Could Sinn Fein actually run a country ?

topmanamillion

facehugger99 wrote: »

Well said.

Where did this 'give them a chance' sh;t come from?

Some of the decisions they could make would wreck the place for generations - losing FDI investments could condemn us to decades of hardship for example.

You don't get a 'do-over' if they completely cock the place up.

Such a cavalier attitude absolutely stinks. It's very worrying if it's endemic throughout the electorate.

FF were given given more than a chance over the previous few decades.
The country is €200 billion in debt. A €90,000 debt per working person.
Bananas to suggest FF would be OK in government but SF are some sort of maverick outsiders.
All the parties are peddling absolute sh1te talk on the campaign trails.
FF building 100,000 houses? Giving €10,000 twoards everyone's deposit for a house?
They will ya.
They plan to spend €250 million per year on homelessness? An increase of€80 million per year on current levels. In a country that's apparently booming?

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's more no more spending on 25 year leases and lessening the need for hotels I'd imagine.

Possibly, but their manifesto is such fantasy that anything could happen.

jimmycrackcorm

One indicator about Sinn Fein running the country can be taken from their response during the banking crisis when they wanted to burn the bondholders and give the ECB two fingers.

Now that's admirable, our country has acquired a debt as a result of not doing so. But the ECB attitude at the time was that we Irish borrowed the money, which is what we did. FF let "us all party".

SF were wholly with Sryzia in Greece, Pearse went there to sympathize. But how has it worked out for Greece Vs Ireland since? 16% unemployment Vs practically full employment. Anyone fancy queueing to be able to take out only 50 euro per day?

Nobody likes the fact we have this debt hanging over us but this country would have ended up like Greece has we not kowtowed to the ECB.

I don't see any evidence that SF can make any non populist decisions that the country needs.

On they other hand, had SF been in power and followed the Sryzia path, we wouldn't be worried by the amount of money being spent on the new children's hospital, because they're wouldn't be any to build it.

Idbatterim

handlemaster wrote: »

Rising prices ment this country could be pulled out from the ***t.. .

yeah and where do you draw the line? should people stop living any sort of life, to just continually make up the rent increases? :rolleyes:

Idbatterim

christy c wrote: »

No, the policy is that we'll get cheap housing paid for by those earning over 100,000 and they will be buying the pints also.

that might be what SF propose, which wont happen, as coalition etc... I am up for those paying nothing for their social housing funding it, through proper rents AND a council tax to replace LPT. that all adults have to pay!

I totally agree, the well paid here are already taken the piss out of!

christy c

Idbatterim wrote: »

that might be what SF propose, which wont happen, as coalition etc...

In this scenario you are relying on FG and FF being the mature ones and saying no to the populist crap proposed by SF. Not an appealing thought

JP Liz V1

flazio wrote: »

Remember, it's 78 seats needed to win an overall majority and Sinn Fein are only running 42 candidates. So somebody has to help them run the country. Can you think of anyone who would dare?

If MM really wants the Taoiseach job would he let FF join in with SF, MLM as Tanaiste

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

that might be what SF propose, which wont happen, as coalition etc... I am up for those paying nothing for their social housing funding it, through proper rents AND a council tax to replace LPT. that all adults have to pay!

I totally agree, the well paid here are already taken the piss out of!

Like FG, you are forgetting about the tax payer.
Who do you think will be availing of the affordable and social housing? You can't buy without a job and we likely have far more working people in need than people on the dole.
The propaganda is it's all lifers on the dole, so they can ignore working taxpayers.

Itssoeasy

Could they ? I suppose they could but given they've only got 42 candidates in 39 constituencies then even if they managed to run the table and get every one of their candidates they'd have a total lower than than FG started with in 2016 then they may be in government but I'd take the opinion polls with a pinch of salt.

shenanagans

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Could they ? I suppose they could but given they've only got 42 candidates in 39 constituencies then even if they managed to run the table and get every one of their candidates they'd have a total lower than than FG started with in 2016 then they may be in government but I'd take the opinion polls with a pinch of salt.

I'd say 30 SF seats is more realistic....max. they won't get all candidates in.

I think 81 seats are needed for a majority in next govt.

SF won't lead next govt. Let's be realistic here.

rdwight

rdwight wrote: »

Absenting themselves from government in NI for three years is hardly pragmatic. The fact is they are much more comfortable on the sideline.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is that why they made concessions to get it back up and running?

They made "concessions" (ie capitulated on their Irish language stance) because they were terrified of the election down here and of the election that would have taken place up there if they hadn't done a deal.

handlemaster

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah and where do you draw the line? should people stop living any sort of life, to just continually make up the rent increases? :rolleyes:

Rent prices are where they are because of demand and high taxes on small time landlords which are the main providers of accommodation Demand is there because of population and strong economy.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Up the Shinners

mrcheez

Terrance Yummy Ware wrote: »

Up the Shinners

Up their what?

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is that why they made concessions to get it back up and running?

Stormont is back up and running because they were about to lose their pay.

suicide_circus

given their stance on bond holders and banks etc i'd fear for mortgage rates if they started living up to their ideals

is_that_so

Phoebas wrote: »

Stormont is back up and running because they were about to lose their pay.

And £1bn from Boris!

is_that_so

suicide_circus wrote: »

given their stance on bond holders and banks etc i'd fear for mortgage rates if they started living up to their ideals

They want the CB to have the power to cap bank mortgage rates.

TuringBot47

Terrance Yummy Ware wrote: »

DUp the Shinners

Fixed your post.

Field east

Yurt! wrote: »

FG policy. Own it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/theres-no-housing-bubble-michael-noonan-wants-prices-to-rise-30168455.html

So there would be thousands of houses built if Noonan left house prices at 47% below peak and at a time when the gov planned to build 22000 houses over the next 5 years. Builders, of course, would be queuing up to build these houses at that price point.
AGAIN I ask, what would YOU HAVE DONE?

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

Stormont is back up and running because they were about to lose their pay.

TBF, you could say the same about any politician turning up for work, except for Dara Murphy and possibly Enda Kenny and others, who get paid any way.

suicide_circus

is_that_so wrote: »

They want the CB to have the power to cap bank mortgage rates.

guaranteed to backfire but i applaud the sentiment

smurgen

suicide_circus wrote: »

given their stance on bond holders and banks etc i'd fear for mortgage rates if they started living up to their ideals

We even paid back junior bondholders of unsecured debt of Anglo against the advice of the IMF and our mortgage rates are still some of the highest in Europe.

suicide_circus

smurgen wrote: »

We even paid back junior bondholders of unsecured debt of Anglo against the advice of the IMF and our mortgage rates are still some of the highest in Europe.

i know that i just worry it could get worse if it gets even more difficult to repossess from not payers

Field east

marieholmfan wrote: »

Who is they? What law? The law against murdering people? What are you talking about?

I am of the opinion that you are a strapping young lad /lassie in your teens /early 20s’ and recent Irish history re certain killings/disappearances/ unsolved murders that were well reported over a prolonged period and is still ongoing would not be on your list of interests.
If you ever have the curiosity to find out what I was referring to you should get a very comphrensive answer if you google same.

is_that_so

suicide_circus wrote: »

guaranteed to backfire but i applaud the sentiment

Draghi drew attention to the problems with it a few years ago. I think FF had the same thought for a wet weekend.

is_that_so

smurgen wrote: »

We even paid back junior bondholders of unsecured debt of Anglo against the advice of the IMF and our mortgage rates are still some of the highest in Europe.

ECB said no burning and that was it. In the grand scheme of things it was a paltry sum.

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

ECB said no burning and that was it. In the grand scheme of things it was a paltry sum.

So governments are just for show. Got it.
Did anyone tell FG re: the Apple 13bn?

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

TBF, you could say the same about any politician turning up for work, except for Dara Murphy and possibly Enda Kenny and others, who get paid any way.

They weren't turning up for work.
That was the problem - they shut down their workplace for 3 years.

Mortelaro

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So governments are just for show. Got it.
Did anyone tell FG re: the Apple 13bn?

I think this is the 115th time
That's not our money (if its owed at all to anyone)