Why not have another GE

Sir Oxman

YFlyer wrote: »

Thanks

I must look into that. Would prefer to get the gig on election day though.

I did it once (I was actually unemployed after redundancy so the few quid was welcome)
Back then, they were advertising for unemployed people to apply for it.
Long, long day but worth it and also to get a look at how things work.

Loafing Oaf

acequion wrote: »

I agree so much with everything here that I could have written it myself. Firstly I too wanted a FF/SF coalition for the same reasons. I felt that with their parity of seat numbers they would each temper each other, maybe bring out the best in each other [positive thinking to the point of rose tinted, maybe ] and give the country some of the much sought after "change." I'm very dismayed at the arrogance of both FF and FG. While no way would I be a fan of either, I feel they do have the necessary Governmental experience. However,that said, I couldn't stomach another 5 years of Leo, Paschal, Simon et al. Hence my preference for FF, to whom I gave first preference.

You're aware that both FF and FG categorically ruled out any deal with SF ahead of the election?
Seems perverse to me to be voting for a party in the expectation that it will break its most adamantly asserted pre-election pledge, and to accuse it of 'arrogance' when it fails to do thar.

Edgware

YFlyer wrote: »

Thanks

I must look into that. Would prefer to get the gig on election day though.

In other way sit on your arse and get money for drawing a line through people's names

Edgware

Yurt! wrote: »

Another restrained and considered contribution there...

Thank you. I thought it might be above your head

acequion

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You're aware that both FF and FG categorically ruled out any deal with SF ahead of the election?
Seems perverse to me to be voting for a party in the expectation that it will break its most adamantly asserted pre-election pledge, and to accuse it of 'arrogance' when it fails to do thar.

And you are aware that parties constantly break their "most adamantly asserted pre election pledge"??? If not, you'd want to wake up to how these people operate!

Also, have you forgotten that nobody realised that SF would technically win the election when they voted? That knowledge came later, exit polls being the first inkling. Therefore I didn't have set coalitions in my head when voting, how could I have?

And of course it's arrogance when one party refuses to talk to another party, equally chosen by the electorate! We vote hoping they will cooperate and keep all options open in the national interest.

Loafing Oaf

acequion wrote: »

And you are aware that parties constantly break their "most adamantly asserted pre election pledge"??? If not, you'd want to wake up to how these people operate!

Well if you're that cynical I don't see why you're engaging with the process at all. If you believe political parties start with a blank slate after the election and don't feel bound by any of the commitments they made beforehand, how can you have any confidence in what you're going to get from any of them? Would Sinn Fein be within their rights to turn round and say we should rejoin the United Kingdom?

woohoo!!!

No one is getting a majority, so best to set out 5 priorities.

schmoo2k

acequion wrote: »

And you are aware that parties constantly break their "most adamantly asserted pre election pledge"??? If not, you'd want to wake up to how these people operate!

Also, have you forgotten that nobody realised that SF would technically win the election when they voted? That knowledge came later, exit polls being the first inkling. Therefore I didn't have set coalitions in my head when voting, how could I have?

And of course it's arrogance when one party refuses to talk to another party, equally chosen by the electorate! We vote hoping they will cooperate and keep all options open in the national interest.

In which case it should simply be a FF / SF / FG coalition?

um7y1h83ge06nx

People saying that their parents had a decent lifestyle with one salary need to realise that this erosion of spending power has happened in many, if not most, developed countries in the world. I don't think it's a good thing at all but can't see how any party in a small country like Ireland can change that.

Work and the value of what people work at has changed dramatically too through automation. Work in developed countries is unfortunately becoming a slippery ladder where some low paid jobs will not exist in the future once the technology exists to automate these roles. This will force many to upskill or fall out of the workforce.

In many ways our parents were somewhat lucky to work when Ireland was rapidly developing but automation didn't really exist. What screwed them was high interest rates on mortgages and loans.

Yurt2

Alondra Damp Publisher wrote: »

People saying that their parents had a decent lifestyle with one salary need to realise that this erosion of spending power has happened in many, if not most, developed countries in the world. I don't think it's a good thing at all but can't see how any party in a small country like Ireland can change that.

Work and the value of what people work at has changed dramatically too through automation. Work in developed countries is unfortunately becoming a slippery ladder where some low paid jobs will not exist in the future once the technology exists to automate these roles. This will force many to upskill or fall out of the workforce.

In many ways our parents were somewhat lucky to work when Ireland was rapidly developing but automation didn't really exist. What screwed them was high interest rates on mortgages and loans.

Wage growth wiped out my parents mortgage long before the term of the mortgage was initially set for, even taking into account periods of high interest rates.

Evreyone who had the good fortune to hold onto work in the 60s, 70s and 80s (and into the 90s) experienced real and nominal wage growth that was far higher than young people can expect now (higher than the Celtic tiger years if you can believe it, refer to cso stats for more).

There were of course periods of high interest rates, but the wage growth that occured from external headwinds reduced the size of the principal in relation to purchasing power big-time.

My parents were not alone, hundreds of thousands of mortgages were cleared very early due to nothing but the dumb-luck of having their prime working years during a period of unprecedented wage growth. We haven't seen it since, and we're unlikely to see it again.

Shefwedfan

Another election might be the best option

People where in such a rush not to vote FF/FG they just picked SF with no idea what they would end up with or who they actually where voting in

The just Mary Lou and Doherty and voted for them, so tick whatever name was beside SF in their county, now they are starting to see the type of candidate that SF actually have.....

SF have the issue they can’t go back to polls because they know the vote will fall off plus they don’t actually want to go into government because they have no idea how to run a country or deliver on any of the bulls**t they made up in their manifesto....they would prefer to go into opposition and throw mud as usual at someone else

So either do another election and throw them out

Or go into government SF and actually deliver on something, we will end up with election next year anyway....

zerosugarbuzz

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

FFG are showing total disrespect for the voters and for democracy. No one is being fooled anymore.

You are if you think the unelected IRA Army Council running Sinn Fein give two sh1tes about democracy.

...Ghost...

...Ghost... wrote: »

30 years ago my parents went on holidays to Spain every year with 2 or 3 kids.

They also went out every weekend once, or twice spending a fair few quid on the Guinness.

My old man was a truck driver. Nothing special. One income family. The same could be said for most of the neighbours.

That was the boom 1990s. Totally different era to the 80s.

Sure, in the 80s, if you were part of the in crowd you could get a public sector job and pay off a house on a single income. If you were in the private sector, chances were very good you would be unemployed for months or years at a time. Working and drawing the dole was rampant at that time, and often was more secure and lucrative than a "permanent" job.

No one other than the rich went on foreign holidays. The children of those rich still own lots of property today.

What WAS different was there were many more council houses available.

YFlyer

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I did it once (I was actually unemployed after redundancy so the few quid was welcome)
Back then, they were advertising for unemployed people to apply for it.
Long, long day but worth it and also to get a look at how things work.

I'm finishing my PhD and have no source of income atm. Some money can help me immensely.

Bass Reeves

Yurt! wrote: »

Wage growth wiped out my parents mortgage long before the term of the mortgage was initially set for, even taking into account periods of high interest rates.

Evreyone who had the good fortune to hold onto work in the 60s, 70s and 80s (and into the 90s) experienced real and nominal wage growth that was far higher than young people can expect now (it was higher in those decades than the Celtic tiger years if you can believe it, refer to cso stats for more).

There were of course periods of high interest rates, but the wage growth that occured from external headwinds reduced the size of the principal in relation to purchasing power big-time.

My parents were not alone, hundreds of thousands of mortgages were cleared very early due to nothing but the dumb-luck of having their prime working years during a period of unprecedented wage growth. We haven't seen it since, and we're unlikely to see it again.

It was not wage growth but rather inflation.and devaluations Because of the oil crisis if the 70's inflation was rampant varying from 5-10%/year. However you also had hight interest rates. During the mid eighties we linked to the euro which was a non traded currency getting ready for the eventual launch of the actual euro. We had another devaluation because we were no longer aligned to sterling . However interest rates hit 20%fir a short while because of this. When we entered the preparation for the euro interest rates dropped from 7-8% to sub 4%. This made a substantial difference to those paying loans. As well mortgage's were limited to 2.3-3 times the main income and 1-1.5times the second income. And before that in the 70's it was only the man's income that was considered for loan purposes.

The bid different was in general people went without. Pre marriage people saved nearly all there income ,often they lived at home, houses were the bare four walls at best only the front lawn was finished painting decoration was carried out after moving in. The standard of housing (doors, windows, sanitary ware and kitchens was much lower than now. Insulation was only starting to come into play. Heating was often by a back boiler off an open fire.
It was a set of circumstances and lesser expectation not just dumb luck

acequion

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It was not wage growth but rather inflation.and devaluations Because of the oil crisis if the 70's inflation was rampant varying from 5-10%/year. However you also had hight interest rates. During the mid eighties we linked to the euro which was a non traded currency getting ready for the eventual launch of the actual euro. We had another devaluation because we were no longer aligned to sterling . However interest rates hit 20%fir a short while because of this. When we entered the preparation for the euro interest rates dropped from 7-8% to sub 4%. This made a substantial difference to those paying loans. As well mortgage's were limited to 2.3-3 times the main income and 1-1.5times the second income. And before that in the 70's it was only the man's income that was considered for loan purposes.

The bid different was in general people went without. Pre marriage people saved nearly all there income ,often they lived at home, houses were the bare four walls at best only the front lawn was finished painting decoration was carried out after moving in. The standard of housing (doors, windows, sanitary ware and kitchens was much lower than now. Insulation was only starting to come into play. Heating was often by a back boiler off an open fire.
It was a set of circumstances and lesser expectation not just dumb luck

We had oil central heating and so had all our neighbours.

While I fully agree that building and general housing standards were nowhere near what they are today and lives were simpler and people more frugal in many ways, it's simply not true that general living standards were as low as some here are claiming. Also, while people didn't spend on foreign holidays, gadgets, meals out as they do today, a lot of money was spent on drink. In those days you drank all night at your local and drove home. Things like buying large rounds of drink were a lot more commonplace than today. Betting on horses was another one.

I don't necessarily agree that people did without

Bass Reeves

acequion wrote: »

We had oil central heating and so had all our neighbours.

While I fully agree that building and general housing standards were nowhere near what they are today and lives were simpler and people more frugal in many ways, it's simply not true that general living standards were as low as some here are claiming. Also, while people didn't spend on foreign holidays, gadgets, meals out as they do today, a lot of money was spent on drink. In those days you drank all night at your local and drove home. Things like buying large rounds of drink were a lot more commonplace than today. Betting on horses was another one.

I don't necessarily agree that people did without

Again an incorrect assumption. First off closing time was 11.30pm, 10pm on Sundays and 11pm during the winter. Yes there was more of a tendency to drive after a few pints but in general lads were not legless there was no shots or jagerbomb's. Depending on how far back you go and whether you lived in a city , large town or smaller town/village other factors came into consideration such as what fuel you used or the cost of it. Trades people did tommer's and the cost off carrying out improvements to a house or finishing a house did not entail up front cost on the Mortgage.


Depending on your age, where you lived would have exposed you to different perception of what happened in reality from the 60's to 90's and your perception of the reality of home ownership and the costs involved. In general I did not see a lot of round buying, except at maybe Weddings and Funerals but on a nigh out you might or might not be involved in around it was easy enough to avoid as well. What came around went around.

acequion

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Again an incorrect assumption. First off closing time was 11.30pm, 10pm on Sundays and 11pm during the winter. Yes there was more of a tendency to drive after a few pints but in general lads were not legless there was no shots or jagerbomb's. Depending on how far back you go and whether you lived in a city , large town or smaller town/village other factors came into consideration such as what fuel you used or the cost of it. Trades people did tommer's and the cost off carrying out improvements to a house or finishing a house did not entail up front cost on the Mortgage.


Depending on your age, where you lived would have exposed you to different perception of what happened in reality from the 60's to 90's and your perception of the reality of home ownership and the costs involved. In general I did not see a lot of round buying, except at maybe Weddings and Funerals but on a nigh out you might or might not be involved in around it was easy enough to avoid as well. What came around went around.

Not an incorrect assumption, rather my experience of life in the 80's. I lived in a large town and living standards would have been higher in towns and cities and I remember large groups in rounds.

But I do agree with a lot of what you say. Ireland was a backward backwater and seems like a different planet looking back. And no you didn't have the level of binge drinking that you have today or indeed obesity. But I personally didn't see all that much deprivation.

Yurt2

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It was not wage growth but rather inflation.and devaluations Because of the oil crisis if the 70's inflation was rampant varying from 5-10%/year. However you also had hight interest rates. During the mid eighties we linked to the euro which was a non traded currency getting ready for the eventual launch of the actual euro. We had another devaluation because we were no longer aligned to sterling . However interest rates hit 20%fir a short while because of this. When we entered the preparation for the euro interest rates dropped from 7-8% to sub 4%. This made a substantial difference to those paying loans. As well mortgage's were limited to 2.3-3 times the main income and 1-1.5times the second income. And before that in the 70's it was only the man's income that was considered for loan purposes.

The bid different was in general people went without. Pre marriage people saved nearly all there income ,often they lived at home, houses were the bare four walls at best only the front lawn was finished painting decoration was carried out after moving in. The standard of housing (doors, windows, sanitary ware and kitchens was much lower than now. Insulation was only starting to come into play. Heating was often by a back boiler off an open fire.
It was a set of circumstances and lesser expectation not just dumb luck

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.

STB.

acequion wrote: »

As for this utter nonsense that people nowadays suffer from entitlement and that the 80's were some sort of Calcutta, again the above poster is spot on. I, too, was around in the 80's,grew up in a middle class home where dad was the bread winner and mum stayed home and we had a comfortable life where we went on holidays and my parents went out a lot. It was an easier time in many ways, harder in others. Today's generation tend to be much better educated and jobs are much more demanding so why would people not have higher expectations? Expectations are not the same as entitlement. If you've spent years at college, have a good degree, work long, hard, productive hours, it is reasonable to expect a decent standard of living.

Your post smacks of it. Many parents who you describe didn't have degrees. They worked from very young ages. Grafters. Just because you spent years at college means nothing.

Regarding the root cause. The main problem is down to supply and demand with housing. Housing remained largely dormant for the last 10-15 years. The standard of living has shot up and wages hasn't kept pace. There are now zero hour contracts. The banks took chances at the end of the celtic tiger and they got caught. They are reluctant to do so again when it comes to lending. Add that all to the mix and its a different environment than 80s/90s.

Make no mistake, the first preference votes for SF was a wake up call for FG and FF, but nothing more. Perhaps they may take their jobs as politicans more seriously this time, but it is going to take decades to recover this country. The austerity that people suffered over the past decade is not gone away, although the lack of media attention to the root cause of infrastructural problems would lead you to think otherwise.

There is no magic fix that the word "change" can solve quickly. SF in government alone would set the country back a few more decades. They have no bright ideas behind all that change mantra.

citysights

STB. wrote: »

Your post smacks of it. Many parents who you describe didn't have degrees. They worked from very young ages. Grafters. Just because you spent years at college means nothing.

Regarding the root cause. The main problem is down to supply and demand with housing. Housing remained largely dormant for the last 10-15 years. The standard of living has shot up and wages hasn't kept pace. There are now zero hour contracts. The banks took chances at the end of the celtic tiger and they got caught. They are reluctant to do so again when it comes to lending. Add that all to the mix and its a different environment than 80s/90s.

Make no mistake, the first preference votes for SF was a wake up call for FG and FF, but nothing more. Perhaps they may take their jobs as politicans more seriously this time, but it is going to take decades to recover this country. The austerity that people suffered over the past decade is not gone away, although the lack of media attention to the root cause of infrastructural problems would lead you to think otherwise.

There is no magic fix that the word "change" can solve quickly. SF in government alone would set the country back a few more decades. They have no bright ideas behind all that change mantra.

You make seem really good points especially re the austerity after the 2008 crash. Parts of the country have never recovered, there were so many cutbacks. Some people in parts of the country that are doing well seem to have forgotten those left behind.

jam_mac_jam

Deleted User wrote: »

That was the boom 1990s. Totally different era to the 80s.

Sure, in the 80s, if you were part of the in crowd you could get a public sector job and pay off a house on a single income. If you were in the private sector, chances were very good you would be unemployed for months or years at a time. Working and drawing the dole was rampant at that time, and often was more secure and lucrative than a "permanent" job.

No one other than the rich went on foreign holidays. The children of those rich still own lots of property today.

What WAS different was there were many more council houses available.

It was not just the children of the rich who went on holidays. We went away most years. I am from a very normal family. My husbands family where the father was a bus driver went away every year on package holidays. The idea that everyone was starving in the 80s is such crap. Its actually laughable.

Do you think everyone just suddenly had money in the 90's and everyone was starving before that. I have never heard such exaggeration in all my life.

citysights

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It was not just the children of the rich who went on holidays. We went away most years. I am from a very normal family. My husbands family where the father was a bus driver went away every year on package holidays. The idea that everyone was starving in the 80s is such crap. Its actually laughable.

Do you think everyone just suddenly had money in the 90's and everyone was starving before that. I have never heard such exaggeration in all my life.

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.

jam_mac_jam

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.

Exactly the level of exaggeration is incredible. Also, loads of families had four or five kids which never happens any more. Another luxury that is not being counted in the costs described.

citysights

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Exactly the level of exaggeration is incredible. Also, loads of families had four or five kids which never happens any more. Another luxury that is not being counted in the costs described.

Yes they certainly had more kids, more secure jobs too, I remember again some of my classmates Dads working in what used to be p and t I think( post and telecoms) also Esb, also council workers sweeping the roads, then there were guards kids, local businesses kids, honestly I think back to my primary classmates and all the dads were working and hardly any mothers, think the marriage bar was still in place. Wow trip down memory lane there, mad to think about how times have changed. And this was rural Ireland, same town has nothing now.

SafeSurfer

acequion wrote: »

We had oil central heating and so had all our neighbours.

While I fully agree that building and general housing standards were nowhere near what they are today and lives were simpler and people more frugal in many ways, it's simply not true that general living standards were as low as some here are claiming. Also, while people didn't spend on foreign holidays, gadgets, meals out as they do today, a lot of money was spent on drink. In those days you drank all night at your local and drove home. Things like buying large rounds of drink were a lot more commonplace than today. Betting on horses was another one.

I don't necessarily agree that people did without

24% of the adult population were non drinkers or ex drinkers in Ireland in the 1980s. Drug taking, outside cities and large towns was very much a minority activity compared to the amounts of disposable income spent on recreational drugs today. Also consider no outgoings on mobile phones or subscription services such as apps, etc. Satellite television services, Sky Sports etc were the exception rather than the norm.
Furthermore one income households were standard and paid for childcare was not ubiquitous like today.

jmayo

Edgware wrote: »

The so called Irish Left ae a joke. Arts student types playing politics. Marxist Leninists versus Troskyists. Every socialist party is in favour of property taxes except the Irish scrotes.
They cant agree on whether they prefer tea to coffee. The biggest conmen of all are the Shinners trying to be all things to all men.

Actually the lack of desire for property taxes from the left comes across as different to almost every left party elsewhere.

...Ghost... wrote: »

30 years ago my parents went on holidays to Spain every year with 2 or 3 kids.

They also went out every weekend once, or twice spending a fair few quid on the Guinness.

My old man was a truck driver. Nothing special. One income family. The same could be said for most of the neighbours.

We may have had mass emigration in the 80s, but where people went, they could get a job and rent/buy a house. If they had a job here, they could usually get a mortgage and have it paid off in 15-20 years.

People who had a secure job in Ireland in the 80s could do ok.
But by fook was it hard to get one of those jobs.
It usually involved a lot of pull.

Growing up in West of Ireland, I finished secondary school in mid 80s.
The options for my classmates were
1. college and then probably emigration.
2. emigrate to UK or States if one was lucky enough to have been born there as child of returned emigrants or chance lucky dip for green card.
3. use family contacts to get job with civil service, council or maybe one of the few private companies in likes of Dublin, Galway, etc.

And the people that did get jobs here signed up for mortgages often with interest rates three times what they are now.
And as others have said they had shag all in those houses until they could scrape the money together to buy it.

The only one I remember going abroad for holidays in 70s or 80s was my old primary school principle who caravaned around France or the local solicitors and doctors.
The only one with BMW was a local solicitor.
The only one with new Merc was local businessman.
The only ones with new cars were teachers, Gardai, priests, business owners.

Oh wait I knew one farmer with new car, a new Skoda with rear engine.
Look it up folks, a real gem of Communist engineering and production.

Now maybe folks in Dublin could go out for meal once a week, but by christ those of us in Mayo didn't.
And even if you could afford it there were shag all places to go.
There were the odd Cafe or hotel, but there weren't the restaurants like today.

Young people today face a different set of issues.
On the plus side they don't have to face compolusary emigration for work, they have access to stuff we could only dream of, they have more access to credit, they access to more third level options, they have cheaper travel to see the world.

On the negative side the price of all types of accommodation has gone through the roof, which means even going away to college is now probably outside the scope of many, there are no longer probably any guaranteed jobs for life and they will without doubt face far worse retirement options.
Oh and the planets climate is going to shyte.

schmoo2k

jmayo wrote: »

...
1. college and then probably emigration.
...

College wasn't a gimme then either:
CIT 1986 2 Year Certificate in Electronic Engineering had higher points and twice the class size as the 4 Year Degree (which didn't even fill all its places).

The difference was you got the EU grant for the Cert place, while the Degree was 465 punts a year (from memory), which was still a lot more affordable than UCC.

jmayo

citysights wrote: »

Yes they certainly had more kids, more secure jobs too, I remember again some of my classmates Dads working in what used to be p and t I think( post and telecoms) also Esb, also council workers sweeping the roads, then there were guards kids, local businesses kids, honestly I think back to my primary classmates and all the dads were working and hardly any mothers, think the marriage bar was still in place. Wow trip down memory lane there, mad to think about how times have changed. And this was rural Ireland, same town has nothing now.

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.

JP Liz V1

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Price of flights very different then, just very different times. High rents makes it harder and longer to save deposit for a house. Comparatively, house prices much greater too.

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