FrancieBrady wrote: » Are FF right about FG's manifesto or vice versa?
SafeSurfer wrote: » Seeing how you attach such little importance to manifestos i don’t see why you care.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Gets tough doesn't it? Show me a political party ever that called the others manifesto 'credible'. I'm not a member of a party SS, I don't pay any attention to their propaganda and election manifestos are just that. I prefer to look at how they act.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Yet only yesterday you were happy to quote the 2016 FF manifesto to “prove” Michael Martin had broken a commitment!
FrancieBrady wrote: » Because you asked. I googled it. And I guessed, because I knew there would be failed commitments. Try it sometime, you'll find none of them ever fulfill their promises in manifestos. Say thank you Francie for saving you time?
SafeSurfer wrote: » So you don’t pay any attention to manifestos, yet go off googling 2016 manifestos. You say you judge politicians by “how they act”, not manifesto propaganda then search past manifestos to point out broken commitments.
frillyleaf wrote: » Yes hopefully people will vote based on policies as opposed to outrage but we all know there are a huge amount of people that won’t do that which will be further fuelled by this
feargale wrote: » You will be judging FG purely on their policies then, as opposed to outrage? BTW FG is not my first preference.
mattser wrote: » Lads, I have to say I'm impressed with your stamina. If ye're keeping a job down, fair play.
FrancieBrady wrote: » My partner and I are in the tax band they want to tax.
facehugger99 wrote: » It's impressive all right. SF must be paying Francie by the post. 50 posts yesterday defending SF from Board's resident 'floating voter'.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes...because you asked as part of a debate about Michael Martin. I could confidently claim that he had not lived up to commitments he made because I know they never do. It is related to what I was saying earlier in this thread...that people 'know they are being conned'. They know manifestos are largely an auction. But they get all excited about the 'credibility' in the manifestos of other parties. They aren't a very sound basis for choosing a government IMO.
SafeSurfer wrote: » You used a line in a manifesto of a party which was not elected to government as an example of a broken commitment. That’s either disingenuous and childish or just plain ignorant.
Now it emerges you claim to be in the highest household tax bracket. You really are the creme de la creme Frankie. Rich & Thick (just kidding- couldn’t resist) ;-)
FrancieBrady wrote: » Please don't make me go track down FG manifestos to prove the same point. I'm self employed, and my partners job brings us there. All I can tell you is my situation. I can't make you believe it. And what does it matter if you don't? There are plenty who will willingly pay for a fairer society. High earners are not all selfish.
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.
SafeSurfer wrote: » You are not proving any point claiming that a manifesto aspiration if elected to government is a broken commitment because the party wasn’t elected to government. But i suspect you already know that.
markodaly wrote: » Good spot. There is no way one can build that many houses for that price. The cost to build a 1500 square foot house in Dublin/Greater Dublin area is as follows. Hard Cost: Cement, finishes, foundation, brickes, cost of labour etc.. €180,000 Soft Cost: Land, Utility Levies, Fees, Certifications etc.. €144,000 Developer & VAT: Developer Margin @ 15%, Vat @13.5% €99,000 Total: €421,000https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WLIDBHH7faUJ:https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/why-does-a-new-house-cost-what-it-does-1.4001085+&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au Now, you can build smaller and a bit cheaper, but this brings these costs down to over €300,000 So, where are these €65,000 houses are going to come from? Then people are surprised that we the Irish people dont vote for SF en-mass?
FrancieBrady wrote: » So that just shows you that you are accepting the 'con'. Nobody will be 'elected to government'. There will be a coalition, which negates anything said in manifestoes. Again...Francie can save you time and stress if you will just listen to him!
SafeSurfer wrote: » Well if it “negates anything said in manifestos” why are you claiming it proves your point of a broken commitment. It doesn’t.
– recognise Fianna Fáil’s right to bring forward policy proposals and bills to implement commitments in its own manifesto;
FrancieBrady wrote: » FG were responsible for part of what happened in 2008. They cheer-leaded the lead up to it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What? You asked 'what commitments MM had broken from his manifesto' in the confidence and supply arrangement. I and others listed them. None of those things he said were commitments were achieved. They (FF) stood by and watched them get worse. Here is a clause from that C&S agreement between FF and FG
markodaly wrote: » If you are going down that road, so did SF. You the bank bailout you all hate, yeap SF voted for it... :):)
SafeSurfer wrote: » You are just lying to save face now Frankie. You put what you claim I said in brackets. You “quote” what you claim I said and claim it was in reference to C&S. If you can show me that quote I will apology profusely. If you are just making it up I expect an apology from you. What is it to be?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where have you seen me deny that? There are responsibilities, and they all are 'responsible' to varying degrees. People keep going on about the usefulness of opposition, but I think times like 2008 and the lead up to it, show the critical importance of 'opposition' parties. And the main opposition was caught sitting comfortably in comfy seats and at times cheered on what the government were doing and even asked for more.
piplip87 wrote: » Arrogant MayLooney again today. Was told economists had criticized her manifesto and had issues with it.... Her reaponse.... Finnia Fail, Big Business and the crash. Again it's very easy to promise massive spending when you won't turn up after the election
McMurphy wrote: » If only the FG govt had your expertise when they were costing the NCH, and NBP Mark. Maybe the shinners used the same firm they did?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Did MM have manifesto commitments to live up to when he entered C&S? Yes he did IMO.(that clause in the C&S agreement shows that FG accepted that too) That was the point I was making. You objected to that and asked what 'committments' he had broken. I showed you and others did too. Repeating stuff now.
