FF/FG/Green Next Government

Kivaro

bloodless_coup wrote: »

Some Green lunatic on the Pat Kenny show saying that they want housing to be a basic human right.

Pat asked does that mean that anyone who just says they want a house will get one for free, she didn't deny or clarify. Just rambled on about how on the "doorsteps" everyone agreed with her.

She obviously was not visiting the doorsteps of working people then ...... you know, the people out paying for these free houses.

ELM327

See, I have no problem with *housing* being a human right. Right to shelter.
However, I do have a problem with *ownership of an asset* as a human right.

Anyone who wants shelter in this country will get it already

Edgware

What does " triple told to **** off by the various electorate Greta wannabee" Saoirse have to say about it?

Water John

Yes, access to shelter is a basic human right. PK being his smart arsed self then makes the leap to everyone being entitled to a house. He was baiting the guest, trying to create a trap, cheap headlines to follow.

BTW if David Quinn is against it, I'm for it, whatever it is.

gormdubhgorm

bloodless_coup wrote: »

Some Green lunatic on the Pat Kenny show saying that they want housing to be a basic human right.

Pat asked does that mean that anyone who just says they want a house will get one for free, she didn't deny or clarify. Just rambled on about how on the "doorsteps" everyone agreed with her.

Did Pat ask are they going to be those eco-friendly log cabins, by any chance?

https://www.eco-home.ie

The Greens are gas (no pun intended) well meaning. But away with the fairies a lot of the time.

LawBoy2018

xl500 wrote: »

Do you mean the Guy that represented Gerry Adams

How is that relevant?

ELM327

Water John wrote: »

Yes, access to shelter is a basic human right. PK being his smart arsed self then makes the leap to everyone being entitled to a house. He was baiting the guest, trying to create a trap, cheap headlines to follow.

BTW if David Quinn is against it, I'm for it, whatever it is.

This is a good guide to life.

Kermit.de.frog

bloodless_coup wrote: »

Some Green lunatic on the Pat Kenny show saying that they want housing to be a basic human right.

Pat asked does that mean that anyone who just says they want a house will get one for free, she didn't deny or clarify. Just rambled on about how on the "doorsteps" everyone agreed with her.

Making laws on some utopian vision of everyone being auto entitled to housing like that can be dangerous as we have learned in the past with unforeseen consequences in other areas.

It would be ripe for legal challenges and the courts to be abused from all sorts looking for their entitlement which may be unintentionally included.

When you turn 18 do you get the keys? What about ownership? What about immigrants who rock up here? Will they be entitled too? What about people with mortgages? They'd be paying for something that's an entitlement?Etc etc etc

It's really dodgy legislating for things like this.

LawBoy2018

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Making laws on some utopian vision of everyone being auto entitled to housing like that can be dangerous as we have learned in the past with unforeseen consequences in other areas.

It would be ripe for legal challenges and the courts to be abused from all sorts looking for their entitlement which may be unintentionally included.

When you turn 18 do you get the keys? What about ownership? What about immigrants who rock up here? Will they be entitled too? What about people with mortgages? They'd be paying for something that's an entitlement?Etc etc etc

It's really dodgy legislating for things like this.

Amending the Constitution ≠ legislating. You clearly have no idea about what you're talking about.

Kermit.de.frog

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Amending the Constitution ≠ legislating. You clearly have no idea about what you're talking about.

One presumes legislation follows on...or are we just going to stick this nonsense in the constitution and leave it there?

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Basically all I wanted to know Francie.
Despite all the shoite, as another poster put it, FG, Leo et al, would be acceptable bed partners as long as its SF they're with.
Hypocricy much from the whinge side.
I wouldn't back it, I'd hate it, anyone that'd include SF would be off my vote list in future.

The mistake you are making in believing your own hype. 'Everyone is against FG no matter what except if it suits SF' or
whinging'.
That's what you and others bring in to try explain issues people have with FG beyond the obvious reality, it's because of what FG do. If FG changed their housing policy they'd likely be back on my dance card albeit in some small way until trust was built. On that note if SF changed there policy more towards PPP and investment funds they'd lose my vote. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that, based on the election results.

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

We've been preparing to deal with that for a year. It's not a new potential issue.

Do you get the felling it's an ace up the sleeve for any incoming government looking to repeat the Kenny government? I do, I always did. All the heads up and 'preparation' in the world is likely for window dressing. Also they have Covid now too. Rather than it being a crisis we're all in together it's a nice rug to sweep crony deals under IMO.

James Brown

Kivaro wrote: »

She obviously was not visiting the doorsteps of working people then ...... you know, the people out paying for these free houses.

Where will we get all the unemployed to take these houses? Import them I suppose.
I support the working tax payer in assisting them with obtaining 'shelter'. Pretending it's all 'dem that don't want to work' fudges the debate and ignores the tax payer.

ELM327 wrote: »

See, I have no problem with *housing* being a human right. Right to shelter.
However, I do have a problem with *ownership of an asset* as a human right.

Anyone who wants shelter in this country will get it already

You're confused by the rhetoric. Social housing is shelter, be it state built and rented or 25 year leased luxury apartments (or hotels).

FrancieBrady

You'd have to ask (and I listened to Coveney evading this morning too) is there a single unambiguous commitment to do anything in the PFG
https://twitter.com/CMacCaba/status/1275046356692930560

ELM327

We don't need to ban fracked gas, a lot of energy is already coming from fracked gas already

blanch152

Truthvader wrote: »

Problem is Sinn Fein are not a bona fide party of the left- or at all IMO most other parties want nothing to do with them and no-one wants to be responsible for letting them in. Maybe extreme left such as PBP might put up with a bit of criminality to get the rich but thats about it. Hard to see how a functional left wing can form

Labour have refused to have anything to do with Sinn Fein. The Social Democrats have basically ignored them, while the Greens realise that Sinn Fein promise everything to everybody without taking the hard decisions that real green policies need.

Water John

Whatever about FG or FF squeezing smaller parties, any of them know SF would devour them. That's why they won't touch them.

LawBoy2018

Water John wrote: »

Whatever about FG or FF squeezing smaller parties, any of them know SF would devour them. That's why they won't touch them.

I'd say poor auld Gary Gannon is v nervous about a second election. What are the main differences in policy between SF/SD/Labour?

xl500

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

How is that relevant?

I don't know just asking is that the same o Callaghan that represented Jerry Adams leader of Sinn Fein

Loafing Oaf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You'd have to ask (and I listened to Coveney evading this morning too) is there a single unambiguous commitment to do anything in the PFG
https://twitter.com/CMacCaba/status/1275046356692930560

Sarah McInerney pointed out on radio this morning that FG seemed intent on highlighting the weak points of the PFG from a Green perspective, such as Coveney saying it was unlikely that the 7% emissions reduction will be achieved in the first years of the Government. A cynic might think they were trying to persuade Green members to vote down the PFG.

1st dalkey dalkey

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Sarah McInerney pointed out on radio this morning that FG seemed intent on highlighting the weak points of the PFG from a Green perspective, such as Coveney saying it was unlikely that the 7% emissions reduction will be achieved in the first years of the Government. A cynic might think they were trying to persuade Green members to vote down the PFG.

I saw that, and Varadker's comment that most of the 7% would be delivered in the second half of the decade i.e. after the term of government of any coalition.

Seems to be designed to unnerve any wavering Green voters.

Could there be a better time for an election from an FG perspective. Riding high in the polls, lockdown ending early, people getting back to work and everyone in good form.

You have to wonder.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Labour have refused to have anything to do with Sinn Fein. The Social Democrats have basically ignored them, while the Greens realise that Sinn Fein promise everything to everybody without taking the hard decisions that real green policies need.

By many Green party accounts the PFG is very vague in many areas green included.

is_that_so

Mark Ruffalo says yes to government!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/hollywood-actor-mark-ruffalo-backs-greens-going-into-government-39305509.html

FrancieBrady

is_that_so wrote: »

Mark Ruffalo says yes to government!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/hollywood-actor-mark-ruffalo-backs-greens-going-into-government-39305509.html

All we need now is Kylie.

Somebody should write to her to see how she feels about it.

RandomViewer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All we need now is Kylie.

Somebody should write to her to see how she feels about it.

Unless this gets a big thumbs up from Barney the Dinosaur it's not a runner,

RandomViewer

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

I'd say poor auld Gary Gannon is v nervous about a second election. What are the main differences in policy between SF/SD/Labour?

SF are very soft left, FF territory ,SD are Pollyanna Left, and Labour are just teachers who think their left but are really centre right

James Brown

RandomViewer wrote: »

SF are very soft left, FF territory ,SD are Pollyanna Left, and Labour are just teachers who think their left but are really centre right

I still agree with Kenny's sentiments, (as 'just something you say to get elected' as they were): We need change the way we do business, an end to cronyism etc. Business as usual doesn't work. Looking after your own be it vested interests or pals and being on the make generally can't continue. It was bad enough when it was mostly tax payer money now we are essentially borrowing to keep it up. We can't afford it. Using austerity to beat the tax payer over the head so you can keep you and yours in the lifestyle of 80's and 90's FF/FG governments has to end.
I don't think we need anything but parties genuinely being fiscally conservative but in the right areas. Pretend the tax payer is your pal looking for a contract or Goldman Sachs looking to 'invest'.

Snow Garden

Richard Hillman wrote: »

FF should have walked the last election but they just have absolutely zip leadership. Anybody with the remotest political nouse would have pulled the plug in Confidence and Supply to give them a head start on the upcoming election. They would have also made a point of every budget that all the good stuff was because of them.

Instead Martin just propped them up as long as he could, negotiated absolutely nothing out of them and in the end just came across as junior party of FG. Varadkar and Kenny ran rings around him for years. The 2 lads cuckholded him and had their way with the Taoiseacht position whislt he sat in the Corner watching and hoping he could have a turn.

I'm no fan of Varadkar but I just cannot have such a weakling as leader in Martin. Its looking like the EU are going to try and shaft us in the stimulus package coming up. Varadkar will allow because it furthers his ambition of an EU job, so we need somebody with a bit of backbone going into the EU to fight our corner.
We'll have Michael Martin who couldn't negotiate a nice word out of FG for 4 years, up against alpha male leaders of Hungary, Poland, Czech Rep scrambling for cash. And that's before he comes up against the leaders of the Big Countries of Germany, France, Italy and Spain. We don't have a chance.

Kenny never ran rings around anyone in the Dail. He never gave a straight answer and spent most of his time in the Dail without a credible or sizable opposition. FG/Lab had a massive majority and the 20 TDs FF had left were afraid to open their mouths. Kenny had poor leadership, zero vision and achieve very little given the opportunity he had.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

I still agree with Kenny's sentiments, (as 'just something you say to get elected' as they were): We need change the way we do business, an end to cronyism etc. Business as usual doesn't work. Looking after your own be it vested interests or pals and being on the make generally can't continue. It was bad enough when it was mostly tax payer money now we are essentially borrowing to keep it up. We can't afford it. Using austerity to beat the tax payer over the head so you can keep you and yours in the lifestyle of 80's and 90's FF/FG governments has to end.
I don't think we need anything but parties genuinely being fiscally conservative but in the right areas. Pretend the tax payer is your pal looking for a contract or Goldman Sachs looking to 'invest'.

Link?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Link?

You tried this on before. Why bother? If you don't think any government ever wasted money, engaged in cronyism or sweet deals, that's great. No problem so.

I would like a government working for the tax payer not themselves or vested interests.