Who is everyone going to be voting for in the next general election?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you not see how stupid your defense is? We don't have the money for social housing builds, but we do have more money for social housing buys and leases? Seriously man, give it up.

Now you tell me, third time asking, how do developers and builders make a living if building is more expensive than buying? This was your argument.
Still waiting on what you base low paid workers being ungrateful for state aid.

How many do we need? As many as it takes.

Building social housing is cheaper than buying it or leasing it from market. FG and the LA's are wasting tax payer money to prop up vulture funds and other private concerns at a loss to the tax payer. Fiscally conservative my hole. The key reason I'll not vote FG this time around.

Your grasp of mathematics, accounting, procurement, overheads and public sector inefficiency gets more tenuous by the day.

It has repeatedly been shown to you that the current cost of temporarily paying HAP to someone for five years is far cheaper than the capital and current costs of hiring an army of builders to build social housing for that person.

Better Than Christ

blanch152 wrote: »

Your grasp of mathematics, accounting, procurement, overheads and public sector inefficiency gets more tenuous by the day.

It has repeatedly been shown to you that the current cost of temporarily paying HAP to someone for five years is far cheaper than the capital and current costs of hiring an army of builders to build social housing for that person.

Your own grasp of mathematics is non-existent.

Done properly (i.e. don't flog it to them at a knockdown price), the state isn't just building a house for that person; they're building a house that will potentially be there for at least the next hundred years.

James Brown

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Your own grasp of mathematics is non-existent.

Done properly (i.e. don't flog it to them at a knockdown price), the state isn't just building a house for that person; they're building a house that will potentially be there for at least the next hundred years.

He's well aware. He may act surprised but this ground has been well covered time and again.
He refuses to engage honestly and offers zero alternatives himself.

FYI: I never made any such HAP argument and was certainly never shown the new moved goal post argument he seems to be having.

blanch152

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Your own grasp of mathematics is non-existent.

Done properly (i.e. don't flog it to them at a knockdown price), the state isn't just building a house for that person; they're building a house that will potentially be there for at least the next hundred years.

I am not basing my argument on a utopian fantasy of unicorns and rainbows, where local authority tenants pay their rent on time and are evicted when they don't pay and move on when their income rises.

I am basing my argument on the reality of the entitlement culture which expects a free house for life with a trampoline in the back garden, in which over 60% of tenants are in arrears of rent, and where every few years local authorities sell off their houses at a fraction of market price. In the real world, the cost of maintaining local authority housing is a multiple of that paid for by any landlord or houseowner, and I factor that in as well.

Better Than Christ

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not basing my argument on a utopian fantasy of unicorns and rainbows, where local authority tenants pay their rent on time and are evicted when they don't pay and move on when their income rises.

I am basing my argument on the reality of the entitlement culture which expects a free house for life with a trampoline in the back garden, in which over 60% of tenants are in arrears of rent, and where every few years local authorities sell off their houses at a fraction of market price. In the real world, the cost of maintaining local authority housing is a multiple of that paid for by any landlord or houseowner, and I factor that in as well.

You're basing your argument on your own prejudices. The problem of non-payment of rent could easily be solved by deducting it directly from people's income. Mass development of social housing worked in the past (until shortsighted governments flogged them at knockdown prices). There is no reason why it couldn't work again.

TheAsYLuMkeY

godtabh wrote: »

But some one else will and probably some with opposing views to you. Use your vote and make it count.

There is an intrinsic flaw in your comment, it is difficult to say this without sounding like a smart arse, but here it is anyway,

It implies that if someone votes FF for example when someone else that would have voted FG for example abstained, that the possible outcome is governance contrary to the views of the FG abstainer.

Where the actual reality is policy and political governance doesn't change between party's of so called opposing views that operate within an accepted and established political system.

James Brown

Better Than Christ wrote: »

You're basing your argument on your own prejudices. The problem of non-payment of rent could easily be solved by deducting it directly from people's income. Mass development of social housing worked in the past (until shortsighted governments flogged them at knockdown prices). There is no reason why it couldn't work again.

It's just repetitive guff he throws to see what'll stick. Who is asking and getting 'free' houses? Nobody, we are however paying through the nose buying houses and leasing houses for the very same people FG refuse to build housing for even though it's cheaper. This 'argument' is a dead duck. Call them free if he wants, the choice is building them or buying them, same tenants either way. Nonsense.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

Isn't that the issue, and the real problem with the nonsense spouted about the State building houses?

There is no State developer, there is no capacity to build houses, they get procurement wrong all the time. All of the posters on here and parties out there who talk about the State building houses haven't a clue how to address those issues other than waving a magic wand.

The same way we did in the 1930s with Herbert Simms. Hire a competent architect with a proper vision for building decent high density housing, and a competent project manager to work with him or her, and then contract the construction crews directly, bypassing any developer middleman.

If you believe this to be impossible or too expensive, I strongly suggest you take a look at this article:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-opposition-to-social-housing-is-matter-of-ideology-not-economics-1.2397695

I simply do not believe, regardless of inflation in building costs etc, that there is any legitimate way to justify the claim that 21st century Ireland cannot afford to build public housing while post-independence, great depression, WWII era Ireland could build it by the tens of thousands. There is no universe in which what claim makes any sense.

Wanderer78

All left, with extremely low expectations

Kivaro

Wanderer78 wrote: »

All left, with extremely low expectations

I wish they all would leave, as the whole bunch of them seem to live in a surreal cocoon, unaware of the realities for the vast majority of people living on this island.

We really do need an Ireland v2.0.

ollkiller

My vote as always will go to the person whose policies most closely align with my own. It would be great if everyone voted that way.

DellyBelly

I voted FG in the last 2 elections as Ithought FF were at fault for the crisis we had. I am going to go back to FF though this time as I think it is a time for a change in the country. I'll probably give my 2nd pref to a Green part candidate

Better Than Christ

I don't think I'd ever vote for Fianna Fail, but I'd choose Micheál Martin as Taoiseach over Varadkar any day. Their ideological flexibility makes it more likely that they'll try to do something about the housing crisis. They were responsible for the severity of the economic crash, but (based on their election promises in 2007), there is no way that Fine Gael or Labour would have done anything differently.

tayto lover

Geuze wrote: »

When I consider my parents, we are a very generous country, in some ways;

They pay 8% direct taxes on income about 48k-49k.

In return, they get:

2x full med cards
2x FTP free travel pass
free TV licence
35 pm / 420 pa off electricity


Other countries provide benefits like this, yes, but charge way more than 8% direct income tax.

Good man.
Your parents have paid into the kitty for a lot longer than you have.
They deserve their wee bit back.
I worked for 49 years, was never out of work, and I paid every tax that was demanded from me for that time too. I’m enjoying the rewards now.

GreenandRed

Better Than Christ wrote: »

I don't think I'd ever vote for Fianna Fail, but I'd choose Micheál Martin as Taoiseach over Varadkar any day. Their ideological flexibility makes it more likely that they'll try to do something about the housing crisis. They were responsible for the severity of the economic crash, but (based on their election promises in 2007), there is no way that Fine Gael or Labour would have done anything differently.

You can't say that. Sure Fianna Fáil caused the crash. It wasn't the builders, developers, banks firing mortgages at people they knew couldn't pay them, the people borrowing knowing the same, the opposition not shouting stop. Get thee behind me Satan. :eek:

hatrickpatrick

ollkiller wrote: »

My vote as always will go to the person whose policies most closely align with my own. It would be great if everyone voted that way.

Mine is more or less this, except that I'll always vote for independents before whipped party members, as their views become largely irrelevant if the cabinet has a majority with no one free to oppose the leadership's policies. But basically I agree with this entirely.

Eric Cartman

tayto lover wrote: »

Good man.
Your parents have paid into the kitty for a lot longer than you have.
They deserve their wee bit back.
I worked for 49 years, was never out of work, and I paid every tax that was demanded from me for that time too. I’m enjoying the rewards now.

Id much rather not have to clutch at straws to get back some of all the money i put in, let me keep my money and work on my own needs

hatrickpatrick

Better Than Christ wrote: »

I don't think I'd ever vote for Fianna Fail, but I'd choose Micheál Martin as Taoiseach over Varadkar any day. Their ideological flexibility makes it more likely that they'll try to do something about the housing crisis. They were responsible for the severity of the economic crash, but (based on their election promises in 2007), there is no way that Fine Gael or Labour would have done anything differently.

The problem I see with this (and I'm not totally discounting your argument, what you're saying does make sense) is that Micheál was the Minister for Health when the health service collapsed (anyone claiming that the collapse is the fault of the current government is wrong IMO, it collapsed in the early 2000s under his ministry and has never been rebuilt, with the issues it's facing now basically prolonged knock on effects from the crisis which began under his tenure) so he has, in my view, just as horrendous a track record as the FF leadership which came before him. FF would need root-and-branch personnel changes before I'd vote for them, the majority of those at the top are too tainted by past f*ck ups to seem like a good choice.

The only FFer I ever really had respect for was Niall Collins who did very good work as the shadow Justice minister during the various scandals surrounding AGS in and around 2014, if he were in line to be Taoiseach I'd give his manifestation of FF more serious consideration.

GreenandRed

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The problem I see with this (and I'm not totally discounting your argument, what you're saying does make sense) is that Micheál was the Minister for Health when the health service collapsed (anyone claiming that the collapse is the fault of the current government is wrong IMO, it collapsed in the early 2000s under his ministry and has never been rebuilt, with the issues it's facing now basically prolonged knock on effects from the crisis which began under his tenure) so he has, in my view, just as horrendous a track record as the FF leadership which came before him. FF would need root-and-branch personnel changes before I'd vote for them, the majority of those at the top are too tainted by past f*ck ups to seem like a good choice.

The only FFer I ever really had respect for was Niall Collins who did very good work as the shadow Justice minister during the various scandals surrounding AGS in and around 2014, if he were in line to be Taoiseach I'd give his manifestation of FF more serious consideration.

He implemented the first smoking ban in the world as minister for health and, for good or bad, introduced the HSE. The Health portfolio has been toxic for everyone. I think they have to bite the bullet and in some way implement technology into a countrywide scheduling system, which patients, GPs, pharmacies, hospitals, consultants are linked. The ' we can't schedule you in that hospital because your GP isn't in that area, even if there's a scanner available' needs to be kicked out along with a lot of deadweight admin people in the HSE. Not saying Martin is a good politician but there might be some good local candidates in FF,FG or other parties and could be good TDs for your area despite their leader or party not appealing.

hatrickpatrick

GreenandRed wrote: »

He implemented the first smoking ban in the world as minister for health and, for good or bad, introduced the HSE. The Health portfolio has been toxic for everyone. I think they have to bite the bullet and in some way implement technology into a countrywide scheduling system, which patients, GPs, pharmacies, hospitals, consultants are linked. The ' we can't schedule you in that hospital because your GP isn't in that area, even if there's a scanner available' needs to be kicked out along with a lot of deadweight admin people in the HSE. Not saying Martin is a good politician but there might be some good local candidates in FF,FG or other parties and could be good TDs for your area despite their leader or party not appealing.

Fair. I'd argue that he bungled the establishment of the HSE and this is the direct precursor to the nightmarish situation we're facing in health today, but obviously that's a matter of opinion.

Regarding your second point, however, the issue is that all of our major parties have form and history in using the party whip to bind individual TDs to the decisions taken by either the party leadership (when in opposition) or the cabinet (when in government). And because of this, unfortunately, it very much does matter who is in charge of a party, when one is considering the merits or demerits of individual local candidates for that party.

Just my opinion, obviously. I regard the minority government situation we've had for the last several years as a serious breath of fresh air, where bills have been able to enjoy full and proper scrutiny by the Oireachtas before being passed into law. It hasn't been perfect, with abuse of the money message, stalling bills for strategic political reasons and the fact that FF and FG overlap in so many policy areas obvious points of failure, but all in all I've personally found the current Dáil to be far more in line with how a democracy should work when compared with the last Dáil, in which the large government majority guaranteed generally unamended passage of cabinet sponsored bills, general non-passage of opposition sponsored bills, and guillotined discussions in the Dáil repeatedly so that not only were bills guaranteed to fail or succeed purely based on which side introduced them, but the Dáil was not even allowed to perform its basic function of scrutinising legislation and pointing out or amending areas which were likely to cause controversy down the line.

I realise that voting for independents is anathema to many people, but that's my rationale behind doing so. It's not that I believe independents to have better policies than TDs who are members of parties - they're still just ordinary Irish citizens regardless of affiliation, after all - it's that during the last majority government, power was concentrated in the hands of a very small cabal and the majority of TDs served no purpose other than as a very expensive rubber stamp. It's my belief that the Oireachtas was designed to serve a higher purpose than this, and that's why until the major parties loosen the grip of their leadership over their individual TDs, I'll be firmly in the "independents and small parties before anyone else" camp.

Just my two cents of course!

jobeenfitz

I'm voting for John Delaney and Berty, Ivor Callaly, Michael Lowery and the cute hoors from Kerry. Only the best.

James Brown

GreenandRed wrote: »

You can't say that. Sure Fianna Fáil caused the crash. It wasn't the builders, developers, banks firing mortgages at people they knew couldn't pay them, the people borrowing knowing the same, the opposition not shouting stop. Get thee behind me Satan. :eek:

Labour shouted stop. The only party that did. They got laughed it.
TBF, when ever they get in they bow down to FF/FG anyway.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Id much rather not have to clutch at straws to get back some of all the money i put in, let me keep my money and work on my own needs

God forbid you ever have a long expensive illness, we'll just leave you by the side of the road with a sharp stick to poke away any dole spongers or immigrants.

hatrickpatrick

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Labour shouted stop. The only party that did. They got laughed it.
TBF, when ever they get in they bow down to FF/FG anyway.

I hold Labour responsible for this as many do, but I do think one issue is the "all or nothing" nature of Irish politics, in which a coalition partner who opposes government policy or loses confidence in a particular minister has two options - shut up and take it, or bring down the whole government and trigger an early election.

Labour should, for instance, have been able to say to FG "Alan Shatter is poison, he has to go" without that automatically meaning an election or collapse of government. Same for James Reilly. FF should have been able to vote no confidence in Eoghan Murphy last week without triggering a despised Christmas election, it should have been a matter of "Taoiseach, the Oireachtas has lost confidence in a member of your cabinet. Give us someone else."

As far as I can see, this "all or nothing" paradigm is entirely by convention and agreement, having no legal basis for being necessary. So parties could choose to do things differently any time they wanted, but they don't. Most likely because government leadership doesn't want to relinquish any of its power (very few people who hold power voluntarily relinquish it for the greater good of reforming the system, those who do tend to be once-in-a-lifetime political heroes in my view), while the opposition leadership expects to hold that power one day, and as such will not vote away powers they are hoping to one day inherit.

James Brown

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I hold Labour responsible for this as many do, but I do think one issue is the "all or nothing" nature of Irish politics, in which a coalition partner who opposes government policy or loses confidence in a particular minister has two options - shut up and take it, or bring down the whole government and trigger an early election.

Labour should, for instance, have been able to say to FG "Alan Shatter is poison, he has to go" without that automatically meaning an election or collapse of government. Same for James Reilly. FF should have been able to vote no confidence in Eoghan Murphy last week without triggering a despised Christmas election, it should have been a matter of "Taoiseach, the Oireachtas has lost confidence in a member of your cabinet. Give us someone else."

As far as I can see, this "all or nothing" paradigm is entirely by convention and agreement, having no legal basis for being necessary. So parties could choose to do things differently any time they wanted, but they don't. Most likely because government leadership doesn't want to relinquish any of its power (very few people who hold power voluntarily relinquish it for the greater good of reforming the system, those who do tend to be once-in-a-lifetime political heroes in my view), while the opposition leadership expects to hold that power one day, and as such will not vote away powers they are hoping to one day inherit.

They should have backed Roisin Shortall calling out Reilly and his clinic allocations.
FG must have found it highly amusing to have the then leader of the Labour party vilifying protesters.
Basically they would have been better off being the main opposition which might have seen them in a better spot last election.

Dick_Swiveller

I'll be voting for a right wing party.

So no one.

hatrickpatrick

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

I'll be voting for a right wing party.

So no one.

Have you considered any independents running in your constituency whose views might align more closely with your own? And if not, out of interest, why not?

Dick_Swiveller

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Have you considered any independents running in your constituency whose views might align more closely with your own? And if not, out of interest, why not?

There are a few independents running in my constituency. I've actually spoken to a few of them and they seem like genuine lads trying to affect change. But their views are largely of the Irish Times, right on PC liberal bollixology type infecting most political parties in Ireland.

So no, I won't be voting for them.

Field east

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fair. I'd argue that he bungled the establishment of the HSE and this is the direct precursor to the nightmarish situation we're facing in health today, but obviously that's a matter of opinion.

Regarding your second point, however, the issue is that all of our major parties have form and history in using the party whip to bind individual TDs to the decisions taken by either the party leadership (when in opposition) or the cabinet (when in government). And because of this, unfortunately, it very much does matter who is in charge of a party, when one is considering the merits or demerits of individual local candidates for that party.

Just my opinion, obviously. I regard the minority government situation we've had for the last several years as a serious breath of fresh air, where bills have been able to enjoy full and proper scrutiny by the Oireachtas before being passed into law. It hasn't been perfect, with abuse of the money message, stalling bills for strategic political reasons and the fact that FF and FG overlap in so many policy areas obvious points of failure, but all in all I've personally found the current Dáil to be far more in line with how a democracy should work when compared with the last Dáil, in which the large government majority guaranteed generally unamended passage of cabinet sponsored bills, general non-passage of opposition sponsored bills, and guillotined discussions in the Dáil repeatedly so that not only were bills guaranteed to fail or succeed purely based on which side introduced them, but the Dáil was not even allowed to perform its basic function of scrutinising legislation and pointing out or amending areas which were likely to cause controversy down the line.

I realise that voting for independents is anathema to many people, but that's my rationale behind doing so. It's not that I believe independents to have better policies than TDs who are members of parties - they're still just ordinary Irish citizens regardless of affiliation, after all - it's that during the last majority government, power was concentrated in the hands of a very small cabal and the majority of TDs served no purpose other than as a very expensive rubber stamp. It's my belief that the Oireachtas was designed to serve a higher purpose than this, and that's why until the major parties loosen the grip of their leadership over their individual TDs, I'll be firmly in the "independents and small parties before anyone else" camp.

Just my two cents of course!

‘General non passage of opposition sponsored bills’ , ‘guillotined discussions, ‘ etc, etc, would have been common practice with ALL Dails where a single party government was in place.

Geuze

tayto lover wrote: »

Good man.
Your parents have paid into the kitty for a lot longer than you have.
They deserve their wee bit back.
I worked for 49 years, was never out of work, and I paid every tax that was demanded from me for that time too. I’m enjoying the rewards now.

It is true that my parents paid high mortgage interest rates in the 80s, yes, BUT, the houses were much cheaper.

It is true that my parents faced 35% basic income tax rates, yes, and top rates of 65% in the 80s, yes.

However, note that by age 60, while in FT employment, my father was paying under 6% direct income tax on 70k approx wages.

How? Putting large amounts in pension.

So he got more tax relief than is available to workers now.


Plus, we now can't afford to charge people 8% direct tax, while giving them so much benefits.

James Brown

For me most people work hard all their lives paying taxes. There was a time when they'd at least likely have a house of their own to show for it. Those days are fading fast. I would not be looking at any austerity measures on retirees.