FF/FG/Green Next Government

ronivek

Bowie wrote: »

List one lie.
You are obviously too biased to be civil.

Is calling a person out on lies not being civil? I would have thought it was more uncivil to continue lying even when you've already been corrected.

The same old guff from the Eamon Ryan thread:

Fell asleep and was woken to stall policy on the living wage for low paid workers and the right to collective bargaining.

Which might be a reasonable opinion to hold if you had only read the Social Democrat's comments on the matter; however I corrected you already on these points and you're still peddling the same lies. And yet you're claiming other people are engaging in spin; funny that.

Also good job ignoring all the questions posed to you in the post you quoted.

James Brown

ronivek wrote: »

Is calling a person out on lies not being civil? I would have thought it was more uncivil to continue lying even when you've already been corrected.

The same old guff from the Eamon Ryan thread:


Which might be a reasonable opinion to hold if you had only read the Social Democrat's comments on the matter; however I corrected you already on these points and you're still peddling the same lies. And yet you're claiming other people are engaging in spin; funny that.

Also good job ignoring all the questions posed to you in the post you quoted.

Calling someone a liar because you have a difference of opinion is not civil IMO.
You gave me party spin not a correction. You cited their promise like it's a fact.
I quoted the SD's own comments on what Eamo did.
I quoted the Greens Lorna Bogue on it.
I said he voted down discussion and kicked the can down the road. I said I didn't believe the promise to address it within the lifetime of this government.
These are opinions, not lies.
Are you are referring to the insane SF deflections?
You need recognise not every one has the same opinion and not everyone takes party spin as fact.
If you can't conduct yourself in a civil manner I've no interest in talking to you.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

Calling someone a liar because you have a difference of opinion is not civil IMO.
You gave me party spin not a correction. You cited their promise like it's a fact.
I quoted the SD's own comments on what Eamo did.
I quoted the Greens Lorna Bogue on it.
I said he voted down discussion and kicked the can down the road. I said I didn't believe the promise to address it within the lifetime of this government.
These are opinions, not lies.
Are you are referring to the insane SF deflections?
You need recognise not every one has the same opinion and not everyone takes party spin as fact.
If you can't conduct yourself in a civil manner I've no interest in talking to you.

Here is the same rubbish I had to deal with.
The boy ronivek was perfectly civil, and orderly.

If you continue in this vein you will be talking to yourself by the end of the month.

Edgware

Martin knows he has to come back from Brussels with a big bag of free money. Anything less will be pai ted as a failure.

Shefwedfan

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Here is the same rubbish I had to deal with.
The boy ronivek was perfectly civil, and orderly.

If you continue in this vein you will be talking to yourself by the end of the month.

He would still be telling himself he is wrong :-)

Professor Moriarty

Edgware wrote: »

Martin knows he has to come back from Brussels with a big bag of free money. Anything less will be pai ted as a failure.

A big bag of free money. We can all go to the sweet shop then.

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

ah as I thought you are doubling down when you were clearly wrong this morning. You tried to call out four posters saying that you were amazed that we didnt know Ireland is a net contributor. Not one of us ever said anything about that and were discussing the Covid bailout which you clearly didnt get. And if you're calling me naive then what does that make Leo Varadkar and Fine Gael who are on record as saying they expected 3 billion from the 750bn Covid bailout fund? I presume you are calling Leo and FG naive now too given they were talking about receiving funds?

In future blanch maybe before you hit the submit button perhaps review your post to make sure you know what you're talking about to avoid getting egg all over your face. Because even Leo wanted Ireland to secure funds from that bailout and now it turns out Martin has come back from Brussels empty handed. Put simply you were completely wrong with your call out of four posters this morning, you knew you were wrong after my response so you ignored it all evening until called out on it. And now even when given the opportunity to hold your hands up and admit your mistake you instead decide to double down. Thats sad really.

Look at this exchange of posts. Bannasidhe correctly points out that we have been a net contributor to the EU for many years.

Your response contradicts this, stating that we have only been a net contributor to structural funds, which is incorrect. We have been a net contributor to the overall EU budget.

The next bit is even stranger. You say that because we are 1% of the EU, we should get 1% of the Covid-funds - 7.5bn - as if this money is conjured out of the thin air.

In the same way that Dublin is a net contributor to the rest of Ireland, Ireland is a net contributor to the rest of the EU.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It says Ireland is a net contributor.
We have been since 2013 afaik.

Am I missing something?

Muahahaha wrote: »

Net contributor for structural funds but this is an EU wide bailout for Covid. Heard on the radio that we've 1% of the EU population so 1% of the 750bn fund should give us 7.5bn but it seems not, instead we've to pay money in. Not sure why some countries are getting more than others when everyone was hit by Covid and we were hit harder than many EU countries.

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

Look at this exchange of posts. Bannasidhe correctly points out that we have been a net contributor to the EU for many years.

Your response contradicts this, stating that we have only been a net contributor to structural funds, which is incorrect. We have been a net contributor to the overall EU budget.

The next bit is even stranger. You say that because we are 1% of the EU, we should get 1% of the Covid-funds - 7.5bn - as if this money is conjured out of the thin air.

In the same way that Dublin is a net contributor to the rest of Ireland, Ireland is a net contributor to the rest of the EU.

Ah nice attempt to put words in my mouth that I literally did not say, twice you've attempted it in a single post. This is par for the course for you, when you are wrong you cannot admit it and instead try to move the goalposts and double down and making up quotes that I never actually said.

I never said "only" and the quote proves that. Nor did I say "we should get 1% of Covid funds"; I was paraphrasing what the media had speculated on and furthermore right after that quote I said it is accepted that we wont get 1% on account of being a wealthier country.

You were wrong yesterday blanch, pure and simple. You waded into a discussion about the Covid bail out that Varadkar is on record as pushing for 3bn . You thought we were speaking about the wider EU budget which was never the case yet you went calling out four different posters on the thread having made this mistake. Before you dive head first into a swimming pool you should check that its got water in it.

For clairity this is what is reported about Varadkar and the Covid bail out, we have gone from seeking 3bn to Martin coming back from Brussels with nothing. This is despite the most hardest hit countries (i.e. us UK, France, Spain, Italy) supposed to be getting assistance from the very fund set up for that purpose.

Varadkar on April 28th-
Quote:
Leo Varadkar has again said he believes the EU has not so far done enough to respond to the coronavirus economic fallout. The Taoiseach said countries worst hit by the virus needed more help and ultimately every member state will need EU funding to help revive stalled economies and get people back to work.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-39150546.html

When it comes to worst hit countries Ireland definitely falls into that category, despite government cheerleaders thinking we did a great job on the virus. Greece did a great job, we did not. By any metric Ireland falls into the worst hit category along with Spain, Italy, France and the UK.

Varadkar on June 20th
Quote:
Ireland will push to receive more of the EU's coronavirus €750bn recovery fund at a virtual summit of EU leaders.

The Government has joined a number of other member states, including Belgium, in pushing for a revision of the mechanism being used to work out how much individual countries will receive by way of loans and grants.
Under the current proposals, Ireland is due to receive €3bn of the fund, partly due to the fact that Ireland has become one of the wealthier member states, and partly due to the mechanism being deployed by the European Commission to calculate disbursements.
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar is expected to argue that the mechanism, or allocation key, does not accurately reflect the impact of the virus on the Irish economy.
[/QUOTE]

Edgware

Muahahaha wrote: »

Ah nice attempt to put words in my mouth that I literally did not say, twice you've attempted it in a single post. This is par for the course for you, when you are wrong you cannot admit it and instead try to move the goalposts and double down and making up quotes that I never actually said.

I never said "only" and the quote proves that. Nor did I say "we should get 1% of Covid funds"; I was paraphrasing what the media had speculated on and furthermore right after that quote I said it is accepted that we wont get 1% on account of being a wealthier country.

You were wrong yesterday blanch, pure and simple. You waded into a discussion about the Covid bail out that Varadkar is on record as pushing for 3bn . You thought we were speaking about the wider EU budget which was never the case yet you went calling out four different posters on the thread having made this mistake. Before you dive head first into a swimming pool you should check that its got water in it.

For clairity this is what is reported about Varadkar and the Covid bail out, we have gone from seeking 3bn to Martin coming back from Brussels with nothing. This is despite the most hardest hit countries (i.e. us UK, France, Spain, Italy) supposed to be getting assistance from the very fund set up for that purpose.

Varadkar on April 28th-
Quote:
Leo Varadkar has again said he believes the EU has not so far done enough to respond to the coronavirus economic fallout. The Taoiseach said countries worst hit by the virus needed more help and ultimately every member state will need EU funding to help revive stalled economies and get people back to work.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-39150546.html

When it comes to worst hit countries Ireland definitely falls into that category, despite government cheerleaders thinking we did a great job on the virus. Greece did a great job, we did not. By any metric Ireland falls into the worst hit category along with Spain, Italy, France and the UK.

Varadkar on June 20th
Quote:
Ireland will push to receive more of the EU's coronavirus €750bn recovery fund at a virtual summit of EU leaders.

The Government has joined a number of other member states, including Belgium, in pushing for a revision of the mechanism being used to work out how much individual countries will receive by way of loans and grants.
Under the current proposals, Ireland is due to receive €3bn of the fund, partly due to the fact that Ireland has become one of the wealthier member states, and partly due to the mechanism being deployed by the European Commission to calculate disbursements.
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar is expected to argue that the mechanism, or allocation key, does not accurately reflect the impact of the virus on the Irish economy.

[/QUOTE]

What do we want?
FREE MONEY
When do we want it?
NOW

James Brown

Edgware wrote: »

What do we want?
FREE MONEY
When do we want it?
NOW

That's how we cover all the 'inappropriate behaviour' and sweet deals. No magic money tree.

blanch152

Edgware wrote: »

What do we want?
FREE MONEY
When do we want it?
NOW

The constant refrain from the empty vessels.

Wait until they explode with indignation when they realise the rent freeze is over.

James Brown

Can't see LV being upset about that. Maybe MM might pipe up unless it eats into their quango kitty.

Edgware

Bowie wrote: »

That's how we cover all the 'inappropriate behaviour' and sweet deals. No magic money tree.

Well it looks like "the Apple money" is gone so it's back to the Brussels trough. (Wallace and Daly will have to move over)
Whatever is got won't be enough for Rich Boy and co

NovemberWren

Edgware wrote: »

What do we want?
FREE MONEY
When do we want it?
NOW[/QUOTE]


ff will distribute this to their corporate pals, and to fg.

who will then entomologically and strategically burrow this down and through the societal order. by appropriating the ownership of what people need, housing/health; they will cater to this; and the 'free money' will reap rich profits for the - wealthy.

James Brown

Edgware wrote: »

Well it looks like "the Apple money" is gone so it's back to the Brussels trough. (Wallace and Daly will have to move over)
Whatever is got won't be enough for Rich Boy and co

I honestly don't get why people think leasing apartments for 25 years, buying new at market rates and using hotels is fiscally sound but wanting to build social and affordable to help tax payers is magic money tree.

Eric Cartman

Bowie wrote: »

I honestly don't get why people think leasing apartments for 25 years, buying new at market rates and using hotels is fiscally sound but wanting to build social and affordable to help tax payers is magic money tree.

well in 2 of those cases you don't incur the ongoing costs of maintenance and in the other you don't discourage private builders from building. Could you imagine the spill over from mortgage seekers to social housing lists we would have if suddenly the councils were bidding on land against private developers. You'd not only increase the cost and thus cause more of an affordability issue in the private market but also increase the cost of building social housing.

NovemberWren

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well in 2 of those cases you don't incur the ongoing costs of maintenance and in the other you don't discourage private builders from building. Could you imagine the spill over from mortgage seekers to social housing lists we would have if suddenly the councils were bidding on land against private developers. You'd not only increase the cost and thus cause more of an affordability issue in the private market but also increase the cost of building social housing.

that 'the ongoing costs of maintenance' may be exactly what the beginner societal order must try to address? and even may abnegate councils.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well in 2 of those cases you don't incur the ongoing costs of maintenance and in the other you don't discourage private builders from building. Could you imagine the spill over from mortgage seekers to social housing lists we would have if suddenly the councils were bidding on land against private developers. You'd not only increase the cost and thus cause more of an affordability issue in the private market but also increase the cost of building social housing.

It's all subject to change. Need/Income etc.
This is about supplying houses for people who are not buying houses anyway. Nobody eligible for affordable would be able to buy on their own. That's the whole point of affordable housing.
Keeping the land we already own might side step that issue rather than selling it off.
The maintenance can be set down too. The tenancy agreement in social can be set to anything.
At the end of the day the whole magic money tree for social and affordable but blank cheques for leases and hotels is a nonsense way to tackle it as borne out by the last near decade of it getting worse.
Before anyone chimes in with rent arrears, same people going into 25 year lease apartments.

Scoondal

To summarise the last few days of the new government :
I can buy tea, coffee and fizzy drinks at an outside table of a cafe but they CANNOT sell a beer.
The Green List of countries should NOT be travelled to.
I can stop paying my rent and NOT be evicted.

Does everyone else think this is a sensible approach to beating the covid-19 virus ?

efanton

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well in 2 of those cases you don't incur the ongoing costs of maintenance and in the other you don't discourage private builders from building. Could you imagine the spill over from mortgage seekers to social housing lists we would have if suddenly the councils were bidding on land against private developers. You'd not only increase the cost and thus cause more of an affordability issue in the private market but also increase the cost of building social housing.

Well There's an easy way round getting into a biding war for land.
Who rezones agricultural land to development land?

All the government need do is demand they they get a small percentage of any land rezoned at a nominal cost.
Before you jump on the that would be illegal wagon, it certainly isnt. The state has been taking a percentage of finished properties of private developers for years.

AS for land going up in price because of bidding wars, it is already heavily overpriced. The difference between the cost of agricultural land, or land that has no planning permission and that of land does is truly massive.
Surely the sensible approach here is to tackle the root of the problem which is those investors who hoard land deliberately so that the price goes up.
Any unused land development land should have LPT charged against it, and legislation should be introduced so that planning permission for any plot of land is time limited.


Renting apartments for 25 years for considerably more than they could be built for is a scandalous waste of money.
You talk of the risk of government pricing its self out of the market, well what do you think is going to happen once developers realise that the government wants to get out of property ownership and instead only lease properties.
What is worse is the government giving state owned land to developers at no cost or at extremely low cost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTkr3vHjvDM

Bishop of hope

Maybe yous will leave poor old Roderick alone now.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/roderic-o-gorman-accepts-john-connors-apology-for-deranged-campaign-1.4309234?mode=amp

Shefwedfan

Well done to FF and MM ok the negotiations. It makes sure Ireland has some light at end of tunnel

It will be interesting to see what rubbish SF come up with to say this is bad....where is a shinnerbot when you need one

Shefwedfan

Edgware wrote: »

Well it looks like "the Apple money" is gone so it's back to the Brussels trough. (Wallace and Daly will have to move over)
Whatever is got won't be enough for Rich Boy and co

The “Apple money” was never Ireland’s, we would have got next to nothing from it. You do realise thst

Shefwedfan

Scoondal wrote: »

To summarise the last few days of the new government :
I can buy tea, coffee and fizzy drinks at an outside table of a cafe but they CANNOT sell a beer.
The Green List of countries should NOT be travelled to.
I can stop paying my rent and NOT be evicted.

Does everyone else think this is a sensible approach to beating the covid-19 virus ?

What your alternative?

Shefwedfan

Bowie wrote: »

It's all subject to change. Need/Income etc.
This is about supplying houses for people who are not buying houses anyway. Nobody eligible for affordable would be able to buy on their own. That's the whole point of affordable housing.
Keeping the land we already own might side step that issue rather than selling it off.
The maintenance can be set down too. The tenancy agreement in social can be set to anything.
At the end of the day the whole magic money tree for social and affordable but blank cheques for leases and hotels is a nonsense way to tackle it as borne out by the last near decade of it getting worse.
Before anyone chimes in with rent arrears, same people going into 25 year lease apartments.

So what’s your plan to resolve the housing crisis

BonnieSituation

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Well done to FF and MM ok the negotiations. It makes sure Ireland has some light at end of tunnel

It will be interesting to see what rubbish SF come up with to say this is bad....where is a shinnerbot when you need one

Wait?

You praised FF but still can't manage to leave SF out of it?

That's so unlike you Shef.

What did your gracious leader, whose decision to sack Cowen you found so abhorrent, manage to do in a negotiation with the EU that was so magnificent?

BonnieSituation

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So what’s your plan to resolve the housing crisis

Well he seems to be suggesting that the status quo is nonsense.

I'm assuming therefore, you believe what we're doing wrt housing should continue then. Am I correct?

What's your solution to the "housing crisis"?

Shefwedfan

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Wait?

You praised FF but still can't manage to leave SF out of it?

That's so unlike you Shef.

What did your gracious leader, whose decision to sack Cowen you found so abhorrent, manage to do in a negotiation with the EU that was so magnificent?

When did I say the sacking of Cowen was "abhorrent"?

Is this the Cowen thread? no 100% sure it isn't.

Shefwedfan

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Well he seems to be suggesting that the status quo is nonsense.

I'm assuming therefore, you believe what we're doing wrt housing should continue then. Am I correct?

No


But continue to rant and rave like a lunatic