Leo is the new king of Ireland.

Hitman3000

markodaly wrote:

Well, they were 6 TD's short and well on their way until Labour got desperate and went onto the attack with their promises. They over promised, as to not get left behind in the formation of a new government and paid the price at the next election.

So they couldn't manage a majority, thanks for confirming. Even in 2016 despite the 'recovery' they got a hammering.

Hitman3000

Zubeneschamali wrote:

The result is that the Government are usually chucked out and the opposition get in.

Or as in 2016 they sell out their principles to secure a tenuous new term.

McMurphy

I was reading about Eoghan Murphy yesterday in the Times, and how he welcomed the reduction in the number of homeless kids this month compared to last month.

Anyone know what the reduction was?

A total of 3,824 children were homeless at the same time, a decline of two.

3,824 v 3,826 last month.

That - (by my calculations) is a reduction of 0.052%.

markodaly

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So they couldn't manage a majority, thanks for confirming. Even in 2016 despite the 'recovery' they got a hammering.

Again, not a benchmark for success or failure, but any port in a storm I suppose.

Zubeneschamali

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Or as in 2016 they sell out their principles to secure a tenuous new term.

Looking a lot less tenuous now than at the start.

It is true that this Government has been rather ineffective, passing very few bits of legislation compared to the average. On the other hand, lots of people think this is good, with the Government being unable to ram through laws unless there is broad support.

markodaly

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I was reading about Eoghan Murphy yesterday in the Times, and how he welcomed the reduction in the number of homeless kids this month compared to last month.

Anyone know what the reduction was?



3,824 v 3,826 last month.

That - (by my calculations) is a reduction of 0.052%.

Homeless, well not quite. They may not have a 'forever' home but let's not pretend they are actually sleeping on the streets as the traditional use of the term is.

This topic has been done to death.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Why?

There are two ways the election could go.

People will be looking at the things that have improved and giving FG a chance to continue the work.

People will be looking at the things that haven't improved and will look at whether SF or FF would do better.

The challenge for SF and FF will be to demonstrate that they could do better. The problem will be that some voters will ask why they didn't vote down the wrong things that FG did when they had the numbers to do so for the last three years. There is no easy answer for the opposition parties to that question and it plays into FG's hands. What will be even more difficult for them is if FG comes under pressure for not delivering something it promised and it points to the opposition parties as the reason.

Does the opposition have power without responsibility? Well for them, if so.

What has that got to do with the post of your`s I was replying too


You stated the best achievable result for FG was to relegate both FF and SF to the opposition benches and find support from somewhere else.


Same old auction politics that FG berated FF about long and often.
Same as you advocated with "I would be willing to bet they would willingly pay a big enough price in policy terms for that coalition" in your earlier post in reference to a FG, Labour, Greens and Independents coalition government.

charlie14

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Looking a lot less tenuous now than at the start.

It is true that this Government has been rather ineffective, passing very few bits of legislation compared to the average. On the other hand, lots of people think this is good, with the Government being unable to ram through laws unless there is broad support.

If lots of people think it is good that a Government being unable to ram through laws, (and I believe that is the case), then does it not follow that a lot of people will vote to ensure no party gets a majority?

Hitman3000

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Looking a lot less tenuous now than at the start.

Summer months, traditional silly season. Nothing much happening.

Hitman3000

Zubeneschamali wrote:

It is true that this Government has been rather ineffective, passing very few bits of legislation compared to the average. On the other hand, lots of people think this is good, with the Government being unable to ram through laws unless there is broad support.

I'm quite happy at the present set up. Just have a look to the mess created by FG when they had the power to ram through legislation without meaningful debate as a recent example FF have form in this aswell. Not going over it here, but it does warn the electorate of the damage a majority government can do.

James Brown

I think we've the traditional FF/FG families, to a lesser extent SF. Then we've a hell of a lot of floating voters who correctly don't trust FF/FG and are unsure of SF. In comes the Indies who have the benefit of not being tarred with the same crony brush as FF/FG.
I can't see anyone getting a majority anytime soon. Even after the last crash FG couldn't do it and now having since partnered with FF, they'll not do it anytime soon.
You can add to that the growing number of people squeezed simply trying to function, and those effected by the various worsening crises.
Varadkar was not the new bright light the PR tried to sell him as.
The Best FG can hope for, IMO, is something similar to what we have now.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The Best FG can hope for, IMO, is something similar to what we have now.

Not at all, the best they can hope for is a majority coalition government. Their numbers right now favor this. If that outcome comes to pass is another question.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I can't see anyone getting a majority anytime soon.

Well since we haven't seen one in 41 years, I doubt we will see one at the next election or two either. :rolleyes:

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Homeless, well not quite. They may not have a 'forever' home but let's not pretend they are actually sleeping on the streets as the traditional use of the term is.

This topic has been done to death.

I think you may have missed my point mark, perhaps ignorance, perhaps purposely.

Despite the wheels falling off Leo's propaganda unit, here we have a case of a minister trying to put a positive spin on dismal numbers.

The numbers dropped relating to children by 0.052%?

Yet the adults numbers increased.....

Children don't remain children forever, in fact I wonder if any of the 3000 odd kids in tbe report were born in June/July 2000, or if any of the newly added adults on the list turned 18 recently?

markodaly

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I think you may have missed my point mark, perhaps ignorance, perhaps purposely.

Despite the wheels falling off Leo's propaganda unit, here we have a case of a minister trying to put a positive spin on dismal numbers.

The numbers dropped relating to children by 0.052%?

Yet the adults numbers increased.....

Children don't remain children forever, in fact I wonder if any of the 3000 odd kids in tbe report were born in June/July 2000, or if any of the newly added adults on the list turned 18 recently?

As I said, any port in a storm and lets not kid ourselves that the opposition have better solutions on hand.

Homelessness for example in Northern Ireland is up 32% in 5 years, so we can write off SF to having a silver bullet to fix this issue.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-42063177

What about FF? If they felt so strongly about it, then they can call an election.....

It seems the Homeless issue is a predominately Dublin centric issue and who runs the councils here? Yeap, you guessed it SF and a cohort of malcontents.

Saying all that, I believe we have turned a corner regarding housing this year as most reports indicate a large uptick in construction and a leveling off of prices.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I'm quite happy at the present set up. Just have a look to the mess created by FG when they had the power to ram through legislation without meaningful debate as a recent example FF have form in this aswell. Not going over it here, but it does warn the electorate of the damage a majority government can do.

If you are quite happy at the present set up, perhaps you could produce a list of the ground-breaking legislation put through the current Dail.

I think we have a bill on ticket touts at the moment and another one on social media bots. Really important issues of the day.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

If you are quite happy at the present set up, perhaps you could produce a list of the ground-breaking legislation put through the current Dail.

Why do you feel I owe you an explanation as to my satisfaction with the present situation?

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Why do you feel I owe you an explanation as to my satisfaction with the present situation?

There has been little or no ground-breaking legislation. The most important achievement of the current Dail has been to arrange a referendum on abortion. After that I struggle to see what important legislation they have passed, making them among the worst Dails in the history of the State for reforming legislation.

Oh, they have set up a few Tribunals and Investigations as well. Whoopy-doo.

And the Rugby World Cup 2023 Act. And I think they banned fracking. Ground-breaking indeed.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

There has been little or no ground-breaking legislation. The most important achievement of the current Dail has been to arrange a referendum on abortion. After that I struggle to see what important legislation they have passed, making them among the worst Dails in the history of the State for reforming legislation.

Still don't see an issue. If legislation has merit no reason why parties don't come together as we have already seen. The nonsense started when a party/parties had such arrogance that it treated the Dail with contempt. Recent example FG/Lab 2011 to 2016.

McMurphy

Oh dear, what about what about what about....

markodaly wrote: »

As I said, any port in a storm and lets not kid ourselves that the opposition have better solutions on hand.

Homelessness for example in Northern Ireland is up 32% in 5 years, so we can write off SF to having a silver bullet to fix this issue.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-42063177

First up - it's the shinners fault, what about up north - where homelessness has increased - under successive dup ministers responsible for housing.

What about.

What about FF? If they felt so strongly about it, then they can call an election.....

Next up - FF....

Whatabout FF, I don't recall homeless numbers ever reaching such heights during any of their tenures, but I will concede you're correct about an election.

They seemed to be more worried about a possibly corrupt and lying justice minister.

What about.

It seems the Homeless issue is a predominately Dublin centric issue and who runs the councils here? Yeap, you guessed it SF and a cohort of malcontents.

And it returns to being the shinners fault again.

From 2013.

Saying all that, I believe we have turned a corner regarding housing this year as most reports indicate a large uptick in construction and a leveling off of prices.

Course there is .
Ronan Lyons

On the face of it, little appears to have changed in many of the figures in this Daft.ie House Price Report. Sale prices - whether measured by listed prices or using the Property Price Register - are up compared to three or twelve months ago. And that's true for pretty much everywhere in the country - Donegal once again the exception, as Brexit continues to kill confidence in much of the market there. Yet another quarter of rising prices is to be expected in a market characterised by strong demand but very weak supply of new homes.

Whatabout, spin, deflect, it's someone else's fault, whatabout again.

All this aside, I can't for the life of me work out why Eoghan just doesn't come out agreeing with you, all pistons firing, telling the public that it's some one else's fault, look over there, and fake news.

Instead he just spins the numbers.

markodaly

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

First up - it's the shinners fault.

No, didn't say that at all, but that their record in NI and their lack of workable solutions is nothing to write home about.

Whatabout FF, I don't recall homeless numbers ever reaching such heights during any of their tenures, but I will concede you're correct about an election.

Well, it was they who stopped the building of social housing in the first place. Dare I mention the words, 'Galway Tent'?

If FF wants an election in the morning, we would have it. They have the power to do that, but for some reason, they won't exercise it. Why is that?

And it returns to being the shinners fault again.

Is it not a fact that DCC is run by the coalition of SF and other left-wingers? I am just stating facts here.

Course there is .
Ronan Lyons

From the exact same report.

Scratch a little bit beneath the surface and there are hints that the picture is slowly changing. Compared to a year ago, prices are just 5.6% higher. Granted, this is well ahead of inflation, which is - give or take - zero. But 5.6% is the lowest rate of inflation we've seen nationally in over four years, since the first quarter of 2014.

And that was when inflation was on the way up, not the way down. The quarter before this, late 2013, annual inflation was 0.3% and three months later it was 9.8%. The last time we saw a similar set of circumstances - inflation close to 5% and falling - was actually over a decade ago, in the middle of 2007.

For Dublin, though, the increase in availability matches the increase in construction activity. Newly available - and accurate - housing completion figures show that 15,200 homes were finished in the 12 months to March. This is more than three times the number of homes completed during 2014

Spin is right, you just want to spin it all as negative like a true misery junkie. As I said, I believe we have turned a corner this year on housing and we will get a true picture by the end of the year.

Hitman3000

markodaly wrote:

Spin is right, you just want to spin it all as negative like a true misery junkie. As I said, I believe we have turned a corner this year on housing and we will get a true picture by the end of the year.

What you believe is irrelevant, verifiable facts is all that matters.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Oh dear, what about what about what about....


First up - it's the shinners fault, what about up north - where homelessness has increased - under successive dup ministers responsible for housing.

What about.

Next up - FF....

Whatabout FF, I don't recall homeless numbers ever reaching such heights during any of their tenures, but I will concede you're correct about an election.

They seemed to be more worried about a possibly corrupt and lying justice minister.

What about.

And it returns to being the shinners fault again.

From 2013.







Course there is .
Ronan Lyons


Whatabout, spin, deflect, it's someone else's fault, whatabout again.

All this aside, I can't for the life of me work out why Eoghan just doesn't come out agreeing with you, all pistons firing, telling the public that it's some one else's fault, look over there, and fake news.

Instead he just spins the numbers.

Let's have some facts:

https://www.dublincity.ie/councilmeetings/documents/s19535/IssesPaper_DCC%20Housing%20Strategy%20Review_HousingSPC_July.pdf

Look at Table 1.

In three years, Dublin City Council has managed to build 1,943 new units for letting. Pathetic. Who runs Dublin City Council? It sure ain't Eoghan Murphy.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Let's have some facts:

https://www.dublincity.ie/councilmeetings/documents/s19535/IssesPaper_DCC%20Housing%20Strategy%20Review_HousingSPC_July.pdf

Look at Table 1.

In three years, Dublin City Council has managed to build 1,943 new units for letting. Pathetic. Who runs Dublin City Council? It sure ain't Eoghan Murphy.

Are you defending Murphy and the current national state of housing crisis? If so, how do you justify only criticising ABFG, (anyone but Fine Gael) on this time and again? If not, why avoid criticising Murphy?

Here's fun; a private landlord, (company) we, you and I, the state, invested in, so they could gouge the tax paying renter and avail of a loophole to further their gouging. The Trickle down myth in action.

Rent rule flaws exposed as State-backed landlord hikes tenants' rent by 6pc
https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/rent-rule-flaws-exposed-as-statebacked-landlord-hikes-tenants-rent-by-6pc-37155940.html

Fuppin' Bobby Sands...

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are you defending Murphy and the current national state of housing crisis? If so, how do you justify only criticising ABFG, (anyone but Fine Gael) on this time and again? If not, why avoid criticising Murphy?

Here's fun; a private landlord, (company) we, you and I, the state, invested in, so they could gouge the tax paying renter and avail of a loophole to further their gouging. The Trickle down myth in action.



Fuppin' Bobby Sands...

Local Authorities are responsible for building social housing.

How many local authorities does Eoghan Murphy run?

Where I would criticise Eoghan Murphy is for pretending that central government can solve this issue, as it is the local authorities that need to step up.

As for the private landlords, read the report I linked to.

When Dublin City Council were building their pathetic level of 1,943 units, they still managed to pay out rent to private landlords for an extra 3,613 private houses on top of the ones they were already paying for.

Are you going to direct the criticism where it is due? Clearly, that is the local authorities, and chief incompetent among them is Dublin City Council.

Red_Wake

blanch152 wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are you defending Murphy and the current national state of housing crisis? If so, how do you justify only criticising ABFG, (anyone but Fine Gael) on this time and again? If not, why avoid criticising Murphy?

Here's fun; a private landlord, (company) we, you and I, the state, invested in, so they could gouge the tax paying renter and avail of a loophole to further their gouging. The Trickle down myth in action.



Fuppin' Bobby Sands...

Local Authorities are responsible for building social housing.

How many local authorities does Eoghan Murphy run?

Where I would criticise Eoghan Murphy is for pretending that central government can solve this issue, as it is the local authorities that need to step up.

As for the private landlords, read the report I linked to.

When Dublin City Council were building their pathetic level of 1,943 units, they still managed to pay out rent to private landlords for an extra 3,613 private houses on top of the ones they were already paying for.

Are you going to direct the criticism where it is due? Clearly, that is the local authorities, and chief incompetent among them is Dublin City Council.

Pretty much this.

Look at the amount of posters in this thread who complain about the policies relating to hotel accommodation and social housing, but forget it's a local government concern and use it as a stick to beat central government.

A very banal form of madness imo.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Local Authorities are responsible for building social housing.

How many local authorities does Eoghan Murphy run?

Where I would criticise Eoghan Murphy is for pretending that central government can solve this issue, as it is the local authorities that need to step up.

As for the private landlords, read the report I linked to.

When Dublin City Council were building their pathetic level of 1,943 units, they still managed to pay out rent to private landlords for an extra 3,613 private houses on top of the ones they were already paying for.

Are you going to direct the criticism where it is due? Clearly, that is the local authorities, and chief incompetent among them is Dublin City Council.

So there's no point in having an Eoghan Murphy at all?
I think what you are saying is, Murphy is doing nothing so therefore doing nothing wrong and we should ignore him and concentrate on LA's now that FG/FF are no longer the majority in some of them? Okey Doke.
Basically if someone criticises Murphy, it would be expected that Murphy be discussed on the contents of the comment I would have thought.
I suppose Murphy fudging social housing figures and his delight at the child homeless crisis losing point 00 whatever percent, was obviously going to lead to the shinner Councillors the blagards. Makes sense...
But what about national policy and his overseeing a worsening crisis and policies such as the one I linked to on investing public money into private landlord companies so they can profit off taxpayers during a housing crisis? Councilors again is it?

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

Pretty much this.

Look at the amount of posters in this thread who complain about the policies relating to hotel accommodation and social housing, but forget it's a local government concern and use it as a stick to beat central government.

A very banal form of madness imo.

Banal you say...

Look at this. No business being there at all by all accounts. Pretending he's involved with local housing.

Fine Gael row distracts from St Michael’s Estate saga
Housing scheme rebranded but development in Inchicore still just a glint in Minister’s eye



However, this time last year the council said Government’s delays in setting up any affordable housing scheme had meant it could not seek developers for the sites.

Regardless, the council did press ahead and agreed a scheme for St Micheal’s involving 422 apartments and duplexes, 30 per cent of which would be social housing, 20 per cent affordable rental, and 50 per cent private homes. Last April it advertised this “development opportunity” and subsequently began the procurement process.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/fine-gael-row-distracts-from-st-michael-s-estate-saga-1.3574151

Murphy has some cheek trying to steal the thunder from local shinner, PBP or whatevs Councillors.

Zubeneschamali

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Murphy has some cheek trying to steal the thunder from local shinner, PBP or whatevs Councillors.

Well of course he does, you don't get to be a minister without some cheek and a brass neck.

Edit: an old story from the Civil Service of 50 years ago. In those days, telephones were supplied and installed under the authority of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Very slowly - long waiting times for a new line, many, many weeks or months - no eircom or Vodafone involved. A new Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is appointed, and the first thing he does is ask his Department for an ongoing report of the people in his constituency who get a phone. Then he has his office write to each one telling them he has helped their application through the red tape.

Votes for nothing!

Red_Wake

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

Pretty much this.

Look at the amount of posters in this thread who complain about the policies relating to hotel accommodation and social housing, but forget it's a local government concern and use it as a stick to beat central government.

A very banal form of madness imo.

Banal you say...

Look at this. No business being there at all by all accounts. Pretending he's involved with local housing.

Fine Gael row distracts from St Michael’s Estate saga
Housing scheme rebranded but development in Inchicore still just a glint in Minister’s eye



However, this time last year the council said Government’s delays in setting up any affordable housing scheme had meant it could not seek developers for the sites.

Regardless, the council did press ahead and agreed a scheme for St Micheal’s involving 422 apartments and duplexes, 30 per cent of which would be social housing, 20 per cent affordable rental, and 50 per cent private homes. Last April it advertised this “development opportunity” and subsequently began the procurement process.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/fine-gael-row-distracts-from-st-michael-s-estate-saga-1.3574151

Murphy has some cheek trying to steal the thunder from local shinner, PBP or whatevs Councillors.

He was probably invited to it by the council to get publicity. 

I'm not sure what point you think you're making, the article makes it clear that the development in question is in the hands of the council.