The ticking timebomb of strategic defaults

creedp

creedp wrote: »

But the son can personally benefit from the father's decisions. Its strange how the son will have no difficulty inheriting the father's assets but should in no way should be lumbered with his debts. ...

It doesn't matter. Incidental benefit is not the same as liability or servitude, and isn't treated the same way under law. It's a fundamental principal of law that a person can't be held to a contract without their express wish and say-so. If my father made a set of decisions in relation to mortgage debt which i had no bearing on or consideration of whatsoever, there is no legal basis for his posthumously lumping me with a debt which I am then personally, legally, responsible for.

If you die, your debts die with you. That's why banks build the costs of insuring themselves against natural liabilities (death for instance) into the rates they charge, and ensure that they are covered in the event of the early death of a party to the loan.

You can enter into agreements while you're alive, to dispose of or limit the value of your estate after you die (meaning your inheritants get less of it and somebody else gets part of their share, for example), but you can't put someone else in involuntary servitude in a contract without their express say-so. Furthermore they have to be of the correct legal age to enter into any such agreement of their own free will.

The debts of the father cannot be passed to the son without the son's express agreement beforehand. It just doesn't stand up in court.

liammur

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Brilliant post. It is a timebomb looming over all our heads and I have yet to see any action from our government or banks to address it.

They can't. The game is up.

Govt leaders like Ahern/Cowen and bankers like Sheehy/Goggins walked away millionaires. I have no problem with people defaulting on their mortgages.

Godge

The OP is making a number of flawed assumptions in his calculations that would significantly influence the final calculations.

Firstly, in calculating the final price of the house, he assumes that is cost €500k when earlier the mortgage was €500k with a 10% deposit giving a value of €550k.

Secondly, he assumes a 4% interest rate, which he bases on a variable rate. If the property was bought in 2006, it was probably on a tracker rate which means that the rate is much lower currently.

Thirdly, he assumes a 70% fall in prices (real prices not nominal prices). This is only going to be true for certain parts of the country, and will rebound in some of them but not in others. For example, rural house in Leitrim will drop 70% and never recover. Houses in suburban Dublin where there is spare land (Lucan, Clonsilla etc) will drop initially by about 60% but will rebound strongly once building starts again and infrastructure is developed. So it is not one size fits all.

Finally, he assumes the price rises net of inflation. If we had 10% inflation for 5 or 6 years and 5% inflation for 10 years, there would be no problem with negative equity as house prices would rise by these amounts in nominal terms. It is the nominal price that matters to mortgage holders.

Take an example where inflation is 20% but real house prices are dropping by 10%. What is happening to nominal house prices i.e. the amount you pay? Well, they are going up by around 10%, believe it or not.

woodoo

This guy may strategically default and in doing so save 400K over 30 years but he is likely to spend 300K in rent if he leaves the house and mortgage behind.

I would favour the strategic default over staying in negative equity for 30 years. The house would feel like such a burden and the freedom that leaving it all behind and moving on would provide would be very important.

If you murder someone you will do about 17 years in jail then you are free. Young people signed on the dotted line for a house in good faith yet some of them will spend 30 years struggling to pay it back. It all seems a little harsh. They need an escape route.

Farmer Pudsey

Alot depends on invidual situtations. If it is unsustainable then you may well be better off defaulting. After all you can again start in GB or elsewhere in the world. Alot depends if the loan is in one name or two. It will ne easier to default if in one name.

It also depends wheather you work in the private sector on in the public sector. If in the private sector it is easier to leave a job and default go for bankrupsy in the UK compared to the public sector/semi-state where the banks may put a lein on your wages for part of the debt.

This is not an option for 40 or 50K it is for situtations where the loan is in 100'sK and maybe other personel debt.

woodoo

woodoo wrote: »

I would favour the strategic default over staying in negative equity for 30 years. The house would feel like such a burden and the freedom that leaving it all behind and moving on would provide would be very important....

Just one minor point, but one that would make a big difference to a lot of people in this situation.

They won't actually BE in negative equity for 30 years. They are probably facing into the next 15 years, maybe 20 in negative equity based on the 50-60% drop in the market and assuming a 8-10% deposit paid in most cases, and the front loaded interest/principal repayment structure on most mortgage schedules.

This is assuming a very modest, even inflationary level of appreciation returns to the market of course, and that it doesn't just completely bottom out.

Taking this into account, barring any further catastrophes in the property market, they are likely to have built up enough equity in their homes over the last 5 years, and in addition the next 10-15 or so that they could reasonably expect (if they want) to be able to cut their losses, sell up, pay off the mortgage and rent or maybe even purchase again, depending on their age and circumstances, and any residual profit left over from the sale.

It would take a lot to walk away from a home you had paid a fortune into at that point, but still, facing 10 to 15 years negative equity is a vastly different prospect than facing into 25 or 30, and who is to say Ireland in 15 years time is a place they wouldn't rather cut their losses and get out of with nothing? It may yet come to that.

creedp

woodoo wrote: »

If you murder someone you will do about 17 years in jail then you are free. Young people signed on the dotted line for a house in good faith yet some of them will spend 30 years struggling to pay it back. It all seems a little harsh. They need an escape route.

Im not fully clear about this because if the young people could afford the mortgage in the first place why will they all struggle to pay it back for 30 years? Have all young people who took out a mortgage been made unemployed? Have they all sufferred catastrophic cuts in their pay? Even with only minimal inflation (including wage inflation - and yes some young people are receiving wage increases even through the worst of the recession to-date) over the 30 year period then the repayments will gradually become a lessor burden as the years go by. Granted some young people who took out mortgages are in big difficulty, no doubt many young people who took out mortgage are in negative equity. However, negative equity is just that, it doesn't affect the ability of the young person to pay the mortgage. They might be really (and rightly so) pissed off but that doesn't mean and in my book doesn't justify not paying/defaulting on their mortgage now after only a couple of years into a 25/30 year term. For me a lot of this defaulting talk is a way for some people to justify walking away from a contract freely entered into because it no longer suits them. I suppose young people aren't really responsible for their actions - how could they be, they're too young and imature, and they can therefore legitimately expect others to pick up the slack and let the young enjoy their life.

creedp

creedp wrote: »

For me a lot of this defaulting talk is a way for some people to justify walking away from a contract freely entered into because it no longer suits them...

I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but i think your take on things is a little oversimplified. They were not the only ones responsible for their bad descisions. Everybody who is able to washing their hands of the matter because they operated in a culture of plausible denial and leaving the only party who can't deny their actions (because they signed on a dotted line for them)to the wolves is a denial of justice, and is as much a failure of the state as it is a failure of financial awareness and acumen by these people in the first place.

Try to remember, to really cast your mind back and think about what it was like back then, and the position these people were in 6 or 7 years ago. For the most part (one man band property speculators aside) they were (and still are) just ordinary working people who wanted to own their own home, live in modest levels of comfort, and raise a family. Everybody, the banks, developers, society, media, "experts", estate agents, etc, everybody was telling them that if they didn't buy now, they might never be able to own their own home, with the way property prices were skyrocketing. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, and pressure tactics were the order of the day, the entire political, economic, and regulatory system perpetrated, facilitated, and supported a lie, and any dissenters were labelled as naysayers, ridiculed and vilified. Of these conscientious objectors (most of whom were proven correct), the Taoiseach of the day, holder of one of the highest offices in the country, even said:

"Sitting on the sidelines, cribbing and moaning is a lost opportunity. I don't know how people who engage in that don't commit suicide"

Add to all this that the word coming from the man appointed in trust to protect us from financial mismanagement, the regulator, was that this was all entirely correct and above board, and was likely to continue unabated.

The entire system failed these people. Yes they signed up to a bad deal of their own volition, and yes, perhaps they should have known better, but to dismiss them as easily as some people here and elsewhere are doing by saying things like "they signed up to it, they should have known better" or "now they just want out because it doesn't suit them" is just a revisionistic, selective presentation of the facts, and doesn't take account of the considerable failures of the state in the situation, a state which is STILL failing to live up to the consequences for it's share of responsibility in the matter.

Welease

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but i think your take on things is a little oversimplified. They were not the only ones responsible for their bad descisions. Everybody who is able to washing their hands of the matter because they operated in a culture of plausible denial and leaving the only party who can't deny their actions (because they signed on a dotted line for them)to the wolves is a denial of justice, and is as much a failure of the state as it is a failure of financial awareness and acumen by these people in the first place.

Try to remember, to really cast your mind back and think about what it was like back then, and the position these people were in 6 or 7 years ago. For the most part (one man band property speculators aside) they were (and still are) just ordinary working people who wanted to own their own home, live in modest levels of comfort, and raise a family. Everybody, the banks, developers, society, media, "experts", estate agents, etc, everybody was telling them that if they didn't buy now, they might never be able to own their own home, with the way property prices were skyrocketing. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, and pressure tactics were the order of the day, the entire political, economic, and regulatory system perpetrated, facilitated, and supported a lie, and any dissenters were labelled as naysayers, ridiculed and vilified. Of these conscientious objectors (most of whom were proven correct), the Taoiseach of the day, holder of one of the highest offices in the country, even said:

"Sitting on the sidelines, cribbing and moaning is a lost opportunity. I don't know how people who engage in that don't commit suicide"

Add to all this that the word coming from the man appointed in trust to protect us from financial mismanagement, the regulator, was that this was all entirely correct and above board, and was likely to continue unabated.

The entire system failed these people. Yes they signed up to a bad deal of their own volition, and yes, perhaps they should have known better, but to dismiss them as easily as some people here and elsewhere are doing by saying things like "they signed up to it, they should have known better" or "now they just want out because it doesn't suit them" is just a revisionistic, selective presentation of the facts, and doesn't take account of the considerable failures of the state in the situation, a state which is STILL failing to live up to the consequences for it's share of responsibility in the matter.

Honest question.. So why do you and others have issues with developers (although most are actually being forced into bankruptcy which the home owner is being somewhat protected from).?

These guys have lost a real fortune (billions) and been forced into bankruptcy for exactly the same reasons you cite as acceptable for homeowners above (the banks lenr them money, experts said property was worth a fortune, government facilitated it etc etc etc). All they did was borrow money from the banks etc etc..

They essentially fell foul of the same excuses you give for home owners, yet people want them made bankrupt, vilified and held accountable for their decisions, but extended credit facilities offered and sympathy offered to the other.

BostonB

Depends if the extended credit is being used to fund an excessive lifestyle.

Welease

BostonB wrote: »

Depends if the extended credit is being used to fund an excessive lifestyle.

But that determination is not being used in either case.. A strategic default is essentially a lifestyle choice, as many can afford the mortgage but they are strategically choosing not to repay what they borrow.

creedp

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but i think your take on things is a little oversimplified. They were not the only ones responsible for their bad descisions. Everybody who is able to washing their hands of the matter because they operated in a culture of plausible denial and leaving the only party who can't deny their actions (because they signed on a dotted line for them)to the wolves is a denial of justice, and is as much a failure of the state as it is a failure of financial awareness and acumen by these people in the first place.

My take on things is oversimplified in response to the over simplification on the other side. The problem here is that there are some people in desparate straits and will never come out of that situation without assistance. There are many others though who no doubt are not where they would want to be but are riding on the coat tails of the first category simply to reduce their exposure to the property crash. It would be nice to look after everybody properly and say 'Ah yea should the system failed you so "we" are going to look after you'. Reality is we can't afford to look after everybody who was stung in the property crash. Its a cold reality that many people will have to suck it up for the time being and try to get on with things. If that means less disposable income or not being able to move to a more desirable home thats a sad fact of life in Ireland at present.

In my opinion NE is not the same as non-ability to service your mortgage. The former is purely a result of the mad-cap policies of former Govts/banks/regulators/developers, and the clock can't be turned back. It also seems to me that people are fixated on the fact that property owners lost as a result of the boom and forget other categories of 'investors'. Should for instance the taxpayer beasked to bail out investors in bank shares, many of whom borrowed to buy shares on the back of the 'blue-chip' status being accorded to them by the 'experts'. These investors have lost their shirts and face negative equity loans in the very same way as home owners. Same applies to buy-to-let mortgages which if the reports are to be believed are in much worse trouble than the owner-occupier mortgages and many of these mortgages may be backed by the equity in the investors home. Should we bail out any such buy-to-let investors?

I would love to think that we could resolve the difficulties of negative equity mortgage holders because we have the resources and we accept that it was someone elses fault that this happenend. However, the reality is we don't have the resources and it will not be possible to separate the grain from the chaff when it comes to deciding who is deserving of such help. Banks and mortgage holders have to sit down and work out the best way to resolve mortgage difficulties and for those cases where this is not possible then some solution will have to be found but unfortunately this solution will not be possitive for the mortgage holder.

Welease

Welease wrote: »

Honest question.. So why do you and others have issues with developers...They essentially fell foul of the same excuses you give for home owners, yet people want them made bankrupt, vilified and held accountable for their decisions, but extended credit facilities offered and sympathy offered to the other.

I don't want them bankrupt or vilified, far from it, and i don't hold them as culpable for their actions as i do the banks and the politicians, but i would like to see them in a position where they are made to atone for a portion of the blame in situations like the ones we're discussing, and relieve the pressure on their victims, sorry, their customers who are on the hook with no help whatsoever.

A lot of what went on in the boom was down to plain old fashioned greed. I know of one development, the first phase of which which went on sale in early spring of 2005, when approximately 200 people queued overnight (on what turned out to be the coldest night of that year) in anticipation of the property sales office on the site opening the next morning to sell less than 100 properties in the first phase. An agent turned up at 8am, saw the size of the waiting crowd, disappeared, and came back an hour later and announced that all prices as published in the brochure just 3 days ago, had been raised by 20k each. Every single property, just like that.

10% of the crowd (nearly frozen at this stage), left in disappointment, obviously the ones who had already reached the limit of their budgets. The rest stayed. Every available property had been sold by 2pm that day, at the increased prices. Nobody who didn't queue got one.

Now, seven years on, that same estate is unfinished, the developer has not worked onsite in 4-5 years, yet retains control of the site as the management company and (by law) does not have to relinquish it to the residents. the developer efuses to either complete it so it can be handed over, or to carry out any necessary maintenance or safety works to it citing cashflow issues, and instead runs the management of it (through an agent) to a very sub-standard level.

I have heard many similar stories anecdotally. Why do these developers get away with shameful acts of greed when it suits them and enjoy the protection of the law, but then get to hide behind the same law and fail to live up to their commitments as soon as things turn bad, leaving the residents and mortgage holders to carry the can at both ends?

Why not have some redress?

Broadly speaking, that's my issue with developers.

Welease

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't want them bankrupt or vilified, far from it, and i don't hold them as culpable for their actions as i do the banks and the politicians, but i would like to see them in a position where they are made to atone for a portion of the blame in situations like the ones we're discussing, and relieve the pressure on their victims, sorry, their customers who are on the hook with no help whatsoever.

But thats my question, you want them held culpable for their actions (i.e. borrowing millions) and atonement, but you don't seem to want the same level of cuplability or atonement from homeowners..

They both borrowed money for property based purchased in an inflated market from idiotic banks.. and they both can't afford the repayments..

So why are developers being bankrupted and homeowners "victims" for essentially the same act (albeit on different scales individually). Wouldnt a level playing field mean we start bankrupt proceedings against homeowners who can't afford to pay their mortgage?

creedp

creedp wrote: »

My take on things is oversimplified in response to the over simplification on the other side...

Excellent post. Yes i think we're broadly in agreement. What SHOULD be done and what CAN be done are not the same. Not even close.

It's a shame, but there just isn't enough money in the pot to help everybody, and the people with power and influence are further up in the queue for it than the people without.

Welease

Welease wrote: »

So why are developers being bankrupted and homeowners "victims" for essentially the same act (albeit on different scales individually). Wouldnt a level playing field mean we start bankrupt proceedings against homeowners who can't afford to pay their mortgage?

I would say there are very many homeowners out there now who would gladly take 5-7 years of bankruptcy over 20 years or more of paying into negative equity black holes.

Welease

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say there are very many homeowners out there now who would gladly take 5-7 years of bankruptcy over 20 years or more of paying into negative equity black holes.

So why not offer them bankruptcy as the solution then? they can sign up tomorrow..

If people want developers to atone for their debts financially (or bankruptcy), then why shouldn't homeowners have to do the same?

Bullseye1

Excellent post OP. it makes a mockery of the thinking that property is now an asset. It was in the past but won't be for those who have bought in the last 10 years. When you see that their house is worth less than they paid and on top of that substantially less than they paid in interest repayments.

Bullseye1

Excellent contribution MackDaddi.

bb12

I used to be so patriotic and loved this country. I moved home from abroad 12 years ago and witnessed the boom and bust and what followed. I was always someone with perfect credit scorees, got plenty of personal loans and credit cards during the boom years and paid them all back (lucky for me).

Up until recently enough I would have always advised everyone to do their best to pay back whatever debts they've had. But now in the last couple of years having witnessed how this country has basically been raped by the bankers and investors, how the government really doesn't give a damn about the common person anymore (they no longer even try to hide their contempt for us!!!), I've now changed my view completely.

To anyone with a 500k mortgage in a house worth 150k, I think you'd be a nutjob to keep try and paying that back. Run for the hills as fast as you can, especially if you're still working and earning a wage. Build up a large savings amount. It's now survival of the fittest so don't even entertain thoughts of the morality of paying back debt etc...I really find it unbelievable people that people have let themselves go HUNGRY to pay the mortgage. Are you MAD?! Screw them to the wall and look out for number one. Who cares about credit scores etc, You'll probably never want to enter into another home loan or any sort of loan again. Gather together as much cash as you can. There's such an armageddon about to come down the line, you need to prepare for it now.

And just for the record, I have a house on which I'm paying a mortgage. It's not in negative equity and all my mortgage payments are up to date. But for anyone else not in this position, think long and hard about your future. You've only one life to live and time is ticking...

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

Excellent post. Yes i think we're broadly in agreement. What SHOULD be done and what CAN be done are not the same. Not even close.

It's a shame, but there just isn't enough money in the pot to help everybody, and the people with power and influence are further up in the queue for it than the people without.

Even if there was enough tax payers money in the pot, would it be so sensible to underwrite the losses of tens of tens of thousands of citizens?

It tells people "don't worry about making stupid decidions to buy a property priced at 15 times your salary, we'll take care of it when it goes pear shaped".

Interesting piece today from mcWilliams on the topic of default.

Love him or hate him, he's not afraid of making bold predictions.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2012/08/23/austerity-cant-help-were-heading-for-mass-defaults

Farmer Pudsey

If we have a mass strategic default I think that it will be the ECB that will have to fund it. Spain has refused to pick up its banking problems. As a country we cannot pay for any more debt.

At present about 50% of buy to let mortgage's are in arrears also alot of them are intrest only and the intrest only period is coming to an end. Is it 1 in 7 ordinary mortgage's are in arrears. We can all throw the rattle out of the pram and demand that these people pay. How many more are getting supplementry welfare to pay intrest and meeting capital payments themselves.
The reality is that you cannot get blood from a turnip. Even if we force people to pay down the debt will they be able to. Take a dentist with 4-5 buy-to-lets maybe borrowings of 1 million if it is a case that any income after 50K has to go on loan repayments. Will he not decide to reduce his workload and go for a better quality of life.

An unemployed young couple with repayments of 1500/month may decide it is a better option not to look for work.

I am not saying it is right or just but a lot of posters would want to face reality there are a lot of loans out there by developers, builders, professionals and young couples that never will or can be paid. It is the same with the country some of the debt that Merkozy dumped on us will never be paid. Colm McCarthy hinted in last weeks indo that the government should sue the ECB over the bank guarantee.

Dannyboy83

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting piece today from mcWilliams on the topic of default.

Love him or hate him, he's not afraid of making bold predictions.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2012/08/23/austerity-cant-help-were-heading-for-mass-defaults

Not sure what happened exactly, but he seems to have done a u-turn recently enough and I'm actually finding his columns relevant again.

I've actually been keeping an eye out for commentators - any observer at all - in the mainstream media who seem to agree with the governments approach, and I haven't been able to find any.

Kevin Myers has never been one to go with the tide, but even he is unable to be contrarian on the issue(s):
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-not-being-seen-to-be-nasty-is-now-the-primary-objective-of-the-state-rather-than-governing-firmly-3155501.html

It will be interesting to see the government's approach at the next budget.

MysticalRain

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The reality is that you cannot get blood from a turnip.

You also can't get blood from a bigger turnip. Where do you think the ECB is going to find the money? They will have their hands full if/when Italy and Spain need bailouts too.

KyussBishop

murphaph wrote: »

Even if there was enough tax payers money in the pot, would it be so sensible to underwrite the losses of tens of tens of thousands of citizens?

It tells people "don't worry about making stupid decidions to buy a property priced at 15 times your salary, we'll take care of it when it goes pear shaped".

You're forgetting the role of the banks here; people should not have been given such ridiculously risky loans in the first place, so banks have to be held partially culpable as well, and must underwrite (not just for the sake of sharing responsibility, but to deal with the fact that a lot of these loans will not be paid off in their current form).

Dannyboy83

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

.....It will be interesting to see the government's approach at the next budget.

Yes, agreed. It will be interesting to watch the next 24 months unfold, both here and in the EU. I think the next budget is going to be make or break for the government coalition in terms of public sentiment to austerity. There are no more easy answers, everything they cut from now on is going to seriously squeeze public consumption, and slow the economy, because it's now getting to the "getting blood out of a stone" stage.
People just haven't got the money, and have cut everywhere they can already. Every new cut is going to hit it's target very hard, and further reduce their support. Pushing through an effective property tax and water rates in that atmosphere is going to be a mammoth task after the precedent of civil disobedience set by the household charge shambles.

If they get it badly wrong, the prospect of the next election genuinely scares me:

If FG don't show more progress and follow through on more of their election promises they risk being booted out, or at best returned to office with a much reduced majority and mandate, because they are the best of a bad lot. This will lead to an even shakier coalition with god knows who.

Labour are bleeding votes to the left from their hard line supporters who see them as having sold out, and are not doing enough to attract new votes from the other end of their support base, the more moderate voters closer to centre who will vote for FG instead. Sinn Fein are positioning themselves perfectly to scoop up Labour's hardline dissenter's votes on the left.

Fianna Fail are largely politically irrelevant, and hopefully will remain so. Hopefully a few thousand more of their deluded "lifelong FF supporters" will have died off by then.

The independents and minor parties are seen as idealists, and pragmatists, but are ultimately a lame political duck.

Sinn Fein meanwhile, are busy opposing everything the government says or does both domestically and in europe, fostering euro-scepticism (and ironically being helped in no small part by Europe themselves)and are cynically mopping up support from the increasingly marginalised classes in society by making pie-in-the-sky economic promises and proposing ridiculous alternatives which would make things far worse here in the bigger picture. They are playing for 2016 and beyond.

I can genuinely see a situation where SF stand a very good chance of at least sharing power in the next election. Imagine the damage that that would do to Ireland's investment prospects internationally. 100 years after winning our civil independence, we hand power, both in the north and in the south of the country, to a left wing, "anti big business" socialist party who are not even a generation removed from terrorism, bombs, and bullets.

Foreign direct investment would hemorrhage out of the country in favour of friendlier governments elsewhere in Europe. Britain and France would have a field day at our FDI expense, and the only sector of our economy which is actually punching above it's weight would dry up overnight and leave us to sink under our own weight.

Welease

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're forgetting the role of the banks here; people should not have been given such ridiculously risky loans in the first place, so banks have to be held partially culpable as well, and must underwrite (not just for the sake of sharing responsibility, but to deal with the fact that a lot of these loans will not be paid off in their current form).

I don't get this notion that the banks have been let away scott-free as continually posted here.. They have not..

The banks were owned by private shareholders, and those shares are now worthless. The banks (to various levels) were taken into public ownership as part of the arrangement to fund the shortcomings.. How have they escaped?
If you had invested 100K in the banks as a shareholder (part owner) your investment and ownership value has been decimated.. How much more culpability do you want?

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

I can genuinely see a situation where SF stand a very good chance of at least sharing power in the next election. Imagine the damage that that would do to Ireland's investment prospects internationally. 100 years after winning our civil independence, we hand power, both in the north and in the south of the country, to a left wing, "anti big business" socialist party who are not even a generation removed from terrorism, bombs, and bullets.

Foreign direct investment would hemorrhage out of the country in favour of friendlier governments elsewhere in Europe. Britain and France would have a field day at our FDI expense, and the only sector of our economy which is actually punching above it's weight would dry up overnight and leave us to sink under our own weight.

I would hate to see SF anywhere near the levers of power but tbh, they would probably take the same pragmatic approach they have taken in NI and indeed even more so as there's no UL Treasury teat to suckle from down south. They are a bunch of chancers that promise the undeliverable (even more so than the others) but when in power, they will likely have to break 90% of their promises immediately.

It's a depressing outlook nonetheless. No real conservative party to vote for, which is disappointing for me.

Farmer Pudsey

MysticalRain wrote: »

You also can't get blood from a bigger turnip. Where do you think the ECB is going to find the money? They will have their hands full if/when Italy and Spain need bailouts too.

What the ECB can do is a process called quantative easing ie printing money to buy up debt that cannot be repain soverign debt, banking debt and personel debt. It is not setting an example and coming to Ireland and saying you have done well you are trying to change if you now do this and this we will take the banking onto our books. It called a carrot and stick. It all stick at present and other countries in europe will not take it like us. As McWilliams says ''why do we want to be liked so much''

murphaph wrote: »

I would hate to see SF anywhere near the levers of power but tbh, they would probably take the same pragmatic approach they have taken in NI and indeed even more so as there's no UL Treasury teat to suckle from down south. They are a bunch of chancers that promise the undeliverable (even more so than the others) but when in power, they will likely have to break 90% of their promises immediately.

It's a depressing outlook nonetheless. No real conservative party to vote for, which is disappointing for me.

The last conservative party we had helped break the country or do you remember the PD's. It is not necessirly a consertive party we need rather a party with common sence. The biggest issue with politician is that most are 2nd or 3rd generation and have lived in a bubble all there life. Most cannot and do not want to see beyond there own vested intrest. Mary Harney desire to priviatise the health service, Labours hangup's baout welfare and public servises, FG's hang up's about tax also none are willing to cut there own level of pay so as to give an example.

For to cut PS pay you need politicians to come out and accept that they are overpaid and there are too many of them. See the way the reform/abolitian of the Seanad has been sidelined, we are getting a token reduction of 5or6 TD's. I often wonder if it would be the end of the world if we voted Sinn Fein/Independants in the next Local Elections and if the government do not cop themselves on in the next General Election.

murphaph

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The last conservative party we had helped break the country or do you remember the PD's. It is not necessirly a consertive party we need rather a party with common sence. The biggest issue with politician is that most are 2nd or 3rd generation and have lived in a bubble all there life. Most cannot and do not want to see beyond there own vested intrest. Mary Harney desire to priviatise the health service, Labours hangup's baout welfare and public servises, FG's hang up's about tax also none are willing to cut there own level of pay so as to give an example.

For to cut PS pay you need politicians to come out and accept that they are overpaid and there are too many of them. See the way the reform/abolitian of the Seanad has been sidelined, we are getting a token reduction of 5or6 TD's. I often wonder if it would be the end of the world if we voted Sinn Fein/Independants in the next Local Elections and if the government do not cop themselves on in the next General Election.

PDs weren't a conservative party. They were active participants in the "one for everybody in the audience" government of Bertie Ahern & Co. Couldn't possibly define them as conservative, certainly not fiscally so.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

I would hate to see SF anywhere near the levers of power but tbh, they would probably take the same pragmatic approach they have taken in NI

They are a bunch of chancers that promise the undeliverable...but when in power, they will likely have to break 90% of their promises immediately

Jesus, i hope for the country's sake if they ever do get into power that's what they will do. The alternative of them actually keeping their promises would be an absolute disaster. It would shift this country fundamentally towards the left, and well out of favour with so much of the political and financial power base in the G8 countries.

If however they do break their promises if they ever get into power, i can see them dealing with a major backlash from their voters, who are a special enough bunch to actually believe that SF might be capable of half the things they're promising. So if that's the case and they in turn are booted out by a disillusioned public after a failed term, where does that leave us then in terms of political alternatives for 2020 and beyond?

Will "New" Fianna Fail be ready to sweep in and re-assume power, and begin the cycle all over again?

I genuinely hope that all of this political inertia and "more of the same" activity of late gives rise to a new and viable political party which reflects Irish society's attitudes in the wake of the Celtic Tiger. I think we need a real, progressive, and moderate alternative to the tired old hacks who've been wielding all the power in the Dail for years. The best we've seen in terms of irish political reform in the last 30 years is the regrouping and rebranding of the same old faces from the same old political lines with different party names. We need a real new option, comprised of new faces who aren't carrying 20+ yeas of political baggage amongst their leadership.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I often wonder if it would be the end of the world if we voted Sinn Fein/Independants in the next Local Elections and if the government do not cop themselves on in the next General Election.

See my remarks above. I honestly think that the very very best we could hope for in that scenario is a lost 5 years through political inertia with them being unable to enact the majority of their leftist policies due to pure economic reality, but being unwilling to swing their policy towards the centre for fear of losing grassroots support.

Far more likely they would pursue at least some of their ludicrous policy (albeit a watered down version of it), do significant damage to Ireland as a whole, and leave power with the country worse off than they left it.

coolshannagh28

Welease wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're forgetting the role of the banks here; people should not have been given such ridiculously risky loans in the first place, so banks have to be held partially culpable as well, and must underwrite (not just for the sake of sharing responsibility, but to deal with the fact that a lot of these loans will not be paid off in their current form).

I don't get this notion that the banks have been let away scott-free as continually posted here.. They have not..

The banks were owned by private shareholders, and those shares are now worthless. The banks (to various levels) were taken into public ownership as part of the arrangement to fund the shortcomings.. How have they escaped?
If you had invested 100K in the banks as a shareholder (part owner) your investment and ownership value has been decimated.. How much more culpability do you want?

The bondholders,the biggest investors in the banks were paid in full and this is part of the cause of our depression . Also depositors who are also stakeholders have been protected .

antoobrien

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The bondholders,the biggest investors in the banks

That's so fundamentally wrong it's scary. Bondholders do not invest money with banks, they deposit money under terms defined in a bond of agreement - hence the term bondholder.

Only the senior bonds (which are de-facto guaranteed due to their international ranking above retail deposits) have been repaid in full. The level of senior bonds was so low it was not worth the legal fights and reputational damage that it would have done to burn them.

Farmer Pudsey

Far more likely they would pursue at least some of their ludicrous policy (albeit a watered down version of it), do significant damage to Ireland as a whole, and leave power with the country worse off than they left it.[/QUOTE]

Let me see what other political party could this also be refered to :rolleyes: FF :oPD's :eek: LabourFG.

Question would they be any worse the political and finiancal elite will continue to sucker people in this country until we wake up and be prepare to boot them out and accept the conquences.

I detest SF and what they stand for but I have come to relise that the rest are no better and we have to hang them out to dry before they will do anthing about it.

When you get into power you have 2-3 years t implement your policies after that you have on eye on the next election. Most parties are too afraid to go for it in the first 3 years straight out the mess and then wait for the up turn to win the next election.

it is easier to hit the coping classes and give everything to the super rich and the dossers. Sit on your hands start leaking details of budget that you may have to implement to get it shafted.

After the silly season ( july/Aug when the politician are on holidays) comes the sillier season ( when they start to leak the budget).

It is now unfolding that the people who did not pay the household charge were right. The government have plenty of money if the spend it right and started to cut the fat out of the PS and Semin state bodies there is no need to privatise id they are payibf a decent dividend

Welease

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Let me see what other political party could this also be refered to :rolleyes: FF :oPD's :eek: LabourFG.

Question would they be any worse the political and finiancal elite will continue to sucker people in this country until we wake up and be prepare to boot them out and accept the conquences.

I detest SF and what they stand for but I have come to relise that the rest are no better and we have to hang them out to dry before they will do anthing about it.

When you get into power you have 2-3 years t implement your policies after that you have on eye on the next election. Most parties are too afraid to go for it in the first 3 years straight out the mess and then wait for the up turn to win the next election.

it is easier to hit the coping classes and give everything to the super rich and the dossers. Sit on your hands start leaking details of budget that you may have to implement to get it shafted.

After the silly season ( july/Aug when the politician are on holidays) comes the sillier season ( when they start to leak the budget).

It is now unfolding that the people who did not pay the household charge were right. The government have plenty of money if the spend it right and started to cut the fat out of the PS and Semin state bodies there is no need to privatise id they are payibf a decent dividend

This country gets the policies and politicians that it requests...

It's easy to blame the super-rich and the dossers, but they make up a tiny proportion of the voting class, and therefore have limited input into the formation of the government. The government and the manner in which it governs can and is easily controlled by the voting populace, but the voting populace in Ireland don't want to accept that they bought the houses in the housing boom at a price they agreed to pay, that they make up the unions that hold this country to random, they they actually are the PS/PrS that we complain about, that they will vote in known criminals because they have local rather than countrywide focus, that they don't have services/benefits because they wont pay the required taxation levels to service the cost, that they etc etc etc..

Look at the threads on here (and this is an economic forum where one would assume people have a vague idea of what has been happening economically in this country)..
People claim the banks haven't been touched.. They have..
People claim the developers walked away untouched.. Many are or are being made bankrupt
People claim it's not their fault they bought a house they couldn't afford and is not the type of house they want now so they should be helped to get a new one.. It is their fault.
People claim the government are spineless for not wiping out NE.. but can't actually explain how we can pay for this..
Poeple want all of this sorted out.. but don't want to pay a cent extra in tax or have any benefits cuts to fund it.

If any party in the next election promised to wipe out NE (but never explains how they will pay for it) and complains that Banks/Developers walked away scott free and they will do something about it (but doesn't explain what), and wont touch benefits, taxes etc.... it is likely they would be voted into power (much like the discussion on voting for SF now).

Anyone who believes it.. is frankly an idiot.. but the votes will roll in..

In essense, to the Irish voter it appears the actual facts and details are irrelevant and a Joe Duffy level of discourse is enough to ensure power..
The blame lies fairly and squarely at the feet of the Irish voter and worker, and until they realise that they nothing will change.

coolshannagh28

antoobrien wrote: »

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The bondholders,the biggest investors in the banks

That's so fundamentally wrong it's scary. Bondholders do not invest money with banks, they deposit money under terms defined in a bond of agreement - hence the term bondholder.

Only the senior bonds (which are de-facto guaranteed due to their international ranking above retail deposits) have been repaid in full. The level of senior bonds was so low it was not worth the legal fights and reputational damage that it would have done to burn them.[/Quote.
This is the matter Colm mc carthy is asking the government to sue the ECB on . Nearly 20 billion of unsecured junior debt seems to be at stake .

Welease

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

This is the matter Colm mc carthy is asking the government to sue the ECB on . Nearly 20 billion of unsecured junior debt seems to be at stake .

But.. As per Anto's response.. the bondholders are not the bank... So claims that the banks have not been touched (as per my point) are erroneous..

If you want to argue re: Senior/Junior bondholders thne fine.. but that was not the point being made nor the point I refuted in the previous posts.

coolshannagh28

Welease wrote: »

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

This is the matter Colm mc carthy is asking the government to sue the ECB on . Nearly 20 billion of unsecured junior debt seems to be at stake .

But.. As per Anto's response.. the bondholders are not the bank... So claims that the banks have not been touched (as per my point) are erroneous..

If you want to argue re: Senior/Junior bondholders thne fine.. but that was not the point being made nor the point I refuted in the previous posts.

My original post was regarding who sustained losses in the system . If bondholders ,junior and senior ,had losses imposed on them initially the people and taxpayers would not be as exposed now .

antoobrien

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

My original post was regarding who sustained losses in the system . If bondholders ,junior and senior ,had losses imposed on them initially the people and taxpayers would not be as exposed now .

Junior bonds were hit and hit hard. It wasn't hard enough for some (hence McCarthy's "advice") but to do any more would have totally screwed the country permanently. The fact that things have changed a couple of years on is an irrelevance, so McCarthy's advice to sue is more than a bit strange.

The idea that taxpayers would not have been exposed would be laughable, if wasn't so potentially serious. You don't seem to be aware that it is not possible to touch senior bonds without hitting the retail deposit market first. This is not just an Irish legal position but an international banking convention. The ranking is Senior, retail, junior.

If we wanted to hit senior bondholders, the government would have effectively had to take out of taxpayers current and credit union accounts (who are retail depositors with banks) etc.

Apart from the legal repercussions, which Argentina are still suffering 10 years after their default, the damage to the international reputation would be enormous. Just look at what's happening to Greece and Portugal (
Greece have technically defaulted, Portugal haven't but everyone is seriously scared of the possibility).

coolshannagh28

antoobrien wrote: »

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

My original post was regarding who sustained losses in the system . If bondholders ,junior and senior ,had losses imposed on them initially the people and taxpayers would not be as exposed now .

Junior bonds were hit and hit hard. It wasn't hard enough for some (hence McCarthy's "advice") but to do any more would have totally screwed the country permanently. The fact that things have changed a couple of years on is an irrelevance, so McCarthy's advice to sue is more than a bit strange.

The idea that taxpayers would not have been exposed would be laughable, if wasn't so potentially serious. You don't seem to be aware that it is not possible to touch senior bonds without hitting the retail deposit market first. This is not just an Irish legal position but an international banking convention. The ranking is Senior, retail, junior.

If we wanted to hit senior bondholders, the government would have effectively had to take out of taxpayers current and credit union accounts (who are retail depositors with banks) etc.

Apart from the legal repercussions, which Argentina are still suffering 10 years after their default, the damage to the international reputation would be enormous. Just look at what's happening to Greece and Portugal (
Greece have technically defaulted, Portugal haven't but everyone is seriously scared of the possibility).

You don't have to be so arrogant about making your point which is the subject of wide debate in Ireland and worldwide and which I don't for necessarily accept

Agent Weebley

Although strategic mortgage default is the OPs original subject, money creation is integral to how the scam evolved and how it can be solved.

If you create a unit of currency with a corresponding unit of debt (e.g.: gilts, bonds, mortgages, loans,) the only way the interest on that debt can be repaid, is by creating more units of currency and more debt. This gives you a pretty good visual that money creation, in order to seem stable, relies on a parabolic curve, similar to a graph shown here.

Whenever the fluffed up excess money supply sloshing around the economy gets to the point of lunacy, a bust occurs. The busts are not "Acts Of God," but planned cover-ups for the poor math skills of the original money creators. In a bust, the debts being held by mortgage holders usually remain as-is, a few high (debt) flyers go bankrupt, and rapid inflation normally wipes out cash savings and restores mortgage values to a relatively acceptable level.

This time, inflation has occurred mainly in the energy sector. Energy is almost free, so they used contrived political unrest to keep the price high .

. . but I digress . . .

Paying the banks for their bad debt by QE (nice label by the way . . . we all love labels) is a ridiculous concept, but because our supposed "leaders" allow it with serious face on, and the media reinforces it as a valid concept, it gets bought by the masses, lock, stock, and barrel.

or

The masses feel there is nothing they can do about it except gripe with each other. They feel powerelss about the machinations of the "leaders."

or

We wonder why they are boosting their balance sheets like this, when they could easily turn the money supply implosion back into an explosion with some cliches, such as: "turned the corner," and/or "reached the bottom," and/or "green shoots."

I think we are now wise to money as debt, and we are reticent to take on even more debt . . . we want to pay it off! The banks can see few people are going in looking for loans they are sure they can pay back, these days. A Karmic Catch-22 they have put themselves in, yes?

Herein likes the crux of the money as debt: if all the cash money you had went against debt, there would be a massive debt load still in existence. That is because all the money that has ever been printed has accrued a lot of interest due to time.

1 unit created = 1 unit of debt + interest (per year)

or

1 unit created - (1 unit of debt + interest (per year)) = zero

. . . and we all know that does not compute.

Geuze

antoobrien wrote: »

That's so fundamentally wrong it's scary. Bondholders do not invest money with banks, they deposit money under terms defined in a bond of agreement - hence the term bondholder.

Only the senior bonds (which are de-facto guaranteed due to their international ranking above retail deposits) have been repaid in full. The level of senior bonds was so low it was not worth the legal fights and reputational damage that it would have done to burn them.

Investors who bought bank bonds were not and are not seen as depositers.

Deposits can't be bought and sold on a market. Bonds are.

Yes, it's true that it's said that legally, senior bonds are ranked pari-passu with deposits. So people say that if we reneged on the senior bonds, we would have to renege on deposits as well.

I'd like to know - where does it say this? What law?

Geuze

antoobrien wrote: »

. The level of senior bonds was so low it was not worth the legal fights and reputational damage that it would have done to burn them.

The amount of senior bank bonds was huge, maybe 20 bn +. I will check this.

EDIT: 31bn of bonds covered by the Govt's ELG scheme as of June 2011.

MysticalRain

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

What the ECB can do is a process called quantative easing ie printing money to buy up debt that cannot be repain soverign debt, banking debt and personel debt. It is not setting an example and coming to Ireland and saying you have done well you are trying to change if you now do this and this we will take the banking onto our books. It called a carrot and stick. It all stick at present and other countries in europe will not take it like us. As McWilliams says ''why do we want to be liked so much''

Printing money will just lead to higher inflation. I can't see how that will be much of a solution.

Geuze

antoobrien wrote: »

The idea that taxpayers would not have been exposed would be laughable, if wasn't so potentially serious. You don't seem to be aware that it is not possible to touch senior bonds without hitting the retail deposit market first. This is not just an Irish legal position but an international banking convention. The ranking is Senior, retail, junior.

If we wanted to hit senior bondholders, the government would have effectively had to take out of taxpayers current and credit union accounts (who are retail depositors with banks) etc.

Apart from the legal repercussions, which Argentina are still suffering 10 years after their default, the damage to the international reputation would be enormous. Just look at what's happening to Greece and Portugal (
Greece have technically defaulted, Portugal haven't but everyone is seriously scared of the possibility).

This is the first time that I've seen the ranking written like this.

You seem to be suggesting that there was to no way to force cuts to senior bonds without also cutting deposits (just large deposits??).

Is this is law?

I realise that CU and pension funds would have been hit, yes, as they own senior bonds.

KyussBishop

Welease wrote: »

I don't get this notion that the banks have been let away scott-free as continually posted here.. They have not..

The banks were owned by private shareholders, and those shares are now worthless. The banks (to various levels) were taken into public ownership as part of the arrangement to fund the shortcomings.. How have they escaped?
If you had invested 100K in the banks as a shareholder (part owner) your investment and ownership value has been decimated.. How much more culpability do you want?

It's not about the banks being given some kind of punishment, for their overall wrongs, it's about banks bearing responsibility specifically for their fault in giving out such risky loans.

That plus accepting the inevitability that many of these loans just wont be paid off, means they need to underwrite the loans, or there must be some other method of debt reduction employed.

Farmer Pudsey

MysticalRain wrote: »

Printing money will just lead to higher inflation. I can't see how that will be much of a solution.

Yes but inflation would not be the end of the world it would encourage consumers to buy now as it might be more expensive next week and investors to invest as the money might be worth less in the bank's in the long run. At present what is happening people who have money are keeping it in banks earning around 3% after dirt is taken out inflation is non existance and we still have a bit od deflation so nobody want to spend in case it is cheaper next week.

antoobrien wrote: »

Junior bonds were hit and hit hard. It wasn't hard enough for some (hence McCarthy's "advice") but to do any more would have totally screwed the country permanently. The fact that things have changed a couple of years on is an irrelevance, so McCarthy's advice to sue is more than a bit strange.

The idea that taxpayers would not have been exposed would be laughable, if wasn't so potentially serious. You don't seem to be aware that it is not possible to touch senior bonds without hitting the retail deposit market first. This is not just an Irish legal position but an international banking convention. The ranking is Senior, retail, junior.

If we wanted to hit senior bondholders, the government would have effectively had to take out of taxpayers current and credit union accounts (who are retail depositors with banks) etc.

Apart from the legal repercussions, which Argentina are still suffering 10 years after their default, the damage to the international reputation would be enormous. Just look at what's happening to Greece and Portugal (
Greece have technically defaulted, Portugal haven't but everyone is seriously scared of the possibility).

There is no legal precedent to this and you are saying look at Argentina/Greece/Portugal look at Iceland a small country gave the two fingers and will recover in the short term. It would have been a lot cheaper to bail out the credit unions than to pay the bondholders. Could we have walked away free no but it would have cost less. Anglo bond were trading for cent in the euro before the bank gaurantee they (the bondholders) did not expect to get paid.

McCarthy advice last Sunday must have come after a lot of soul serching from him it is he who gave the last government advice on cut's to implement. Until recently he was an advacote of going with the ECB abd that they would look after us he is now moving towards the McWilliams vein of thinking. What he said in the paper last Sunday came out of the blue to me.
I would not worry about our reputation now as if we do not get relief on bank debt we will have a soverign default and I think this is what McCarthy is afraid of.

Welease wrote: »

This country gets the policies and politicians that it requests...

It's easy to blame the super-rich and the dossers, but they make up a tiny proportion of the voting class, and therefore have limited input into the formation of the government. The government and the manner in which it governs can and is easily controlled by the voting populace, but the voting populace in Ireland don't want to accept that they bought the houses in the housing boom at a price they agreed to pay, that they make up the unions that hold this country to random, they they actually are the PS/PrS that we complain about, that they will vote in known criminals because they have local rather than countrywide focus, that they don't have services/benefits because they wont pay the required taxation levels to service the cost, that they etc etc etc..

Look at the threads on here (and this is an economic forum where one would assume people have a vague idea of what has been happening economically in this country)..
People claim the banks haven't been touched.. They have..
People claim the developers walked away untouched.. Many are or are being made bankrupt
People claim it's not their fault they bought a house they couldn't afford and is not the type of house they want now so they should be helped to get a new one.. It is their fault.
People claim the government are spineless for not wiping out NE.. but can't actually explain how we can pay for this..
Poeple want all of this sorted out.. but don't want to pay a cent extra in tax or have any benefits cuts to fund it.

If any party in the next election promised to wipe out NE (but never explains how they will pay for it) and complains that Banks/Developers walked away scott free and they will do something about it (but doesn't explain what), and wont touch benefits, taxes etc.... it is likely they would be voted into power (much like the discussion on voting for SF now).

Anyone who believes it.. is frankly an idiot.. but the votes will roll in..

In essense, to the Irish voter it appears the actual facts and details are irrelevant and a Joe Duffy level of discourse is enough to ensure power..
The blame lies fairly and squarely at the feet of the Irish voter and worker, and until they realise that they nothing will change.

This is an attack on what way the Irish people voted in the last election. Most voted for a government to start at the top and cut cost to get us out of this mess.
Enda promised that the Senead would be abolished, that the health servise would be sorted and that a lot of quango's would be got rid of and Croke Park revisited. What has happened he has broke his promise so in the next local/european election's I am going to reward him by voting Sinn Fein. I do not blame labour that is not what they promised.

Why will I do this because other wise they will just continue messing us around they will not lead and if they do not get the message then I will do the same in the next General election

This bull about us voting for criminals or gombeen men etc is bull we gave Enda and Eamon the biggest majority to sort it out they did not instead he got all pally with Angela she is the only one putting her country first.

Our shower of sh#ts have to do the same.

Welease

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's not about the banks being given some kind of punishment, for their overall wrongs, it's about banks bearing responsibility specifically for their fault in giving out such risky loans.

That plus accepting the inevitability that many of these loans just wont be paid off, means they need to underwrite the loans, or there must be some other method of debt reduction employed.

The long and short of it is.. that WE now own the banks and will be responsible for any funding required..

We can make as many financial gestures as we want... How much are the people of this country prepared to hand over in taxes and charges to fund this debt reduction...

Specifically as you are requesting it.. how much more do you think you should pay in taxes to cover any shortfall I or anyone else may have?

Welease

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

This is an attack on what way the Irish people voted in the last election. Most voted for a government to start at the top and cut cost to get us out of this mess.
Enda promised that the Senead would be abolished, that the health servise would be sorted and that a lot of quango's would be got rid of and Croke Park revisited. What has happened he has broke his promise so in the next local/european election's I am going to reward him by voting Sinn Fein. I do not blame labour that is not what they promised..

No most voted for a party that wasn't FF...
Do you think PS workers or union members voted for a revised CPA?

And the previous elections? Weren't FF voted in for over a decade because they kept this miracle of a construction/credit boom alive.. The very same people who now complain about that economic disaster re-voted in the people who drove it. They were national hero's at the time. They actually got exactly what they wanted.

Any political party will respond to where the votes are percieved to be.. If people want loose economic policy they will say they will give it.. If people want taxes cut they will say they will give it.. because in Ireland the voter seems to apply very little economic common sense to votes, and doesnt bother to ask where the funding will come from...
You think they would actually revisit CP? If they did, half the country would walk out on strike tomorrow and never vote for them again.. They have no intention of doing that.. so it was never going to happen.

SF are promising the world.. but i have yet to see any details on how any of this will be paid for.. but its enough to get more votes for them..
Have you bothered to ask your SF rep how they will pay for their plans? Because last time I heard Adams whittering on he didn't seem to have a clue..

Then when the mess deepens with SF.. the voter will move onto the next politician who offers them nirvana..

Anyway, this is going way off topic for this thread.. People are welcome to vote in whatever manner they wish, and I won't attempt to change that.. But I do wish that those who vote for them would push them for an answer on who will pay for all their plans.. because if you did, you might realise they sometimes don't have a clue what they are talking about, and no idea how to pay for it. Then, and only then might they realise (as per my initial point) that it is the voters of this country that continue to allow this mess to happen, because they demand so little for their next vote..