Dublin Bay South By-Election

CarProblem · 06-07-2021 12:18pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Did you read my post?

I did - but I based my view on what actually happened when "the Labour watchdog" was no longer in situ rather than manifestos tbh

Sure wasn't it "Frankfurt's Way or Labour's Way"?

Also remind, which parties were in government when investment funds began to be allowed buy billions of assets?

AndrewJRenko · 06-07-2021 12:21pm

CarProblem wrote: »

I did - but I based my view on what actually happened when "the Labour watchdog" was no longer in situ rather than manifestos tbh

Sure wasn't it "Frankfurt's Way or Labour's Way"?

Also remind, which parties were in government when investment funds began to be allowed buy billions of assets?

What are you comparing against? What do you think would have happened with FG in power supported by Ross, Healy Raes and other cowboys?

CarProblem · 06-07-2021 12:29pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

If you want lower income tax, FG is the party for you.

I never realised just how lucky I am to be "only" paying a 52% marginal rate and >40% effective rate. Thanks FG and if you could maybe not steal from my pension again that'd be great too

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What do you think would have happened with FG in power supported by Ross, Healy Raes and other cowboys?

I don't know - but I do know what happened under FG without the "Labour watchdog". As I said the actual outcome when FG was in government without Labour does not lead me to believe we'd have gotten the vista you and others believe in 2011. This was the essence of my original post on the topic, and my opinion hasn't changed. You disagree, fine

Anyhow - round in circles we go so I'm out.

Bobtheman · 06-07-2021 12:30pm

Blut2 wrote: »

With the benefit of hindsight we have now, and focusing on the present - absolutely, we'd be in a much, much better place now as a country if FF&FG had been in their current semi-merged position on the right a few years ago, and Labour were currently the dominant left-wing opposition party waiting to go into government instead of the relative extremism of SF.

But I don't think in 2011 it was as easy a decision as people these days like to make out. Its highly likely that without Labour in government putting a break on FG in 2011-2016 we'd have gotten even more, harder, austerity. So while it may have killed support for Labour going into government, they really were living up to their ideals by at least attempting to mitigate some of the damage done to the most vulnerable in society.

It was a mixture of lust for power plus doing the right thing.. After 14 years in opposition they wanted mercs and and power but they also wanted to stop FF being totally Fg

Bobtheman · 06-07-2021 12:31pm

CarProblem wrote: »

I never realised just how lucky I am to be "only" paying a 52% marginal rate and >40% effective rate. Thanks FG

I don't know - but I do know what happened under FG without the "Labour watchdog". As I said the actual outcome when FG was in government without Labour does not lead me to believe we'd have gotten the vista you and others believe in 2011. This was the essence of my original post on the topic, and my opinion hasn't changed. You disagree, fine

Anyhow - round in circles we go so I'm out.

The tax rates are low for those below 40k a year but high otherwise for those above.

Yurt2 · 06-07-2021 12:58pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

Bacik is a barrister.

She sure is. Wouldn't be voting for her myself but I'd argue there's a few more strings to her bow than the cub barrister schtick of Geoghegan.

My broader point is that Geoghegan skillfully reading to script on what he has been briefed on (*the* central issue in the by-election) is not evidence that he grasps housing. Barristers' stock and trade is taking the legwork of solicitors, eating them like a bowl of Cheerios and vomiting it back up in court in as a creative fashion they can. As Shania Twain once sang: That don't impress-uh me much.

hotmail.com · 06-07-2021 1:17pm

Yurt! wrote: »

She sure is. Wouldn't be voting for her myself but I'd argue there's a few more strings to her bow than the cub barrister schtick of Geoghegan.

My broader point is that Geoghegan skillfully reading to script on what he has been briefed on (*the* central issue in the by-election) is not evidence that he grasps housing. Barristers' stock and trade is taking the legwork of solicitors, eating them like a bowl of Cheerios and vomiting it back up in court in as a creative fashion they can. As Shania Twain once sang: That don't impress-uh me much.

I don't get the vibe Bacik is that bothered about housing either.

Years in politics and I don't think she ever veered into economic issues.

hotmail.com · 06-07-2021 1:19pm

Bobtheman wrote: »

The tax rates are low for those below 40k a year but high otherwise for those above.

That's as it should be in a progress society with a progressive taxation system.

jm08 · 06-07-2021 1:52pm

blackwhite wrote: »

Mullaly also spends plenty of time giving out about how Geoghegan "comes from an intensely privileged background", but then cheerleads for Bacik who comes from the truly "humble beginnings" (to quote Mullaly's criticism of Geoghegan) of her family being the founders of Waterford Crystal.

No issue with either of their backgrounds, but using it to attack one candidate whilst cheerleading for another who also comes from a wealthy background is hypocrisy at it's finest (but no surprise from Mullaly tbh)

I think you are assuming that Bacik comes from a wealthy background because her grandfather was a co-founder of Waterford Crystal in 1946. Waterford Crystal didn't start making a profit until 1956 and in 1950 Charles Bacik had ceded his share to the Irish Glass Bottle company, with him remaining on as a manager. Furthermore, from what I understand, Ivana won a scholarship to Alexandria College which illustrates that she was a high achiever from a young age and worked hard for everything she has achieved.

Brussels Sprout · 06-07-2021 2:01pm

jm08 wrote: »

I think you are assuming that Bacik comes from a wealthy background because her grandfather was a co-founder of Waterford Crystal in 1946. Waterford Crystal didn't start making a profit until 1956 and in 1950 Charles Bacik had ceded his share to the Irish Glass Bottle company, with him remaining on as a manager.

I know some of his grandchildren and they are by no means from a privileged background. I don't think any of that Waterford Crystal money made its way to them so I doubt it made its way to their cousin either.

blackwhite · 06-07-2021 2:12pm

jm08 wrote: »

I think you are assuming that Bacik comes from a wealthy background because her grandfather was a co-founder of Waterford Crystal in 1946. Waterford Crystal didn't start making a profit until 1956 and in 1950 Charles Bacik had ceded his share to the Irish Glass Bottle company, with him remaining on as a manager. Furthermore, from what I understand, Ivana won a scholarship to Alexandria College which illustrates that she was a high achiever from a young age and worked hard for everything she has achieved.

He was a director of Waterford Crystal to his retirement in the 80s, and did exceptionally well from it.

She also attended Trinty before fees were abolished, and went on to London School of Economics - so there was enough wealth in the family to cover plenty of opportunities that most poeple wouldn't have access to.

She's clearly a hard-worker and high-achiever - but that doesn't change that she had a comfortable family background to support her, something that according to Una Mullaly is worthy of a newspaper column attacking other candidates for.

I'm not trying to attack Bacik on this - just pointing out the hypocrite that Mullaly is by attacking one candidate for being "privileged" whilst ignoring the backgrounds of the candidates that she supports.

jm08 · 06-07-2021 2:53pm

blackwhite wrote: »

He was a director of Waterford Crystal to his retirement in the 80s, and did exceptionally well from it.

She also attended Trinty before fees were abolished, and went on to London School of Economics - so there was enough wealth in the family to cover plenty of opportunities that most poeple wouldn't have access to.

She's clearly a hard-worker and high-achiever - but that doesn't change that she had a comfortable family background to support her, something that according to Una Mullaly is worthy of a newspaper column attacking other candidates for.

I'm not trying to attack Bacik on this - just pointing out the hypocrite that Mullaly is by attacking one candidate for being "privileged" whilst ignoring the backgrounds of the candidates that she supports.

What is exceptionally well out of it. Did he leave his grandchildren trust funds.

Her father was an astrominar and they moved around a lot. Obviously he earned enough to send his daughter to Trinity, but I don't see how that as being particularly privileged. Joe Duffy from Ballyfermot managed to make it to Trinity back then. This article mentions how she had part time jobs to fund her time in the LSE.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/ivana-bacik-1.253430

blackwhite · 06-07-2021 2:57pm

Astonishing the double standards at play that it pains Bacik's supporters to acknowledge she's had a privileged background.

It's nothing to be ashamed about - despite the desire of some of the left-leaning columnists to portray otherwise

jm08 · 06-07-2021 3:21pm

blackwhite wrote: »

Astonishing the double standards at play that it pains Bacik's supporters to acknowledge she's had a privileged background.

It's nothing to be ashamed about - despite the desire of some of the left-leaning columnists to portray otherwise

Bacik has had a fairly average background - common with a lot of people. It's not the same privilege of having a trust fund to fall back on - not the same sort of privilege.

Geoghegan was parachuted into the constituency having done nothing of note other than left FG to join Lucinda with Renua. Have FG not noticed that Lucinda used be a poll topper with FG and lost the seat with Renua? Now why did that change and why would FG drop Kate O'Connell who took Lucinda's seat by selecting a former Renua member as candidate. It doesn't make sense.

expectationlost · 06-07-2021 3:52pm

jm08 wrote: »

Bacik has had a fairly average background - common with a lot of people. It's not the same privilege of having a trust fund to fall back on - not the same sort of privilege.

Geoghegan was parachuted into the constituency having done nothing of note other

wouldn't call Geoghegan a parachute candidate, he has lived in or very near to the constituency all his life afaik and is Councillor in the area.

expectationlost · 06-07-2021 3:53pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

I don't get the vibe Bacik is that bothered about housing either.

Years in politics and I don't think she ever veered into economic issues.

a senator sticking to their expertise how very dare she.

AndrewJRenko · 06-07-2021 3:53pm

CarProblem wrote: »

And I recognise that

But until (if ever) I get a party I want to vote for I'll continue to vote against what we've been getting for the last 20+ years

I'm genuinely curious as to how you achieve this in recent elections? Most of the alternatives to the parties you list would seem to even further away from your approach (SF, PBP). So how do you achieve voting against FF/FG/GP/Lab?

CarProblem wrote: »

I don't know - but I do know what happened under FG without the "Labour watchdog". As I said the actual outcome when FG was in government without Labour does not lead me to believe we'd have gotten the vista you and others believe in 2011. This was the essence of my original post on the topic, and my opinion hasn't changed. You disagree, fine

If you're comparing it against the more recent FG/FF government, you're comparing apples and oranges, given the different economic times involved.

It seems strange that you lambaste Labour for protecting core social welfare payment levels, while calling for cuts on social welfare?

blackwhite wrote: »

Astonishing the double standards at play that it pains Bacik's supporters to acknowledge she's had a privileged background.

It's nothing to be ashamed about - despite the desire of some of the left-leaning columnists to portray otherwise

AndrewJRenko · 06-07-2021 3:56pm

blackwhite wrote: »

Astonishing the double standards at play that it pains Bacik's supporters to acknowledge she's had a privileged background.

Do you have any facts on this privileged background that you'd like to share?

hotmail.com wrote: »

I don't get the vibe Bacik is that bothered about housing either.

Years in politics and I don't think she ever veered into economic issues.

From June last year - housing / economics article;
https://www.hotpress.com/culture/ivana-bacik-public-investment-is-what-will-solve-our-housing-crisis-22857390

blackwhite · 06-07-2021 4:35pm

jm08 wrote: »

Bacik has had a fairly average background - common with a lot of people. It's not the same privilege of having a trust fund to fall back on - not the same sort of privilege.

Geoghegan was parachuted into the constituency having done nothing of note other than left FG to join Lucinda with Renua. Have FG not noticed that Lucinda used be a poll topper with FG and lost the seat with Renua? Now why did that change and why would FG drop Kate O'Connell who took Lucinda's seat by selecting a former Renua member as candidate. It doesn't make sense.

Trying to spin Geoghegan as being "parachuted" in is incredibly dishonest.
He grew up in the constituency, and lives a few hundred metres over the line into the neighbouring constituency (incidently in the same neighbourhood as one of the sitting TDs for DBS and as one of the other candidates), and is a Councilor representing Pembroke LEA (which is within the constituency).

I'd agree that O'Connell would have been a much better choice of candidate - but pathetic spin such as your claims above needs to be called out.

Brussels Sprout · 06-07-2021 4:39pm

the journal are running a DBS poll on their site with predictable results (ie SF and especially the National Party doing far better than they likely will on Thursday)

CarProblem · 06-07-2021 4:53pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious as to how you achieve this in recent elections? Most of the alternatives to the parties you list would seem to even further away from your approach (SF, PBP). So how do you achieve voting against FF/FG/GP/Lab?

I'm genuinely curious how you still believe Labour to be the noble guardians you present the party as but different people have different opinions

What I do FWIW

- Crossing off FF/FG/GP/Lab/SF/Loons like the national party - voting for just about every other candidate.
- Conversation on the doorsteps with FF/FG/GP/Lab candidates - tell them exactly (politely but firmly) why I simply won't vote for them.
- The hope (probably pie in the sky) a fiscally conservative party that will reward work, slim down the size of the state etc will eventually emerge.
- Worst case scenario - we get more of the same but for a change a different party picks my pocket (but my message is very clear to FF/FG/GP/Lab candidates "I will not vote for parties who do what you have done in government the last 20+ years")

Probably a futile task but at least when I can look at FF/FG/GP and say "I didn't vote for them/that"

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you're comparing it against the more recent FG/FF government, you're comparing apples and oranges, given the different economic times involved

I compared it to the period of 2016-19 in my original post on the topic. This has been explained more than once, not gonna explain again

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It seems strange that you lambaste Labour for protecting core social welfare payment levels, while calling for cuts on social welfare?

This is like division by zero to me? You think it strange that I lambaste a party for not tackling (what are IMO) excessive welfare levels while calling for lower welfare?

In any case FG did Labour proud in relation to that in 2016-20. Interestingly even upping dole (on two occasions) by more a week than a person working and earning the median wage got as a tax cut - yet again no sign of the nasty FG bogeymen we are told Labour protected us all from.

Anyhow - my last post on the topic, we disagree. I get it.

AndrewJRenko · 06-07-2021 5:10pm

CarProblem wrote: »

- Crossing off FF/FG/GP/Lab/SF/Loons like the national party - voting for just about every other candidate.
- Conversation on the doorsteps with FF/FG/GP/Lab candidates - tell them exactly (politely but firmly) why I simply won't vote for them.
- The hope (probably pie in the sky) a fiscally conservative party that will reward work, slim down the size of the state etc will eventually emerge.
- Worst case scenario - we get more of the same but for a change a different party picks my pocket (but my message is very clear to FF/FG/GP/Lab candidates "I will not vote for parties who do what you have done in government the last 20+ years")

Probably a futile task but at least when I can look at FF/FG/GP and say "I didn't vote for them/that"

It's your prerogative, for sure - and people vote for candidates for all kinds of strange reasons. I remember canvassing once when a voter told me that she wouldn't vote for my candidate. 'Why not' I asked, getting my best arguements ready to fire off. 'The look of him' she said, which left me a bit stumped.

In DBS, you'd end up voting for PBP and SD, who would both be fairly diametrically opposite to the views you set out, and possibly Renua and Aontu, and a few 'interesting' independents.

CarProblem wrote: »

I compared it to the period of 2016-19 in my original post on the topic. This has been explained more than once, not gonna explain again

You're comparing FG/Lab inheriting a backrupt country, to FG/FF(confidence and supply) inheriting a booming economy.

You'd really need to be comparing FG/Lab against what FG would have done without Lab, with the economy in state it was in at the time.

CarProblem wrote: »

This is like division by zero to me? You think it strange that I lambaste a party for not tackling (what are IMO) excessive welfare levels while calling for lower welfare?

No, the exact opposite.

I find it strange that you lambaste Labour for stopping FG from cutting social welfare rates, given that you want social welfare rates to be cut.

CarProblem wrote: »

In any case FG did Labour proud in relation to that in 2016-20 - yet again no sign of the nasty FG bogeymen we are told Labour protected us all from

But you had the FF bogeymen and the Confidence and Supply agreement.

Yurt2 · 06-07-2021 5:12pm

Blut2 wrote: »

https://www.ontheditch.com/james-geoghegan-organised-conference-for-anti-abortion-tds-senators/

This sort of news coming out definitely won't be helping Geoghegan with younger or female voters.

Didn't realise he was pro-life. Was this brought up at all in the RTE debate joust?

Bubbaclaus · 06-07-2021 5:19pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Didn't realise he was pro-life. Was this brought up at all in the RTE debate joust?

He is pro choice. I wouldn't worry too much about the accuracy of Paddy Cosgrave's paper contents.

hotmail.com · 06-07-2021 5:34pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

the journal are running a DBS poll on their site with predictable results (ie SF and especially the National Party doing far better than they likely will on Thursday)

The Journal isn't a serious news site.

jm08 · 06-07-2021 5:36pm

expectationlost wrote: »

wouldn't call Geoghegan a parachute candidate, he has lived in or very near to the constituency all his life afaik and is Councillor in the area.

Living in or near the Constituency is a one of the only positives he has going for him. He was parachuted in over Kate O'connell who very nearly took a 2nd seat for FG in the last election. He has no constituency/national profile on anything other than to represent the anti Right to Choose wing of the FG party and when Renua didn't work out for him, he came back to FG and took the place of one of FGs leading activists in supporting the 8th Amendment.

That suggests to me someone who doesn't have any political ideology that he is prepared to stand over, unlike Lucinda who didn't run back to FG when it didn't work out for her.

jm08 · 06-07-2021 5:38pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

He is pro choice. I wouldn't worry too much about the accuracy of Paddy Cosgrave's paper contents.

When did he become Pro Choice? When Renua failed?

Burt Renaults · 06-07-2021 5:40pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

He is pro choice. I wouldn't worry too much about the accuracy of Paddy Cosgrave's paper contents.

Pro-choice people didn't join Renua. Is he on record speaking about any Damascene moment that he may have had?

Blut2 · 06-07-2021 6:06pm

Burt Renaults wrote: »

Pro-choice people didn't join Renua. Is he on record speaking about any Damascene moment that he may have had?

I'd suspect his Damascene moment was when the results for Dublin Bay South came out on the 26th May 2018 that showed 78% of people had voted in favour of Repeal. But maybe I'm a cynic like that.

Maybe he really has gone from joining Renua, a political party whos almost sole raison d'être was being pro life, in 2015 to in 2021 being extremely pro-choice like he claims :rolleyes:

iffandonlyif · 06-07-2021 6:09pm

Burt Renaults wrote: »

Pro-choice people didn't join Renua. Is he on record speaking about any Damascene moment that he may have had?

He was Creighton’s parliamentary assistant. Not unnatural for him to follow her without subscribing to her views on abortion. Alternative was being out of a job.

Dublin Bay South By-Election

Comments