Leo is the new king of Ireland.

Zubeneschamali

Jawgap wrote: »

Where is this document...

I left my copy in the LGBT Lobby.

eagle eye

Baron de Charlus wrote:

I don't really understand. What views on the family do you think holds that would be so controversial?

I'm not saying he has any views that would be off the wall but no matter what his views are they will be attacked by one side. The far side people on both sides are full on and will go after your right to have a qualified view if they feel you are against them.
They'll bring it up in a way to remind people that he is gay and as a result doesn't understand family.
There are a lot of people out there who voted against gay marriage and it wouldn't be too hard to sway them away from voting for a party with a gay leader.

Zubeneschamali

eagle eye wrote: »

There are a lot of people out there who voted against gay marriage

Oddly enough, I have never met anyone who admitted that in person.

Jawgap

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not saying he has any views that would be off the wall but no matter what his views are they will be attacked by one side. The far side people on both sides are full on and will go after your right to have a qualified view if they feel you are against them.
They'll bring it up in a way to remind people that he is gay and as a result doesn't understand family.
There are a lot of people out there who voted against gay marriage and it wouldn't be too hard to sway them away from voting for a party with a gay leader.

So if you are gay you can't understand 'family'........ I don't understand family (especially feckin' teenagers!) does that make me gay or does the correlation only run in one direction?

eagle eye

Jawgap wrote:

So if you are gay you can't understand 'family'........ I don't understand family (especially feckin' teenagers!) does that make me gay or does the correlation only run in one direction?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it will be used as a tool to try and knock Leo.

Jawgap

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not saying he has any views that would be off the wall but no matter what his views are they will be attacked by one side. The far side people on both sides are full on and will go after your right to have a qualified view if they feel you are against them.
They'll bring it up in a way to remind people that he is gay and as a result doesn't understand family.
There are a lot of people out there who voted against gay marriage and it wouldn't be too hard to sway them away from voting for a party with a gay leader.

Surely it's same sex marriage - you don't have to be gay or express any particular gender identity to marry another person now - isn't that the essence of the law?

Jawgap

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it will be used as a tool to try and knock Leo.

But if they are going to attack him for being gay why not dogwhistle it in other ways?

And why are you so sure the "abortion-family-gay" link will be followed?

blackwhite

charlie14 wrote: »

Constituents of certain members of the Independent Alliance might not agree with you there.
One instance alone, a garda station re-opening in Stepaside, comes to mind.

Despite the announcement, I wouldn't hold my breath on it actually re-opening any time soon.

If it hasn't happened by the time Ross is out of Govt then I doubt it'll ever happen.

Although, the allocation of the latest round of sports capital grants might be somewhere where Ross could claim to have a bit more success

eagle eye

Jawgap wrote:

And why are you so sure the "abortion-family-gay" link will be followed?

Because you are dealing with extremists on both sides of the abortion debate.

McMurphy

eagle eye wrote: »

Leo has to stay out of the abortion debate because people will start asking him what he knows about it and that will lead to questions about his views on the family and that is how the opposition can attack the fact he is gay without ever mentioning homosexuality.
He will lose big if that happens.

Ridiculous.

Surely homosexual people's views shouldn't be discounted just because of their sexual orientation?

What about the minister for children so? Surely she'd be expected to have some views on this issue ?

Jawgap

eagle eye wrote: »

Because you are dealing with extremists on both sides of the abortion debate.

Extremists don't really matter though do they - no one votes for them so they're just noise.

Surely the reason he's keeping schtum on his views is because as Taoiseach he's supposed to be a unifying figure and while he has obligations to his conscience, and his party he also has obligations to the country (he's the Taoiseach of the country, not just FG) to try and moderate the political discourse - showing his hand too early risks things becoming immoderate.

charlie14

blackwhite wrote: »

Despite the announcement, I wouldn't hold my breath on it actually re-opening any time soon.

If it hasn't happened by the time Ross is out of Govt then I doubt it'll ever happen.

Although, the allocation of the latest round of sports capital grants might be somewhere where Ross could claim to have a bit more success

I would say he will do his damnest to make sure it opens before then.
There is also Moran from the same group.
The favouring of Athlone in the NDP will play well for him there I imagine.
Ammo in many cases for others to use if standing as indies in future.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

That is a bit like the carpenter blaming his tools.

I cannot remember anything that happened so close to polling day GE 2016,(especially from just 3 days before in one instance), that would have created such a swing in percentages to make those polls look anywhere close to reliable.
Even the closest was 9% out.

When you say that the closest was 9% out as some sort of criticism, you do realise that the 9% was cumulative, i.e. added up all the totals out for each party?

You do also realise that these polls have a margin of error of 3% and that the poll was inside the margin of error?

Finally, because of the rise of independents, and the localised aspect of that, you do realise that polling was more challenging?

Taking all of those factors into account, I certainly would argue that the MRBI polls for one, were remarkably accurate - as did the link I provided.

You might provide a link to an analytical piece that counters this and explained how bad the polls were.

blanch152

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not saying he has any views that would be off the wall but no matter what his views are they will be attacked by one side. The far side people on both sides are full on and will go after your right to have a qualified view if they feel you are against them.
They'll bring it up in a way to remind people that he is gay and as a result doesn't understand family.
There are a lot of people out there who voted against gay marriage and it wouldn't be too hard to sway them away from voting for a party with a gay leader.

I would hope that Irish people wouldn't be persuaded like that.

However, I have no doubt that there are parties, some of whom profess to be tolerant and welcoming, whose on-the-ground canvassers and workers won't be slow to seize any opportunity.

Nitrogan

If Leo Varadkar is king then Simon Coveney is king maker. As long as they're singing from the same sheet they'll be near impossible to defeat in an election.

Odds are ambition will get the better of Coveney eventually but for now their political futures are mutually dependent I think.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

I would hope that Irish people wouldn't be persuaded like that.

However, I have no doubt that there are parties, some of whom profess to be tolerant and welcoming, whose on-the-ground canvassers and workers won't be slow to seize any opportunity.

Can you name them?
Party's or politicians in particular?
I imagine absolutely no party will endorse or subscribe to such an action.
Its all too easy to have their, even unwitting, comments or even insinuations put in the public domain now.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

When you say that the closest was 9% out as some sort of criticism, you do realise that the 9% was cumulative, i.e. added up all the totals out for each party?

You do also realise that these polls have a margin of error of 3% and that the poll was inside the margin of error?

Finally, because of the rise of independents, and the localised aspect of that, you do realise that polling was more challenging?

Taking all of those factors into account, I certainly would argue that the MRBI polls for one, were remarkably accurate - as did the link I provided.

You might provide a link to an analytical piece that counters this and explained how bad the polls were.

I have already posted the poll figures in the few weeks leading up to the GE, and even simplified it in a later post to show how much they were off between just FG and FF. When you cannot even understand that 9% was the percentage difference between FG and FF from a poll on the 23rd Feb and the GE on the 26th, then there is not much point in posting any other polls for you to misconstrue.

There was nothing cumulative in relation to that 9% being over all parties.
It was only in relation to FG and FF and well outside a 3% margin of error.

On your mention of cumulative and this MRBI poll puff piece you are referring to.
Were MRBI not out by a cumulative 11.36% ?
You do realise that under or PR system, in votes that would equate to 20 Dail seats or more do you not.

Idbatterim

Would fg get some backlash though for running an unneeded at this time , election? What’s their game plan ? Get out the independent alliance and force ff into a proper coalition?

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

Would fg get some backlash though for running an unneeded at this time , election? What’s their game plan ? Get out the independent alliance and force ff into a proper coalition?

I would not see any GE before the referendum on the 8th amendment. It would look as if FG are running scared.
After that it is difficult to say. It does not look as if any party will have the numbers to form a majority government for the foreseeable future, and a ploy of attempting to force FF into a FG/FF coalition could backfire if FF got enough backing from others to form a minority or even a majority government.

Edward M

Another poll out today showing a tightening of the gap between FF and FG, SF down 1 in this one, Labour unchanged.
Possibly MMs being against the Banks sale of loans to vulture funds being cited as a reason for the rise for FF, though FG unchanged.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0224/943263-redc-opinion-poll/

Idbatterim

charlie14 wrote: »

I would not see any GE before the referendum on the 8th amendment. It would look as if FG are running scared.
After that it is difficult to say. It does not look as if any party will have the numbers to form a majority government for the foreseeable future, and a ploy of attempting to force FF into a FG/FF coalition could backfire if FF got enough backing from others to form a minority or even a majority government.

Agree with all that. Also in Ireland a majority is pipe dream stuff. Look at what happened when fg were looking close to getting a majority. Labor bullsit “every little hurts line” Put the spooks up some and they voted labor. Had resulted in what the Irish love. Ie fudge and indecision... there ain’t a chance in hell of a majority being formed here!

Idbatterim

Edward M wrote: »

Another poll out today showing a tightening of the gap between FF and FG, SF down 1 in this one, Labour unchanged.
Possibly MMs being against the Banks sale of loans to vulture funds being cited as a reason for the rise for FF, though FG unchanged.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0224/943263-redc-opinion-poll/

you know That if ff are against it, that’s it’s probably a good idea!

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

you know Thet if Are against it, that’s it’s probably a good idea!

It is a good deal for the bank.
For those mortgage holders, not so much.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

It is a good deal for the bank.
For those mortgage holders, not so much.

Ya, the poor mortgage holders just might have to pay back what they borrowed.

Jawgap

charlie14 wrote: »

It is a good deal for the bank.
For those mortgage holders, not so much.

My understanding is that only the under-performing or non-performing mortgages are being sold?

If you've been paying your mortgage it's not a problem.

smurgen

charlie14 wrote: »

Idbatterim wrote: »

you know Thet if Are against it, that’s it’s probably a good idea!

It is a good deal for the bank.
For those mortgage holders, not so much.

Heaven forbid the terms of the mortgage would be enforced.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Ya, the poor mortgage holders just might have to pay back what they borrowed.

That's how it works in places like Germany, and the end result is lower interest rates for every borrower.
The German banks would be in here in a flash, with their low interest rates, if we provided them with the same level playing field that they have over there.

Topgear on Dave

I would have a serious worry here that lower interest rates would just end up in higher house prices.

Edward M

Jawgap wrote: »

My understanding is that only the under-performing or non-performing mortgages are being sold?

If you've been paying your mortgage it's not a problem.

How about the banks paying off their debts to the taxpayer, how's that going.
Are we the taxpayer still servicing and paying for the bailout of the banks, or have the banks taken over these payments?

Jawgap

Edward M wrote: »

How about the banks paying off their debts to the taxpayer, how's that going.
Are we the taxpayer still servicing and paying for the bailout of the banks, or have the banks taken over these payments?

It's going steadily away.......and this will help.


Getting rid of the non-performing mortgages increases the value of the banks which makes them a more attractive proposition when the State goes to sell the equity it acquired in return for the debt it advanced to those institutions.

And again, I'm not sure why people who scrimped, saved and sacrificed to pay their mortgages should continue to pay for those that can't or won't.