Leo is the new king of Ireland.

charlie14

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What I am suggesting is that the poll could be right, and people changed their mind.

FG -> FF is just Tweedledum to gombeen Tweedledee.

If they did over such a short time to such a degree (in one instance within 3 days), then it shows just how unreliable they can be imo.

boombang

Off topic, but looking at the vote share for independents/others, my god people are stupid with their voting behaviour.

charlie14

boombang wrote: »

Off topic, but looking at the vote share for independents/others, my god people are stupid with their voting behaviour.

Constituents of certain members of the Independent Alliance might not agree with you there.
One instance alone, a garda station re-opening in Stepaside, comes to mind.

Zubeneschamali

charlie14 wrote: »

If they did over such a short time to such a degree (in one instance within 3 days), then it shows just how unreliable they can be imo.

No, the poll reflects what the public think at that time. The problem is the voters are unreliable, not the polls.

The same effect was visible in the US general election - the closer you get to polling day, the closer you get to a Hillary by 3% win, which is what happened on the day (electoral college weirdness aside).

eagle eye

Leo has to stay out of the abortion debate because people will start asking him what he knows about it and that will lead to questions about his views on the family and that is how the opposition can attack the fact he is gay without ever mentioning homosexuality.
He will lose big if that happens.

Chips Lovell

I don't really understand. What views on the family do you think holds that would be so controversial?

Zubeneschamali

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

What views on the family do you think holds that would be so controversial?

Gay views from the Homosexual Agenda.

Jawgap

eagle eye wrote: »

Leo has to stay out of the abortion debate because people will start asking him what he knows about it and that will lead to questions about his views on the family and that is how the opposition can attack the fact he is gay without ever mentioning homosexuality.
He will lose big if that happens.

I'm guessing he knows more about it than the average person given his medical qualifications.....

.....I'm not sure how that's linked to his views on family - or why those views would be so off-the-wall as to be politically damaging.......and why would the opposition want to attack his sexual orientation? Let's face it, he's the most spin-happy, elitist, fiscally conservative Taoiseach we've ever had - there are any number of ways opponents could attack him politically......

.......plus I'm guessing that we're not the UK or the US and delving into his private life would likely be hugely counter-productive as it engender a lot of sympathy with the wider electorate.

Jawgap

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Gay views from the Homosexual Agenda.

Where is this document.......


......and can I view the minutes of the last meeting?

charlie14

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, the poll reflects what the public think at that time. The problem is the voters are unreliable, not the polls.

The same effect was visible in the US general election - the closer you get to polling day, the closer you get to a Hillary by 3% win, which is what happened on the day (electoral college weirdness aside).

That is a bit like the carpenter blaming his tools.

I cannot remember anything that happened so close to polling day GE 2016,(especially from just 3 days before in one instance), that would have created such a swing in percentages to make those polls look anywhere close to reliable.
Even the closest was 9% out.

Zubeneschamali

Jawgap wrote: »

Where is this document...

I left my copy in the LGBT Lobby.

eagle eye

Baron de Charlus wrote:

I don't really understand. What views on the family do you think holds that would be so controversial?

I'm not saying he has any views that would be off the wall but no matter what his views are they will be attacked by one side. The far side people on both sides are full on and will go after your right to have a qualified view if they feel you are against them.
They'll bring it up in a way to remind people that he is gay and as a result doesn't understand family.
There are a lot of people out there who voted against gay marriage and it wouldn't be too hard to sway them away from voting for a party with a gay leader.

Zubeneschamali

eagle eye wrote: »

There are a lot of people out there who voted against gay marriage

Oddly enough, I have never met anyone who admitted that in person.

Jawgap

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not saying he has any views that would be off the wall but no matter what his views are they will be attacked by one side. The far side people on both sides are full on and will go after your right to have a qualified view if they feel you are against them.
They'll bring it up in a way to remind people that he is gay and as a result doesn't understand family.
There are a lot of people out there who voted against gay marriage and it wouldn't be too hard to sway them away from voting for a party with a gay leader.

So if you are gay you can't understand 'family'........ I don't understand family (especially feckin' teenagers!) does that make me gay or does the correlation only run in one direction?

eagle eye

Jawgap wrote:

So if you are gay you can't understand 'family'........ I don't understand family (especially feckin' teenagers!) does that make me gay or does the correlation only run in one direction?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it will be used as a tool to try and knock Leo.

Jawgap

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not saying he has any views that would be off the wall but no matter what his views are they will be attacked by one side. The far side people on both sides are full on and will go after your right to have a qualified view if they feel you are against them.
They'll bring it up in a way to remind people that he is gay and as a result doesn't understand family.
There are a lot of people out there who voted against gay marriage and it wouldn't be too hard to sway them away from voting for a party with a gay leader.

Surely it's same sex marriage - you don't have to be gay or express any particular gender identity to marry another person now - isn't that the essence of the law?

Jawgap

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it will be used as a tool to try and knock Leo.

But if they are going to attack him for being gay why not dogwhistle it in other ways?

And why are you so sure the "abortion-family-gay" link will be followed?

blackwhite

charlie14 wrote: »

Constituents of certain members of the Independent Alliance might not agree with you there.
One instance alone, a garda station re-opening in Stepaside, comes to mind.

Despite the announcement, I wouldn't hold my breath on it actually re-opening any time soon.

If it hasn't happened by the time Ross is out of Govt then I doubt it'll ever happen.

Although, the allocation of the latest round of sports capital grants might be somewhere where Ross could claim to have a bit more success

eagle eye

Jawgap wrote:

And why are you so sure the "abortion-family-gay" link will be followed?

Because you are dealing with extremists on both sides of the abortion debate.

McMurphy

eagle eye wrote: »

Leo has to stay out of the abortion debate because people will start asking him what he knows about it and that will lead to questions about his views on the family and that is how the opposition can attack the fact he is gay without ever mentioning homosexuality.
He will lose big if that happens.

Ridiculous.

Surely homosexual people's views shouldn't be discounted just because of their sexual orientation?

What about the minister for children so? Surely she'd be expected to have some views on this issue ?

Jawgap

eagle eye wrote: »

Because you are dealing with extremists on both sides of the abortion debate.

Extremists don't really matter though do they - no one votes for them so they're just noise.

Surely the reason he's keeping schtum on his views is because as Taoiseach he's supposed to be a unifying figure and while he has obligations to his conscience, and his party he also has obligations to the country (he's the Taoiseach of the country, not just FG) to try and moderate the political discourse - showing his hand too early risks things becoming immoderate.

charlie14

blackwhite wrote: »

Despite the announcement, I wouldn't hold my breath on it actually re-opening any time soon.

If it hasn't happened by the time Ross is out of Govt then I doubt it'll ever happen.

Although, the allocation of the latest round of sports capital grants might be somewhere where Ross could claim to have a bit more success

I would say he will do his damnest to make sure it opens before then.
There is also Moran from the same group.
The favouring of Athlone in the NDP will play well for him there I imagine.
Ammo in many cases for others to use if standing as indies in future.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

That is a bit like the carpenter blaming his tools.

I cannot remember anything that happened so close to polling day GE 2016,(especially from just 3 days before in one instance), that would have created such a swing in percentages to make those polls look anywhere close to reliable.
Even the closest was 9% out.

When you say that the closest was 9% out as some sort of criticism, you do realise that the 9% was cumulative, i.e. added up all the totals out for each party?

You do also realise that these polls have a margin of error of 3% and that the poll was inside the margin of error?

Finally, because of the rise of independents, and the localised aspect of that, you do realise that polling was more challenging?

Taking all of those factors into account, I certainly would argue that the MRBI polls for one, were remarkably accurate - as did the link I provided.

You might provide a link to an analytical piece that counters this and explained how bad the polls were.

blanch152

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not saying he has any views that would be off the wall but no matter what his views are they will be attacked by one side. The far side people on both sides are full on and will go after your right to have a qualified view if they feel you are against them.
They'll bring it up in a way to remind people that he is gay and as a result doesn't understand family.
There are a lot of people out there who voted against gay marriage and it wouldn't be too hard to sway them away from voting for a party with a gay leader.

I would hope that Irish people wouldn't be persuaded like that.

However, I have no doubt that there are parties, some of whom profess to be tolerant and welcoming, whose on-the-ground canvassers and workers won't be slow to seize any opportunity.

Nitrogan

If Leo Varadkar is king then Simon Coveney is king maker. As long as they're singing from the same sheet they'll be near impossible to defeat in an election.

Odds are ambition will get the better of Coveney eventually but for now their political futures are mutually dependent I think.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

I would hope that Irish people wouldn't be persuaded like that.

However, I have no doubt that there are parties, some of whom profess to be tolerant and welcoming, whose on-the-ground canvassers and workers won't be slow to seize any opportunity.

Can you name them?
Party's or politicians in particular?
I imagine absolutely no party will endorse or subscribe to such an action.
Its all too easy to have their, even unwitting, comments or even insinuations put in the public domain now.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

When you say that the closest was 9% out as some sort of criticism, you do realise that the 9% was cumulative, i.e. added up all the totals out for each party?

You do also realise that these polls have a margin of error of 3% and that the poll was inside the margin of error?

Finally, because of the rise of independents, and the localised aspect of that, you do realise that polling was more challenging?

Taking all of those factors into account, I certainly would argue that the MRBI polls for one, were remarkably accurate - as did the link I provided.

You might provide a link to an analytical piece that counters this and explained how bad the polls were.

I have already posted the poll figures in the few weeks leading up to the GE, and even simplified it in a later post to show how much they were off between just FG and FF. When you cannot even understand that 9% was the percentage difference between FG and FF from a poll on the 23rd Feb and the GE on the 26th, then there is not much point in posting any other polls for you to misconstrue.

There was nothing cumulative in relation to that 9% being over all parties.
It was only in relation to FG and FF and well outside a 3% margin of error.

On your mention of cumulative and this MRBI poll puff piece you are referring to.
Were MRBI not out by a cumulative 11.36% ?
You do realise that under or PR system, in votes that would equate to 20 Dail seats or more do you not.

Idbatterim

Would fg get some backlash though for running an unneeded at this time , election? What’s their game plan ? Get out the independent alliance and force ff into a proper coalition?

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

Would fg get some backlash though for running an unneeded at this time , election? What’s their game plan ? Get out the independent alliance and force ff into a proper coalition?

I would not see any GE before the referendum on the 8th amendment. It would look as if FG are running scared.
After that it is difficult to say. It does not look as if any party will have the numbers to form a majority government for the foreseeable future, and a ploy of attempting to force FF into a FG/FF coalition could backfire if FF got enough backing from others to form a minority or even a majority government.

Edward M

Another poll out today showing a tightening of the gap between FF and FG, SF down 1 in this one, Labour unchanged.
Possibly MMs being against the Banks sale of loans to vulture funds being cited as a reason for the rise for FF, though FG unchanged.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0224/943263-redc-opinion-poll/

Idbatterim

charlie14 wrote: »

I would not see any GE before the referendum on the 8th amendment. It would look as if FG are running scared.
After that it is difficult to say. It does not look as if any party will have the numbers to form a majority government for the foreseeable future, and a ploy of attempting to force FF into a FG/FF coalition could backfire if FF got enough backing from others to form a minority or even a majority government.

Agree with all that. Also in Ireland a majority is pipe dream stuff. Look at what happened when fg were looking close to getting a majority. Labor bullsit “every little hurts line” Put the spooks up some and they voted labor. Had resulted in what the Irish love. Ie fudge and indecision... there ain’t a chance in hell of a majority being formed here!

Idbatterim

Edward M wrote: »

Another poll out today showing a tightening of the gap between FF and FG, SF down 1 in this one, Labour unchanged.
Possibly MMs being against the Banks sale of loans to vulture funds being cited as a reason for the rise for FF, though FG unchanged.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0224/943263-redc-opinion-poll/

you know That if ff are against it, that’s it’s probably a good idea!

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

you know Thet if Are against it, that’s it’s probably a good idea!

It is a good deal for the bank.
For those mortgage holders, not so much.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

It is a good deal for the bank.
For those mortgage holders, not so much.

Ya, the poor mortgage holders just might have to pay back what they borrowed.

Jawgap

charlie14 wrote: »

It is a good deal for the bank.
For those mortgage holders, not so much.

My understanding is that only the under-performing or non-performing mortgages are being sold?

If you've been paying your mortgage it's not a problem.

smurgen

charlie14 wrote: »

Idbatterim wrote: »

you know Thet if Are against it, that’s it’s probably a good idea!

It is a good deal for the bank.
For those mortgage holders, not so much.

Heaven forbid the terms of the mortgage would be enforced.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Ya, the poor mortgage holders just might have to pay back what they borrowed.

That's how it works in places like Germany, and the end result is lower interest rates for every borrower.
The German banks would be in here in a flash, with their low interest rates, if we provided them with the same level playing field that they have over there.

I would have a serious worry here that lower interest rates would just end up in higher house prices.

Edward M

Jawgap wrote: »

My understanding is that only the under-performing or non-performing mortgages are being sold?

If you've been paying your mortgage it's not a problem.

How about the banks paying off their debts to the taxpayer, how's that going.
Are we the taxpayer still servicing and paying for the bailout of the banks, or have the banks taken over these payments?

Jawgap

Edward M wrote: »

How about the banks paying off their debts to the taxpayer, how's that going.
Are we the taxpayer still servicing and paying for the bailout of the banks, or have the banks taken over these payments?

It's going steadily away.......and this will help.


Getting rid of the non-performing mortgages increases the value of the banks which makes them a more attractive proposition when the State goes to sell the equity it acquired in return for the debt it advanced to those institutions.

And again, I'm not sure why people who scrimped, saved and sacrificed to pay their mortgages should continue to pay for those that can't or won't.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Ya, the poor mortgage holders just might have to pay back what they borrowed.

You will excuse me if my heart does not bleed for the banks who as a result of their reckless lending had their private debts turned into public debt at the taxpayers expense, while their bondholders walked away whistling.

Especially one whose lending was so reckless that it has 28% of its mortgages "under-performing".
But sure what harm Mayanne, better to throw these people to the wolves rather than give them the cuts being given to vulture funds.
When they are thrown out on the streets and the taxpayer is picking up the tab to rehouse them, we can all basked in the warm glow that the banks are doing grand.

I myself got a lovely warm glow just a few month`s ago when I saw AIB made a half year profit of 814 Million, but would not have to pay a penny in corporation tax as the have a deferred tax "asset" of 3 Billion.
Meanwhile the taxpayer is forking out 1 Billion a year just servicing the money borrowed to bail out the banks.

charlie14

Jawgap wrote: »

My understanding is that only the under-performing or non-performing mortgages are being sold?

If you've been paying your mortgage it's not a problem.

Have they classified what they term as under-performing, or even non-performing ?

It sounds like two phrases where in bank-speak especially there could be a lot of devil in the detail.

Jawgap

charlie14 wrote: »

Have they classified what they term as under-performing, or even non-performing ?

It sounds like two phrases where in bank-speak especially there could be a lot of devil in the detail.

Anything more than 90 days in arrears is considered to be non-performing......the PTSB sale also includes borrowers who are years in arrears as well as double defaulters......as in people who defaulted on arrangements put in place after a previous default.

Phoebas

charlie14 wrote: »

Have they classified what they term as under-performing, or even non-performing ?

It sounds like two phrases where in bank-speak especially there could be a lot of devil in the detail.

They are loans that are in arrears. The average being in arrears for over 3.5 years, so we're not talking about people who fell behind on a couple of payments here.

charlie14

Phoebas wrote: »

They are loans that are in arrears. The average being in arrears for over 3.5 years, so we're not talking about people who fell behind on a couple of payments here.

Jawgap reckons that anything more than 90 days is arrears, (which sounds credible especially where banks are concerned) that would be no more than a couple of payments.
That from the reckless lending by banks and their underhand dealings (theft and someting they should be prosecuted for imo) on tracker mortgages, I would be very skeptical of their averages.

Idbatterim

charlie14 wrote: »

Jawgap reckons that anything more than 90 days is arrears, (which sounds credible especially where banks are concerned) that would be no more than a couple of payments.
That from the reckless lending by banks and their underhand dealings (theft and someting they should be prosecuted for imo) on tracker mortgages, I would be very skeptical of their averages.

the banks were actually broke though. Many of these not repairing their mortgages are choosing not too ...

Werent the bank shareholders utterly incinerated. Lots of them lost huge money.

Phoebas

charlie14 wrote: »

Jawgap reckons that anything more than 90 days is arrears, (which sounds credible especially where banks are concerned) that would be no more than a couple of payments.

The loan book being sold are all in arrears. That doesn't mean that all loans in arrears are being sold.

The average loan being sold is 2.5 years in arrears.

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

the banks were actually broke though. Many of these not repairing their mortgages are choosing not too ...

AIB alone for the first half of 2017 made a profit of 814 Million.
That is over 6 Million per day for every every working day.
A profit that they did not to have to pay a cent on in corporation tax.

charlie14

Phoebas wrote: »

The loan book being sold are all in arrears. That doesn't mean that all loans in arrears are being sold.

The average loan being sold is 2.5 years in arrears.

If Jawgap is correct,( and where banks are concerned I would have no reason to doubt it) then as far as banks are concerned any mortgage "non-performing" for more than 90 days is termed as in arrears.
In which case those would be included in the banks average.