Is it just me or have SF vanished?

smurgen wrote: »

Not in dispute. But wouldn't December 14th be more appropriate for celebrating this? They had nothing to do with Easter in Ireland.

Neither did the Dutch and yet we've tulips in the photo too

To be honest, the reason the UN flag was hoisted had to do with something SF will never understand.......us being an outward looking country. Why not share the moment with the wider world?

And yes, there probably was a political dimension to it, given the upcoming vote on our SC membership.

But really, when it comes to the politicisation of symbols, dates, "flegs" and even language, SF really have no ground to stand on when it comes to questioning others.

Jinglejangle69

Yurt! wrote: »

You obviously didn't read the policy document or listen to the linked item from Morning Ireland

The vast majority of builds are intended to be affordable purchase under the Cluid model. Another significant portion will be affordable rental, and the minority of units social housing as we now know it.

So yes, you're spouting complete political guff.

Did we ever get an answer from Mary Lou who would build these homes other than tradespeople will come home from Australia and NZ when they see their country needs them!!!

Oh and the other nugget she came up with was we stop building hotels and tell builders they have to build social housing because she said so!!!!

Ah lads come on, let's be realistic here...

smurgen

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

Because Óglaigh na hÉireann have been engaged in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions as part of our UN commitment for longer than any other military in the world.

No harm in recognising their professionalism and commitment at a time and place critical in their and our history.

Not in dispute. But wouldn't December 14th be more appropriate for celebrating this? They had nothing to do with Easter in Ireland.

Jinglejangle69

smurgen wrote: »

Why does Lieo have an alternative flag for Easter?What has the U.N got to do with Easter?

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1249278839466983424?s=19

Oh dear.

Pat yourself on the back there.

smurgen wrote: »

Why does Lieo have an alternative flag for Easter?What has the U.N got to do with Easter?

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1249278839466983424?s=19

Because Óglaigh na hÉireann have been engaged in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions as part of our UN commitment for longer than any other military in the world.

No harm in recognising their professionalism and commitment at a time and place critical in their and our history.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

But why traditionally do SF have an alternative march in Easter Monday. Any takers?

must be a pretty poor reason considering how touchy smurgen is about it

Hamsterchops

But why traditionally do SF have an alternative march on Easter Monday. Any takers?

Hamsterchops wrote: »

I have no idea why, do you?

nope

smurgen wrote: »

Why does Lieo have an alternative flag for Easter?What has the U.N got to do with Easter?

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1249278839466983424?s=19

you just answered your own question. now how about answering the original one?

smurgen

all about the mane wrote: »

why do they have the alternative march?

Why does Lieo have an alternative flag for Easter?What has the U.N got to do with Easter?

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1249278839466983424?s=19

Hamsterchops

all about the mane wrote: »

why do they have the alternative march?

I have no idea why, do you?

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But I did... It sounds so dreamy. Obviously costed as can usually be expected.

It's almost as if the brothers Grimm wrote the policy document. How does Cluid housing work when it gets tenants like Sinn Feins own Violet Anne Wynn? Apparently the argument is that private housing doesn't provide an asset at the end . But SF won't end that - there's no way they will stop council tenants buying out our public housing.

234k per house is what is quoted on what you have linked - so how many houses will the extra 6.5bn provide. Not 100k houses for sure.

They wouldn't be tenants. It's an asset-transfer. The state gives away an asset (land) for free and doesn't seek rates (taxes) on the development.

Opens the issue of when should the State give away assets for free though. Housing is essential, but so are things like water, broadband etc. How far should the State be able to go in divesting itself of assets?

The broader point of how the State should deal with tenants who don't pay rent was asked a day ago, still waiting for an answer on it. As pointed out, DCC alone is owned 33 million euro in backrent.
https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/

Interesting that Lorcan Sirr also calls for tax equalisation between small landlords and big landlords. As big landlords pay less taxes than small ones, bringing small landlords into line with them would have the effect of reducing the tax take.

Whatever else they are, neither O'Cualann or tax relief for small landlords are left wing policies.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Easter Monday!

SF normally have their "alternative" march and commemoration today, (the day after the official 1916 commemorations), so I wonder will they have an online 'virtual' march down O'Connell Street today?

Actually, going forward after the virus has been kept under control, will SF abandon their Monday event in favour of the official event on the Sunday?

Could they be in government and still retain their unofficial Easter Monday march?

why do they have the alternative march?

Hamsterchops

Easter Monday!

SF normally have their "alternative" march and commemoration today, (the day after the official 1916 commemorations), so I wonder will they have an online 'virtual' march down O'Connell Street today?

Actually, going forward after the virus has been kept under control, will SF abandon their Monday event in favour of the official event on the Sunday?

Could they be in government and still retain their unofficial Easter Monday march?

Coronavirus: Sinn Fein claims ‘we’re coping’ as it rejects Army help

In an interview with RTE on Saturday, Ms O’Neill said “we have to do everything necessary to save lives”, but then went on to say: “I don’t believe that British Army assistance is necessary at this point. I believe that all of our modelling indicates that we are coping, albeit in the most challenging of circumstances.”

How crazy are SF? NI may well be "coping" but I'm guessing that in this pandemic you really can't have enough resources at your disposal - rejecting assistance that could help save lives, or even just take some of the pressure off the already employed resources just seems bonkers.

blanch152 wrote: »

On the one hand we have one journalist economist on a podcast, possible politically motivated, on the other hand we have a mountain of evidence that he is wrong.

Yes somehow you think his thesis is the one that needs cross-examination.

He's not a journalist-economist, he's a professional housing economist lecturing and researching out of DIT. I don't see any evidence he's politically motivated, but it sure is hell inconvenient that an expert on the economics of housing and housing provision endorses a policy position you spend so much time trying to mock. I'm not sure you've spent a second even trying to understand it - your default position is to sling insults, even though it's blatantly a better thought out policy than anything FG have come up with. It's why FG don't deserve a vote, even with credible solutions staring them in the face, they don't take time to understand them and find them deeply threatening. Fact is, they never had any intention to lift a finger and seriously address housing.

If there's evidence he's 'wrong' it hasn't been provided in this thread.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

234k per house is what is quoted on what you have linked - so how many houses will the extra 6.5bn provide. Not 100k houses for sure.

That's because nobody, not SF or anyone else is claiming you'll build 100k houses @ 234k for 6.5bn.

You obviously didn't take the cotton wool out of your ears when listening.

jimmycrackcorm

Yurt! wrote: »

You obviously didn't read the policy document or listen to the linked item from Morning Ireland

The vast majority of builds are intended to be affordable purchase under the Cluid model. Another significant portion will be affordable rental, and the minority of units social housing as we now know it.

So yes, you're spouting complete political guff.

But I did... It sounds so dreamy. Obviously costed as can usually be expected.

It's almost as if the brothers Grimm wrote the policy document. How does Cluid housing work when it gets tenants like Sinn Feins own Violet Anne Wynn? Apparently the argument is that private housing doesn't provide an asset at the end . But SF won't end that - there's no way they will stop council tenants buying out our public housing.

234k per house is what is quoted on what you have linked - so how many houses will the extra 6.5bn provide. Not 100k houses for sure.

RandomViewer

all about the mane wrote: »

They should never have been allowed to build there. The countryside is destroyed.

Rundale system, goes back hundreds of years,in later years council got 7,000 for development fees, another 1 or 2 for water and the ESB got 1800, more houses more money in the LA coffers add in a few bungs for planning and it had to happen

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

Somehow, I think the "regard" he enjoys is because he supports SF's policy at some abstract level.

We had posters here citing Ferriter, for example, when he was critical of FG, but not so much when he was critical of SF (and the economic impact of unification).

SF tend to have a very ala carter approach when it comes to the experts they cite in support of their policies.

Far more interesting that they endorse a situation where the State loses both assets and taxes. When FG do that it's called neo-liberal. Goes to show that context is key I suppose.

blanch152

Yurt! wrote: »

You've provided no credible cross examination yourself. Just a poor understanding of the facts laid out and doctrinaire nonsense. Fairly typical brughaha and bully-boy tactics from FG supporters.

It's why you got shellacked at election time.

On the one hand we have one journalist economist on a podcast, possible politically motivated, on the other hand we have a mountain of evidence that he is wrong.

Yes somehow you think his thesis is the one that needs cross-examination.

blanch152

Yurt! wrote: »

He's a housing economist actually, the best regarded one in the country. Sorry.

Best regarded by whom?

He is a Senior Lecturer in TUDublin, formerly DIT. He is not a Professor, he is just media-friendly.

Mortelaro

Yurt! wrote: »

You've provided no credible cross examination yourself. Just a poor understanding of the facts laid out and doctrinaire nonsense. Fairly typical brughaha and bully-boy tactics from FG supporters.

It's why you got shellacked at election time.

Would this be you equivicating again?
Tell me,how is my understanding of that morning Ireland advertorial poor?
I raised a few questions, none of which you answered
Your link
You're not defending it being(rather easily) torn apart

Yurt! wrote: »

He's a housing economist actually, the best regarded one in the country. Sorry.

Somehow, I think the "regard" he enjoys is because he supports SF's policy at some abstract level.

We had posters here citing Ferriter, for example, when he was critical of FG, but not so much when he was critical of SF (and the economic impact of unification).

SF tend to have a very ala carter approach when it comes to the experts they cite in support of their policies.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Social housing in this country is a 4ever home. You're correct in saying that it isn't SF policy as it's current policy. Their policy is to make it an even bigger cheap giveaway.

In a nutshell, yes. O'Cualann houses are sold at cut price to the purchaser. Essentially the state forgoes the value of rates and the price of the land. The developer makes a small profit and the home owner gets a cheaper house.

It's an asset transfer of public land to private ownership. It's remarkably unsocialist, imo.

You can have debates about whether the state should give away public assets in such a fashion, but it's not correct to call it social housing, imo. Affordable housing would be a better term.

Nitrogan

Yurt! wrote: »

You've provided no credible cross examination yourself. Just a poor understanding of the facts laid out and doctrinaire nonsense. Fairly typical brughaha and bully-boy tactics from FG supporters.

It's why you got shellacked at election time.

Donald Trump and the Brexit Party came from nowhere to achieve enough support to take over their countries. Why do a safe majority Irish people vote for anyone but Sinn Fein?

How bad do you have to be to be more unpopular than Trump and Farrage?

Yurt! wrote: »

It's actually Morning Ireland, so as not to send my friends on a wild goose chase I'll provide the link.

https://soundcloud.com/morning-ireland/housing-what-does-change-look-like

Lorcan Sirr takes you through it. The figures stack up sorry to tell you.

You don't have to be sorry to me for anything, I've no skin in this game.

I'm all for affordable social housing, same as everyone else.

The O'Cualann model is essentially an asset transfer from the State to private individuals at cut prices but if it works, how bad. Will be interesting to see if it can be scaled from 50 units to 10,000 units. Goes to show that the State can rely on the market to find solutions if the incentives are right.

Thanks for the link. Can you answer the other two questions btw.

Mortelaro wrote: »

He's one economist, dont be exaggerating his importance, many esteemed economists differ on many things,similar education, has he any practical experience of budgets and building houses?
Thought not
Was there any cross examination, contrary opinion or investigation of facts offered in your podcast? No
Ergo more hot air

You've provided no credible cross examination yourself. Just a poor understanding of the facts laid out and doctrinaire nonsense. Fairly typical brughaha and bully-boy tactics from FG supporters.

It's why you got shellacked at election time.