New Party: The Social Democrats.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

I went into First Active (before the crash) and saw a leaflet saying something like 'What does it mean that my mortgage has been Securitised?' It went on to describe that it meant your mortgage had been sold on to a vulture fund. - Nice. That is gambling.

What? Is selling things that you own now considered gambling?!

Sam Russell wrote: »

First Active was the first building Society or bank to give 100% mortgages - now that is gambling.

Absolutely! However, do not forget that the CBFSAI were supposed to be regulating said banks, and given how 'onerous' some people believe they are now (actually doing what they were supposed to be doing) we have to accept that we didn't really have a problem with them being lax, did we?

Sam Russell wrote: »

People who 'released' equity in their homes to buy to let - now that was gambling.

Is it? Some would consider it a business decision. Plenty of SMEs and sole traders do similar. Are they gambling? Or are they making a business decision? Or is there really no difference between the two and semantics are at play here?

Sam Russell wrote: »

People who borrowed to buy apartments from the plans in Bulgaria - now that was gambling.

See above. They made what they believed to be a prudent business decision. History tells us that it was not. If you want to call all business decisions gambling, perhaps we can accept this version of the tale, but then why do we have the term 'business decision'?

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not all property existed. Not all loans were secured. Not everyone told the truth. That is why the collapse happened.

In Ireland? I think you'll find that The Big Short's version of the tale doesn't quite fit us I'm afraid.

K-9

Without making into another water charge debate the SD position seems similar to FF, scrap IW because it's a shambles. What we do after that...

FG and Labour seem to want to keep it because we have the bloody thing set up now so we're keeping it. That doesn't inspire much confidence because Labour in particular would oppose it if they had been in opposition.

SF and the rest would always oppose it anyway.

While charges remain a political football and Government seeks to bribe voters to pay them it's hard to be in favour of IW, just on common sense grounds. So I'd say the SD idea to scrap it is fine. What they propose to do after that is the real issue though, a problem FF are going to face in the coming days.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Without making into another water charge debate the SD position seems similar to FF, scrap IW because it's a shambles. What we do after that...

FG and Labour seem to want to keep it because we have the bloody thing set up now so we're keeping it. That doesn't inspire much confidence because Labour in particular would oppose it if they had been in opposition.

SF and the rest would always oppose it anyway.

While charges remain a political football and Government seeks to bribe voters to pay them it's hard to be in favour of IW, just on common sense grounds. So I'd say the SD idea to scrap it is fine. What they propose to do after that is the real issue though, a problem FF are going to face in the coming days.

Bizarre.

BoJack Horseman

K-9 wrote: »

Without making into another water charge debate the SD position seems similar to FF, scrap IW because it's a shambles. What we do after that... .

They have said that they wish to retain a single water/sewage authority.
Instead of being a state owned company, it would be a quango, like the RSA, HIQA or the HSE.

There would be no charge to users and the metering project would be terminated.

If there is no bills, then the call centre & customer service staff in Cork can be let go.... however, what does this save?
From what I can find, the 4-year contract with Abtran to manage the customer service side was for €50m.
So, lets say shedding that plus some other marketing/advertising fodder & you save €15m per year.

But if the single authority remains, so will the bulk of it's staff.
The unions ensured there would be no rationalisation of staff moved from local authorities, so things aren't going to be that much leaner.

So, to move from a egalitarian, user-pays model, back to the burden being solely placed on the worker seems unfair.
Especially when the savings appear modest.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

What? Is selling things that you own now considered gambling?!

Selling mortgages to enable further borrowing to sell more mortgaes is like pyramid selling - into an overblown market. That is gambling in my book, hoping to get out before the crash.

Absolutely! However, do not forget that the CBFSAI were supposed to be regulating said banks, and given how 'onerous' some people believe they are now (actually doing what they were supposed to be doing) we have to accept that we didn't really have a problem with them being lax, did we?

Exactly.

Is it? Some would consider it a business decision. Plenty of SMEs and sole traders do similar. Are they gambling? Or are they making a business decision? Or is there really no difference between the two and semantics are at play here?

How many small businesses have failed because of reckless expansion on heavy borrowings?

See above. They made what they believed to be a prudent business decision. History tells us that it was not. If you want to call all business decisions gambling, perhaps we can accept this version of the tale, but then why do we have the term 'business decision'?

What some thought of prudent was shown later to be reckless. How many ghost estates were built in places people wanted to live?

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Selling mortgages to enable further borrowing to sell more mortgaes is like pyramid selling - into an overblown market. That is gambling in my book, hoping to get out before the crash.

How is selling something that you own gambling? The banks owned the mortgages, and they sold them to other people. You've told us that was gambling.

It wasn't the selling of mortgages that was gambling, it was the writing of absolutely bat-****-crazy mortgages that was gambling. No need to try and conflate every single thing that a bank does with the issues that we have seen.

So when you write this

Sam Russell wrote:

I went into First Active (before the crash) and saw a leaflet saying something like 'What does it mean that my mortgage has been Securitised?' It went on to describe that it meant your mortgage had been sold on to a vulture fund. - Nice. That is gambling.

It makes no sense unless you consider selling something you own as gambling. Something I'd not readily offer.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Exactly.

How many small businesses have failed because of reckless expansion on heavy borrowings?

Great question, how does "many" do for an answer? Neither of us can give anything but vague assertions here.

Sam Russell wrote: »

What some thought of prudent was shown later to be reckless. How many ghost estates were built in places people wanted to live?

Again, I am not sure how on earth you are calling this gambling. A very valid question yes which shows the level of hysteria the state was caught up in, from the absolute top to the absolute bottom, but how is it gambling? People made decisions to buy things without understanding what they were buying. Caveat Emptor is almost certainly more applicable here, unless you believe we should have regulations about what property people can and can't buy?

EDIT: FWIW, It appears there is a more relevant thread for this conversation to continue in. If you do want to reply, I have no problem with you quoting my post in there instead as we're not really discussing the SDs in this tangent.

K-9

Difficult to know how many small businesses went. Ones reliant on the credit bubble got disproportionately effected I'd have thought, car showrooms, fancy pubs and restaurants, some hotels, builder suppliers.

An Ciarraioch

Interesting report from the Irish edition of the Times - apparently the SDs, Greens and Independents4Change will form an eleven-strong Technical Group, thus overtaking Labour. Given that they all currently sit for different constituencies, a transfer pact can't be ruled out for future elections.

Tedddy

It appears they're backing the Luas drivers now.

https://twitter.com/SocDems/status/731068977854697473

loyatemu

"Supporting collective rights for all workers is a cornerstone of Social Democracy."

no one is denying the Luas drivers their collective rights - they have a union and the company has negotiated with the union several times. It's also not a "race to the bottom" as I understand it - the drivers asked for an increase, the company offered less and now things are at an impasse. Even Labour aren't really rowing in behind the drivers in this dispute.

Having said all that, I have some sympathy for the drivers, and the guards, teachers, bus drivers etc who are all also threatening action - the root cause of this unrest is property prices. It's now impossible to buy a house anywhere near Dublin on an average wage, and rents are rocketing too - but jacking up everyone's wages won't solve this problem.

hatrickpatrick

loyatemu wrote: »

It's now impossible to buy a house anywhere near Dublin on an average wage, and rents are rocketing too - but jacking up everyone's wages won't solve this problem.

So then what will solve it?

Sam Russell

To solve the housing problem - build more houses. Build houses in Dublin. Get Nama and DCC to build them - 50% social houses and the rest normal ownership. There are no houses to buy or rent in Dublin City centre. Houses on sale are quoting 50% above the advertised asking price.

The other problems would be best solved by reducing the cost of living - such as reducing bus fares and other fees charged by the government rather than tax cuts.

Getting rid of water charges benefits only those that pay for nothing anyway.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So then what will solve it?

There's no simple answer to the housing crisis, but jacking up wages certainly isn't it. If wages go up to chase house prices and rents, house prices and rents will follow them up.

Whatever the solution is, it needs to be supply-side to get prices under control.

An Ciarraioch

The first month of the new Dáil will have taught the Soc Dems a valuable lesson - when they follow through on the "Nordic model" and look for consensus (Dáil reform, health), their moderation sees those policies implemented. On the other hand, uncharacteristic swings to the left (Luas, Irish Water) only confuse their own voters and leave themselves outmanoeuvred by both SF and AAA-PBP. So, it seems that focusing on being a party of the "moderate left" will maintain their standing in the Dáil, and with voters at large.

Zubeneschamali

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

So, it seems that focusing on being a party of the "moderate left" will maintain their standing in the D il, and with voters at large.

I give them 5 years before they merge with Labour.

newacc2015

Sam Russell wrote: »

I went into First Active (before the crash) and saw a leaflet saying something like 'What does it mean that my mortgage has been Securitised?' It went on to describe that it meant your mortgage had been sold on to a vulture fund. - Nice. That is gambling.

Actually this is the norm in America. Banks bundle a few thousands mortgage based on their maturity and grading ( eg Subprime, LTV, lien ie first lien on a default etc). They are put into a pool and called a Mortgage Backed Security or MBS for short. They are sold and traded like a bond. The likes of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae constantly buy and sell this to help with their liquidity. The same is done with most forms of credit eg car loans, credit cards, etc. These are called ABS

It is not gambling at all. It is modern finance. A lot of commerical banks hold them like they hold Government bonds. There is not speculative about them. They are just another engineered financial product.

If they were more widespread they would have saved the tax payer billions. You bundle up the mortgages and put them into an SPV. The SPV is like a separate company controlled by the main company. When you sell products from an SPV, the losses can not spread to the main company. If more Irish mortgages were put into SPV's between 2000-2007 and brought by German or American banks. When the banking system went into crisis, the holders of the MBS would have been burnt and not the tax payer

An Ciarraioch

Signed up to their mailing list some months back, and they have just stated that formal party membership is to be introduced on July 1st. They also plan to hold regional meetings in Cork, Dublin and Galway, so by the time the Dáil resumes after the summer break, they should be well on course to establishing grass-roots branches in all forty constituencies.

Sierra Oscar

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Signed up to their mailing list some months back, and they have just stated that formal party membership is to be introduced on July 1st. They also plan to hold regional meetings in Cork, Dublin and Galway, so by the time the Dáil resumes after the summer break, they should be well on course to establishing grass-roots branches in all forty constituencies.

Have they any plans to elect a leader?

An Ciarraioch

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Have they any plans to elect a leader?

Presumably only if they won any more seats, but would imagine the current triumvirate would be ratified by the proposed conference, and that local conventions would select election candidates from now on.

expectationlost

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Have they any plans to elect a leader?

anything I read indicated no, but maybe the membership will push them to it.

An Ciarraioch

They've finally launched an official membership scheme today - have begun regional conference meetings in Cork, Dublin and Galway ahead of a national conference in October.

expectationlost

https://socialdemoc.nationbuilder.com/membership

Almost a year after the launch of the party we are giving our supporters a chance to become full members. This is your chance to support the party as we grow, to become one of the first members as we start the Social Democratic movement in Ireland and to input into the future direction of the organisation.

Membership Fee

The membership fee is a minimum of €10 per year (or €5 for unwaged members). We suggest an amount €20, which will be split 50/50 between the national party and your local branch, but the amount you pay is your choice.

Terms

By clicking Submit on the application below and paying the membership fee, you agree that you:

Are over the age of sixteen
A person resident in Ireland AND/OR An Irish Citizen resident anywhere, including outside Ireland.
Are not a member of another political party active in the Republic of Ireland.
Assent to the party pledge

whats the party pledge

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

https://socialdemoc.nationbuilder.com/membership

whats the party pledge

oh its pretty simple https://socialdemocrats.ie/party-pledge/

Party Pledge


I subscribe to the core principles, ethos and objectives of the Social Democrats and agree to abide by the Party’s Constitution.
I confirm that I am not a member of any other political party active in the Republic of Ireland.
I understand if I should become a member of another party in the future, without the permission of the Executive Committee, my membership of the Social Democrats will be annulled.

And Donnelly is out....
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0905/814297-stephen-donnelly/

Full statement here http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/?u=98563bc2f53bc670a2442d07f&id=d1fe9e13f4

Too left for Stephen?

PauloMN

Deleted User wrote: »

And Donnelly is out....
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0905/814297-stephen-donnelly/

Full statement here http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/?u=98563bc2f53bc670a2442d07f&id=d1fe9e13f4

Too left for Stephen?

Shock, horror..... not.

Was a disaster from the start, right from the "Did you pay your water charges, Stephen?". Was all downhill from there.

Suryavarman

Deleted User wrote: »

And Donnelly is out....
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0905/814297-stephen-donnelly/

Full statement here http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/?u=98563bc2f53bc670a2442d07f&id=d1fe9e13f4

Too left for Stephen?

That seems to be the most likely reason. I always got the impression that Donnelly was pretty moderate and the Social Democrats seem to have been drifting to the left since the general election.

ahlookit

Where to next for Donnelly?

Wonder if he senses a vacancy arising in government soon with Apple dispute ongoing and a budget to be passed. Would be easier for him to support government on his own rather than as part of the SDs.


How will the SDs fare without SD as joint leader? Time to promote someone else to third leader from within....did James Heffernan make it through EP weekend without being arrested?

Zubeneschamali

Splitter!

The leadership of the Wishy Washy Party was always farcical. Three egos, none of whom were willing to step back from the limelight.

Pretty bitchy statement from the Party, too.

http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/?u=98563bc2f53bc670a2442d07f&id=d1fe9e13f4

This is a long term project which requires dedication, hard work, long hours and a major commitment from all involved including our elected representatives. The levels of dedication required for such a major undertaking can be overwhelming for some.

They won't last.

touts

ahlookit wrote: »

Where to next for Donnelly?

Wonder if he senses a vacancy arising in government soon with Apple dispute ongoing and a budget to be passed. Would be easier for him to support government on his own rather than as part of the SDs.


How will the SDs fare without SD as joint leader? Time to promote someone else to third leader from within....did James Heffernan make it through EP weekend without being arrested?

Michael McGrath will be watching his back.

L1011

ahlookit wrote: »

did James Heffernan make it through EP weekend without being arrested?

Heffernan suffered the same public statement of "not involved for some time" or words to that affect that they're basically claiming about Donnelly now. Seems that as soon as you're out you're retconned in to having been out for ages.

seamus

I always got the impression that Donnelly was the lynchpin in the SD's support - the draw for those who wanted an intelligent leftish party that was a credible actual alternative to FG or FF, i.e. not Sinn Fein or the loony left.

If the party was being pulled too far left for Stephen, then we'll probably see them go the way of Renua in the next election.

ahlookit

L1011 wrote: »

Heffernan suffered the same public statement of "not involved for some time" or words to that affect that they're basically claiming about Donnelly now. Seems that as soon as you're out you're retconned in to having been out for ages.

Ha, I missed that statement, must look it up. Was it as petty as todays one? Didnt really do themselves any favours with that, particularly the line mentioned earlier

This is a long term project which requires dedication, hard work, long hours and a major commitment from all involved including our elected representatives. The levels of dedication required for such a major undertaking can be overwhelming for some.

K-9

So much for the new political party that was supposed to emerge from all those independents and conscientious objectors in the last Dail. Renua gone and the future doesn't look good for SD and the Independent Alliance.

gandalf

Without Donnelly all these guys are is just another left of Labour clone and of absolutely no use to the country at all. They'll be decimated at the next GE and be PD'ed.

There is a major gap in Irish Politics for a centralist Liberal party. Someone of Donnellys character should look at setting one up.

gandalf

United Left Alliance: Gone
United Left (Joan Collins and Clare Daly): Gone
Renua: 'Last sting of a dying wasp'
Stop the Water Tax: Socialist Party: Candidates migrated to AAA-PBP
Social Democrats: Sinking

This perpetual rupture, fragmentation and disintegration of small parties in Ireland is difficult to understand.

The only exception is AAA-PBP, which actually has fairly strong ideological differences within it (varying Trotskyism to Social Democracy). Bet they won't last together either.

gandalf wrote: »

There is a major gap in Irish Politics for a centralist Liberal party

It's called The Labour Party.

gandalf

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's called The Labour Party.

Naw the Irish Labour party is irreparably tainted by it's recent history.

ahlookit

Remember the party Fintan O'Toole, Dunphy, etc were going to set up?

They'll save us all.

gandalf

gandalf wrote: »

Naw the Irish Labour party is irreparably tainted by it's recent history.

That doesn't mean it isn't a centrist liberal party. Labour is not very far to the left of the Progressive Democrats of the early-mid 1990s, and will probably retain that 6-8% support for a while to come. I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see them return to Government with FG or FF after the next election.

Fr Tod Umptious

Donnelly's leaving the SDs just makes me believe more than ever that this guy is just an empty suit that can talk the talk but not walk the walk.

He's a great man to make a speech against something and about how things shoulf be done, but if he has to step down from the very party he founded, a party without a manifesto I might add, then their must be something not right.

feargale

gandalf wrote: »

Naw the Irish Labour party is irreparably tainted by it's recent history.

I wouldn't be too sure, not if one is looking at the long game anyway. The Labour Party has been around a long time and has been on the floor before.

The big conundrum for small parties is whether to coalesce or not. Go in and get the blame for everything. Stay out and the media call you irresponsible and unpatriotic. That's not just here, as witness Nick Clegg and the LibDems. Though it's fair to say that Labour could have played tougher with their partners in the last coalition. Spring was no doormat in the 90s, and as a consequence took less punishment from the electorate,

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Donnelly's leaving the SDs just makes me believe more than ever that this guy is just an empty suit that can talk the talk but not walk the walk.

He's a great man to make a speech against something and about how things shoulf be done, but if he has to step down from the very party he founded, a party without a manifesto I might add, then their must be something not right.

Hmm, I don't know. I thought that Donnelly was an absolutely terrible fit with the other two. Far more fiscally prudent and legally clued in. His agenda always seemed to be holding the government to account by the 'rules of engagement', i.e fighting and arguing on a rational front as opposed to the appeals to emotion (though he undoubtedly strayed into this style after a time).

I think once that SFD manifesto was revealed it prompted the beginning of the end for him in the party. There is no way that he, without the other two, could possibly have plumped for half of the fiscal ineptitude that it contains.

Donnelly seems a bit more reasonable and rational than the other two. Has a cleaner slate than them both. Is certainly more centered than the pair of them, and has a better profile on account of this (imo). I'd be quite happy for him to start a less ancient version of FG, socially liberal but fiscally responsible. A bit more PD than SD. It would be lovely to get away from civil war politics in Ireland. And focus on policies for a change.

Annasopra

seamus wrote: »

I always got the impression that Donnelly was the lynchpin in the SD's support - the draw for those who wanted an intelligent leftish party that was a credible actual alternative to FG or FF, i.e. not Sinn Fein or the loony left.

If the party was being pulled too far left for Stephen, then we'll probably see them go the way of Renua in the next election.

This is why Donnelly getting involved always baffled me. Murphy and Shortall styled themselves left of labour where he was always a much more economically liberal type on the right. He could easily fit into FG or FF or PDs whereas Murphy/Shortall couldnt.

ahlookit

Interesting piece in the Indo today speculating that the rift goes back to refusal to enter into government. Donnelly wanted to go in but the others didnt. Is he preparing the ground to step in if an Independent pulls out? Or join FF....

Mr Donnelly also agreed that all politicians should aspire to be in government.
"If you're asking me straight, would I love to be in government one day, of course I would," he said.

Meanwhile, there is now speculation that Mr Donnelly may decide to join another party.

Asked whether he would consider an approach from a party such as Fianna Fáil, Mr Donnelly said that the issue was not at the forefront of his mind.
"That's exactly the kind of conversation I'm going to have with my supporters in Wicklow over the next few days and the next few weeks," Mr Donnelly added.

Fianna Fáil sources last night said that they are open to the idea of approaching Mr Donnelly.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/how-the-soc-dem-row-began-and-why-stephen-donnelly-quit-party-35024797.html

ahlookit

ahlookit wrote: »

Interesting piece in the Indo today speculating that the rift goes back to refusal to enter into government. Donnelly wanted to go in but the others didnt. Is he preparing the ground to step in if an Independent pulls out? Or join FF....




http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/how-the-soc-dem-row-began-and-why-stephen-donnelly-quit-party-35024797.html

He'll lose my vote if he does

LorMal

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmm, I don't know. I thought that Donnelly was an absolutely terrible fit with the other two. Far more fiscally prudent and legally clued in. His agenda always seemed to be holding the government to account by the 'rules of engagement', i.e fighting and arguing on a rational front as opposed to the appeals to emotion (though he undoubtedly strayed into this style after a time).

I think once that SFD manifesto was revealed it prompted the beginning of the end for him in the party. There is no way that he, without the other two, could possibly have plumped for half of the fiscal ineptitude that it contains.

Donnelly seems a bit more reasonable and rational than the other two. Has a cleaner slate than them both. Is certainly more centered than the pair of them, and has a better profile on account of this (imo). I'd be quite happy for him to start a less ancient version of FG, socially liberal but fiscally responsible. A bit more PD than SD. It would be lovely to get away from civil war politics in Ireland. And focus on policies for a change.

I totally agree. As constituents of Stephen Donnelly, myself and the majority of my friends/family were delighted when he first won his seat. As last, an honourable, articulate, intelligent, business astute politician. We assumed he would be pro business (with proper regulation)and fiscally prudent - looking to reduce wasteful practices in the Public Services and break the unions stranglehold on this country (not the front line staff but the absurd practices of the 'civil service').
Instead, he forms a party calling for higher spending, higher taxes etc - more of the same lefty bull**** which has held this country back for decades. I was really disappointed. Perhaps now, he will be more true to himself...

Boulevardier

LorMal, you must miss the PDs terribly, even though they never cut a serious figure in Wicklow.

I think Donnelly's de facto support for Noonan's appalling appeal against tax justice for multinationals marks him out quite clearly as a man of the old, corporatist politics, along with FG, FF, Labour and the post-PDs.

Suryavarman

Boulevardier wrote: »

LorMal, you must miss the PDs terribly, even though they never cut a serious figure in Wicklow.

I think Donnelly's de facto support for Noonan's appalling appeal against tax justice for multinationals marks him out quite clearly as a man of the old, corporatist politics, along with FG, FF, Labour and the post-PDs.

Retroactive taxation can scarcely be considered justice.

LorMal

Boulevardier wrote: »

LorMal, you must miss the PDs terribly, even though they never cut a serious figure in Wicklow.

I think Donnelly's de facto support for Noonan's appalling appeal against tax justice for multinationals marks him out quite clearly as a man of the old, corporatist politics, along with FG, FF, Labour and the post-PDs.

The P.D.s had some good policies but got embroiled in the usual nonsense personality driven politics we have in this country and were finally sunk by coalition.
Using a term like 'corporatist' suggests you reside on the far left politically. I doubt we could have a sensible discussion.

Sam Russell

LorMal wrote: »

The P.D.s had some good policies but got embroiled in the usual nonsense personality driven politics we have in this country and were finally sunk by coalition.

The PDs were founded on the personality cult - Dessie vs Charlie.