If you voted Sinn Fein in the GE, why did you do it?

road_high

kingbhome wrote: »

Because of the slandering they keep getting from the media. It shows to me there's forces behind them that don't want a left wing government in that will look after the people

lol. Get a fcukin grip. SF and co get a free ride off the media, have done for a decade. All about to “change” too though

Fann Linn

GreeBo wrote: »

To the large number that voted SF due to housing...
We were plunged into recession partly due to the arse falling out of the housing market. If the SF plan is to pump money into cheap housing, how does this not massively decrease the value of existing house prices and plunge current home owners into negative equity?

How does that help the housing crisis exactly?

Might put roofs over the heads of those who need houses!

road_high

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Repeat it next time you're in the pub considering almost one in 4 voters gave them a 1st preference I suspect you could end up missing a few teeth.

Yes well aware of the sf propensity for random violence, that’s been well established

smurgen

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think it depends. If you put loads of social housing in an area it will increase the price in other areas as working people try to avoid social housing and future slums. I think it will reduce the price of housing immediately around social housing, but equally I think building loads of social housing costs money which inevitably increases taxes on working people , reducing their ability to buy a house.

But we're getting away from the question now, how are these 100,000 social houses going to be paid for , if theyre not all social houses, how will SF decrease the cost of building to make them affordable ?

That's not the plan. You haven't a clue.

AulWan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

can you please explain how joan burton is responsible for single parents ?

Joan Burton is responsible for pushing through legislation which had a knock on affect of actively forcing single parents in employment out of work.

I could go into detail here, but maybe another time as I know you're not actually interested and wouldn't listen anyway as you have your mind made up that all single parents are single parents by choice who do it for the benefits and the free house. .

I'd encourage you to check out the statistics on One Family, sometime.

jam_mac_jam

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Repeat it next time you're in the pub considering almost one in 4 voters gave them a 1st preference I suspect you could end up missing a few teeth.

Wow.

Eric Cartman

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

That's all the population though. Not working population. Includes old people.

And doesn't mean that they don't work.

12.4% of the working population is disabled, 22% of those people work, its all there.

Interesting in drilldown theres a massive jump in mental/emotional health disabilities for women aged 25-55. Far exceeding men and mostly residing in the 'other' category. Obviously people do have mental health issues which prevent them working but almost half the working age disabled women have mental or emotional health conditions 'preventing' them going to work. I find that quite unusual.

jam_mac_jam

AulWan wrote: »

Joan Burton is responsible for pushing through legislation which had a knock on affect of actively forcing single parents in employment out of work.

I could go into detail here, but maybe another time as I know you're not actually interested and wouldn't listen anyway as you have your mind made up that all single parents are single parents by choice who do it for the benefits and the free house.

The truth is, anyone can find themselves parenting alone at any stage of their life, through relationship/marriage failure, death of a spouse, or just plain old condom failure.

I'd encourage you to check out the statistics on One Family, sometime.

What polices forced them out of work? Genuinely interested not disagreeing

kingbhome

road_high wrote: »

That’s a brilliant summary of SF, might use that myself! It’s all in there, every aspect of the bull****e that is SF and their deluded voters in one post. Brilliant
Especially the simpleton millennial types, I keep picturing them behind a megaphone spewing meaningless ****e

The Ra where never drug dealers or taxed them.

kingbhome

road_high wrote: »

That’s a brilliant summary of SF, might use that myself! It’s all in there, every aspect of the bull****e that is SF and their deluded voters in one post. Brilliant
Especially the simpleton millennial types, I keep picturing them behind a megaphone spewing meaningless ****e

The Ra where never drug dealers or taxed them.

Eric Cartman

AulWan wrote: »

Joan Burton is responsible for pushing through legislation which had a knock on affect of actively forcing single parents in employment out of work.

I could go into detail here, but maybe another time as I know you're not actually interested and wouldn't listen anyway as you have your mind made up that all single parents are single parents by choice who do it for the benefits and the free house. .

I'd encourage you to check out the statistics on One Family, sometime.

How, how did she do this. Id genuinely love to know.

jam_mac_jam

Eric Cartman wrote: »

12.4% of the working population is disabled, 22% of those people work, its all there.

Interesting in drilldown theres a massive jump in mental/emotional health disabilities for women aged 25-55. Far exceeding men and mostly residing in the 'other' category. Obviously people do have mental health issues which prevent them working but almost half the working age disabled women have mental or emotional health conditions 'preventing' them going to work. I find that quite unusual.

So 8 per cent not 19. Which i agree does seem high.

Eric Cartman

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

So 8 per cent not 19. Which i agree does seem high.

well 'we have the most disabled workforce' related to the 12.4 , its not the unemployed disabled workforce, but yes I agree that statement is also intended to mislead, but yes 9.6% of our workforce is unemployed and disabled, nowhere near 19% but the '1 in 10 of our workforce is unemployed and disabled' basically holds water.

riffmongous

road_high wrote: »

lol. Get a fcukin grip. SF and co get a free ride off the media, have done for a decade. All about to “change” too though

Jaysus, I've read some sh*ite on Boards over the years but this is just mad.

BarryD2

limnam wrote: »

If you read them and can't understand them.

I don't think I can help.

But as I said. If we can stop paralizing people on the canals. It would be a start

No I didn't think you could, because you're just bandying around the phrase - solve the housing issue. Solving housing for my kids might be quite a different matter than yours, if you have any. As for the canal issue, that's easily solved by patrols. No?

Eric Cartman

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Repeat it next time you're in the pub considering almost one in 4 voters gave them a 1st preference I suspect you could end up missing a few teeth.

How SF voters react to criticism, an expose from Plumbthedepths , you heard it here first folks, he said it not us.

woohoo!!!

For me, it's housing. I would rate O'Broin much more highly than the FG or FF equivalent. There has been progress on more joined up thinking and this needs to progress further. The percentages of public owned housing stock is very low of EU standards and throwing money at HAP to private landlords or hotels and B&B's, is a stick plaster solution. The change in policy emphasis is not going to happen overnight and FG had made a start, but this needs to accelerate.

The fragmentation in voting preference is simply a result of more and more people refusing to say 'til death do us part' to FF or FG. They'll have to up their game to attract voters back and competition is healthy. Should SF prove to be a flop, then they'll suffer. If they prove otherwise then we'll have moved on from civil war politics.

woohoo!!!

For me, it's housing. I would rate O'Broin much more highly than the FG or FF equivalent. There has been progress on more joined up thinking and this needs to progress further. The percentages of public owned housing stock is very low of EU standards and throwing money at HAP to private landlords or hotels and B&B's, is a stick plaster solution. The change in policy emphasis is not going to happen overnight and FG had made a start, but this needs to accelerate.

The fragmentation in voting preference is simply a result of more and more people refusing to say 'til death do us part' to FF or FG. They'll have to up their game to attract voters back and competition is healthy. Should SF prove to be a flop, then they'll suffer. If they prove otherwise then we'll have moved on from civil war politics.

Plumbthedepths

road_high wrote: »

Yes well aware of the sf propensity for random violence, that’s been well established

No nothing got to do with the propensity for random violence of any supporter of any political party, more to do with a condescending t*sser getting a slap for condescension.

Plumbthedepths

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How SF voters react to criticism, an expose from Plumbthedepths , you heard it here first folks, he said it not us.

Heard?

dompedro

it was the only right thing to do.

Fr_Dougal

GreeBo wrote: »

To the large number that voted SF due to housing...
We were plunged into recession partly due to the arse falling out of the housing market. If the SF plan is to pump money into cheap housing, how does this not massively decrease the value of existing house prices and plunge current home owners into negative equity?

How does that help the housing crisis exactly?

If SF decide to build, it probably wouldn’t negatively affect the price of existing houses. What would happen is the cost of new builds would increase due to labour shortages.

IMO what will probably happen is SF will purchase new housing stock as it becomes available, if they can get the funding. They’ll have to show a return to the voters. It won’t be additional stock, it will stock due to become available that’s in the pipeline. Now that would raise the cost for purchasers outside the government schemes.
SF will look after the 10k ‘homeless’ first, and only a small minority of those are workers.

It’s going to be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Idbatterim

Eric Cartman wrote: »

over 43,000 people of working age, not disabled who have never made a prsi contribution , over 62% of the 71000 social housing applicants derive their income from only social welfare (not carers or disabled) with only 10% not claiming any welfare. We have the most disabled workforce in europe.

like it or not we have a laziness problem and the housing list is full of them.

Absolute comedy. Put them in front of the disability decision makers in Germany! I’d love to see how many they would deem disabled! Lol! Lol!

Eric Cartman

Idbatterim wrote: »

Absolute comedy. Put them in front of the disability decision makers in Germany! I’d love to see how many they would deem disabled! Lol! Lol!

1 in 10 working aged people being too disabled to work is no laughing matter.

Rodin

Eric Cartman wrote: »

1 in 10 working aged people being too disabled to work is no laughing matter.

It's a scandal.
Needs investigation.

end of the road

i voted for sinn fein because very simply, they stand for all i believe in.
to me, they are the party of law and order, the party of modernisation, the party of change and delivery, the party of the irish people.
i have always been and very much am prowd to vote for sinn fein, the result of this election is just fantastic and i believe it shows that people have finally saw what i and many others have always saw.

rossie1977

I voted SF number 2 because

1. There is a hospital crisis in this area where people have to travel 50-75 miles for an emergency department and then sit on a trolley for days
2. Mental health crisis in Roscommon. Numerous people in my age-group have taken their own lives including a woman the other week that made national headlines yet mental health funding continues to be cut and centres closed.
3. More Gardai is required in rural villages where crime has risen.
4. Fire station needs to be re-opened instead of bringing fire fighters 12-18 miles away down country back road.
5. Massive investment in roads are needed in Roscommon including by-passes of major towns like Roscommon and Castlerea

If we don't invest in public projects when the country is producing budget surpluses its highly unlikely we don't when the economy is in recession.

Idbatterim

Wouldn’t the vast majority of freeloaders here and god knows there’s enough of them, not vote or vote primarily for the alphabet parties ?

car_radio19834

_Brian wrote: »

“Social inequality”

That’s some load of shiit there.
It’s been proven over and over that there are educational amd employment opportunities in Ireland, created under right leaning governments.

People who can be bothered to get themselves educated can do so, then there are plenty of opportunities for employment.

By Social inequality people usually mean that the “won’t work” brigade are fed up not having as many nice things as people who’ve made an effort and gone out and work for their stuff.

You see, this is where I think people get mixed up.

For me, social inequality is exactly the opposite, in that those getting free stuff shouldn't get as much. i.e Why should a certain number of houses in an estate be social housing? Why should someone pay market rates in an estate and then someone gets the exact same house for basically free.

Why does public housing need to be new? Why should they be new? Let people buy the new houses and let councils buy 2nd hand.

I'm in my 20's, have a good job with decent pay and yet I'm priced out. The thought of kids hasn't ever entered my mind, it's impossible to afford any. A house I can not get a mortgage for. A nice car is half a deposit. Insurance is a rising every year even though it should be decreasing year on year.

Meanwhile lads in their mid 40's on average money like myself are talking about having their mortgage paid off, off on holidays 3 times a year, have their 181 SUV's and their kids off to college.

riffmongous

car_radio19834 wrote: »

You see, this is where I think people get mixed up.

For me, social inequality is exactly the opposite, in that those getting free stuff shouldn't get as much. i.e Why should a certain number of houses in an estate be social housing? Why should someone pay market rates in an estate and then someone gets the exact same house for basically free.

Why does public housing need to be new? Why should they be new? Let people buy the new houses and let councils buy 2nd hand.

I'm in my 20's, have a good job with decent pay and yet I'm priced out. The thought of kids hasn't ever entered my mind, it's impossible to afford any. A house I can not get a mortgage for. A nice car is half a deposit. Insurance is a rising every year even though it should be decreasing year on year.

Meanwhile lads in their mid 40's on average money like myself are talking about having their mortgage paid off, off on holidays 3 times a year, have their 181 SUV's and their kids off to college.

You're just another waster according to the FFGers here