Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 3] *Poll Reset*

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

Agree 100% with this.

I'm always trying to be helpful.

Slick50

dvpower wrote: »

I'm always trying to be helpful.

You need to work on that.

I'm going to stick my neck out, and guess 23% FP votes would get FG/LB around 50 seats. (not a majority)

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

Meh. I'm not too impressed by him.

This is exactly the answer that I expected from you when you are faced with any statement, video, or blog from anyone opposed to policies, which cause hardship on the most vunerable people in our society, who is talking the truth. I was told more or less the same thing by at least another three members of your debating team over the past few months.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Mind you, I don't recall his election campaign being particularly focussed on the unemployed and DSW recipients.

I believe FG have made a few contradictory policies from the election campaign they rolled out DV.

NOT ANOTHER RED CENT......

dxhound2005

darkhorse wrote: »

This is exactly the answer that I expected from you when you are faced with any statement, video, or blog from anyone opposed to policies, which cause hardship on the most vunerable people in our society, who is talking the truth. I was told more or less the same thing by at least another three members of your debating team over the past few months.

Who would you define as the most vulnerable people in society and who would you define as the middle income earners you said he was standing up for in your previous post. And how would you relate this to the HHC which by definition only affects private property.

Low and middle income gets mentioned here frequently. How much roughly is middle income?

darkhorse

pitkan wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/town-councillor-charged-with-deceit-over-conference-expenses-3331994.html
[/QUOTE]

I have to say, it lifted me a bit when I heard said councillor was granted free legal aid. That was my biggest worry.

darkhorse

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Who would you define as the most vulnerable people in society and who would you define as the middle income earners you said he was standing up for in your previous post.

Low and middle income gets mentioned here frequently. How much roughly is middle income?

To be honest with ya, anyone who has to ask questions such as those, I would'nt grace them with an answer.

dxhound2005

darkhorse wrote: »

To be honest with ya, anyone who has to ask questions such as those, I would'nt grace them with an answer.

What about this one. What do you think of Stephen Donnelly campaigning to keep small schools in Wicklow open. Do you think that would be a good use of public resources. Would you support government ministers doing the same in their constituencies?

http://www.greystonesguide.ie/donnelly-calls-for-greater-protection-for-wicklows-small-rural-schools/

See, I can take the thread off in an irrelevant direction just like you do all the time.

darkhorse

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What about this one. What do you think of Stephen Donnelly campaigning to keep small schools in Wicklow open. Do you think that would be a good use of public resources. Would you support government ministers doing the same in their constituencies?

http://www.greystonesguide.ie/donnelly-calls-for-greater-protection-for-wicklows-small-rural-schools/

See, I can take the thread off in an irrelevant direction just like you do all the time.

Right, tell me how are any of my statements, in which I talk about low earnings, so low as to affect the payments of any future taxes that the government are looking for from people that dont have it, whatever the reason may be, irrelevant, bearing in mind that this forum is about the HHC, which is a precursor to the property tax.

dvpower

Slick50 wrote: »

You need to work on that.

I'm going to stick my neck out, and guess 23% FP votes would get FG/LB around 50 seats. (not a majority)

You are badly out of your depth here.
1. You completely ignore the reasonings I gave you why you simply cannot translate a headline percentage figure into a number of seats.
2. You don't provide any reasoning of your own - you've just pulled the figure out of your arse.
3. The 23% figure you quoted was a 'satisfaction with the Government' figure, not a 'state of the parties' figure. These are entirely different measures.

Your 50 seats is wishful thinking, nothing more.

dvpower

darkhorse wrote: »

This is exactly the answer that I expected from you when you are faced with any statement, video, or blog from anyone opposed to policies, which cause hardship on the most vunerable people in our society, who is talking the truth. I was told more or less the same thing by at least another three members of your debating team over the past few months.

Cheeky.
A few pages back you posted some US article questioning austerity. When I raised some questions about it, here is what your response was:

darkhorse wrote: »

The question was, is he right or wrong?, nothing more, nothing less.

I am more than willing to discuss individual elements of Donnelly's stances if you want. There are also some other threads over on Politics.

darkhorse

dvpower wrote: »

Cheeky.
A few pages back you posted some US article questioning austerity. When I raised some questions about it, here is what your response was:


I am more than willing to discuss individual elements of Donnelly's stances if you want. There are also some other threads over on Politics.

Well, its a pity that you did'nt go back another few pages to where the conversation originated. You would have seen that I was answering a post about economics, and the affordability of the property tax for a lot of people in the country, and austerity came into the conversation, as they are all intertwined. So, If someone is talking about the feasability or otherwise of austerity, whether its a politician, an economist or a business person, and if a poster asks the question that requires a definitive answer, where is the problem in giving that answer. As regards that US article on austerity, I decided to post it merely because, when I posted any articles by any Irish economists or politicians, you and others posters just shot them down, so I went outside the country, so to speak.
You also say that you are more than willing to discuss indevidual elements of Donnelly's stances, but that would a futile exercise, as, we already know from this forum that any politician that is not actually in government, you constantly put them down.

DoesNotCompute

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1220/high-court-challenge-to-household-charge-begins.html

Don't see how his human rights are being violated, but OK

dvpower

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1220/high-court-challenge-to-household-charge-begins.html

Don't see how his human rights are being violated, but OK

Nothing on the CAHWT website about this case - didn't they say that nobody would go to court alone?

donalg1

dvpower wrote: »

Nothing on the CAHWT website about this case - didn't they say that nobody would go to court alone?

Is he a landlord by any chance, if he is well then the CAHWT most likely just moved the goalposts to save themselves from being shown up as being full of talk and hot air.

DoesNotCompute

dvpower wrote: »

Nothing on the CAHWT website about this case - didn't they say that nobody would go to court alone?

This is Peter Anthony Keegan, the same chap that Mayo County Council took to court, along with a number of other owners of multiple properties back in November:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/first-household-charge-cases-go-to-court-3280392.html

Since then, Mr Keegan demanded that Phil Hogan and a number of others show up in the High Court to explain themselves:

http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/57342/westport-man-challenging-household-charge

The court papers summoning Hogan can be read here

dvpower

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

This is Peter Anthony Keegan, the same chap that Mayo County Council took to court, along with a number of other owners of multiple properties back in November:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/first-household-charge-cases-go-to-court-3280392.html

Since then, Mr Keegan demanded that Phil Hogan and a number of others show up in the High Court to explain themselves:

http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/57342/westport-man-challenging-household-charge

The court papers summoning Hogan can be read here

Sounds like a bit of a nutcase.
Why isn't he posting here?

Ghandee

I'm guessing that as Mr Keegan isn't a single property homeowner, more of a landlord who is using his numerous properties as his income (ie a business) he'll receive very little support from folk with a home.


Maybe he'll be 'in the know' as he's in the west of the country.

I hear theirs a senator in that neck of the country can get strokes pulled in court.

DoesNotCompute

Ghandee wrote: »

I'm guessing that as Mr Keegan isn't a single property homeowner, more of a landlord who is using his numerous properties as his income (ie a business) he'll receive very little support from folk with a home.

Exactly. He can well afford to pay the charge, yet he refuses to do so. So he'll get very little sympathy around here. Remind you of anyone G-Man??? ;-)

mikom

dvpower wrote: »

Sounds like a bit of a nutcase.
Why isn't he posting here?

He is neither a single home owner nor a government sycophant, so that kinda rules him out.

Ghandee

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Exactly. He can well afford to pay the charge, yet he refuses to do so. So he'll get very little sympathy around here. Remind you of anyone G-Man??? ;-)

Well now, let's see.

Hogan could afford his charge in Portugal, but refused to.

Reilly I believe is still in contempt of court ref his financial obligations, (he's a millionaire I believe)

The bold Fidelma, she would be well able to afford a train fare, car tax, vat to the plumber. but refused.


Then of course there are lots on this thread well able to afford it but won't.

Who you getting at?

Duggys Housemate

Ghandee wrote: »

Well now, let's see.

Hogan could afford his charge in Portugal, but refused to.

Reilly I believe is still in contempt of court ref his financial obligations, (he's a millionaire I believe)

The bold Fidelma, she would be well able to afford a train fare, car tax, vat to the plumber. but refused.


Then of course there are lots on this thread well able to afford it but won't.

Who you getting at?

I think he is saying yez are all the same.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

I'm guessing that as Mr Keegan isn't a single property homeowner, more of a landlord who is using his numerous properties as his income (ie a business) he'll receive very little support from folk with a home.

Not a distinction that the CAHWT were making at all up to recently.
I expect that they will abandon the next set of people to be prosecuted too (I predict that the excuse they will use is that they can only support people who paid the €5 membership charge. Personally, I don't think there are too many people who actually paid the fiver, because, to be honest, why would you pay a charge if you're not happy with the service?).

bgrizzley

dvpower wrote: »

Sounds like a bit of a nutcase.
Why isn't he posting here?

irony is ironic:eek:

Hijpo

dvpower wrote: »

I don't think there are too many people who actually paid the fiver, because, to be honest, why would you pay a charge if you're not happy with the service?).

Maybe soom crook invented a law and threatend them with disconnection of essential services?

All in all, if the CAHWT go back on a promise its terrible and people are stupid for believing them.
However if government come out with manifestos that get them elected only to turn around and whipe there arse with said manifestos its ok?
and to top it off, when a TD is asked "why bother make promises in manifestos that get you elected if you know you cant stick to these promises?" its ok for them to reply "thats just what you do".

Wake up to the bigger problem of THE ACTUAL GOVERNMENT. the world wont end tomorrow, bondholders will be paid at some stage but atleast get the country out of this mess with the right people in charge other than mé feiners that are there at the moment and the rest of the shower that are sure to follow.

Bruthal

Is there a christmas truce at the war front this year?

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Not a distinction that the CAHWT were making at all up to recently.
I expect that they will abandon the next set of people to be prosecuted too (I predict that the excuse they will use is that they can only support people who paid the €5 membership charge. Personally, I don't think there are too many people who actually paid the fiver, because, to be honest, why would you pay a charge if you're not happy with the service?).

Why you insist in trying to connect us to the cahwt repeatedly on this thread is beyond me

I have no affiliation with them, nor any dealings with them, yet you keep on about them?

What's that all about?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Why you insist in trying to connect us to the cahwt repeatedly on this thread is beyond me

I have no affiliation with them, nor any dealings with them, yet you keep on about them?

What's that all about?

The CAHWT are the major umbrella organisation supposedly fighting this tax, aren't they?

I know that they're an embarrassment, but you do share a common futile cause.

Bullseye1

What is that about blue shirts.

Slick50

dvpower wrote: »

You are badly out of your depth here.
1. You completely ignore the reasonings I gave you why you simply cannot translate a headline percentage figure into a number of seats.

Not even an approximation? But a headline figure of 40 odd % was enough to declare a massive majority.

dvpower wrote: »

2. You don't provide any reasoning of your own - you've just pulled the figure out of your arse.

Going on forecast figures from the last GE, these were the sort of numbers being predicted for FF when their support was being estimated at around 24%. One of the larger partys, similar in size to FG/LB. But, my hole would probably have been an apt place to find a response to your flip flapping. Your starting to resemble Enda.

dvpower wrote: »

3. The 23% figure you quoted was a 'satisfaction with the Government' figure, not a 'state of the parties' figure. These are entirely different measures.

That's right, to demonstrate that you were wrong in you declaration that FG/LB were ahead in every poll since the election. It was you who began to argue how a minority percentage can convert into a majority in seats.

dvpower wrote: »

Your 50 seats is wishful thinking, nothing more.

Not if satisfaction ratings are replicated at an election