New Party: The Social Democrats.

loyatemu

it wouldn't seem impossible for the Social Democrats to up their numbers to the magical number 7 through poaching some Independents?

I think they have to have 7 declared candidates elected to be considered a party, they can't poach people later to make up the numbers.

I thought the same about Zappone - she seems in the same political space; don't know anything about Connolly - maybe they're just signing up any TDs named Catherine :pac:

Lockstep

loyatemu wrote: »

I think they have to have 7 declared candidates elected to be considered a party, they can't poach people later to make up the numbers.

I thought the same about Zappone - she seems in the same political space; don't know anything about Connolly - maybe they're just signing up any TDs named Catherine :pac:

Agreed: you need to have 7 candidates elected during the election, the only way they can make up the numbers is through a by-election. The clincher would be if they got independents on board before a new election was called: they'd almost certainly gain speaking rights then given the likelihood of a new Dáil election.

Zappone would likely fit in well with the SDs, I dunno if Connolly would. She's much more left wing and would likely have more in common with PBP/AAA than a centre-left party like the SDs. I could be wrong of course but I wouldn't say she'd fit in with them that well.
Also, the SDs already have a strong candidate in Galway West through Niall O'Tuathail. Taking on Connolly would mean shafting him.

Boulevardier

Zappone was originally linked to the Social Democrats in the media around the time their formation was announced, but she pulled back and as we know got elected as an independent instead.

However, she could easily link up now with the SDs, or else she may go to Labour, of which I understand she is an ex-member.

An Ciarraioch

It seems they've established a branch in Dún Laoghaire now, makes sense to fill the gaps in Dublin first before venturing into the rural constituencies.

edanto

Also a branch in Rathdown (first meeting last night) and I've heard of a few others nationally. Also a 'talk-to SocDems' forum on boards if interested http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1741

expectationlost

ignoring the troll in these tweets it interesting to note they don't have membership yet https://twitter.com/Jocser99/status/708773788670935040
https://twitter.com/amomcnally/status/708775393197748224

expectationlost

Sleepy wrote: »

Donnelly was on Newstalk yesterday evening and made a passing complimentary remark about Katherine Zappone. I'd be very surprised if she doesn't end up a Social Democrat candidate before the end of the year.

You'd also think Catherine Connolly in Galway would be of broadly the same political leanings?

Tommy Broughan is already with Independents 4 Change but they don't seem to be too cohesive a group...

it wouldn't seem impossible for the Social Democrats to up their numbers to the magical number 7 through poaching some Independents?

the standing order 143 speaking rights are given to 7 TDs who were in the party when elected, Groups.
143. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), for the purpose of this Standing Order a group shall mean—
(a) any Party which had not less than seven members elected to the Dáil at the previous General
Election or which, if it had less than seven, attained the number of seven members as a result
of a subsequent bye-election, or all parties get speaking rights but with 7 you get more defined slots to ask and reply and ability to propose bills afaik

although the promised Dail reform could change that http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/about/standingorders/Standing-Orders-2016.pdf

511

I gave them them my second preference in the GE, but I was very disappointed my their answer about my question here: http://www.boards.ie/ttfthread/2057565400/1#post98848009

Congestion is only going to get worse in Dublin as the population grows and these guys seem to be refusing to decrease our dependency on buses.

An Ciarraioch

It would appear they have concentrated since the election on setting up constituency branches, with Rathdown, Dun Laoghaire, Fingal, Galway East and Roscommon-Galway all established in recent weeks.

stilltryingit

Have to say that I am disappointed to see that they seemed to show so little interest and engagement in actually being in government

edanto

How so?

All the SocDem volunteers and TDs that I've met are very interested in being in government. I'm patient and accept that it may take several elections for that to happen on terms that present a genuine opportunity to implement the manifesto.

A recent SocDem newsletter said

"The political scene nationally is quite unsettled at the moment and as you are aware we stepped out of talks with both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. We took this step as a demonstration of our commitment to a new type of politics where the emphasis is on honesty and transparency. We felt the negotiations weren’t an honest exercise because the arithmetic of the election result meant that no matter how much either of the big two spoke to us and others all it would achieve was to delay the inevitable talks that had to happen between the big two. We weren’t prepared to facilitate what most commentators agree was a charade."

Jim2007

edanto wrote: »

I'm patient and accept that it may take several elections for that to happen on terms that present a genuine opportunity to implement the manifesto.

You've got about 3% of the vote and it is not spread nationally, even your 3 TDs are clearly elected on a personal vote not a party one, so what would it actually take to get to a point where they'd be able to implement a manifesto????

Realistically you need to get the majority of farming and small business families in each constituency in the country to vote for a socialist.... ya good luck with that.

Chimichangas

511 wrote: »

I gave them them my second preference in the GE, but I was very disappointed my their answer about my question here: http://www.boards.ie/ttfthread/2057565400/1#post98848009

Congestion is only going to get worse in Dublin as the population grows and these guys seem to be refusing to decrease our dependency on buses.

Thats brilliant! Makes no sense at all what you say, but is this what disappoints you???

What is your solution to increased congestion? Less buses,but more cars and maybe helicopters, or drones are becoming popular..? :rolleyes:

Ok, so its trains you want...alright maybe trams, metro etc, but some cost involved there! And should not be at the cost of a lesser bus service!
The problem in transport and a bus running late isnt due to any dependancy on the bus service...

An Ciarraioch

Jim2007 wrote: »

You've got about 3% of the vote and it is not spread nationally, even your 3 TDs are clearly elected on a personal vote not a party one, so what would it actually take to get to a point where they'd be able to implement a manifesto????

Realistically you need to get the majority of farming and small business families in each constituency in the country to vote for a socialist.... ya good luck with that.

Presumably, the aim is to build the profile of the party as a whole, work their way up to about 10% in the polls if the next GE is held off for two years. Seems as with the Greens, that the issue was with the stability of a minority government, rather than the idea of going into coalition, so could imagine SD, Labour and the Greens all going in with either major party if the total surpassed 80 on a future occasion.

loyatemu

Jim2007 wrote: »

You've got about 3% of the vote and it is not spread nationally, even your 3 TDs are clearly elected on a personal vote not a party one, so what would it actually take to get to a point where they'd be able to implement a manifesto????

Realistically you need to get the majority of farming and small business families in each constituency in the country to vote for a socialist.... ya good luck with that.

they had other candidates who did well from a more or less standing start - it's very difficult to get elected first time if you're not with one of the big parties.

Look how long it took the Greens to get to 6 TDs; then they went into govt and got wiped out at the next election.

With only 3 TDs the SDs would have had very little influence in the sort of kaleidoscope govt Enda is trying to put together, but would have run a high risk of losing even their 3 "personality" TDs next time around.

Palmach

Jim2007 wrote: »

You've got about 3% of the vote and it is not spread nationally, even your 3 TDs are clearly elected on a personal vote not a party one, so what would it actually take to get to a point where they'd be able to implement a manifesto????

Realistically you need to get the majority of farming and small business families in each constituency in the country to vote for a socialist.... ya good luck with that.

They need to tack to the centre to really get more of a trajectory outside the middle class biens pensents.

edanto

Not sure why you would expect anyone to take your advice when the second part of your single sentence sounds like an insult.

Google tells me that "in French "bien-pensant" implies an hypocrite way of thinking" so are you saying that in your opinion SocDem supporters are hypocrites for some reason, and if so, why?

What party do you support yourself? (not expecting an answer to either question tbh, your post seems like a hit n run)

Fr Tod Umptious

edanto wrote: »

Not sure why you would expect anyone to take your advice when the second part of your single sentence sounds like an insult.

Google tells me that "in French "bien-pensant" implies an hypocrite way of thinking" so are you saying that in your opinion SocDem supporters are hypocrites for some reason, and if so, why?

What party do you support yourself? (not expecting an answer to either question tbh, your post seems like a hit n run)

There is a type of person called a "smoked salmon socialist"

They are middle class, well off, but they thend to support left to centre left parties.

Maybe this is what the poster is referring to.

edanto

Maybe it is. Maybe he/she will come back and tell us. Poor form to stroll into a thread, throw an insult and then wander off.

A phrase like 'smoked salmon socialist' is a bit of a land mine though isn't it? It's like the person saying it is suggesting that there is a certain income level above which no-one should be allowed to support socially just policies. Like they are too rich to have a conscious or something. Weird. Like painting all rich/poor/white/pink people with the one brush. Guaranteed to be wrong.

I'll steer well clear of anyone I hear using that phrase as a insult; it'll be a convenient red flag where someone self-identifies as having wonky judgement.

An Ciarraioch

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

There is a type of person called a "smoked salmon socialist"

They are middle class, well off, but they thend to support left to centre left parties.

Maybe this is what the poster is referring to.

Possibly - there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether they can attract working-class support, given that Labour ultimately became pigeon-holed as a "middle-class party". That may be a chicken-and-egg scenario, though - if voters supported SF or AAA-PBP prior to 2015, they're unlikely to switch now.

Annasopra

Interesting that they have 1 Seanad candidate based in Donellys back yard

https://jenniferwhitmore.ie/seanad-2016-agricultural-panel/

With a quota of only 93 (roughly) on the agricultural panel I think she will get elected. I reckon they might run her for Europe in 3 years time or maybe they'll run Donnelly and have Whitmore run in a by election.

p___

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Possibly - there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether they can attract working-class support, given that Labour ultimately became pigeon-holed as a "middle-class party". That may be a chicken-and-egg scenario, though - if voters supported SF or AAA-PBP prior to 2015, they're unlikely to switch now.

A lot of transfers in Dublin during the recent election came from the AAA to the social democrats.
What do you mean by working class by the way?

An Ciarraioch

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Interesting that they have 1 Seanad candidate based in Donellys back yard

https://jenniferwhitmore.ie/seanad-2016-agricultural-panel/

With a quota of only 93 (roughly) on the agricultural panel I think she will get elected. I reckon they might run her for Europe in 3 years time or maybe they'll run Donnelly and have Whitmore run in a by election.

Apparently, Seanad candidates need four backers, and she was backed by Labour's Susan O'Keeffe. Wouldn't have thought there were that many "left independent" county councillors, but best of luck to her, all the same.

An Ciarraioch

p___ wrote: »

A lot of transfers in Dublin during the recent election came from the AAA to the social democrats.
What do you mean by working class by the way?

Just your traditional ABC1 model - one poster on here put up a grid shortly after the election that showed FG and Lab were heavily reliant on AB and F (Farmer) voters, SF and AAA-PBP depended on CDE's, while FF and the Independents succeeded because only they had a good crossover from both.

Palmach

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

There is a type of person called a "smoked salmon socialist"

They are middle class, well off, but they thend to support left to centre left parties.

Maybe this is what the poster is referring to.

Thank you. That was better description. Middle class people who like to feel moral would be SD voters. However the charge of hypocrisy does apply. Two of their TDs said they wouldn't pay water charges while at the same time refusing to cut taxes which affect the struggling middle.

Annasopra

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Apparently, Seanad candidates need four backers, and she was backed by Labour's Susan O'Keeffe. Wouldn't have thought there were that many "left independent" county councillors, but best of luck to her, all the same.

When you add up independents plus workers party plus green party plus AAAPBP plus WUAG plus South Kerry independent alliance plus independents there's well over two quotas and actually there is quite a lot of left independents. I'd put my money on her getting elected.

edanto

And there's not that many on the Seanad Agricultural panel candidate list that have her level of experience in Aquaculture (or qualifications). I'm biased obviously, but I think she's an above average candidate.

That said, it's very rare to see any Senators get elected the Ind/Other category and I fear that will hold true this time out.

Here's a fairly detailed blog post from last week http://www.irishelectionstats.com/forecasting-the-seanad-elections/

p___

Palmach wrote: »

Thank you. That was better description. Middle class people who like to feel moral would be SD voters. However the charge of hypocrisy does apply. Two of their TDs said they wouldn't pay water charges while at the same time refusing to cut taxes which affect the struggling middle.

How is that hypocritical? it seems to be the opposite of hypocritical
-in so far as they're apparently (be the logic above) trying to appeal to the people of the squeezed middle who have morals, telling them they have to pay for things through taxes and it's not realistic to expect tax cuts for votes and then sticking with that.
The water charges are being opposed by most because they are unjust, not because of an aversion to taxes- the money from the water tax isn't being spent on improvements and Irish water is costing more than we're taking in in taxes.

hatrickpatrick

p___ wrote: »

the money from the water tax isn't being spent on improvements and Irish water is costing more than we're taking in in taxes.

I for one would have been far, far less likely to oppose water charges if the money collected had been 100% ring fenced to pay for actual treatment and infrastructure, without all this extra unnecessary corporate crap. A lot of middle class types who by the right's logic here should be all for water charges only turned against them after Tierney revealed the consultancy spend during a radio interview.

edanto

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I for one would have been far, far less likely to oppose water charges if the money collected had been 100% ring fenced to pay for actual treatment and infrastructure, without all this extra unnecessary corporate crap. A lot of middle class types who by the right's logic here should be all for water charges only turned against them after Tierney revealed the consultancy spend during a radio interview.

I found this article interesting yesterday. For one, it gives a little meter data from IW.

Another nugget, it shows there was millions spent on meters 15 years ago which were never maintained and half were broken when IW checked them.


http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irish-water-meters-show-households-using-50-less-water-than-predicted-392465.html

Palmach

p___ wrote: »

How is that hypocritical? it seems to be the opposite of hypocritical
-in so far as they're apparently (be the logic above) trying to appeal to the people of the squeezed middle who have morals, telling them they have to pay for things through taxes and it's not realistic to expect tax cuts for votes and then sticking with that.
The water charges are being opposed by most because they are unjust, not because of an aversion to taxes- the money from the water tax isn't being spent on improvements and Irish water is costing more than we're taking in in taxes.

Water taxes are not "unjust" as those who use the water must pay like electricity or anything else you buy. They are jumping on a bandwagon.

Palmach

Palmach wrote: »

Water taxes are not "unjust" as those who use the water must pay like electricity or anything else you buy. They are jumping on a bandwagon.

You don't die from not consuming electricity...

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't die from not consuming electricity...

You die from not consuming food, but nobody's claiming that charging for food is unjust.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

You die from not consuming food, but nobody's claiming that charging for food is unjust.

Many do, in fact, but realistically it's easier to start by not making something which is already free un-free, and worry about changing anything else that needs to be changed after that.

I think the fact that not everyone believes in free market capitalism for 100% of life's issues is genuinely lost on some people.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Many do, in fact...

Come back to me when there are "can't pay, won't pay" protests in the street over food.

Koptain Liverpool

What is the position of the Social Democrats position on water charges by the way?

An Ciarraioch

Koptain Liverpool wrote: »

What is the position of the Social Democrats position on water charges by the way?

That Irish Water costs more to operate than it collects, so water should revert to general taxation for funding.

loyatemu

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

That Irish Water costs more to operate than it collects, so water should revert to general taxation for funding.

I like the SD's but this position is disingenuous IMO. They're aligning themselves with the anti-water movement and have appeared at the protests, but their supposed reason for opposing IW is completely different.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Come back to me when there are "can't pay, won't pay" protests in the street over food.

Street protests aren't necessarily the best way of getting new policies implemented, moreso for getting old policies repealed. Street protests in favour of a universal basic income or some form of inflation control to bring real wages back in line with commodity prices are probably not the best way to achieve those new policies. Lobbying, campaigning, forming new political groups etc would probably more effective.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Street protests aren't necessarily the best way of getting new policies implemented, moreso for getting old policies repealed.

Which is just a re-statement of the argument that water charges are unjust because they're new - which is a nonsensical argument. Something isn't just or unjust by virtue of when it was introduced. If charging for water is unjust, while charging for food is just, someone needs to explain why.

If the answer is anything to do with "we already pay for it", save it. Circular evasions don't make for an interesting discussion.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which is just a re-statement of the argument that water charges are unjust because they're new - which is a nonsensical argument. Something isn't just or unjust by virtue of when it was introduced. If charging for water is unjust, while charging for food is just, someone needs to explain why.

I'm not suggesting that it's unjust, or even more unjust, because it's new. Just easier to get rid of.

Let me analogise this in a different way. Suppose someone has set fire to your car, and they're in the process of also setting fire to your house. Do you put out the fire in your car first, or do you overpower the arsonist and stop them from setting fire to your house as well, and then deal with the car? Or do you put one fire out, knowing that while you're doing it, the other person is setting up other fires?

The water charges policy is in the middle of being implemented. That's clearly much more urgent to put a stop to since it's much easier to put a stop to something before it properly gets going. If we focused on the other issues instead, we'd end up with fully fledged water charges on top of everything else and it would take even longer to change it.

Final analogy: It's like being in a car which is standing still. You want it to move forward, but the driver is trying to move it backwards. You're better off stopping him from doing that before worrying about making more progress. In other words, a policy like water charges is moving in the opposite direction to the direction the left wants society to move in, so from a left activism point of view, it's better to stop that from happening and then think about how to make more forward progress.

Surely this isn't a complicated concept? I feel like it really shouldn't have required all of this elaboration. If you want left wing policies and the government is, right now, trying to introduce right wing policies, you try to stop them from doing that before you try to introduce your new left wing ones.

edanto

Koptain Liverpool wrote: »

What is the position of the Social Democrats position on water charges by the way?

It's as clear as cold river water on a fresh morning hike.

Abolish Water Charges
The money being charged on domestic water charges is not being used to run, or to upgrade, the water system. Even if everyone paid their water bill, the money collected would do nothing other can cover the costs of the water meters and the costs of billing.
The Social Democrats will abolish water charges.

https://socialdemocrats.ie/policies/abolish-water-charges/

edanto

My personal view is that since the meters are in, we should use them, with one reading per year. We charge the top 10% of domestic users for every litre over some limit (maybe the usage volume between the top quartile and bottom 3), but the payment can be postponed if a leak is found and if the party responsible (celtic tiger builder, local council, homeowner etc) for the leak can be identified, they pay for the leak to be fixed.

Water is a simple problem. Let's move on to health.

edanto

Politically, it could be looked upon as genius to introduce water charges and distract people from the €200+ billion of national debt that has suddenly appeared in the last few years.

An illustration.

Our national debt in about 2006; ~ 43,000,0000,000

The total amount collected by water charges if everyone pays; ~ 100,000,000

Our current national debt: ~ 200,000,000,000

That debt is real money which Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have borrowed to pay off gambling debts of their friends. And they pulled a master stroke to get us talking about and protesting over water. Pay your water bill, don't pay it. I don't give a hoot. Just please stop talking about it and go out and get involved with the SocDems locally.

If anyone happens to be around Marlay Park Dublin this morning, we are out doing a "canvass" (I guess you'd call it), at the St Johns GAA pedestrian entrance. Fun Table Quiz at the Goat this Wednesday at 7.30pm.

edanto

edanto wrote: »

Politically, it could be looked upon as genius to introduce water charges and distract people from the €200+ billion of national debt that has suddenly appeared in the last few years.

An illustration.

Our national debt in about 2006; ~ 43,000,0000,000

The total amount collected by water charges if everyone pays; ~ 100,000,000

Our current national debt: ~ 200,000,000,000

That debt is real money which Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have borrowed to pay off gambling debts of their friends. And they pulled a master stroke to get us talking about and protesting over water. Pay your water bill, don't pay it. I don't give a hoot. Just please stop talking about it and go out and get involved with the SocDems locally.

If anyone happens to be around Marlay Park Dublin this morning, we are out doing a "canvass" (I guess you'd call it), at the St Johns GAA pedestrian entrance. Fun Table Quiz at the Goat this Wednesday at 7.30pm.

Fascinating assertion.

What percentage of this figure is attributable to these gambling debts?

Perhaps worth considering the absolutely enormous deficits we posted in recent years when answering the question.

I was overjoyed when the social Democrats were founded. A new party without the baggage that appeared to be aiming for honest politics. This kind of stuff above is not what I thought we would be hearing.

BoJack Horseman

Deleted User wrote: »

I was overjoyed when the social Democrats were founded. A new party without the baggage that appeared to be aiming for honest politics. This kind of stuff above is not what I thought we would be hearing.

Well, a paryt that has a manifesto that is a copy/paste job of Sinn Fein's will probably do no better when it domes to silly rhetoric.

edanto

Deleted User wrote: »

Fascinating assertion.

What percentage of this figure is attributable to these gambling debts?

Perhaps worth considering the absolutely enormous deficits we posted in recent years when answering the question.

I was overjoyed when the social Democrats were founded. A new party without the baggage that appeared to be aiming for honest politics. This kind of stuff above is not what I thought we would be hearing.

Firstly it's important to note that I am not a spokesman for the party, simply a supporter.

I may well be wrong about things I post here, that has nothing to do with SocDems.

Do I think that the root cause of our problems was related to gambling debts, yes I do. Globally and nationally.

Fine, you point out the budget deficits that we had to borrow for and say that it's not banking debt; which is a reasonable point of view if you are limiting yourself to first order effects.

But surely there's a relationship between the Irish and global banking crises (1st order - demonstrably gambling debts) and the mass unemployment/lowered tax take that caused the budget deficit (2nd order).

I'm not an expert at all in economics, but that's kind of how it looks to me. For clarity you can rename the 'banking crisis' the 'overvalued imaginary asset crisis'.

As an armchair economist I think there are many, many things wrong with our global financial system but this isn't the thread for that.

edanto

edanto wrote: »

Firstly it's important to note that I am not a spokesman for the party, simply a supporter.

I may well be wrong about things I post here, that has nothing to do with SocDems.

Do I think that the root cause of our problems was related to gambling debts, yes I do. Globally and nationally.

Fine, you point out the budget deficits that we had to borrow for and say that it's not banking debt; which is a reasonable point of view if you are limiting yourself to first order effects.

But surely there's a relationship between the Irish and global banking crises (1st order - demonstrably gambling debts) and the mass unemployment/lowered tax take that caused the budget deficit (2nd order).

I'm not an expert at all in economics, but that's kind of how it looks to me. For clarity you can rename the 'banking crisis' the 'overvalued imaginary asset crisis'.

As an armchair economist I think there are many, many things wrong with our global financial system but this isn't the thread for that.

The deficit didn't come about because of lower employment. It came about because the state almost wholly relied upon a construction industry to pay for it's day to day costs.
When the global economic crash happened, and that industry fell on its arse, we had no real sources of income to plug the enormous gap between what we spent to run the state, and what we managed to recoup from the people of the state and so had to turn to lenders to get us back onto our feet.

It would be worth learning a bit about the different causes for our huge national debt (which is sinking very, very fast relative to GDP) and is incredibly incredibly cheap (all time low) to service.

There absolutely were consequences and expenses relating to the poor regulation of the banks, but probably 4x more of the increase in debt accrued because of a narrowing of the taxation base, an over reliance on a construction industry to pay for the state, and therefore a duality of interest between both that industry and our government in continuing to heat and inflate that bubble. The government hitched the country to the side of a bubble, and when the bubble burst we fell hard.

The non IBRC banks will come close if not all turn a profit for the state. The **** heap that was Anglo will be the only real weight for us to bear. And it has been argued repeatedly that it was unfortunately unavoidable given the pace of the situation at the time, the misinformation abound and indeed the consequences of not doing so.

Suryavarman

edanto wrote: »

Firstly it's important to note that I am not a spokesman for the party, simply a supporter.

I may well be wrong about things I post here, that has nothing to do with SocDems.

Do I think that the root cause of our problems was related to gambling debts, yes I do. Globally and nationally.

Fine, you point out the budget deficits that we had to borrow for and say that it's not banking debt; which is a reasonable point of view if you are limiting yourself to first order effects.

But surely there's a relationship between the Irish and global banking crises (1st order - demonstrably gambling debts) and the mass unemployment/lowered tax take that caused the budget deficit (2nd order).

I'm not an expert at all in economics, but that's kind of how it looks to me. For clarity you can rename the 'banking crisis' the 'overvalued imaginary asset crisis'.

As an armchair economist I think there are many, many things wrong with our global financial system but this isn't the thread for that.

1. It's probably a bit disingenuous to refer to issuing mortgages as gambling

2. Houses aren't imaginary assets. They may have been a bit overvalued at the time but they weren't imaginary.

Sam Russell

Suryavarman wrote: »

1. It's probably a bit disingenuous to refer to issuing mortgages as gambling

2. Houses aren't imaginary assets. They may have been a bit overvalued at the time but they weren't imaginary.

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.

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

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

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

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