Why not have another GE

citysights

jmayo wrote: »

More secure jobs in 70s or 80s ?
Well maybe if you were lucky enough to get into one with the state agencies as you mention.
And those jobs were usually filled by pull, either through family or political connections.
A lot of those jobs have gone and no loss either because they were often just jobs for the boys to lounge around doing shag all, all paid for by the taxpayers.

I remember watching P&T boyos sunning themselves in a field instead of connecting telephone poles up, 8 guys from ESB showing up to cut a few branches off a few trees, council workers playing hide and seek with their gaffer out in country boreens and patching a few potholes a day.

BTW it was Post and Telegraphs.

You must have been very lucky because I can remember a hell of a lot of kids whose dads were working on the Chunnel, on sites in London or else on the dole.

Yes, maybe it was just the primary school class I was in but yes honestly all the dads worked even had a shoe maker ( do they even exist anymore)in that group, panel beater as well. I do think it was a time when some people were working and still getting dole probably and no one in the dole office batted an eye. Yes people used to joke about the council workers leaning over their shovels and not doing a tap of work! I know a few lads who went to America as well so things were not good for everyone. Not many cars on the road as you say.simpler times, I was only a child but there was more good will towards other people and no crime, or hardly any. Time moves on I suppose but as you say different set of problems for the young today and in many ways it’s much harder re job security and housing. And you know what probably twenty thirty years from now there’ll be a whole different set of problems again. Interesting social history though.

Bass Reeves

Yurt! wrote: »

That's why I deliberately mentioned both nominal and real wage growth. Nominal wage growth exploded over that time, as did inflation. However, purchasing power and real wage growth still outpaced inflation to a remarkable extent, to an even greater extent than Celtic tiger years.

In the context of housing, many hundreds of thousands of mortgages were cleared remarkably early because of these factors. Their housing costs were locked in, and interest rates notwithstanding (remeber the principle was getting smaller-looking by the month), those were golden years for buying a home and clearing a mortgage, with the caveat that you had a steady job in the first place.


That generation enjoyed a hell of a lot of dumb luck whether they know it or not.

You forget that the max mortgage was 2.5 times the man's wage during the 70's, In the early mid 80's the multiplier increased to allow for once times the wife's. Then as go into the late 90's the multiplier for the wife's increased so that by the early noughties it was 2.5 times both wages.

If you only borrowed 2.5 times your wages you could still affor a 20 year mortgage and pay it back early. In reality most did not. There was however a tendancy mainly in cities and larger towns for people to trade up from 3bed semi to.larger houses in the 80's and 90's. But unless you were getting married and had lived frugally with you partner for 2-3 years it was virtually impossible to get a mortgage.

There was no on-suites, no toilet downstairs, no utility until the 80's. People generally lived at home with there parents unless they were working away from home so deciding to get married was a lifestyle decision for privacy and a place of your own.

citysights wrote: »

The 80s were not that bad I’d agree,most women were stay at home mothers so a husband could support his wife and children and pay the mortgage or if not as you say plenty of council houses available. People could also lift themselves out of poverty, I went to school with people whose parents started off in council houses but then got on their feet, bought a site and built or bought a private house.

It easy to see you did not work through it. Marginal tax rates was near 70%, what revolutions it for married couples was the court case that forced the government to allow married couple a double tax allowance. This was when the PAYE allowance was minimal. It made a huge difference to families where there was only a single earner. It took them out of the high tax rate and often took them out if the tax system completely.


However the biggest change is lifestyle. A coffee in the morning on the way to work, buying a sandwich for lunch, maybe even going to a cafe to meet your friend, the.mobile phone, the meL out every 3*4 weeks, night out with it added cost of taxi home, the weekend away with college mates and the one with school mates then the holiday or trip down under. The BMW or high spec golf and even though I am working only 30minutes from home I need my own pad

citysights

Bass Reeves wrote: »

You forget that the max mortgage was 2.5 times the man's wage during the 70's, In the early mid 80's the multiplier increased to allow for once times the wife's. Then as go into the late 90's the multiplier for the wife's increased so that by the early noughties it was 2.5 times both wages.

If you only borrowed 2.5 times your wages you could still affor a 20 year mortgage and pay it back early. In reality most did not. There was however a tendancy mainly in cities and larger towns for people to trade up from 3bed semi to.larger houses in the 80's and 90's. But unless you were getting married and had lived frugally with you partner for 2-3 years it was virtually impossible to get a mortgage.

There was no on-suites, no toilet downstairs, no utility until the 80's. People generally lived at home with there parents unless they were working away from home so deciding to get married was a lifestyle decision for privacy and a place of your own.




It easy to see you did not work through it. Marginal tax rates was near 70%, what revolutions it for married couples was the court case that forced the government to allow married couple a double tax allowance. This was when the PAYE allowance was minimal. It made a huge difference to families where there was only a single earner. It took them out of the high tax rate and often took them out if the tax system completely.


However the biggest change is lifestyle. A coffee in the morning on the way to work, buying a sandwich for lunch, maybe even going to a cafe to meet your friend, the.mobile phone, the meL out every 3*4 weeks, night out with it added cost of taxi home, the weekend away with college mates and the one with school mates then the holiday or trip down under. The BMW or high spec golf and even though I am working only 30minutes from home I need my own pad

Yes I was too young to remember the 70 percent tax rate but have heard about it and people were very bitter about it saying how hard it was to survive.

Yes lifestyle has changed a lot. Take out coffee etc is a rip off.Phones are here to stay but agree that this stuff is expensive and all adds up. We’ve just become more Americanized, more like the UK as well fast fashion, fast food,fast everything.

Idbatterim

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

FG don't want rent freezes or decreases as some of their TDs are landlords

I think another GE would wipe out more FG than FF candidates which I'd welcome

THey are all homeowners, that is first and foremost why they want the rising prices ! If they are landlords , bonus points

Bass Reeves

citysights wrote: »

Yes I was too young to remember the 70 percent tax rate but have heard about it and people were very bitter about it saying how hard it was to survive.

Yes lifestyle has changed a lot. Take out coffee etc is a rip off.Phones are here to stay but agree that this stuff is expensive and all adds up. We’ve just become more Americanized, more like the UK as well fast fashion, fast food,fast everything.

And then we wonder why saving for a deposit is.impossible

piplip87

Another election would be interesting.

How would the SF vote hold up with more candidates. They could possibly gain a few seats in come Constituencies but lose some in others. Alot of SF votes transferred left but with more candidates PBP/Solidarity/Social Dems could be in trouble.

FF and FG would run less candidates and could get more elected.

What is for certain FF and FG would change strategy and attack SFs present and not the past. This could away voters who may e voted for the change without doing the numbers on the SF manifesto.

You could have SF on the same % of votes with less seats.

How would SF supporters feel about candidates getting elected in later counts as it seems to be the main point they bring up about "winning the election".

S

Hoboo

piplip87 wrote: »

How would SF supporters feel about candidates getting elected in later counts as it seems to be the main point they bring up about "winning the election".

S

They won, get over it.

jam_mac_jam

How can you win an election if you have less then 30% of the vote? How is that winning when the majority didn't vote for you.

piplip87

Hoboo wrote: »

They won, get over it.

The didn't win.

%.of first preference votes does not matter.

What count a TD gets in on does not matter

Who topped the poll does not matter.

Who gets the largest number of seats in the Dail Chamber is the only number that matters.

Bass Reeves

piplip87 wrote: »

The didn't win.

%.of first preference votes does not matter.

What count a TD gets in on does not matter

Who topped the poll does not matter.

Who gets the largest number of seats in the Dail Chamber is the only number that matters.

A d that side that matter either it is what group that can put sustainable 84-85 (I know 80 is a majority) in place to form a government that wi last 3+ years and ideally 4+

JP Liz V1

piplip87 wrote: »

The didn't win.

%.of first preference votes does not matter.

What count a TD gets in on does not matter

Who topped the poll does not matter.

Who gets the largest number of seats in the Dail Chamber is the only number that matters.

SF and FF got the same number of seats (not counting automatic seat FF had)

FF/FG/GP coming together to form a government now has over 80 seats in total

Whitecarstones

I think peoples mindset about SF winning shouldnt really be disputed.

Their rise in popularity - considering the amount of their candidates who got in on the first count is a representation of how truly sick of FF and FG they are.

If you said ten/twenty years ago that SF would be on par with FF and FG with regards seats most people would laugh in your face.

For SF to suddenly come out on top in many constituencies is a significant win for their party, their candidates and their supporters.

I do believe that mostly it was a protest vote. It is the best thing that has happened in years. It might finally give FF and FG the kick up the arse they need.

FF and FG are refusing to talk to SF. This is bound to fustrate the SF voters. That 25% did want change and it should not be sneered at.

I cannot get over how many people on here are attacking and sneering at those who voted SF yet are completely in denial about the significant failures that have risen from FG and FF's time in government.

So those who are opposed to SF being in government, I ask......

Are you pro FF and FG?

or are you just so anti SF that you see FF and FG as the "best of a bad lot"?

Everyone seems to focus more on the "possible" failures that a SF gov might bring rather than focusing on the failures that FF and FG have and are bringing to this country.

Dont sneer at 25%. Thats still a large amount of people who are sick of FF and FG. And that number will keep growing as long as FF and FG are governing this country. They have proved themselves as incompetent.

citysights

Bass Reeves wrote: »

And then we wonder why saving for a deposit is.impossible

Well I think it’s a bit more complex than that actually but housing has been down to death here on boards so not going there, plenty of threads though

Idbatterim

If you said ten/twenty years ago that SF would be on par with FF and FG with regards seats most people would laugh in your face.

If you said one month ago, that SF would have won comfortably more seats than FF or FG, which they would have, if they ran more candidates, people would have laughed, never mind ten / twenty years ago...

piplip87

Whitecarstones wrote: »

I think peoples mindset about SF winning shouldnt really be disputed.

Their rise in popularity - considering the amount of their candidates who got in on the first count is a representation of how truly sick of FF and FG they are.

If you said ten/twenty years ago that SF would be on par with FF and FG with regards seats most people would laugh in your face.

For SF to suddenly come out on top in many constituencies is a significant win for their party, their candidates and their supporters.

I do believe that mostly it was a protest vote. It is the best thing that has happened in years. It might finally give FF and FG the kick up the arse they need.

FF and FG are refusing to talk to SF. This is bound to fustrate the SF voters. That 25% did want change and it should not be sneered at.

I cannot get over how many people on here are attacking and sneering at those who voted SF yet are completely in denial about the significant failures that have risen from FG and FF's time in government.

So those who are opposed to SF being in government, I ask......

Are you pro FF and FG?

or are you just so anti SF that you see FF and FG as the "best of a bad lot"?

Everyone seems to focus more on the "possible" failures that a SF gov might bring rather than focusing on the failures that FF and FG have and are bringing to this country.

Dont sneer at 25%. Thats still a large amount of people who are sick of FF and FG. And that number will keep growing as long as FF and FG are governing this country. They have proved themselves as incompetent.

Yes but SF supporters are snearing at the 75% who didn't vote for them and the 40% who voted for FF and FG with talks to protest marches if SF dont get into government. They are also snearing at the fact some FF and FG TDS didn't get elected until later counts...... It works both ways

Whitecarstones

Idbatterim wrote: »

If you said one month ago, that SF would have won comfortably more seats than FF or FG, which they would have, if they ran more candidates, people would have laughed, never mind ten / twenty years ago...

Ha true

Whitecarstones

piplip87 wrote: »

Yes but SF supporters are snearing at the 75% who didn't vote for them and the 40% who voted for FF and FG with talks to protest marches if SF dont get into government. They are also snearing at the fact some FF and FG TDS didn't get elected until later counts...... It works both ways

Well that 75% is not made up entirely of FF and FG you must remember.

So far I have only personally seen SF voters on here bring up the first count etc because FF and FG voters seem to think that there 45% takes presedence. Some cant even seem to understand that that 45% represents two parties not one.

So when you look at percentages, SF FF and FG are actually neck and neck. When you do that you realise that the same amount of people that DO want FF and FF is equal to those who DO want SF.

I am completely neutral to parties. This time I voted SF and I did so because of the hard work that my local SF has done and continues to do. I did not vote for his party affiliation.

Having said that there are SF TDs that are excellent hard working people. The same can be said for FF and FG and other parties.

So yes there is a certain victory element for SF voters and yes a certain amount of anger that 25% of the electorate will not be represented by the people they voted for. Being in the opposition is pointless if you actually want change.

But it looks like we will continue to have more of the same. Dire health and housing etc etc.

Could SF be effective in government? Who knows. People would prefer to give that chance to parties who have destroyed this country for a century then to give SF a chance..
.

JohnnyFlash

Whitecarstones wrote: »

Well that 75% is not made up entirely of FF and FG you must remember.

So far I have only personally seen SF voters on here bring up the first count etc because FF and FG voters seem to think that there 45% takes presedence. Some cant even seem to understand that that 45% represents two parties not one.

So when you look at percentages, SF FF and FG are actually neck and neck. When you do that you realise that the same amount of people that DO want FF and FF is equal to those who DO want SF.

I am completely neutral to parties. This time I voted SF and I did so because of the hard work that my local SF has done and continues to do. I did not vote for his party affiliation.

Having said that there are SF TDs that are excellent hard working people. The same can be said for FF and FG and other parties.

So yes there is a certain victory element for SF voters and yes a certain amount of anger that 25% of the electorate will not be represented by the people they voted for. Being in the opposition is pointless if you actually want change.

But it looks like we will continue to have more of the same. Dire health and housing etc etc.

Could SF be effective in government? Who knows. People would prefer to give that chance to parties who have destroyed this country for a century then to give SF a chance..
.

Destroyed? That’s the sort of sensationalist claptrap that can be used to automatically dismiss whatever point you were trying to make.

Shefwedfan

Who exactly are SF try to form a government with? at the moment they seem to be only talking to the press...

1st dalkey dalkey

The Good Friday Agreement put an end to the IRA campaign and brought SF into the political mainstream in both parts of the island.
We, in the south, were happy enough with it and voted overwhelmingly in favour.
Apparently our support for it has become more nuanced since.
It was ok to have SF participating as long as they were a minority party.
But when they had the cheek to challenge and even beat FF and FG, we suddenly are questioning their democratic credentials.
I understand the politics of this. Mutt and Jeff want to keep their two step going and can't if SF interrupt.
But if they were doing their job right in the first place the electorate wouldn't be deserting them in such numbers.
SF's election result is a symptom of the problems within the FF/FG duopoly, it is not the cause.
SF will continue to prosper for as long as they refuse to address the cause.

decky1

Deleted User wrote: »

So, a party that got less than 25% of the vote wants to call the shots? What about the 41% who voted for the status quo?

toy out of pram again.;)

First Up

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

It was ok to have SF participating as long as they were a minority party.
But when they had the cheek to challenge and even beat FF and FG, we suddenly are questioning their democratic credentials.

Not their democratic credentials - their economic literacy.

Bass Reeves

Whitecarstones wrote: »

Well that 75% is not made up entirely of FF and FG you must remember.

So far I have only personally seen SF voters on here bring up the first count etc because FF and FG voters seem to think that there 45% takes presedence. Some cant even seem to understand that that 45% represents two parties not one.

So when you look at percentages, SF FF and FG are actually neck and neck. When you do that you realise that the same amount of people that DO want FF and FF is equal to those who DO want SF.

I am completely neutral to parties. This time I voted SF and I did so because of the hard work that my local SF has done and continues to do. I did not vote for his party affiliation.

Having said that there are SF TDs that are excellent hard working people. The same can be said for FF and FG and other parties.

So yes there is a certain victory element for SF voters and yes a certain amount of anger that 25% of the electorate will not be represented by the people they voted for. Being in the opposition is pointless if you actually want change.

But it looks like we will continue to have more of the same. Dire health and housing etc etc.

Could SF be effective in government? Who knows. People would prefer to give that chance to parties who have destroyed this country for a century then to give SF a chance..
.

The reason people look at the FF/FG vote as one because it is a centre right vote, if you look at the total left vote it hit about the same percentage both at about 45%. Independents hold the difference and 75% of them are centre right. SF has to understand there is no right to be in government unless you get to 80 TD's.. SF supporters have this idea that SF should be entitle to have more input as SF are underrepresented because they ran too few candidates. However that is the party's an fault this is what they ran to maximise there seat hopes. SF had no idea they would be in the running to form a government. If they had known this for instance they might not have opposed the carbon tax.n Seamus Brennan's parlance they are playing senior football now the rules are there younger on with it.

This is not NI where you are entitled to in cabinet if you win a few seats. Its not Westministers where you abstain when you feel like it. Other parties will have seen in NI where they pulled the plug on an administration because it looked like a political opportunity, Will this happen if in government will the Ard Comhairle be briefed about confidential cabinet meetings. The rules are there SF just have to understand the rules

The last thing about FF and FG destroying ntge country, over the last 100 years. We have gone from a country that was a poor country after our independence to one where we have one ofb the highest minimum wage in Europe, OAP, and social welfare rates. We do not charge for services that other counties do. There is problems but we are not an African dictatorship

1st dalkey dalkey

First Up wrote: »

Not their democratic credentials - their economic literacy.

There was very little mention of their economic literacy during the election. More the operation fear of their democratic deficit.
But while I agree that their economic policies leave a lot to be desired, does that exclude them from participation?
If so, how would you feel given FF history of economic destruction?
Should they (FF) be excluded from participation based on actual performance rather then perceived performance of SF.
Actually, for me, none of that matters once they both get a sizeable proportion of the votes cast. The people have made both of them part of the equation.
Whether you, or I, like it or not, that is democracy.

whisky_galore

I don't care one way or the other, it's not like another 5 mins at a polling booth will ruin the rest of my life.
People are such fcuking precious snowflakes. Wa wa wa, there's countries out there where you can't choose who you'd like to be in power.

mickdw

As it stands Sf have no greater or less right to form a government than either of the other 2 as there are many combinations available.
Where SF fall down is that nobody wants to deal with them. That makes them less likely to form a government than the other 2. It's no conspiracy - simply a bed of their own making.
Lets have another election - if sf get 60 plus seats, they will be in pole position, otherwise it just wheeling dealing as to who forms the government.
If SF have any sense they will sit in opposition and get in with a stronger mandate the next time assuming the government don't do great work on health and housing.
If they do go in now, they will be found out and will likely get kicked out again sharpish.
I suppose the only real question is - Do SF get found out now or later?

mloc123

Looking at the quality of the SF candidates that they ran (anti vaxers, conspiracy theorists, IRA prisoners etc..) you have to wonder what barrels are left to scrape in order for then to run an extra 20 in a second election.

First Up

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

There was very little mention of their economic literacy during the election. More the operation fear of their democratic deficit.
But while I agree that their economic policies leave a lot to be desired, does that exclude them from participation?
If so, how would you feel given FF history of economic destruction?
Should they (FF) be excluded from participation based on actual performance rather then perceived performance of SF.
Actually, for me, none of that matters once they both get a sizeable proportion of the votes cast. The people have made both of them part of the equation.
Whether you, or I, like it or not, that is democracy.

FF and FG have excluded themselves from coalition with SF because they know that their policies are incompatible with those of SF and such a government would be unworkable.

If SF get enough seats to form a government on their own or with the help of a few others, they would be absolutely entitled to form a government.

Fann Linn

mloc123 wrote: »

Looking at the quality of the SF candidates that they ran (anti vaxers, conspiracy theorists, IRA prisoners etc..) you have to wonder what barrels are left to scrape in order for then to run an extra 20 in a second election.

Shows how poor the opposition was that they couldn't beat them. Yes?

Fann Linn

mloc123 wrote: »

Looking at the quality of the SF candidates that they ran (anti vaxers, conspiracy theorists, IRA prisoners etc..) you have to wonder what barrels are left to scrape in order for then to run an extra 20 in a second election.

Shows how poor the opposition was that they couldn't beat them. Yes?