Dublin Bay South By-Election

Topgear on Dave · 02-07-2021 9:09pm

iwasliedto wrote: »

SF seems to have had a policy of getting FF/FG into power with each other so that they will become a dominant government partner on the left. It will be interesting to see if this gets them into a government.

Indeed. When they do go in we'll see who is "Left" and who isn't.

Campaign in poetry. Govern in prose.

retalivity · 02-07-2021 9:12pm

Bobtheman wrote: »

Let's face facts you have to have some wealth behind you to get into politics.
Unless you are SF who can somehow bankroll you while you canvass. Wonder where that money came from?!
Thus finding someone who is renting plus already a Councillor is tough enough.
Look at bacik. Three ****en jobs. Barrister. Lecture and a nice number in the Senate courtesy of the corrupt constituency of Trinity. It's all legal of course. The best scams are.

Politics at a low-level are (for the most part) people who are not good enough to do well in business/their careers, who may have a famous name or some recognition locally, looking for a cushy number. At a high-level, it's for people who want the power, to paraphrase a certain AK. The former means you get people like Norma Foley & Simon Harris in cabinets, the latter gets you Pascal Donahue.
I have a grudging respect for people who stand for election and are elected to represent people, until the realisation hits after a while that they are all in it for themselves. FF/FG/SF/Greens/Lab whatever, its all the same modus operandi just coming from a different angle.
Bacik is a career politician under a Labour banner, been doing this for years and know how it works. I am ex-trinity and know what shes like, but wouls still like to see her win as a black eye to the govt. But being in DBS, what does she have to do to maintain/grow her vote? Pressure on the govt to build houses? To what end does anything actually change?

Yurt2 · 02-07-2021 10:12pm

awec wrote: »

I still don't get how it's relevant.

Eoin Ó Broin, heralded as the great spokesperson for the little man on housing, has never struggled for money or housing in his life either. His background may not be surpreme court judges, but still comes from a more wealthy background than most. South Dublin private schoolboy.

Paul Murphy, south Dublin private schoolboy. Has never had money or housing issues in his past.

Richard Boyd Barrett, south Dublin private schoolboy. Has never had money or housing issues in his past.

How many Irish politicians come from a background where housing and money was an issue?

Mark Ward TD was homeless for a number of months in 2016. As in properly homeless.

KevRossi · 02-07-2021 10:34pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

SF never had any other option than being in opposition because no one would go into govt with them. You are granting them far too much credit for this supposed strategy.

Not true. They were approached by others but they couldn't make a deal with them.

https://www.pbp.ie/open-letter-to-sinn-fein/

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30998815.html

hotmail.com · 02-07-2021 10:36pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Water charges were part of the Troika deal, made by FF after they bankrupted the country.

We didn't have too many options at the time, if you recall correctly.

The public rejected this excuse in the 2016 Election.

Podge_irl · 02-07-2021 10:38pm

KevRossi wrote: »

Not true. They were approached by others but they couldn't make a deal with them.

https://www.pbp.ie/open-letter-to-sinn-fein/

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30998815.html

A) In terms of a long-term strategy this is irrelevant as it is only true of the last election. Staying out of govt to "force" FF and FG to go into coalition was never a strategy of SF, they had nothing to do with staying out of govt.

PBP and SF would have been hilariously short of a majority so it is kind of irrelevant this time also.

hotmail.com · 02-07-2021 10:38pm

Bobtheman wrote: »

I have some sympathy for Labour. Without it public expenditure would have been cut to a shred by FG.
However if the old guard of rabbit, gilmore etc had not been in such a rush to get those pensions and tried to stay out of government then I'd see them with 40 plus seats now.
FG would have been able to form a minority coalition backed by FF in 2011.
I appreciate they protected the weakest because without them FG would make scrooge look like Santa it's just they made no effort to renegotiate the trokia deal or do anything radical in government.

The dole was cut in half by a Labour Minister for those under 25 and the single parents allowance was stopped when children reached 7/8 instead of 14. Again this was introduced by a Labour Minister.

RandomViewer · 03-07-2021 12:05am

Nobody coming out well on the 6 o clock news, government parties being very reluctant to say what they consider an affordable home, Geoghan showing early Trump with the comb over

KevRossi · 03-07-2021 12:22am

RandomViewer wrote: »

Nobody coming out well on the 6 o clock news, government parties being very reluctant to say what they consider an affordable home, Geoghan showing early Trump with the comb over

Can't blame them as they'd be held to it and totally hammered over it.

Government shouldn't be selling the homes, they should be on a long term lease according to needs. So rent a 3-bed house to a family with 2 kids for 25 years, after that give them notice and get them to downgrade to free up the house for another family.

The old idea of selling on council homes to tenants didn't work, it's part of the reason why we are in such trouble now.

AndrewJRenko · 03-07-2021 12:30am

iwasliedto wrote: »

if you see where labour is now I think you can see what party have been politically naive. They believed that their voters whom they ignored and punished would continue to vote for them. Politics are about long term strategies to get your ideas implemented. Labour had a dominant position on the left and was streets ahead of SF in working-class areas. That has all changed because of Labour party strategies. SF seems to have had a policy of getting FF/FG into power with each other so that they will become a dominant government partner on the left. It will be interesting to see if this gets them into a government.

There was no naivety. They knew exactly what was going to happen at the next election, and they still opted to go into government. They put the country first, not the party. It may seem incomprehensible to other parties, but that was the choice.

Have a think about what FG would have done without Labour, with the support of Ross's gang and the Kerry Mafia.

iwasliedto · 03-07-2021 12:46am

Podge_irl wrote: »

SF never had any other option than being in opposition because no one would go into govt with them. You are granting them far too much credit for this supposed strategy.

I knew a lot of them in the 1990s , many of them are TDs now, their wet dream was to get FF/FG into government with each other. They talked and strategised about it constantly like many in political parties on the left. Now they may have got there accidentally because others would not go into coalition with them but that was what the were talking about 25 years ago.
It was their strategy.

Topgear on Dave · 03-07-2021 1:07am

KevRossi wrote: »

The old idea of selling on council homes to tenants didn't work, it's part of the reason why we are in such trouble now.

Funny you mention this. I caught the end of a segment on KFM (I think) this morning. I didn't catch the beginning but basically theres a lot of heat coming on to the affordable housing bodies to start selling up to tenants.

iwasliedto · 03-07-2021 1:11am

RandomViewer wrote: »

Average age if SF TDs is quite low and only oddball teenagers talk about politics so I call BS

Sean Crowe 64
Aengus Ó Snodaigh 56
Dessie Ellis 67

hardly spring chickens

Yurt2 · 03-07-2021 10:19am

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Funny you mention this. I caught the end of a segment on KFM (I think) this morning. I didn't catch the beginning but basically theres a lot of heat coming on to the affordable housing bodies to start selling up to tenants.

Don't see the difficulty in selling affordable housing to tenants as long as the cost of construction and financing is covered and there are clawback clauses to prevent property flipping. In fact that's a desirable outcome.

The difficulty in the past with selling social housing to tenants was that they were sold at a deep discount where cost of construction may not have been amortized by the council (or other provider). This arrangement left councils not being able to wash their own face on housing.

scheister · 03-07-2021 12:41pm

KevRossi wrote: »

Can't blame them as they'd be held to it and totally hammered over it.

Government shouldn't be selling the homes, they should be on a long term lease according to needs. So rent a 3-bed house to a family with 2 kids for 25 years, after that give them notice and get them to downgrade to free up the house for another family.

The old idea of selling on council homes to tenants didn't work, it's part of the reason why we are in such trouble now.

I dont think selling the houses was the issue but what was done with the money afterwards. The issue was more the housing stock was not replenished with the proceeds from the sales

Brussels Sprout · 03-07-2021 1:42pm

iwasliedto wrote: »

If they had stayed out of government for one or two parliaments then they would have forced FF and FG together and then we could have a Labour-led government. They were only the minority party because they could not resist the chance to be a minority party, they did not have the vision or discipline to force FF/FG together. You would think they would have learned this at some stage but they just kept facilitating the larger parties until the electorate had had enough.

Has a party ever refused the option of forming a stable government when it was offered to them? The only instance that I can think of is FF refusing in 2016 when FG offered it to them. Sinn Fein's current position isn't as a result of some 4D chess strategy on their behalf. They've basically been locked out of any potential coalition talks, through no choice of their own, since they grew to a decent size in 2011.

Generally parties do not refuse the offer of going into coalition for a number of reasons:

The whole point of going into politics is to go into government some day.
Your voters generally vote for you because they want you to go into government. Turning it down may cost you support in future.
There is no guarantee that if you wait for a better opportunity that it will come along any time soon. 5 years is a long time to wait.

Hindsight is great. Everyone can make perfect strategic decisions with the benefit of seeing how they would play out. That's not the way things work though.

Blut2 · 03-07-2021 2:01pm

"look, just wait this half decade, then one more half decade, then possibly one more half decade. Then maybe we'll be in power and in a position to make changes!!" is also not really an argument that most voters will go for.

The vast majority of people would prefer getting some of their policy preferences implemented now, over maybe getting more of them implemented in 20~ years time. 20 year plans don't work when its such a huge % of someone's adult lifespan on Earth. More immediate results are needed, even if only partial.

Bobtheman · 03-07-2021 2:11pm

retalivity wrote: »

Politics at a low-level are (for the most part) people who are not good enough to do well in business/their careers, who may have a famous name or some recognition locally, looking for a cushy number. At a high-level, it's for people who want the power, to paraphrase a certain AK. The former means you get people like Norma Foley & Simon Harris in cabinets, the latter gets you Pascal Donahue.
I have a grudging respect for people who stand for election and are elected to represent people, until the realisation hits after a while that they are all in it for themselves. FF/FG/SF/Greens/Lab whatever, its all the same modus operandi just coming from a different angle.
Bacik is a career politician under a Labour banner, been doing this for years and know how it works. I am ex-trinity and know what shes like, but wouls still like to see her win as a black eye to the govt. But being in DBS, what does she have to do to maintain/grow her vote? Pressure on the govt to build houses? To what end does anything actually change?

Decent points about the selfishness of politicians but I don't think you can present any evidence that most TDd would not suceeed if they tried something else. Though I suppose there are some TDs that obviously would not but I don't think you can say all 166 would not.
Politics ain't no cushy number and **** all safe seats. Unlike the UK.

Bobtheman · 03-07-2021 3:22pm

Blut2 wrote: »

"look, just wait this half decade, then one more half decade, then possibly one more half decade. Then maybe we'll be in power and in a position to make changes!!" is also not really an argument that most voters will go for.

The vast majority of people would prefer getting some of their policy preferences implemented now, over maybe getting more of them implemented in 20~ years time. 20 year plans don't work when its such a huge % of someone's adult lifespan on Earth. More immediate results are needed, even if only partial.

I just think the labour party were a bit too anxious to get bums on mercs by rushing into government in 2011. Though they were as cynical as **** with their tesco ads. I know the manifesto says otherwise but how many punters read a manifesto?!
If they sat back and allowed FG/FF to do a deal they would have been in prime position for 2016. Instead we now have a large lunatic left. With the small lab and SDP presenting reasonable policies.
Though I know SF have a lot of decent policies they somehow expect to improve services and cut taxes?!

Sam Russell · 03-07-2021 3:36pm

Bobtheman wrote: »

Though I know SF have a lot of decent policies they somehow expect to improve services and cut taxes?!

That is populism.

How is promising taxing the (very) wealthy, but not the rest, and then increasing services, building more houses, plus whatever you want yourself nor populism?

Works for Healy-Rae and the left parties like PBP.

Podge_irl · 03-07-2021 3:40pm

No one was doing any kind of deal with FF in 2011. They were utterly toxic.

Blut2 · 03-07-2021 3:40pm

Bobtheman wrote: »

I just think the labour party were a bit too anxious to get bums on mercs by rushing into government in 2011. Though they were as cynical as **** with their tesco ads. I know the manifesto says otherwise but how many punters read a manifesto?!
If they sat back and allowed FG/FF to do a deal they would have been in prime position for 2016. Instead we now have a large lunatic left. With the small lab and SDP presenting reasonable policies.
Though I know SF have a lot of decent policies they somehow expect to improve services and cut taxes?!

With the benefit of hindsight we have now, and focusing on the present - absolutely, we'd be in a much, much better place now as a country if FF&FG had been in their current semi-merged position on the right a few years ago, and Labour were currently the dominant left-wing opposition party waiting to go into government instead of the relative extremism of SF.

But I don't think in 2011 it was as easy a decision as people these days like to make out. Its highly likely that without Labour in government putting a break on FG in 2011-2016 we'd have gotten even more, harder, austerity. So while it may have killed support for Labour going into government, they really were living up to their ideals by at least attempting to mitigate some of the damage done to the most vulnerable in society.

Annasopra · 03-07-2021 3:40pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is populism.

How is promising taxing the (very) wealthy, but not the rest, and then increasing services, building more houses, plus whatever you want yourself nor populism?

Works for Healy-Rae and the left parties like PBP.

Yep

Sheer populism. Property tax is a wealth tax and its laughable that so called Irish socialists oppose a wealth tax. The reality is if you want high quality public services then you need a decent tax base to pay for those. SF claims to be left wing but then often holds these populist right wing views on tax.

AndrewJRenko · 03-07-2021 3:47pm

Bobtheman wrote: »

I just think the labour party were a bit too anxious to get bums on mercs by rushing into government in 2011. Though they were as cynical as **** with their tesco ads. I know the manifesto says otherwise but how many punters read a manifesto?!
If they sat back and allowed FG/FF to do a deal they would have been in prime position for 2016. Instead we now have a large lunatic left. With the small lab and SDP presenting reasonable policies.
Though I know SF have a lot of decent policies they somehow expect to improve services and cut taxes?!

The Mercs are a thing of the past. All except the high security risk Ministers (Taoiseach, Tanaiste, Justice) provide their own cars.

FF and FG would never have done a deal in 2011. FG would have done a deal with Shane Ross's gang, Healy Raes and a couple of others. That's all they would have needed. They would have stripped every possible asset out of the State for a firesale, and ripped out every possible social support, leaving Labour's cuts to young people's dole and single parents in the ha'penny place.

retalivity wrote: »

Politics at a low-level are (for the most part) people who are not good enough to do well in business/their careers, who may have a famous name or some recognition locally, looking for a cushy number. At a high-level, it's for people who want the power, to paraphrase a certain AK. The former means you get people like Norma Foley & Simon Harris in cabinets, the latter gets you Pascal Donahue.
I have a grudging respect for people who stand for election and are elected to represent people, until the realisation hits after a while that they are all in it for themselves. FF/FG/SF/Greens/Lab whatever, its all the same modus operandi just coming from a different angle.
Bacik is a career politician under a Labour banner, been doing this for years and know how it works. I am ex-trinity and know what shes like, but wouls still like to see her win as a black eye to the govt. But being in DBS, what does she have to do to maintain/grow her vote? Pressure on the govt to build houses? To what end does anything actually change?

What's wrong with being a career politician? Why shouldn't any politician be focused on making a decent career out of it?

iwasliedto · 03-07-2021 6:25pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Has a party ever refused the option of forming a stable government when it was offered to them? The only instance that I can think of is FF refusing in 2016 when FG offered it to them. Sinn Fein's current position isn't as a result of some 4D chess strategy on their behalf. They've basically been locked out of any potential coalition talks, through no choice of their own, since they grew to a decent size in 2011.

Generally parties do not refuse the offer of going into coalition for a number of reasons:
The whole point of going into politics is to go into government some day.

Your voters generally vote for you because they want you to go into government. Turning it down may cost you support in future.

There is no guarantee that if you wait for a better opportunity that it will come along any time soon. 5 years is a long time to wait.

Hindsight is great. Everyone can make perfect strategic decisions with the benefit of seeing how they would play out. That's not the way things work though.

As you pointed out FF stayed out of government for strategic reasons so you have answered your own question.

SF and many left parties have long though about strategies to force FF/FG into power. It's not rocket science or 4D chess but it does take discipline and an ability to resist the shiny baubles of power in the short term. It is true that FF/FG inept decision to lock SF out of power has been a great advantage to SF and has driven their growth.

I have no doubt that SF would have been accepted by FF or FG as government partners if SF rolled over like the Greens or Labour.

1. The point of going into politics is getting your policies implemented, going into power is useless if you end up like Labour or the Greens. Sitting in government implementing FF/FG policy.
2. Voters vote for you because they want certain policies implemented to better their lives. If you get into power and ignore those that placed their trust in you then they will not vote for you. See Labour and the Greens.

3.There is no guarantee of anything in politics.

AndrewJRenko · 03-07-2021 7:04pm

iwasliedto wrote: »

As you pointed out FF stayed out of government for strategic reasons so you have answered your own question.

The fact that FF had just bankrupted the country might have had something to do with the decision not to go into government.

If voters want your policies implemented, they need to give you the numbers to do just that.

When they give you enough votes to be a small part of a coalition, it's a tad hypocritical to be asking why their policies didn't get implemented.

Brussels Sprout · 03-07-2021 7:39pm

iwasliedto wrote: »

It's not rocket science or 4D chess but it does take discipline and an ability to resist the shiny baubles of power in the short term.

It's not difficult to resist something that you were never offered.

iwasliedto wrote: »

I have no doubt that SF would have been accepted by FF or FG as government partners if SF rolled over like the Greens or Labour.

The PDs didn't "roll over" for FF and they still opted to go into government with them repeatedly.

FF & FG have both instead tried to discredit SF as a party for decades. You can still see it in the sneering tones that they use to address SF TDs in the Dail. Every election then they'd roll out The Greatest Hits of "Remember the IRA". They couldn't then turn around and offer SF a coalition deal. Besides as long as one of them was in power and the other was the largest party in opposition they could impede SF from competing with them.

That trick finally failed in 2020 and is unlikely to ever work again in the future. You can already see FF in particular beginning to soften on SF as they realise that they could very well end up going into coalition with them in the near future. I highly doubt that FF will rule out going into coalition with SF in the run up to the next election, like they have always done in the past.

iwasliedto wrote: »

1. The point of going into politics is getting your policies implemented, going into power is useless if you end up like Labour or the Greens. Sitting in government implementing FF/FG policy.
2. Voters vote for you because they want certain policies implemented to better their lives. If you get into power and ignore those that placed their trust in you then they will not vote for you. See Labour and the Greens.
3.There is no guarantee of anything in politics.

Our voting system and number of parties means that it's practically impossible to win an overall majority. Therefore any party going into government is going to have to sacrifice some of their pre-election promises.

It's the easiest thing in the world for Sinn Fein to cast judgements on the likes of Labour and The Greens for coalescing with FF/FG and compromising on many of their own policies. Right now they can be all things to all people. One day though, they will go into government, perhaps very soon, and then they will have to compromise and thereby disappoint some of their supporters, just like everyone else.

AndrewJRenko · 03-07-2021 10:27pm

Hello pigeons, meet my cat.

E5ZmdDAXMAIF_Ad?format=jpg&name=large

KevRossi · 03-07-2021 11:09pm

scheister wrote: »

I dont think selling the houses was the issue but what was done with the money afterwards. The issue was more the housing stock was not replenished with the proceeds from the sales

Houses are sold at a fraction of what they are worth. It's just a huge transfer of public assets into private hands. Those houses can then be sold to the highest bidder, pulling as much money as possible out of hard pressed workers who are prepared to pay a mortgage, or who cannot get on some social housing scheme.

The difference in lack of housing still needs to be made up by future generations of taxpayers. It's an ongoing circle. It makes no economic sense. By all means ensure people are housed from cradle to the grave, but don't abuse it by flogging a valuable state asset for 20% of it's true value.

If FFG sold €10 billion worth of state assets to some vulture fund for €2 billion, the likes of SF/PBP/ etc. would be on the barricades and rightly so.

scheister · 04-07-2021 9:49am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Hello pigeons, meet my cat.

it has moved again slight FG now evens Lab 4/5

Dublin Bay South By-Election

Comments