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

Danno

amadangomor wrote: »

How about people taking personal responsibility for situations. I was living in Dublin and decided toleave when rents started to go up. I did not expect the government to provide me with a house in Dublin so came up with a plan to save like the bejaysus, move outside Dublin, buy a house and commute.

And FG, FF, GP, LAB, SD and others have plans to slaughter you commuting with higher carbon taxes.

They. Always. Win. (that was, until Saturday)

SusieBlue

riffmongous wrote: »

You're just another waster according to the FFGers here

Or a blue haired woke feminist.

Mad_maxx

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.

There is no logic in placing any social housing in private estates

It's purely ideological but has become received wisdom

PressRun

car_radio19834 wrote: »

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.

This basically sums up the situation.

People want to act like this is a surge coming from dole scroungers or uneducated people or people who "don't want to work".
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many of these votes came from the 25-35 age bracket. Young, educated professionals who are being priced out of their cities and the country itself. Young people working their holes off week in, week out and handing over the majority of their pay check to a landlord. Hardly anything to show at the end of a year of work. Not able to save for a mortgage, nevermind even thinking about having a family.

Meanwhile the ones from the generation before them run around with their fingers stuck in their ears because sure it doesn't affect them. They have the Merc and the 2.5 kids and the mortgage paid off and if no one else can afford to do that, they're just scroungers.

The snivelling classism of the whole thing aside (if you're poor you obviously deserve it!), it's pure head in the sand stuff to act like the crisis in housing, the wages vs the cost of the living and the skyrocketing rents isn't affecting all walks of life.

That's not even getting into the healthcare crisis. If you have a long-term illness on top of any of the above issues, forget it.

FG and FF would do well to take a look at themselves and I'm glad they got a rattle this weekend. Long over due.

poolboy

end of the road wrote: »

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.

"The party of law and order" are you actually serious?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

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.

Prowd is a new one

Osamabindipper

end of the road wrote: »

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.

I vote for sinn fein too and even I think your a little ott with your sum up here.

Time will tell if it was good or bad move but something needed to be done.

rob316

Here is where I would make a start on housing.

Create a public housing body, take control of social housing from the council's.

Increase council tenant rent rate.

Deduct rent from SW income directly. That will avoid any rent arrears.

Abolish the tenant purchase scheme. No way we should be selling off our housing stock for half the market value.

Raise the income limits for social housing to 60k for a working family.

Prioritise working families for social housing allocation.

Clamp down on buy to rent with higher taxes on the landlord.

We need a tax relief system to entice skilled tradesmen from abroad.

Get into the schools across the country and encourage people to consider an apprenticeship instead of going to college for the pointless arts, business degree etc.

end of the road

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.

because it was a quick way to implement social housing, it was a necessary way to mix people together and try and remove classism from the minority of society where it existed.
because someone who pays full market rate for a house is not entitled to only be surrounded by their own kind, because clumping people who are in subsidized housing together does not work as we already have the experience to show.
public housing as it is, is a mix of second hand, old and new, however i suspect building new with all that brings, may reduce maintenance costs, as older houses do increase in the cost of maintenance as they get older.

poolboy wrote: »

"The party of law and order" are you actually serious?

absolutely yes .
i believe that once in government they would build up our police force and fund it properly and will increase sentences where required, as they will want to show they take criminality very seriously.
they deserve the chance to show what they could do at least.

Rodin

rossie1977 wrote: »

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.

Major towns?
Seriously?

Dank Janniels

rossie1977 wrote: »

I voted SF number 2 because

Will yerwan in Roscommon deliver all that?
May I ask who got your 1st pref?

toptom

Never did i think id see the day the country would lose the run of itself like that and vote in sinnfein we have sunk so low in the last three decades im almost glad im in my grey years now. these nutters could end up getting us into a war with england

Ultimanemo

_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.

True, time to have a shower and go for work, I will be back home 7 pm "hopefully"

GreeBo

Fann Linn wrote: »

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

Skylinehead wrote: »

There's not enough houses. We need houses.

How does not building houses solve anything?

The Celtic Tiger gave us a lot of unnecessary houses in stupid locations, this is entirely different.

Super soundbites lads, but you didnt answer the question.

How are SF going to build more, cheap houses without plunging many others into negative equity?

Its a simple question to be fair, love to hear your answers.

limnam

GreeBo wrote: »

Super soundbites lads, but you didnt answer the question.

How are SF going to build more, cheap houses without plunging many others into negative equity?

Its a simple question to be fair, love to hear your answers.

How did FG manage to build the most social houses in the last 30 years and not plunge everyone into NE?


What's the alternative?


Keep paralyzing people on the canal?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

absolutely yes .
i believe that once in government they would build up our police force and fund it properly and will increase sentences where required, as they will want to show they take criminality very seriously.
they deserve the chance to show what they could do at least.

Lol.
Then they will get rid of the special criminal court & the counter terrorism unit, I believe they wanted them retrained & put into uniform roles in 2007!

Maybe Start their own justice, kneecap a few drug dealers.......

Fann Linn

GreeBo wrote: »

Super soundbites lads, but you didnt answer the question.

How are SF going to build more, cheap houses without plunging many others into negative equity?

Its a simple question to be fair, love to hear your answers.

100000 coming onto the market will I'm sure bring down house prices. But FF also promised in their manifesto to build 100000 houses.

I've no problem with the astronomical price of housing falling . If I had a number of properties for sale or even contemplating selling my own home I may have, but considering, right across the political spectrum the two most important issues for the current electorate was Housing and Health when they decided to cast their vote.
Bring it on I say.

Tacitus Kilgore

GreeBo wrote: »

Super soundbites lads, but you didnt answer the question.

How are SF going to build more, cheap houses without plunging many others into negative equity?

Its a simple question to be fair, love to hear your answers.

Why does it matter so much?

I don't think the possibility of people ending up with negative equity should be on top of anyones list of priorities, no-one should be guaranteed value on an asset.

Negative equity doesn't increase anyones costs, it just means that their loan is worth more than the asset.

Plumbthedepths

GreeBo wrote: »

Super soundbites lads, but you didnt answer the question.

How are SF going to build more, cheap houses without plunging many others into negative equity?

Its a simple question to be fair, love to hear your answers.

Building social housing is a function of government but the rest of your comment? When did the protection of private also become a function? Can we also query the negative impact public services have on private housing and cancel those projects just in case Mr Jones home losses some value?

6% with the "tax the rich" vote, that's the bagofcans & Celtic jersey brigade presumably.

JohnnyFlash

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Building social housing is a function of government but the rest of your comment? When did the protection of private also become a function? Can we also query the negative impact public services have on private housing and cancel those projects just in case Mr Jones home losses some value?

So fûck the people who had the temerity to save, borrow for, and buy a home? That it?

Haha, I’m so looking forward to Eoin O’B as housing minister. Bring it on!

Tacitus Kilgore

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

.........

Negative equity doesn't increase anyones costs, it just means that their loan is worth more than the asset.

It increases the interest payment as they can't move to a lower rate that requires a LTV that the lower asset value can't qualify for.

limnam

Fann Linn wrote: »

100000 coming onto the market will I'm sure bring down house prices. But FF also promised in their manifesto to build 100000 houses.

I've no problem with the astronomical price of housing falling . If I had a number of properties for sale or even contemplating selling my own home I may have, but considering, right across the political spectrum the two most important issues for the current electorate was Housing and Health when they decided to cast their vote.
Bring it on I say.

FG are planning about 60k in the same time frame.


It's a problem for all of them, not SF

limnam

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

So fûck the people who had the temerity to save, borrow for, and buy a home? That it?

Haha, I’m so looking forward to Eoin O’B as housing minister. Bring it on!

Considering the two pillocks you had previously I'm not surprised.

Tacitus Kilgore

Augeo wrote: »

It increases the interest payment as they can't move to a lower rate that requires a LTV that the lower asset value can't qualify for.

Forgot about LTV, fair enough - I suppose it's about whether it works out for the greater good, up to our new overlords I guess.

Get Real

rob316 wrote: »

Clamp down on buy to rent with higher taxes on the landlord.

.

You raise some interesting and worthwhile points. Just on this one, how would this apply?

I disagree with the corporate/vulture find method of building to rent out at premium prices. And also, those who own tens of properties and milk every cent.

But 70% of landlords in this country are single house landlords. They have their own home, and rent one out. Do we tax someone for working an extra few hours a week/ saving for years to invest in their retirement? Do we tax the postman, small shop owner, or self employed roofer, because they sought to better themselves?

Thereby increasing their reliance on state aid down the line?

Again, no issue with the "big funds" but the reality is, the majority of landlords in this country aren't big corporate businesses, they're average working Joe's, who each with a fraction of a percent, make up a huge amount of supply. (Also, I'm not a landlord, but know many in this position, who just go out and do their weekly work in normal jobs)

GreeBo

Fann Linn wrote: »

I've no problem with the astronomical price of housing falling . If I had a number of properties for sale or even contemplating selling my own home I may have, but considering, right across the political spectrum the two most important issues for the current electorate was Housing and Health when they decided to cast their vote.
Bring it on I say.

You are assuming that this will impact the wealthy but it wont.

When a glut of cheap stock comes on the market it doesnt impact the high end things. There will never be more houses in D4 or D6, there is nowhere to put them so prices will stay high. But the very people who SF purport to support will be massively impacted.
You just spent 350K on a house in Adamstown? Ouch. Where exactly do you think all these social, affordable houses are going to be built?

limnam

Augeo wrote: »

It increases the interest payment as they can't move to a lower rate that requires a LTV that the lower asset value can't qualify for.

If we take the average house price of 380k.


A couple of need a combined income of around 100k.


Average salary is 38 or so


so an average dual income of 72k


People on low to no incomes are not in the market for the vast majority of houses.


Not sure how much impact over 5 years would have on taking people into houses they're not in the market for anyway

GreeBo

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Why does it matter so much?

I don't think the possibility of people ending up with negative equity should be on top of anyones list of priorities, no-one should be guaranteed value on an asset.

Negative equity doesn't increase anyones costs, it just means that their loan is worth more than the asset.

Its nothing to do with guaranteed value, its people being stuck in starter homes after 15 years with 3 kids in a 2 bed house and a 2 hour commute.

Remember back to FF and the so called mess they made of things?

Tacitus Kilgore

GreeBo wrote: »

Its nothing to do with guaranteed value, its people being stuck in starter homes after 15 years with 3 kids in a 2 bed house and a 2 hour commute.

Remember back to FF and the so called mess they made of things?

Ok, so we shouldn't build significant amounts of houses, to keep the values up on existing, so people can buy a more expensive house next time?


I know no solution adds up for everyone, but jesus like - something has to take a hit.