General Election 2020 - See MOD note in First Post

Cabaal

vriesmays wrote: »

FG want to increase the population by 30,000, Waterford will be a dumping ground for arrivals from outside the EU.

Gemma?

Wanderer78

hardybuck wrote:

No it isn't - businesses pay a variety of taxes, including corporation tax.

There's clearly something highly dysfunctional going on globally in regards corporate wealth accumulation and tax, or really tax avoidance. The move of taxation from the more plutocratic elements of society, towards the individual, and particularly the average person, has ultimately been due to libertarian ideologies such as neoliberalism, this is clearly starting to fail dramatically, globally. We urgently require to address this problem, or this may lead to further destabilisation of some of our most critical of needs including functioning political systems, economic systems, environmental systems, etc etc etc. It's becoming extremely obvious that wealth accumulation by large corporations, and ultimately their unwillingness to truly share this wealth more evenly, will more than likely lead to further destabilisation.

Squidvicious

Wanderer78 wrote: »

There's clearly something highly dysfunctional going on globally in regards corporate wealth accumulation and tax, or really tax avoidance. The move of taxation from the more plutocratic elements of society, towards the individual, and particularly the average person, has ultimately been due to libertarian ideologies such as neoliberalism, this is clearly starting to fail dramatically, globally. We urgently require to address this problem, or this may lead to further destabilisation of some of our most critical of needs including functioning political systems, economic systems, environmental systems, etc etc etc. It's becoming extremely obvious that wealth accumulation by large corporations, and ultimately their unwillingness to truly share this wealth more evenly, will more than likely lead to further destabilisation.

You're absolutely right, of course. There is an enormous global problem with people earning huge sums of money but paying little or no tax. The trouble is how to tax these people. SF's wealth tax, for example, will hit people who, though admittedly very wealthy, only have a net worth of a couple of million. The really wealthy will continue to avoid these taxes.

The only solution is global action. The problem is that the action must be truly global. Otherwise, the very rich will simply siphon off their money off shore. What do you think are the chances of that happening? It's not just tax haven like the Cayman islands etc that are the problem. For example, the UK facilitates global money laundering allowing obscenely wealthy(and often corrupt)non-Brits to park their money in London.

We have to implement tax policies with this in mind. I wold love to raise company tax. Indeed, our low tax rate is used by foreign companies to avoid paying higher taxes in their home countries - a form of tax dumping. However, our entire economy is based on foreign investment attracted by low corporation tax. If we mess with that, we risk making our last recession look like a party. Higher taxes need to be implemented cautiously and carefully.

Wanderer78

Squidvicious wrote: »

You're absolutely right, of course. There is an enormous global problem with people earning huge sums of money but paying little or no tax. The trouble is how to tax these people. SF's wealth tax, for example, will hit people who, though admittedly very wealthy, only have a net worth of a couple of million. The really wealthy will continue to avoid these taxes.

The only solution is global action. The problem is that the action must be truly global. Otherwise, the very rich will simply siphon off their money off shore. What do you think are the chances of that happening? It's not just tax haven like the Cayman islands etc that are the problem. For example, the UK facilitates global money laundering allowing obscenely wealthy(and often corrupt)non-Brits to park their money in London.

We have to implement tax policies with this in mind. I wold love to raise company tax. Indeed, our low tax rate is used by foreign companies to avoid paying higher taxes in their home countries - a form of tax dumping. However, our entire economy is based on foreign investment attracted by low corporation tax. If we mess with that, we risk making our last recession look like a party. Higher taxes need to be implemented cautiously and carefully.

not only am i concerned by wealth accumulation by individuals, i think im more concerned about the none human accumulation of wealth, particularly by large corporations and institutions, we need to figure out how to tax or redistribute the wealth held on servers around the planet, without bloody crashing economies, and as time passes, this is becoming more and more urgent. i personally do think the use of sovereign wealth funds is one of the better ways to do this, but i suspect it may never be implemented

friendlyfun

Who will be the final four? Cullinane, Butler, Geoghegan, Shanahan? That's my prediction.

curmudgeonly

friendlyfun wrote: »

Who will be the final four? Cullinane, Butler, Geoghegan, Shanahan? That's my prediction.

I'm personally backing Mulligan ,but I think you maybe right, would love to see the above with Mulligan instead of Butler but c'est la vie.

The Metro area has almost three quarters of the population but ends up with only 50% of the representation would make you wonder how thick we really are.

sevenshades

friendlyfun wrote: »

Who will be the final four? Cullinane, Butler, Geoghegan, Shanahan? That's my prediction.

The bookies appear to agree.

(Paddy Power - to win a seat)

Cullinane 1/33
Butler 1/6
Shanahan 2/5
Geoghegan 4/6
O'Cathasaigh 5/4
Mulligan 13/8
Cummins 7/2
Pratt 7/1
Cleary 16/1
Dunphy 33/1
Phillips 33/1

Nypd

sevenshades wrote: »

The bookies appear to agree.

(Paddy Power - to win a seat)

Cullinane 1/33
Butler 1/6
Shanahan 2/5
Geoghegan 4/6
O'Cathasaigh 5/4
Mulligan 13/8
Cummins 7/2
Pratt 7/1
Cleary 16/1
Dunphy 33/1
Phillips 33/1

Butlers odds have dropped again but still looks she will walk in, mental considering her level of non deliverance.

Interesting to see Shanahan moving to 3rd while Mulligan is pushed down in favour of the greens.
What a tangled web we weave !

Crusty Blaa

curmudgeonly wrote: »

I'm personally backing Mulligan ,but I think you maybe right, would love to see the above with Mulligan instead of Butler but c'est la vie.

The Metro area has almost three quarters of the population but ends up with only 50% of the representation would make you wonder how thick we really are.

Would actually love to see stats as to how many of that circa 75% metro voted the last few elections and likewise how many of the remaining 25% county population actually voted.

AdMMM

I just had a bit of fun in Excel trying to run through transfer and counts. In my (rough) simulation, it came out as:

Cullinane to get elected in the first count with 1.2 of a quota
Shanahan and Geoghegan to be elected on after the elimination of Cummins
Butler to be elected on the distribution of Mulligan
O'Cathasaigh to call for a full recount because of how close it is.

E38E3E38E3EE33

I'm considering giving FF a vote for the possibility of a local benefit. It seems Butler has done sweet F all for Waterford, so I'm considering giving a vote for Mulligan to indicate my dissatisfaction. I'm not completely opposed to Butler, but I'm seeing my vote as a vote of confidence and I'm opposed to giving it to Butler. Any thoughts on this?

AdMMM

E38E3E38E3EE33 wrote: »

I'm considering giving FF a vote for the possibility of a local benefit. It seems Butler has done sweet F all for Waterford, so I'm considering giving a vote for Mulligan to indicate my dissatisfaction. I'm not completely opposed to Butler, but I'm seeing my vote as a vote of confidence and I'm opposed to giving it to Butler. Any thoughts on this?

If you're considering FF for local benefit then you'd have to put Mulligan 1 and Butler 2. In my view, Mulligan would just be a backbencher if he got in, certainly as a first-timer. Butler has been by Micheal Martin's side since she was elected, so would be in a good position to at least be a Minister of state in the next Government.

AdMMM

My own predictions were probably a bit generous to FG. If I reduce FG's overall share of vote by 2% and redistribute that vote with a slight bias towards the left candidates, we then see Mulligan get eliminated before Dunphy, with Butler then taking the 3rd seat and FG then losing the 4th seat to the Greens!

Wanderer78

AdMMM wrote: »

My own predictions were probably a bit generous to FG. If I reduce FG's overall share of vote by 2% and redistribute that vote with a slight bias towards the left candidates, we then see Mulligan get eliminated before Dunphy, with Butler then taking the 3rd seat and FG then losing the 4th seat to the Greens!

cant see that happening at all, dunphy hasnt a hope

AdMMM

She hasn't a hope of being elected, but her transfers are going to be very important.

Dunphy is going to benefit from Cullinane's surplus more than anyone else and will also hoover up a good % of the old Halligan number 1s. If she benefits from transfers enough to leap frog Pratt, then she'll also benefit greatly from his elimination and possibly leap frog Mulligan.

Squidvicious

AdMMM wrote: »

She hasn't a hope of being elected, but her transfers are going to be very important.

Dunphy is going to benefit from Cullinane's surplus more than anyone else and will also hoover up a good % of the old Halligan number 1s. If she benefits from transfers enough to leap frog Pratt, then she'll also benefit greatly from his elimination and possibly leap frog Mulligan.

I'm not 100% sure as to how much of the SF surplus will go to Dunphy. SF may have left wing policies but I'm not sure how ideologically left wing its voters will be. A lot of the SF vote is because Cullinane is seen as a good candidate or because the voters like Mary Lou or because they like SF policies generally. I think that the SF surplus will certainly tend away from FG but the Greens or FF will benefit at least as much as Dunphy. Or else they will vote SF and for nobody else.

curmudgeonly

AdMMM wrote: »

My own predictions were probably a bit generous to FG. If I reduce FG's overall share of vote by 2% and redistribute that vote with a slight bias towards the left candidates, we then see Mulligan get eliminated before Dunphy, with Butler then taking the 3rd seat and FG then losing the 4th seat to the Greens!

I think you way overestimated Dunphys appeal ,or you put the decimal point in the wrong place, if she gets over 1000 first preferences I will eat muesli for a week.

Wanderer78

curmudgeonly wrote:

I think you way overestimated Dunphys appeal ,or you put the decimal point in the wrong place, if she gets over 1000 first preferences I will eat muesli for a week.

Just heading to aldi, I ll pick up an extra box, and you're not getting milk!

Tiger Roll

curmudgeonly wrote:

I think you way overestimated Dunphys appeal ,or you put the decimal point in the wrong place, if she gets over 1000 first preferences I will eat muesli for a week.

Last time she got over 1600 , you enjoy that muesli now

hardybuck

E38E3E38E3EE33 wrote: »

I'm considering giving FF a vote for the possibility of a local benefit. It seems Butler has done sweet F all for Waterford, so I'm considering giving a vote for Mulligan to indicate my dissatisfaction. I'm not completely opposed to Butler, but I'm seeing my vote as a vote of confidence and I'm opposed to giving it to Butler. Any thoughts on this?

If that was your strategy you should also be considering a vote for Marc O'Cathasaigh also as your first or second preference.

E38E3E38E3EE33

hardybuck wrote: »

If that was your strategy you should also be considering a vote for Marc O'Cathasaigh also as your first or second preference.

Can you elaborate on this from the perspective of voting for local benefit? I do think the greens will be in a coalition, but what local benefit could they provide being a small party? Not saying I'm not voting for him, I'm basing my vote preference on local and national levels. Looking here for local opinions

hardybuck

E38E3E38E3EE33 wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this from the perspective of voting for local benefit? I do think the greens will be in a coalition, but what local benefit could they provide being a small party? Not saying I'm not voting for him, I'm basing my vote preference on local and national levels. Looking here for local opinions

A local candidate who might be in government, who would appear to have a slightly better chance of a seat.

He is likely to be extremely transfer friendly, particularly as plenty of city based candidates might get knocked out early, but he needs enough first preferences to stay in the game long enough to benefit from those transfers.

Also he hasn't accused of the type of skullduggery as Mulligan.

DLS_75

I used to think that Shanahan was someone we just had to get up to Dublin but the way he’s using HEFSE in the last few weeks just sickens me.

Nypd

E38E3E38E3EE33 wrote: »

I'm considering giving FF a vote for the possibility of a local benefit. It seems Butler has done sweet F all for Waterford, so I'm considering giving a vote for Mulligan to indicate my dissatisfaction. I'm not completely opposed to Butler, but I'm seeing my vote as a vote of confidence and I'm opposed to giving it to Butler. Any thoughts on this?

I’m giving Mulligan my number 1 as I feel he can do well for us if elected.
Cullinane getting my number 2 only because he will walk in.

DLS_75

And now Mary Butler has been exposed for allowing Brendan Kenneally to canvas for her. How stupid can you get

Nypd

DLS_75 wrote: »

And now Mary Butler has been exposed for allowing Brendan Kenneally to canvas for her. How stupid can you get

Didn’t see anything about that has this only come out ?

vriesmays

What's wrong with Bill's cousin canvassing for her.

91wx763

DLS_75 wrote: »

And now Mary Butler has been exposed for allowing Brendan Kenneally to canvas for her. How stupid can you get

Me father was a FF supporter with Maurice Lonergan etc back in the day. It's well known that the "Billy" Kenneally vote moved down to Brendan (not a bad man at all but guilty by association and by covering up his cousin) and now is on to Butler.

The current issue is that Brendan knocked on one of his cousins victims door while canvassing for Butler...... Ooooops. She should have warned anyone canvassing but really it shows how disattached she is.....

vriesmays

Who's Maurice Lonergan.

debok

Nypd wrote: »

Didn’t see anything about that has this only come out ?

He called to my door yesterday evening . Just handed me leaflet as I was putting me bins out. I should have just opened the bin for him. He was gone by time I thought of it.