Winners and Losers at the elections… 2

Fiach Kelly on the IT podcast this last week on the elections made an interesting observation. Talking about the SF loss of local election seats he suggested that talking to rival parties there was a sense that SF had become de-energised in the past couple of years. And he argued that there was a sense of SF ‘withering’ somewhat. Those losses are considerable, no question about it, though SF will still have widespread representation (and I’m always aware of the implications for Seanad seats in these matters given the input of councillors – SF is likely to lose a seat or so there).

We know there were very high-profile issues over councillors in the past. My read is that many people came into SF in the past decade who were unprepared for the discipline of party politics or the sheer grind of local politics. Small wonder a tranche were unable to keep going, and I’d actually have some time for their complaints. We live in a very different world to even two decades ago.

According to RTÉ’s post-elections analysis SF in Leinster House were ‘in shock’ and various high-profile members were recorded saying ‘they didn’t see it coming’. And yet, polling for the party has been static for a long period, the Presidential Election alone should have been a significant alarm.

Was I surprised they faced such a reverse, falling to 80 plus councillors and being effectively wiped out in some of the strongholds they picked up in 2015? Yes, definitely. I wasn’t one who was sceptical of SF’s poll rating over the past few years – I’d never had the sense that they had at local level particularly caught fire. Nor was I terribly impressed by the new leadership which seemed competent but hardly inspiring. Indeed I’d wonder if the change was too late, and in a way too emphatic, shifting from an Adams era to one where he had all but vanished.

Indeed SF perhaps grew too quickly in the past decade and was itself unprepared for the structural stresses this would incur. Moreover the culture of the party, for want of a better word, would inevitably change too, moving from a tighter bound organisation to a looser one.

Fascinating to see how something quite similar occurred within the WP in the 1980s, albeit the dynamics there were also impacted by broader events. But Kelly made an excellent point that whatever about the allegations of bullying the response of SF was itself problematic – perhaps because that shift in culture is difficult (actually just thinking of the WP experience in a way one could argue that in part the split was a function of people moving from rigid control systems en masse – there was a lot more than that, but… it might well have been a part even if submerged by partly ideological considerations. Certainly that rigid party structure was a factor in the establishment of DL and the fact a large majority of the WP walked away from it). And so in Tipperary, Cork and even parts of Dublin things went south.

One dynamic that he pointed to was the retirement of a layer of long time activists – due to age as distinct from disenchantment. That steadying factor atrophying must be a factor.

Pat Leahy suggested that the MLM plan to increase middle class support was now in ruins (where now the idea they’d go in as a minority party supporting FG/FF?). I’ve long wondered was there a clear plan there. But then it’s difficult, and I say this as someone who is sympathetic to SF, to quite determine what direction they as a party are going in – at least by their own lights. What do they see themselves as being? Supplanting FF and the LP? Being democratic socialist republicans occupying a space adjacent to social democracy? It’s a puzzle. And it’s a puzzle that needs teasing out because clearly whatever message they currently are putting out isn’t resonating as it should with their voters. According to Kelly turnout was about where it was five years ago but turnout in working class areas was low.

And Kelly had an excellent point that SF and other parties who suffered seemed unable to connect with working class voters who were their base given matters or sentiment had changed – that while there was anger we were not as we were five years ago. And they pointed to FF’s slow increase in votes both in working class areas in Dublin and parts of south Dublin (Charlie O’Connor is back, no less) and how they were ‘reestablishing’ themselves where they once were. And Kelly suggests that FF sees representing the ‘urban working class as part of their ID’. And they’re back on Dublin City Council as the largest group which feeds into the next election.

And SF? They must be in danger of losing seats and good people across a range of areas.