Leo is the new king of Ireland.

Good loser

Hitman3000 wrote: »

My son is a Garda, he can't afford to rent where he is stationed, so he has to commute nearly 2 hours each day after a minimum 10 hour shift. He can't get a mortgage . Any suggestions?

That's a ridiculous question. The answers are endless (and pointless).


How about get another job, get a transfer, get a loan from his Dad and and


What's he earning? What's the rent?


A relative of mine rented out a house in Leopardstown a few months ago for €2,600 per month. Four bedrooms two en suite. No parking problems.
That's €700 per month for each of 4.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

If some people cannot see that posting the same link time and again about Leo's one objection to a local development is a classic deflection and distraction tool, then it is hard to have serious debate about policy issues. I mean it must have appeared three or four times in this thread already.

People wish to blame DCC (or anyone else as long as it's not the govt) for the unprecedented housing crisis - they will even go to the lengths of claiming the Minister for Housing has no role or responsibility with it, claiming high rise/high density apartment blocks would answer all life's problems, and are now crying foul when given links to our very own Taoiseach lodging complaints to block these high density high rise buildings that would answer all life's problems in his own area.

Are you actually serious?

Any politician can see that an individual development may be inappropriate in a particular context, but the criticism of DCC came first, the deflection of Leo objecting came second, and the debate spiralled downwards as a result.

The criticism of DCC came first, Leo's NIMBYSM links came second.... what???

You're aware how a debate works right?

Someone makes a claim or a point, which someone else will counter or rebutt often using links (lest they get the mandatory "source?" in response)

It seems now that providing the source before its demanded is a problem...and there seems to be some new unwritten rules that because "I said that first, therefore you can't bring up anything else related to it or its whataboutery" even though the story relates to the point you just made, concerning our very own Taoiseach in our very own Taoiseachs thread...... am I following this correctly?

The old Irish Water threads in the old Cafe were ruined by people posting the same links time and again - an FG councillor who was accused of glassing someone was a particularly boring repetitive one that was trotted out about once a week.

Hahahah there's just a tiny bit of revisionism going on here.

He wasn't a councillor he was a sitting government TD for starters.
He wasn't just accused - he was tried and convicted (in contrast to yer man Paul Murphy)

It was kind of pertinent to the discussion at hand, considering it transpired that not only did the TD glass the lad, but tried to use Irish Water as his defence for doing so, the scumbag even tried to sue his own victim.

Needs to be mentioned here in the context you brought it up, but I'm a bit sceptical that you're perhaps trying to turn the conversation away from Leo's NIMBYsm and steer the conversation towards Irish Water. A well used tactic.

So we'lll leave it there.

Let's get serious now. Some local authorities have proactively address housing issues, some have not. All of the Dublin ones have reduced property tax, reducing their own income for dealing with homelessness, in favour of looking after the rich who already have homes. When are we going to see the criticism of that? I am sure that the answer will be a link to some function that Leo or Eoghan attended or some letter they wrote, rather than an actual focus on dealing with the real policies.

One of the biggest problems with Irish politics today is that politicians like soundbites and don't deal with serious issues. When they are caught out with soundbites, they reverse course quickly. A classic example was Mary Lou on a border poll - notice I provide a new link, not used in the thread before:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-s-political-opponents-seize-on-border-poll-u-turn-1.3583461

If we had less of the soundbites about Leo said this or objected to that, and focussed on the actual policies being implemented (or why they are not being implemented, such as the current dysfunctional Dail and local authorities) then we might get somewhere.

Can you believe that a poster would complain about people who post negative tales about FG or leo in a thread about Leo, repeatedly nearly always wants to introduce links and stories about other people nd party's / any other people or party's to steer the conversation away from leo and the lads.

99% of the time it's SF (I am of the belief it's an unhealthy obsession tbh) I mean this is just strange here.

One of the biggest problems with Irish politics today is that politicians like soundbites and don't deal with serious issues. When they are caught out with soundbites, they reverse course quickly. A classic example was Mary Lou on a border poll - notice I provide a new link, not used in the thread before:

Do you want some kudos for posting a new link about a border poll (which isn't about Leo), in Leo's thread it's about Mary Lou McDonald for Christ sake. I haven't even opened the link but I'm guessing it has no relevance to the thread at all which might make sense as to why it's a new link, never been posted before.

Sure I could post a link to Bananas in Belize and claim it's a new link. Wouldn't have much relevance to this thread though.




Up above looks like one long wingefest of a post because people are saying bad things about Leo or his buddy's that are true and can't he rebutted so complain that the stories are being mentioned at all, "thats not fair" and ends with a "look over there at the shinners".

This thread keeps giving.

Hitman3000

Good loser wrote:

That's a ridiculous question. The answers are endless (and pointless).

No more ridiculous than what you have posted as a response.

blanch152

It is not just on boards like this that we see the trivialisation of politics. Here is a story from today's Independent:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fianna-fil-td-paid-9600-for-pr-advice-from-the-son-of-ras-hopeful-duffy-37180324.html

I mean, how is it news that some TD paid for PR advice? Given I have barely heard of the TD, it probably wasn't great advice anyway.

I am sure that someone will produce this link in six months time as evidence of FF wanting to privatise the education system or RTE. Someone else will point to this link to show that FF are the party of spin. In reality, it is a non-story.

There is a worrying low level of political debate in Irish society akin to Brexit and Trump. When the response to some clear evidence of systematic incompetence in Dublin City Council contributing to the housing crisis is to point to Leo objecting to a single development in another local authority area, then you know we aren't exactly hitting the heights of political discussion.

Unfortunately, it is not just the media. Here is another idiotic proposal from another gombeen:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/granny-grant-could-cost-state-hundreds-of-millions-of-euro-37180319.html

A granny grant? What is Shane Ross thinking? There are far better ways to spend €70m of the state's money.

McMurphy

There is a worrying low level of political debate in Irish society akin to Brexit and Trump. When the response to some clear evidence of systematic incompetence in Dublin City Council contributing to the housing crisis is to point to Leo objecting to a single development in another local authority area, then you know we aren't exactly hitting the heights of political discussion.

People should think before they post tbh, if you don't want to make claims that high density apartment complexes several stories high would solve the housing crisis, considering the man this thread is about and also our very own Taoiseach objects to building the same, then don't get butt hurt when it's pointed out to you.

You continue to want to blame everyone and anyone else for the crises and absolve the Minister who is ultimately supposed to be responsible for overseeing it of blame.

The rest of your post is an irrelevance deflection/whataboutery relating to different people from different party's.

You were complaining about deflection and whataboutery in your last posts.

Gas man.

blackwhite

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No more ridiculous than what you have posted as a response.

You mean posting of actual facts that negate the claim you made?

Here's a few 3 bed places around Dublin at less than €700 per person per month (from over 40 on daft when searching) - all disproving your claim that there's nowhere that a Garda could afford to live within 2 hours drive of his place of work (given that Dublin has the highest rents, and longest commuting times - if he's stationed anywhere else in the country it'd be even easier to find places).

https://www.daft.ie/dublin/houses-for-rent/stepaside/31-belarmine-drive-stepaside-dublin-18-stepaside-dublin-1857528/

https://www.daft.ie/dublin/houses-for-rent/raheny/belmont-park-raheny-dublin-1857749/

https://www.daft.ie/dublin/houses-for-rent/navan-road-d7/kinvara-navan-road-d7-dublin-1858171/

Hitman3000

blackwhite wrote:

You mean posting of actual facts that negate the claim you made?

What actual facts are you referring too ?. The posters deflaut suggestion was get a part time job or change jobs.

blackwhite

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What actual facts are you referring too ?. The posters deflaut suggestion was get a part time job or change jobs.

He also posted about the cost of a rental in Leopardstown that shoots down your original claim.

But it doesn't help the sensationalism so will be ignored of course :rolleyes:

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

People should think before they post tbh, if you don't want to make claims that high density apartment complexes several stories high would solve the housing crisis, considering the man this thread is about and also our very own Taoiseach objects to building the same, then don't get butt hurt when it's pointed out to you.

You continue to want to blame everyone and anyone else for the crises and absolve the Minister who is ultimately supposed to be responsible for overseeing it of blame.

The rest of your post is an irrelevance deflection/whataboutery relating to different people from different party's.

You were complaining about deflection and whataboutery in your last posts.

Gas man.

The objection by Leo is irrelevant to the debate about city centre high density accommodation because the development concerned isn't in a city centre. That was pointed out the first time it was raised, yet it still appears week after week, as if it had some relevance.

It is a bit like saying a government is lukewarm to public transport improvements in the cities because it won't approve the extension of the WRC to some town in Mayo. Completely irrelevant.

So when I talk about idiotic political proposals and low-level debate, using an objection to a high-density development in a suburb to refute a point about high-density development in a city centre, that is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

Hitman3000

blackwhite wrote:

He also posted about the cost of a rental in Leopardstown that shoots down your original claim.

He claimed his relative rented out a property at 2600 euro a month to 4 people at a cost of 700 euro each. You expect me to believe his claim when he can't even get his sums correct? It's primary school division.

Hitman3000

Good loser wrote:

A relative of mine rented out a house in Leopardstown a few months ago for €2,600 per month. Four bedrooms two en suite. No parking problems. That's €700 per month for each of 4.

It even got a thanks.

blackwhite

Hitman3000 wrote: »

He claimed his relative rented out a property at 2600 euro a month to 4 people at a cost of 700 euro each. You expect me to believe his claim when he can't even get his sums correct? It's primary school division.

That works at less than €700 each - and I've subsequently posted links that prove the numbers are reasonable, given that there's plenty of 3-beds available at the same per-person rates.

But again - it doesn't suit the sensationalism, so must be ignored at all costs

Hitman3000

blackwhite wrote:

That works at less than €700 each - and I've subsequently posted links that prove the numbers are reasonable, given that there's plenty of 3-beds available at the same per-person rates.

Thanks for telling me something I have already pointed out.

blackwhite

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Thanks for telling me something I have already pointed out.

As I said - ignore the substantive point that disproves the nonsense you claimed earlier in the thread.

Facts that don't suit the agenda must be ignored at all costs :rolleyes:

Hitman3000

blackwhite wrote:

Facts that don't suit the agenda must be ignored at all costs

Is it ok if I ignore The claim that 2600 divided by 4 is 700?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

The objection by Leo is irrelevant to the debate about city centre high density accommodation because the development concerned isn't in a city centre. That was pointed out the first time it was raised, yet it still appears week after week, as if it had some relevance.

One could be forgiven for thinking the only reason his objection is irrelevant is because it was leo who raised it - after that bit of an inconvenient point - nothing else will matter in your opinion anyway.

It's like the red herring you threw into the thread the other day, Eoghan must be absolved of all responsibility for the housing crisis in DCC because something something SF and de left and property tax lowering of which FG have no hand part or act in.

Then you post links about Mary Lou, Shane Ross and some other irelevant lad in FF whos name has escaped me already.

blackwhite

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Is it ok if I ignore The claim that 2600 divided by 4 is 700?

I'm sure you can explain how that has anything to do with ignoring the links to daft.ie posted earlier ?
You know - the one's that prove your earlier claims about no affordable accommodation within 2 hour commute are pure and utter BS?

blanch152

blackwhite wrote: »

That works at less than €700 each - and I've subsequently posted links that prove the numbers are reasonable, given that there's plenty of 3-beds available at the same per-person rates.

But again - it doesn't suit the sensationalism, so must be ignored at all costs

Get with the message:

FG and FF are all bad, not to be trusted, they have an agenda to sell off the country to their friends, and the country is falling down around our ears.

Ignore the record employment, ignore the Europe-leading growth rates, ignore the highest social welfare rates in Europe, don't investigate and query exactly where the responsibility lies for any problem because it is always the Minister's fault.

The reality is that this government has failed in addressing the key environmental challenges, hasn't invested well enough in third-level education and public transport, is prone to stupid ideas from its fringe members, and has been held back by the Dail arithmetic from a proper legislative programme but all-in-all it has generally done a good job.

Unemployment is down, employment is up, capital spending has resumed, the economy is growing, the tools have been put in place for the local authorities to get on with providing housing, Ireland 2040 is a good plan, successful abortion referendum.

On the other hand, there is still a lot wrong in our political system. The level of debate is pathetic - not a single commentator seems to understand that any screening programme will have false negatives. The Dail is worse, with stupid Bills on ticket-touting and the like taking up time when there is real reform to take place and the local authorities worse again, spending time talking about Bob Geldof and other nonsense.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

One could be forgiven for thinking the only reason his objection is irrelevant is because it was leo who raised it - after that bit of an inconvenient point - nothing else will matter in your opinion anyway.

It's like the red herring you threw into the thread the other day, Eoghan must be absolved of all responsibility for the housing crisis in DCC because something something SF and de left and property tax lowering of which FG have no hand part or act in.

Then you post links about Mary Lou, Shane Ross and some other irelevant lad in FF whos name has escaped me already.

Hang on, the antics in DCC are directly relevant to any discussion that involves housing. They reduced the level of property tax and then complain there is no money for social housing. DUH in capital letters for them.

Hitman3000

blackwhite wrote:

I'm sure you can explain how that has anything to do with ignoring the links to daft.ie posted earlier ? You know - the one's that prove your earlier claims about no affordable accommodation within 2 hour commute are pure and utter BS?

So you feel you can judge what is affordable to my son and claim anything I say is b.s.. . Thanks but I think it's funny how you feel one person is posting b.s. and challenge them. Yet one that blantantly posted b.s. you ignored. Hope you understand if I'm going to completely ignore anything further from you.

blackwhite

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So you feel you can judge what is affordable to my son and claim anything I say is b.s.. . Thanks but I think it's funny how you feel one person is posting b.s. and challenge them. Yet one that blantantly posted b.s. you ignored. Hope you understand if I'm going to completely ignore anything further from you.

Yes - it's much easier to ignore people who prove when you spout nonsense - that's how all good debating works :rolleyes:


But of course - seize on a typo, put your fingers in your ears, and ignore any evidence that contradicts your claims

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Hang on, the antics in DCC are directly relevant to any discussion that involves housing. They reduced the level of property tax and then complain there is no money for social housing. DUH in capital letters for them.

What did FG do to prevent the lowering of the lpt?

You're gold. Pure gold.

Sinn Féin - the largest party on the council - along with Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and People Before Profit voted against the increase which was defeated by 42 votes to 11.

blackwhite

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What did FG do to prevent the lowering of the lpt?

If they had any balls they would have amended the legislation to prevent the LAs from being able to reduce it.

But I'd guess they prefer having it as a stick to beat the councils with any time they come looking for additional funding

McMurphy

blackwhite wrote: »

If they had any balls they would have amended the legislation to prevent the LAs from being able to reduce it.

But I'd guess they prefer having it as a stick to beat the councils with any time they come looking for additional funding

They can't really use anything as a stick considering they introduced the legislation to begin with and their councillors used said legislation to vote with the crazy lefties - shinners - and those who wrecked the economy FF.

Some want to have their cake and eat it.

blackwhite

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

They can't really use anything as a stick considering they introduced the legislation to begin with and their councillors used said legislation to vote with the crazy lefties - shinners - and those who wrecked the economy FF.

Some what to have their cake and eat it.

I agree that they shouldn't - they gave the councils the opportunity to reduce it, knowing full well that most councillors (their own included) would jump at the chance to reduce the rates as a sop to their local electorate.

I wasn't trying to justify/excuse it, just pointing out why I believe they haven't acted to change things.


I've always believed that the LAs shouldn't really receive any central funding - but should have greater powers around revenue-raising for themselves.
Let them set their own property taxes and rates, and if they need more funding then it's up to them to increase taxes or rates as necessary.

The current set-up just lets the LAs and central Govt point the finger at each other

Topgear on Dave

blackwhite wrote: »

That works at less than €700 each - and I've subsequently posted links that prove the numbers are reasonable, given that there's plenty of 3-beds available at the same per-person rates.

But again - it doesn't suit the sensationalism, so must be ignored at all costs

I think 700 a month is mad money to share a house.

I rented for years before buying and I think I paid about max 600/650 and for that I had the largest room.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

If some people cannot see that posting the same link time and again about Leo's one objection to a local development is a classic deflection and distraction tool, then it is hard to have serious debate about policy issues. I mean it must have appeared three or four times in this thread already.

Any politician can see that an individual development may be inappropriate in a particular context, but the criticism of DCC came first, the deflection of Leo objecting came second, and the debate spiralled downwards as a result.

Not quite. We were talking about housing, high density and Nimbyism being a problem. It was pointed out Leo partook in Nimbyism. Your response was:

blanch152 wrote: »

Textbook example of whataboutery.

Varadkar's objection is in another council area. How does that prevent DCC doing their job?

Even if it was, fully in their power to overrule objections. What have DCC done?

You made it about sides. If you're pointing out Leo's Nimbyism, you're excusing or ignoring DCC. That's not the case. If a government minister is being criticised there need not be a whatabout in generally unequal measure.
Many suggest high rise/high density is a way to go but Nimbyism can be a problem. Varadkar doesn't want high density in his back yard. On a separate note sure DCC aren't doing a stand up job but that doesn't change the fact that Leo engages in Nimbyism. It should be noted Varadkar partakes in Nimbyism. What Louth CC does isn't relevant, nor what DCC does. If DCC bulldosed down an orphanage with kids still in it, it still stands that Leo engages in Nimbyism.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The objection by Leo is irrelevant to the debate about city centre high density accommodation because the development concerned isn't in a city centre. That was pointed out the first time it was raised, yet it still appears week after week, as if it had some relevance.

It is a bit like saying a government is lukewarm to public transport improvements in the cities because it won't approve the extension of the WRC to some town in Mayo. Completely irrelevant.

So when I talk about idiotic political proposals and low-level debate, using an objection to a high-density development in a suburb to refute a point about high-density development in a city centre, that is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

The debate was high level and the problem of Nimbyism. You filtering it down to DCC or nothing is a nonsense. In fact again, what's the point of Murphy or government? It seems they do nothing. Every area has an LA. If we can champion IW for getting all the LA's on song, why not look to the housing minister and nations leader regarding housing instead of a specific County Council in one area and censor any talk outside of DCC's supposed remit? It's a politics forum not the only Dublin local politics forum.
Vardkars Nimbyism is very relevant to talk on how to fix or tackle the housing crisis. Constantly steering talk on a national crisis to one borough in Dublin, who nobody is defending or putting up as perfect by the way, makes no sense.

James Brown

blackwhite wrote: »

That works at less than €700 each - and I've subsequently posted links that prove the numbers are reasonable, given that there's plenty of 3-beds available at the same per-person rates.

But again - it doesn't suit the sensationalism, so must be ignored at all costs

Do you think renting or buying is tougher now than it use to be, getting tougher?
Was there a time when a person on a national average or slightly above salary could afford a modest home? If so, do you think that's the same today?

I ask, again, because you don't seem to accept there is a housing problem outside of a person's own making.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Get with the message:

FG and FF are all bad, not to be trusted, they have an agenda to sell off the country to their friends, and the country is falling down around our ears.

Ignore the record employment, ignore the Europe-leading growth rates, ignore the highest social welfare rates in Europe, don't investigate and query exactly where the responsibility lies for any problem because it is always the Minister's fault.

The reality is that this government has failed in addressing the key environmental challenges, hasn't invested well enough in third-level education and public transport, is prone to stupid ideas from its fringe members, and has been held back by the Dail arithmetic from a proper legislative programme but all-in-all it has generally done a good job.

Unemployment is down, employment is up, capital spending has resumed, the economy is growing, the tools have been put in place for the local authorities to get on with providing housing, Ireland 2040 is a good plan, successful abortion referendum.

On the other hand, there is still a lot wrong in our political system. The level of debate is pathetic - not a single commentator seems to understand that any screening programme will have false negatives. The Dail is worse, with stupid Bills on ticket-touting and the like taking up time when there is real reform to take place and the local authorities worse again, spending time talking about Bob Geldof and other nonsense.

You are being very hypocritical once again.
People raise genuine opinion, concerns and you boil it down to soundbites to be dismissed as not fit for discussion. Like the other day, instead of spending pages shutting down a topic you've no interest in or think isn't up to standard, maybe don't jump in at all rather than trying to shut down conversation?
Above you are saying the topics put forward aren't worthy of discussion and if anyone has a real genuine problem with government outside of environment, 3rd level and transport, it's to be derided. That's not debate or discussion now is it?
These comments are in answer to your very own claims. Basically you've spelled out your agenda above and I thank you for your transparency.