Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Eoin Murphy no confidence vote

Options
1…1011131516

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's not the tenants making a fortune off the tax payer. It's likely Noonan and chums.

    facetious

    renting a place with a fair market value of thousands for a few quid is a direct benefit worth the difference

    cmon man


  • Options
    #363
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 14,312 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's not the tenants making a fortune off the tax payer. It's likely Noonan and chums.

    I don't really know what you mean by this. I'm just saying it's ridiculous use of land in these central areas having 2 up 2 down houses, who on earth thought that was a good idea when they were being planned...


  • Options
    #364
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    The current record breaking antics are going on under FG's watch for nearly a decade. I'll stick with it being FG crisis.

    you didnt say crisis, it was a direct reference to the use of privately owned stock as a social housing solution

    look its not a huge deal you just incorrectly criticised FG for something, you could just admit it and take it back.

    it wouldnt make anyone think less of you.


  • Options
    #365
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Deleted User wrote: »
    facetious

    renting a place with a fair market value of thousands for a few quid is a direct benefit worth the difference

    cmon man

    You are looking at the wrong people.
    You put someone up above a shop in Coolock or a 3,000 euro penthouse, that's on the LA's/state. It's done for private profits.


  • Options
    #366
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Deleted User wrote: »
    you didnt say crisis, it was a direct reference to the use of privately owned stock as a social housing solution

    look its not a huge deal you just incorrectly criticised FG for something, you could just admit it and take it back.

    it wouldnt make anyone think less of you.

    Comrade, the FG branding was in relation to 'social' and 'new builds'. I was explaining that social isn't what it use to mean. As for the crisis FG own it at this stage. They make it worse year on year.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    I don't really know what you mean by this. I'm just saying it's ridiculous use of land in these central areas having 2 up 2 down houses, who on earth thought that was a good idea when they were being planned...

    I'm sure it was a fine idea in the 1970s when they were designed. High rise apartments were not a thing.


  • Options
    #368
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 14,312 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    You are looking at the wrong people.
    You put someone up above a shop in Coolock or a 3,000 euro penthouse, that's on the LA's/state. It's done for private profits.

    The houses and flats I was referring to were built as social housing.


  • Options
    #369
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 14,312 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I'm sure it was a fine idea in the 1970s when they were designed. High rise apartments were not a thing.

    Fine idea to what numbskull? It's a stone's throw from o'connell bridge ffs. And I'm pretty sure they were built in the 90s


  • Options
    #370
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    I don't really know what you mean by this. I'm just saying it's ridiculous use of land in these central areas having 2 up 2 down houses, who on earth thought that was a good idea when they were being planned...

    Agreed. It read like you were looking at the inhabitants not the policy makers, my mistake.


  • Options
    #371
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Comrade, the FG branding was in relation to 'social' and 'new builds'. I was explaining that social isn't what it use to mean. As for the crisis FG own it at this stage. They make it worse year on year.

    god, i love it when you call me 'comrade', baby


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 14,312 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Agreed. It read like you were looking at the inhabitants not the policy makers, my mistake.

    If the houses belong to the state, they should really be moving the tenants on elsewhere and redeveloping the land. That would never happen here though, tough decisions need to be made to get things done.


  • Options
    #373
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,577 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    there is one such party, renua! but they blew their chance at a few seats over an issue that actually wasnt worth fighting over and was always going to pass! just so bloody typical.

    Eh:confused: AFAICS, the abortion issue was the only reason for Renua's existence. As soon as Lucinda realised she wasn't going to let back into FG for the 2016 GE, she had to scrabble around for a policy platform to justify Renua's existence as a separate party. Prior to her break with FG, I had little sense that she possessed any particular distinctive ideology.


  • Options
    #374
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    The current terminology is FG's. Social housing use to mean built and owned by the tax payer, now it means a number of things. That's FG.

    Haha you are full of it.

    FF sold off all our social housing stock for votes in the 90s!!!!

    That’s why we’re starting from a zero base again.

    You really don’t research the stuff you say.


  • Options
    #375
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,009 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    This thread has diverged to debating the housing crisis.
    Shouldnt it be about Eoin Murphy and whether the vote was correct? I think they should not have bothered... if it passed no one wanted an election.


  • Options
    #376
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    ELM327 wrote: »
    This thread has diverged to debating the housing crisis.
    Shouldnt it be about Eoin Murphy and whether the vote was correct? I think they should not have bothered... if it passed no one wanted an election.

    True more political stunts by opposition parties which achieves nothing.


  • Options
    #377
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,577 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Shouldnt it be about Eoin Murphy and whether the vote was correct? I think they should not have bothered... if it passed no one wanted an election.

    Well SDs are gong nowhere desperate to make any kind of splash. On the off chance the vote had triggered a GE, they might get a bit of boost from the small fraction of the electorate who welcomed it.


  • Options
    #378
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,152 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    blanch152 wrote: »
    This post is a clear example of how people in Ireland really don't understand coalitions as well as confidence and supply arrangements.

    As long as Fine Gael don't have a majority, they don't have the ability to implement every single one of their election promises. They are curbed by their coalition partners (the Independents led by Shane Ross) and by their confidence and supply supporters Fianna Fail.

    That is handy for the multitudes of FG-hating posters on here. They can shout and scream and accuse FG of breaking promises left, right and centre, while ignoring the realities of minority government, while at the same time, be secretly relieved that FG aren't going after their social welfare payment.

    It is more difficult for people like yourself, who appears to have a right-wing agenda for smaller government, as FG find it hardest to deliver for that cohort from a minority government position. We haven't really had a party working for your agenda since the PDs, and they were much better at delivering niche proposals. The real problem for you is the lack of alternatives. FF have prevented tax cuts for the last four years so that they can promise them in the general election; if you get suckered again by them, that's your loss. Nearly every other party is proposing to increase income tax on the above average earners.


    I don`t see that voters going to the polls will have that much sympathy on FG not delivering due to some supposed restraints from coalition partners or from a confidence and supply arrangement.
    Getting into both was their call wishing to get their hands on power.
    Neither will they see that either were any great restraint when it came to spending taxpayers more for often dubious reasons.


    In coalition with Labour they wasted 1 Billion Euro on a water metering scheme. In this government term with a confidence and supply arrangement they have overseen a children hospital that has gone wildly over original estimates with still no end figure in site and then there is rural broadband.
    Latest estimates are 3 Billion of taxpayers money funding a scheme costing 6,000 per connection where at completion the sole bidder gets to keep the company. Following the advice costing 11 Million from KPMG that their own government mandarins disagreed with, they went with handing over the end product to the successful bidder as it would increase the number bidding thus pushing down the the cost.
    Result, one single bidder.


    I doubt many looking at all those will see where there were restraints placed on FG when it came to spending tax money unwisely.


  • Options
    #379
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,971 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Those who are need of immediate housing are not settling for a hotel/hub and want much more, such as being allocated a nice house beside the ma and the family. At workers expense of course.

    On the other side, those that are paying for this largesse cannot live anywhere near their Ma and have to pay humungous amounts in mortgages and travel costs to pay for these entitled people.

    Well is that fair or not?

    We need a poll.


  • Options
    #380
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    Haha you are full of it.

    FF sold off all our social housing stock for votes in the 90s!!!!

    That’s why we’re starting from a zero base again.

    You really don’t research the stuff you say.

    You are obviously ill informed and not knowledgeable on the topic.


  • Options
    #381
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    ELM327 wrote: »
    This thread has diverged to debating the housing crisis.
    Shouldnt it be about Eoin Murphy and whether the vote was correct? I think they should not have bothered... if it passed no one wanted an election.

    Very close no confidence vote. The election whinging was a distraction from Murphy, which the other Murphy, Dara, provided, but maybe not in the way FG wanted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    You are obviously ill informed and not knowledgeable on the topic.

    That’s it, that’s your response?

    Are you denying FF sold all our social housing stock built up since the 30s?


  • Options
    #383
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Those who are need of immediate housing are not settling for a hotel/hub and want much more, such as being allocated a nice house beside the ma and the family. At workers expense of course.

    On the other side, those that are paying for this largesse cannot live anywhere near their Ma and have to pay humungous amounts in mortgages and travel costs to pay for these entitled people.

    Well is that fair or not?

    We need a poll.

    Old blueshirt/wives tales to distract from throwing money at vulture funds.

    The other side? FG don't care.


  • Options
    #384
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    That’s it, that’s your response?

    Are you denying FF sold all our social housing stock built up since the 30s?

    We have land and tenants.


  • Options
    #385
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    That’s it, that’s your response?

    Are you denying FF sold all our social housing stock built up since the 30s?
    It started a lot earlier, about the same time as the UK. In the seventies people were given the option to buy.


  • Options
    #386
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    is_that_so wrote: »
    It started a lot earlier, about the same time as the UK. In the seventies people were given the option to buy.

    The seeds for this housing crisis were sown decades ago.

    Not in the last few years.


  • Options
    #387
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    is_that_so wrote: »
    It started a lot earlier, about the same time as the UK. In the seventies people were given the option to buy.

    It's a distraction. The original comment was regarding FG new branding of 'Social', allowing builds on our land we later lease or buy.


  • Options
    #388
    Auguste Comte
    Registered Users Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭Auguste Comte


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    The seeds for this housing crisis were sown decades ago.

    Not in the last few years.

    And FG have taken complete advantage of it to enrich themselves and their landlord friends with a big fcuk you to the young people of the country.


  • Options
    #389
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,152 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Very close no confidence vote. The election whinging was a distraction from Murphy, which the other Murphy, Dara, provided, but maybe not in the way FG wanted.

    As we have had motions of no confidence in ministers before (if I`m not mistaken Frances Firzgerald being one example) that were carried and did not necessitate a GE, then there didn`t appear to be any other reason than attempting to cause distraction.


  • Options
    #390
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    Auguste Comte wrote: »
    And FG have taken complete advantage of it to enrich themselves and their landlord friends with a big fcuk you to the young people of the country.

    Landlords who are leaving the sector at record rates because of 52% tax?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    charlie14 wrote: »
    As we have had motions of no confidence in ministers before (if I`m not mistaken Frances Firzgerald being one example) that were carried and did not necessitate a GE, then there didn`t appear to be any other reason than attempting to cause distraction.

    No she resigned.

    And was rightfully proven to have done noting wrong.

    More political stunts.


Advertisement