GE Exit Poll 10 pm

limnam

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I wonder how many new SF voters even know what their policies are, I suspect most voted for them as a kind of protest vote and no other reason.

I'd say desperation is closer to the truth.

Loafing Oaf

efanton wrote: »

So time for Leo and Mehole to round up what independents they can buy off, but we know how unreliable and incompetent some of them can be.
How about Danny Healy-Rae as transport minister? They can replace the fool they currently have with yet another fool, but there will be CHANGE, he will want to issue permits to actually drink and drive.

Doubt Healy-Raes, McGrath etc. would even want to be in cabinet. And I don't see why they would be particularly unreliable: Healy-Rae senior and Michael Lowry stuck by the 2007-11 coalition to the bitter end. As someone on the Irish Times comments said of the 'rural independents': They're honest men; when they're bought they stay bought...

Brendan Bendar

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I wonder how many new SF voters even know what their policies are, I suspect most voted for them as a kind of protest vote and no other reason.

We only have to look to the other side of the border to see they are no great shapes in government at all.

That’s putting it mildly Gg.

I’m afraid our country is doomed if this can of stuff get in.

McMurphy

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Catherine Murphy spent much of the 2011/2016 Dail holding the behaviour of FG up to the light , Siteserv anyone? Can't say I blame the Soc Dems for not trusting them . FF deserves no trust from anyone, history itself is enough.
GE 2.0 , the traditional big two will get no thanks from the electorate if it' becomes a reality.

Exactly why the likes of Brendan there wouldn't be a fan, him being a one time cheerleader of the laughing yoga brigade money collecting quango that Murphy helped throw a spanner in the works of.

Uncle Dinny no too happy with her I'd say.

efanton

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I wonder how many new SF voters even know what their policies are, I suspect most voted for them as a kind of protest vote and no other reason.

We only have to look to the other side of the border to see they are no great shapes in government at all.

I have read this manefesto in full.
There lots of good measures in it. Have you?

What about the additional funding and resources for start up companies.

Equalising the tax allowances for the self employed.

Addition funding for the IDA and Enterprise Ireland.
Funding for the IDA to develop new sites to attract FDI to areas outside of the main cities. If workers are not forced to relocate to cities or commute long distance there will be less demand for housing in cities, less traffic congestion and more time at home for parents.

Banning below-cost selling of fresh food products by retailers.

additional legislation in the insurance industry to make cost of insurance premiums more transparent. Ban on the two price practice that insurance companies use where they charge a customer more for a renewal than they would if a customer contacts them by phone
Creation of a dedicated insurance fraud squad in the gardai


Providing additional funding to the Irish Competition and Consumer Protection Authority to establish a unit to investigate allegations of price fixing and other
cartel-like behaviour in the AGRI food sector

Provide a public child care service where childcare is significantly cheaper and all child care workers are properly qualified and garda vetted

Changes to public broadcasting funding so that €40 million is ring-fenced for independent productions commissioned by RTÉ. No longer would RTE have total control of revenue collected for programming, that €40 million would be ringfenced for productions created by private companies for transmission on state owned media. This can only be good news, less wastage by RTE and a more diverse selection of programming, as well as providing employment opportunities
for younger people leaving college with media qualifications.


Im sure there's lots more, that's all I can think of to be honest, but does any of the above sound like an anti business, far left agenda. I bet there a few in there that you would be happy with.

Galwayguy35

efanton wrote: »

I have read this manefesto in full.
There lots of good measures in it. Have you?

What about the additional funding and resources for start up companies.

Equalising the tax allowances for the self employed.

Addition funding for the IDA and Enterprise Ireland.
Funding for the IDA to develop new sites to attract FDI to areas outside of the main cities. If workers are not forced to relocate to cities or commute long distance there will be less demand for housing in cities, less traffic congestion and more time at home for parents.

Banning below-cost selling of fresh food products by retailers.

additional legislation in the insurance industry to make cost of insurance premiums more transparent. Ban on the two price practice that insurance companies use where they charge a customer more for a renewal than they would if a customer contacts them by phone
Creation of a dedicated insurance fraud squad in the gardai


Providing additional funding to the Irish Competition and Consumer Protection Authority to establish a unit to investigate allegations of price fixing and other
cartel-like behaviour in the AGRI food sector

Provide a public child care service where childcare is significantly cheaper and all child care workers are properly qualified and garda vetted

Changes to public broadcasting funding so that €40 million is ring-fenced for independent productions commissioned by RTÉ. No longer would RTE have total control of revenue collected for programming, that €40 million would be ringfenced for productions created by private companies for transmission on state owned media. This can only be good news, less wastage by RTE and a more diverse selection of programming, as well as providing employment opportunities
for younger people leaving college with media qualifications.


Im sure there's lots more, that's all I can think of to be honest, but does any of the above sound like an anti business, far left agenda. I bet there a few in there that you would be happy with.

No I haven't because I'm not a SF voter but it's something I would have done if I was considering changing my vote to them.

Sure that all sounds great but I don't see anything about how it's all going to be paid for.

efanton

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

No I haven't because I'm not a SF voter but it's something I would have done if I was considering changing my vote to them.

Sure that all sounds great but I don't see anything about how it's all going to be paid for.

you are capable of reading that for yourself. I believe SF posted a full manefesto on their website.

I haven't re-read it myself for the detail of costing, lots of jobs around the house to get done at the weekend, but all above were costed.

Many of them are actually more or less self funding or only requiring legislation changes, and most are fairly modest investments, the only big ticket item there is the childcare system.

Foxtrol

efanton wrote: »

you are capable of reading that for yourself. I believe SF posted a full manefesto on their website.

I haven't re-read it myself for the detail of costing, lots of jobs around the house to get done at the weekend, but all above were costed.

Many of them are actually more or less self funding or only requiring legislation changes, and most are fairly modest investments, the only big ticket item there is the childcare system.

Despite how much members of SF lie about it, their manifesto wasn't properly costed for impact to the economy.

The type of costing they did was like a shop planning its budget, where they currently sell 100 chocolate bars for a euro each, making 100 euro. For next year they plan to raise the price of each bar to 5 euro and still expect to sell 100 chocolate bars, taking in a total of 500 euro.

I agree that some of the items you noted above are good and relatively cheap but the fundamentals of their manifesto is magic money tree nonsense.

efanton

Foxtrol wrote: »

Despite how much members of SF lie about it, their manifesto wasn't properly costed for impact to the economy.

The type of costing they did was like a shop planning its budget, where they currently sell 100 chocolate bars for a euro each, making 100 euro. For next year they plan to raise the price of each bar to 5 euro and still expect to sell 100 chocolate bars, taking in a total of 500 euro.

I agree that some of the items you noted above are good and relatively cheap but the fundamentals of their manifesto is magic money tree nonsense.

ALL costings of every single party's manifesto's are costed by the department of finance.

SF take the additional measure of having their manifestos independently costed and assessed by an auditor/actuary. I'm not certain but I would assume FF and FG do this too.

So no your type of argument doesnt wash at all.

Where costings go wrong is that sometimes governments cant keep to their initially sound estimates. Take for example FG's estimate of a 1 billion childrens hospital ending up costing the state over 2 billion and that price is still likely to rise.

Foxtrol

efanton wrote: »

ALL costings of every single party's manifesto's are costed by the department of finance.

SF take the additional measure of having their manifestos independently costed and assessed by an auditor/actuary. I'm not certain but I would assume FF and FG do this too.

So no your type of argument doesnt wash at all.

Where costings go wrong is that sometimes governments cant keep to their initially sound estimates. Take for example FG's estimate of a 1 billion childrens hospital ending up costing the state over 2 billion and that price is still likely to rise.

How many parties outside of SF have to fill such a huge hole in their budget due to their manifesto promises going over the expected surplus for the next few years? SF manifesto was something like double that level so their costings are incredibly important.

Having an auditor/actuary review costings means absolutely nothing when you've set the guidelines to do it on a line by line basis and not testing the wider impact of the suite of changes you're seeking. All you succeed in doing is tricking people that don't know any better, which they've clearly been very successful in doing.

UDAWINNER

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I wonder how many new SF voters even know what their policies are, I suspect most voted for them as a kind of protest vote and no other reason.

We only have to look to the other side of the border to see they are no great shapes in government at all.

Very limited in what they can do due to the pursestrings being controlled by the British Govt, but you probably know this unless you are ignorant. Would it be that bad if the Banks paid their fair share of taxes instead of being able to write them off against losses. As for google, etc make them pay the actual corporation tax rate instead of virtually no tax as all irish businesses, self elmployed and paye workers have to ffs.

Galwayguy35

UDAWINNER wrote: »

Very limited in what they can do due to the pursestrings being controlled by the British Govt, but you probably know this unless you are ignorant. Would it be that bad if the Banks paid their fair share of taxes instead of being able to write them off against losses. As for google, etc make them pay the actual corporation tax rate instead of virtually no tax as all irish businesses, self elmployed and paye workers have to ffs.

Ah will you get to fook, they did nothing for the last 3 years while drawing down their salaries at the same time.

The Brits might not give a toss about the North but they do pump £11 billion into the place year on year so I don't think it stacks up that money is the issue.

ThunbergsAreGo

efanton wrote: »

ALL costings of every single party's manifesto's are costed by the department of finance.

SF take the additional measure of having their manifestos independently costed and assessed by an auditor/actuary. I'm not certain but I would assume FF and FG do this too.

This does not indicate the feasibility of what is proposed at all though, just that the numbers "add up" and have some slim basis in reality

end of the road

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

davycc reminds me of the Army Council... says nothing but approves of everything...

translates as, i haven't got an argument or point to make so i will just make jibes at an individual.

UDAWINNER

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Ah will you get to fook, they did nothing for the last 3 years while drawing down their salaries at the same time.

The Brits might not give a toss about the North but they do pump £11 billion into the place year on year so I don't think it stacks up that money is the issue.

You do realise that every party took their salaries, no just SF. Some people that FFG took their salaries and did fcuk all in relation to health and housing, only for people to die on the streets, or die due to screw ups in the health service. But yeah, vote them in again.

Brendan Bendar

UDAWINNER wrote: »

You do realise that every party took their salaries, no just SF. Some people that FFG took their salaries and did fcuk all in relation to health and housing, only for people to die on the streets, or die due to screw ups in the health service. But yeah, vote them in again.

My friend, I’m pissed off with this people ‘dying in the streets’ rhetoric.

There are accommodations available, nobody needs to spend nights on the streets.Not de luxe accommodations for sure but they are there.

“Doing fcuk all in health and housing”.... where are the billions being spent on these issues going then? Is someone burning the money ?

“Screw ups in the health service” Very sad that people die, but there are screw ups in every large organisation.

So like a good lad, cut out that kind of crap and mud slinging, sure there are problems, sure they got things wrong, but if you have to criticize try to do it somewhat constructively not pumping out bolloxolology.

Brendan Bendar

end of the road wrote: »

translates as, i haven't got an argument or point to make so i will just make jibes at an individual.

Translates as ‘ You got that one right Brenner’

Too close to the bone there by a bag of ripe tomatoes.

end of the road

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Translates as ‘ You got that one right Brenner’

Too close to the bone there by a bag of ripe tomatoes.

nope, you got it so badly wrong it's not even funny.
you need to just deal with the fact that ff and fg got a serious hammering, a large amount of people have voted for sf, because the big 2 parties have not been delivering.
the people who voted for sf are a mix of people from all walks of life and society.

maccored

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Ah will you get to fook, they did nothing for the last 3 years while drawing down their salaries at the same time.

The Brits might not give a toss about the North but they do pump £11 billion into the place year on year so I don't think it stacks up that money is the issue.

doesnt seem you have much of a clue as to how stormont is run

Galwayguy35

UDAWINNER wrote: »

You do realise that every party took their salaries, no just SF. Some people that FFG took their salaries and did fcuk all in relation to health and housing, only for people to die on the streets, or die due to screw ups in the health service. But yeah, vote them in again.

So you think if a homeless person dies on the street it's because a house wasn't built?

Often times people opt to remain on the streets for various reasons but it's nothing to do with the number of houses built in a year.

As for the health service if you think SF will swoop in and solve that you are seriously deluded, again we only need to look north of the border where the health service there is no great shakes either.

efanton

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

My friend, I’m pissed off with this people ‘dying in the streets’ rhetoric.

There are accommodations available, nobody needs to spend nights on the streets.Not de luxe accommodations for sure but they are there.

“Doing fcuk all in health and housing”.... where are the billions being spent on these issues going then? Is someone burning the money ?

“Screw ups in the health service” Very sad that people die, but there are screw ups in every large organisation.

So like a good lad, cut out that kind of crap and mud slinging, sure there are problems, sure they got things wrong, but if you have to criticize try to do it somewhat constructively not pumping out bolloxolology.

Have you actually been in one of these places?

These places are simply not safe. There no way I would spend a single night in one of them, and I am sure you would feel the same. If you were not seriously physically assaulted you could be sure that any possessions you might have of any value would be gone before you woke up.

The problem is, and the government already knows this, that the government have not provided any facilities for those with severe alcohol or drug dependence or severe mental issues.

The charities that run some of these hostels or dormitories cant afford to hire security guards.
This results in an ordinary person, who through no fault of their own has lost their home, having to share dormitory accommodation with these people, and most of them will instead take their chances sleeping in vehicles or tents.

Until it is possible to separate those people that have severe issues from those that are simply without a place to sleep at night, these places will always be inappropriate and unsafe accommodation.

And billions are not being spent on these issues, that is the problem, its no even millions. There are simply not enough facilities for those with severe mental issues or drug dependencies.
We currently have judges releasing mentally unstable individuals back into the general public because there are insufficient places to keep these people.

ILoveYourVibes

efanton wrote: »

Have you actually been in one of these places?

These places are simply not safe. There no way I would spend a single night in one of them, and I am sure you would feel the same. If you were not seriously physically assaulted you could be sure that any possessions you might have of any value would be gone before you woke up.

I know but that is kind of like saying the homeless need protecting from the homeless.

I get your point though. I don't deny it. But the problem of homeless people vrs the housing crisis ..it has its own peculiarities.

efanton

Foxtrol wrote: »

How many parties outside of SF have to fill such a huge hole in their budget due to their manifesto promises going over the expected surplus for the next few years? SF manifesto was something like double that level so their costings are incredibly important.

Having an auditor/actuary review costings means absolutely nothing when you've set the guidelines to do it on a line by line basis and not testing the wider impact of the suite of changes you're seeking. All you succeed in doing is tricking people that don't know any better, which they've clearly been very successful in doing.

How do you know this. Where is your evidence, where is the report or is it just your opinion?
The department of finance will know full well of the impact and knock on effects of most policies, yet they deemed them costed appropriately.

You cant make accusations like that without evidence. Evidence please or your post is just conjecture.

efanton

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I know but that is kind of like saying the homeless need protecting from the homeless.

I get your point though. I don't deny it. But the problem of homeless people vrs the housing crisis ..it has its own peculiarities.

THe solution is simple, and has been suggested and recommended by Father Peter McVerry on numerous occasions.

It is well known how many people there are that are living on the street with severe mental, alcohol and drug issues. All the government need do is provide secure accommodation for these, with the appropriate staff (both security and medical personnel).
The charitable hostels and dormitories would for the most part be able to handle the rest, and then those living in tents and cars would have somewhere secure to sleep and be more willing to use these facilities.

The government is well able to find accommodation for refugees at short notice. I don't believe for one minute that they couldn't do something similar for these people that obviously are in need of specific care and attention.

smurgen

UDAWINNER wrote: »

You do realise that every party took their salaries, no just SF. Some people that FFG took their salaries and did fcuk all in relation to health and housing, only for people to die on the streets, or die due to screw ups in the health service. But yeah, vote them in again.

In some cases FG TD's like Dara Murphy took two salaries lol.

Foxtrol

efanton wrote: »

How do you know this. Where is your evidence, where is the report or is it just your opinion?
The department of finance will know full well of the impact and knock on effects of most policies, yet they deemed them costed appropriately.

You cant make accusations like that without evidence. Evidence please or your post is just conjecture.

I know it because it is common knowledge. For all parties 'costings' are barely worth the paper they are written on, though admittedly worth slightly more than claims that demographics will look after themselves :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter what the department of finance knows or doesn't know, they can only test within what they are asked and in Ireland that is far more limited than other nations.

To give them credit, SF are very smart throwing out the term 'costing' again and again, as it gives a completely false sense of security to folk that simply isn't there. It is very similar to the banks pointing that their accounts were signed off by auditors, which doesn't matter one bit if they were testing the wrong things.

It doesn't seem like you've done much research on the topic so here's an article that provides some insight into the costing process of manifestos.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/irish-voters-should-demand-better-party-manifestos-1.4164045

Now I'm happy to see any evidence that you can provide that shows that SF are taking the additional steps in their costing to take into account the wider economic impact/risk of the actions of the manifesto. I've heard SF representatives confronted with this repeatedly, including numerous times this week, and I haven't heard them claim that they have.

efanton

Foxtrol wrote: »

I know it because it is common knowledge. For all parties 'costings' are barely worth the paper they are written on, though admittedly worth slightly more than claims that demographics will look after themselves :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter what the department of finance knows or doesn't know, they can only test within what they are asked and in Ireland that is far more limited than other nations.

To give them credit, SF are very smart throwing out the term 'costing' again and again, as it gives a completely false sense of security to folk that simply isn't there. It is very similar to the banks pointing that their accounts were signed off by auditors, which doesn't matter one bit if they were testing the wrong things.

It doesn't seem like you've done much research on the topic so here's an article that provides some insight into the costing process of manifestos.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/irish-voters-should-demand-better-party-manifestos-1.4164045

Now I'm happy to see any evidence that you can provide that shows that SF are taking the additional steps in their costing to take into account the wider economic impact/risk of the actions of the manifesto. I've heard SF representatives confronted with this repeatedly, including numerous times this week, and I haven't heard them claim that they have.

First lets address the serious flaw in your argument
You claim that department of finance costing are unreliable and yes I agree there is some justification in that.
Yet you do not make the point that the FF FG and other parties manifestos are equally unreliable and that we should equally disregard them on the same basis.
You argument is effectively as valid against FF FG SD Green or any other parties manifesto's, so to use it to attack one single party is nonsensical

I have actually done as much as I can to validate what ever policy I have read, from any party.
Personally, to me its worth the time and effort, and as I'm studying for an Astrophyiscs degree the maths doesn't scare me too much.

I have no source for which company independently assesses SF budget/manifesto but it would be be extremely foolish of any Party to make such claims if they were unable to back that up. I wish I did, it would have saved me hours of work


In a earlier post I demonstrated quite clearly how SF proposed spending and costs on their housing programme actually does work out. Not going to to re-post it here, its far too long. The important misconception that most people have is that SF intended to build 100,000 homes with only 6.5 billion. This is completely wrong. SF intend to spend an additional €6.5 billion to the existing government budget over the course of a 5 year period.
When you run the number as I have done it actually works out the same. In fact SF and FG use essentially the same methodology to cost their housing programmes.
FG claims it can provide homes for €160,000 SF claims it can provide them for about €126,000, but does so by using state owned sites and obviously because they are building rather then buying all profits are also removed. Both numbers seem low but both parties have removed VAT and other taxes.

you need to take a look at their shortened manifesto and jump right to the bottom and look at appendix 1 and apendix 2.
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

As is clear to anyone who actually gives it a minutes thought, any budget set will work perfectly for a year. The knock on effects of that budget will have an effect on final numbers in subsequent years.

In year one SF will have a very substantial surplus with regards taxation measure of about 1.6 Billion euro.

The institute of Chartered Accountants Ireland actually did their own analysis of the SF manifesto and even they accept that year one figure for SF manifesto makes sense.
https://www.charteredaccountants.ie/News/the-sinn-fein-manifesto

They do question though whether the proposed changes in taxation will be effective in subsequent years and whether there might be a short fall and to be fair this is a perfectly valid question

At the end of year two there also will be a 4 billion expected windfall from NAMA. SF have factored this in to their costings.

So lets assume for the sake of argument that at the end of year two an un-adjusted budget does not balance the books. I doubt that any budget un-adjusted would find itself in deficit of well over €5.5 billion.
I doubt it would even swallow he 1.8 billion surplus from year one, but for subsequent years yes it looks like they could possibly be eating into that NAMA windfall. The fact remains though they would still be in surplus.


In the meantime SF have also proposed other cost saving measures that will take years to properly take effect. For instance they propose forcing the end of HSE over dependence on agency staff, instead transforming these positions into full time permanent positions, saving hundred of millions of euro just in the HSE. Obviously the problem here is how long would this transition take and how long would the other measure take to bear fruition?

Other issues that have not been addressed properly are the fact that FG and FF despite their arguments that narrowing the tax bands is bad, instead tinker with the allowances and benefits that will cost the state serious amounts of money. SF do not propose to do any such thing.

USC
FG will Reduce USC revenue by increasing the exemption threshold from €13,000 to €20,500
FF want to reduce the 4.5% rate to 3.5% ( which applies to income between c.€20k to €70k)
SF have said they will abolish it for incomes under €30k
Its hard to get costing and analysis for either of the FG or FF manifesto's
but my back of napkin calculations say that the FF proposal would cost as much and possibly more than the SF proposal.

FG will phase in an adjustment of the standard rate tax band to increase to the upper threshold from €35,000 to €50,000, single, over five years.
SF will do no such thing but this measure alone will cost FG billions.

FG intend to reduce the rate of capital gains tax downwards from 33% to 25% over 5 years. Again a measure that will cost hundreds of millions if not exceeding a billion
SF will do no such thing.


I can go on and on, showing where other parties are changing the tax system to reduce revenues that the government collects where as SF uses that revenue to contribute to its spending plans.

Can I say Sinn Fein's manifesto is cast iron guaranteed, no I cant. But when you actually sit down and compare all the parties manifesto's side by side see where one party is extracting more revenue where as others are reducing revenue the SF manifesto actually does come out fairly on target.
Im not an accountant nor a actuary, nor do I profess to be, but looking through the detail I can see roughly how SF numbers do actually seem to add up.
What I can say is that Sinn Feins manifesto is not totally mad or totally unworkable when it is compared against FG's or FF' in many instances they actually use very similar costings and methodologies.

sondagefaux

A tale of two Michelles...

Michelle 1, no extra money for nursing staff in Northern Ireland:



Michelle 2, supporting striking NHS workers in Northern Ireland:



An excellent example of how Sinn Féin behave in government.

Brendan Bendar

sondagefaux wrote: »

A tale of two Michelles...

Michelle 1, no extra money for nursing staff in Northern Ireland:



Michelle 2, supporting striking NHS workers in Northern Ireland:



An excellent example of how Sinn Féin behave in government.

Correct and right, ride the populist pony till it drops.

celt262

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Correct and right, ride the populist pony till it drops.

Run with the hare and hunt with the hounds