Pearse Doherty and the NAMA swindle

PatsytheNazi

Like or loath SF this is an excellent speech by Pearse Doherty on the bail out for the landlords. The discomfort of the Minister was reflected in the fact that he tried only one half hearted interruption.

North_West_Art

finally, someone who isn't afraid to say it as it is.... (too bad about your username though patsy!)

Sand

If I've a criticism it that he cites the Donegal appartment complex as being an example of something the government could buy.

The complex is half finished, and if Celtic Tiger planning is anything to go buy it will probably lack the ammenities and infrastructure required by a community of 47 dwellings. Also, its never going to recover value. It should never have been built - there simply isnt the demand from people to live there. In ten years time its going to be a dilapidated, dangerous, run down collection of ruins if its not knocked down completely before then for public safety reasons (kids playing amonst abandoned building sites and empty houses).

It weakens his argument to pretend the government can simply appropriate or buy up half finished estates and use them for social housing. Its planning of that quality that lead to places like Moyross or Ballymun.

yermanoffthetv

That was a very impressive speach alright. All the political parties need an injection of young blood with a bit of passion. So let me get this straight, baisicly the government pays the morgage of the developers for 10 years and then the developer is free to sell off the properties with no renumeration to the government? Jesus, only in Ireland!:mad:

mikemac

He's very passionate, fair play

Off topic, he's the image of Danny Dyer from the Football Factory film

xp90

Id tip him to succeed gerry

flutered

jeeze the difference between him and calamety mary, this guy needs to be in the dail, oh he is over qualified sorry folks

Nozebleed

very impressive indeed. well said.

PanchoVilla

This is a great example why Irish people need to give SF the chance they deserve. I'm not a great supporter of SF but they have some intelligent, passionate, and enthusiastic young people in the party and I think they can do some good work for this country. It's time to leave the past in the past and move forward, don't let party politics hold you back from voting for the right person when elections finally roll around.

PanchoVilla

Sand wrote: »

If I've a criticism it that he cites the Donegal appartment complex as being an example of something the government could buy.

The complex is half finished, and if Celtic Tiger planning is anything to go buy it will probably lack the ammenities and infrastructure required by a community of 47 dwellings. Also, its never going to recover value. It should never have been built - there simply isnt the demand from people to live there. In ten years time its going to be a dilapidated, dangerous, run down collection of ruins if its not knocked down completely before then for public safety reasons (kids playing amonst abandoned building sites and empty houses).

It weakens his argument to pretend the government can simply appropriate or buy up half finished estates and use them for social housing. Its planning of that quality that lead to places like Moyross or Ballymun.

They could buy the properties, create temporary employment by hiring local tradesmen to finish them, then sell them to young people for a profit. As Peirce said in the video, they'd only cost €11.5k each. Spend €8.5-13.5k finishing them up and sell them on to first time buyers for €40-50k. Jobs are created, money is put back into the economy, young people get new homes, and the government makes a profit. Everyone wins.

Sand

hey could buy the properties, create temporary employment by hiring local tradesmen to finish them, then sell them to young people for a profit. As Peirce said in the video, they'd only cost €11.5k each. Spend €8.5-13.5k finishing them up and sell them on to first time buyers for €40-50k. Jobs are created, money is put back into the economy, young people get new homes, and the government makes a profit. Everyone wins.

We're citizens of what is nominally described as a Republic. We are not, and should not be shared partners in madcap property investment funds (Oh, and I reject NAMA for similar reasons). If there is profit to be made in finishing these properties and selling them on, then someone will buy them and finish them.

Just because some eejits decided to build appartments nobody wants (and thats the bottom line - nobody wants these appartments...thats why the developer is in trouble, thats why theyre being sold at liquidation prices...nobody wants them), does not mean the government suddenly needs to waste taxpayer money by throwing good after bad.

If theres profit to be made, then someone will do it - theyll create the jobs, sell them to the home owners and everyone still wins...including the government who will collect their cut via taxes. But if there isnt, then the government will simply splurge money stupidly, wasting it on appartments nobody wants.

This is what troubles me about the opposition, and particularly Sinn Feins economic illiteracy...they actually dont think differently to Fianna Fail. They just have a different circle of mates to help out with taxpayer's money.

North_West_Art

he hit the nail squarley on the head as regards how much of a swindle NAMA actually is. The poeple of Ireland have been taken for fools.

Nijmegen

Sand, while I see your point, there is over 50,000 'households' on waiting lists for social housing, which is seperate from NAMA and the issue of the state playing a wider role in the property market.

Social housing needs to be provided, and what the government is doing is paying rent to developers and putting people up in them as social housing. The government does not retain the lease.

The better investment would be to buy the houses at the low prices they are today, let the social housing tenants pay rent (if they do over several years we make a profit), and offer them the chance to buy the houses at affordable prices in five or ten years time, rather than handing back to the developer who can sell at what is hoped to be pre-bust level housing prices (or near enough, so NAMA can break even.)

The perception here is that developers and builders and so on, who contributed 75% of Fianna Fail's declared donations in 2007 it's worth remembering, are getting a free hand up here.

Mike Strutter

Great Speech and spot on

Sinn Fein have just got my vote for the next general election

Einhard

PanchoVilla wrote: »

This is a great example why Irish people need to give SF the chance they deserve. I'm not a great supporter of SF but they have some intelligent, passionate, and enthusiastic young people in the party and I think they can do some good work for this country. It's time to leave the past in the past and move forward, don't let party politics hold you back from voting for the right person when elections finally roll around.

The reason SF don't get a greater proportion of the vote is because their stock & trade is populist demagoguery rather than serious policy proposals. They are against everything, but really for nothing- or at least nothing that would make a credible impact on our current budget deficit. I admit, I have an inbuilt bias against SF because of their support for murder in the past, and I don't think they've put that past sufficently behind them. However, were they to come up with viable solutions to our problems, rather than just sniping from the long grass, and appealing to the masses with empty promises and spineless rhetoric, I'd be more than willing to listen to them, and consider their candidatess in the next election. Unfortunately, they offer more of the same FF type politics, based entirely on their own interests in getting elected, rather than on the nation's interest in establishing long term economic stability through strict financial discipline.

Mike Strutter wrote: »

Great Speech and spot on

Sinn Fein have just got my vote for the next general election

You'll vote for a party based on what they're against rather than what they're for? You'll vote for them without reading their manifesto, or reading about their proposals? I'll never understand that kind of attitude. It's part of the reason why we ended up in this mess in the first place.

gleep

That is the most impressive performance I've seen from a politician in a long, long time. If only Kenny, Gormley et al could perform half as well in the Dail, we might actually see FF under pressure, Doherty would squeeze the gobsh1tes till they popped!

BTW, if this is true, I would seriously consider emigrating, seriously.:(

Einhard

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Like or loath SF this is an excellent speech by Pearse Doherty on the bail out for the landlords. The discomfort of the Minister was reflected in the fact that he tried only one half hearted interruption.

I just watched that speech, and I have to say he does come across as very passionate, but it appears both that he doesn't really understand workings of NAMA, and that the posters here didn't actually pay much attention to what was being said. But hey, passion trumps informed discussion eh?

Doherty states that after 10 years, property taken over by NAMA will be returned to the developers, who can then sell it on when the market recovers. This simply isn't how NAMA works at all. The land and interests controlled by the agency will remain in government hands, and can be sold by the state whenever they see fit. Whether a profit is made or not is immaterial to this discussion; the fact that Doherty is either disingenuous, or unaware of the facts is not however. And either one of those scenarios raise serious doubts in my mind about his ability to make a serious contribution to the national debate. I don't really understand how this obvious flaw in his argument hasn't been picked up in the rush to laud him for his "passion".

greeno

Einhard wrote: »

I just watched that speech, and I have to say he does come across as very passionate, but it appears both that he doesn't really understand workings of NAMA, and that the posters here didn't actually pay much attention to what was being said. But hey, passion trumps informed discussion eh?

Doherty states that after 10 years, property taken over by NAMA will be returned to the developers, who can then sell it on when the market recovers. This simply isn't how NAMA works at all. The land and interests controlled by the agency will remain in government hands, and can be sold by the state whenever they see fit. Whether a profit is made or not is immaterial to this discussion; the fact that Doherty is either disingenuous, or unaware of the facts is not however. And either one of those scenarios raise serious doubts in my mind about his ability to make a serious contribution to the national debate. I don't really understand how this obvious flaw in his argument hasn't been picked up in the rush to laud him for his "passion".

A very solid argument if he was talking about NAMA. But he is infact talking about the new leasing initiative for local authorities. Where prop developers can lease properties they can't sell to local authorities for 10-20 years. The speech WAS NOT about NAMA. So this flaw you talk of is non existent.

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/SocialHousingSupport/LeasingArrangments/

gleep

Einhard wrote: »

I just watched that speech, and I have to say he does come across as very passionate, but it appears both that he doesn't really understand workings of NAMA, and that the posters here didn't actually pay much attention to what was being said. But hey, passion trumps informed discussion eh?

Doherty states that after 10 years, property taken over by NAMA will be returned to the developers, who can then sell it on when the market recovers. This simply isn't how NAMA works at all. The land and interests controlled by the agency will remain in government hands, and can be sold by the state whenever they see fit. Whether a profit is made or not is immaterial to this discussion; the fact that Doherty is either disingenuous, or unaware of the facts is not however. And either one of those scenarios raise serious doubts in my mind about his ability to make a serious contribution to the national debate. I don't really understand how this obvious flaw in his argument hasn't been picked up in the rush to laud him for his "passion".

He was referring to properties NOT taken on by NAMA. Otherwise, would the government be leasing them from developers? No. NAMA would own them.
If you're going to be condescending, be right.

Einhard

greeno wrote: »

A very solid argument if he was talking about NAMA. But he is infact talking about the new leasing initiative for local authorities. Where prop developers can lease properties they can't sell to local authorities for 10-20 years. The speech WAS NOT about NAMA. So this flaw you talk of is non existent.

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/SocialHousingSupport/LeasingArrangments/

The first two minutes of the speech were taken up with an attempt to link NAMA,a nd thus the government, to a bailout for builders. This is entirely without basis. And, as an intelligent man, he must have know this. He must have known that what he was claiming was not true, but it suited his purposes, so he ignored that minor inconvenience. And that's being charitable. The only other conclusion is that he really doesn't know how NAMA operates, in which case he shouldn't really be running for national office. Either way, with his comments re NAMA in the speech, he showed himself to be either a liar or a charlatan, which doesn't exactly exude the new type of politics that SF claim to be offering. But he shouts, and gestures, and looks passionate, so who really cares about what he actually says. That seems to be the consensus here. I'd like to think that we'd expect more from our politicians, especially after the farce of the last decade, but obviously that would be too much to ask.

greeno

The discussion was on the new leasing initiative not NAMA. Maybe I'm missing something but I thought the only reference Pearse made to NAMA was along the lines that the minister had been in the senate before discussing NAMA and had tried to pull the wool over everyones eyes, much in the same manner that he is with this new initiative??

I've watched it back a number of times and at no point did he say or even attempt to say that property returned to the developers in NAMA.

sollar

I listened to it there his speech was about the leasing initiative. But he broke away a couple of times to rant about nama.

Scarab80

Einhard wrote: »

I just watched that speech, and I have to say he does come across as very passionate, but it appears both that he doesn't really understand workings of NAMA, and that the posters here didn't actually pay much attention to what was being said. But hey, passion trumps informed discussion eh?

Doherty states that after 10 years, property taken over by NAMA will be returned to the developers, who can then sell it on when the market recovers. This simply isn't how NAMA works at all. The land and interests controlled by the agency will remain in government hands, and can be sold by the state whenever they see fit. Whether a profit is made or not is immaterial to this discussion; the fact that Doherty is either disingenuous, or unaware of the facts is not however. And either one of those scenarios raise serious doubts in my mind about his ability to make a serious contribution to the national debate. I don't really understand how this obvious flaw in his argument hasn't been picked up in the rush to laud him for his "passion".

Regardless of whether he was talking about NAMA or not your impression of the way NAMA works is incorrect.

NAMA does not take over land and property, it takes over loans which hold a charge over the title. The land and property remains in the hands of the developers - NAMA can exert control over them if they are in default on their loan obligations (most of which are), however, if by some catastrophe, property prices inflate 100% in 10 years (NAMA predicts 10% - one point where he was wrong) and the property regains positive equity this will belong to the developer not NAMA, though NAMA will also make a profit by buying the loan at a discount.

If, for example, Paddy McKillen is to be believed and he is not in default on any of his loans and he is taken into NAMA - then NAMA will have no more control over his properties than a bank do over your house once you up to date with your mortgage payments.

Einhard

Damn, I hate being wrong. And in such a spectacular, cringe inducing fasion even more so! I think beating a hasty, undignified retreat might be my only option at this stage!!

But I'm made from sterner stuff than that...

I still think the speech is a triumph of style over substance. Doherty is certainly passionate, and he talks a good talk, but he attacks the government, rather than the specifics of the bill. And everyone cheers him for it. The bill has been introduced to address a situation in which additional social housing is badly needed, but where there are no funds to purchase existing stock. The government simply doesn't have the funds to make the massive outlays that would be needed to buy enough dwellings to make even a small dent on the waiting lists. No one denies that doing so would be the best option, and make long term economic sense, but the money isn't there so the point is moot.

In light of this point, the government has two options. Either do nothing, which is unacceptable (well, to most anyway), or to do as much as possible with the funds at its disposable. Leasing units from owners or developers or speculators or whatever you might call them represents a necessary middle ground. It goes some way to solving the problem at hand, which is the lack of affordable housing. Is it perfect? Far from it. But, given the financial constraints on the government, leasing 20 houses for ten years is a far better immediate solution than buying 5 houses outright.

Yet Doherty made no attempt to address this. Indeed, he made no attempt to to addrss the issue at hand in any meaningful way. Instead he went the way of the demagogue and played to the gallery. As I said, others may be impressed by this, but I'm really not. Doherty's speech was all about performance, and precious little to do with actual substance. As such, and recognising I was wrong in my initial posts about the thrust of the speech, my original point still stands- this speech has nothing to do with the issue at hand, nothing to do with addressing the issue of social housing, and rather an attempt to gain votes by appealing to the masses. And it appears to be working. My fear is that this is exactly how Bertie & Co. operated over the years, and I would hope that the electorate would demand by now, something more concrete than partisan attacks in the place of policy, no matter how justified those attacks might be.

Ps: I wasn't being condescending at all. I just think that we should demand more from our politcians than fiery rhetoric.

PatsytheNazi

Einhard wrote: »

Unfortunately, they offer more of the same FF type politics, based entirely on their own interests in getting elected, rather than on the nation's interest in establishing long term economic stability through strict financial discipline.

While I don't agree with you post claiming that SF offer more of the same as FF ( for example AFAIK anyway, they want all public service and semi state wages cut to €100,000 max, an increase in Capital Gains Tax on speculative owners of multiple dwellings, hotels, car parks etc TD's and ministers salaries set at a percentage of the national wage, ) I cannot see how anyone could come to the conclusion that SF were more of the same as FF. Indeed the proof of it is in the type of supporters SF have and those the maFFia have. They wouldn't be exactly populiar with the 'enterpernure' who frequented the Galway tent - in fact the exact opposite I would have thought. Sir Tony's Indo unionist comics aren't exactly fair to them. And the FF cronies and former stickies in RTE wouldn't exactly promote them ?

So what party do you think are fundamentally different from SF and FF - FG, Labour or whoever and why ?

Einhard

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

So what party do you think are fundamentally different from SF and FF - FG, Labour or whoever and why ?

I think that SF are the same as FF in that they tell the people what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. That was Bertie's style, it's what got us into this mess in the first place, and it seems to be part and parcel of SF's style too. Labour and FG have come out and stated that harsh cuts are needed across the board; SF have so far refused to countenance any serious form of expenditure reduction, and have claimed that their way will insulte the middle classes from cuts and tax increases. That's simply not feasible. I know their economic blueprint is published today and I'll read it with interest and hope to be proved wrong, but I won't be holding my breath.

PatsytheNazi

Einhard wrote: »

I think that SF are the same as FF in that they tell the people what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. That was Bertie's style, it's what got us into this mess in the first place, and it seems to be part and parcel of SF's style too. Labour and FG have come out and stated that harsh cuts are needed across the board; SF have so far refused to countenance any serious form of expenditure reduction, and have claimed that their way will insulte the middle classes from cuts and tax increases. That's simply not feasible. I know their economic blueprint is published today and I'll read it with interest and hope to be proved wrong, but I won't be holding my breath.

Well to be honest Labour are making plenty of noises about equality and sharing the burden etc but haven't come up with any concrete proposals yet that I have seen. But I'd imagine FG would be your choice of party ?

I don't know how you can say that " SF have so far refused to countenance any serious form of expenditure reduction " They propose to on their website to

* The abolition of wastages in public spending ( Maybe some SF member can out line more on this as I cannot find SF proposals on implementation)

* To cap Ministerial salaries at €100,000, TDs at €75,000 and Senators at €60,000.

* Similarly we call for a cap on the maximum salary in the public service at €100,000

But unlike FG who are basically just snotty FF and even more interested in protecting the super rich, the SF plan outlines a range of taxation measures aimed at high earners

* Introduce a new 48% tax on income in excess of €100,000

* An income linked wealth tax of 1% on all assets worth more than €1m excluding working farmland

* Increases in Capital Gains Tax, Capital Acquisitions Tax and DIRT.

Sounds reasonable enough to me. They also advocate the transfer of money ( like Labour ) from the National Pension Reserve Fund for a 3.5 year state-wide investment programme to stimulate the economy especially SME's.

So what's FG's proposal, cut, cut, cut while the rich parasites remain rich parasites with their ill gotten gains ?

Einhard

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Well to be honest Labour are making plenty of noises about equality and sharing the burden etc but haven't come up with any concrete proposals yet that I have seen. But I'd imagine FG would be your choice of party ?

I don't know how you can say that " SF have so far refused to countenance any serious form of expenditure reduction " They propose to on their website to

* The abolition of wastages in public spending ( Maybe some SF member can out line more on this as I cannot find SF proposals on implementation)

* To cap Ministerial salaries at €100,000, TDs at €75,000 and Senators at €60,000.

* Similarly we call for a cap on the maximum salary in the public service at €100,000

We spend €0 billion more a year than we raise in taxes. The cuts you outline above will raise a few million. You really believe that reducing the salaries of ministers and TDs is going to go any way towards reducing our massive deficit? Of course you don't and neither do SF. They know that serious cuts across the board are needed, and that everyone will have to take a hit. That's our only realistic option, and as SF representatives generally seem quite intelligent, they're well are of that. But they'd rather play the populist card, claiming that we can get our finances in order without any significant impact on the middle or lower economic classes. It's just not feasible, and any party that pretends otherwise doesn't take the electorate seriously, and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously themselves.

* Introduce a new 48% tax on income in excess of €100,000

* An income linked wealth tax of 1% on all assets worth more than €1m excluding working farmland

* Increases in Capital Gains Tax, Capital Acquisitions Tax and DIRT.

Even if all of those were implemented , it wouldn't come close to closing the gap between what we earn and what we spend. I've nothing against such measures in principle, but to claim that that is all we need is nothing more than a con job. And, after Berie Ahern, I've enough of conmen for the time being.

theworkingman

seems our little country was of great interest to the worlds governments till the had "peace" in northern ireland and our natural resources secured for a forgein national company and we are too steeped in debt to worry about anything else:mad:

Liam Byrne

PanchoVilla wrote: »

This is a great example why Irish people need to give SF the chance they deserve. I'm not a great supporter of SF but they have some intelligent, passionate, and enthusiastic young people in the party and I think they can do some good work for this country. It's time to leave the past in the past and move forward, don't let party politics hold you back from voting for the right person when elections finally roll around.

Some people's objections have nothing to do with party politics (well, not the kind that you're trying to imply anyway).

As with FF, if a party represents and supports stuff that I find majorly objectionable and sickening, then that rules out any candidate from that party, regardless of how "good" they are.

padrepio

good angry speech about a number of things.

Not sure that buying a house is cheaper than renting long term. When you buy you take the risk of your finanical circumstances changing and the value of your asset depreciating. Irish people have an unhealth obsession with property.

He is right, now is a great time for local councils to buy social houses if they so require it. Supply and demand and all that. But I know Galway city council have been trying to auction off some of their housing stock lately. Is there a demand for social housing at present?

Watched the Frontline some time back where someone involved in the Ballymun regeneration stated that the country had finally found a housing model that worked - social housing mixed in with residential etc. He warned strongly about setting up new ghettos all over the country. Would have to agree with him. Actually back in the boom times, developers were supposed to include social housing in any development but then were given the disgraceful option of paying a development levy to the council instead as putting in social housing might affect their profits.

PatsytheNazi

Einhard wrote: »

We spend €0 billion more a year than we raise in taxes. The cuts you outline above will raise a few million. You really believe that reducing the salaries of ministers and TDs is going to go any way towards reducing our massive deficit? Of course you don't and neither do SF. They know that serious cuts across the board are needed, and that everyone will have to take a hit. That's our only realistic option, and as SF representatives generally seem quite intelligent, they're well are of that. But they'd rather play the populist card, claiming that we can get our finances in order without any significant impact on the middle or lower economic classes. It's just not feasible, and any party that pretends otherwise doesn't take the electorate seriously, and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously themselves.



Even if all of those were implemented , it wouldn't come close to closing the gap between what we earn and what we spend. I've nothing against such measures in principle, but to claim that that is all we need is nothing more than a con job. And, after Berie Ahern, I've enough of conmen for the time being.

" The cuts you outline above will raise a few million. "Apologies Einhard, their just a taste of some of the measures the SF are going to implement I cut and pasted from their website http://www.sinnfein.ie/. As you still haven't told us the alternative policy's you support, can you just tell me how FG or whoever has better policy's and why ?

Surely it should be a balance of cuts and levying the super rich, FF cronies, corrupt bankers and the rest of the filthy rich parasites that have destroyed the country. So whose the best for the job and why ?

dlofnep

Pearse is a very underrated politician. I expect him to get a seat in the next elections for sure. He is a driving force in the newer faces within Sinn Féin, and will only benefit the party.

ILA

A very passionate speech, at least there's someone in the Seanad who is willing to raise the issues and communicate the anger which people feel against this scandal.

problemchimp

Einhard wrote: »

The reason SF don't get a greater proportion of the vote is because their stock & trade is populist demagoguery rather than serious policy proposals. They are against everything, but really for nothing- or at least nothing that would make a credible impact on our current budget deficit. I admit, I have an inbuilt bias against SF because of their support for murder in the past, and I don't think they've put that past sufficently behind them. However, were they to come up with viable solutions to our problems, rather than just sniping from the long grass, and appealing to the masses with empty promises and spineless rhetoric, I'd be more than willing to listen to them, and consider their candidatess in the next election. Unfortunately, they offer more of the same FF type politics, based entirely on their own interests in getting elected, rather than on the nation's interest in establishing long term economic stability through strict financial discipline.


You'll vote for a party based on what they're against rather than what they're for? You'll vote for them without reading their manifesto, or reading about their proposals? I'll never understand that kind of attitude. It's part of the reason why we ended up in this mess in the first place.

I can tell you from where I live Sinn Fein have done a hell of a lot more for the locality than all the rest put together. Fact! Maybe the "spineless rhetoric" as you call it is what lazy journalists and state broadcasters spew out in their arse licking capacity as they were all tutored by Terry Prone in the school of spin!

sligopark

Mike Strutter wrote: »

Great Speech and spot on

definitely

Mike Strutter wrote: »

Sinn Fein have just got my vote for the next general election

after their surrender following the dragging of the six counties into a 30 year war, convincing thousands into their deaths, killing others and being jailed before those in comfort (and according to Dark Hughes in alliance with british security forces) announced surrender ...

no thanks to the Gerry and Martin Surrender Monkey Show

at least Brian and Bertie, and then Brian have been caught up stupidly in the Gombeen show - the same Gerry and Martin Surrender Monkey Show wouldn't have the IQ or nonce to try and pull us out of the hole - they would decry 'DIG DEEPER - AUSTRALIA AWAITS US! FEEL THE SUN!!'

Mr Benevolent

I'd vote Sinn Fein IF they got rid of their old fashioned, utterly pointless idea of reuniting the NI & ROI.

PatsytheNazi

Confab wrote: »

I'd vote Sinn Fein IF they got rid of their old fashioned, utterly pointless idea of reuniting the NI & ROI.

You mean you'd only vote SF if the were for the utterly pointless idea of uniting the 26 with 'Great' Britain.

Rebelheart

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Like or loath SF this is an excellent speech by Pearse Doherty on the bail out for the landlords. The discomfort of the Minister was reflected in the fact that he tried only one half hearted interruption.

Jesus, Aodh Rua Ó Dónaill himself wouldn't have had as much passion in Cionn tSáile in 1602 (aha heretics; you thought it was in 1601 - change your calendar! )

1. In fairness to Doherty he only brought up NAMA in response to the minister's bringing up of same when he intervened. Some people need to listen to the clip again.

2. I disagree with the implication in Doherty's speech that the 8000 planning applications in Donegal were necessarily more worthy than other plans (leaving aside the indisputable Fianna Fáil-developer links). There is far, far too much one-off housing in this state, if not in the whole country, and anything which goes towards ending this will have my ear.

Doherty was playing politics by bringing up those 8000 applications. I'll be watching his views on one-off housing from now on. Having said that, I've much meas for him after the unquestionable sincerity of that speech. I've never heard him speak before - in fact I've never heard an angry Tir Chónaill accent before. More power to him.

I suspect even the great Peadar, ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam dílis, would have been impressed by it.

PS: Despite my respect for this guy, I am absolutely convinced that the Seanad must be abolished.

mac_iomhair

Rebelheart wrote: »

PS: Despite my respect for this guy, I am absolutely convinced that the Seanad must be abolished.

Pearse Doherty would agree with you on that one, he has stated on many occasions that the Seanad is a complete waste of time!

Cuddlesworth

If they cleaned up and defined their policy's I'd be of the mind to vote SF. Never thought I would say that.