What have we come to

Plumbthedepths · 12-02-2020 02:00PM

Cupatae wrote: »

The fact that some investors are pulling out at the mention of SF in power isnt a great sign either.

So do we install a government at the behest of investors, or do we still go the democratic route and let the voters have a say?

Cupatae · 12-02-2020 02:00PM

GreenandRed wrote: »

Which investors?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/markets/irish-shares-tumble-on-sinn-f%C3%A9in-surge-1.4168853

Cupatae · 12-02-2020 02:01PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So do we install a government at the behest of investors, or do we still go the democratic route and let the voters have a say?

Im just saying if it goes to the polls again these could be potentially damaging to SF. That nnd having candidates roaring up the Ra ect isnt gonna help the situation either.

Ush1 · 12-02-2020 02:01PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well I am on record here as saying I am not expecting SF to create a nirvana.

What I want is a fairer society weighted towards it's people, all it's people.

I personally thought LPT is one of the fairest taxes out there. To be honest I wouldn't be too troubled if it was raised as long as it funded the right things.

James Brown · 12-02-2020 02:01PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Capacity to build was an issue, it still is.

This is being ramped up and whoever is in government over the next few years will reap the benefits of the increase in apprenticeships over the last two or three years.

So where was all the ppp being built and who was building them? Same for the apartments we put 25 year leases on? We'd a report the other week about all the vacant public land too. These were all used as excuses to use private entities. Its over now hopefully

GreenandRed · 12-02-2020 02:03PM

Cupatae wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/markets/irish-shares-tumble-on-sinn-f%C3%A9in-surge-1.4168853

Excuse me now for not having much sympathy for banks and develipers.

Cupatae · 12-02-2020 02:04PM

GreenandRed wrote: »

Excuse me now for not having much sympathy for banks and develipers.

Oh im the same ive no sympathy for em, but to brush it off as not important is daft.

Ush1 · 12-02-2020 02:09PM

GreenandRed wrote: »

Excuse me now for not having much sympathy for banks and develipers.

The banks we own? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

gormdubhgorm · 12-02-2020 02:09PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well I am on record here as saying I am not expecting SF to create a nirvana.

What I want is a fairer society weighted towards it's people, all it's people.

Don't look at the NI record so

https://inequality.org/research/sinn-fein-austerity-record/

Oh and you did not use the word nirvana - but you are hanging your hat on change.

SF are turning into one of the Billy Goats gruff.

They have eaten all grass in NI, and are crossing bridge to the ROI.

Mary Lou will try and make sure thier other parties FF FG get eaten by the troll (the ROI electorate)

GreenandRed · 12-02-2020 02:10PM

Cupatae wrote: »

Oh im the same ive no sympathy for em, but to brush it off as not important is daft.

Daft.ie ?

Not saying it's not important. If SF do get to implement some of their housing proposals they surely expect and plan for such a reaction. For me it's past time banks and developers stopped acting like they run the country and government, of whatever parties, hold them to account.

GreenandRed · 12-02-2020 02:14PM

Ush1 wrote: »

The banks we own? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Which 'we'? Not the families paying extortionate rents trying to get a deposit. If they ever manage the deposit they get 2 or 3 % back from the banks to be repaid plus interest. Why not a smaller deposit to get them into the market for a cheaper house? Banks don't give a f**k about customer, their shareholders care even less.

storker · 12-02-2020 02:15PM

Ush1 wrote: »

I personally thought LPT is one of the fairest taxes out there. To be honest I wouldn't be too troubled if it was raised as long as it funded the right things.

I always thought it was unfair, as it takes no account of ability to pay.

Cupatae · 12-02-2020 02:16PM

GreenandRed wrote: »

Daft.ie ?

Not saying it's not important. If SF do get to implement some of their housing proposals they surely expect and plan for such a reaction. For me it's past time banks and developers stopped acting like they run the country and government, of whatever parties, hold them to account.

I dunno it ll be interesting too see how it all plays out anyway, i guess time will tell all!

FrancieBrady · 12-02-2020 02:16PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am on about how you like to compartmentalize things the troubles in the distant past you said. They are gone. Yet to support your argument you brought up mention of armed men in the dail decades and decades before that.

Do people not judge politicians on thier past? From Maria Bailey, to CJ Haughey, to Jackie Healy-Rae.

You are telling me the votes for Dessie Ellis and O'Snodaigh in the ROI was not based on thier republican past?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dessie_Ellis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aengus_%C3%93_Snodaigh

(spy ring in DE forgotten about?)
If politicians are not judged on thier past actions how do the electorate vote for them?
Look at the independents to move away from parties

Mick Wallace made his name on the back of building Wexford FC in the past

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Wallace

Shane Ross his work in the Senand got him his TD seat in the past

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Ross#Early_life_and_career

Now lost his seat because of things in the past.

The hear no evil, see no evil, nothing to see here line you are going with. OK

You will need to ask those who voted for D.Ellis and O'Snodaigh what influenced their vote.
You are the poster who is positing the theory that the young voter/new SF doesn't know about the 'past' now you seem to be saying they are voting for them 'because' of their past.

Could you stick to one theory or the other and stop bouncing around?

gormdubhgorm · 12-02-2020 02:18PM

GreenandRed wrote: »

Which 'we'? Not the families paying extortionate rents trying to get a deposit. If they ever manage the deposit they get 2 or 3 % back from the banks to be repaid plus interest. Why not a smaller deposit to get them into the market for a cheaper house? Banks don't give a f**k about customer, their shareholders care even less.

Shane Ross agrees with you and supported the FG government - yet he did not get re-elected

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Ross

MrMusician18 · 12-02-2020 02:19PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Or in other words, (that FG support might not want to use)...he abandons the 22% who wanted FG in government, even when there may be a path to government opening up to them. In coalition or C&S with a party they were quite happy to spend the last 4 years with.

Correct. But for a route for FG to come to power, it would equally mean that SF have abandoned the 24% that voted for them. They did win the election after all.

FrancieBrady · 12-02-2020 02:23PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Correct. But for a route for FG to come to power, it would equally mean that SF have abandoned the 24% that voted for them. They did win the election after all.

All SF can do here is to try and form another alternative. They cannot force others to go into government with them.
They seemed to me to be straight out of the traps to investigate the potential.

Leo, is 'expecting to be/wanting to be the main opposition. Without even trying to fulfill the wish of the 22% who voted FG.

gormdubhgorm · 12-02-2020 02:24PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You will need to ask those who voted for D.Ellis and O'Snodaigh what influenced their vote.
You are the poster who is positing the theory that the young voter/new SF doesn't know about the 'past' now you seem to be saying they are voting for them 'because' of their past.

Could you stick to one theory or the other and stop bouncing around?

Here is the reason - the BASE of the SF support know these lads past which is the prime reason they vote for them, while the new SF voters are tricked into voting for them as they are told 'that was in the past' it is grand now.
Houses, Health, Social Welfare etc

The new SF voters got caught up in that hype as you did, and did not vote based on the past, but on the promise of change in future. Which is the wrong way to vote my opinion, it is like backing horse without seeing his past races - NI and so on

omega man · 12-02-2020 02:24PM

My own take is that neither SF or their traditional support base want to go into government yet their problem is that their new voters genuinely want them to break the mould and implement their pre-election promises, with the help of other left leaning parties and independents.

Plumbthedepths · 12-02-2020 02:27PM

Cupatae wrote: »

Im just saying if it goes to the polls again these could be potentially damaging to SF. That nnd having candidates roaring up the Ra ect isnt gonna help the situation either.

Candidate, not candidates. Still he was a gob****e for doing it.
Investors always watch potential new governments and policies. Democracy has to be blind to such considerations as to the feelings of investors though.

gormdubhgorm · 12-02-2020 02:28PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All SF can do here is to try and form another alternative. They cannot force others to go into government with them.
They seemed to me to be straight out of the traps to investigate the potential.

Leo, is 'expecting to be/wanting to be the main opposition. Without even trying to fulfill the wish of the 22% who voted FG.

Who said the 22% voted for FG to get them in government purely?

That was the aspiration but I also voted for them because I believed a collation could be formed between Labour FG Greens and SD.

Crucially I wanted a government without SF, I did not want them in and would have assumed FG would not go into collation with them as promised pre-election.

FrancieBrady · 12-02-2020 02:29PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Here is the reason - the BASE of the SF support know these lads past which is the prime reason they vote for them, while the new SF voters are tricked into voting for them as they are told 'that was in the past' it is grand now.
Houses, Health, Social Welfare etc

The new SF voters got caught up in that hype as you did, and did not vote based on the past, but on the promise of change in future. Which is the wrong way to vote my opinion, it is like backing horse without seeing his past races - NI and so on

But you don't know that. You are guessing. From a rather condescending position if I may say so.

'The young are stupid and uneducated...unlike me hence I am going to go on a crusade to educate them.

Which flies in the face of the fact that every media organ of this state published details of the past in the lead up to the election.

And the electorate said?...well you don't need me to tell you what they said.

FrancieBrady · 12-02-2020 02:31PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Who said the 22% voted for FG to get them in government purely?

That was the aspiration but I also voted for them because I believed a collation could be formed between Labour FG Greens and SD.

Crucially I wanted a government without SF, I did not want them in and would have assumed FG would not go into collation with them as promised pre-election.

You can't vote for a specific 'coalition'.

Jesus! :rolleyes:

MrMusician18 · 12-02-2020 02:35PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can't vote for a specific 'coalition'.

Jesus! :rolleyes:

You can vote for anything you like actually.

Whether they're realistic expectations or not (like SFs manifesto) is another matter.

Ush1 · 12-02-2020 02:44PM

GreenandRed wrote: »

Which 'we'? Not the families paying extortionate rents trying to get a deposit. If they ever manage the deposit they get 2 or 3 % back from the banks to be repaid plus interest. Why not a smaller deposit to get them into the market for a cheaper house? Banks don't give a f**k about customer, their shareholders care even less.

We as in all citizens of the Republic. We are the majority shareholder.

FrancieBrady · 12-02-2020 02:44PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

You can vote for anything you like actually.

Whether they're realistic expectations or not (like SFs manifesto) is another matter.

There is nowhere on the ballot paper where you can say 'I vote for a Labour FG Greens and SD coalition.

Silly buggers stuff now.

gormdubhgorm · 12-02-2020 02:46PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can't vote for a specific 'coalition'.

Jesus! :rolleyes:

You can vote for parties all who said they would not go into coalition with SF.

FG, Labour as I did.

Others may have voted FF for the same reason.

That is 50% of the seats of the dail between those three parties

Ush1 · 12-02-2020 02:46PM

storker wrote: »

I always thought it was unfair, as it takes no account of ability to pay.

Owning property is by very definition wealth. The world over property is where wealth is contained so to tax it makes sense. I've never heard of any "left" party wanting to abolish what is a wealth tax.

gormdubhgorm · 12-02-2020 02:49PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is nowhere on the ballot paper where you can say 'I vote for a Labour FG Greens and SD coalition.

Silly buggers stuff now.

You are being deliberately disingenuous to that poster as you were to me.

Many people vote in terms of collation Labour FF etc.

Just as many who voted SF wanted FF/FG out and hoped for a left alliance and Green surge.

shesty · 12-02-2020 02:50PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can't vote for a specific 'coalition'.

Jesus! :rolleyes:

This is Ireland...up to now, you could make a fair stab on who would up in coalition!!

What have we come to

Comments