Taoiseach speech in Davros

ART6 · 01-02-2012 06:38PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

Was that not how the bubble was created. Everyone felt they had to get on the property ladder. This just kept pushing prices up and up. To the best of memory political parties competed with each other to inflate the bubble to get elected. This combined with access to lots of cheap credit created the problem. There were multipile causes to it, a made house buying frenzy by the general populace is one of them. If people hadn't bought(no one put a gun to their heads) the bubble wouldn't have happenend. But when the building and housing industry is creating loads of jobs and bringing in large amounts of tax who'd complain.

Kenny really should have combined the "You're not to blame" speach with the "You went mad borrowing" one. This would have recognised the multipile causes to blame.

Was it ever wrong, throughout human history, to hope to own your own cave/hovel/house in which to raise your children?

UDP · 01-02-2012 06:43PM

ART6 wrote: »

PeadarCo wrote: »

Was that not how the bubble was created. Everyone felt they had to get on the property ladder. This just kept pushing prices up and up. To the best of memory political parties competed with each other to inflate the bubble to get elected. This combined with access to lots of cheap credit created the problem. There were multipile causes to it, a made house buying frenzy by the general populace is one of them. If people hadn't bought(no one put a gun to their heads) the bubble wouldn't have happenend. But when the building and housing industry is creating loads of jobs and bringing in large amounts of tax who'd complain.

Kenny really should have combined the "You're not to blame" speach with the "You went mad borrowing" one. This would have recognised the multipile causes to blame.

Was it ever wrong, throughout human history, to hope to own your own cave/hovel/house in which to raise your children?

No, not when you can afford it. Owning your own house is a luxury not a necessity.

PeadarCo · 01-02-2012 06:51PM

ART6 wrote: »

Was it ever wrong, throughout human history, to hope to own your own cave/hovel/house in which to raise your children?

Nobody is saying that. What people are saying is if you're prepared to way above the odds for a house be prepared to accept the consequences. Plenty of information was available that indicated there was a bubble. Thats the attitude that got us into the mess. One the lines in the boom anyone who tried to stop the mess would have got "Sure we're only trying to buy a house". Ignoring the fact many of the people couldn't afford the loans and the banks ultimately couldn't afford give them. Both sides must take some blame as well as the government for listening to people without looking at the longterm.

Scofflaw · 01-02-2012 06:54PM

ART6 wrote: »

Was it ever wrong, throughout human history, to hope to own your own cave/hovel/house in which to raise your children?

It's certainly not wrong to want to have somewhere to do so, but you don't need to own it to do so. I don't, for example.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne · 01-02-2012 07:18PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

ednwireland wrote: »

enda kenny's part in all this i though this comment section in the irish times summed it up for me he is tarred with the same brush as all the rest of the politicians of the last 15 years, ok he wouldnt have got a vote from anyone if he hadnt have done this (its politics after all). but it does make you wonder about the point of politics

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0201/1224311045082.html

The point of politics in a democratic country is to reflect the preferences of the public - it's how politicians get elected. Pointing the finger at Irish politicians is really an exercise in pointing the finger in the mirror.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's been a long time since any politican has represented my views, so your mirror idea won't work.

In fact, the only one to represent even some of my ideas recently - Shane Ross - has been remarkably quiet since elected.

So I don't know who they are supposedly reflecting or representing.

Scofflaw · 01-02-2012 07:20PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's been a long time since any politican has represented my views, so your mirror idea won't work.

In fact, the only one to represent even some of my ideas recently - Shane Ross - has been remarkably quiet since elected.

So I don't know who they are supposedly reflecting or representing.

Naturally, I exempt you from my general point about the Irish public.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Good loser · 02-02-2012 01:26AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's been a long time since any politican has represented my views, so your mirror idea won't work.

In fact, the only one to represent even some of my ideas recently - Shane Ross - has been remarkably quiet since elected.

So I don't know who they are supposedly reflecting or representing.

Everybody in the Irish population - minus yourself.

Liam Byrne · 02-02-2012 02:46AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's been a long time since any politican has represented my views, so your mirror idea won't work.

In fact, the only one to represent even some of my ideas recently - Shane Ross - has been remarkably quiet since elected.

So I don't know who they are supposedly reflecting or representing.

Naturally, I exempt you from my general point about the Irish public.

cordially,
Scofflaw

There's a serious point in there, Scofflaw - I'm far from unique, so how many/what percentage has to apply before sweeping generalisations are rendered invalid ?

2% ?10% ?

And i'm not being argumentative, just making a point, that a low percentage would the the equivalent of Green support - so it's basically the equivalent of people generalising to the point of ignoring your party, which I presume you'd object to ?

So where's the honesty and fairness in only acknowleding and defending real people against horrendous generalisations only if they're a single entity as a "party" ?

Scofflaw · 02-02-2012 09:10AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There's a serious point in there, Scofflaw - I'm far from unique, so how many/what percentage has to apply before sweeping generalisations are rendered invalid ?

2% ?10% ?

And i'm not being argumentative, just making a point, that a low percentage would the the equivalent of Green support - so it's basically the equivalent of people generalising to the point of ignoring your party, which I presume you'd object to ?

So where's the honesty and fairness in only acknowleding and defending real people against horrendous generalisations only if they're a single entity as a "party" ?

I'm not sure it's really possible to answer the question with a hard and fast rule, but I would say that if a generalisation applies to two-thirds or more of the population, it's adequate. Support for the three main parties - all of whom basically promised "jam today and jam tomorrow" - in 2002 and 2007 was 75% and 80% respectively.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne · 02-02-2012 11:34AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure it's really possible to answer the question with a hard and fast rule, but I would say that if a generalisation applies to two-thirds or more of the population, it's adequate. Support for the three main parties - all of whom basically promised "jam today and jam tomorrow" - in 2002 and 2007 was 75% and 80% respectively.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That means nothing.

Apparently we shouldn't expect what parties promise - or so FG are telling me.

Also, given that voting in Ireland involves voting for the best of a bad lot, you would need to factor that in - the above "support" is exaggerated.

Finally, that percentage is presumably of turnout ? So if there's a 50% turnout that apparent majority is closer to a minority.....how many people didn't cote because there was no suitable option (a situation I will probably be in next election having been fundamentally betrayed by those I voted for in the last two).

Scofflaw · 02-02-2012 11:53AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That means nothing.

Apparently we shouldn't expect what parties promise - or so FG are telling me.

Also, given that voting in Ireland involves voting for the best of a bad lot, you would need to factor that in - the above "support" is exaggerated.

Finally, that percentage is presumably of turnout ? So if there's a 50% turnout that apparent majority is closer to a minority.....how many people didn't cote because there was no suitable option (a situation I will probably be in next election having been fundamentally betrayed by those I voted for in the last two).

Not voting leaves the matter to be decided by other people - if you can't find anybody who you positively want to vote for, you should obviously vote for the least worst option. Because someone will be elected.

As to the "in the mirror" - I'm happy enough that those levels of voting preference support the charge. Your attitudes, and the attitudes of the relatively few like you, did not dominate Irish political and public life for the last dozen years. The attitudes I refer to did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Going Forward · 02-02-2012 09:01PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

ART6 wrote: »

Was it ever wrong, throughout human history, to hope to own your own cave/hovel/house in which to raise your children?

It's certainly not wrong to want to have somewhere to do so, but you don't need to own it to do so. I don't, for example.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is a disingenuous argument.

So is the constant smug criticism of people who bought a house in the "boom"; the vast majority of whom have not welched on their loans.

Start discussing those who dealt in the monopoly money figures and you'll see who "went mad" borrowing, who tried to fiddle the system, and who really caused the crash.

Going Forward · 02-02-2012 11:59PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Spot-on,no bother and correct.

It's quite sobering to note that whilst our boom-time Property Development and Bulding industry was flying along,it's marketing was almost entirely based upon this "Get on the ladder" issue or the concurrent appeal of "Luxury Living for the masses" which seemed to play upon some inherent connection to British Landlordism or Famine Time memories....

The removal of almost all property associated charges and responsibilities served to draw ever more folks into the "sure'n ye just can't lose" world of being your own boss.

Property Ownership,free of responsibility,without encumbrances or any sort was suddenly available to us all.

Eventually,if left to its own devices,Ireland would morph into a version of Switzerland,with 4 million wee statelets,each fully self-reliant...eh Ted...

I'm afraid to me,it always seemed more Swaziland than SWitzerland,as an entire generation,fed on the Magic Beans theories of SSIA's and Bookies Winnings simply crammed into the two-man tent to put their deposits down on "The Future".

I was always fascinated by the knowledge that far across the sea's,millions of our new European neighbours had lived succesful,productive and capable lives entirely in rented accomodation....?

WTF....how could this be......?

Nobody ever,in my experience,allowed this aspect of being "European" to be teased out or even admitted to......how come our German,French,Dutch or Belgian Busdriver,Mechanic or Doctor was'nt living in a Place of their own...???

On rare occasions,the issue might arise over after-dinner drinks on the patio,it was generally portrayed as some form of inherent "boring" gene possessed by these folks,particularly the Germans,who could'nt possibly be enjoying themselves in a clean,well maintained and affordable RENTED apartment for their entire lives.

No,for sure,we had it sussed.....a place of your own,everybodys entitlement and now available at an Estate Agent near YOU !.

It's like waking up from a bad-dream and suddenly realising it's become reality !!!

Where's Charlie McCreevy when we need him ?

I admire the European enthusiasm for renting, and, after all, you cant bring it with you, however, for various reasons, the words "Landlord" and "Rent" have different connotations here in Ireland than they do in mainland Europe.

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2012 12:56AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

[

Not voting leaves the matter to be decided by other people - if you can't find anybody who you positively want to vote for, you should obviously vote for the least worst option.

I did (what I thought was) just that, and the problem is that that option is now doing the opposite of what I want and gave them a mandate for, and yet - despite their promises-which-are-now-discarded-and-inadmissable - they should in reality be viewed as never having gotten my support for their altered agenda.

How do we solve that one, Scofflaw?

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2012 12:58AM

ART6 wrote: »

PeadarCo wrote: »

Was that not how the bubble was created. Everyone felt they had to get on the property ladder. This just kept pushing prices up and up. To the best of memory political parties competed with each other to inflate the bubble to get elected. This combined with access to lots of cheap credit created the problem. There were multipile causes to it, a made house buying frenzy by the general populace is one of them. If people hadn't bought(no one put a gun to their heads) the bubble wouldn't have happenend. But when the building and housing industry is creating loads of jobs and bringing in large amounts of tax who'd complain.

Kenny really should have combined the "You're not to blame" speach with the "You went mad borrowing" one. This would have recognised the multipile causes to blame.

Was it ever wrong, throughout human history, to hope to own your own cave/hovel/house in which to raise your children?

What children ? I know I can't afford to have any.

Scofflaw · 03-02-2012 01:20AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I did (what I thought was) just that, and the problem is that that option is now doing the opposite of what I want and gave them a mandate for, and yet - despite their promises-which-are-now-discarded-and-inadmissable - they should in reality be viewed as never having gotten my support for their altered agenda.

How do we solve that one, Scofflaw?

We don't. It's just tough.

cordially,
Scofflaw

UDP · 03-02-2012 11:32AM

Going Forward wrote: »

So is the constant smug criticism of people who bought a house in the "boom"; the vast majority of whom have not welched on their loans.

It depends on whether these people are living on the edge whilst paying back their loans in that if circumstances change negatively a bit more will they be in a position of being unable to pay back.If they can withstand negative changes (e.g. rent prices dropping 25% more) and still continue to service their debts then what Enda Kenny said does not apply to them but there are a lot out there who are paying back loans they cannot afford and who will be in serious trouble if interest rates rise further or rent decreases etc - those are the ones who went mad borrowing and from what I can see there are a good few of those people.

antoobrien · 03-02-2012 11:41AM

Going Forward wrote: »

This is a disingenuous argument.

So is the constant smug criticism of people who bought a house in the "boom"; the vast majority of whom have not welched on their loans.

Start discussing those who dealt in the monopoly money figures and you'll see who "went mad" borrowing, who tried to fiddle the system, and who really caused the crash.

That would be the approximately 90,000 mortgage holders that are in arrears. They took on loans that they could only afford under certain circumstances - e.g. both parties having a job, no wage cuts, low interest rates etc.

I said it all through the last decade that mortgages had gone completely nuts , I'm not stopping now because hearing the truth is hurting the feelings of the people who didn't want to listen.

If that's smug then so be it. I'm proud to be smug about it.

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2012 01:32PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I did (what I thought was) just that, and the problem is that that option is now doing the opposite of what I want and gave them a mandate for, and yet - despite their promises-which-are-now-discarded-and-inadmissable - they should in reality be viewed as never having gotten my support for their altered agenda.

How do we solve that one, Scofflaw?

We don't. It's just tough.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That scuttles any concept of a mandate, so. Basically there is no democracy in that scenario.

Election promises need to be binding or - at the very least - a binding guarantee not to do the opposite should any proactive action prove not to be possible due to a coalition.

Scofflaw · 03-02-2012 02:46PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That scuttles any concept of a mandate, so. Basically there is no democracy in that scenario.

Election promises need to be binding or - at the very least - a binding guarantee not to do the opposite should any proactive action prove not to be possible due to a coalition.

No, it means - no offence intended - that you don't understand the concept of a democratic mandate.

When you vote for a politician, you are delegating to him or her the authority to act in your name for the duration of that mandate within the limits of his or her constitutional role.

You are not forming a binding contract with him or her to do x or y, and to refer to you again on any unexpected development. That's why you have to be very careful who you vote for. Because you really are delegating your full constitutional powers, and you do not get them back - except where specified by law - for the duration of the mandate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2012 04:34PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That scuttles any concept of a mandate, so. Basically there is no democracy in that scenario.

Election promises need to be binding or - at the very least - a binding guarantee not to do the opposite should any proactive action prove not to be possible due to a coalition.

No, it means - no offence intended - that you don't understand the concept of a democratic mandate.

When you vote for a politician, you are delegating to him or her the authority to act in your name for the duration of that mandate within the limits of his or her constitutional role.

You are not forming a binding contract with him or her to do x or y, and to refer to you again on any unexpected development. That's why you have to be very careful who you vote for. Because you really are delegating your full constitutional powers, and you do not get them back - except where specified by law - for the duration of the mandate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agreed. However the issue is that

(a) as you said we vote for the best of a bad lot

(b) even the best lie through their teeth to get elected

So we need far, far more ethical politicians for it to work.

Otherwise there's no point voting for "the best of a bad lot" which you yourself said was a requirement for participation in this "democracy".

If you cannot trust someone to represent you, how can you give them the mandate, even if they are "better" than all the others ?

Scofflaw · 03-02-2012 04:57PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Agreed. However the issue is that

(a) as you said we vote for the best of a bad lot

(b) even the best lie through their teeth to get elected

So we need far, far more ethical politicians for it to work.

Otherwise there's no point voting for "the best of a bad lot" which you yourself said was a requirement for participation in this "democracy".

If you cannot trust someone to represent you, how can you give them the mandate, even if they are "better" than all the others ?

Because somebody will be holding that mandate. Your vote can make the difference between it being the best of a bad lot and the worst of a bad lot. For example, while I don't vote either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, I prefer the latter to the former.

Irish voting, of course, is complicated by the fact that the government is normally formed by coalition, and that if your preferred representative doesn't form part of that coalition, he/she is essentially irrelevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien · 03-02-2012 05:01PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Irish voting, of course, is complicated by the fact that the government is normally formed by coalition, and that if your preferred representative doesn't form part of that coalition, he/she is essentially irrelevant.

Throw in the fact that coalition usually means compromise, which in turn usually means that some campaign pledges get sidelined in order to get the bigger picture through.

Then of course there's what happens when a promise turns out to have been totally unrealistic in the first place.

Good loser · 03-02-2012 07:23PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If you cannot trust someone to represent you, how can you give them the mandate, even if they are "better" than all the others ?

Have you any idea what you are saying?

Politicians represent groups as best they can - never individuals.

If they were to represent individual A how could they represent individuals B and C and D etc etc - 8,000 persons?

Basically politicians should be selected for their character and judgement - not for their (often selfish) promises.

Liam Byrne · 03-02-2012 07:53PM

I'm not talking about them representing "me"....I'm talking about them refusing to represent people like me; people who didn't indulge in the boom or rip-off Ireland or get greedy or act stupidly or whatever else we're being accused off just because 10, 20, 30 or 40% did.

The lack of trust is based on them promising to do A & B and then not only not doing A & B, but actively doing the opposite.

Going Forward · 03-02-2012 11:16PM

UDP wrote: »

It depends on whether these people are living on the edge whilst paying back their loans in that if circumstances change negatively a bit more will they be in a position of being unable to pay back.If they can withstand negative changes (e.g. rent prices dropping 25% more) and still continue to service their debts then what Enda Kenny said does not apply to them but there are a lot out there who are paying back loans they cannot afford and who will be in serious trouble if interest rates rise further or rent decreases etc - those are the ones who went mad borrowing and from what I can see there are a good few of those people.

A lot of people obviously did stretch themselves, which was conveniently facilitated by a deliberate avoidance of regulation on lending practices.

In other areas of Irish society we accept that regulation is useful, for example a publican cannot serve alcohol to a minor, retailers must sell goods that are fit for purpose.

Had similar sensible regulation in the banking sector existed, it is unlikely that the examples given above could have occurred.

I have little sympathy for the overnight property experts who jumped on the bandwagon to turn a quick profit; I have less for the cowboy builders and developers whose blatantly criminal shortcuts will be further exposed in years to come.

But I do have some sympathy for the genuine middle income earners who bought a house, which was going to be their home, and were not chancing their arm in a get rich quick scheme.

The majority, that 90% of mortgage holders, will as always pay their bills, along with the many innovative taxes and charges that now also must be paid to fund the bailout which they are now being blamed for causing.

Going Forward · 04-02-2012 12:33AM

Good loser wrote: »

Basically politicians should be selected for their character and judgement - not for their (often selfish) promises.

Unfortunately, familial political dynasties and schoolteachers abound in Ireland.
The choice isn't great to start with, hence the cabal of over paid advisers to actually mentor them on how to do their jobs.

Maybe we should start looking at their qualifications in real life and not their aspirations.

Good loser · 04-02-2012 01:02AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not talking about them representing "me"....I'm talking about them refusing to represent people like me; people who didn't indulge in the boom or rip-off Ireland or get greedy or act stupidly or whatever else we're being accused off just because 10, 20, 30 or 40% did.

The lack of trust is based on them promising to do A & B and then not only not doing A & B, but actively doing the opposite.

Liam you and your opinions are unique - one would have to travel well beyond this planet - perhaps in the crater of a volcano in a parallel universe (and not just the nearest).

Going Forward · 04-02-2012 01:27AM

Why are we all posting in a misspelled thread anyway?

DAVROS?? Bobby??

Jesus Wept · 04-02-2012 01:32AM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The banks didn't put a gun to peoples heads. People could have said no, but they didn't. I don't blame people smoking cigarettes on the shops that sell them, and most people here don't either so I don't really see any difference.

It's very different to that tbh.

Taoiseach speech in Davros

Comments