Election Thread - Dublin West - SEE MOD NOTE IN POST 1

Zaph

angel eyes 2012 wrote: »

It really boils down to who you dislike the most.

Unfortunately that's what's dictating how most of my preferences will go this time round. I really don't want Peter Casey or the Aontu guy anywhere near the business end of the count, which means I'll have to give preferences to people like Coppinger, who I would never have voted for in the past.

Caranica

Aontú were outside Tesco in Roselawn tonight but no sign of the candidate himself. Two of their people tried to tell me how great he is. Failed miserably, I'm way too liberal to entertain such crazy conservatives.

angel eyes 2012

Zaph wrote: »

Unfortunately that's what's dictating how most of my preferences will go this time round. I really don't want Peter Casey or the Aontu guy anywhere near the business end of the count, which means I'll have to give preferences to people like Coppinger, who I would never have voted for in the past.

I don't think Peter Casey will have a hope in Dublin West. I actually threw him a high preference in the Presidential Election for the laugh but this is serious business. It's essentially Chambers, Varadkar and then a fight for last two seats.

Zaph

angel eyes 2012 wrote: »

I don't think Peter Casey will have a hope in Dublin West. I actually threw him a high preference in the Presidential Election for the laugh but this is serious business. It's essentially Chambers, Varadkar and then a fight for last two seats.

I agree, he doesn't stand a chance of winning a seat, but the more votes he gets the more he'll feel it legitimises his own particular brand of bullsh*t. I'll really only be happy if he's utterly humiliated and picks up no more than a couple of hundred votes.

Zaph

LoonyLovegood wrote: »

She's throwing everything at it, I was at the shops in Laurel Lodge at lunchtime, there were seven people with a stall giving out leaflets. As I was leaving, another three were turning up to join them. They wouldn't take no for an answer when I said I didn't want a leaflet, I mean come on, rule one of canvassing.

I had SF on the doorstep during the week. I told them I wasn't interested and that should have been the end of it. The woman wasn't taking no for an answer and if she'd been any more pushy I would have had to slam the door in her face to get rid of her. Take a fcuking hint, you're not getting a vote from me (not even to keep Casey out), so go away and bother someone else.

StoptheClocks

Caranica wrote: »

Aontú were outside Tesco in Roselawn tonight but no sign of the candidate himself. Two of their people tried to tell me how great he is. Failed miserably, I'm way too liberal to entertain such crazy conservatives.

He has 2 posters per lamppost on the N3 beside the parkway train station. I can't trust someone with public money that does that. What a waste

Caranica

StoptheClocks wrote: »

He has 2 posters per lamppost on the N3 beside the parkway train station. I can't trust someone with public money that does that. What a waste

Don't think he's ever been trusted with public money. Was he even a Councillor in his FF days?

avalidusername

Disclaimer - I know 3 of the candidates from school but have no allegiance to any party. Leo and Emer Currie were 2 years ahead of me and Roderic O'Gorman was 1 year below my year.

Going by whichcandidate.ie it's a toss-up between EC/LV once, and JC/JB another time, with the others a hodge podge battling for transfers. I'd rather have a look through their manifestos and choose myself.

For one I won't be voting Coppinger, I've seen too many "A Vote For Women" type posters to make it clear she's only interested in representing 50% of the population.

I've heard from plenty of locals that Paul Donnelly is a very good man in the area, very active community man. I'd vote for him but not the party he represents.

Chambers will always have the Castleknock vote out of loyalty to his uncle Brian Lenihan. Despite him being a professional student turned politician who has literally never worked an honest days work in his life.

The thing that galls me is the figures every party throws out about how many new houses/apartments they're going to build.

Questions to ask your door knocker/candidate;

~Who is going to pay for these new houses?

~Are you going to increase my tax to cover the cost of these houses or will the magic f#cking money tree build them?

~Where are you gonna build these thousands of houses when NIMBYism is everywhere in Ireland?

~Why are foreign (non EU) corporations allowed buy up houses to rent, inflating the rental market. Other countries have laws regarding who can purchase property. What is your party position on banning non-Irish citizens or corporations from owning 10+ individual properties or properties with a combined value of €5m+ from harvesting our houses?

Polar101

Based on the number of posters around the area, I'd estimate Coppinger, Donnelly and Chambers have spent around 200 billion euro on posters between them. I hope the results will be more interesting than those three + Leo winning seats.

Toto Wolfcastle

Donnelly and McManus had people out putting up posters this morning. McManus now has three on one pole on Ongar Road. What an absolute waste.

hotmail.com

With the current polling, it seems inevitable that Paul Donnelly will get elected at the expense of Ruth Coppinger.

Polar101

Well, it's going to be Leo, Chambers, and probably Donnelly. But Coppinger could get the 4th seat over O'Gorman.

Got a huge Coppinger "Poll Warning, women and workers are losing out without Ruth" poster near my home now, a complete overkill.

Rosser

This election is all over the place, three weeks ago the Greens were on the crest of a wave and Roderic was a shoe in. The Greens aren’t top of my list but this fella has been grafting for years, seems to be a decent fella and I’d be happy to see him in the Dáil

StoptheClocks

Rosser wrote: »

This election is all over the place, three weeks ago the Greens were on the crest of a wave and Roderic was a shoe in. The Greens aren’t top of my list but this fella has been grafting for years, seems to be a decent fella and I’d be happy to see him in the Dáil

Totally agree with this. Saw him out knocking on doors Friday night.
I've always found him to be the most active and informative politician in the area.
Most of them only pop up at election time.

Zaph

Polar101 wrote: »

Well, it's going to be Leo, Chambers, and probably Donnelly. But Coppinger could get the 4th seat over O'Gorman.

Got a huge Coppinger "Poll Warning, women and workers are losing out without Ruth" poster near my home now, a complete overkill.

The Irish Times analysis o the constituency yesterday had it Leo, Chambers, Roderic and Joan Burton taking the fourth seat. Their logic was that Coppinger and Donnelly would take votes from each other, which would allow Burton to sneak in under the radar. It's not impossible, although I still think the last seat is between Coppinger and Donnelly myself.

hotmail.com

Zaph wrote: »

The Irish Times analysis o the constituency yesterday had it Leo, Chambers, Roderic and Joan Burton taking the fourth seat. Their logic was that Coppinger and Donnelly would take votes from each other, which would allow Burton to sneak in under the radar. It's not impossible, although I still think the last seat is between Coppinger and Donnelly myself.

With the surge of Sinn Fein , it means that Donnelly may end up in 2nd or 3rd in the constituency. O'Gorman, Coppinger and Burton will fight it out for the 4th seat.

jd1983

avalidusername wrote: »

Questions to ask your door knocker/candidate;

~Who is going to pay for these new houses?

~Are you going to increase my tax to cover the cost of these houses or will the magic f#cking money tree build them?

~Where are you gonna build these thousands of houses when NIMBYism is everywhere in Ireland?

~Why are foreign (non EU) corporations allowed buy up houses to rent, inflating the rental market. Other countries have laws regarding who can purchase property. What is your party position on banning non-Irish citizens or corporations from owning 10+ individual properties or properties with a combined value of €5m+ from harvesting our houses?

I'm not running in the election but I'll have a stab at these questions:

~ the rent that social houses take in will pay for these houses overt the long term

~ a low interest loan could be used to pay for these socials houses, as they're a shrewd investment that will bring income in the local authority meaning the local authority could theoretically be more self sufficient as less reliant on your taxes. Alternatively, if the government continues squandering ~500mln per year on HAP payments and nearly 100mln per year on hotel rooms for homeless then this will come directly from your taxes. Ultimately this tax money will end up in the bank accounts of landlords and hoteliers, a sizable amount of the tax take will be transferred overseas without any circulatory economic benefits.

~ I'd hope a greater proportion of the housing would be built either closer to town or close to high density public transport compared to what we've done in the past. Some former industrial zoned areas near Broomfield train/luas would be an obvious contender.

~ I'd ban non residents from using our property market as a virtual bank account. Our taxes pay for services and planning permission, so it's unfair to use our property market as a nest egg.

Hurrache

jd1983 wrote: »

~ I'd ban non residents from using our property market as a virtual bank account. Our taxes pay for services and planning permission, so it's unfair to use our property market as a nest egg.

A lot of our pensions invest in similar funds, both home and abroad. It can't be done.

jd1983

Hurrache wrote: »

A lot of our pensions invest in similar funds, both home and abroad. It can't be done.

I wouldn't ban it retrospectively, that would be too messy. I'd ban it though for any future property sales.

Former Former

jd1983 wrote: »

~ the rent that social houses take in will pay for these houses overt the long term

This is absolute fantasy.

jd1983 wrote: »

~ I'd ban non residents from using our property market as a virtual bank account. Our taxes pay for services and planning permission, so it's unfair to use our property market as a nest egg.

This would be highly illegal.

jd1983

Former Former wrote: »

This is absolute fantasy.



This would be highly illegal.

Absolute fantasy, not at all, it's common sense. I know of families that have paid multiple times the initial build cost of their council house in rent to the local authority.

The parliament decides on what's legal/illegal, that's their job as legislators!

chucknorris

From talking to people this is what I predict. Not based on anything other than opinion.

Leo to come in number 1 - He has a strong base
Chambers to come in number 2 - FF vote in Dublin west is guaranteed at least 16%
Paul Donnelly to come in number 3 - I realise he has a golden chance before and missed out but Ruth is gone a bit crackers with the whole feminist thing IMO and really hasn't delivered ANYTHING other than point out what's wrong, which is easy.
Roderic or Joan for the 4th. You would think Roderic has a decent chance but Joan Burton would still get a sizable elderly vote if that makes sense.


Many friends who don't or never voted SF are giving Donnelly the vote. A lot of them have a pain in their a**e with the same old, same old carry on and want to see if others can make a difference.

Caranica

jd1983 wrote: »

The parliament decides on what's legal/illegal, that's their job as legislators!

Not quite, we have the president, the council of state and the supreme court to oversee them.

But back to the general election in Dublin West, has Peter Casey got posters up? Haven't spotted any.

chucknorris

Caranica wrote: »

Not quite, we have the president, the council of state and the supreme court to oversee them.

But back to the general election in Dublin West, has Peter Casey got posters up? Haven't spotted any.

Haven't seen any.

Joan Burton's presence on polls is relatively low which to me anyway, suggests posters do have a valid effect.

Former Former

jd1983 wrote: »

Absolute fantasy, not at all, it's common sense. I know of families that have paid multiple times the initial build cost of their council house in rent to the local authority.

The parliament decides on what's legal/illegal, that's their job as legislators!

No. Just no.

There's the build cost. There's services. There's ongoing maintenance. Social housing is very necessary but it is by definition a giant money pit.

Ireland is part of an international organisation whose law is superior to ours. The first time a French person or Cypriot holding company or dodgy bloke from Croatia is refused access to the property market, any such law would be struck down.

StoptheClocks

I'll be giving Joan a preference. I've seen her out and about 3 times this last week. Not having too many posters up is a positive for me.
She has been vocal about electrifying the train line to increase frequency of trains for years.
This would be great for decreasing traffic in the area when it happens. The quicker the better.

chucknorris

Former Former wrote: »

No. Just no.

There's the build cost. There's services. There's ongoing maintenance. Social housing is very necessary but it is by definition a giant money pit.

Ireland is part of an international organisation whose law is superior to ours. The first time a French person or Cypriot holding company or dodgy bloke from Croatia is refused access to the property market, any such law would be struck down.

My parents rented their council house from Dublin corporation in 1979.

The houses were built for an average cost of about £11,000 punts.

They never missed a payment.

They bought the house from Fingal CoCo in 1996 for £16000 punts.
(Although it made financial sense to do so any way, the actual reason for doing so was due to the increase in rent prices as soon as we start working from aged 16 as a ralatively low mortgage meant better financial sense)

I reckon, but open to correction, that the state certainly did not lose out in gthat example and many people in the same estate also took the same route.

Nijmegen

jd1983 wrote: »

Absolute fantasy, not at all, it's common sense. I know of families that have paid multiple times the initial build cost of their council house in rent to the local authority.

The parliament decides on what's legal/illegal, that's their job as legislators!

Well, as part of the European Union the trade off to getting open access to trade and export to a bloc of 500 million of the richest people on the planet is that we also obey certain rules around trading. Banning capital from being allocated to a particular asset class would (a) breach those rules and (b) highlight to the international markets that if we'll do it once, we'll do it again. All these socialist arguments eventually run into "Well we don't believe in the current system anyway and want an entirely new system... With our 3 seats in parliament."

Back to DubW, I got Ruth's leaflet in the door. Waffle waffle waffle and not one substantive thing beyond "I'll be continuing to make noise." I also enjoy the socialist pivot to the environment - I remember a detailed conversation about ten years ago with one of them talking about how "superabundance" means the earth has all the resources needed to supply everyone equally, it's just corporations limit supply. So their system is actually based on massive exploitation of the environment.

Larbre34

chucknorris wrote: »

I reckon, but open to correction, that the state certainly did not lose out in gthat example and many people in the same estate also took the same route.

Thats exactly why the State did lose out. Tenant purchase decimated public housing stock. It was a fine and noble objective back when there wasn't inordinate pressure on housing generally, but in hindsight it was a dreadful mistake.

Rented social housing should be kept available in perpetuity. A small infill development of Council houses was built near where my office is in south Dublin around the year 2000, a mix of 2 bed downsizers and 3 bed terraced. Beautiful design, quality build, great location. Just before the crash I see one of the 3-beds that had been tenant purchased on the open market for 500k. Wheres the societal good in that...?

blanch152

jd1983 wrote: »

I'm not running in the election but I'll have a stab at these questions:

~ the rent that social houses take in will pay for these houses overt the long term

Except that people that rent social houses generally don't pay their rent, so there is no money. I don't think the plan of Sinn Fein and others promising housing is to come down hard on council tenants, so there won't be money from that source.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/4963197/dublin-city-council-33million-tenants-arrears-unpaid/


"ALMOST two thirds of Dublin City Council tenants are in rent arrears, with the total unpaid rising by over €4m to almost €33m during 2019.

New figures show 25 households now owe the local authority at least €27,000 each, with the largest single debt standing at €38,000."

jd1983 wrote: »

~ a low interest loan could be used to pay for these socials houses, as they're a shrewd investment that will bring income in the local authority meaning the local authority could theoretically be more self sufficient as less reliant on your taxes. Alternatively, if the government continues squandering ~500mln per year on HAP payments and nearly 100mln per year on hotel rooms for homeless then this will come directly from your taxes. Ultimately this tax money will end up in the bank accounts of landlords and hoteliers, a sizable amount of the tax take will be transferred overseas without any circulatory economic benefits.

Low interest loan from whom? As I pointed out already, the rent simply won't be paid so there will be less self-sufficiency. In fact, the last time I looked at the issue, the annual maintenance bill for social housing was higher than the rent taken in.

jd1983 wrote: »

~ I'd hope a greater proportion of the housing would be built either closer to town or close to high density public transport compared to what we've done in the past. Some former industrial zoned areas near Broomfield train/luas would be an obvious contender.

I take it you mean Broombridge?

Yes, the industrial estate there should be rezoned for housing, but that is in private hands, not owned by the council, so you would have to add the cost of acquiring the land.

jd1983 wrote: »

~ I'd ban non residents from using our property market as a virtual bank account. Our taxes pay for services and planning permission, so it's unfair to use our property market as a nest egg.

Can't do that, as it would be in breach of EU law.