FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

McMurphy

Bowie wrote: »

Find yourself agreeing with Sinn Fein policy? Ouch.
That's how they get ya

The irony. :pac:

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

The irony. :pac:

I think people need to read the detail of the Minister's announcement as well as the details on the ground before reaching any conclusion.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I think people need to read the detail of the Minister's announcement as well as the details on the ground before reaching any conclusion.

SF was agin the concept, fair play O'Brien was too, (likely more money for pals in traditional builds). Even MM chimed in at one point, (likely more money for pals in traditional builds). Now it's looking like policy not to touch them despite crony FG's efforts.
My hope was that if FF got in it would help with housing. Seems this is a step in the right direction. The problem is, you give chancers an inch they'll take a mile. If shared accommodation became acceptable it would not be beyond the realms of possibility that the like of FG, (or what ever splinter group they end up as down the road) are giving land to Goldman Sachs to build tenements that the tax payer leases for 25 years.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

SF was agin the concept, fair play O'Brien was too, (likely more money for pals in traditional builds). Even MM chimed in at one point, (likely more money for pals in traditional builds). Now it's looking like policy not to touch them despite crony FG's efforts.
My hope was that if FF got in it would help with housing. Seems this is a step in the right direction. The problem is, you give chancers an inch they'll take a mile. If shared accommodation became acceptable it would not be beyond the realms of possibility that the like of FG, (or what ever splinter group they end up as down the road) are giving land to Goldman Sachs to build tenements that the tax payer leases for 25 years.

Here is the report in full:

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/co-living_report_to_minister.pdf

Seems like O'Broin doesn't see it the way you do.

https://www.thejournal.ie/ban-on-co-living-5275973-Nov2020/


"Sinn Féin spokesperson on Housing Eoin Ó Broin has today called on the minister to clarify whether he intends to ban or co-living or just restrict it."

It was never the intention to have widespread co-living, it was always a niche provision. The key question then, and a detailed read of the report is needed to examine this, is whether we have reached the position where the niche need has been met, and future provision is limited. If so, there has been no change in policy.

The conspiracy theory idea of "FG, (or what ever splinter group they end up as down the road) are giving land to Goldman Sachs to build tenements that the tax payer leases for 25 years" was never going to happen under the original plan anyway. Irrational fears are a bigger feature of public discourse than ever before, we should be careful to avoid them.

RandomViewer

blanch152 wrote: »

Here is the report in full:

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/co-living_report_to_minister.pdf

Seems like O'Broin doesn't see it the way you do.

https://www.thejournal.ie/ban-on-co-living-5275973-Nov2020/


"Sinn Féin spokesperson on Housing Eoin Ó Broin has today called on the minister to clarify whether he intends to ban or co-living or just restrict it."

It was never the intention to have widespread co-living, it was always a niche provision. The key question then, and a detailed read of the report is needed to examine this, is whether we have reached the position where the niche need has been met, and future provision is limited. If so, there has been no change in policy.

The conspiracy theory idea of "FG, (or what ever splinter group they end up as down the road) are giving land to Goldman Sachs to build tenements that the tax payer leases for 25 years" was never going to happen under the original plan anyway. Irrational fears are a bigger feature of public discourse than ever before, we should be careful to avoid them.

It was obvious that shared living was never going to be a runner, FG seem to be stuck in some sort of nineteenth century mindset where everyone should be thankful for any meagre scraps.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

:
Its hard to fathom how fg taught this was a runner,and they genuinely suprised people didnt fall for it aswel

Well...... This is the same party who thought an official state commemoration for the Black and Tans would fly with the Irish people after all.

Floppybits

RandomViewer wrote: »

It was obvious that shared living was never going to be a runner, FG seem to be stuck in some sort of nineteenth century mindset where everyone should be thankful for any meagre scraps.

That's FG. They think the know better and are better than everyone else. Just look at how they hate to be questioned or pulled up on anything. Their supporters as well tying themselves in knots trying to defend Varadkar leaking a confidential document to a mate but because its one of their own they try to wave it off with he did nothing wrong, everyone hates Leo, no one is interested, it was already public, he did for some good, the list is end less and the worrying thing is because it is one of their own they see nothing wrong with it but if it was someone else that leaked a confidential document to a mate that FG and their supporters would be screaming for a head on a plate.

Brendan Bendar

Floppybits wrote: »

That's FG. They think the know better and are better than everyone else. Just look at how they hate to be questioned or pulled up on anything. Their supporters as well tying themselves in knots trying to defend Varadkar leaking a confidential document to a mate but because its one of their own they try to wave it off with he did nothing wrong, everyone hates Leo, no one is interested, it was already public, he did for some good, the list is end less and the worrying thing is because it is one of their own they see nothing wrong with it but if it was someone else that leaked a confidential document to a mate that FG and their supporters would be screaming for a head on a plate.

Any word on the PSNI inquiry on the ‘funeral’ ML and Big Pearse attended up North.

Don’t like to have that debacle kept in the public eye, eh.

No faux outrage about that and Callinans extraordinary outburst.

Keep slinging lads, comin right back at you....:rolleyes:

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

Well...... This is the same party who thought an official state commemoration for the Black and Tans would fly with the Irish people after all.

Shur the nationalists are endorsing them up north now.

Fann Linn

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Shur the nationalists are endorsing them up north now.

Nope, too busy laughing at LV and Flanagan for even suggesting it.

Bishop of hope

Fann Linn wrote: »

Nope, too busy laughing at LV and Flanagan for even suggesting it.

Yep, that was a major faux pas!

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

No faux outrage about that and Callinans extraordinary outburst.

Yes, he should have been sacked for his extraordinary outburst to vilify whistleblowers IMO

Solutionking

All the talk of a United Ireland
FF are arranging a debate with Jim O'Callaghan and Ian Paisley
Nice to see a proper debate on the subject

grayzer75

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Any word on the PSNI inquiry on the ‘funeral’ ML and Big Pearse attended up North.

PSNI: Did you attend the funeral?

MON: Yes.

PSNI: Dead on, you're free to go.

PSNI Statement: We spoke to MON regarding the funeral but as there were no laws broken we could only advise not to do it again in light of public health guidance.

Enquiry closed.

Solutionking

grayzer75 wrote: »

PSNI: Did you attend the funeral?

MON: Yes.

PSNI: Dead on, you're free to go.

PSNI Statement: We spoke to MON regarding the funeral but as there were no laws broken we could only advise not to do it again in light of public health guidance.

Enquiry closed.

Interesting because I didn't hear the same about the golf event. Would almost seem like you change rules based on parties.

joeguevara

Solutionking wrote: »

Interesting because I didn't hear the same about the golf event. Would almost seem like you change rules based on parties.

Were there actual laws broken by the Golf Event?

FrancieBrady

Solutionking wrote: »

Interesting because I didn't hear the same about the golf event. Would almost seem like you change rules based on parties.

The issue with the golf outing was the same as the Storey funeral initially, the disregard for the regs and the spirit of the regs.
But the golf event developed into much more, the exposition of how the elites mix, who that elite are and how secretive they are. We still don't know who all was there...not a single photo has emerged either.
Then we had a senior FG politician lie to everyone including his EU boss and arrogantly expect to get away with it not to mention what has happened to the integrity of our whole judicial system and selection processes for it.

Fann Linn

joeguevara wrote: »

Were there actual laws broken by the Golf Event?

Just Seamus Woulfe and the laws of physics. He didn't see the lads to the side of him as they tucked into the pheasant.

joeguevara

Fann Linn wrote: »

Just Seamus Woulfe and the laws of physics. He didn't see the lads to the side of him as they tucked into the pheasant.

Well, how about any actual laws. As in laws of the State?

Fann Linn

joeguevara wrote: »

Well, how about any actual laws. As in laws of the State?

Not that I heard about.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The issue with the golf outing was the same as the Storey funeral initially, the disregard for the regs and the spirit of the regs.
But the golf event developed into much more, the exposition of how the elites mix, who that elite are and how secretive they are. We still don't know who all was there...not a single photo has emerged either.
Then we had a senior FG politician lie to everyone including his EU boss and arrogantly expect to get away with it not to mention what has happened to the integrity of our whole judicial system and selection processes for it.

Any laws broken?

joeguevara

Fann Linn wrote: »

Not that I heard about.

Fair enough.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Any laws broken?

Did I say there was? Must have missed that.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did I say there was? Must have missed that.

Never said you did Francie. But if no laws were broken, time to move on.

Cluedo Monopoly

joeguevara wrote: »

Were there actual laws broken by the Golf Event?

There was a Garda inquiry set up even though there were a load of Garda cars parked outside the venue during the dinner
That inquiry will go absolutely nowhere. The law and order party will see to that
I always wondered how no golfgate photos were leaked but I do have to thank FG for keeping the story going through lockdown, it's great craic.

Bishop of hope

joeguevara wrote: »

Never said you did Francie. But if no laws were broken, time to move on.

I thought I heard yesterday that Paul Murphy was bringing an impeachment motion on Woulfe.
Not sure what advice he got on that.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Never said you did Francie. But if no laws were broken, time to move on.

Perhaps, when all issues arising out of the debacle are dealt with.

grayzer75

Solutionking wrote: »

Interesting because I didn't hear the same about the golf event. Would almost seem like you change rules based on parties.

I haven't changed anything, just stating how it will pan out.

There were different rules in play for each incident also.


The rules for OUTDOOR gatherings in the north at the time of the funeral:

The regulations say if you have to leave home you should maintain a distance of at least 1m from anyone outside your household.

The rules for INDOORgatherings in the south at the time of Golfgate:

It took place the day after the Irish government changed its guidelines in the face of an increasing number of Covid-19 cases.

With the tightening of restrictions, the number of people allowed to attend indoor gatherings was reduced from 50 to six, with some exceptions.

Nice try though......

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Perhaps, when all issues arising out of the debacle are dealt with.

What issues though? No law was broken.

joeguevara

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I thought I heard yesterday that Paul Murphy was bringing an impeachment motion on Woulfe.
Not sure what advice he got on that.

Im sure there would have to be more serious behaviour to pass the as of yet defined test to be impeached than having a glass of wine and a dinner.