Is this the case though? Didn't SF have the highest number of 1st votes of any party in the last general election. I thought it was said that they'd probably have managed to get in if they'd ran more candidates? I'm not saying you're wrong, merely looking for more info from someone that knows.
I agree about the united Ireland stuff. At the moment that is not economically viable. It would ruin both of our economies which is not what we need just as we are beginning to grow again.
Where I am worried is in SFs approach to Covid. I am a bit uneasy about the possibility of an SF government because of how overly reluctant they seem to be in following NPHET advice etc. I think that they definitely have good points, especially around the rent caps and the "tax the rich" approach.
Overall I'd be nervous to see them get in but I don't think they're the evil do-ers that many paint them as.
hi francie ,
one crime gang for another , is really your best option ?
That's not "Francie" - it's a different poster, says right there in his post you quoted.
They did get the 1st preference votes. However part of the point of PR is to allow similar parties to run without splitting their vote entirely. FF/FG got around 50% of 1st preference votes between. Definitely more than 50% if you add in Greens. Sinn Fein should have run more candidates and would have gotten more TDs however they would not have been in power by themselves no matter how many candidates they ran and they struggle to find big enough partners. Certainly SF got the most votes of a single party but the system encourages partnerships and the current partnership got a lot more than SF when combined.
Didn't SF have the highest number of 1st votes of any party in the last general election
This is exactly what I am talking about.
The highest number of 1st preferences votes does not matter a hoot if you still don't elect enough TDs.
SF are setting this narrative that 1st preferences votes are more important than seats.
ordinary people like ??
slab ?
Jonathan Dowdall prehaps
The point was always the size of the mandate not legitimacy. Nobody has challenged the legitimacy of somebody democratically elected.
Of course you can talk about the strength of the mandate, weren't the Shinners and smaller parties always told this, 'you don't have a mandate etc etc'?
Now that they have the stronger mandate, the rules of conversation change. 😁
a real whos who of shinner bots this thread 😊😊😘
That's a different matter.
Why is the SCC taking on tax cases?
Would they take him to the SCC on his parking fines too?
Again, it feels like the SCC is used where Gardai have a suspicion of guilt, but not enough evidence. They use the SCC as their testimony is taken as evidence.
Easy way to bang up people they've taken a personal dislike to.
because slab is a terrorist padre or do you think he isnt ?
No masks was the first thing I noticed.
I understand that.
Was Al Capone brought to a juryless court for his tax evasion? No, he wasn't!
Should Slab Murphy be brought to the SCC for parking tickets or an unpaid TV license? No! Then why was he brought there for tax charges?
That was all meaningless nonsense spouted by Sinn Fein.
Yes, they had the highest first preference vote of any party in the last election. However, if that meant an automatic right to be in government, our first non-Fianna Fail government would have been in 2011, as they would have been in government since the foundation of the State. So, the whinging and crying from Sinn Fein supporters about that issue was completely meaningless.
They would have picked up six or seven more seats if they had run extra candidates, but that would have squeezed People Before Profit, Social Democrats and other opposition parties, not the three government parties, so it would have given them a stronger opposition profile but wouldn't have changed anything. On the other hand, there were constituencies where if they had ran two candidates, they might not have taken a seat if the intra-SF transfers hadn't been great.
The reasons for the use of the SCC relate to the possibility of jury intimidation. Any similar trial involving a good republican would be subject to the same risks.
No, the point has always been about being able to form a government.
SF regardless of what mandate they had or how many 1st preference votes they had could not form a government.
Maybe they will the next time.
Have you addressed the gaping hole in your posts re SF wanting to amend lpt yet? SF want to abolish lpt. If you're such a supporter how come come you dont even know what you are supporting.
Except...there's no proof of this or at least no proof that would warrant the creation of a separate court system outside the standard court system.
Mary Robinson wrote a report back in 1980 saying as much. "There has not been any substantial enquiry...into the justification for and the operation of the Special Criminal Court", and this was at the height of the Troubles.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25546774
Besides, intimidation (if it happens) can happen as much with any other case.
They couldn't form a government because the numbers were not there.
They had more than enough in terms of a mandate to be in a government though. But two parties wanted to cling on to power for a while longer. And one of them totally ignored part of the mandate they had been given (to never go into coalition with FG) to so cling on.
Even after the election results were clear, Micheal Martin said he wouldn't form a coalition with FG.
Two months later they were in government together.
What a snake.
ah theres a lot of optics and bullsh1tting in politics, its just an element of the beast, dont be surprised if sff get into bed next!
they d be nothing like trumpism, thankfully we havent gone full retard in that respect
It's easy to take advantage of a housing crisis and wave through any development too.
I haven't yet seen an objection that is not based on bad/inappropriate planning or a wheeze to enrich a developer.
Martin opened the door to SF when he thought he was going to be the leader of the largest party (when it looked like they would take approx 50 seats)
That door was quickly shut though when he realised he wouldn't be, revealing what the high moral ground bullshitting was all about to begin with.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. SF aren't Trump. If you did want to go down that route then MM would be Biden, also an unfair comparison. Irish politics isn't as extremely polarised as American politics.
I don't believe SF did have a fair chance to form a coalition. FFG got into bed together very quickly because imo they were afraid at what might happen if SF had a 'successful' term in power. Remember, SF getting in isn't the biggest concern to them, it's that they might do a better job in the eyes of the public. That would be a death sentence for FFG.
I'll be honest and say that I don't think any of the parties are particularly inspiring at the moment. Nobody is good in my eyes and every time I am asked to vote I feel like I am being asked to pick the best of a bad bunch. It's disappointing really.
...we need to be very careful with assuming more supply will lower prices and rents, a surplus of supply didnt stop a significant rise in prices in the past, but we clearly need to ramp up supply now, to substitutional levels
I'm not making any excuses.
I HAVE NOT seen an objection yet that isn't based on bad planning grounds or stopping a cozy wheeze to enrich somebody.
If you have evidence of objections based on anything else I'm all eyes.
In an open market like what we see with our housing, supply does not directly influence pricing. It can, but it is not necessarily the primary relationship.
We have a situation in Ireland at the moment where a developer can create an estate of 300k houses. If only half of those houses sell they will more often than not break even. Now that they are not in the red they are happy to hold onto those other 300k houses and sell them when they have an acceptable offer (maybe 275k) as it is all profit. There are currently no penalties in place on these developers hoarding property.
I could think of many solutions that might work but the crux of my argument is simply that as long as there is no repercussions for holding vacant property long term, regardless of the current supply on the market, the prices will not change.
I know you're going to say "but JSYL that is directly related to supply!" but it isn't. The developer could list all of those properties on the market at 300k. They can keep them all on the market at 300k and there is no incentive for them to lower the price. Which is what makes the supply irrelevant.
We've been doing it since the state was founded.
...yes, this is whats called having a fire sector lead and driven economy, this is what occurred during the previous boom, we must do everything to prevent this from happening again
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/73cfc9dedc7ae432bef96067c13c8c84.svg)
