Dublin Bay South By-Election

Sam Russell

Blut2 wrote: »

Its unlikely. The Housing Minister himself, who you would expect to be optimistic for political reasons alone, is forecasting the 12-14,000 range:




https://extra.ie/2021/05/04/business/property/housing-minister-homes

Rule 1: The only way to actually combat the shortage of houses is to build more houses.

Rule 2: If the private sector cannot build houses fast enough or cheap enough the the Gov/Local Authority/Housing Associations should build them. If they cannot build them through lack of expertise, they should get that expertise.

Rule 3: If the houses cost too much then give VAT relief - can you believe houses pay 13% VAT. Maybe give relief only on houses below a price people can afford.

Rule 4: If people are getting evicted from rental properties for no fault of their own, then prohibit such activity - if necessary by law, and if that is considered unconstitutional - then change the constitution. Why property rights of owners trumps tenants who pay rent I fail to understand. Surely, if you have a lease, then you have ownership rights within the terms of that lease while that lease is in force.

Rule 5: Approximately 30% of the population cannot (and never will be) afford to purchase their own home. Social housing is there to cover these people, as is unemployment benefit there to shelter those that cannot work.

So, to solve the shortage of houses see rule 1 - build houses - lots of them. How difficult can it be?

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

So, to solve the shortage of houses see rule 1 - build houses - lots of them. How difficult can it be?

I agree entirely.

Grand, but....
- dont build budget houses, they should all be a rated.
- don't build skyscrapers (anything over 3 stories in ireland)
- don't build apartments, "its houses people want"
- dont use the hated developers
- don't let big funds buy them
- don't let small landlords buy them
- dont have social housing beside me
- dont gentrify an area by building anything but social
- don't build rentals for professional, its also gentrification
- dont build anything overlooking my house
- dont build anything in a green area
- don't knock any old factories for housing, the council will make them listed, for being "architecturally significant"
- the traffic is too much already and the schools are filled to capacity
- build thousands of social houses but don't you DARE raise taxes

Etc etc etc etc


I'm glad I'm not in politics :pac:

Sam Russell

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I agree entirely.

Grand, but....
- dont build budget houses, they should all be a rated.
- don't build skyscrapers (anything over 3 stories in ireland)
- don't build apartments, "its houses people want"
- dont use the hated developers
- don't let big funds buy them
- don't let small landlords buy them
- dont have social housing beside me
- dont gentrify an area by building anything but social
- don't build rentals for professional, its also gentrification
- dont build anything overlooking my house
- dont build anything in a green area
- don't knock any old factories for housing, the council will make them listed, for being "architecturally significant"
- the traffic is too much already and the schools are filled to capacity
- build thousands of social houses but don't you DARE raise taxes

Etc etc etc etc


I'm glad I'm not in politics :pac:

You cannot solve the pandemic because :-

The people would have to self isolate in their homes.
Older people would have to remain at home - for maybe a year.
The tourist business would have to be shutdown.
Construction industry would have to shut down.
Non essential business would have to shut down.
People would have to work from home.
The pubs would have to shut down.
We would have to pay people out of work a lot more than dole.
We would have to let businesses off their rates.
We would have to bail out most businesses with grants and soft loans.
People would have to keep to within 5 km of for exercise.
We would have to ban unnecessary travel.
We would have to bring in compulsory quarantine for some arrivals.

Now how can we deal with a pandemic without doing all these things?

Answer: We cannot so we will do them anyway. We will survive, at least until we vaccinate everyone. [At least we had a meaningful Christmas!]


How can we build houses for the homeless?

Answer: By building houses - lots of them. Subsidise them for those that cannot afford them, or rent them at subsidised rents (you know like council houses used to be) or reduce the taxes collected when building them. Otherwise, change the laws if that is what it takes. Change the constitution if that is what it takes.

Or buy loads of tents and pitch them in St Steven's Green and the Phoenix Park. If you are a politician, be the first to take up residence in one of the tents.

[Do not hold your breath over that last one!]

Blut2

Its crazy to me that we have yet to introduce some sort of property tax to encourage the better use of the property we do have (and scare off cuckoo funds, now that the public is baying for it). A 1-2% a year property tax on any property, with an exemption for your primary personal residence (ie where you live) would be extremely popular with the public, with raise lots of tax revenue, and would ensure very few housing units in the country are left empty.

Thats something that could have a very immediate effect on the property market, in a way that the long term plans to build X tens of thousands of units doesn't.

Sam Russell

Blut2 wrote: »

Its crazy to me that we have yet to introduce some sort of property tax to encourage the better use of the property we do have (and scare off cuckoo funds, now that the public is baying for it). A 1-2% a year property tax on any property, with an exemption for your primary personal residence (ie where you live) would be extremely popular with the public, with raise lots of tax revenue, and would ensure very few housing units in the country are left empty.

Thats something that could have a very immediate effect on the property market, in a way that the long term plans to build X tens of thousands of units doesn't.

Security of tenure first - end no-fault evictions. If you pay your rent, and are not anti-social, and are not breaking the place up - then you cannot be evicted. If the landlord wants to sell - the 'tenant not affected'. If the property needs to be upgraded, then landlord provides equivalent or better at current rent - with tenants acceptance - or it is left as is. [Repairs must be carried out anyway].

Prevent rent rises is the second action.

Good loser

Sam Russell wrote: »

Security of tenure first - end no-fault evictions. If you pay your rent, and are not anti-social, and are not breaking the place up - then you cannot be evicted. If the landlord wants to sell - the 'tenant not affected'. If the property needs to be upgraded, then landlord provides equivalent or better at current rent - with tenants acceptance - or it is left as is. [Repairs must be carried out anyway].

Prevent rent rises is the second action.

Your suggestions make no sense whatsoever.

Effectively the tenant gets permanent occupation of the house as soon as he /she rents it. (Takes a lease).
Why then would anyone buy a house? when you can lease one and have open ended possession.
Equally why would anyone rent out a house and lose control/ownership rights by doing so.

The more the State provides houses and the cheaper, the less incentive there is for people to go out and buy their own houses in the market

Sam Russell

Good loser wrote: »

Your suggestions make no sense whatsoever.

Effectively the tenant gets permanent occupation of the house as soon as he /she rents it. (Takes a lease).
Why then would anyone buy a house? when you can lease one and have open ended possession.
Equally why would anyone rent out a house and lose control/ownership rights by doing so.

The more the State provides houses and the cheaper, the less incentive there is for people to go out and buy their own houses in the market

Leases have an end date - as do commercial leases.

Lease can have a rent review clause - as do commercial leases.

When a lease is agreed, the lessee gets the property rights as long as the lease terms are respected including the term.

About 30% of people will never be wealthy enough to own their own house - for lots reasons. They need to be housed. Currently renting is less affordable than buying. A lot of people are homeless because of this.

Good loser

Sam Russell wrote: »

Rule 1: The only way to actually combat the shortage of houses is to build more houses.

Rule 2: If the private sector cannot build houses fast enough or cheap enough the the Gov/Local Authority/Housing Associations should build them. If they cannot build them through lack of expertise, they should get that expertise.

Rule 3: If the houses cost too much then give VAT relief - can you believe houses pay 13% VAT. Maybe give relief only on houses below a price people can afford.

Rule 4: If people are getting evicted from rental properties for no fault of their own, then prohibit such activity - if necessary by law, and if that is considered unconstitutional - then change the constitution. Why property rights of owners trumps tenants who pay rent I fail to understand. Surely, if you have a lease, then you have ownership rights within the terms of that lease while that lease is in force.

Rule 5: Approximately 30% of the population cannot (and never will be) afford to purchase their own home. Social housing is there to cover these people, as is unemployment benefit there to shelter those that cannot work.

So, to solve the shortage of houses see rule 1 - build houses - lots of them. How difficult can it be?

The answer to your last question - extremely difficult; if it was easy the State would oblige. If houses cost €5,000 a pop or €20,000 like a car, providing them would be no problem but they cost €350 K each so €1 million for three.

It's tiresome to hear those who trot out what they call the 'O Cuallan Model' as an example of how houses could be built for 175 K or 200 K. And they propose this model be replicated country wide. As far as I know there was no site cost (expect 25% of total), devel. charges were waived and there was no builder's profit.
Anybody with cop-on, experience of building, business know how or even common sense (that excludes SF and their fellow travellers) knows that houses can/should only be budgeted on the basis of current construction and development costs. Effectively the prices houses are selling for in the open market.
There are no short cuts to solving our housing crisis - it will cost billions and billions and billions.

Good loser

Sam Russell wrote: »

Leases have an end date - as do commercial leases.

Lease can have a rent review clause - as do commercial leases.

When a lease is agreed, the lessee gets the property rights as long as the lease terms are respected including the term.

About 30% of people will never be wealthy enough to own their own house - for lots reasons. They need to be housed. Currently renting is less affordable than buying. A lot of people are homeless because of this.

In the post I replied to you made no reference to leases; I assumed naturally that you meant possession alone gave you all those rights.
Personally I think leases should preferably be left to the open market as much as possible with the tenant and landlord freely negotiating the terms.
This is not the case in Ireland at the moment.

I have no issues with your last paragraph.

Sam Russell

Good loser wrote: »

In the post I replied to you made no reference to leases; I assumed naturally that you meant possession alone gave you all those rights.
Personally I think leases should preferably be left to the open market as much as possible with the tenant and landlord freely negotiating the terms.
This is not the case in Ireland at the moment.

I have no issues with your last paragraph.

Leases should be of a standard is clearly laid out s both sides know what is involved. This is so for purchasing or a mortgage - no funny clauses or sneaky get outs. Pay the rent and respect the property and neighbours then the tenant is secure. Whatever the landlord wishes to do, the tenant was secure.

Rent should be secure for three years at a minimum, none of this yearly jack up the rent every year.

blanch152

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I agree entirely.

Grand, but....
- dont build budget houses, they should all be a rated.
- don't build skyscrapers (anything over 3 stories in ireland)
- don't build apartments, "its houses people want"
- dont use the hated developers
- don't let big funds buy them
- don't let small landlords buy them
- dont have social housing beside me
- dont gentrify an area by building anything but social
- don't build rentals for professional, its also gentrification
- dont build anything overlooking my house
- dont build anything in a green area
- don't knock any old factories for housing, the council will make them listed, for being "architecturally significant"
- the traffic is too much already and the schools are filled to capacity
- build thousands of social houses but don't you DARE raise taxes

Etc etc etc etc


I'm glad I'm not in politics :pac:

You couldn't have summed up the problem more effectively and highlighted the politicians who constantly speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue.

We cannot solve the problem of housing without high-rise, high-density provision within the canals of Dublin, yet you won't get a single politician who will both say this and follow through with action.

blackwhite

On the actual thread topic

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-gambles-on-fine-gael-prodigal-son-who-returned-from-renua-exile-40411266.html

Before candidates started being announced I would have had FG as the firm favourites to take this seat, but I think that Geoghegen might be a candidate that could cost them.

Given his short-lived defection to Renua he'll have the whiff of anti-choice, etc. off of him - whether or not those are actually his views or not. A very easy stick for opponents to beat him with, especially in such a liberal-minded constituency.

Latest PP Odds - still showing some fairly speculative candidates also.

Geoghegan 1/3
Boylan 6/1
Bacik 7/1
Chu 10/1
Byrne 16/1
Conroy 16/1
McDowell 20/1
O'Connor 33/1
Creighton 40/1
McHugh 100/1


EDIT
Also fairly obvious from the Indo's coverage over past few days that KoC has been getting her side of the story across quite strongly. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see her express support for Bacik or Chu closer to the election.

Brussels Sprout

blackwhite wrote: »

Also fairly obvious from the Indo's coverage over past few days that KoC has been getting her side of the story across quite strongly. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see her express support for Bacik or Chu closer to the election.

I'd be very surprised if she did that as that'd be the end of any potential FG comeback. Listening to her on the radio last week and reading in between the lines it sounds like she's going to try and wait until Varadkar is gone before giving things another shot.

People in FG will forgive her for falling out with Varadkar but they'd never forgive her for backing a candidate from a different party.

Oymyakon

blackwhite wrote: »

Latest PP Odds - still showing some fairly speculative candidates also.

Geoghegan 1/3
Boylan 6/1
Bacik 7/1
Chu 10/1
Byrne 16/1
Conroy 16/1
McDowell 20/1
O'Connor 33/1
Creighton 40/1
McHugh 100/1

Would be interested to see how the bookies price the Green candidate after they've been confirmed, my guess would be about 5/1, perhaps slightly shorter if it's Chu.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

For what? The damn thing won't be held until November.

The Government are not stupid enough to ignore the kind of vaccine bounce that Boris got in Hartlepool today. They'll wait to hold it until the day before a big rugby game in a full Aviva this Autumn with ads saying "Say thank you Meehole and Leo"

Election to be held in early July

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/byelection-in-dublin-bay-south-expected-to-take-place-in-early-july-1.4567262%3fmode=amp

JPup

I'm surprised FG are such short odds. Whoever emerges as the leader among the green/labour/soc dem candidates will hoover up preferences from all around including SF and PPP*.

Brussels Sprout

https://twitter.com/NextIrishGE/status/1394234902908899338


That makes things very interesting. I guess the government parties are banking on their key demographics to have all been vaccinated by then.

RandomViewer

JPup wrote: »

I'm surprised FG are such short odds. Whoever emerges as the leader among the green/labour/soc dem candidates will hoover up preferences from all around including SF and PPP*.

Green will be hoping for FG votes, nothing else will be going their way, political equivalent of Bothar at this stage

L1011

Geoghegan is claiming he doesn't support the policies of the party he co-founded (Renua on abortion, which was their only real policy anyway so an extremely odd claim) or the party he represents (FG on housing)

awec

Was Geoghegan the only show in town for FG here (outside of O'Connell) ?

Larbre34

No I doubt there was any another FG candidate in the frame. A parachute job in a by election would have caused all sorts of long term mess.

I did think they might consider Senator Barry Ward, but there was never so much as a whisper about it so I was wrong there.

Brussels Sprout

L1011 wrote: »

Geoghegan is claiming he doesn't support the policies of the party he co-founded (Renua on abortion, which was their only real policy anyway so an extremely odd claim) or the party he represents (FG on housing)

Renua didn't have an official stance on abortion when Creighton was leader. Instead they said they would give any elected TDs a free vote on "votes of conscious". Eddie Hobbs, was their President and said that he was pro-choice himself.

Basically they were afraid that if they went fully pro-life it would put a ceiling on their potential electorate. Of course that ended up happening anyway since most people assumed that they were pro-life since all of their sitting TDs had left FG due to their pro-life stance.

After they lost all their seats in 2016 and Creighton left, the next leader, John Leahy, changed the official party position to make them a pro-life party. When he himself left in turn they went full on nativist, right-wing catholic and teamed up with the Nationalist Party and the IFP at the last election. It really was a fascinating descent in the space of a single election cycle.

PommieBast

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Basically they were afraid that if they went fully pro-life it would put a ceiling on their potential electorate. Of course that ended up happening anyway since most people assumed that they were pro-life since all of their sitting TDs had left FG due to their pro-life stance.

I remember back in 2016 making a serious effort to read all the parties' manifestos and even though I was pig-ignorant on Renua's anti-abortion background they still came across as a socially conservative dustbin for which their economic policies were second fiddle.

Blut2

Geoghegan when asked about the Renua issue these days says he joined for the economic reasons, that he saw them as becoming a second coming of the PDs.

But I'd really wonder about that. The social conservatism was so core to Renua, I doubt anyone would have joined without being at least somewhat in agreement with them on that.

expectationlost

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Renua didn't have an official stance on abortion when Creighton was leader. Instead they said they would give any elected TDs a free vote on "votes of conscious". Eddie Hobbs, was their President and said that he was pro-choice himself.

Basically they were afraid that if they went fully pro-life it would put a ceiling on their potential electorate. Of course that ended up happening anyway since most people assumed that they were pro-life since all of their sitting TDs had left FG due to their pro-life stance.

After they lost all their seats in 2016 and Creighton left, the next leader, John Leahy, changed the official party position to make them a pro-life party. When he himself left in turn they went full on nativist, right-wing catholic and teamed up with the Nationalist Party and the IFP at the last election. It really was a fascinating descent in the space of a single election cycle.

and Geoghegan and Creighton left hundreds of thousands in state funding to that lot

Brussels Sprout

expectationlost wrote: »

and Geoghegan and Creighton left hundreds of thousands in state funding to that lot

To be fair the absolute loons only took over in 2019. John Leahy acted as a sort of fire-break between Creighton and the "bring back the latin mass and public executions" crowd

Sam Russell

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

To be fair the absolute loons only took over in 2019. John Leahy acted as a sort of fire-break between Creighton and the "bring back the latin mass and public executions" crowd

I thought they were pro life. Possibly only some of them - or possibly only some lives.

timmyntc

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought they were pro life. Possibly only some of them - or possibly only some lives.

Pro life that may one day grow up to vote for them.
Criminals would never vote for Renua though, so they had to make sure they couldnt vote for someone else!

Brussels Sprout

just for the record I was joking about the public executions. I couldn't actually find their 2020 manifesto.

Sam Russell

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

just for the record I was joking about the public executions. I couldn't actually find their 2020 manifesto.

That is OK, so was I.

L1011

FF are running Deirdre Conroy. Bad choice and feels like it's a deliberate attempt not to annoy O'Callaghan

Brussels Sprout

L1011 wrote: »

FF are running Deirdre Conroy. Bad choice and feels like it's a deliberate attempt not to annoy O'Callaghan

It was an odd decision to make the sitting T.D. the director of elections for the by-election. Everyone knows that there isn't 2 FF seats in this constituency. They only ran a single party in the general election last year and O'Callaghan got in on the final count. He therefore has a vested interest in them not winning the by-election.

It will be interesting to see if Conroy attacks Geoghegan on the campaign trail or will they present a united, centrist front. Her transfers will be crucial in getting him elected.

Larbre34

Of course FF and FG won't be united, one of them wants to win.

Its between Geoghegan and Bacik now already.

Blut2

I can't see Bacik getting anywhere close. She to date has lost elections in:

Dublin Constituency for the European Parliament 2004
Dublin Central Constituency 2009
Dun Laoghaire Constituency 2011

How on earth does she keep getting chances to run? Shes by all accounts a terrible campaigner, and her extensive electoral history of failure reflects this.

KevRossi

Current odds, now that the candidates are becoming a lot clearer. Seems fairly clear cut.

https://www.paddypower.com/politics/irish-politics


James Geoghegan 1/3

Ivana Bacik 5/1

Lynn Boylan 6/1

Claire Byrne 12/1

Hazel Chu 16/1

Deirdre Conroy 16/1

expectationlost

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

It was an odd decision to make the sitting T.D. the director of elections for the by-election. Everyone knows that there isn't 2 FF seats in this constituency. They only ran a single party in the general election last year and O'Callaghan got in on the final count. He therefore has a vested interest in them not winning the by-election.

It will be interesting to see if Conroy attacks Geoghegan on the campaign trail or will they present a united, centrist front. Her transfers will be crucial in getting him elected.

leaning hard on the word present there cos neither Conroy of Geoghegan are centrists

Marcusm

expectationlost wrote: »

leaning hard on the word present there cos neither Conroy of Geoghegan are centrists

In person he comes off as a complete chinless wonder, a more vacuous version of Eoghan Murphy who appears ultra competent by comparison.

L1011

Blut2 wrote: »

I can't see Bacik getting anywhere close. She to date has lost elections in:

Dublin Constituency for the European Parliament 2004
Dublin Central Constituency 2009
Dun Laoghaire Constituency 2011

How on earth does she keep getting chances to run? Shes by all accounts a terrible campaigner, and her extensive electoral history of failure reflects this.

This is massively overblown, generally by people who dislike Bacik. Its never said about other candidates - SF's TD for Dublin West lost five Dail elections and two council elections - three is nothing.

In particularly. the Euro election was a PR run - she was a second candidate for a party who could only get one seat, which they did at a canter.

The Dublin Central by-election was also a PR run, but she came a solid third.

The Dun Laoghaire GE run was the only serious one and she was a handful of votes off the candidate who got the last seat at elimination; again as the second candidate for a party. Very narrow loss, nothing more.

Blut2

L1011 wrote: »

This is massively overblown, generally by people who dislike Bacik. Its never said about other candidates - SF's TD for Dublin West lost five Dail elections and two council elections - three is nothing.

In particularly. the Euro election was a PR run - she was a second candidate for a party who could only get one seat, which they did at a canter.

The Dublin Central by-election was also a PR run, but she came a solid third.

The Dun Laoghaire GE run was the only serious one and she was a handful of votes off the candidate who got the last seat at elimination; again as the second candidate for a party. Very narrow loss, nothing more.

I don't think its terribly overblown, the facts (ie election losses) speak for themselves. Odds are shes going to add a 4th electoral loss this year to that record too, in a 4th constituency.

Maybe it'll be 5th time lucky being parachuted into a 5th different constituency.... but I'd just personally rather see someone a bit more electable, with a bit less baggage, on the Labour ticket.

L1011

The facts are that she narrowly lost in the only election she had a chance of winning. The other two were PR runs in which she did as expected.

No other candidate gets the same level of ridiculousness about their past performance.

RandomViewer

L1011 wrote: »

This is massively overblown, generally by people who dislike Bacik. Its never said about other candidates - SF's TD for Dublin West lost five Dail elections and two council elections - three is nothing.

In particularly. the Euro election was a PR run - she was a second candidate for a party who could only get one seat, which they did at a canter.

The Dublin Central by-election was also a PR run, but she came a solid third.

The Dun Laoghaire GE run was the only serious one and she was a handful of votes off the candidate who got the last seat at elimination; again as the second candidate for a party. Very narrow loss, nothing more.

She doesn't come across well, sort of Jo Brand vibe

golfball37

L1011 wrote: »

The facts are that she narrowly lost in the only election she had a chance of winning. The other two were PR runs in which she did as expected.

No other candidate gets the same level of ridiculousness about their past performance.

That’s because no other candidate keeps being put on a ticket despite her losing record.

blanch152

L1011 wrote: »

This is massively overblown, generally by people who dislike Bacik. Its never said about other candidates - SF's TD for Dublin West lost five Dail elections and two council elections - three is nothing.

In particularly. the Euro election was a PR run - she was a second candidate for a party who could only get one seat, which they did at a canter.

The Dublin Central by-election was also a PR run, but she came a solid third.

The Dun Laoghaire GE run was the only serious one and she was a handful of votes off the candidate who got the last seat at elimination; again as the second candidate for a party. Very narrow loss, nothing more.

For Bacik, it really depends on how widely the vote is split, and how close she is to Geoghegan. If he gets 25%, and she gets 19%, as first and second, all bets are off, as all the pro-choice voters and anti-government voters in other parties - SF, SD, PBP, etc. - transfer to her. As against that, lots of FF voters won't like her. Her best chance is non-transferable votes, eventually winning the election with something like 38% to 37%, with 25% non-transferable.

Marcusm

blanch152 wrote: »

For Bacik, it really depends on how widely the vote is split, and how close she is to Geoghegan. If he gets 25%, and she gets 19%, as first and second, all bets are off, as all the pro-choice voters and anti-government voters in other parties - SF, SD, PBP, etc. - transfer to her. As against that, lots of FF voters won't like her. Her best chance is non-transferable votes, eventually winning the election with something like 38% to 37%, with 25% non-transferable.

More importantly than SF/SD/PBP, she’ll attract a lot of Green transfers. She’ll surely also be more popular for FF 2nd preferences than an FGer.

AndrewJRenko

Blut2 wrote: »

I can't see Bacik getting anywhere close. She to date has lost elections in:

Dublin Constituency for the European Parliament 2004
Dublin Central Constituency 2009
Dun Laoghaire Constituency 2011

How on earth does she keep getting chances to run? Shes by all accounts a terrible campaigner, and her extensive electoral history of failure reflects this.

Possibly because she keeps winning Seanad elections.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Possibly because she keeps winning Seanad elections.

General elections have ordinary people voting in them though.

blackwhite

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Possibly because she keeps winning Seanad elections.

So does Ronan Mullen. Yet I doubt many people would put their money on him winning a Dáil seat in any constituency.


The difference between Bacik's record in elections and the many others whom have lost a number of times before finally getting in is that there's an impression that Labour have kept parachuting her into different races, instead of having her put in the hard work of building a presence and reputation in a single constituency.

Blut2

blackwhite wrote: »

The difference between Bacik's record in elections and the many others whom have lost a number of times before finally getting in is that there's an impression that Labour have kept parachuting her into different races, instead of having her put in the hard work of building a presence and reputation in a single constituency.

This would be my biggest issue with her. Theres nothing wrong with running multiple times in the same constituency, while you're working away building local support as a county councilor on local issues. Thats a tried and tested path to success. But Bacik is just repeatedly parachuted into different constituencies where she has no local support, has never done any local work, and has no hope of winning - to the waste of valuable party resources, and a rare general election spot.

It would make far more sense to have a local Labour activist/county councilor from the area running and building up support and name brand recognition for themselves, who's committed to the area for the long term.

Bacik is just going to lose again in Dublin Bay South (for the 4th time, in a 4th constituency) now. And presumably then get parachuted into a 5th different leafy Dublin constituency in a few years so they also get their turn to reject her - Dublin Rathdown maybe?

AndrewJRenko

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

General elections have ordinary people voting in them though.

The ordinary people of DBS would have a fair sprinkling of Trinity graduates in there, probably more than any other constituency in the country, except maybe DL.

Blut2 wrote: »

This would be my biggest issue with her. Theres nothing wrong with running multiple times in the same constituency, while you're working away building local support as a county councilor on local issues. Thats a tried and tested path to success. But Bacik is just repeatedly parachuted into different constituencies where she has no local support, has never done any local work, and has no hope of winning - to the waste of valuable party resources, and a rare general election spot.

It would make far more sense to have a local Labour activist/county councilor from the area running and building up support and name brand recognition for themselves, who's committed to the area for the long term.

Bacik is just going to lose again in Dublin Bay South (for the 4th time, in a 4th constituency) now. And presumably then get parachuted into a 5th different leafy Dublin constituency in a few years so they also get their turn to reject her - Dublin Rathdown maybe?

Things work different in smaller parties. She has strong recognition amongst Trinity graduates, of which DBS and DL would be well populated.

blackwhite wrote: »

So does Ronan Mullen. Yet I doubt many people would put their money on him winning a Dáil seat in any constituency.


The difference between Bacik's record in elections and the many others whom have lost a number of times before finally getting in is that there's an impression that Labour have kept parachuting her into different races, instead of having her put in the hard work of building a presence and reputation in a single constituency.

Her work rate in the Seanad is impressive. Would she be a better candidate for a national position if she had spent more time chasing potholes and broken traffic lights in the local authority?

Blut2

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Things work different in smaller parties. She has strong recognition amongst Trinity graduates, of which DBS and DL would be well populated.

Being parachuted into multiple different constituencies, having done no local work as a county councillor, is the exact opposite of what someone from a "small party" should be doing. Smaller parties rely even more on local support bases loyal to an individual than the nationally strong parties that can rely on party brand name.

(though calling Labour a "smaller party" is a bit of a stretch historically)

The number of Trinity graduates, much less ones that have heard of her, much less ones that have heard of her and like her is a tiny tiny proportion of the electorate, even in DBS. Its not a reliable voting bloc, as has been show in her previous electoral performance.