Is it not time EVERYONE considers not voting for FF or FG in the upcoming election

Field east

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why?

SF, FF, FG got no preference off me. For the purposes of this discussion who I did vote for is immaterial - but my 2nd and 3rd (parties - the candidates were not elected) are being courted - as is my 1st pref who did get elected.

I voted 1-3 for the 'kingmakers'. :P

It’s just that some people , when they say that they did not vote for ,eg, FF what they may mean is that they did not give FF their no 1. I voted for all parties/ independents -from 1 to 15. So I could say to all of them that ‘You got my vote. ‘. There are a number of interpretations when people say loosely what way they voted. There was no hidden agenda in my question. Tks for your reply

Fol20

Idbatterim wrote: »

I get that, I totally disagree with our system. and one way around the lack of borrowing ability? let those in social housing, pay more and we can build more housing without borrowing ... there should be a council tax too, to replace LPT!

I would like it if we could move away from hap to more social housing as it is for sure more long term however at the moment so many people depend on hap to rent and they need to be looked after. I do think that they are looked after too much though. One of my hap tenants recently bought a new car. I have no idea how he afford it when the vast majority of the rent is paid by the government and is a sign that we are too generous a state.

Bannasidhe

Field east wrote: »

It’s just that some people , when they say that they did not vote for ,eg, FF what they may mean is that they did not give FF their no 1. I voted for all parties/ independents -from 1 to 15. So I could say to all of them that ‘You got my vote. ‘. There are a number of interpretations when people say loosely what way they voted. There was no hidden agenda in my question. Tks for your reply

I get ya. That never occured to me tbh. When I say "I didn't vote for..." I mean that quite literally. I mean they got nuttin from me.

emo72

Remember when Eoghan Murphy told us a very small fraction of house sales by Cuckoo funds were tiny?

It turns out that if they buy 200 houses in a new development, THAT ONLY COUNTS AS ONE TRANSACTION.

It was just on pat Kenny show. Now it's either Murphy is seriously stupid or he tried to mislead us.

He needs to explain to us why he gave that incorrect information. You certainly could no longer trust anything that comes out of FGs mouth now.

Field east

emo72 wrote: »

Remember when Eoghan Murphy told us a very small fraction of house sales by Cuckoo funds were tiny?

It turns out that if they buy 200 houses in a new development, THAT ONLY COUNTS AS ONE TRANSACTION.

It was just on pat Kenny show. Now it's either Murphy is seriously stupid or he tried to mislead us.

He needs to explain to us why he gave that incorrect information. You certainly could no longer trust anything that comes out of FGs mouth now.

A very small fraction , say 5%. A tiny fraction of that cannot be more than , say, 2% max which is .1 %. So it’s one sale per thousand.

Also house sales by who. ?
- is it total of all house sales by all sellers
- or house sales by Cuckoo only

emo72

Field east wrote: »

A very small fraction , say 5%. A tiny fraction of that cannot be more than , say, 2% max which is .1 %. So it’s one sale per thousand.

Also house sales by who. ?
- is it total of all house sales by all sellers
- or house sales by Cuckoo only

Cuckoo funds or institutional investors. It's the numbers that Murphy gave were wrong, im on mobile at the moment and I can't find a link to the interview in question.

Houses bought by them for renting only. Pushing first time buyers out and forcing them into the rental market.

smurgen

emo72 wrote: »

Cuckoo funds or institutional investors. It's the numbers that Murphy gave were wrong, im on mobile at the moment and I can't find a link to the interview in question.

Houses bought by them for renting only. Pushing first time buyers out and forcing them into the rental market.

Exactly and in some cases getting a nice haircut on bulk buys from Nama.

jimmycrackcorm

emo72 wrote: »

Cuckoo funds or institutional investors. It's the numbers that Murphy gave were wrong, im on mobile at the moment and I can't find a link to the interview in question.

Houses bought by them for renting only. Pushing first time buyers out and forcing them into the rental market.

Buying doesn't suit everyone. There is a huge demand and need for rentals. Again the focus is on the wrong problem. What people should be looking at is the issues around supply, everything from nimbyism to planning process and objections, land hoarding, etc.

smurgen

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Buying doesn't suit everyone. There is a huge demand and need for rentals. Again the focus is on the wrong problem. What people should be looking at is the issues around supply, everything from nimbyism to planning process and objections, land hoarding, etc.

It's part of the problem for both renters and buyers. Due to the tax profile of these funds and the purchasing power Irish citizens can't compete.

emo72

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Buying doesn't suit everyone. There is a huge demand and need for rentals. Again the focus is on the wrong problem. What people should be looking at is the issues around supply, everything from nimbyism to planning process and objections, land hoarding, etc.

Yeah but this is a problem too, a big one. I think with a stroke of a pen this could be sorted. It would release a lot more houses to the pressed first time buyer, a cheaper mortgage to pay instead of an extortionate rent. It leaves more disposable money in the economy.

Why anyone would argue against this is beyond logic.

PommieBast

emo72 wrote: »

Why anyone would argue against this is beyond logic.

The resultant drop in house prices would see a lot of people fall further into negative equity.


Issue is not logic, it is vested interests.

Bannasidhe

PommieBast wrote: »

The resultant drop in house prices would see a lot of people fall further into negative equity.


Issue is not logic, it is vested interests.

I've been through negative equity and out the other side.
TBH it was a non-issue for me as it's my home. I bought it to live in not as an investment. Or as a buy to rent profit maker.

Pay my mortgage every month (tracker ) and will continue to do so until it is paid off within the term time agreed when I bought it.
It being in negative equity for many many years didn't impact on my monthly repayments by as much as a cent.

A drop in house prices would see a lot of people be able to move out of rental accomodation as they could afford to buy within the borrowing limit set by the Central Bank (and a smaller deposit would be required), meaning there wouldn't be as much competition for rental properties so cost there would fall too.

Of course it would be a 2nd hand market and current govt only seems to want to support people buying new builds which I think is a stupid policy.

smurgen

Christ FF TD and Ceann Comhairle writing a reference for a convicted paedo. Not a good look!


https://amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/victims-reject-sean-o-fearghails-self-serving-statement-about-his-reference-for-convicted-paedophile-984023.html?__twitter_impression=true

efanton

smurgen wrote: »

Christ FF TD and Ceann Comhairle writing a reference for a convicted paedo. Not a good look!


https://amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/victims-reject-sean-o-fearghails-self-serving-statement-about-his-reference-for-convicted-paedophile-984023.html?__twitter_impression=true

"I had never had any reason to question his decency or integrity."
He writes in the reference letter knowing full well that the person he was writing the letter for was a convicted paedophile.

He then denies it was not wrong to write such a reference and refuses to give an apology to the victim.

So you would have to assume that Sean O Fearghail believes that the horrendous acts that paedophile's inflict on children are the acts of decent people.
Has the man absolutely no morality at all?

smurgen

Have we reached peak blueshirt? As I pointed out there fellas are using Irish and irishness as a slander. Here we have Blue Hugh portraying our national anthem as something sinister.

https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1232415967122247680?s=19

efanton

Fol20 wrote: »

There are reasons around leasing and hap vs building. The former go into current expenses on their budget while the latter would come under capital. Our government Cannot go over a certain amount of capital expense as they would be in breach of their bailout. Yes it might sound trivial but from an accounting perspective. This spending difference Is major.

Yes there are spending limits, But there was also a Bailout AGREEMENT.
The bailout was NOT EU law, and therefore those terms can be adjusted or renegotiated, if there was a will there to do it.

Both the IMF and the EU have openly admitted that they both made a balls up with regards the Irish bailout. Both have admitted that instead of the desired aim of a controlled recovery within controlled spending limits it had the completely opposite effect, it literally stifled any economic recovery and reduced capital spending to virtually zero.

SF have on occasion suggested terms be renegotiated, I wonder if any of the government that we have had since the bailout have even mentioned or broached the subject with the EU.

Capital spending on housing is not spending on a fancy new football stadium or some other vanity project. Housing is now having a direct effect on our economy and attractiveness to FDI. If foreign companies are being put off investing in Ireland it would add weight to the argument that Ireland should be allowed to exceed any spending limit specifically for this purpose. After all the more prosperous Ireland is the prosperous the EU is.

Personally I think it should be a top priority for any government formed, to approach the EU and get this sorted out. If the EU drag their heels, then the Irish government should simply tell them that they intend to go ahead anyhow even if it means exceeding a spending limit. I think you would find the EU would quickly find a way to make some sort of agreement.

smurgen

The real reason people want change.

https://twitter.com/GTCost/status/1232812160213872641?s=19

Fol20

efanton wrote: »

Yes there are spending limits, But there was also a Bailout AGREEMENT.
The bailout was NOT EU law, and therefore those terms can be adjusted or renegotiated, if there was a will there to do it.

Both the IMF and the EU have openly admitted that they both made a balls up with regards the Irish bailout. Both have admitted that instead of the desired aim of a controlled recovery within controlled spending limits it had the completely opposite effect, it literally stifled any economic recovery and reduced capital spending to virtually zero.

SF have on occasion suggested terms be renegotiated, I wonder if any of the government that we have had since the bailout have even mentioned or broached the subject with the EU.

Capital spending on housing is not spending on a fancy new football stadium or some other vanity project. Housing is now having a direct effect on our economy and attractiveness to FDI. If foreign companies are being put off investing in Ireland it would add weight to the argument that Ireland should be allowed to exceed any spending limit specifically for this purpose. After all the more prosperous Ireland is the prosperous the EU is.

Personally I think it should be a top priority for any government formed, to approach the EU and get this sorted out. If the EU drag their heels, then the Irish government should simply tell them that they intend to go ahead anyhow even if it means exceeding a spending limit. I think you would find the EU would quickly find a way to make some sort of agreement.

Do you have any links for Eu admitting they messed up Ireland bailout. Would be interested to read.

If EU says you can’t do it, ireland can’t just ignore it. There will be repercussions for such actions and it won’t end well for Ireland.

It took us nearly a decade to have a balanced budget. We have one of the highest proportional debts in EU and you want to borrow more. No thanks. Even right now if we have a recession, our government will be in major trouble. It won’t be like last time where we can borrow more money as we have already played that card.

The less debt we have, the better prepared and more flexible we will be in the next recession. You would think that during a boom we could bring down our debt but no due to the last recession it continued to rise until very recently. We’re kicking the can down the road and our children will be paying for our mistakes. You could say we are paying for the mistakes of previous generations but two wrongs don’t make a right.

SF can suggest anything they want. It doesn’t mean it will happen though. Just take a look at their manifesto and you will see how unrealistic it is. SF have no track record, have very little proven yd’s and their reputation proceeds them. It’s hard for extremist governments to get any changes from Eu. You need to be one of them and know how to play their game to get anywhere and sf can shout as much as they want in Ireland and do rallies but it won’t change what Eu say. Look at what syrzia promised before they got into power in Greece and what they actually achieved - a run on the banks a worse off situation that previous government.

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

Have we reached peak blueshirt? As I pointed out there fellas are using Irish and irishness as a slander. Here we have Blue Hugh portraying our national anthem as something sinister.

https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1232415967122247680?s=19

Odd.

Lets me honest here. SF are a nationalist party, kinda like the UKIP or the French National Front. They just dress it up with some left wing economic policies, but many many of their core voters would be the kind of people giving out about immigrants.

National anthems in Ireland are usually reserved for sporting events or the last song at wedding blasted out at 3am.
Marrying it with a political rally looks odd for Irish people.

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

The real reason people want change.

https://twitter.com/GTCost/status/1232812160213872641?s=19

Looking forward for SF therefore to reduce the price of labour..
Lower the min wage, pay cuts for teachers and nurses...
Those 67k houses are just around the corner.

efanton

Fol20 wrote: »

Do you have any links for Eu admitting they messed up Ireland bailout. Would be interested to read.

If EU says you can’t do it, ireland can’t just ignore it. There will be repercussions for such actions and it won’t end well for Ireland.

It took us nearly a decade to have a balanced budget. We have one of the highest proportional debts in EU and you want to borrow more. No thanks. Even right now if we have a recession, our government will be in major trouble. It won’t be like last time where we can borrow more money as we have already played that card.

The less debt we have, the better prepared and more flexible we will be in the next recession. You would think that during a boom we could bring down our debt but no due to the last recession it continued to rise until very recently. We’re kicking the can down the road and our children will be paying for our mistakes. You could say we are paying for the mistakes of previous generations but two wrongs don’t make a right.

SF can suggest anything they want. It doesn’t mean it will happen though. Just take a look at their manifesto and you will see how unrealistic it is. SF have no track record, have very little proven yd’s and their reputation proceeds them. It’s hard for extremist governments to get any changes from Eu. You need to be one of them and know how to play their game to get anywhere and sf can shout as much as they want in Ireland and do rallies but it won’t change what Eu say. Look at what syrzia promised before they got into power in Greece and what they actually achieved - a run on the banks a worse off situation that previous government.

I do have links as it happens.

Professor Christian Kastrop (the guy partly responsible for writing the austerity rules), a former official in the German Finance ministry and former President of the Economic Policy Committee of the Council of European Finance and Economic Ministers says the the austerity measures in Ireland were unnecessarily harsh, and also harsh in the southern countries of Europe (Greece, Italy etc) although he could see it was right to hold them to certain fiscal discipline.

He also agreed that that Germany was very wrong it trying to force a single austerity solution on all countries. Different countries had different needs. Greece basically totally depend on it tourist industry, Ireland on it agricultural sector along with its foreign multinationals, Italy a mixture of agriculture and it car and aircraft manufacturing. All very different countries requiring different solutions but the German government were determined to have a single solution on all, which never was going to work.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/harsh-austerity-imposed-on-ireland-by-berlin-says-ex-official-1.4094603



Paul Krugman won the Nobel memorial prize in economic sciences in 2008 and is a columnist for the New York Times, and a world respected economist.

He says

Since the global turn to austerity in 2010, every country that introduced significant austerity has seen its economy suffer, with the depth of the suffering closely related to the harshness of the austerity. In late 2012, the IMF’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, went so far as to issue what amounted to a mea culpa: although his organisation never bought into the notion that austerity would actually boost economic growth, the IMF now believes that it massively understated the damage that spending cuts inflict on a weak economy.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion


Even the IMF in their reports have said that they were wrong insisting on harsh austerity policies,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/07/imf-austerity-doesnt-work-immigrants-working-class

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/27/austerity-policies-do-more-harm-than-good-imf-study-concludes


Now if a German Finance Ministry official and former President of the Economic Policy Committee of the Council of European Finance and Economic Ministers, a world respected economist and Nobel prize winner for economics, and the IMF all say that the austerity measures in hindsight were wrong are we not entitled to some sort of review with regards austerity terms, or some adjustment so that capital spending specifically for home building could happen?

More importantly is the government not obliged to approach the EU to make provision if that was necessary so that capital expenditure on housing specifically can be addressed?