Dublin Bay South By-Election

blanch152

Yurt! wrote: »

It was FG town crier blanch who using education as a proxy for intelligence (and we know that's b*llsh*t) was trying to infer that less than smart people vote for SF, and that all the very stable geniuses vote FG.

Turns out he didn't have his facts straight about ABC1 voters' level of support for SF, so he's retreated into the weeds (for now).

Always one for the personal insults, but this is how the issue got introduced. You might want to check your facts, and apologise, but like the last few times, I won't hold my breath.

Darc19 wrote: »

Lynn boylan was parachuted into a constituency that simply in the main has a decent level of education and would not vote for sinn fein

.

iffandonlyif

glasso wrote: »

Yer man Hugo MacNeill is well over 20 years older than her.

Twenty-two years older. Is that well over twenty?

jm08 wrote: »

Some pretty nasty stuff was planned for her including someone wanting to present her with a sod of turf after a meeting (bogger) and plants to put a sign pointing to the M50 outside her pharmacy. I'm sure there are plenty of Fine Gael members from outside Dublin who will not forget those slurs from the Rathgar elite.

The 'sod of turf' thing is based on her ambiguous anecdote in the bitter interview she did with Claire Byrne. Assuming the facts are correct (that there was a plan to present her with a sod of turf from someone's hand bag but that she arrived late), I've no idea what the intention was. But as someone who lives in the constituency, I cannot conceive of anyone doing it with malice. It's just simply not a way that the people I have lived my whole life around would express such a prejudice, if it existed. And how could she have found out about it if it was intended to be offensive but didn't come to pass?

It seems to me that one's preconceptions are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in moving from sod of turf to scornful prejudice. Could it not simply have been a welcoming sod?!

AndrewJRenko

Yurt! wrote: »

This is my recollection also. She was pretty much advocating that women shouldn't be subject to custodial sentences.


She hosted a British academic on the Leinster House campus and refused to allow male members of the Oireachtas to attend as it was a women's issue.

Don't suppose anyone has any actual evidence of what she actually said, rather than all these shaggy dog stories?

jm08

Yurt! wrote: »

This is my recollection also. She was pretty much advocating that women shouldn't be subject to custodial sentences.

She hosted a British academic on the Leinster House campus and refused to allow male members of the Oireachtas to attend as it was a women's issue.

She was advocating that women should not serve custodial sentence for non-payment of fines, or shoplifting which are most crimes committed by women who end up in prison (usually 3 months). Putting them in prison for these petty crimes creates huge problems as since most have children, they end up being taken care of by the State.


She was not arguing that if a woman is a drug dealer, murderer, committed violent crime that they not serve custodial sentence.

Marcusm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What do you mean, "commit to the constituency", commit what?

This is such a weird view of a TD's role, it implies that someone is elected to 'deliver' for the constituency. People can dress it up however they like, but it's little more than parish pump politics in an urban setting.

I always found it interesting that prior to about 1922-ish, it was reasonably common for TDs to run in more than one constituency. Even well into independence, some TDs were representatives in the north and south (I bet people didn't know that Sir James Craig was a TD up until at least 1927).

It still happens in the UK, with the likes of Boris Johnson merrily parachuting himself into a handy constituency. Why did we get into this mode where every TD has to be extremely local? They are elected to adance national policies.

Anyway, in other news, I see the odds have shortened against Bacik, now 6/5 giving chase to Geoghegan... what the hell happened? Lynn Boylan way at the back of the field, Claire Byrne a faller.

She was asked whether she would be an SF candidate in DBS at the next election if she won or whether she would contest Dublin South-West (or mid-west, can’t remember which) which she was apparently being lined up for. To her credit, she didn’t say she was committed to DBS but demurred on a sort of “we’ll see later”. There aren’t 2 seats for SF in DBS and I suspect Andrews has a safe seat.

jm08

Yurt! wrote: »

This is my recollection also. She was pretty much advocating that women shouldn't be subject to custodial sentences.


She hosted a British academic on the Leinster House campus and refused to allow male members of the Oireachtas to attend as it was a women's issue.

I don't know about who was at the meeting, but this is a report of it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/bacik-calls-for-reports-on-jail-terms-for-women-1.1147308

Marcusm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's an interesting one. Lord Iveagh was the last one I suppose. Good pub-quiz question there.

Frank Pajenham (lord Longford)’s father would have been another. In more recent times there wasn’t much of a gap between Edward Haughey’s stint in our upper house before moving on to the UK’s upper house!

AndrewJRenko

jm08 wrote: »

I don't know about who was at the meeting, but this is a report of it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/bacik-calls-for-reports-on-jail-terms-for-women-1.1147308

So is it possible that people here have exaggerated both the position she took and the supposed "scrubbing" of the story by mysterious forces?

...Ghost...

Yurt! wrote: »

This is my recollection also. She was pretty much advocating that women shouldn't be subject to custodial sentences.


She hosted a British academic on the Leinster House campus and refused to allow male members of the Oireachtas to attend as it was a women's issue.

Yeah, I remember there was at least one male TD who took issue with the "women only" entry. I think it may have been Mattie McGrath, but don't quote me on that.

jm08 wrote: »

She was advocating that women should not serve custodial sentence for non-payment of fines, or shoplifting which are most crimes committed by women who end up in prison (usually 3 months). Putting them in prison for these petty crimes creates huge problems as since most have children, they end up being taken care of by the State.


She was not arguing that if a woman is a drug dealer, murderer, committed violent crime that they not serve custodial sentence.

I don't know about that jm. She did make the points you suggested, but she did also advocate for the closure of womens prisons and she blamed any womens violence on men. I was pretty hacked off at the time because it was in an article directly quoting her. Her argument about children being taken by the state was a stretch. Her other comments on the subject were plainly sexist and held women unaccountable for their actions.

jm08

iffandonlyif wrote: »

Twenty-two years older. Is that well over twenty?

The 'sod of turf' thing is based on her ambiguous anecdote in the bitter interview she did with Claire Byrne. Assuming the facts are correct (that there was a plan to present her with a sod of turf from someone's hand bag but that she arrived late), I've no idea what the intention was. But as someone who lives in the constituency, I cannot conceive of anyone doing it with malice. It's just simply not a way that the people I have lived my whole life around would express such a prejudice, if it existed. And how could she have found out about it if it was intended to be offensive but didn't come to pass?

It seems to me that one's preconceptions are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in moving from sod of turf to scornful prejudice. Could it not simply have been a welcoming sod?!

I live in the constituency as well (not far from Kate's pharamacy in Rathgar), and I'm a ''bogger'' just like Kate. My take from being presented with a sod of turf from someone from Rathgar as a symbol of ''you are not one of us.'' I note you have not explained why someone was considering putting a sign pointing to the M50 outside the pharmacy.


As to how she would know what was planned - there are plenty of ''boggers'' in FG Party in the Constituency who would not be too happy about how she was treated, because basically, they are disrespecting them as well.

timmyntc

jm08 wrote: »

I live in the constituency as well (not far from Kate's pharamacy in Rathgar), and I'm a ''bogger'' just like Kate. My take from being presented with a sod of turf from someone from Rathgar as a symbol of ''you are not one of us.'' I note you have not explained why someone was considering putting a sign pointing to the M50 outside the pharmacy.


As to how she would know what was planned - there are plenty of ''boggers'' in FG Party in the Constituency who would not to happy about how she was treated, because basically, they are disrespecting them as well.

How did all this come out?
You say "planned/considering" - so none of it actually happened??

jm08

timmyntc wrote: »

How did all this come out?
You say "planned/considering" - so none of it actually happened??

I explained to you - Kate would have some friends in the FG party who would have known and passed on the info. I note none have denied it!

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

I explained to you - Kate would have some friends in the FG party who would have known and passed on the info. I note none have denied it!

Maybe nobody knows who, or what, she is on about.

retalivity

iffandonlyif wrote: »

I find such youth support for FG inconceivable. The sub-sample size must be minuscule.

A lot of the 18-24yos in this constituency will never have to worry about getting a house too far away, Mammy and Daddy will just dig them out with the million or so required. FG is a natural home for them, socially left enough (Abortion and Gay marriage delivered), but not full of republicans who would disrupt the west-britness of the area.

Sam Russell

jm08 wrote: »

I live in the constituency as well (not far from Kate's pharamacy in Rathgar), and I'm a ''bogger'' just like Kate. My take from being presented with a sod of turf from someone from Rathgar as a symbol of ''you are not one of us.''

I am also in the constituency and will be voting.

My reaction to someone presenting me with a sod of turf would be - 'Thank you - I shall burn that and think of you as it burns!' with a nice smile.

jm08

...Ghost... wrote: »

Yeah, I remember there was at least one male TD who took issue with the "women only" entry. I think it may have been Mattie McGrath, but don't quote me on that.

From that article in the IT, it seems it was an international conference on female prisoners human rights. I have no idea why Mattie McGrath would want to go to that

I don't know about that jm. She did make the points you suggested, but she did also advocate for the closure of womens prisons and she blamed any womens violence on men. I was pretty hacked off at the time because it was in an article directly quoting her. Her argument about children being taken by the state was a stretch. Her other comments on the subject were plainly sexist and held women unaccountable for their actions.

There are only two women's prisoners in Ireland (Women's wing in Limerick Prison and the Dochas Centre in Mountjoy). It seems they are very short of facilities and are overcroweded anyway (I saw a quote where Mountjoy has a capacity for 105 women with about 140 women houses there). And according to this article, 95% of crimes committed by women are petty.
https://www.thejournal.ie/women-prison-ireland-petty-crime-4596708-Apr2019/


Here is a breakdown of offences committed by prisoners in 2019.
https://imgur.com/a/kW7OGRE

jm08

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am also in the constituency and will be voting.

My reaction to someone presenting me with a sod of turf would be - 'Thank you - I shall burn that and think of you as it burns!' with a nice smile.

It would only bother me if I was dependent on their support so that I could attempt to keep my job as a TD.

retalivity

retalivity wrote: »

A lot of the 18-24yos in this constituency will never have to worry about getting a house too far away, Mammy and Daddy will just dig them out with the million or so required. FG is a natural home for them, socially left enough (Abortion and Gay marriage delivered), but not full of republicans who would disrupt the west-britness of the area.

Ah come on.

House prices are the single biggest issue in DBS.

On my road, where I used to live, I would estimate almost 1 in 10 have kids of school age, nearly everyone else has adult children. So the houses should be pretty low-stocked, right? No, nearly everyone with kids under 35 has their kids still living at home, some of them with girlfriends and boyfriends living there too. It's crazy trying to get parking. I can't imagine what it's like in the houses, because these aren't mansions by any measure.

It's crazy. None of these kids can realistically afford to live in the constituency, and some of them will probably never own a home. This can't go on.

jackboy

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's crazy. None of these kids can realistically afford to live in the constituency, and some of them will probably never own a home. This can't go on.

It can go on. Sure FG man is leading the polls. These housing policies are what the people want.

...Ghost...

jm08 wrote: »

From that article in the IT, it seems it was an international conference on female prisoners human rights. I have no idea why Mattie McGrath would want to go to that

Could be that half his constituents are women and he wanted an input on the issue. He wouldn't be the first man to work for the betterment of women. The real issue is that he was blocked from going simply because he is a man.

Ivana does this type of thing all the time, but not on that level. It's mainly college appearances for women only attendees. Males are often not welcome where she happens to be involved.

There are only two women's prisoners in Ireland (Women's wing in Limerick Prison and the Dochas Centre in Mountjoy). It seems they are very short of facilities and are overcroweded anyway (I saw a quote where Mountjoy has a capacity for 105 women with about 140 women houses there). And according to this article, 95% of crimes committed by women are petty.
https://www.thejournal.ie/women-prison-ireland-petty-crime-4596708-Apr2019/


Here is a breakdown of offences committed by prisoners in 2019.
https://imgur.com/a/kW7OGRE

The article you linked seems a bit bias to me. It reads like a bleedin' sob story and places no responsibility on the women at all. I wouldn't consider a difference of 16% for male v female petty crimes to be "significantly" different. So, 95% of women prisoners and 79% of male prisoners' are behind bars for petty crimes. I expected to see a bigger gap if i'm being completely honest.

Aside from the above, it's an undisputed fact that women receive shorter sentences, or no sentence at all for the same crime committed by a man. So, if things were truly equal, that percentage could look very different. Have you actually read the article? It's a real eye-roller. Literally everything the "journalist" (using that title lightly) writes effects men and their accompanying minorities in the same way and disproportionally.

Sam Russell

jackboy wrote: »

It can go on. Sure FG man is leading the polls. These housing policies are what the people want.

No, it beggars belief what is going on re housing. There is a housing shortage and there are few houses being built - none directly by the Gov. They talk of shared ownership which is increasing demand without increasing supply, which pushes up prices.

They owned the Glass Bottle site, so why not fund DCC to build social housing, instead they sold it to build private housing with 10% social housing requirement.

They pay out millions in HAP support while allowing landlords to increase rents, which increases the HAP support.

They banned evictions for a while but they are back on. Surely evictions should only be allowed if the rent is not being paid or the tenant is behaving in an anti-social way.

Housing in the number one issue with no doubt at all - but whoever wins will have zero effect on the policy.

L1011

jackboy wrote: »

It can go on. Sure FG man is leading the polls. These housing policies are what the people want.

Leading the polls with under 30% of the vote. This isn't a two-party system.

iffandonlyif

jm08 wrote: »

I live in the constituency as well (not far from Kate's pharamacy in Rathgar), and I'm a ''bogger'' just like Kate. My take from being presented with a sod of turf from someone from Rathgar as a symbol of ''you are not one of us.'' I note you have not explained why someone was considering putting a sign pointing to the M50 outside the pharmacy.

As to how she would know what was planned - there are plenty of ''boggers'' in FG Party in the Constituency who would not be too happy about how she was treated, because basically, they are disrespecting them as well.

I don’t believe you for a second! If people were to read this thread they’d think presentation of sods was some sort of D4 mafia ritual.

So, they hatched this plan in the knowledge of the out-of-towners in the constituency, oblivious to the collateral damage?

retalivity wrote: »

A lot of the 18-24yos in this constituency will never have to worry about getting a house too far away, Mammy and Daddy will just dig them out with the million or so required. FG is a natural home for them, socially left enough (Abortion and Gay marriage delivered), but not full of republicans who would disrupt the west-britness of the area.

Groan. The people you’re referring to don’t call their mothers mammy or mam. That comes from the same place as your delusional prejudice.

jackboy

L1011 wrote: »

Leading the polls with under 30% of the vote. This isn't a two-party system.

It pretty much is a two party system. FFG or SF are the choices. The others are too small to lead.

SF may do no better on housing but FFG are 100% guaranteed to continue making a mess of housing.

iffandonlyif

iffandonlyif wrote: »

Twenty-two years older. Is that well over twenty?

Well it's certainly "well older" whatever way you look at it!

"But Shure look" at least the old formula of "age difference in years X 3 million euro" being less than Hugo's net worth falling true

So all is right with the world

No need for Jennifer to be sweating on the chances of getting a ministerial pension

Darc19

jackboy wrote: »

It pretty much is a two party system. FFG or SF are the choices. The others are too small to lead.

SF may do no better on housing but FFG are 100% guaranteed to continue making a mess of housing.

SF/IRA will always have trouble getting the middle class vote and they are very unlikely to make further inroads.

They are not transfer friendly except from other "hard left tax the hell out of people" parties and if FF and Labour start getting some support back, SF/IRA vote will drop back.


Next week will certainly be interesting. I suspect that Ms Boylan will do well get 12%

zell12

It was a tongue in cheek comment, but most homeowners would agree with SF policy...to abolish property tax!

RandomViewer

L1011 wrote: »

Leading the polls with under 30% of the vote. This isn't a two-party system.

It's a poll of 500 with the 18% who didn't give a preference removed so closer to 20%

jm08

...Ghost... wrote: »

Could be that half his constituents are women and he wanted an input on the issue. He wouldn't be the first man to work for the betterment of women. The real issue is that he was blocked from going simply because he is a man.

He wasn't invited.

Ivana does this type of thing all the time, but not on that level. It's mainly college appearances for women only attendees. Males are often not welcome where she happens to be involved.

I would not know about that. I only read about her contributions in the Seanad etc.

The article you linked seems a bit bias to me. It reads like a bleedin' sob story and places no responsibility on the women at all. I wouldn't consider a difference of 16% for male v female petty crimes to be "significantly" different. So, 95% of women prisoners and 79% of male prisoners' are behind bars for petty crimes. I expected to see a bigger gap if i'm being completely honest.

Well, lets look at who commit what crimes.

Homicides: Female 2; Male 34.
sexual offences: Female: 2; Male 185.


Can you see where this is going yet? If you don't: Men commit far more serious crimes than women. The prison population ratio is 6:1 (Male: Female).

Aside from the above, it's an undisputed fact that women receive shorter sentences, or no sentence at all for the same crime committed by a man. So, if things were truly equal, that percentage could look very different. Have you actually read the article? It's a real eye-roller. Literally everything the "journalist" (using that title lightly) writes effects men and their accompanying minorities in the same way and disproportionally.

Can you provide me with any evidence of women getting lighter sentences for the same crimes?

iffandonlyif

jackboy wrote: »

It pretty much is a two party system. FFG or SF are the choices. The others are too small to lead.

If we group two parties together, and ignore all but SF, it’s a two-party system! Lovely work.