We pride ourselves on the fact that we don't have a first-past-the-post electoral system but, in reality, we do or a variation of it. In most three seat constituencies the candidates in the first three positions at the end of the first count in the 2011 general election were elected, with the same thing happening to the first four and five candidates in the four and five seat constituencies, respectively.
The candidates in the first three places at the end of the first count were elected in 15 of the 17 three seat constituencies. They were not all elected on the first count or in in the order in which they appeared at the end of the first count. In Dublin North East, two candidates (SF and FF) were ahead of the third candidate (the second successful Labour candidate) at the end of the first count but failed to be elected. Both candidates presumably failed to attract transfers, which is typical of SF candidates and was to be expected of FF candidates in 2011.
In 9 of the 15 four seat constituencies, the candidates in the first four places at the end of the first count were elected, again not all on the first count or in the order in which they appeared at the end of the first count. In the five of the remaining six constituencies, three of the first four candidates at the end of the first count were elected while two of the first four candidates at the end of the first count were elected in one constituency.
In 8 of the 11 five seat constituencies, the candidates in the first five places at the end of the first count were elected (again not all on the first count, etc.). In the other three constituencies, four of the first five placed candidates at the end of the first count were elected.
In most constituencies, a candidate who was in the first three, four or five positions (as appropriate) at the end of the first count but failed to be elected was beaten by a candidate who was not far behind him/her at the end of the first count (frequently five hundred votes or less). Only in Galway East where four candidates (two FG and two independents) were ahead of the final candidate to be elected (Labour) at the end of the first count was the result unusual.
The results have considerable significance for Labour, which like the Liberal Democrats in Britain last year, don't appear to realize they are going to be annihilated. Paddy Ashdown, a former leader of the Lib Dems, said he would eat his hat if the Lib Dems did badly but David Steel, a former Liberal leader, got it right the next day when he said that the Lib Dems lost 49 (I think) of their 57 seats not because of what they had done in government but because of the promises they broke to get into government. I expected the Lib Dems to be wiped out and I expect Labour to be down to between 0-10 seats after our election for the same reason that the Lib Dems were punished.
Unlike large parties, which have large numbers elected locally and nationally (thereby allowing those parties to remain in touch with the electorate), smaller parties quickly lose touch with their bases and their promises. They lose the run of themselves and become arrogant. Small parties suffer in coalition not because they are small but because (a) they make promises before the election that they should not make (the promises are not credible and the electorate knows that) and (b) they break promises that they should not break to get into office. Not surprisingly, the electorate has contempt for them and punishes them at the subsequent election. FF and FG are identical parties so it is unlikely that either party would have to break a significant promise to go into government with the other. Consequently, the smaller party should not suffer at the subsequent general election.
Three seat constituencies
The highest first preference vote received by a Labour candidate who did not secure election in the 2011 general election was 17.56% in Limerick. The Labour candidate was in fourth place at the end of the first count but was 3% behind the third placed candidate (FF). The lowest first preference vote secured by a successful Labour candidate in 2011 (the sole Labour candidate in the constituency) was 14.31% in Cork South West.
Four seat constituencies
The highest first preference vote won by a Labour candidate in a four seat constituency who failed to be elected in 2011 was 11.75% in Cork North Central. The candidate was in sixth place at the end of the first count, less than 1% behind the fourth candidate elected. The lowest first preference vote secured by a successful Labour candidate in 2011 was 7.18% in Galway East. He was one of two Labour candidates in that constituency.
Five seat constituencies
The highest first preference vote secured by an unsuccessful Labour candidate in 2011 was 8.21% in Dublin South Central. In Wicklow, two of the three Labour candidates failed to be elected (the two candidates had a combined first preference vote of 9.43%). Had Labour run just two candidates they might have won two seats. The lowest first preference vote secured by a successful Labour candidate in 2011 was 7.71% in Wicklow, where, as stated above, there were three Labour candidates.
The Arms Industry
The head of the GMB union in Britain, Sir Paul Kenny, is opposed to Jeremy Corbyn's attempts to change Labour Party policy on Trident because it would affect the jobs of members of his union. He has threatened to mobilize workers at 50 defence industry sites across the UK to oppose any attempt by Labour to scrap Trident.
The ghastly position adopted by Kenny tells us a lot about the role of the arms industry in Western economies. (Kenny's knighthood tells us something about it too.) I don't know what percentage of the prosperity of developed economies (some anyway but they are all connected) is dependent on the arms industry but I think I once saw a figure of 25%. Whatever it is, it is significant.
The arms industry is now a key part (not far off being the only part) of what is left of Britain's manufacturing industry. Its influence on British foreign policy is enormous and deadly. In his article about the GMB union's opposition to scrapping Trident, in the Irish Times on 12th January, Denis Staunton failed to refer to the baleful influence of jobs in the arms industry on Britain's foreign policy. It is no coincidence that Britain has been to the forefront of every murderous policy being pursued by the West in recent years, including in Libya. They need the wars to preserve Britain's prosperity but the wars are getting closer to home.
In general, the media says little or nothing about the link between the arms industry and foreign policy, not always through wanting to bury the link but sometimes due to a simple failure to see the connection. It would help a great deal if economic history was a core subject at secondary level. It would teach everyone to make the necessary connection between economics and politics. It would also teach those who become senior journalists to probe issues that need probing and to bring to the surface the shocking link between the arms industry and the relentless wars that the arms industry demands. (Their editors and proprietors might not let them of course.) During the Cold War the arms industry (on both sides) was on to a good thing. They had a guaranteed market without (for the most part) the need for actual warfare although the Vietnam War was driven by the arms industry.
The end of the Cold War changed the situation and the the arms industry now needs (and is getting) hot wars all over the place. The fact that the wars are getting closer to home doesn't matter to the industry. Indeed, it helps their bottom line. The industry has no loyalty to any state or society (other than the need for societies to be sufficiently stable to allow them to pursue their murderous activities), only to profits. They are likely to welcome anything that boosts their profits. (58,000 dead US troops in Vietnam meant nothing to the arms industry as the figure was low enough not to generate a revolution and many of the dead were no doubt poor or black or probably both.) The next step is to ensure that their own societies are attacked (in a small way but big enough to generate an appropriate policy response from governments) as that will generate even more profits.
Joseph Heller's character, Milo Minderbinder, in Catch-22, captures the reality of the arms dealer perfectly. Heller deliberately and cleverly paints Milo as an attractive character but with something fundamental missing from his moral make-up. It is difficult for most of us to understand the mindset of the arms manufacturer and the arms dealer. We can't understand Milo Minderbinder's character in Catch-22 and we can't understand the amorality of the industry in real life either. We are not like them. Most people would recoil in horror at the thought that they were contributing to terrible suffering in the Middle East and elsewhere through the jobs held by their friends, neighbours and fellow citizens. It gets more difficult, however, when they have to be told that they will have to make a choice between generating wars in the Middle East or seeing their standard of living drop by 25%. So their governments and their media don't tell them. If, however, citizens were taught at school to think about the relationship between economics and politics it would make it more difficult to hide the horrors of the military industrial complex before it is too late.
The ghastly position adopted by Kenny tells us a lot about the role of the arms industry in Western economies. (Kenny's knighthood tells us something about it too.) I don't know what percentage of the prosperity of developed economies (some anyway but they are all connected) is dependent on the arms industry but I think I once saw a figure of 25%. Whatever it is, it is significant.
The arms industry is now a key part (not far off being the only part) of what is left of Britain's manufacturing industry. Its influence on British foreign policy is enormous and deadly. In his article about the GMB union's opposition to scrapping Trident, in the Irish Times on 12th January, Denis Staunton failed to refer to the baleful influence of jobs in the arms industry on Britain's foreign policy. It is no coincidence that Britain has been to the forefront of every murderous policy being pursued by the West in recent years, including in Libya. They need the wars to preserve Britain's prosperity but the wars are getting closer to home.
In general, the media says little or nothing about the link between the arms industry and foreign policy, not always through wanting to bury the link but sometimes due to a simple failure to see the connection. It would help a great deal if economic history was a core subject at secondary level. It would teach everyone to make the necessary connection between economics and politics. It would also teach those who become senior journalists to probe issues that need probing and to bring to the surface the shocking link between the arms industry and the relentless wars that the arms industry demands. (Their editors and proprietors might not let them of course.) During the Cold War the arms industry (on both sides) was on to a good thing. They had a guaranteed market without (for the most part) the need for actual warfare although the Vietnam War was driven by the arms industry.
The end of the Cold War changed the situation and the the arms industry now needs (and is getting) hot wars all over the place. The fact that the wars are getting closer to home doesn't matter to the industry. Indeed, it helps their bottom line. The industry has no loyalty to any state or society (other than the need for societies to be sufficiently stable to allow them to pursue their murderous activities), only to profits. They are likely to welcome anything that boosts their profits. (58,000 dead US troops in Vietnam meant nothing to the arms industry as the figure was low enough not to generate a revolution and many of the dead were no doubt poor or black or probably both.) The next step is to ensure that their own societies are attacked (in a small way but big enough to generate an appropriate policy response from governments) as that will generate even more profits.
Joseph Heller's character, Milo Minderbinder, in Catch-22, captures the reality of the arms dealer perfectly. Heller deliberately and cleverly paints Milo as an attractive character but with something fundamental missing from his moral make-up. It is difficult for most of us to understand the mindset of the arms manufacturer and the arms dealer. We can't understand Milo Minderbinder's character in Catch-22 and we can't understand the amorality of the industry in real life either. We are not like them. Most people would recoil in horror at the thought that they were contributing to terrible suffering in the Middle East and elsewhere through the jobs held by their friends, neighbours and fellow citizens. It gets more difficult, however, when they have to be told that they will have to make a choice between generating wars in the Middle East or seeing their standard of living drop by 25%. So their governments and their media don't tell them. If, however, citizens were taught at school to think about the relationship between economics and politics it would make it more difficult to hide the horrors of the military industrial complex before it is too late.
Problems in the Health Service
Yet again today on the News at One, the Minister for Health was subjected to the usual questions about times on trollies, wards not open and so forth. It is easy for journalists to ask about the problem of SUPPY when they should be talking about the excess DEMAND for health services. I can't understand why politicians, who are on the receiving end of all this, never fight back. Is it because they haven't done their homework on the different levels of demand for health services in, say, Dublin and Manchester or, say, Dublin and Copenhagen? Why is the first fortnight of the year very demanding for the health service here? Is it in Manchester and Copenhagen also? Is it because people here have been consuming too much over Christmas and getting no exercise? If that is the case, why are the Government and the media not focusing on that problem? Is it all a game? The media play the role of the great crusaders. The politicians allow themselves to be humiliated in return for the media not asking the questions that are really relevant and that would oblige the Minister for Health, his Department and the HSE to address the real issues?
Has the Department of Health or the HSE (or the universities or the media) done any research on the nature of the demand for health services in this jurisdiction as opposed to other jurisdictions? How much of the bottlenecks that we constantly hear about has to do with our lifestyle, in particular the use and abuse of alcohol and other drugs, legal and illegal? Does the average citizen of Manchester or Copenhagen consume less alcohol than the average Dubliner? Are demands for A&E services in Manchester or Copenhagen less severe than in Dublin and is that a reflection of a healthier lifestyle among Mancunians and Danes? It shouldn't be too difficult to find that out and draw the necessary policy conclusions.
Do general practitioners in Manchester and Copenhagen look after their patients the way GPs once did here or are they just a referral service as seems to be the case here now? Do GPs do house calls in Manchester and Copenhagen unlike here as far as I can tell? A well functioning health service starts with citizens not living unhealthy and undisciplined lives (something their GPs should constantly remind them of as opposed to many GPs merely extracting large amounts of money from their patients every time their patients cross a surgery threshold). Why is the unhealthy lifestyle of so many people, frequently documented, not linked back to the problems with the provision of health care?
Why is their not more emphasis in the need to keep people away from hospitals and attending their GPs instead? There is no point in the Minister for Health making lame appeals on RTE. Action needs to be taken. Many GPs need to up their game, substantially. People need to be turned away from hospitals and referred back to their GPs, all of whom should have a facility for their patients to be seen 24 x 7. Why do hospitals permit GPs to refer patients for hospital attention when it is not always necessary? Why is the HSE not analysing the statistics to identify those GPs who are referring patients unnecessarily to hospital?
The main problem in the health service - which neither the media nor the politicians ever allude to - is that vested interests are more powerful than Government or the health service. Vested interests put their own interests first. That is not the case with the NHS in Britain. There are of course powerful health sector interests there but there is a sense (and I know this from my own experience) that the health service is more important than, and takes precedence over, the interests of the professions, trade unions and others who make up the service. The British Government has always seen itself as being above the vested interests and not as a referee managing the competing demands of the various interests, as is the case here. The weakness of the Government here in the face of strong vested interests is not just confined to the health service but (as with other sectors) politicians seem afraid to address the real issues and the media won't either. Using politicians as the national punchbag is easier for the media and politicians seem to be happy to play along.
Only in Ireland would this situation arise.
Has the Department of Health or the HSE (or the universities or the media) done any research on the nature of the demand for health services in this jurisdiction as opposed to other jurisdictions? How much of the bottlenecks that we constantly hear about has to do with our lifestyle, in particular the use and abuse of alcohol and other drugs, legal and illegal? Does the average citizen of Manchester or Copenhagen consume less alcohol than the average Dubliner? Are demands for A&E services in Manchester or Copenhagen less severe than in Dublin and is that a reflection of a healthier lifestyle among Mancunians and Danes? It shouldn't be too difficult to find that out and draw the necessary policy conclusions.
Do general practitioners in Manchester and Copenhagen look after their patients the way GPs once did here or are they just a referral service as seems to be the case here now? Do GPs do house calls in Manchester and Copenhagen unlike here as far as I can tell? A well functioning health service starts with citizens not living unhealthy and undisciplined lives (something their GPs should constantly remind them of as opposed to many GPs merely extracting large amounts of money from their patients every time their patients cross a surgery threshold). Why is the unhealthy lifestyle of so many people, frequently documented, not linked back to the problems with the provision of health care?
Why is their not more emphasis in the need to keep people away from hospitals and attending their GPs instead? There is no point in the Minister for Health making lame appeals on RTE. Action needs to be taken. Many GPs need to up their game, substantially. People need to be turned away from hospitals and referred back to their GPs, all of whom should have a facility for their patients to be seen 24 x 7. Why do hospitals permit GPs to refer patients for hospital attention when it is not always necessary? Why is the HSE not analysing the statistics to identify those GPs who are referring patients unnecessarily to hospital?
The main problem in the health service - which neither the media nor the politicians ever allude to - is that vested interests are more powerful than Government or the health service. Vested interests put their own interests first. That is not the case with the NHS in Britain. There are of course powerful health sector interests there but there is a sense (and I know this from my own experience) that the health service is more important than, and takes precedence over, the interests of the professions, trade unions and others who make up the service. The British Government has always seen itself as being above the vested interests and not as a referee managing the competing demands of the various interests, as is the case here. The weakness of the Government here in the face of strong vested interests is not just confined to the health service but (as with other sectors) politicians seem afraid to address the real issues and the media won't either. Using politicians as the national punchbag is easier for the media and politicians seem to be happy to play along.
Only in Ireland would this situation arise.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)