nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

frillyleaf

I’ve heard people saying multiple times that they like certain SF candidates but they won’t vote for them as they are Sinn Fein. Trying to understand why there is such opposite to Sinn Fein? Have looked up online but not getting good info. Surely if someone likes a candidate and what they stand for they should vote for them? Please explain

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

marieholmfan

Skylinehead wrote: »

Question about the manifesto:

SF claim they will build 100,000 houses, at a cost of €6.5 billion.

Am I missing something? There's no way you can build a house for 65 grand.

Of course you can. This is the absolute failure of vision that FG are burdening the country with.

smurgen

facehugger99 wrote: »

Once the money-trees are harvested, they can be felled as used as lumber in the housing construction sector.

It's fully costed by qualified financial experts.not keyboard advisors like yourself.

christy c

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's wonderful stuff right? Personally I think they are doing themselves a disservice when they say they'll only have a surplus of €3 billion in 2025. That's a pessimistic outlook. More realistically we are talking about a surplus of €10-20 billion.

Back to the OP, sh1te like this is why people will not vote SF despite liking their candidates. We had one lad in our constituency who was a councillor and ran in one general election. Heard nothing bit good things about him, but put him in the Dail so he can enact this rubbish? No thanks.

Water meters, children's hospital, etc. will look like loose change in comparison.

Bishop of hope

marieholmfan wrote: »

Of course you can. This is the absolute failure of vision that FG are burdening the country with.

A jesus Marie, no you can't.
Tbf to SF this has been costed and I didn't hear much dissent on the news about it. But you can't build a 3 bed semi for 65000 euro.

christy c

smurgen wrote: »

It's fully costed by qualified financial experts.not keyboard advisors like yourself.

A SF style soundbite here would be "the same experts that wanted us to bail out the banks?".

It used to be that items were costed individually, and does not take in to account the cumulative effect. Don't know if that is still the case.

FrancieBrady

:rolleyes:

Bishop of hope wrote: »

A jesus Marie, no you can't.
Tbf to SF this has been costed and I didn't hear much dissent on the news about it. But you can't build a 3 bed semi for 65000 euro.

Depends. If you were building one...you couldn't. The savings on building 20 though?

It's how developers get fabulously wealthy.

[Deleted User]

Bishop of hope wrote: »

3 bed semi for 65000 euro.

Your not believing hard enough.

The state is legendary for prudence, efficiency, cost effectiveness and on time delivery for their construction projects. :pac:

facehugger99

smurgen wrote: »

It's fully costed by qualified financial experts.not keyboard advisors like yourself.

Fully costed my arse.

Ramp up the taxes the top corporations and earners and assume they won't be on the first plane out of here.

If you believe the fairy stories the Shinners spin you, you deserve to live in a Country governed by them.

Enjoy the unicorns and rainbows.

Finty Lemon

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Your not believing hard enough.

The state is legendary for prudence, efficiency, cost effectiveness and on time delivery for their construction projects. :pac:

You can build them for 50k without planning in South Armagh. Cash payment to the builder. No certs. But living there is not for everyone

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Depends. If you were building one...you couldn't. The savings on building 20 though?

It's how developers get fabulously wealthy.

I work in the costings of houses, and you couldn't.

Edit, if you could then the state could build them and sell them like hot cakes for 100000 say and make 35k profit per house, I could too and I'd be happy if I could, I wouldn't be sitting in my office working for a living.

Finty Lemon

Slab homes I believe they're called

facehugger99

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I work in the costings of houses, and you couldn't.

Pearse Doherty, as a qualified engineer, can probably come up with an innovative way to do it though.

Oh wait, - he dropped out of college.

Never mind.

smurgen

facehugger99 wrote: »

Fully costed my arse.

Ramp up the taxes the top corporations and earners and assume they won't be on the first plane out of here.

If you believe the fairy stories the Shinners spin you, you deserve to live in a Country governed by them.

Enjoy the unicorns and rainbows.

Link? Here who do you believe? Fg who had a sod turning in the non existent event center in cork four years ago? Ye Finnerbots gonna get some dose of reality.

astrofool

efanton wrote: »

Hold on a minute.

The SF manifesto is independently costed by an auditing company (KPMG, Deloitte, PWC etc) as well by the department of finance run by a FG government. As are all the alternative budgets.

The same goes for all the major political parties. FF, FG , LAB, SF.
If you have problems with their numbers and where the money is coming from then you can only point the finger at the Department of Finance or the company that did the audit.

To be fair to SF they are not saying this money is coming from no where. They openly admit to raising taxation, reducing some allowances, and totally axing altogether some existing spending programs.

FF are definitely not as openly honest about additional taxation, and we get that FG do not want to spend any additional money at all if they can possibly get away with it so its easy for them to use the argument that other parties raise taxes.

But if people want better services, more social housing, and a reduction of the burden of taxation on those that least can afford it they have to accept that increased taxes, or restructuring of tax bands is the only way to do it. Most understand that and agree with that if those improvement are actually delivered.
The problem is previous governments have made promises that they never came close to delivering.

You've got to imagine the squinting the auditors did at their plan to tax the most mobile entities much more to make the numbers balance, the likes of KPMG would be the first ones out if SF are ever likely to get a sniff of power.

christy c

smurgen wrote: »

Ye Finnerbots gonna get some dose of reality.

The irony in someone defending the SF manifesto and talking about reality is amusing.

Also where did the childish "Finnberbots" come from?

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I work in the costings of houses, and you couldn't.

I got the house I built 'costed' and it was built for a hell of a lot less because I shopped around and made sure I got value for my money.
There were plenty including the quantity surveyor who would have taken more if they got away with it.

I'd imagine these costs are based on economies of scale. Probably on the low side, granted.

efanton

facehugger99 wrote: »

Fully costed my arse.

Ramp up the taxes the top corporations and earners and assume they won't be on the first plane out of here.

If you believe the fairy stories the Shinners spin you, you deserve to live in a Country governed by them.

Enjoy the unicorns and rainbows.

Do you make it up as you go along?
Where did ANY party say it was going to touch corporation tax?

Yes they are going to tax the higher end off the income spectrum.

Taxation on income is a tax on personal wealth, not businesses or corporations.
The very few that actually had the power to pull the plug on any foreign business operating here is very very few indeed, almost all of which do not reside in this country.
The worst they would do is adjust their business costs so that their higher payed employees are not affected.

For the vast majority that are on 140k a year they are employees, and definitely do not have the power to relocate the business they work for, so you argument is a moot point.

astrofool

facehugger99 wrote: »

Pearse Doherty, as a qualified engineer, can probably come up with an innovative way to do it though.

Oh wait, - he dropped out of college.

Never mind.

They'll have Thomas McFeely ready to start the concrete pouring (pyrite added for no extra fee).

James Brown

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Your not believing hard enough.

The state is legendary for prudence, efficiency, cost effectiveness and on time delivery for their construction projects. :pac:

Maybe we need make a change from FF/FG so?

astrofool

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I got the house I built 'costed' and it was built for a hell of a lot less because I shopped around and made sure I got value for my money.
There were plenty including the quantity surveyor who would have taken more if they got away with it.

I'd imagine these costs are based on economies of scale. Probably on the low side, granted.

I believe SF call it shotgun negotiation (sorry, couldn't resist :pac:)

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I got the house I built 'costed' and it was built for a hell of a lot less because I shopped around and made sure I got value for my money.
There were plenty including the quantity surveyor who would have taken more if they got away with it.

I'd imagine these costs are based on economies of scale. Probably on the low side, granted.

How much and when?

facehugger99

In some ways I'd love to be stupid enough to vote SF.

It must be very comforting to be able to reduce complex matters of economy down to a placard scrawl or megaphone bellow.

James Brown

astrofool wrote: »

I believe SF call it shotgun negotiation (sorry, couldn't resist :pac:)

Be a change from FF/FG criminality not on the tax payers behalf.

marieholmfan

At €65,000 a house there will be nothing left for politicians accounts in the Cayman islands.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

How much and when?

What difference is that info gonna make? I have no intention of telling you.
There was a considerable difference.

astrofool

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Be a change from FF/FG criminality not on the tax payers behalf.

New SF Slogan:
Why vote for wannabe criminals, when you can vote for actual criminals

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

In some ways I'd love to be stupid enough to vote SF.

It must be very comforting to be able to reduce complex matters of economy down to a placard scrawl or megaphone bellow.

How many times in your life have you paid for the 'maths' of FF FG?
I'm in my mid 50's and I have, many times. Boom bust, boom bust, boom bust...etc etc etc.

I'm used to it now, so if they **** up, I won't notice much change.

smurgen

astrofool wrote: »

New SF Slogan:
Why vote for wannabe criminals, when you can vote for actual criminals

Who Lowery and Bailey?

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What difference is that info gonna make? I have no intention of telling you.
There was a considerable difference.

I'd wager you can't provide an example of anyone in the last 20/25 years getting a house built for that type of money, even in the midst of the recession, materials and service costs wouldn't be covered even let alone labour.

FrancieBrady

smurgen wrote: »

Who Lowery and Bailey?

Or 'loadsamoney' found guilty just today.