But the reasons for that was a) The PDs had 8 seats compared to Labour’s 20 and theoretically would hold far less weight against FF in Government* and b) FF and the PDs had already had a working relationship so the terms of engagement were far easier to resolve – FF/Lab was a whole new situation and almost certainly involved far more concessions on the part of FF.

It was nothing to do with FF having a problem with Labour as they do with SF, or even the Greens (which I would imagine to be the most uncompromising party in coalition discussions based simply on their ideology and once niche support base)

*For what it’s worth I think the PDs got far more than their 8 seats should have commanded

After it was over I was left thinking that it is wide open and that people in the North West think very differently to me and reminded that 32 undecideds will not determine the election. I am not overly bothered by Luntz, he does what he is paid to do, however despicable that may be in some people’s eyes.

One of the (many) problems in the presentation of the programme was the obsession by Luntz on leadership ala presidential style politics. He competely ignored the whims of the PRSTV system, who someone went to school with, the first initial of the surname of the candidate and the local factors etc. which will influence the vote more than what Bert said in City West.

I wouldn’t attack the show now and haven’t in the past. I think it is an interesting and enjoyable exercise but I don’t think anyone should be basing too much either way on it.

Take the positive rating for what Bert covered in his speech, people like the idea of tax cuts, who doesn’t but they weren’t asked if they believe he would or could deliver them. They didn’t like him taking about what the government has done in health or crime and so he has a credibility. The show is a harmless diversion much like Ardal’s show.

The curious thing is that while FF and Labour would have the numbers after the election to do a deal, they had the numbers last time too, and FF chose the PDs. Also, FF and Labour having numbers doesn’t mean Ahern. B as Taoiseach.

Since the first show the result has been Fianna Fail and Labour with no real desire for Fine Gael and in particular Enda Kenny to be in Government. Instead of addressing the problems within Fine Gael (like people such as John Deasey have tried to) the Fine Gaelers have instead attacked the show. Well it’s not just Frank Opinion that indicates Fine Gael are going no where. EVERY opinion poll for the last year has pointed to Fianna Fail & Labour as most likely unless Enda kenny can patch together 4 parties and a few independents. Considering he can’t even patch together his own party this is unlikely. The most damning result was that at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis 65% of Fine Gael members had faith in Labour not joining Fianna Fail. This was spun as faith in the rainbow. The most interesting statistic was that in an opinion poll they KNEW would be leading the news the following day 35% of the die hard Fine Gaelers still said they didn’t trust Labour.

You’re done for lads. Accept it.

In fairness to the programme on this point, it wasn’t there to inform the voters or correct their ill-informed views, it was just there to record them… frankly I sat cursing the absolute morons who attacked McDowell for making people scared about drinking and driving but I don’t think it was Frank Luntz’s job to point out the idiocy of that seemingly (in that room at least) popular opinion.

That said it did seem as though most people were skeptical and misinformed over immigrants (although a counter-point was made in their favour) – this could be down to simple chance or RTÉ editing, I’m not sure.

I do agree, however, that it told us nothing that we didn’t already know. It was interesting to see the exact reactions of the public to the speeches and posters but everyone knows that Fianna Fail’s greatest asset is its leader, everyone knows Enda Kenny has oration issues, everyone knows Michael McDowell is disliked (although it was interesting to note the audience’s concern over rising crime, but their failure to pin that tail on this particular donkey, choosing Bertie instead), everyone knows Trevor Sergent gave a lack-luster Ard Fheis speech and everyone knows Pat Rabbitte did quite the opposite (partly because he was first out of the block with a promise of tax cuts).

I also agree that the conclusion seemed a little forced – I think most of the people there weren’t thinking so much in coalition terms as they were individual party terms – so they like Bertie or they like Rabbitte but they haven’t given the combo much thought. It also seemed as though half or less actually responded in the positive to this combination, but it was taken that this was the vastly popular option on the day.