People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

marieholmfan · 28-01-2020 9:47pm

Skylinehead wrote: »

Question about the manifesto:

SF claim they will build 100,000 houses, at a cost of €6.5 billion.

Am I missing something? There's no way you can build a house for 65 grand.

Of course you can. This is the absolute failure of vision that FG are burdening the country with.

smurgen · 28-01-2020 9:48pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

Once the money-trees are harvested, they can be felled as used as lumber in the housing construction sector.

It's fully costed by qualified financial experts.not keyboard advisors like yourself.

christy c · 28-01-2020 9:50pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's wonderful stuff right? Personally I think they are doing themselves a disservice when they say they'll only have a surplus of €3 billion in 2025. That's a pessimistic outlook. More realistically we are talking about a surplus of €10-20 billion.

Back to the OP, sh1te like this is why people will not vote SF despite liking their candidates. We had one lad in our constituency who was a councillor and ran in one general election. Heard nothing bit good things about him, but put him in the Dail so he can enact this rubbish? No thanks.

Water meters, children's hospital, etc. will look like loose change in comparison.

Bishop of hope · 28-01-2020 9:51pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Of course you can. This is the absolute failure of vision that FG are burdening the country with.

A jesus Marie, no you can't.
Tbf to SF this has been costed and I didn't hear much dissent on the news about it. But you can't build a 3 bed semi for 65000 euro.

christy c · 28-01-2020 9:54pm

smurgen wrote: »

It's fully costed by qualified financial experts.not keyboard advisors like yourself.

A SF style soundbite here would be "the same experts that wanted us to bail out the banks?".

It used to be that items were costed individually, and does not take in to account the cumulative effect. Don't know if that is still the case.

FrancieBrady · 28-01-2020 9:54pm

:rolleyes:

Bishop of hope wrote: »

A jesus Marie, no you can't.
Tbf to SF this has been costed and I didn't hear much dissent on the news about it. But you can't build a 3 bed semi for 65000 euro.

Depends. If you were building one...you couldn't. The savings on building 20 though?

It's how developers get fabulously wealthy.

28-01-2020 9:56pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

3 bed semi for 65000 euro.

Your not believing hard enough.

The state is legendary for prudence, efficiency, cost effectiveness and on time delivery for their construction projects. :pac:

facehugger99 · 28-01-2020 9:56pm

smurgen wrote: »

It's fully costed by qualified financial experts.not keyboard advisors like yourself.

Fully costed my arse.

Ramp up the taxes the top corporations and earners and assume they won't be on the first plane out of here.

If you believe the fairy stories the Shinners spin you, you deserve to live in a Country governed by them.

Enjoy the unicorns and rainbows.

Finty Lemon · 28-01-2020 9:59pm

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Your not believing hard enough.

The state is legendary for prudence, efficiency, cost effectiveness and on time delivery for their construction projects. :pac:

You can build them for 50k without planning in South Armagh. Cash payment to the builder. No certs. But living there is not for everyone

Bishop of hope · 28-01-2020 10:00pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Depends. If you were building one...you couldn't. The savings on building 20 though?

It's how developers get fabulously wealthy.

I work in the costings of houses, and you couldn't.

Edit, if you could then the state could build them and sell them like hot cakes for 100000 say and make 35k profit per house, I could too and I'd be happy if I could, I wouldn't be sitting in my office working for a living.

Finty Lemon · 28-01-2020 10:02pm

Slab homes I believe they're called

facehugger99 · 28-01-2020 10:03pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I work in the costings of houses, and you couldn't.

Pearse Doherty, as a qualified engineer, can probably come up with an innovative way to do it though.

Oh wait, - he dropped out of college.

Never mind.

smurgen · 28-01-2020 10:03pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

Fully costed my arse.

Ramp up the taxes the top corporations and earners and assume they won't be on the first plane out of here.

If you believe the fairy stories the Shinners spin you, you deserve to live in a Country governed by them.

Enjoy the unicorns and rainbows.

Link? Here who do you believe? Fg who had a sod turning in the non existent event center in cork four years ago? Ye Finnerbots gonna get some dose of reality.

astrofool · 28-01-2020 10:06pm

efanton wrote: »

Hold on a minute.

The SF manifesto is independently costed by an auditing company (KPMG, Deloitte, PWC etc) as well by the department of finance run by a FG government. As are all the alternative budgets.

The same goes for all the major political parties. FF, FG , LAB, SF.
If you have problems with their numbers and where the money is coming from then you can only point the finger at the Department of Finance or the company that did the audit.

To be fair to SF they are not saying this money is coming from no where. They openly admit to raising taxation, reducing some allowances, and totally axing altogether some existing spending programs.

FF are definitely not as openly honest about additional taxation, and we get that FG do not want to spend any additional money at all if they can possibly get away with it so its easy for them to use the argument that other parties raise taxes.

But if people want better services, more social housing, and a reduction of the burden of taxation on those that least can afford it they have to accept that increased taxes, or restructuring of tax bands is the only way to do it. Most understand that and agree with that if those improvement are actually delivered.
The problem is previous governments have made promises that they never came close to delivering.

You've got to imagine the squinting the auditors did at their plan to tax the most mobile entities much more to make the numbers balance, the likes of KPMG would be the first ones out if SF are ever likely to get a sniff of power.

christy c · 28-01-2020 10:07pm

smurgen wrote: »

Ye Finnerbots gonna get some dose of reality.

The irony in someone defending the SF manifesto and talking about reality is amusing.

Also where did the childish "Finnberbots" come from?

FrancieBrady · 28-01-2020 10:09pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I work in the costings of houses, and you couldn't.

I got the house I built 'costed' and it was built for a hell of a lot less because I shopped around and made sure I got value for my money.
There were plenty including the quantity surveyor who would have taken more if they got away with it.

I'd imagine these costs are based on economies of scale. Probably on the low side, granted.

astrofool · 28-01-2020 10:10pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

Pearse Doherty, as a qualified engineer, can probably come up with an innovative way to do it though.

Oh wait, - he dropped out of college.

Never mind.

They'll have Thomas McFeely ready to start the concrete pouring (pyrite added for no extra fee).

efanton · 28-01-2020 10:10pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

Fully costed my arse.

Ramp up the taxes the top corporations and earners and assume they won't be on the first plane out of here.

If you believe the fairy stories the Shinners spin you, you deserve to live in a Country governed by them.

Enjoy the unicorns and rainbows.

Do you make it up as you go along?
Where did ANY party say it was going to touch corporation tax?

Yes they are going to tax the higher end off the income spectrum.

Taxation on income is a tax on personal wealth, not businesses or corporations.
The very few that actually had the power to pull the plug on any foreign business operating here is very very few indeed, almost all of which do not reside in this country.
The worst they would do is adjust their business costs so that their higher payed employees are not affected.

For the vast majority that are on 140k a year they are employees, and definitely do not have the power to relocate the business they work for, so you argument is a moot point.

James Brown · 28-01-2020 10:10pm

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Your not believing hard enough.

The state is legendary for prudence, efficiency, cost effectiveness and on time delivery for their construction projects. :pac:

Maybe we need make a change from FF/FG so?

astrofool · 28-01-2020 10:11pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I got the house I built 'costed' and it was built for a hell of a lot less because I shopped around and made sure I got value for my money.
There were plenty including the quantity surveyor who would have taken more if they got away with it.

I'd imagine these costs are based on economies of scale. Probably on the low side, granted.

I believe SF call it shotgun negotiation (sorry, couldn't resist :pac:)

Bishop of hope · 28-01-2020 10:11pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I got the house I built 'costed' and it was built for a hell of a lot less because I shopped around and made sure I got value for my money.
There were plenty including the quantity surveyor who would have taken more if they got away with it.

I'd imagine these costs are based on economies of scale. Probably on the low side, granted.

How much and when?

facehugger99 · 28-01-2020 10:12pm

In some ways I'd love to be stupid enough to vote SF.

It must be very comforting to be able to reduce complex matters of economy down to a placard scrawl or megaphone bellow.

James Brown · 28-01-2020 10:13pm

astrofool wrote: »

I believe SF call it shotgun negotiation (sorry, couldn't resist :pac:)

Be a change from FF/FG criminality not on the tax payers behalf.

marieholmfan · 28-01-2020 10:17pm

At €65,000 a house there will be nothing left for politicians accounts in the Cayman islands.

FrancieBrady · 28-01-2020 10:17pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

How much and when?

What difference is that info gonna make? I have no intention of telling you.
There was a considerable difference.

astrofool · 28-01-2020 10:18pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Be a change from FF/FG criminality not on the tax payers behalf.

New SF Slogan:
Why vote for wannabe criminals, when you can vote for actual criminals

FrancieBrady · 28-01-2020 10:21pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

In some ways I'd love to be stupid enough to vote SF.

It must be very comforting to be able to reduce complex matters of economy down to a placard scrawl or megaphone bellow.

How many times in your life have you paid for the 'maths' of FF FG?
I'm in my mid 50's and I have, many times. Boom bust, boom bust, boom bust...etc etc etc.

I'm used to it now, so if they **** up, I won't notice much change.

smurgen · 28-01-2020 10:21pm

astrofool wrote: »

New SF Slogan:
Why vote for wannabe criminals, when you can vote for actual criminals

Who Lowery and Bailey?

Bishop of hope · 28-01-2020 10:21pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What difference is that info gonna make? I have no intention of telling you.
There was a considerable difference.

I'd wager you can't provide an example of anyone in the last 20/25 years getting a house built for that type of money, even in the midst of the recession, materials and service costs wouldn't be covered even let alone labour.

FrancieBrady · 28-01-2020 10:22pm

smurgen wrote: »

Who Lowery and Bailey?

Or 'loadsamoney' found guilty just today.

James Brown · 28-01-2020 10:28pm

astrofool wrote: »

New SF Slogan:
Why vote for wannabe criminals, when you can vote for actual criminals

Wannabe? Now I see the joke.

McMurphy · 28-01-2020 10:30pm

smurgen wrote: »

Who Lowery and Bailey?

And your man Conlon up in Monaghan who slashed the lad in the bar with the broken glass.

Bishop of hope · 28-01-2020 10:31pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Wannabe? Now I see the joke.

Sure there all as bad as each other, funny the lads on here that defend only one in particular.

efanton · 28-01-2020 10:34pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'd wager you can't provide an example of anyone in the last 20/25 years getting a house built for that type of money, even in the midst of the recession, materials and service costs wouldn't be covered even let alone labour.

Remember that they are building on government owned land.
The cost of a site is a very considerable cost of building a home

Surely that would be dependant on the type of homes they intended building.
I see no reason whatsoever why a social home should include big gardens and all mod cons.

Also why would you want to put a single person or young couple without children in a house? Surely flats would be more affordable and better use of the countries money and land assets.

They have stated their policy and all policies have been costed by the department of finance. I'm sure the department of finance would have shot it down immediately if their figures were off.
I'm also sure the media would jump on them immediately if there was a story in it, but they havent.

Finally have you ever though of asking them directly yourself?
Why ask here, you are only going to get opinions not detailed facts, unless they have actually released them to the media already.

FrancieBrady · 28-01-2020 10:37pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'd wager you can't provide an example of anyone in the last 20/25 years getting a house built for that type of money, even in the midst of the recession, materials and service costs wouldn't be covered even let alone labour.

I know of people who have single homes for not very much more.

I'm not going to get into a ding dong over this. If their figures are wrong I'm sure they'll be challenged on them.

Bishop of hope · 28-01-2020 10:42pm

efanton wrote: »

Remember that they are building on government owned land.
The cost of a site is a very considerable cost of building a home

Surely that would be dependant on the type of homes they intended building.
I see no reason whatsoever why a social home should include big gardens and all mod cons.

Also why would you want to put a single person or young couple without children in a house? Surely flats would be more affordable and better use of the countries money and land assets.

They have stated their policy and all policies have been costed by the department of finance. I'm sure the department of finance would have shot it down immediately if their figures were off.
I'm also sure the media would jump on them immediately if there was a story in it, but they havent.

Finally have you ever though of asking them directly yourself?
Why ask here, you are only going to get opinions not detailed facts, unless they have actually released them to the media already.

I don't need to ask them I know.
If you came to me with a site for 1000 houses, I couldn't deliver you a finished 3 bed semi development on that site for 65k a house, simple as that.

maccored · 28-01-2020 10:42pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

In some ways I'd love to be stupid enough to vote SF.

It must be very comforting to be able to reduce complex matters of economy down to a placard scrawl or megaphone bellow.

you seem to be quite good at reducing politics down to pretty bad forum posts so you're doing all right

Skylinehead · 28-01-2020 10:45pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Of course you can. This is the absolute failure of vision that FG are burdening the country with.

How? Builders aren't going to work for less (at 65k, probably literally nothing) just because SF say so.

Not that I'm in any way a fan of FG, quite the opposite. I just don't see how this is in any way feasible.

blanch152 · 28-01-2020 10:53pm

efanton wrote: »

Do you make it up as you go along?
Where did ANY party say it was going to touch corporation tax?

Yes they are going to tax the higher end off the income spectrum.

Taxation on income is a tax on personal wealth, not businesses or corporations.
The very few that actually had the power to pull the plug on any foreign business operating here is very very few indeed, almost all of which do not reside in this country.
The worst they would do is adjust their business costs so that their higher payed employees are not affected.

For the vast majority that are on 140k a year they are employees, and definitely do not have the power to relocate the business they work for, so you argument is a moot point.

Taxation on income is not a tax on personal wealth, it is a tax on people who get off their backside and work. Calling it a tax on personal wealth is just wrong.

CAT, CGT and LPT are taxes on personal wealth. There are a number of parties which are promising to reduce these wealth taxes, Fianna Fail being the worst of them.

johnmcdnl · 28-01-2020 10:54pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Depends. If you were building one...you couldn't. The savings on building 20 though?

It's how developers get fabulously wealthy.

It's a wonder how none of the FG or FF boys have realised they can Iine their pockets because it's so easy to fire up new houses for 65k. Nobody in all of FG was able to put a word in Eoghan Murphy's ear . No developer came with a proposal to Eoghan Murphy wishing to be the contractor who'd get to build all these houses if they got a special little deal.

But SF have the answer. But didn't bother to mention it during the debate or how they have managed to find a way to build houses on budget for 65k a piece whereas other parties seems to be budgeting for roughly 200k per extra house.

When everyone else says it costs in the ballpark of 200k, and that aligns with the general publics understandings of the cost I think we're entitled to be sceptical about how the figure has been calculated and costed. Please just share with us how SF will build housing for 25% of the cost of everyone else because I haven't heard the explanation yet.

Fianna Fáil is committed to building 50,000
new social housing units by 2025. The average
cost of building a two-bedroom social housing
unit is €250,000.
Labour has identified how €16 billion can be invested, over five years, to deliver 80,000+ (200k each)

blanch152 · 28-01-2020 10:55pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How many times in your life have you paid for the 'maths' of FF FG?
I'm in my mid 50's and I have, many times. Boom bust, boom bust, boom bust...etc etc etc.

I'm used to it now, so if they **** up, I won't notice much change.

Can you give me an example of when Fine Gael broke the economy?

Fianna Fail broke it in the 1930s, did so much damage that it took 30 years to recover, they did it again between 1977 and 1981, before completely wrecking the economy again in 2008.

blanch152 · 28-01-2020 10:57pm

McMurphy wrote: »

And your man Conlon up in Monaghan who slashed the lad in the bar with the broken glass.

And they are all gone from Fine Gael, unlike the terrorist Dessie Ellis and the gobhite Houlihan who is still a SF councillor despite being a racist, homophobe and misogynist.

FrancieBrady · 28-01-2020 11:00pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Can you give me an example of when Fine Gael broke the economy?

Fianna Fail broke it in the 1930s, did so much damage that it took 30 years to recover, they did it again between 1977 and 1981, before completely wrecking the economy again in 2008.

God you do love the misquote. Go back and read the post again and then get back to me.

blanch152 · 28-01-2020 11:02pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Wannabe? Now I see the joke.

Here is a question for you. Which party has an actual convicted criminal running for them in this election?

Hint: It is not FG.

Will you condemn that party? In the words of Michael Bailey, will you ****?

blanch152 · 28-01-2020 11:05pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

God you do love the misquote. Go back and read the post again and then get back to me.

Well, this is easy to clear up then.

Fine Gael have never been responsible for a "bust" (to use your word) in the economy. Do you agree, or can you provide evidence to refute that?

FrancieBrady · 28-01-2020 11:14pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, this is easy to clear up then.

Fine Gael have never been responsible for a "bust" (to use your word) in the economy. Do you agree, or can you provide evidence to refute that?

FG were responsible for part of what happened in 2008. They cheer-leaded the lead up to it.
Of course you won't accept that but there you go.
Who do you think paid for their maths on Water Charges?

You'll be claiming that they never put a foot wrong in 100 years of the power swap next.

James Brown · 28-01-2020 11:24pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'd wager you can't provide an example of anyone in the last 20/25 years getting a house built for that type of money, even in the midst of the recession, materials and service costs wouldn't be covered even let alone labour.

TBF, prices paid on multiple builds by large construction companies wouldn't be the same as someone paying to have a one off house built. Also theres the issue of building on public land.

FrancieBrady · 28-01-2020 11:27pm

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Fianna Fáil is committed to building 50,000
new social housing units by 2025. The average
cost of building a two-bedroom social housing
unit is €250,000.
Labour has identified how €16 billion can be invested, over five years, to deliver 80,000+ (200k each)

When you figure out why the f*** it is costing 250,000 to build a 2 bed house, then you might be on your way to working out why a hospital is breaking world records on build costs.

Dionysis · 28-01-2020 11:27pm

If the govt got involved in house building now it would drive the market crazy, that’s soo obvious!

James Brown · 28-01-2020 11:28pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Sure there all as bad as each other, funny the lads on here that defend only one in particular.

No they are not. If people want to talk government they are unproven. We know FF/FG are bad.
I'll dispute bull notions by FG'ers in the context of running the country, certainly.

People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

Comments