Who is everyone going to be voting for in the next general election?

various artistes · 11-12-2019 10:27pm

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Quite the rant. Full of the usual right-wing prejudice. Lots of hard-working people live in social houses.

Far from giving people 'houses for next to nothing', the Workers' Party proposes widening the criteria for public housing so that working people currently being squeezed by private landlords can actually afford to live. Using myself as an example, I'm currently renting privately, earning too much to qualify for social housing and handing 40% of my salary over to my landlord. Under this proposal, I would qualify and would be paying between €629 and €874 a month. Still a significant chunk, but I'd have security and also half a chance of being able to save for a mortgage, should I want one. And if I lost my job in the next recession, my rent would temporarily go down in proportion with my income, so I wouldn't have to worry about spiraling into homelessness.

I know some people have an ideological hatred of the state doing anything that benefits anyone less fortunate than themselves, but if you take the time to read the link I posted, I'm sure you'll agree with at least some aspects of it.

What would be the point of this when it's mixed with the policies of all left wing parties to immigration, specifically that of asylum seekers/ refugees?

All left wing parties as a matter of policy believe in:

a- Little to no restriction on the numbers of asylum seekers/ refugees our state should take in a given year

b- That these people should receive priority allocation of available social/ subsidised housing over Irish taxpayers renting privately or even welfare recipients already on housing lists.

If this sounds like hyperbole, demands by PBP and SF to end Direct Provision would lead to exactly this- we would, tomorrow, have 6000 people for whom DP is not good enough, and who would need to be housed before the next 6000 mostly native households currently on the list had their housing need met. That's not hyperbole, it is a simple fact that people like Ruth Coppinger have a white guilt complex and believe that there is no situation where an Irish person is in greater need of services than a member of a minority.

So I ask, what is the point in the SP building 75,000 new units in five years, as their policy piece says they would, when they would admit more than that number of asylum seekers and bump them straight up the list?

rossie1977 · 11-12-2019 10:34pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Neither gay marriage or abortion were key issues for the majority of people, which isn't to say that the majority opposed, clearly they didn't but FG would not have been kicked out had they not called referendums on either, Liberal lobby groups forced the issue, it's the same with this direct provision business, to listen to the media, you would think it was of major concern to your average voter

Disagree. Savita Halappanavars death meant the clock was ticking on abortion referendum regardless how much FG tried to down play it initially, which they did.

Fact is conservative India and it's media were calling Ireland a backward nation after Mrs Halappanavars death. Along with Blasphemy law we were looked on abroad as either extremely conservative or heroes in places like Pakistan.

suicide_circus · 11-12-2019 10:56pm

FG have dined out long enough on their low hanging fruit no-brainer social referenda

Sir Oxman · 11-12-2019 11:06pm

Don't forget the Convention on the Constitution recommended the Marriage Referendum be held.
Citizens Assembly recommended the Abortion Referendum be held.

I doubt FG or FF would have facilitated both without having an 'out' like the above.

Jinglejangle69 · 11-12-2019 11:13pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What ever your biases, we'd be better off building rather than buying. Leasing would be an even bigger waste.

What do you base this on?

Sooooooo.

Still no cost analysis or figures of how many social house you want built.

I’ll keep asking, hopefully I’ll get an answer.

By the way I love how you put up figures about how it’s more expensive to buy rather than build.

Even though my question was to back up your claim it’s more beneficial to the tax payer if we provide a social house rather than pay for HAP.

Talk about dodging the question and throwing some ****e in hoping it sticks.

Whenever your ready to answer the question that was asked of you yesterday.

various artistes · 11-12-2019 11:31pm

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Even though my question was to back up your claim it’s more beneficial to the tax payer if we provide a social house rather than pay for HAP.

A 3 bed terrace house built on state land by a state developer (not a private for profit developer) can be built for 140,000.

That's probably circa 8 years of average HAP contributions for a Dublin household. 16 if you want to harp on about half the profit being recycled as taxes.

HAP should be an emergency stop gap, not a solution.

Mad_maxx · 11-12-2019 11:32pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

Disagree. Savita Halappanavars death meant the clock was ticking on abortion referendum regardless how much FG tried to down play it initially, which they did.

Fact is conservative India and it's media were calling Ireland a backward nation after Mrs Halappanavars death. Along with Blasphemy law we were looked on abroad as either extremely conservative or heroes in places like Pakistan.

Who cares what India thinks, savita didn't die because of the eight and i don't oppose abortion by the way, I don't identify as either "pro choice" or "Pro life"

various artistes · 11-12-2019 11:41pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Who cares what India thinks,

India, indeed.

Next, the Saudi ambassador joins us to discuss Paddy Jackson's WhatsApp's about women.

realitykeeper · 12-12-2019 12:01am

Moghead wrote: »

Are there any right wing parties that are strong in environmental issues?

There are no right wing parties.

blanch152 · 12-12-2019 12:09am

various artistes wrote: »

A 3 bed terrace house built on state land by a state developer (not a private for profit developer) can be built for 140,000.

That's probably circa 8 years of average HAP contributions for a Dublin household. 16 if you want to harp on about half the profit being recycled as taxes.

HAP should be an emergency stop gap, not a solution.

What state developer?

various artistes · 12-12-2019 12:11am

blanch152 wrote: »

What state developer?

A non existent one, unfortunately.

A housing co op in Ballymun that had a developer agreeing to only a 5 percent profit delivered 3 bed terraces for 140k.

A better use of Part V would be rather than buying "discounted" homes having the developer build homes of similar worth elsewhere.

12-12-2019 12:13am

Rubberchikken wrote: »

i wont be voting. ever again. its a complete and utter waste of time and energy.

all politicians are a waste of space. none of them have an original thought. none if them truly want to stand up and be counted. they are all in it to line their own pockets, look after their own interests and reap whatever benefits they can, honestly or otherwise.

bitter...much? you bet:(

Man, I voted for Stephen Donnelly last time, so I know the pain. Still voting though

SafeSurfer · 12-12-2019 1:00am

I will be voting for parties in order of preference based on which party currently has the lowest number of TDs with double barrel names.
Therefore Solidarity-People Before Profit gets the lowest preference as it has the highest number of TDs with double barrel names.
Also stupid sounding names of TDs are weighted against the party so Hildegarde is a major no no.

hatrickpatrick · 12-12-2019 1:16am

Left wing independents, right wing independents, small groupings, PBP, Soc Dems, Greens, Labour, Sinn Fein, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael in that order. My priorities would be maintaining a powerful Dáil that can actually get its job done of vetting cabinet policies without a guillotine (hence prioritising independents regardless of political views or affiliations), turning the tide away from the neoliberalism of the 1990s-2010s and back to the left wing politics of the early to mid 20th century (hence prioritising left wing parties and groups), and finally, ensuring that Fine Gael are absolutely crucified for their horrifically heartless response to the housing crisis. They will never command anything but my lowest preference ever again, as long as the party remains in the grip of neoliberalism.

LillySV · 12-12-2019 1:20am

Geuze wrote: »

Nobody in Ireland pays a 50% effective income tax rate.

With all the extra charges and indirect taxes/charges then yes at least 50 %

NIMAN · 12-12-2019 1:58am

LillySV wrote: »

With all the extra charges and indirect taxes/charges then yes at least 50 %

Probably no different to most developed nations?

Idbatterim · 12-12-2019 10:04am

Fg are vile scum. Out of the traps quick enough to say rent can’t be frozen. But one hundred percent increases in rent v the height of the recession, no legal issues there ... varadkar selling out his own generation and the one beneath! What a rat !

cryptocurrency · 12-12-2019 10:06am

Idbatterim wrote: »

Fg are vile scum. Out of the traps quick enough to say rent can’t be frozen. But one hundred percent increases in rent v the height of the recession, no legal issues there ... varadkar selling out his own generation and the one beneath! What a rat !

You can't be crtical of Varadkar as you'll be seen as unwoke

McMurphy · 12-12-2019 10:33am

cryptocurrency wrote: »

You can't be crtical of Varadkar as you'll be seen as unwoke

It's spouting nosensical bolloxology about brexit that usually portrays a poster as unwoke on these forums I find.

cryptocurrency · 12-12-2019 10:39am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It's spouting nosensical bolloxology about brexit that usually portrays a poster as unwoke on these forums I find.

On these forums...you said it. It's an echo chamber of the horrendously wrong.

Nobody can rationally look as a neutral and say what is said here. This is Ireland and of course peoples opinions are biased with clouded emotions and delusions that we've picked the right horse...........we haven't.

Geuze · 12-12-2019 10:54am

various artistes wrote: »

What would be the point of this when it's mixed with the policies of all left wing parties to immigration, specifically that of asylum seekers/ refugees?

All left wing parties as a matter of policy believe in:

a- Little to no restriction on the numbers of asylum seekers/ refugees our state should take in a given year

b- That these people should receive priority allocation of available social/ subsidised housing over Irish taxpayers renting privately or even welfare recipients already on housing lists.

If this sounds like hyperbole, demands by PBP and SF to end Direct Provision would lead to exactly this- we would, tomorrow, have 6000 people for whom DP is not good enough, and who would need to be housed before the next 6000 mostly native households currently on the list had their housing need met. That's not hyperbole, it is a simple fact that people like Ruth Coppinger have a white guilt complex and believe that there is no situation where an Irish person is in greater need of services than a member of a minority.

So I ask, what is the point in the SP building 75,000 new units in five years, as their policy piece says they would, when they would admit more than that number of asylum seekers and bump them straight up the list?

Agreed.

A genuine workers party would put workers first.

You've paid a lot of PRSI? OK, cheaper, easier access to healthcare/pensions/housing for you.

You haven't paid PRSI? Not as much access.

Field east · 12-12-2019 10:55am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

FF are further to the left than at any other time since the 1950,s, Michael Martin could be the leader of the Labour Party right now, that's how opposite of Conservative he is, FF were never a friend of the tax payer but are especially spendthrift right now

When a party is in power - and especially in a single party situation- it has to have a tendency to behave conservatively/ right singly - simply because it has to watch the finances. Eg don’t kill the goose that lays the golden leg. The Gov has to keep the business sector/ tax paying sector happy so that the money comes in to pay for all the social costs it would like to be able to meet. So the whole thing is a balancing thing and the income /expenditure position is definitely not limitless. So the Party in power has to be careful.

IF A PARTY IS IN OPPOSITION it does not have the same responsibility/constraints as a party in power would have , so it can afford to be more liberal, more left and more socially inclined.
FF has held power for most of the period from the 50s right up to 2011 and have been in ‘opposition’ since
Maybe this substantially explains the change you are suggesting.
The same would go for any other party -including SF if it ever got into power

Geuze · 12-12-2019 10:59am

LillySV wrote: »

With all the extra charges and indirect taxes/charges then yes at least 50 %

No.

All taxes, all of them, add up to about 30% of GDP.

Let us check that, let us establish the facts.

All taxes in 2018 = 74,024m

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gfsa/governmentfinancestatisticsoctober2019/

2018 GDP = 324bn

So all taxes are 22.85% of GDP. All taxes are 23% of our income.

Now, I hear you say, GDP is not a good measure of income.

Correct, so let's use GNI* instead.

GNI* = 197.5, bn so all taxes are 37.5% of all income.

Let me repeat that to make it clear - all taxes are 37.5% of GNI* income.

Geuze · 12-12-2019 11:02am

Geuze wrote: »

Nobody in Ireland pays a 50% effective income tax rate.

When I consider my parents, we are a very generous country, in some ways;

They pay 8% direct taxes on income about 48k-49k.

In return, they get:

2x full med cards
2x FTP free travel pass
free TV licence
35 pm / 420 pa off electricity

Other countries provide benefits like this, yes, but charge way more than 8% direct income tax.

cryptocurrency · 12-12-2019 11:05am

Geuze wrote: »

No.

All taxes, all of them, add up to about 30% of GDP.

Let us check that, let us establish the facts.

All taxes in 2018 = 74,024m

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gfsa/governmentfinancestatisticsoctober2019/

2018 GDP = 324bn

So all taxes are 22.85% of GDP. All taxes are 23% of our income.

Now, I hear you say, GDP is not a good measure of income.

Correct, so let's use GNI* instead.

GNI* = 197.5, bn so all taxes are 37.5% of all income.

Let me repeat that to make it clear - all taxes are 37.5% of GNI* income.

All taxes..All, all...you sure?

Field east · 12-12-2019 11:33am

Deleted User wrote: »

By any developed world standard, Fine Gael are a right wing party. The only thing up for discussion is how far right they are.

A very good example of the shallowness of a lot of arguments here and on other topics. FG is a right wing party - how dare they!. SF is very left wing- the cheek of them!
To bring some reality as to how extreme or otherwise each party is on a scale of 10 to 0 to 10 - 0 being neither being L or R-then where would you put each party - taking a 20 year perspective on the matter. Lump in the DUP, the Republican and democratic parties (US), the Tories, Liberal and Labour parties (UK).
For what it’s worth this would be my take:-
10 DUP
9 Republican(US
9. Tories(UK)
4 Democrats(US) the
4. FG
4 Lib Dems
3. FF
0. Greens(Irl)
2 Labour(Irl)
5 SF
7 Labour(UK
10 PBP (irl)
So as per the above , should we thank ‘our lucky stars’ that the bulk of the Irish political parties are not more right or left wing than they are. It’s all a bit relative though

cryptocurrency · 12-12-2019 11:38am

Field east wrote: »

A very good example of the shallowness of a lot of arguments here and on other topics. FG is a right wing party - how dare they!. SF is very left wing- the cheek of them!
To bring some reality as to how extreme or otherwise each party is on a scale of 10 to 0 to 10 - 0 being neither being L or R-then where would you put each party - taking a 20 year perspective on the matter. Lump in the DUP, the Republican and democratic parties (US), the Tories, Liberal and Labour parties (UK).
For what it’s worth this would be my take:-
10 DUP
9 Republican(US
9. Tories(UK)
4 Democrats(US) the
4. FG
4 Lib Dems
3. FF
0. Greens(Irl)
2 Labour(Irl)
5 SF
7 Labour(UK
10 PBP (irl)
So as per the above , should we thank ‘our lucky stars’ that the bulk of the Irish political parties are not more right or left wing than they are. It’s all a bit relative though

There should be a more economically right of centre party, a more libertarian one

rossie1977 · 12-12-2019 12:03pm

cryptocurrency wrote: »

There should be a more economically right of centre party, a more libertarian one

Who will vote for a party whose main aim is to do nothing essentially

cryptocurrency · 12-12-2019 12:27pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

Who will vote for a party whose main aim is to do nothing essentially

People who don't want to be taxed for rubbish service

rossie1977 · 12-12-2019 12:42pm

cryptocurrency wrote: »

People who don't want to be taxed for rubbish service

Tax pays for police, fire brigade, public lighting, roads/bridges, water flowing into every building in the country, sewage, dumps and recycling centres, building of schools, hospitals, army, coast guard, libraries, vaccinations for kids, museums, prison service, public parks, cleaning of beaches, the court system, zoos, irish rail/bus eireann/dublin bus, public pensions among other things.

Imagine the reaction if someone tried to privatise all those things.

tototoe · 12-12-2019 12:45pm

No idea yet, but I will no longer be giving FG or FF a vote, not a single preference. I'll check the rest of the candidates and make a call on it then.

cryptocurrency · 12-12-2019 12:57pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

Tax pays for police, fire brigade, public lighting, roads/bridges, water flowing into every building in the country, sewage, dumps and recycling centres, building of schools, hospitals, army, coast guard, libraries, vaccinations for kids, museums, prison service, public parks, cleaning of beaches, the court system, zoos, irish rail/bus eireann/dublin bus, public pensions among other things.

Imagine the reaction if someone tried to privatise all those things.

we pay for them twice then. Also Roads, Bridges, Prisons, Hospitals, Museums, etc can all be paid for serivces at the point of use

blanch152 · 12-12-2019 1:03pm

various artistes wrote: »

A non existent one, unfortunately.

A housing co op in Ballymun that had a developer agreeing to only a 5 percent profit delivered 3 bed terraces for 140k.

A better use of Part V would be rather than buying "discounted" homes having the developer build homes of similar worth elsewhere.

Isn't that the issue, and the real problem with the nonsense spouted about the State building houses?

There is no State developer, there is no capacity to build houses, they get procurement wrong all the time. All of the posters on here and parties out there who talk about the State building houses haven't a clue how to address those issues other than waving a magic wand.

Annasopra · 12-12-2019 1:13pm

cryptocurrency wrote: »

we pay for them twice then. Also Roads, Bridges, Prisons, Hospitals, Museums, etc can all be paid for serivces at the point of use

Meaning basically fu ck working class and poor people under every bus

Better Than Christ · 12-12-2019 1:29pm

cryptocurrency wrote: »

There should be a more economically right of centre party, a more libertarian one

We had one (the PDs) and the public said "no thanks".

rossie1977 · 12-12-2019 1:54pm

cryptocurrency wrote: »

we pay for them twice then. Also Roads, Bridges, Prisons, Hospitals, Museums, etc can all be paid for serivces at the point of use

The cost to the public of zoos, public transportation is subsidised by tax. We have a very small population and running a private bus service to every town or maintaining our rail service privately would be impossible with massive hike in fares.

OK imagine every road, bridge, hospital and prison in the country was privately owned. The thought of every road and bridge throughout the country tolled in itself is assuming in itself. Only certain people would be allowed use or could afford use the service for one. Secondly private companies exist for one purpose and that's to make profit and reward shareholders. Anything running at a loss or even below expectations would be shut. Vast sections of the road network would be shut down outside major urban centres.

tayto lover · 12-12-2019 1:59pm

cryptocurrency wrote: »

There should be a more economically right of centre party, a more libertarian one

Greens, PD’s?
No thanks. They’re bigger wasters and turn coat for a little power as we already know.

Feisar · 12-12-2019 2:32pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Isn't that the issue, and the real problem with the nonsense spouted about the State building houses?

There is no State developer, there is no capacity to build houses, they get procurement wrong all the time. All of the posters on here and parties out there who talk about the State building houses haven't a clue how to address those issues other than waving a magic wand.

I work in the building trade, the government couldn't procure a pissup in a brewery.

James Brown · 12-12-2019 2:48pm

various artistes wrote: »

What would be the point of this when it's mixed with the policies of all left wing parties to immigration, specifically that of asylum seekers/ refugees?

All left wing parties as a matter of policy believe in:

a- Little to no restriction on the numbers of asylum seekers/ refugees our state should take in a given year

b- That these people should receive priority allocation of available social/ subsidised housing over Irish taxpayers renting privately or even welfare recipients already on housing lists.

If this sounds like hyperbole, demands by PBP and SF to end Direct Provision would lead to exactly this- we would, tomorrow, have 6000 people for whom DP is not good enough, and who would need to be housed before the next 6000 mostly native households currently on the list had their housing need met. That's not hyperbole, it is a simple fact that people like Ruth Coppinger have a white guilt complex and believe that there is no situation where an Irish person is in greater need of services than a member of a minority.

So I ask, what is the point in the SP building 75,000 new units in five years, as their policy piece says they would, when they would admit more than that number of asylum seekers and bump them straight up the list?

You got links to back these up?

James Brown · 12-12-2019 2:57pm

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Sooooooo.

Still no cost analysis or figures of how many social house you want built.

I’ll keep asking, hopefully I’ll get an answer.

By the way I love how you put up figures about how it’s more expensive to buy rather than build.

Even though my question was to back up your claim it’s more beneficial to the tax payer if we provide a social house rather than pay for HAP.

Talk about dodging the question and throwing some ****e in hoping it sticks.

Whenever your ready to answer the question that was asked of you yesterday.

Did you skip the article? I see you got planning permission to move the goal posts. Flaw in your diversion, I never gave a figure on how many is needed so therefore never promised or claimed to have a costing for any specific number.

No you are outright making stuff up. It's about the benefit of HAP over social now? You're a cod merchant.

Don't waste my time and yours by asking questions on things I never spoke about.

Building is cheaper than buying or leasing, be it HAP, FG brand social etc. thems the facts.
That's my point all along.

Read the article for response to this:

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Another misleading nonsense figure.

It will cost the government more in what statistic?

Over 30 years? 20? 5?

What do we do with the family on HAP in the meantime as we put the money from HAP into building social housing?

Can’t do both with the same money, but I know you socialists have no grasp of where money comes from.

Do you not see how stupid your defense is? We don't have the money for social housing builds, but we do have more money for social housing buys and leases? Seriously man, give it up.

Now you tell me, third time asking, how do developers and builders make a living if building is more expensive than buying? This was your argument.
Still waiting on what you base low paid workers being ungrateful for state aid.

How many do we need? As many as it takes.

Building social housing is cheaper than buying it or leasing it from market. FG and the LA's are wasting tax payer money to prop up vulture funds and other private concerns at a loss to the tax payer. Fiscally conservative my hole. The key reason I'll not vote FG this time around.

blanch152 · 12-12-2019 4:05pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you not see how stupid your defense is? We don't have the money for social housing builds, but we do have more money for social housing buys and leases? Seriously man, give it up.

Now you tell me, third time asking, how do developers and builders make a living if building is more expensive than buying? This was your argument.
Still waiting on what you base low paid workers being ungrateful for state aid.

How many do we need? As many as it takes.

Building social housing is cheaper than buying it or leasing it from market. FG and the LA's are wasting tax payer money to prop up vulture funds and other private concerns at a loss to the tax payer. Fiscally conservative my hole. The key reason I'll not vote FG this time around.

Your grasp of mathematics, accounting, procurement, overheads and public sector inefficiency gets more tenuous by the day.

It has repeatedly been shown to you that the current cost of temporarily paying HAP to someone for five years is far cheaper than the capital and current costs of hiring an army of builders to build social housing for that person.

Better Than Christ · 12-12-2019 4:23pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Your grasp of mathematics, accounting, procurement, overheads and public sector inefficiency gets more tenuous by the day.

It has repeatedly been shown to you that the current cost of temporarily paying HAP to someone for five years is far cheaper than the capital and current costs of hiring an army of builders to build social housing for that person.

Your own grasp of mathematics is non-existent.

Done properly (i.e. don't flog it to them at a knockdown price), the state isn't just building a house for that person; they're building a house that will potentially be there for at least the next hundred years.

James Brown · 12-12-2019 4:27pm

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Your own grasp of mathematics is non-existent.

Done properly (i.e. don't flog it to them at a knockdown price), the state isn't just building a house for that person; they're building a house that will potentially be there for at least the next hundred years.

He's well aware. He may act surprised but this ground has been well covered time and again.
He refuses to engage honestly and offers zero alternatives himself.

FYI: I never made any such HAP argument and was certainly never shown the new moved goal post argument he seems to be having.

blanch152 · 12-12-2019 4:32pm

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Your own grasp of mathematics is non-existent.

Done properly (i.e. don't flog it to them at a knockdown price), the state isn't just building a house for that person; they're building a house that will potentially be there for at least the next hundred years.

I am not basing my argument on a utopian fantasy of unicorns and rainbows, where local authority tenants pay their rent on time and are evicted when they don't pay and move on when their income rises.

I am basing my argument on the reality of the entitlement culture which expects a free house for life with a trampoline in the back garden, in which over 60% of tenants are in arrears of rent, and where every few years local authorities sell off their houses at a fraction of market price. In the real world, the cost of maintaining local authority housing is a multiple of that paid for by any landlord or houseowner, and I factor that in as well.

Better Than Christ · 12-12-2019 4:36pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not basing my argument on a utopian fantasy of unicorns and rainbows, where local authority tenants pay their rent on time and are evicted when they don't pay and move on when their income rises.

I am basing my argument on the reality of the entitlement culture which expects a free house for life with a trampoline in the back garden, in which over 60% of tenants are in arrears of rent, and where every few years local authorities sell off their houses at a fraction of market price. In the real world, the cost of maintaining local authority housing is a multiple of that paid for by any landlord or houseowner, and I factor that in as well.

You're basing your argument on your own prejudices. The problem of non-payment of rent could easily be solved by deducting it directly from people's income. Mass development of social housing worked in the past (until shortsighted governments flogged them at knockdown prices). There is no reason why it couldn't work again.

TheAsYLuMkeY · 12-12-2019 4:47pm

godtabh wrote: »

But some one else will and probably some with opposing views to you. Use your vote and make it count.

There is an intrinsic flaw in your comment, it is difficult to say this without sounding like a smart arse, but here it is anyway,

It implies that if someone votes FF for example when someone else that would have voted FG for example abstained, that the possible outcome is governance contrary to the views of the FG abstainer.

Where the actual reality is policy and political governance doesn't change between party's of so called opposing views that operate within an accepted and established political system.

James Brown · 12-12-2019 4:53pm

Better Than Christ wrote: »

You're basing your argument on your own prejudices. The problem of non-payment of rent could easily be solved by deducting it directly from people's income. Mass development of social housing worked in the past (until shortsighted governments flogged them at knockdown prices). There is no reason why it couldn't work again.

It's just repetitive guff he throws to see what'll stick. Who is asking and getting 'free' houses? Nobody, we are however paying through the nose buying houses and leasing houses for the very same people FG refuse to build housing for even though it's cheaper. This 'argument' is a dead duck. Call them free if he wants, the choice is building them or buying them, same tenants either way. Nonsense.

hatrickpatrick · 12-12-2019 5:06pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Isn't that the issue, and the real problem with the nonsense spouted about the State building houses?

There is no State developer, there is no capacity to build houses, they get procurement wrong all the time. All of the posters on here and parties out there who talk about the State building houses haven't a clue how to address those issues other than waving a magic wand.

The same way we did in the 1930s with Herbert Simms. Hire a competent architect with a proper vision for building decent high density housing, and a competent project manager to work with him or her, and then contract the construction crews directly, bypassing any developer middleman.

If you believe this to be impossible or too expensive, I strongly suggest you take a look at this article:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-opposition-to-social-housing-is-matter-of-ideology-not-economics-1.2397695

I simply do not believe, regardless of inflation in building costs etc, that there is any legitimate way to justify the claim that 21st century Ireland cannot afford to build public housing while post-independence, great depression, WWII era Ireland could build it by the tens of thousands. There is no universe in which what claim makes any sense.

Wanderer78 · 12-12-2019 5:10pm

All left, with extremely low expectations

Kivaro · 12-12-2019 5:34pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

All left, with extremely low expectations

I wish they all would leave, as the whole bunch of them seem to live in a surreal cocoon, unaware of the realities for the vast majority of people living on this island.

We really do need an Ireland v2.0.

Who is everyone going to be voting for in the next general election?

Comments