Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

Options
1294295297299300554

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 218 ✭✭CDarby


    "Hmmm…. What am I trying to ‘pin’ on SF"


    This perhaps?


    Thats what’s ahead of us if these lads get in.

    Now, correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't we, the Irish state, have the highest incident rate in the world at one point in time?

    I will take it you apportioned blame for that wonderful statistic to those who "got in" here, namely FG, FF, and the Greens?

    Are you sure you have given your line of posting much thought before putting pen to paper my honourable friend?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,433 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Would much prefer if you concentrated on addressing the issue I have highlighted and not tried to drag me down a rabbit hole.

    I have put plenty of thought into my input,a chara, maybe you might follow my example.


    Ta ta.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 218 ✭✭CDarby


    What in under God are you talking about? I did address the issues you highlighted, you may remember me posting about the intercounty work/schooling/healthcare and travel between the counties and jurisdictions, which may or may not (I don't have the data to state otherwise, and I would suspect you don't either) go some way to explaining rising incidence rate, but will without a shadow of a doubt have some knock on effect for the vaccination numbers, as the HSE won't be recording people with NHS jabs and vise versa.

    Look it, you quite clearly tried to insinuate that the big bad shinners would be in some way responsible for bringing such things here, if they "ever got in" and when I point out our "worst in the world" previous record, and if you held our lot responsible, as you were clearly doing with SF, away you go with your tail between the legs not wanting to play anymore.

    This "rabbit hole" line gets used a bit around here by yourself and others, one can only assume it roughly translates to "you have the better of me here lad, and I think I'll bow out now for a while"

    You need to come back here with something better than that Brendan Bendar, your ill thought out ranting won't "butter no parsnips" here my friend, I won't let those things slide you see.



  • Administrators Posts: 56,605 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Sinn Féin selects Pádraig Delargy and Ciara Ferguson as new Foyle MLAs - BBC News

    I have to admit I have never heard of either of these two, and I am struggling to find much info on their background as all the news articles are fairly vague. Both currently seem to have real jobs outside of politics and neither appear to have been elected to anything before?

    Interesting choices, two people with presumably no baggage and no skeletons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,438 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Well, polling does suggest that SF attracts more anti-vaxxers than any other party.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,433 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    No problem pal,

    Donegal and Monaghan the two counties with the highest incidences of infection.

    Not a word from the usually ‘gobby’ SF elected TDs in those areas.

    Yet they have their noses stuck in other issues day and night.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,224 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    Do you have a source for that one, Mark? I'm curious to see how significant the difference is. I would've expected a few of the loony parties to have a notably larger percentage of their vote coming from anti-vaxxers, albeit potentially a larger raw number of SF voters due to their greater overall predicted voting numbers.

    Given SF's current polling numbers and depending on how low the actual percentage of anti-vaxxers, if you're just going on raw voter numbers, it is also entirely possible they have one of the greatest number of pro-vaccination supporters too, purely on the grounds they could be the party with the largest total number of voters. That would of course make your point entirely redundant, hence my curiosity to view your source.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,569 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 218 ✭✭CDarby


    Ok Brendan, right so... Let's look at things so far....

    First off, I was completely unaware that Monaghan and Donegal only had 1 political representative each, both of which are apparently from Sinn Fein, you'll forgive my ignorance on that one I have to admit I wasn't aware of that until now.

    Obviously, had any of the other political party's in the state had of returned members of their party to those counties, they'd have been named on that article you linked to "speaking out" about low inoculation levels v high incidence rates.....

    Unless of course there are other politically party representatives in those respective counties, and you're merely "gobbing off" (see above ^^) and have singled out politicians from the opposition, because that suits you, and your biased and skewed narrative?

    (If only Donegal and Monaghan both had govt ministers to give their opinions on it)

    This all started with me asking you why you were trying to pin something on Sinn Fein, which you seemed to take offence to, but everything I've seen from you, via our little exchange has now caused me to shift my initial thoughts from suspicion, to being confident enough to state it as factual.

    In hindsight, it all looks a bit silly now, you trying to disown your nonsense at the beginning Brendan, you certainly haven't come out of this one looking too clever.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,324 ✭✭✭Shebean


    with no in-built affordability for potential buyers or renters.

    The less build to rent/lease properties FF/FG have to throw our money at the better.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,438 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Well, there is this beauty from one of their TD's. She was never disciplined by the party may I add.


    There were polls down earlier last year that showed that SF supporters had the highest % of anti-vaxxers among them. It was talked about a lot here. A google search will bring up the poll.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,438 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Its clear that SF is objecting to housing for strategic political purposes.

    They are purposely rejecting and curtailing new builds in order to garner anger and votes. Despicable stuff really. Throwing a generation of people under the bus so they can have a few more bums on leather seats in the Dail. So-called 'patriots'.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,433 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    This is a Sinn Fein thread, a chara.

    Im afraid the content of your post is basically irrelevant as you try to swing the argument on to other parties.

    Bit of a waste of time and bandwidth unfortunately.

    Sorry ‘ bout that chief.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,324 ✭✭✭Shebean


    No it's not. Each time they cite their reasons. You are making up your slant and claiming it's 'clear'.

    If I had the ability I would block all build to rent/lease were public money is used.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,224 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    I'm unfortunately aware of that nutter; it isn't really evidence of what you stated though, and 'Google It' is a pretty poor defence when you made the claim.

    It isn't too much to ask for you to provide the poll you're referring to? If it demonstrates they have the largest percentage of anti-vaxxers as you say, I'd find it quite damning indeed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,324 ✭✭✭Shebean


    TBF as Sinn Fein got the most votes, the law of averages suggests they've the support of most demographics within the electorate I'd imagine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Everybody in the State deserves the opportunity to get a house. If, as Sinn Fein apparently want to do, we stop every developer building houses and apartments, then everybody will end up on the housing list.

    Maybe that actually is the aim of Sinn Fein, cause chaos in the system, prevent every development, and blame the government.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,324 ✭✭✭Shebean


    You don't seem to wish to understand. Blocking homes being built for the sole purpose of being leased or rented to the tax payer for people, many of whom forced out of the market by such builds, forced onto the homeless and housing lists. We shouldn't be wasting money on making things worse.

    On the vote of no confidence in Coveney, I must criticise Sf's reasoning. Coveney's behaviour was not beneath what we expect from a government minister, not that it should be hand-waved away by their brothers in Fianna Fail either.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Developers are building these apartments, not the State, so we are not wasting money.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,324 ✭✭✭Shebean


    And why are they building them and who for? With FF/FG/Green in the wings ready to lease for 25 years with no option to buy? Not their own money they'll be pissing away.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,098 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    I think this has been obvious for the past few years if you start looking at the objections.

    The thing is that all the other parties will just object to the plans SF have so nothing will change, SF will blame others just as others blame SF today.

    (and there is plenty of current TD and councilors in power for other parties that both cry about the lack of housing but object to anything being built locally, it is an area SF could show leadership on today by backing the building of as many housing developments as possible, none of this "I want housing, but not this much housing" crap).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,324 ✭✭✭Shebean


    That's a very simplistic view.

    Let's look at the facts we know:

    Build to rent/lease are pushing private buyers out of the market. Rents increase and become unmanageable, (1 in 4 TD's still landlords?).

    People need rent aid or housing at a discount provided by the state.

    The state supplies custom to the private market.

    The private market engages in build to rent and the problem gets worse and worse.

    As I've said, I would block all build to rent if I could. They know they can charge what they like and have a lot of leeway as regards terms, and the government will pay. 25 year leases with no option to buy in some cases.

    Every party should be blocking these builds.

    FF/FG/Green continue to waste tax payer money on making us more dependent on private build to rent schemes.

    The only question is why? We know it's making things worse.

    The bottom will fall out again, mark my words.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,098 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    I think that's also simplistic, it only works because there's a squeeze on housing, rather than stop them being built, getting them built and occupied provides accommodation for someone and reduces the pressure on rent for others. It also reduces the price that developers get for them and encourages them to build other types of accommodation for sale.

    We need to build lots of everything and stop objecting.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,727 ✭✭✭skimpydoo


    Ask yourself this important question. If build to let was abolished today, would the developers etc still be building?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,098 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Yes, would they build as much? Maybe not, why do we need to "abolish" it? Why does the state need to get involved there, if it was abolished, how much longer would it be for new plans/developments to be drawn up to replace current plans and extend the time it's taking to get units built?

    The problem is getting units built and getting people living in them, every objection or planning delay is less units built and drags the problems out for longer.

    Assume the francie quote was a saved draft or ghost trying to get back into the thread somehow.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,727 ✭✭✭skimpydoo


    Build to let is all about the Benjamins and pure greed. People looking to buy can't because houses/apartments are sold as one lot or only available on buy to rent, with some of the land it was built on been public land. When buy to let is offered to various county councils it's on long term leases at high prices. Are you ok with this? I am not and others on here will have the same view.

    Post edited by skimpydoo on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,324 ✭✭✭Shebean


    No it doesn't. Build to rents are built with the state as customer in mind. That way they can charge what they like. As more and more members of the public find it hard to afford.

    Suggesting opposition are against builds simply because they are opposition doesn't hold water. It's what FF/FG spin.

    More private is welcome of course but when the public can't afford it, of course they'll look to the state rather than lower pricing.

    Putting a family up in a hotel use to make the papers, now it's part of the normal system.

    We know the FF/FG/Green model doesn't work. It's insane to keep following it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,438 ✭✭✭✭markodaly




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,438 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Oh yea. They cite 'reasons'.

    It is easy to cite 'reasons'. Letting the perfect get in the way of the good.

    David McWilliams had some very very choice words to describe SF housing policy in his last podcast. He made mincemeat out of MLMD's claim that these units would increase house prices and their 'we are against property taxes' bull$hit.


    SF are throwing a generation of young people under the bus to get some more of their members bums onto Dail seats.



Advertisement
Advertisement