General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

abcabc123123

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's not. The 'and for example' is a bit of a tell. Both things wrong which need addressing. Symptoms of a willfully ignorant government IMO.

Okay; how is that evidence of being willfully ignorant? Is tax avoidance is easy to eliminate? Is having less than 100 high wealth individuals avoid tax in a calendar year extremely atypical for a country in the west? Did none of those individuals make losses in the previous years?

James Brown

abcabc123123 wrote: »

Okay; how is that evidence of being willfully ignorant? Is tax avoidance is easy to eliminate? Is having less than 100 high wealth individuals avoid tax in a calendar year extremely atypical for a country in the west? Did none of those individuals make losses in the previous years?

Allowing taxation policy that enables it is, yes.
Enjoy your rabbit hole, I'll not be diving in thanks.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would have preferred a FG that stood for what it claimed. FF's poor governance got them in in 2011 and helped them stay in in 2016. It's the height of political sleeveenism.
Either another election or some form of coalition. We've a minority government beholden to FF and private business with a selfie merchant at the helm.

A coalition wasn't an option. So another election with potentially no clearer a result was your desired outcome?

Again, people need to actually work in the real world with the parameters that actually exist. Do you think any of the current problems we face would be better with no government at all?

abcabc123123

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Allowing taxation policy that enables it is, yes.

That's a roundabout way of saying it is easy to end tax avoidance. You know you could make an absolute fortune if you shared your solutions.

Enjoy your rabbit hole, I'll not be diving in thanks.

Sorry, I'm not sure what the implication here is?

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

A coalition wasn't an option. So another election with potentially no clearer a result was your desired outcome?

Again, people need to actually work in the real world with the parameters that actually exist. Do you think any of the current problems we face would be better with no government at all?

Yes. Most certainly. We broke the record for number of child homelessness. We continue to watch the other crises worsen, so as a matter of fact, yes. Some form of civil service administration to carry out day to day business would have been preferable. My desired outcome is a government that puts the tax payer first whatever stripe.
Look, the damage is done. I didn't raise this line of discussion. I pointed out that FF and the indies are as culpable as FG in all of this and they could pull the plug if they had a problem. They are here now, I'm more interested is discussing policy.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes. Most certainly. We broke the record for number of child homelessness. We continue to watch the other crises worsen, so as a matter of fact, yes. Some form of civil service administration to carry out day to day business would have been preferable.

Fair enough.

What you would call selling out your ideology is what I would call recognising you don't have a majority and compromising. Being ideological is a lot easier. I, at least, agree with you that FF and the indos are "at least as culpable" insofar as I think there is any guilt to go round. But once we include them we are at the point of having a very sizeable majority of all TDs elected.

Maybe the people just don't agree with you.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

Fair enough.

What you would call selling out your ideology is what I would call recognising you don't have a majority and compromising. Being ideological is a lot easier. I, at least, agree with you that FF and the indos are "at least as culpable" insofar as I think there is any guilt to go round. But once we include them we are at the point of having a very sizeable majority of all TDs elected.

Maybe the people just don't agree with you.

FG certainly don't, obviously. It's neither here nor there.
My only point on that is if FF were so bad, there was no good faith reason to form any power sharing, supply demand relationship. FG obviously over stated their disdain for FF. Any upcoming electioneering will be amusing. The biggest laugh is elements of FG refusing to partner with SF, when you consider governmental track records and bedding FF. It's faux moral outrage from moralist flip floppers, if there's power in it.

You know this all started because I posted figures showing building was cheaper than buying? Odd.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

FG certainly don't, obviously. It's neither here nor there.
My only point on that is if FF were so bad, there was no good faith reason to form any power sharing, supply demand relationship. FG obviously over stated their disdain for FF. Any upcoming electioneering will be amusing.

I would consider the alternative being no government at all to be a perfectly legitimate good faith reason. Actually being able to work with people whose politics you "disdain" when required is a positive, not a negative.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

I would consider the alternative being no government at all to be a perfectly legitimate good faith reason. Actually being able to work with people whose politics you "disdain" when required is a positive, not a negative.

Absolutely not. Define 'being able to work with'? Anyone should be able to work together, but it requires compromise. Now if we're talking making compromise to the benefit of FF and their 'ideals', certainly not a positive. Mind when you take into account it's the real FG not the pre election spin, I don't see why they shouldn't be happy together aside from splitting any spoils.

FreudianSlippers

abcabc123123 wrote: »

You've expressed this fantasy already. However Dublin West has a fairly solid cohort of centrist voters so it's unlikely either Varadkar or Chambers will be unseated.

Chambers wasn't a sure thing in the last election, elected in count 5 with pretty similar numbers to Ruth Coppinger and Joan Burton and this was all before his ultra-right anti-abortion views were made known to the public.

IMHO Varadkar and Coppinger are the only sure bets in terms of an immediate election; I'm not sure Burton would run again (she's 70 in February 2019) and even if she did I don't think she'd do as well as 2016; if they were to run again, I think we'd see Donnelly (SF) and O'Gorman (Green) or McGuinness (Ind.) in ahead of Burton and Chambers; I also think Noone could do better if she was more supported by FG.

One would have to have a giggle at how badly Renua did in Dublin West at 677 total votes at 1.6% first preference... only person to do worse was Dermot Casey :pac:

As for the centrist voters of Dublin West, Coppinger (AAA-PBP) did second best to Varadkar, so they're not that centrist!

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Absolutely not. Define 'being able to work with'? Anyone should be able to work together, but it requires compromise. Now if we're talking making compromise to the benefit of FF and their 'ideals', certainly not a positive. Mind when you take into account it's the real FG not the pre election spin, I don't see why they shouldn't be happy together.

They're making compromises with what the electorate demanded.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Allowing taxation policy that enables it is, yes.

We don't currently have any "taxation policy" that allows for tax avoidance. It's impossible to crack down on legal loopholes which require international agreement; until we have this, we're basically doing all we can.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You know this all started because I posted figures showing building was cheaper than buying? Odd.

Did it? My recollection was that you started it.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

They're making compromises with what the electorate demanded.

That's not so. The electorate gave neither party a mandate, certainly not Leo. We'd FG grabbing on to power by pretty much any means necessary. You believe after the massive drop in support from 2011, the public wanted to keep FG, but only with FF having a say?
It worked out like this. People were very unhappy with the FG/Lab government. It was there's to lose after the collapse. Now because FG became so unpopular, they partnered with FF, for our benefit? Come off it. It's survival by any means.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Did it? My recollection was that you started it.

Nope. My figures where from 2016. That's as near I got. Spoke on it some time ago.

Edward M wrote: »

If you have a look back to 2016 we had an election, we all know the way the chips fell, it was either cobble something together or go back to the polls.
We got what we have because that's what we voted for, FG still the biggest party.
While any credible chance of putting them out of office couldn't get together with anything close to agreeing a deal to govern, we got the current govt .
It's not by any means the best govt we could have, but looking at it rationally it's the best of what we voted for.

Yet to hear a credible workable alternative to building social and affordable over buying.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yet to hear a credible workable alternative to building social and affordable over buying.

Uh. Do both as many people have said on multiple occasions now.

Your numbers are entirely meaningless - we simply can't just build a ****load of social housing. It's not economically viable in any sense of the term.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nope. My figures where from 2016. That's as near I got. Spoke on it some time ago.



Yet to hear a credible workable alternative to building social and affordable over buying.

You were the first one to mention FF and FG's deal which is what the last few posts was about

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

You were the first one to mention FF and FG's deal which is what the last few posts was about

Was I? I did not bring up the 2016 election and what we may or should have done different.
If I mention our current government it's in regard to it's damaging housing policies among others.
I hope that clears it up. My point is I'm not really interested in disguising FG's flip flop on FF. It is what it is, selfish power grabbing and holding on at any cost IMO.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Was I? I did not bring up the 2016 election and what we may or should have done different.
If I mention our current government it's in regard to it's damaging housing policies among others.
I hope that clears it up. My point is I'm not really interested in disguising FG's flip flop on FF. It is what it is, selfish power grabbing and holding on at any cost IMO.

Yes. Being good enough to govern with was not referencing the 2016 election?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's a balancing act. As long as enough of the right people, (voters, backers) are kept happy FF/FG can get up to all sorts.
As for the government indies, they're all culpable. Like FG's Catherine Byrne the other day and Leo when he was heading one department passing judgment on others, it's all very well to talk the talk but they're all in it together. FF or a number of Indies could cause a change if they wanted. FF would rather FG in office than risk raising the profile of a third option be it a party or a conglomerate of like minded Indies. I mean FF were the worst thing on Earth in recent years, now they're good enough to govern with, 'for the good of the country, stable government...nobody really wanted...with a leader nobody voted for.. something something..' I ask you.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Yes. Being good enough to govern with was not referencing the 2016 election?

Fair enough.

EDIT:
I was responding to a poster who brought it up

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yet to hear a credible workable alternative to building social and affordable over buying.

I have explained multiple times how your analysis is so wrong, this is just the last post of many that demolished your theory. Not surprised that you seem to be ignoring it.

blanch152 wrote: »

Both of you are correct.

The "hard costs" come to €150,000 in the average house built by private developers. YOu are correct about that. However, that is a very flawed and limited analysis.

These are not the only costs. From planning costs to architect fees to tendering costs, as well as administration costs and site preparations there are other costs for local authorities, and you need to account for the lack of efficiency generally. That is why, when someone like you does an exercise on paper or in theory, they come up with a cost of €150,000, but reality is far different from theory or imagination. The actual facts of what it costs to build social housing have been provided in the posts mentioned by Good Loser. They demonstrate time and again that it is not possible for public bodies to deliver commercial outcomes such as building houses in as cost-effective a manner as private developers.

Your theory doesn't survive contact with reality or to put it a different way, it is a battle plan that doesn't survive contact with the enemy of real life. If you want to show that social housing can be built for €150,000, you can look at any number of the current projects that are taking place. While social housing isn't being built to the extent you want, if it could be built, then at least one of the current projects would be building it for €500,000. Until you come up with that example, your theory will be subject to ridicule for the reasons set out above.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Fair enough.

EDIT:
I was responding to a poster who brought it up

A poster who mentioned one constituency, you brought up the FF FG deal just in case you still have it backwards.

McMurphy

What sort of a gaffe did Leo make yesterday evening anyway when he made a statement that immigrants were more likely to be working and paying taxes than "the average Irish person"

Is this what he thinks of the people in the state or was it a catchy soundbite, blurted out in the heat of the moment, proving that he's just as daft as Enda when he's not reading off some script?

A week before the budget too.

What a clanger.

Podge_irl

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What sort of a gaffe did Leo make yesterday evening anyway when he made a statement that immigrants were more likely to be working and paying taxes than "the average Irish person"

Is this what he thinks of the people in the state or was it a catchy soundbite, blurted out in the heat of the moment, proving that he's just as daft as Enda when he's not reading off some script?

A week before the budget too.

What a clanger.

The labour force participation rates for immigrants is higher than for Irish people.

oscarBravo

Podge_irl wrote: »

The labour force participation rates for immigrants is higher than for Irish people.

Yeah, but you've missed the point: it could be read as a dig at Irish people, so it will be read as a dig at Irish people, therefore Leo is a moron and a traitor.

It doesn't matter whether or not what he said was true. What matters is whether or not it gives people who don't like him an excuse to splutter with indignation and demand that he apologise for whatever they've decided he meant by it.

Idbatterim

Ff and sf rightfully keep on banging on about the housing crisis. Maybe they are only interested in soundbytes. One of them is required to form a government here, given I doubt that the “supply and confidence “ bull**** will be tolerated again. Both of them just tell fg that they won’t go into coalition unless fg develop state owned land for universal public housing etc , red line issue. End of ...

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

A poster who mentioned one constituency, you brought up the FF FG deal just in case you still have it backwards.

You'll note the link below the quote...

Idbatterim wrote: »

I was just looking at the below link, imagine being able to get rid of the head serpent? all non FG td's should run on a combined platform of "could it get any worse?" picture of leo varadkar on their posters etc, I'd say the non voters, are most likely for left leaning parties, if it could be spun as a "remove the key figure of evil" way!

"Get out and get him out! " "Five minutes for five better years" whatever. These FG and FF sc*m, there has to be some other practical solution that hoping some new competent party forms and wins enough seats to be a game changer... Them finding some sort of moral conscience is a longer shot than the euromillions!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_West_(D%C3%A1il_constituency)#2016_general_election

No this was a discussion on FG and the current set up which referenced the 2016 election. Anyway, I'll throw you a bone. I'll take full credit for referencing the broader election :rolleyes: , not wanting to discuss it in depth but indeed referencing it. With all due respect so what? It wasn't shoe horned into a discussion on gardening. Your input thus far is to ask me wasn't it me who referenced the 2016 election. What's your point? Diversion?
It's still a better deal to build social housing than to buy it. The indies and FF could pull the plug on the current government if they truly had any issues with the way they do business. And...

More than 80 of the country’s richest taxpayers declared taxable income less than the average industrial wage in 2015, according to a study by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What sort of a gaffe did Leo make yesterday evening anyway when he made a statement that immigrants were more likely to be working and paying taxes than "the average Irish person"

Is this what he thinks of the people in the state or was it a catchy soundbite, blurted out in the heat of the moment, proving that he's just as daft as Enda when he's not reading off some script?

A week before the budget too.

What a clanger.

Maybe a double down on the people who like to get up early shtick? It's all Irish nationals that need to tip their cap and pull up their sleeves to keep Leo and Eoghan in selfie sticks?
All joking aside it's typical poor ill thought out blather from Varadkar as per his career to date. What's he trying to say? Is he just stirring?

James Brown

Good moves a few days ago by Coveney..

Coveney says construction of settlements by Israel causing ‘greater damage’ to peace

The construction of settlements by Israel is “causing ever-greater damage to the prospects of peace” in the Middle East, Tánaiste Simon Coveney has said.

In an address to the United Nations general assembly in New York on Friday evening, Mr Coveney called on the United Nations and the United States in particular to help broker a peace deal in the region.

While he said that the current situation “serves the interests of neither people” in the region, he added: “I am also conscious that the burden of being under occupation is the heavier one.”

He said that the situation in Gaza is “simply untenable,” as he called on the 10-year blockade to end.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coveney-says-construction-of-settlements-by-israel-causing-greater-damage-to-peace-1.3646221

A positive move from government.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You'll note the link below the quote...



No this was a discussion on FG and the current set up which referenced the 2016 election. Anyway, I'll throw you a bone. I'll take full credit for referencing the broader election :rolleyes: , not wanting to discuss it in depth but indeed referencing it. With all due respect so what? It wasn't shoe horned into a discussion on gardening. Your input thus far is to ask me wasn't it me who referenced the 2016 election. What's your point? Diversion?

Is there a magic number of times something has to be explained to you? You posted something completely inaccurate that all this started because you mentioned building costs. I pointed out that that was wrong and you were the one that started talking about the FF FG deal, simple as that. It was a simple correction, nothing more, nothing less.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Is there a magic number of times something has to be explained to you? You posted something completely inaccurate that all this started because you mentioned building costs. I pointed out that that was wrong and you were the one that started talking about the FF FG deal, simple as that. It was a simple correction, nothing more, nothing less.

A poster referenced Varadkar and voting him out. I broadened that by discussing government supply/demand and how the indies and FF were just as culpable as FG regarding failed policy. This was not me opening a debate on the 2016 election.
I wasn't aware I was opening a debate on the 2016 election and I didn't want to. I covered all of this before you chimed in. Frankly this is pedantry and to be honest I'm not sure what the point is.