FF/FG/Green Government - Part 3

No.

I didn't once mention flip flopping, I said sitting on the fence. Immigration policy is a good example.

70% of SF voters as polls in mid-May (so likely higher now) wanted much stricter rules on asylum seekers/immigration with more closed borders, the highest of any party supporters in the country. 63% of voters overall agreed, and 73% of voters overall said the government should do more to deport failed applicants.

SF, being the main party of oppositon, with a support base heavily in favour of more restrictive immigration policy, and with a majority of voters in general also in favour of this, should have been in prime position to benefit electorally from calling out the government's very public failures on the issue and by saying what they'd do differently. Thats what a competent main opposition party would be doing.

Yet SF have been very quiet on calling the government to account or presenting an alternative. Because instead they've tried to not offend anyone, to sit on the fence. They've done their best not to draw attention to the issue, and to avoid articulating what they'd do differently, for fear of losing any voters on either end of their spectrum of support. But instead they've managed to lose a much larger chunk of their support due to this ineffectiveness/unresponsiveness.

They've completely failed to respond to the wishes of the electorate in general, and their supporters in particular, by remaining largely silent on the issue. And they're being punished in the polls, and were in the locals, as a result.

Its not that people think FG/FF are doing a good job on the issue - its just that they don't know, or trust, SF to do any differently/better, because SF haven't explained sufficiently how or what they would do.

I think you're making the classic mistake of seeing the lack of an attractive/viable alternative as an endorsement of the status quo.

Either either or two-thirds of the electorate really are as short-sighted and stupid as it seems! Given the concerns/priorities being expressed in even that report, why would you vote for parties that have wholly failed to address them already, or actively made them worse in the current term?

SF look to have stayed true to their stance on asylum immigration thus far, despite their voters clearly wanting something different.

I think the danger of them reversing their stance, aside from rowing against their principles, also opens the door to FFG to accuse them of flip flopping toward the populist notion.

And if they will do that on asylum immigration, what other values will they do they a 180 on.

I disagree. If Sinn Fein voters aren’t happy with their parties clear and consistent position on immigration, that’s their problem. They then need to decide if it’s red line enough to find an alternative (which it seems they are doing)

Parties may nuance their position on some issues. However, It is rare to see a party do complete 180 switch on a fundamental core principle, especially in very short time period.

Many long term SF party members and voters would be abhorred at the thought of them suddenly going hard right on immigration.

In these instances the natural thing to happen in a democracy in my opinion, is either that party splinters in two if the issue becomes too divisive (see Aontu) and a new ‘anti immigration SF’ sets up…or more normally…voters just move to a party which reflects their views more closely.

The immigration issue is a tried and tested issue by the rightwing throughout Europe, and beyond.

Although this is not a completely spurious issue (e.g. 100,000 Ukrainian immigrants/refugees in a very short period of time with the resulting stresses on housing, healthcare and education), immigration is used as a major distraction from (other) genuine social issues (such as housing and healthcare for those already here) by the main actors in the economy.

I'm aware of one instance where this was made patently obvious: in Spain when a new radical leftwing movement - Podemos - came into existence about 10 years ago, the head of one of the banks (who was also one of the main men in the Spanish version of IBEC) declared that what was needed was a rightwing version of Podemos. And not long afterwards that new rightwing party came into existence: it is called Vox, it is a populist rightwing party that has immigration as one of their main concerns. But of course the real reason for its existence was and is the hope of keeping the left wing out of power.

This strategy has been, is being, attempted all over Europe, and is generally fairly successful - consider Meloni in Italy, Orban in Hungary, Wilder in the Netherlands or Le Pen in France and Farage in England; to the extent that such far-right parties have got a quota of power in quite a few countries at regional and local level even where they haven't managed to get into government by hook or by crook.

As government supporters on here would say " a nothing burger".

Poor auld Neale Richmond. Who let him out without a minder? Calls for 20% stamp duty to be put on bulk buyers, 8 months are voting down the SF/Soc Dem motion in the Dáil calling for the same thing. There must be an election coming.

Himself and the missus probably pull in about half a million a year with salary , expenses and no doubt they have some sort of business or side hustle going bringing in extra income.

The tax payer has been paying for his bills and lifestyle for years.

And he's online looking for 3,000 quid.

If it means that much put your hand in your own pocket ffs.

That's pennies to that family.

Some neck on the ****.

The driving out of the big investment funds is a big problem.

Ireland has the lowest number of apartments in the EU. We need to build more densely, and on brownfield sites within our city boundaries. Investment funds are the best source of investment for these apartment blocks.

Traditional developers in Ireland have favoured building traditional housing estates, selling as they go, to finance the building of the rest. That doesn't work with apartment blocks as you can only sell at the end. Even in mixed estates, they build the 3 and 4 bedroom semis first.

If SF were to succeed in driving out the investment funds immediately, but took time to get their public building proposals going, we could see house numbers drop below 20,000 in 2026 (2025 will be ok for completions because of work started under this government).

If you travel to the UK you can see that all new apartment blocks are at least double the height of the low rise buildings we have here, so need to build higher..

No doubt someone will come on here and tell me it's because our Fire Brigades ladders are too small..

A wide set of issues there, however people need a place to live and if high rise apartments are the way to provide that then let's do it.. all these low-rise low density apartments are useless and once built and occupied there's no adding more floors. Every major city in the UK are building up apartment blocks with twice the number of floors as here.. Young people who want to live independent lives after they leave school/college/get their first jobs will gladly live in an apartment that meets their basic needs.. I mean how much space do we need?

In Dublin city it's an ultra low density city, there's enough private garden space in the city for 300 x St. Stephen's Greens.

You are years out of date with this post. The shoebox apartments you are referring to are probably those built over twenty years ago, such as along the Dublin quays, Parnell st and Christchurch areas or Dock Rd Limerick. They were small but were affordable and in good locations. Yes they were built with renters in mind who would later move to a house in the suburbs. Modern apartments are better in every way but that makes them much more expensive. Paris has been a large city for many, many years, unlike Dublin so apartment living is the norm.

There has been regulation of management companies for many years by the PRSA. Owners can vote to replace the management agent at the AGM if they are not happy with the service. The previous years accounts are examined at the AGM and the next years budget too. The fee the management agent takes is also made clear. To say its the wild west is again, a decade out of date.

Only thing it might set a precedent for future investment. That's the worrying outcome by these companies.

Most Irish people still don't want to live in apartments though - at least not long term, and certainly not at the rental prices being asked in Dublin.

They (and renting in general) are seen as a stepping stone to the semi-D in the suburbs/country, and they're built and treated (by the people, by builders, by councils and Government) as such.

Until you change THAT mindset it will make little difference even if they were huge with great facilities onsite.

What exactly are you basing that on? Do you have any actual studies or polls to back that up or is it just entirely anecodtal?

Because people everywhere in the rest of Europe, and even in the UK and US, live in apartments at a far higher rate than Ireland. And we're not some unique apartment-phobic national race.

But even if Irish people were, 22% of the country is now foreign born as of last year, and thats rapidly increasing - to the tune of about 1% a year. And none of those people are apartment-phobic.