'Shock Poll' Sinn Fein now on 35%

smurgen

Fann Linn wrote: »

Haha, thats brilliant. But they'll dismiss the writer of that report as a Shinner, like the way they cast doubt last week on the professor who ripped apart Drew Harris latest meanderings.

Will this be mentioned by RTE? Will Miriam o Callaghan etc call for Eoghan Murphy to clarify this?

Fann Linn

Bambi wrote: »

Who was that now?

Dr. Karen Devine, last week on TWIP I think.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sinn Fein fanboy at it again. Reality is what they want it to be.

Why has nobody been discussing a FG-Alliance-DUP coalition? Or perhaps a FF-Social Democrat pact in Westminster?

Are you suggesting people on this site don't regularly claim that the north of the island isn't a different country?

What's with the SF Fanboy stuff btw? Is it supposed to be a slur or a term of endearment


Your ramblings have become more incoherent as the day has moved on, I'm not long back from an 8k walk through the sleet and snow - but sure the kids and dogs enjoyed it. Perhaps you should do the same.

Clear the head a bit.

RandomName2

BluePlanet wrote: »

How so?
SF in government in both parts of the island can only strengthen Ireland's hand when dealing with the British in particular.

In relation to the unionists. I don't think they will be massively happy being in a united Ireland. If a united Ireland gets passed in the North by 50.1% of the vote then there will be blood. It is stupid to consider it otherwise.

Now I don't think we should be held hostage to loyalist terrorists in negotiations any more than we be held hostage by republican terrorists. Same type of scum, different sides. But appreciating the difficulty that this entails is important.

Sinn Fein has set it as its primary goal. Difficulties are merely impediments to a larger plan.

smurgen

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I don't think anyone needed the EU to tell us FG were playing with the homeless figures A drop in numbers before the election and a rise of almost 500 afterwards.

I would say that this is more than simple pre election promises or electioneering.it's essentially fraud and it asks serious question on the strings that FG pull. I think Eoghan Murphy & Leo Varadkar need to clarify what's gone on here.

Fann Linn

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sinn Fein fanboy at it again. Reality is what they want it to be.

Why has nobody been discussing a FG-Alliance-DUP coalition? Or perhaps a FF-Social Democrat pact in Westminster?



Or maybe just not bother reading something at all because it comes from the Sindo, Irish Times, or was written by someone from the Labour party. Sorry, no that's what the Sinn Fein supporters do.

DE MEDIA ARE ALL BIASED, AND WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY IT ONLY MAKES US MORE POPULAR but here's an interesting piece from a journalist that happens to support our position that you might be interested in.

Have my IT & Times online subscription thanks to Bargain Alerts so well accustomed to reading the various reports. And as for LP as a past serving long time member who happened to jump ship when Gilmore rolled back on all his redline issues, excuse me for not giving them any credence.

smurgen

smurgen wrote: »

Here's a good one for you.The EU coming out directly calling FG liars and hinting at corruption.is this what a "normal" party looks like?

"Fine Gael are today accused of "obfuscation if not corruption" by an EU commission. Not only have they turned homelessness into a heartless for profit industry via emergency accommodation, but they are lying about how many people have been given shelter"

https://www.businesspost.ie/sectors/experts-report-says-some-rehoused-homeless-were-double-counted-9d77b7ce

To be more specific what they've done they double counted “rehoused”. They counted HAP renewals as “a new tenancy” and they count leases off private landlords as “new builds”. This is why no one trusts Leo Varadkar or Eoghan Murphy.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

In relation to the unionists. I don't think they will be massively happy being in a united Ireland. If a united Ireland gets passed in the North by 50.1% of the vote then there will be blood. It is stupid to consider it otherwise.

Now I don't think we should be held hostage to loyalist terrorists in negotiations any more than we be held hostage by republican terrorists. Same type of scum, different sides. But appreciating the difficulty that this entails is important.

Sinn Fein has set it as its primary goal. Difficulties are merely impediments to a larger plan.

This old chestnut again.

Who will these loyalist paramilitaries target, and what will their aims be?

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

Are you suggesting people on this site don't regularly claim that the north of the island isn't a different country?

There are plenty that claim the Earth isn't round, but such opinions can easily be discounted as either insane or willfully blind.

McMurphy wrote: »

What's with the SF Fanboy stuff btw? Is it supposed to be a slur or a term of endearment

I don't have much time for anyone who is a sycophant for any party. The Sinn Fein fanboys on here see that SF can do no wrong. FF and FG are it is true, up to their waists in ****. I'd be the first person to admit that. I don't see anyone say that FF or FG are faultless. The Sinn Fein fanboys screech whenever anybody says anything critical about their beloved party, or feign laughter.

McMurphy wrote: »

Your ramblings have become more incoherent as the day has moved on, I'm not long back from an 8k walk through the sleet and snow - but sure the kids and dogs enjoyed it. Perhaps you should do the same.

Clear the head a bit.

You mean an 8k rambling?

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

This old chestnut again.

Who will these loyalist paramilitaries target, and what will their aims be?

Sometimes the feigning of laughter comes at more inappropriate occasions.

ThunbergsAreGo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just one guy's opinion but IMO Mary Lou has been one of the better debaters in recent years, she tends to stick with the policy issue at hand instead of trying to pivot or use attack as a form of defense. I can't see her, for instance, practising the Enda Kenny School of Answering Questions which our last two Taoisigh have engaged in, where they make some snide comment during leader's questions and rarely address whatever is actually being put to them.

I'm not actually saying she's a great debater, I have my issues with her debating style just as with any public speaker really, there are always faults you can point out. What I am saying though, is that she's certainly far, far better in comparison to the kind of sh!te we've had from FG for the last ten years. Micheal Martin actually isn't a bad debater himself, I just feel that he personally, and his party more generally, have too much baggage in too many areas to really be taken seriously, and Martin knows this on some level as his debating style tends to be very restrained and he avoids pointing out problems with FG policy which he knows are actually policies they co-opted from Bertie Ahern era FF.

The big advantage she has is she has no record to examine so she can't be quizzed on actual achievements.

In one of the debates she
- accessed Martin of mansplaining
- was unaware of the budget for providing chargers for electric cars "loads"
- admitted she had lied in an interview the previous night
- had no response to a question on how the pension issue will be solved.
- used her old and tired arent you lads the same line.

She is full of bluster and accusations but it's alot easier when there isn't anything to scrutinise. She's all bravado with little substance in my opinion - a complete populist.

And it's working massively for her, as we have seen in other elections in the last few years. Get the core message right -"change"- and people don't really care about what's behind it

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

There are plenty that claim the Earth isn't round, but such opinions can easily be discounted as either insane or willfully blind.

I've no clue what you're shyting on about now, blanch is part of a certain cohort on boards who regularly claim the likes of Belfast and Derry are cities in a different country. Wtf have flat earthers got to do with anything is beyond me.

I don't have much time for anyone who is a sycophant for any party. The Sinn Fein fanboys on here see that SF can do no wrong. FF and FG are it is true, up to their waists in ****. I'd be the first person to admit that. I don't see anyone say that FF or FG are faultless. The Sinn Fein fanboys screech whenever anybody says anything critical about their beloved party, or feign laughter.

A fleeting glance of my post history would reveal that I'm on record of voting for various party's over the years, including SF socdems and FF. No political party owns my vote, they earn it come election time.

You look like your unsettled tbh.

You mean an 8k rambling?

I mean what I typed out.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sometimes the feigning of laughter comes at more inappropriate occasions.

There's no feigning, I'm genuinely interested in this doomsday prediction.

I'll ask again, who do you think the loyalist paramilitaries might target and what would their aims be.

Would they bomb Dublin in an effort to get the UK to invade again for example? Or maybe they'd start a campaign of terror over in England in an effort to get the Brits to undo the GFA process.

Discuss.

Maybe go for that walk first though.

JPCN1

J_1980 wrote: »

Going into government with SF is the same as going into government without SF for FF/FG.
Either SF blame the government or the coalition partner for any failures. Best solution is ff/fg/green and let SF win in 3-4y if the votes are there. Left wing governments have a 100% track record of failure anyway, but this way most companies have 2-3y to prepare.

Or the sane folk with money to move it abroad.

RandomName2

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

The big advantage she has is she has no record to examine so she can't be quizzed on actual achievements.

In one of the debates she
- accessed Martin of mansplaining
- was unaware of the budget for providing chargers for electric cars "loads"
- admitted she had lied in an interview the previous night
- had no response to a question on how the pension issue will be solved.
- used her old and tired arent you lads the same line.

She is full of bluster and accusations but it's alot easier when there isn't anything to scrutinise. She's all bravado with little substance in my opinion - a complete populist.

And it's working massively for her, as we have seen in other elections in the last few years. Get the core message right -"change"- and people don't really care about what's behind it

She also totally fluffed the Paul Quinn question. Not that any of that mattered. She was, like the rest of her party, shocked by how well they did in the election. She could come on stage, grunt like a pig, and she'd still be described as charismatic.

When I heard the snorting I thought 'YES! That articulates my anger at the current mismanagement of the country. Finally someone expresses the feelings of our generation, and our burning desire for change.'

Suckit

RandomName2 wrote: »

And FG had nothing to do with gay marriage, they just motioned for it to be a thing, introduced the legislation, got it passed by government, and campaigned for it to be approved in a national referendum.

Labour might have something to say about that.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

I've no clue what you're shyting on about now, blanch is part of a certain cohort on boards who regularly claim the likes of Belfast and Derry are cities in a different country. Wtf have flat earthers got to do with anything is beyond me.

You are clearly a flatearther if you don't think that Northern Ireland is another country. You have to back before 1920 when we were part of the UK for that not to be the case.

McMurphy wrote: »

You look like your unsettled tbh.

My unsettled looks nothing like me.

McMurphy wrote: »

I mean what I typed out.

Well aren't you a barrel of laughs.

McMurphy wrote: »

There's no feigning, I'm genuinely interested in this doomsday prediction.

Who said doomsday? Would there be a doomsday with a hard border? No. Would it be unpleasant and potentially dangerous? Yes. Same think applies for the two separate countries. Sorry, t-w-o s-e-p-a-r-a-t-e c-o-u-n-t-r-i-e-s becoming one, only more-so.

McMurphy wrote: »

Maybe go for that walk first though.

Certainly more amusing than talking to a Sinn Fein supporter who places smiling emojis in all the wrong locations.

hatrickpatrick

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

The big advantage she has is she has no record to examine so she can't be quizzed on actual achievements.

In one of the debates she
- accessed Martin of mansplaining
- was unaware of the budget for providing chargers for electric cars "loads"
- admitted she had lied in an interview the previous night
- had no response to a question on how the pension issue will be solved.
- used her old and tired arent you lads the same line.

She is full of bluster and accusations but it's alot easier when there isn't anything to scrutinise. She's all bravado with little substance in my opinion - a complete populist.

And it's working massively for her, as we have seen in other elections in the last few years. Get the core message right -"change"- and people don't really care about what's behind it

That particular debate was incredibly disappointing I'll agree (Jesus Christ that mainsplaining comment 🙈), but I was more thinking in terms of debates and speeches in the Dáil. Perhaps this is simply a case of her being better at oration with pre-written and pre-researched remarks as opposed to thinking on her feet in a live debate setting; although I did think she did very well in Virgin's seven way leaders' debate the previous week so it could just as easily be that she simply had an off-night. I absolutely agree it wasn't a good debate for her.

But think more of her performance in the Dáil, she in my view has very consistently been an extremely effective opposition TD when it comes to pointing out problems with government policy and asking the right questions during question and answer sessions. Her speech last week on the day of the Taoiseach vote was very well written and well delivered as well. So I'd argue she's a good speaker and is good at debating in that kind of setting, and as we only saw her in two television debates, in my view one of which she performed second best only to Richard Boyd Barrett and the second of which she clumsily fumbled, that's not a bad record in terms of doing well. And I can certainly say that she was incredible when it came to answering questions in Liberty Hall the other night.

Muahahaha

Shefwedfan wrote: »

and then people ask the question "why was Trump voted in".

Are you actually for real? you are voting in someone because they are kissing some babies heads? nothing to do with her agenda or what she will do for you as a voter?

.

I think you've missed the point entirely. Im not talking about me, Im talking about the electorate at large. They arent political anoraks or junkies like us posting here, they largely tune out of politics in between elections.

But right now they're engaged and huge numbers want to see Mary Lou in government. Thats the danger for FF FG letting this situation slide towards a second election. They cannot out-campaign her and they cannot out debate her and 1 in every 2 voters approves of her, far above the approval ratings of Martin and Leo. SFs 10% jump in the polls came in a week when Leo said SF were bullying and intimidaing voters by (shock, horror :rolleyes:) holding public meetings. That didnt work out too well for him. Its clear now (and has been for several weeks) that every pile of sh1te that FF or FG throw at Mary Lou results in even more SF gains in the polls.

The writing is on the wall now, if FFG dont get together and another election is called they are taking a huge risk that Mary Lou will return not just with the 35% in this poll but with an even higher number that will rise further once campaigning and debates get underway. All the momentum is with her and FFG attempts to knock her down just make her numbers go up even more.

I cant see FFG taking the risk of a second election, it would be by far their least favoured option. Their next least favourite option of going into coalition together is now the only game in town IMO with the Greens getting their policies implemented in far greater proportion than their numbers would suggest. So more of the same on health and housing and then a whack of new taxes from the Greens is how I see this going.

hatrickpatrick

JPCN1 wrote: »

Or the sane folk with money to move it abroad.

Difficult to move bricks and mortar abroad though. As many of our current problems stem from the societal paradigm of treating housing primarily as a commercial asset and only secondarily or even tertiarily as something for people to live in, a flight of cuckoo funds and speculators from the Irish property market would at least cause a short term drop in rent and house prices as those hoarding housing sell up en masse. Maintaining that drop would depend on SF delivering on its commitment to return to a paradigm of widespread public housing construction.

hatrickpatrick

Muahahaha wrote: »

The writing is on the wall now, if FFG dont get together and another election is called they are taking a huge risk that Mary Lou will return not just with the 35% in this poll but with an even higher number that will rise further once campaigning and debates get underway. All the momentum is with her and FFG attempts to knock her down just make her numbers go up even more.

I cant see FFG taking the risk of a second election, it would be by far their least favoured option. Their next least favourite option of going into coalition together is now the only game in town IMO with the Greens getting their policies implemented in far greater proportion than their numbers.

Is there any point at which a self-preservation instinct among FFG politicians might actually cause them to change policy direction away from neoliberalism and back towards the social democracy we had before the '90s? It's fairly clear that this is what the vast majority of the voters who are part of the "change" surge actually want. The single biggest issue among everyone who's been talking along those lines has been FFG's selling off of public land and relying on the private sector to deliver the public housing which should be the state's responsibility. Regardless of one's own views on whether that's actually a good idea, it's undoubtedly what the change bloc of voters are asking for, and FFG are staunchly ideologically opposed.

My question is, really, at what point does political self-preservation kick in? At what point might FFG actually move leftward on these issues for the sake of stemming the haemorrhaging of the young electorate to SF? It's very often said in politics that even if a surge for an alternative to the status quo doesn't reach the necessary threshold to actually change the people at the top of government, it can scare those people into changing their own policy direction in order to appeal to those angry voters. At what point do FFG's desire to remain relevant and recover from the losses they've experienced override their instincts to serve the investor class at the expense of the working and middle classes?

Muahahaha

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My question is, really, at what point does political self-preservation kick in? At what point might FFG actually move leftward on these issues for the sake of stemming the haemorrhaging of the young electorate to SF? It's very often said in politics that even if a surge for an alternative to the status quo doesn't reach the necessary threshold to actually change the people at the top of government, it can scare those people into changing their own policy direction in order to appeal to those angry voters. At what point do FFG's desire to remain relevant and recover from the losses they've experienced override their instincts to serve the investor class at the expense of the working and middle classes?

I think if they go into government together they will have to shift to the left at least on housing anyway.

Its not just the young voting for SF though and people keep making that mistake. SF outperformed both FF and FG in every single age bracket from 18 to 65. So what you have wholescale now is 30 and 40 year old 'kids' still living at home with their parents. Cant afford rents, cant afford home ownership. They get pissed off and vote SF. Their parents get pissed off at the kids having no chance of housing and they vote for SF.

FF and FG need to cop on to the complete disaster they have made of housing and how it has resulted in a huge shift towards SF. Because it is not just the kids who voted for SF, it is their parents too.

ThunbergsAreGo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That particular debate was incredibly disappointing I'll agree (Jesus Christ that mainsplaining comment 🙈), but I was more thinking in terms of debates and speeches in the Dáil. Perhaps this is simply a case of her being better at oration with pre-written and pre-researched remarks as opposed to thinking on her feet in a live debate setting; although I did think she did very well in Virgin's seven way leaders' debate the previous week so it could just as easily be that she simply had an off-night. I absolutely agree it wasn't a good debate for her.

But think more of her performance in the Dáil, she in my view has very consistently been an extremely effective opposition TD when it comes to pointing out problems with government policy and asking the right questions during question and answer sessions. Her speech last week on the day of the Taoiseach vote was very well written and well delivered as well. So I'd argue she's a good speaker and is good at debating in that kind of setting, and as we only saw her in two television debates, in my view one of which she performed second best only to Richard Boyd Barrett and the second of which she clumsily fumbled, that's not a bad record in terms of doing well. And I can certainly say that she was incredible when it came to answering questions in Liberty Hall the other night.

I understand your point. I think she is a poor debater but a good public speaker - which all at her level should be, privately educated, in politics ages.

I don't like her broad brush strokes little substance approach but that's very much a style thing. Again though it easy to be leader of the opposition as opposed to in government. I guess we'll find out in the next few years how capable she really is.

RandomName2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's fairly clear that this is what the vast majority of the voters who are part of the "change" surge actually want. The single biggest issue among everyone who's been talking along those lines has been FFG's selling off of public land and relying on the private sector to deliver the public housing which should be the state's responsibility. Regardless of one's own views on whether that's actually a good idea, it's undoubtedly what the change bloc of voters are asking for, and FFG are staunchly ideologically opposed.

Is that really the big issue though? From my understanding the issue isn't that there isn't private land to build houses, or even theoretically volume of houses, it's rather houses that provide people with what they want. This will usually be easy access to work, jobs, healthcare, etc.

The issue isn't housing, it's affordable housing, and the single biggest indicator for cost is location. People who could easily buy a house in Longford are keeping their hands in their pockets because they (quite reasonably) don't want a three hour commute every day.

FG have been pursuing a policy of 'as long as they get built' and that is a similar sentiment from SF. 'Get more houses built.' But surely it is only half the equation if they are houses that don't provide access to jobs or primary civic amenities?

McMurphy

RandomName wrote:

Who said doomsday? Would there be a doomsday with a hard border? No. Would it be unpleasant and potentially dangerous? Yes. Same think applies for the two separate countries. Sorry, t-w-o s-e-p-a-r-a-t-e c-o-u-n-t-r-i-e-s becoming one, only more-so.

This will be the third time asking you now,


I'll ask again, who do you think the loyalist paramilitaries might target and what would their aims be?

If you can't answer, that's fine just say so, and we can move on.

Shefwedfan

McMurphy wrote: »

This will be the third time asking you now,


I'll ask again, who do you think the loyalist paramilitaries might target and what would their aims be?

If you can't answer, that's fine just say so, and we can move on.

I see your still going around with aggressive posting and trying to bully people....

How many have you tried this approach with today?

The big person at the end of a PC....

As I said if you can’t post with any sort of manners why bother....but sure wasting my time with the likes of you, ignore list I recommend to people

J_1980

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is there any point at which a self-preservation instinct among FFG politicians might actually cause them to change policy direction away from neoliberalism and back towards the social democracy we had before the '90s? It's fairly clear that this is what the vast majority of the voters who are part of the "change" surge actually want. The single biggest issue among everyone who's been talking along those lines has been FFG's selling off of public land and relying on the private sector to deliver the public housing which should be the state's responsibility. Regardless of one's own views on whether that's actually a good idea, it's undoubtedly what the change bloc of voters are asking for, and FFG are staunchly ideologically opposed.

My question is, really, at what point does political self-preservation kick in? At what point might FFG actually move leftward on these issues for the sake of stemming the haemorrhaging of the young electorate to SF? It's very often said in politics that even if a surge for an alternative to the status quo doesn't reach the necessary threshold to actually change the people at the top of government, it can scare those people into changing their own policy direction in order to appeal to those angry voters. At what point do FFG's desire to remain relevant and recover from the losses they've experienced override their instincts to serve the investor class at the expense of the working and middle classes?

They simply have no choice - and neither has SF.
As a small open economy Ireland is totally reliant on foreign capital. Fight the capital and they’ll shut the taps...

Mayer Amschel Rothschild:
“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws.”

hatrickpatrick

RandomName2 wrote: »

Is that really the big issue though? From my understanding the issue isn't that there isn't private land to build houses, or even theoretically volume of houses, it's rather houses that provide people with what they want. This will usually be easy access to work, jobs, healthcare, etc.

The issue isn't housing, it's affordable housing, and the single biggest indicator for cost is location. People who could easily buy a house in Longford are keeping their hands in their pockets because they (quite reasonably) don't want a three hour commute every day.

FG have been pursuing a policy of 'as long as they get built' and that is a similar sentiment from SF. 'Get more houses built.' But surely it is only half the equation if they are houses that don't provide access to jobs or primary civic amenities?

That's the point I'm making though, FG are directly contributing to the unaffordability of housing in high demand areas by following FF's (and I cannot stress enough that FF invented this, not FG) model of "knock down high density public housing -> give the site to a developer for next to nothing -> get back only a fraction of what we had before in public housing and leave the rest at the mercy of the ruthless for-profit housing or rental market".

I agree with what others here are saying in that the SF vote wasn't just a "youthquake", but speaking for my own peers, the controversy over O'Devaney Gardens last year was probably the biggest talked about issue in terms of FG's failure on housing - not just not succeeding in getting things done, but not actually wanting to do the right thing, which in many peoples' eyes is returning to a cost-rental, public housing model which excludes the for-profit housing market altogether when it comes to building on public land. O'Devaney Gardens is in Stoneybatter, with direct bus links to other major commuter routes in Dublin (hell, the 46A used to actually drive right through the flats and had a bus stop literally beside one of the blocks before they were demolished) and yet Fine Gael have forced Dublin City Council's hand in giving a huge proportion of the new development to the for-profit market even when DCC themselves voted against it. It is very widely seen as not an economic problem and not a fear of future social problems, but quite simply that FG and FF are ideologically opposed to the political idea that housing shouldn't cost more than it has to, and that the government should subsidise the construction and management of housing which is built for the specific purpose of housing people and not to make as much money as possible by charging the highest prices the market is willing to cough up.

FFG are seen, as others have said, as the "let them eat cake" parties. They don't appear to have an ideological problem with people being fleeced and adopt the "tough, that's life" approach rather than the "this is a democracy and we are literally empowered and entrusted with changing the rules if they're not working out for society" approach. Previous Irish governments solved housing crises by taking the reins of constructing and providing housing because it was the right thing to do, and FFG have not only refused to do this, but have literally given the two fingers to those who want that kind of shift back to a formerly successful policy and away from a policy which is actively contributing to a soaring cost of living and widespread misery for many, many people.

I have often cited this article by Fintan O'Toole on the subject, and I genuinely believe he has accurately captured the seething resentment this cohort of voters feel towards FFG:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-opposition-to-social-housing-is-matter-of-ideology-not-economics-1.2397695

This article was written in 2015, when the seeds of the housing crisis were already sprouting shoots and the disaster that awaited people who were leaving the nest and entering the market at that time was plainly obvious for all to see, with many, many articles sounding the alarm about what was coming down the road in a few years - and five years later, FG have not only refused to do anything about it, but they've actively poured scorn on the idea that this situation is anything other than "people have to learn to live with a sh!t quality of life".

From the article:

The project was far from perfect. The houses were too small – most, like the one I grew up in, had just two bedrooms for big (often extended) Irish Catholic families. (Our household, by no means untypical, had three adults and five children.) Services and facilities were slow to follow.

But the rent was affordable and the houses were a hell of a lot better than what most people had before.

My mother had been living (with seven other people) in what was essentially a one-room cottage in the Liberties; my father grew up in a little hovel off the Dublin quays.

The “market” never had and never would give them a decent place to live – the State did so instead. For all the problems, people in Crumlin had a secure roof over their heads and the chance to build a good community. We had homes.
Why could the State do this in the hungry 1930s and the postwar 1940s but not now?

Not because we can’t but because, as Enda Kenny put it last week, “interference in the market” must be avoided. The desperation to avoid the simple conclusion that government should build houses for people who need them is about ideology, not resources. Fine Gael, in particular, seems incapable of understanding housing as anything other than a market.

And still, after all we’ve been through, 75 per cent of the Government’s promised “social housing” is to be built (supposedly) by the private sector.

There is an almost obsessive fear of stating the obvious – that a large proportion of people will never be decently housed by “the market”. Those citizens need a State that’s not afraid to clear the ground of narrow ideology and build on the foundations of real human needs. That might involve relearning another forgotten word – republic.

J_1980

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think if they go into government together they will have to shift to the left at least on housing anyway.

Its not just the young voting for SF though and people keep making that mistake. SF outperformed both FF and FG in every single age bracket from 18 to 65. So what you have wholescale now is 30 and 40 year old 'kids' still living at home with their parents. Cant afford rents, cant afford home ownership. They get pissed off and vote SF. Their parents get pissed off at the kids having no chance of housing and they vote for SF.

FF and FG need to cop on to the complete disaster they have made of housing and how it has resulted in a huge shift towards SF. Because it is not just the kids who voted for SF, it is their parents too.

The average construction costs of an apartment are 300k+ In Dublin.
Who is going to pay this for 70% of the population who can’t afford it? It’s impossible to tax out of the other 30%, they would just leave.
People just need to be honest that low income earners and people on benefits will never have their own house. You can’t aliment 20% of working age society as generously as Ireland does.

As I said earlier the bill will come in the next recession. It’ll be 2009 on steroids, no room for tax increases and no bank failures. Just overspending to be reined in.

Suckit

J_1980 wrote: »

The average construction costs of an apartment are 300k+ In Dublin.

Where did you get that figure from?

dxhound2005

Muahahaha wrote: »

Its not just the young voting for SF though and people keep making that mistake. SF outperformed both FF and FG in every single age bracket from 18 to 65. So what you have wholescale now is 30 and 40 year old 'kids' still living at home with their parents. Cant afford rents, cant afford home ownership. They get pissed off and vote SF. Their parents get pissed off at the kids having no chance of housing and they vote for SF.

The election result does not tell us that, so you must be going by the exit poll. It shows that in the 35 to 64 age group, the three parties were just about equal.

No party can claim to represent anywhere near the majority of any age group. In fact since people like to combine them, FFFG got a bigger share than SF in every age group. And don't ignore the non SF, FF, FG voters. They have to be acknowledged too.