Fianna fail/Fianna Geal Confidence and supply deal

AMKC

What is your take on this being extended? Do you think it is good or bad for the Country?
I think during the recession it was understandable and maybe while Brexit is being sorted but then these parties need to go there separate ways and let the electorate decide who they want running the country.

noodler

AMKC wrote: »

What is your take on this being extended? Do you think it is good or bad for the Country?
I think during the recession it was understandable and maybe while Brexit is being sorted but then these parties need to go there separate ways and let the electorate decide who they want running the country.

Well it started in 2016-i.e. Post recession.

johnnyskeleton

AMKC wrote: »

I think during the recession it was understandable and maybe while Brexit is being sorted but then these parties need to go there separate ways and let the electorate decide who they want running the country.

I guess the electorate has, in a sense, decided that there is no one party that they want in complete control of the dail.

If people are sick of a weak government, reliant on a confidence and supply system, they will have to stop voting for independents, particularly those independents who would never go into government with the three largest parties in any event!

Its a shame because I normally like having a good few independents, but I think people will swing against them in the next election in favour of FG, FF and SF to varying degrees. We might also see a few more independents joining political parties - it makes no sense for the independents who currently support the government to be allowed to pretend that they aremt involved in the bad decision making

Loafing Oaf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I guess the electorate has, in a sense, decided that there is no one party that they want in complete control of the dail.

If people are sick of a weak government, reliant on a confidence and supply system, they will have to stop voting for independents, particularly those independents who would never go into government with the three largest parties in any event!

Its a shame because I normally like having a good few independents, but I think people will swing against them in the next election in favour of FG, FF and SF to varying degrees. We might also see a few more independents joining political parties - it makes no sense for the independents who currently support the government to be allowed to pretend that they aremt involved in the bad decision making

The fundamental source of the instability is not the independents but that a government can only be formed by some sort of arrangement between two of FF, FG and SF. And as things stand no two of those parties are prepared to go into full coalition together. A FG-led government dependent on a ragbag of Inds, Greens, Lab etc. would be far more stable than the current arrangement, irrespective of the apparent ideological diversity of the partners. But if FG don't get the numbers for that, it's looking like a reprise of the current arrangement after the next election.

Kermit.de.frog

Looks like there could yet be an election before the end of the year.

If your Fine Gael looking at mid 30's popularity it's got to be a super attractive option.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-considers-snap-poll-and-new-coalition-after-surge-in-fg-popularity-37466388.html

But, with the Brexit talks at the stage they are it might be wiser to hold off.

James Brown

It's not the public wanting stability consisting of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, it's the public not wanting Fianna Fail or Fine Gael but we don't have a viable third option in the eyes of many. Fine Gael did such a poor job that they made Fianna Fail viable again. That's the real story, not the Indies or SF or PBP etc. FG should have walked at least the following two elections after the crash.
We have FF/FG because the public didn't want FG. To hold on to power FG brought FF to the table.

Kermit.de.frog

What is the 3rd option you think people want?

Broadly what policy platform would they persue?

James Brown

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What is the 3rd option you think people want?

Broadly what policy platform would they persue?

No idea. They seemingly don't see one. That's what has us where we are with FF/FG. It's better the devil you know, the others might bring in more policies I don't like etc. FG are in because they are deemed the more preferable of a bad lot. Not very inspiring if you're a FG member, but hey, it works.

Kermit.de.frog

I think there is a large market for a party that will look after the middle rung taxpayers above all others and be straight with people and be honest about it.

If a party says if you work, earn below/at/above average wage we are going to look after you I think they would do very well.

James Brown

Agreed.
I'd like to see the days of blaming everyone but the policy makers for bad policy put behind us.

johnnyskeleton

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's not the public wanting stability consisting of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, it's the public not wanting Fianna Fail or Fine Gael but we don't have a viable third option in the eyes of many. Fine Gael did such a poor job that they made Fianna Fail viable again. That's the real story, not the Indies or SF or PBP etc. FG should have walked at least the following two elections after the crash.
We have FF/FG because the public didn't want FG. To hold on to power FG brought FF to the table.

I'd agree with this, but maybe go a bit further and say that all of social/liberal democracy across the western world is in this position.

The policies followed by most mixed economies are good policies, but imperfectly executed and a malaise has set in.

Anyone offering a change certainly seems like an attractive option, but what we need is competent hard working and selfless politicians to do the same stuff, but maybe do it better.

It'll take generations for such to happen because its the political structures, rather than individual politicians, that are resistant to change.

Ultimately, the choices are stick with an imperfect lot or take your chances with a wild card. While not being overly enthusiastic about the current lot, id take them over a radical newcomer any day.

hatrickpatrick

Personally I hope the era of minority governments continues indefinitely. It's been such a breath of fresh air watching the Oireachtas have a meaningful impact on legislation with no guillotines or guaranteed victories for a bill just because the cabinet have signed off on it. Parliamentary politics the way it's meant to be done.

James Brown

It's not down to poor execution. The issues we face in Ireland have been worsening. That's not down to poorly executed policy but poor policy.
A minority government would be good if FG didn't have FF, (or in the past Labour). Sadly even with the Greens 'keeping FF in check' we didn't see any keeping in check. I've not witnessed anything of note get the elbow because FG are in a minority government. We still have the same policies we had under Kenny pretty much. Maybe he'll make a come back and 'end the scandal of hospital trolleys' in time for the annual worse than usual crisis crisis. 'These things take time' though....

kalych

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think there is a large market for a party that will look after the middle rung taxpayers above all others and be straight with people and be honest about it.

If a party says if you work, earn below/at/above average wage we are going to look after you I think they would do very well.

Will never work with PR-STV. The reason Ireland is stuck with FF/FG always is the transfer system. While it prevents large number of nutjobs being elected at the same time and forming a new party, it also prevents any serious change from happening also. You may vote number 1 for someone new, but most will always give 2-3 preference to some incumbent.

James Brown

kalych wrote: »

Will never work with PR-STV. The reason Ireland is stuck with FF/FG always is the transfer system. While it prevents large number of nutjobs being elected at the same time and forming a new party, it also prevents any serious change from happening also. You may vote number 1 for someone new, but most will always give 2-3 preference to some incumbent.

I think record breaking numbers of child homeless and year on year worsening crises in housing and health is pretty nutty. I wonder what the fear is of anyone outside of FF/FG? They might lead us to a financial disaster?

kalych

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think record breaking numbers of child homeless and year on year worsening crises in housing and health is pretty nutty. I wonder what the fear is of anyone outside of FF/FG? They might lead us to a financial disaster?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely agree. The problem for anyone "outside" of FF/FG is to have enough people to canvas for you (individual candidate issue) and to be able to run a reasonably organised campaign at national level (new party issue).

If you are just suggesting to elect SF instead, well the fact that they are just "not FF/FG" is not enough, they come with their own baggage, plus their track record up North doesn't suggest they are really an alternative (speculative point, I agree).

James Brown

Simply wondering what the fear is considering we're literally breaking records.

Interesting article on parties funding yesterday:

Political parties now almost wholly reliant on State funding

Fine Gael is in similar rude financial health.

It recorded total income of €6.2 million for the year, of which State funding made up almost €4.7 million. Because it is in government, and many of its TDs are Ministers and so receive the support of the civil service, Fine Gael receives less than Fianna Fáil under the leaders’ allowance and in Oireachtas supports.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/political-parties-now-almost-wholly-reliant-on-state-funding-1.3680924

I trust they are paying tax these days.

kalych

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Simply wondering what the fear is considering we're literally breaking records.

Certain portions of the population simply don't trust them maybe?
If the ruling party is failing in certain aspects doesn't mean you absolutely have to vote for someone who "sounds" like they'll fix those few issues. That's not how people's voting habits work in my opinion.

Sometimes if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. otherwise it would have been fixed already. This is evidenced by the rise and failures of populist parties around the world that cause more problems than they fix (populists in Italy and their budget issues, Orban's party in Hungary and its nationalistic stance, SYRIZA in Greece previously offering no solution other than "leave the Euro and it'll all get better", UKIP's influence transforming the Tory party to the extent that they refuse to accept reality with Brexit - it will destroy their economy, Venezuela etc.)

Some of these parties are right leaning, some left. but ultimately they are all populist in nature. SF seem in that sense to be of the same ilk. Again I'm mindful that I may be completely wrong but it's my view (and my vote). Hope this answers your question of "why not?".

James Brown

kalych wrote: »

Certain portions of the population simply don't trust them maybe?
If the ruling party is failing in certain aspects doesn't mean you absolutely have to vote for someone who "sounds" like they'll fix those few issues. That's not how people's voting habits work in my opinion.

Sometimes if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. otherwise it would have been fixed already. This is evidenced by the rise and failures of populist parties around the world that cause more problems than they fix (populists in Italy and their budget issues, Orban's party in Hungary and its nationalistic stance, SYRIZA in Greece previously offering no solution other than "leave the Euro and it'll all get better", UKIP's influence transforming the Tory party to the extent that they refuse to accept reality with Brexit - it will destroy their economy, Venezuela etc.)

Some of these parties are right leaning, some left. but ultimately they are all populist in nature. SF seem in that sense to be of the same ilk. Again I'm mindful that I may be completely wrong but it's my view (and my vote). Hope this answers your question of "why not?".

I get the lack of trust. It's obvious they are not preferable to most. The fear can't be regarding the economy or societal crises when we've had, will have and are suffering through same.
FG/Lab got in because they made it 'sound like' they'd tackle certain things. That's generally how every party gets elected.
It's not a case of a few hiccups, it's national emergency level and record breaking. Most of us aren't eating out of bins as the man says but many areas are simply going in the wrong direction for many years now.
I'd suggest it's more a case of ignoring issues or tending to them in a manner that makes them worse, but is good business for a minority. At this stage you have to ask are they bad at their job or good, depending on their goals?

Yet the two times our economy was destroyed was under the governance of Fianna Fail, a party Fine Gael view good enough to co-govern with.
Fianna Fail will profit from Fine Gaels loss and I believe Fine Gael are okay with that as it keeps the see-saw between the two going.

Populist? There's an element of that in every party, particularly the most popular ones. End the scandal of hospital trolleys comes to mind.
FF/FG performance shouldn't be measured against Sinn Fein's popularity, but it often is. I'd prefer the likes of the SD's myself.
The main common factor between FF/FG/SF is they each have a die hard base regardless of what they say or do. That's the big problem IMO.

Zubeneschamali

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The fear can't be regarding the economy or societal crises when we've had, will have and are suffering through same.

Of course the fear can be regarding the economy.

If we elect economic illiterates just because they are not FG/FF, we might still be in recession with massive unemployment instead of seeing EU-leading growth and all-time record employment numbers.

This recovery is straining our economy in various ways, like demand for housing when our building industry is still only half recovered from the crash, but it is absolutely better than being still down in the economic dumps.

James Brown

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course the fear can be regarding the economy.

If we elect economic illiterates just because they are not FG/FF, we might still be in recession with massive unemployment instead of seeing EU-leading growth and all-time record employment numbers.

I'm not pushing for anyone else just cause. I didn't raise that. I'm merely pointing out we already have a government doing a bad job, record breakingly so in some areas. So even if we take others as possibly being bad at governing, it's more a matter of choice between equally incompetents, more or less, not sticking it to FF/FG just cause.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This recovery is straining our economy in various ways, like demand for housing when our building industry is still only half recovered from the crash, but it is absolutely better than being still down in the economic dumps.

But it's not. Housing/health are worse than when we were 'in the economic dumps'. Not to mention Fine Gael taking the party that oversaw our visit to the economic dumps as a partner, lest we get lumbered with a third party that might send us to the economic dumps.
Demand for housing isn't a side effect of a growing economy. It's an effect of bad policy year on year. I thought the whole point of growing the economy was so we all felt the benefit? This is obviously not so, so what's the disconnect here? Wait another decade or so? When is the switch tripped when we'll all feel the benefit, is there such a thing? It's likely we'll continue as is until the next crash at which time we'll be told we partied or went mad depending on which party, FF/FG, has the upper hand votes wise.

kalych

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is obviously not so, so what's the disconnect here? Wait another decade or so? When is the switch tripped when we'll all feel the benefit, is there such a thing? It's likely we'll continue as is until the next crash at which time we'll be told we partied or went mad depending on which party, FF/FG, has the upper hand votes wise.

The general feel is that this would be the case no matter who is in power. The issue is with the vested interests, which prevent structural change. It's not only at political level, it's with the public at large.

Zubeneschamali

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Housing/health are worse than when we were 'in the economic dumps'.

Yes, that's what I said. They are worse because we are recovering in other areas.

When you say we have a bad government performing badly, you are ignoring the fact that from a 2008 perspective, we have pulled off an economic miracle. You can read threads here on boards from 2008 if you don't believe me.

Folks widely believed that we would default on our debt and lose our ability to borrow, that the Euro would collapse or we would be ejected from it, that the entire pubic sector would be laid off for lack of funds to pay them etc. etc.

Instead we see EU leading growth and more people at work than ever in our history. This is not the record of a bad government performing badly.

James Brown

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, that's what I said. They are worse because we are recovering in other areas.

When you say we have a bad government performing badly, you are ignoring the fact that from a 2008 perspective, we have pulled off an economic miracle. You can read threads here on boards from 2008 if you don't believe me.

Folks widely believed that we would default on our debt and lose our ability to borrow, that the Euro would collapse or we would be ejected from it, that the entire pubic sector would be laid off for lack of funds to pay them etc. etc.

Instead we see EU leading growth and more people at work than ever in our history. This is not the record of a bad government performing badly.

With all due respect, it's looking like a matter of 'so what?'.
We've more children homeless than ever in our history.
Many working people need assistance from the state to pay rent.
Also, again, it must never be forgot, that the actual party that required us to pull of this 'economic miracle' have a very big say in policy currently, because that's stability or something. The supply and confidence deal is no more than two selfish groups holding on to power at any cost.

Idbatterim

I hope to god that Casey joins Renua and the axis of *£$£&$&£$ loses seats and influence! Make the cornerstone of their manifesto USC abolition... Serious crackdown on crime, which can only be done by more prison spaces and overhaul of the welfare system...

Loafing Oaf

Deal extended till at least 2020
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/martin-rules-out-election-in-2019-saying-it-would-not-be-in-the-national-interest-1.3728889?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fmartin-rules-out-election-in-2019-saying-it-would-not-be-in-the-national-interest-1.3728889

L1011

Idbatterim wrote: »

I hope to god that Casey joins Renua and the axis of *£$£&$&£$ loses seats and influence! Make the cornerstone of their manifesto USC abolition... Serious crackdown on crime, which can only be done by more prison spaces and overhaul of the welfare system...

Renua are dead. You are also the only person who still seems to think Renua would return to their old tax policies - they won't, they are a Christian-right social policy party and nothing else.

Loafing Oaf

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think record breaking numbers of child homeless and year on year worsening crises in housing and health is pretty nutty. I wonder what the fear is of anyone outside of FF/FG? They might lead us to a financial disaster?

Pretty much all the alternatives we have are 'left' in one form or another. I guess there are a lot of voters out there who are vaguely dissatisfied with FF/FG but don't want that alternative.

James Brown

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Pretty much all the alternatives we have are 'left' in one form or another. I guess there are a lot of voters out there who are vaguely dissatisfied with FF/FG but don't want that alternative.

There's no viable party going to knock FF/FG off their perch. We've far too many born and bred civil way families. That's our curse. Even in the early days of the most recent melt down FF were faring better than the spooky left that will...cause us to enter a financial melt down, rise in homelessness? I forget.

I'd say the majority are far beyond 'vaguely dissatisfied'.
FF know they'll not sweep in to a majority, so they are best sticking with the current set up. Similarly, FG shouldn't be expecting any great strides beyond where they are. That's all this renewed agreement is about. Talk of security, is referencing their own interests and security. Proof, FG partnering with FF. The party that nearly had us all 'eating out of bins' is suddenly good enough to co-govern and bring stability. As I've said before it'll be some laugh reading any FG propaganda in the run up to the next election.
With rents on the increase and the emergencies and crisis becoming part of the scenery, sure, lets keep this brand of 'stability'.

In FG's desperation to maintain power they brought FF back from the near dead. That's one of the legacies of Kenny and Varadkar. Not that FF wouldn't have been back but we might have had a longer break, (the chance for a new party/parties to get a look in?). All derived from FG doing such a poor job and the public being more than 'vaguely dissatisfied' with them to give them a majority.

Loafing Oaf

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'd say the majority are far beyond 'vaguely dissatisfied'.

And yet a big chunk of that majority will still go out and vote for FF and/or FG at the next election? That doesn't make sense...

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There's no viable party going to knock FF/FG off their perch. We've far too many born and bred civil way families. That's our curse. Even in the early days of the most recent melt down FF were faring better than the spooky left that will...cause us to enter a financial melt down, rise in homelessness? I forget.

I'd say the majority are far beyond 'vaguely dissatisfied'.
FF know they'll not sweep in to a majority, so they are best sticking with the current set up. Similarly, FG shouldn't be expecting any great strides beyond where they are. That's all this renewed agreement is about. Talk of security, is referencing their own interests and security. Proof, FG partnering with FF. The party that nearly had us all 'eating out of bins' is suddenly good enough to co-govern and bring stability. As I've said before it'll be some laugh reading any FG propaganda in the run up to the next election.
With rents on the increase and the emergencies and crisis becoming part of the scenery, sure, lets keep this brand of 'stability'.

In FG's desperation to maintain power they brought FF back from the near dead. That's one of the legacies of Kenny and Varadkar. Not that FF wouldn't have been back but we might have had a longer break, (the chance for a new party/parties to get a look in?). All derived from FG doing such a poor job and the public being more than 'vaguely dissatisfied' with them to give them a majority.

Nonsense, we live in a democracy, and the only people who have brought FF back from the dead are the people who voted for them.

Where there has been a failure, it has been with SF, the Greens, the Social Democrats and the rest. None of them have been able to put forward a compelling visions that captures the nation. Apart from the Greens, most of the rest are protest parties pure and simple, able to have a whinge, a moan, and a march, but unable to offer anything constructive.

The quality of a democracy can be judged, not by the quality of government, but by the quality of opposition. The likes of Mick Wallace, Pearse Doherty, Mary-Lou, RBB, et al are unable to put forward any kind of vision or image for this country. Intellectually they have contributed little or nothing to Irish society. FF have become strong again because that lot haven't been up to it.

You continually ask the question whether giving the job to them would be any worse than keeping FF and FG. Well, the answer is easy to the average person who only needs to spend about five minutes watching and listening to their whinging to decide they aren't worth voting for.

James Brown

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

And yet a big chunk of that majority will still go out and vote for FF and/or FG at the next election? That doesn't make sense...

I explained above. Nobody is disputing FG are the most popular party. They cannot hold a government by themselves, so a lot more than a few voters have a distrust of them. Both FF and FG have their die hards who only vote FG/FF. And FG have told the floating voters that FF are A O K now.

Loafing Oaf

Matt Barrett wrote: »

In FG's desperation to maintain power they brought FF back from the near dead. That's one of the legacies of Kenny and Varadkar.

Easy to make this kind of sweeping judgement from the ditch of boards.ie. Reality after the last election was that a government could only be formed by two out of three of FG, FF and SF. With both FG and FF ruling out any deal with SF, and FF ruling out full coalition with FG, something like the current arrangement was pretty much the only game in town as far as I can see. Either that or go back to the people, and would said people have thanked FG for that?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I explained above. Nobody is disputing FG are the most popular party. They cannot hold a government by themselves, so a lot more than a few voters have a distrust of them. Both FF and FG have their die hards who only vote FG/FF. And FG have told the floating voters that FF are A O K now.

I think you are stretching the analogy too far in suggesting that FG have told the floating voter that FF are AOK.

In reality, the choice facing FG following the last election was FF or SF. What FG have told the floating voter is that however bad FF are, and they are too bad to actually share power with in a proper coalition, they are not as bad as SF.

People also forget that SF had the power to stop FG by going into coalition with FF, but SF ruled it out.

Wanderer78

.... so the dance continues.....

FreudianSlippers

L1011 wrote: »

Renua are dead. You are also the only person who still seems to think Renua would return to their old tax policies - they won't, they are a Christian-right social policy party and nothing else.

Even in the off chance that they did return to their economic policies and had an opportunity to implement them (somehow), I wouldn't vote for them due to their stance on social issues.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I explained above. Nobody is disputing FG are the most popular party. They cannot hold a government by themselves, so a lot more than a few voters have a distrust of them. Both FF and FG have their die hards who only vote FG/FF. And FG have told the floating voters that FF are A O K now.

Does that really even make sense in our form of democracy? Ok, in the US when you have one choice - red vs blue - your comment might hold weight; however, in the last election I definitely voted for both FF and FG, as well as a green. It's much more nuanced and has nothing to do with the weight of the "die hard" party voters.

Wanderer78

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Does that really even make sense in our form of democracy? Ok, in the US when you have one choice - red vs blue - your comment might hold weight; however, in the last election I definitely voted for both FF and FG, as well as a green. It's much more nuanced and has nothing to do with the weight of the "die hard" party voters.

or is it really red v's redder?

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I think you are stretching the analogy too far in suggesting that FG have told the floating voter that FF are AOK.

In reality, the choice facing FG following the last election was FF or SF. What FG have told the floating voter is that however bad FF are, and they are too bad to actually share power with in a proper coalition, they are not as bad as SF.

People also forget that SF had the power to stop FG by going into coalition with FF, but SF ruled it out.

Is 32 months not a very short time span in which to attempt re-writing history.
April 2016 FG offered FF a coalition government.

James Brown

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Easy to make this kind of sweeping judgement from the ditch of boards.ie. Reality after the last election was that a government could only be formed by two out of three of FG, FF and SF. With both FG and FF ruling out any deal with SF, and FF ruling out full coalition with FG, something like the current arrangement was pretty much the only game in town as far as I can see. Either that or go back to the people, and would said people have thanked FG for that?

What nonsense. Are you a sitting TD? Should I be ignoring you if you're not?
What do you mean exactly? Is this like the old standard of 'what would you do?' well you can point out incompetence when you see it and you have a civic duty IMO to point out, IMV, intentional exacerbation of crises for private profits.
The only game in town doesn't mean you need applaud bad playing or dismiss fouls.

Yes, they nearly had us 'eating out of bins'. They destroyed the economy. They required the IMF coming over and lied about it....and Fine Gael think they are fine partners in government if it means they can hang on in. No ethics. We'd have been better off if Fine Gael did nothing regards housing. That's a fact. They have made the housing crises worse and the rental sector dependent on hand outs from the state. That's some legacy. At Least Leo can hide behind Brexit when the scandal of the hospital trolleys hits the headlines. Probably blame the brickies for building small wards.

Good loser

I'm amazed at the crowds P Tobin seems to be getting at his rallies and the enthusiasm for his 'economic' ideas. That's just from reports in the papers.
Are they for real?

Imo he might have some chance as an Ind.
But to think a new party would go anywhere with his tired/trite windbaggery is laughable. He has nothing to offer.


(Unless J McGuinness would be interested in jumping ship)

Infini

Wanderer78 wrote: »

.... so the dance continues.....

In fairness an election would be better timed next year rather than next month only because of Brexit and the Brits seeming desire to implode in a pit of their own ignorance and stupidity.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Demand for housing isn't a side effect of a growing economy.

I am sorry but it is.

We have the fastest growing population in Europe, apart from Turkey (if you can call them European), and the fastest growing economy in the EU.
These obviously have an effect on housing and the demand for it.

During the crash, the population of the country fell slightly, with both Irish and non-nationals leaving the country to find work elsewhere. This made rents plummet and housing builds evaporated.

For the first time since the Famine, our population on our Island is set to reach 8 million within the next 30 years. This means we need to house an extra 1.5 million people, and they all cant be housed in a 3-bed semi-d. This means we need to readjust our views on housing, planning and building heights. This also means that we as Irish people need to adopt a more European view on housing and pay more property tax to boot.

No opposition party is going to propose to the electorate that we do these things because it is popular to ignore the real issues behind the housing crisis.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

With all due respect, it's looking like a matter of 'so what?'.
We've more children homeless than ever in our history.
Many working people need assistance from the state to pay rent.
Also, again, it must never be forgot, that the actual party that required us to pull of this 'economic miracle' have a very big say in policy currently, because that's stability or something. The supply and confidence deal is no more than two selfish groups holding on to power at any cost.

You are looking at things purely in a negative fashion.
Is it 'so what' that we have near 5% unemployment .i.e full employment?
I think not.

The housing issue is one that is more of a cultural and systemic issue imo. Look at Dublin City Council and their view on 'high rise'. They reduce property taxes and claim they have no money to pay for social housing?

We have an overly democratic system where consensus is needed for everything and anything before we do or build anything. This means that we are really really slow to execute good plans. See Bus Connects, or Dublin Metro or housing for an example. Sure we need more apartments in the city, but don't build them in 'my' suburb etc.etc...

Central government while slow off the mark and now trying to do something about this.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/building-height-restrictions-in-towns-and-cities-lifted-37604346.html


Stability is something people value, just look across at both side of the water and see where rocking the boat gets you. Trump is a loose cannon on one side, while Brexit is tearing the UK apart. Do you think Irish want to replicate this with a SF led government with a bunch of loony lefties and Indos? If not SF led government, then who?

The only two parties willing to go into government at the last GE were FG and FF (at a push). The rest literally ran away as they used to just being on the bully pulpit, without any responsibility to govern.

If there was an election tomorrow, it would be FG lead government, with some others to make up the numbers. Or FF with SF and others to make up the numbers.

Eric Cartman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Even in the off chance that they did return to their economic policies and had an opportunity to implement them (somehow), I wouldn't vote for them due to their stance on social issues.

yeah. If they just kept out of the abortion debate I think they would have been a lot more viable, the idea appealed to me but they sank their own ship.

Realistically Every irish election until people wake up again is going to be about doing the least cringeworthy deal to keep the shinners out.

Zubeneschamali

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yeah. If they just kept out of the abortion debate I think they would have been a lot more viable.

Being anti abortion is literally the reason they exist, it's why Lucinda left a promising career in FG.

Eric Cartman

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Being anti abortion is literally the reason they exist, it's why Lucinda left a promising career in FG.

That was the sad part, they made a lot of sense to me with flat taxation, restructuring welfare etc... but the party forming with people who were all publically pro-life and becoming known as the 'pro-life' party just made the noise louder than the signal and sank the ship before it began. There was a lot of promise that was clouded by 'the new staunch catholic party' or 'the iona party' rhetoric.

L1011

You don't find many people with those fiscal viewpoints who are not also on Lucinda's social views part of the spectrum - or further.

blanch152

markodaly wrote: »

If there was an election tomorrow, it would be FG lead government, with some others to make up the numbers. Or FF with SF and others to make up the numbers.

Figures from the poll today point to a FF/SF coalition, with them having 48% of the vote.

Eric Cartman

blanch152 wrote: »

Figures from the poll today point to a FF/SF coalition, with them having 48% of the vote.

Id like to say it would never happen, but MM might be spineless enough to do it , against the members wishes.

Loafing Oaf

blanch152 wrote: »

Figures from the poll today point to a FF/SF coalition, with them having 48% of the vote.

Why not another 'arrangement' of some form between FF and FG, given Martin has ruled out any deal with SF?