Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Leo is the new king of Ireland.
Comments
-
How is social housing going to help rent and property prices?0
-
I notice this has become a Labour thread.
Maybe that's because of the news that Taoiseach has bee named in the worlds top 100 most influential people, by Time magazine.
Or perhaps it's because the number of rough sleepers has decreased by 40% in the first quarter of 2018.
Or maybe a little of both.
Anyway, back to Labour .......0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »Also don’t forget aren’t fg the ones already taxing low incomes at over 50%?!
Yes, and SF are champing at the bit to tax you much, much more than that. So with FG and themselves in governement, do you see your taxes going down?
Turkey voting for Christmas.0 -
They made a lot more in the way of promises than those you have outlined. They weren't enacted.
Labour's way or Frankfurt's way...
Now hang on a minute. Matt Barrett posted the list of promises from Labour that he claimed hadn't been acted on. I went through them line by line and linked to where they had actually been implemented bar one. The one that hadn't required Dail reform which means co-operation from all parties.
Having done that, and produced extensive links to legislation and reports to back up what I have posted, I would expect someone responding to at least provide something other than a general well they didn't do everything response.0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »on. You see years ago I voted fg twice. Now let’s look at the reality. This “taxing to death” which wouldn’t happen as part of a junior party. Fg killing me with rent and property purchase and the hikes in property, dwarf anything their tax hike proposals might do. There wouldn’t be a big change in taxation policy. Also don’t forget aren’t fg the ones already taxing low incomes at over 50%?! They wouldn’t effect taxation much, but if they changed housing policy, it could save people hundreds of thousands over their lifetime ...
You need to separate out what a government can achieve and what a government can't achieve and deal with the reality.
A government cannot change the international economy. Neither can it change the behaviour of other countries, multinationals and private citizens. It is operating within a limited range of options.
You can only analyse different political parties within those parameters.0 -
Advertisement
-
So was the girl that is about to marry an English Prince.mattser wrote:Maybe that's because of the news that Taoiseach has bee named in the worlds top 100 most influential people, by Time magazine.
Far more newsworthy than the Time magazine piece. Hopefully the numbers will drop below a 100. Huge effort by all involved to be commended.mattser wrote:Or perhaps it's because the number of rough sleepers has decreased by 40% in the first quarter of 2018.0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »Anyone who was naive or stupid enough to believe it was going to be Labours way or Frankfurt’s way. Qualify for the beyond delusional status ...
Evidentially it is around 15% of the electorate.
Realistically, people voted for them to act as a bulwark against the excesses of FG. They failed in that regard.0 -
The triumph of image and style over substance in modern day politics is a truly sad situation.
Looking over the last page or so, the criticism of Labour for not implementing their manifesto promises was quickly dropped once a forensic analysis of their manifesto demonstrated that in fact, their record was pretty good, albeit not perfect.
This criticism was replaced by focussing on two other aspects - a slogan (the Frankfurt reference) and a perception that they were to act as a bulwark to FG. These requirements of Labour are purely image-related, bear no relation to the substance of their manifesto and rely on public perception rather than actual achievement. If that is what the voters and the commentators are judging politics on, is it any wonder this country has problems?0 -
I think burton comments about smart phones and claiming they couldn’t pay for water, didn’t help them either. Despite the fact she was totally correct. The same “can’t pay” brigade, have no problem living in the local pub and keeping choppers and bookies in business ...0
-
You need to separate out what a government can achieve and what a government can't achieve and deal with the reality.
A government cannot change the international economy. Neither can it change the behaviour of other countries, multinationals and private citizens. It is operating within a limited range of options.
You can only analyse different political parties within those parameters.
You think the situation on the housing front is acceptable ? If you do. You obviously aren’t effected by this crisis ...0 -
Advertisement
-
-
For Forks Sake wrote: »Careful what you wish for - I'm sure there were Greeks saying same about Syriza, or Americans about Trump.
Syriza did not cause the problems in Greece.
They inherited them from the previous centre right government.
Something posters when bringing up Syriza appear to conveniently overlook.0 -
Syriza did not cause the problems in Greece.
They inherited them from the previous centre right government.
Something posters when bringing up Syriza appear to conveniently overlook.
And they made the situation progressively worse again.
Something that the defenders of SF and Syriza always coveniently overlook.
The refrain we consistently hear from those on here who laud SF is "they couldn't do any worse that FF or FG".
Syriza are the instant rebuttal to that argument - proof that no matter how bad things are, there's always somebody who can come in and screw it up even more.0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »You think the situation on the housing front is acceptable ? If you do. You obviously aren’t effected by this crisis ...
Where did I say the housing situation is acceptable?
The simplistic analysis, which we see time and again, is I can't buy a house, so something, something, something, blame the government. There is a much bigger picture to be considered
(1) Dublin is now a large European city, not everyone can afford to live there. In fact, there is a strong policy argument for any social housing within Dublin City Council area being reserved for the public services within that area i.e. the gardai, nurses, teachers, civil servants etc. whose salaries aren't sufficient to allow them live in the area but who everyone else expects to be there to provide the services. Those without jobs can get social housing in the wider Dublin area. So realistic expectations from the public linked to the size of Dublin are one problem.
(2) Secondly, there is the high-rise, high-density issue. Irish people want a four-bedroomed semi in a nice suburb, ten minutes from the city centre. You should be able to get that in Athlone, but it shouldn't be possible in Dublin, Cork, Limerick or Galway.
(3) Thirdly, there are our idiotic councillors, particularly the Dublin ones who object to developments, who won't allow high-rise and who talk about flags instead of issues.
(4) Fourthly, there is the time issue. Fixing the jobs problem took priority for the FG/Labour government, but it was always a quicker fix, and it also exacerbated the housing issue as people wanted homes near the new jobs. So solving the jobs problem made the housing problem harder to solve, but the housing problem also takes longer to solve, so it inevitable got worse, and even though a lot has been done and things are happening, we may not have quite reached the bottom before it gets better. One thing is sure, whenever the housing problem improves, it will be because of decisions made three or four years previously, no matter which government is claiming credit for it.
(5) Finally, it is absolute madness to see people looking for ways to buy. Enda Kenny got himself into a load of trouble for saying we all went mad. People responded and said it was the banks fault for lending us too much. All I hear now are people complaining that the banks are lending enough and it is too difficult to get a mortgage and can we have the rules relaxed. Did people learn nothing?
The housing problems is a multi-faceted one, requiring societal and cultural changes, realistic expectations and getting our local councils to actually work. A lot of the framework at national level is or has been put in place or is in planning. However, those other bits are close to impossible to deliver on.Syriza did not cause the problems in Greece.
They inherited them from the previous centre right government.
Something posters when bringing up Syriza appear to conveniently overlook.
You are right, Syriza did not cause the problems in Greece, but they did make them impossible to solve.0 -
blackwhite wrote: »And they made the situation progressively worse again.
Something that the defenders of SF and Syriza always coveniently overlook.
The refrain we consistently hear from those on here who laud SF is "they couldn't do any worse that FF or FG".
Syriza are the instant rebuttal to that argument - proof that no matter how bad things are, there's always somebody who can come in and screw it up even more.
The flip side of your argument is (seeing as it's based on ifs and maybe) is - had FG been running the country pre crash, the meltdown could have have been worse, as it was FG roaring in opposition that FF weren't giving away enough.
But, that's what opposition party's do.
Also conveniently overlooked.0 -
Where did I say the housing situation is acceptable?
The simplistic analysis, which we see time and again, is I can't buy a house, so something, something, something, blame the government. There is a much bigger picture to be considered
(1) Dublin is now a large European city, not everyone can afford to live there. In fact, there is a strong policy argument for any social housing within Dublin City Council area being reserved for the public services within that area i.e. the gardai, nurses, teachers, civil servants etc. whose salaries aren't sufficient to allow them live in the area but who everyone else expects to be there to provide the services. Those without jobs can get social housing in the wider Dublin area. So realistic expectations from the public linked to the size of Dublin are one problem.
(2) Secondly, there is the high-rise, high-density issue. Irish people want a four-bedroomed semi in a nice suburb, ten minutes from the city centre. You should be able to get that in Athlone, but it shouldn't be possible in Dublin, Cork, Limerick or Galway.
(3) Thirdly, there are our idiotic councillors, particularly the Dublin ones who object to developments, who won't allow high-rise and who talk about flags instead of issues.
(4) Fourthly, there is the time issue. Fixing the jobs problem took priority for the FG/Labour government, but it was always a quicker fix, and it also exacerbated the housing issue as people wanted homes near the new jobs. So solving the jobs problem made the housing problem harder to solve, but the housing problem also takes longer to solve, so it inevitable got worse, and even though a lot has been done and things are happening, we may not have quite reached the bottom before it gets better. One thing is sure, whenever the housing problem improves, it will be because of decisions made three or four years previously, no matter which government is claiming credit for it.
(5) Finally, it is absolute madness to see people looking for ways to buy. Enda Kenny got himself into a load of trouble for saying we all went mad. People responded and said it was the banks fault for lending us too much. All I hear now are people complaining that the banks are lending enough and it is too difficult to get a mortgage and can we have the rules relaxed. Did people learn nothing?
The housing problems is a multi-faceted one, requiring societal and cultural changes, realistic expectations and getting our local councils to actually work. A lot of the framework at national level is or has been put in place or is in planning. However, those other bits are close to impossible to deliver on.
You are right, Syriza did not cause the problems in Greece, but they did make them impossible to solve.
1) We need to look at housing policy in the round. I can't get a house something, something, something is very simplistic. You are right Dublin is a medium sized European City. However for a city to function, it needs to have a resident population. And to have a sizeable population people need to be able to live there. And for that to happen, it needs to be affordable to live there. There are two available options - control housing and rental prices tightly - as they do in Germany, or, provide enough social housing stock. The current government and it's immediate predecessors have done neither. They need to pick an option and get on with it.
2) I largely agree, however, these should be affordable in the outlying areas of Dublin. They aren't. Plus we need more high rise.
3) Absolutely agree - though I would lay the blame largely at planners, which councillors then use in the name of NIMBYism.
4) The two issues should have been dealt with in tandem - especially given the amount of jobless people in the construction industry. Been there, done that, left the country. Only came back because my family were still here.
I'd add a fifth...
5) Stop trying to solve one problem at a time. Stop. Take a breath. Look at all the issues and try a holistic approach. It will honestly be better in the long run.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »How is social housing going to help rent and property prices?
More homes people can afford to rent without the need for state aid. Cheaper for the tax payer who becomes landlord rather than bottomless pocket. Smaller client base in the market place, leading to possible lowering of rents, as long as what ever government we have don't bring in some 'dig out the landlords grant'. be interesting to see the housing industry move away from the current one sided socialist model, were the people are responsible for maintaining their profit margin.I notice this has become a Labour thread.
Maybe that's because of the news that Taoiseach has bee named in the worlds top 100 most influential people, by Time magazine.
Or perhaps it's because the number of rough sleepers has decreased by 40% in the first quarter of 2018.
Or maybe a little of both.
Anyway, back to Labour .......
Right up there with Sean Hannity, Cardi B., Prince harry and Meghan Markle *squee*
Genuine good news regarding rough sleeping, which is great to see indeed. Sterling work by McVerry Trust, FOCUS, all the volunteers and to some extent the council. I keep hearing it's the councils responsible for the homeless situation, but credit must be given to the homeless charities and volunteers.
I believe the drift to talking Labour came from a discussion on the perils of going into partnership with Fine Gael, despite almost indistinguishable manifestos, but don't let a fluff piece and unrelated good news item interfere.0 -
There is an argument that, in theory, we could have spent our way through the global economic crash - but just not on what SF and Syriza wanted to spend money on. We'd be in much more debt now and, personally, I don't buy into that theory (although I think we did spend way too little and continue to be far too prudent on capital expenditure).Johnny Dogs wrote: »The flip side of your argument is (seeing as it's based on ifs and maybe) is - had FG been running the country pre crash, the meltdown could have have been worse, as it was FG roaring in opposition that FF weren't giving away enough.
But, that's what opposition party's do.
Also conveniently overlooked.0 -
Social housing is "state aid" (in the manner in which you're using that term).Matt Barrett wrote: »More homes people can afford to rent without the need for state aid.
Not sure how?Cheaper for the tax payer who becomes landlord rather than bottomless pocket.
Are you suggesting that people who would be eligible for social housing are living in expensive apartments?Smaller client base in the market place, leading to possible lowering of rents, as long as what ever government we have don't bring in some 'dig out the landlords grant'.
That's... not socialist. What you're suggesting is socialist and seemingly a bit pie-in-the-sky happy thoughts kind of "reality". Sure, why doesn't EVERYONE just live in social housing?be interesting to see the housing industry move away from the current one sided socialist model, were the people are responsible for maintaining their profit margin.0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »The flip side of your argument is (seeing as it's based on ifs and maybe) is - had FG been running the country pre crash, the meltdown could have have been worse, as it was FG roaring in opposition that FF weren't giving away enough.
You could argue that for FG under Enda, but that is precisely because Baldy Noonan pointed out the lunacy of FF policies and promised to return to fiscal sense if elected, and got the worst kicking FG ever got in history up to then for suggesting that the party should stop.
Enda got the leadership after that, and learned the lesson - Paddy likes a party.0 -
Advertisement
-
FreudianSlippers wrote: »Social housing is "state aid" (in the manner in which you're using that term).
'tis indeed. A different form.FreudianSlippers wrote: »Not sure how?
If you have a home built, it's cheaper than purchasing one privately at market rates. It's very basic economics.
So, the tax payer can pay for the growing cost of 'emergency' accommodation and subsidise rents paid to private landlords, or build our own state owned homes and rent them to people at a rate based on their income. We already supply homes to such people, except currently we rent and buy from the market place and then supply them to those in need. Social housing, state built would be cheaper for the tax payer.
Can you tell me why it wouldn't?FreudianSlippers wrote: »Are you suggesting that people who would be eligible for social housing are living in expensive apartments?
It's a fact that working people are living in places they can't afford and the tax payer is giving aid in rent allowances etc. which go to private pockets, not the state.FreudianSlippers wrote: »That's... not socialist. What you're suggesting is socialist and seemingly a bit pie-in-the-sky happy thoughts kind of "reality". Sure, why doesn't EVERYONE just live in social housing?
The housing market is propped up by the government. It does not operate like a business in a free market. All the schemes devised by FG thus far favour the pocket of the developers. have a read of the FG housing strategy. Look at NAMA being turned into a bank to bank roll the very developers brought the need for NAMA. the loser? Why, the tax payer of course. Every time. meanwhile the crisis gets worse.
We should build enough social housing so we are no longer in crisis. What ever amount it takes to see a cooling/lowering of prices to an affordable level. Despite all the conservative spin and PR, it would be quiet easy to ensure genuine people, working, paying tax, who can't afford a roof without the tax payer handing out money to profiteering TD's/Landlords and developers, where given consideration, based on need, for social housing. We did it in the 1930's.
Can you think of a better way to save the tax payer money while in part, tackling the crisis? You drop in and ask the same questions. I give the same answers and you never offer an alternative. Things as is are not working. Things are getting worse. To have a pop without offering any alternatives isn't helping.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »You could argue that for FG under Enda, but that is precisely because Baldy Noonan pointed out the lunacy of FF policies and promised to return to fiscal sense if elected, and got the worst kicking FG ever got in history up to then for suggesting that the party should stop.
Enda got the leadership after that, and learned the lesson - Paddy likes a party.
You may recall the call for a change in the way we do business and all that waffle. Paddy wanted a system of government for the people, not crony governing. A system with accountability. That's what got Kenny in.
Fine Gael would really need to take responsibility for their own actions at this point. Or disinterest, (see homelessness/housing/health).0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »You could argue that for FG under Enda, but that is precisely because Baldy Noonan pointed out the lunacy of FF policies and promised to return to fiscal sense if elected, and got the worst kicking FG ever got in history up to then for suggesting that the party should stop.
Enda got the leadership after that, and learned the lesson - Paddy likes a party.
Enda got in because FG weren't FF, it's as simple as that really,.
The biggest financial crisis in the party's history, and they couldn't get in on their own merits, they had to be bolstered by a socialist party, labour.
Five years after that, they actually lost the next election.
I don't think it's their financial policies/ prudence etc though, I just think that they're possibly downright arrogant and unlikable to some folk.
The last election was theirs on a plate (apparently). Yet they now have to ask FF (who they keep reminding us wrecked the place) for permission on every. Little. Detail.0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »The flip side of your argument is (seeing as it's based on ifs and maybe) is - had FG been running the country pre crash, the meltdown could have have been worse, as it was FG roaring in opposition that FF weren't giving away enough.
But, that's what opposition party's do.
Also conveniently overlooked.
Eh no, it was the likes of the rump parties who were roaring that FF weren't giving away enough.
The budget speeches of Joan Burton and Richard Bruton are well worth a read in this regard.0 -
Labour have only been superficially socialist for donkey's years. By and large, they're the party of the middle class, particularly the employees of the Civil Service, via their links to the Trade Unions. Their perceived role in civil service salary cuts caused their voter base to abandon them, and I don't see them recovering with Howlin at the helm[too meek and mild imo]. Alan Kelly has the brashness needed to rebuild, but his infamous interview about power means people won't trust him.Johnny Dogs wrote: »Zubeneschamali wrote: »You could argue that for FG under Enda, but that is precisely because Baldy Noonan pointed out the lunacy of FF policies and promised to return to fiscal sense if elected, and got the worst kicking FG ever got in history up to then for suggesting that the party should stop.
Enda got the leadership after that, and learned the lesson - Paddy likes a party.
Enda got in because FG weren't FF, it's as simple as that really,.
The biggest financial crisis in the party's history, and they couldn't get in on their own merits, they had to be bolstered by a socialist party, labour.
Five years after that, they actually lost the next election.
I don't think it's their financial policies/ prudence etc though, I just think that they're possibly downright arrogant and unlikable.
The last election was theirs on a plate (apparently). Yet they now have to ask FF (who they keep reminding us wrecked the place) for permission on every. Little. Detail.0 -
Eh no, it was the likes of the rump parties who were roaring that FF weren't giving away enough.
The budget speeches of Joan Burton and Richard Bruton are well worth a read in this regard.
You can describe FG with many different descriptions, but rump is a new one for me
I'm on a short break here out on the field with work and on mobile, so I'm certainly not going to trawl through every FF budget speech Enda ever made, but here's an extract from an article in the Times.
Relevant parts are bolded.But back to Enda’s part in “a system that spawned greed to a point where it just went out of control completely”.
In every one of his speeches on five budgets (from 2003 to 2007) as leader of Fine Gael, he complained about high tax and governments’ failure to spend even more. In the latter two of those speeches he urged changes to stamp duty that would have inflated the property bubble further.
On the 2003 budget, he criticised the failure to index tax bands and an increase in VAT. He said the budget was “a silent killer” because it put education out of reach for the disadvantaged, and criticised inadequate funding on health. Speaking on the 2004 budget, he denied defiantly he had ever complained the government was spending too much. He rejected an accusation Fine Gael would not pay for benchmarking of public service pay, and said: “I support the decentralisation concept,” criticising only some of the specifics of that plan.
On the 2005 budget, he said Fine Gael “completely understands the importance of a low personal tax regime”. Again he complained that there was not more public expenditure and less taxation. He went on to propose the abolition of stamp duty for first-time buyers of second-hand homes up to a limit of €400,000. He complained that Willie Walsh, then chief executive of Aer Lingus, was being shafted, and that if he were in the private sector he would be “properly” remunerated.
On the 2006 budget, he said the social welfare increases which were granted were overdue but went on to complain about not enough being spent in a variety of areas. On the 2007 budget he made a big point about the tax “burden” which he said was too high. Again, he wanted more cuts on stamp duty.It was only when signs that the Celtic Tiger was crumbling did he start (in his speech on the 2008 budget) to oppose the very measures he had urged on over the previous five budgets.
Enda had bought into the system that spawned greed and recklessness as much as anyone else. And to cap it all, Fine Gael backed the bank guarantee of September 2008, without reserve.
Dud someone say something about always possible to screw things up worse?
If but and maybe.0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »Enda got in because FG weren't FF, it's as simple as that really,.
Absolutely, and we would have elected Baldy or Bruton or anyone, really, that wasn't FF. Even Labour got votes.
But I am talking here about why Enda's FG were making noises in opposition about spending like/more than FF before the crash - not about why they got in in 2011.
It was because Noonan was soundly beaten for talking fiscal sanity to FFs lunacy.0 -
Labour have only been superficially socialist for donkey's years. By and large, they're the party of the middle class, particularly the employees of the Civil Service, via their links to the Trade Unions. Their perceived role in civil service salary cuts caused their voter base to abandon them, and I don't see them recovering with Howlin at the helm[too meek and mild imo]. Alan Kelly has the brashness needed to rebuild, but his infamous interview about power means people won't trust him.
I would say Labour lost a lot of support for not calling FG out on rampant cronyism and not holding FG to account. An end to cronyism and more accountability being the election by-line for both parties.0 -
blanch152 I will respond to a few of your points. First Dublin is not a large European city. Secondy, the high rise issue is a joke, the height should be approproate to the area, this would address a large part of the issue. I live out near Rathcoole, do you know how much greenfield I pass to get out here on the N7? It is 5 minutes to get here from the M50, N7 junction.
Next point, you cant leave the private sector to fix this. Their sole motive is profit (which is fine, all of ours is), I think that I can safely say that housing, is way too vital , to leave to "the market"...
This is entirely government fault."(Irish people want a four-bedroomed semi in a nice suburb, ten minutes from the city centre. You should be able to get that in Athlone, but it shouldn't be possible in Dublin, Cork, Limerick or Galway."
My folks have a place in Athlone and Dublin, I live in Dublin. My mates would give their right arm, just to have their own space, even if just a compact, modern studio! This bull**** of "we all want a 4 bed semi D" yes, that is the aspiration for many AT SOME POINT! Myself and my mates are living in the here and now! As you say, there is such demand for this well located, 4 bed semi, it will be out of reach for the vast majority, that I understand!
The lack of apartments and studios going up, the density and the cost to construct them, is a total and utter joke! And if you leave it to the private sector, they will go for the highest price they can achieve, obviously, the government has to get involved here! Or are you ok with two people living next door to each other in an apartment, one breaking their necks to pay a fortune on rent or mortgage, while the other nextdoor, has it handed to him or her on a plate? Evidently!Finally, it is absolute madness to see people looking for ways to buy. Enda Kenny got himself into a load of trouble for saying we all went mad. People responded and said it was the banks fault for lending us too much. All I hear now are people complaining that the banks are lending enough and it is too difficult to get a mortgage and can we have the rules relaxed. Did people learn nothing?
I am the first to commend the Central bank on not changing the goal posts, I have said this over a year ago on boards, leave the lending criteria as is, it will eventually force the government to act! When prices cant just climb relentlessly!
You think the issues have not been apparent for years? This is Ireland all over, talk talk talk for years, debate, dialogue, its great if youre one of the "I'm alright jack brigade" There are bedrooms going on daft in Dublin for 1,000 a month, are you paying that kind of money Blanch?The housing problems is a multi-faceted one, requiring societal and cultural changes, realistic expectations and getting our local councils to actually work. A lot of the framework at national level is or has been put in place or is in planning. However, those other bits are close to impossible to deliver on.
I came across the below video yesterday, I dont agree with the part about Nimbyism, but this hits the nail on the head, over why nothing is being done! Please take a look at it and you can give me your thoughts on it. I actually have another more detailed one, that I will find a link to shortly... Funny with NAMA and the bailout, how they could move mountains in hours...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcbjWGj3jBk&app=desktop0 -
Advertisement
-
That really begs the question then as to why FG didn't suffer a similiar fate[proportionally, that is, they lost a good number of seats] to Labour.Matt Barrett wrote: »Labour have only been superficially socialist for donkey's years. By and large, they're the party of the middle class, particularly the employees of the Civil Service, via their links to the Trade Unions. Their perceived role in civil service salary cuts caused their voter base to abandon them, and I don't see them recovering with Howlin at the helm[too meek and mild imo]. Alan Kelly has the brashness needed to rebuild, but his infamous interview about power means people won't trust him.
I would say Labour lost a lot of support for not calling FG out on rampant cronyism and not holding FG to account. An end to cronyism and more accountability being the election by-line for both parties.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement