is an old saying "You can not beat somebody with nobody" and Enda is a nobody. From what I saw of Gilmore debating Willie O Dea he appears clueless and the old slogans just don't cut it. As regards the Greens, regardless of what the polls say their days are numbered as the last poll of 2% suggested.

The Greens will always exist as a pressure movement regardless of whether they had anyone in the Dáil or not (which they always will anyway as they have a couple of strong candidates). This is what constrasts a party of a particular vision like that from the latter days of the PDs.