Fair.
Irish Politics
- Thread starter JakeC
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
That's as funny a sentence about Irish politics as I've ever heard.
It's surreal.
And as south Wicklow increasingly becomes south South Dublin they might elect 2 FGers.
A lad I work with just paid 900k for a semi-d in Greystones. He'll probably want to vote FFG now to protect the value. Such is the way.
He always seems perpetually angry
Good, the thought of him happy doesn't sit well.
This is why parties like SF need to have a plan for things like housing that doesn't rattle people. They only have certain cohorts of the younger population for a period before they become homeowners etc.
There is no plan to sustain the current prices, they only exist because of the shortage. That's capitalism. Rattling people with houses worth 1m is going to happen to a degree. They are in the minority though. The key is getting the turkeys to stop voting for Christmas.
The Greens might lose all of their seats. Will these parties never fecking learn?
Yep, this is pretty accurate.
I don't just mean people with houses worth that much, everyone that has bought a house in the last few years is stretching and would worry about a sharp drop(right or wrong), then you have others that don't particularly care about anyone else and don't want to lose out on money. I personally don't agree with the notion that 'everyone that wants to buy a home should be able to' is really the answer given the context(I would obviously want that as an ideal scenario), but it seems to me like SF should at least find a more marketable version of their plans, even if their underlying intentions remain the same.
Why is that not marketable? If you do social housing at scale it has minimal inflationary effects on the market because the people which occupy those homes are not in the housing market seeking to buy. Other than that, I don't understand why everyone who wants to buy home ought not be able to? You can market that. Not the social but the market housing if we want to use that terminology. You need to increase supply, obviously, and this brings down the prices (at scale). This is for the private market. The social housing has almost no effect on these metrics. Except exponential and ordinal.
It would hit landlords in terms of rent but that has to happen because rental prices are fecking insane at the moment. You can get a quote for a rental property that, no joke, would be enough for two mortgages some six years ago (depending on your mortgage specifics obviously). That's entirely due to lack of supply and massive demand. Social housing, en masse, will solve that problem (unless you're a party of landlords - sigh). As will people buying their own homes as that further reduces demand for rentals (with increase in building).
The only substantial effect for the housing market here is on landlords (large and small) who would have to lower rents.
Polls have pretty consistently highlighted that Sinn Fein's support contained the highest degree of anti-immigration sentiment of the major parties.
So I suspect it's less a case that those voters moved to the right on immigration, and more the case that a section of their support have always been to the right on immigration, it just wasn't that important in who they voted for. Immigration was barely mentioned at all in the last election, for example.
But then the attack/riots changed things, immigration became a hot button topic and suddenly the faultline that always existed between SF's policies and that section of their support started to tell. And non-coincidentally, the far-right started targeting SF particularly.
Two Healy-Raes in Kerry.
And while it may be impossible and unsustainable for everyone to own property the lack of housing security at the moment is an utter disgrace.
If we had a healthy rental sector the need for home ownership wouldn't be a great. As it is both strands are in tatters.
I disagree. Almost entirely. If my house loses value that mainly only matters if I want to sell it.
And while it may be impossible and unsustainable for everyone to own property the lack of housing security at the moment is an utter disgrace.
If we had a healthy rental sector the need for home ownership wouldn't be a great. As it is both strands are in tatters.
It's politically predictable. Go in on a minor base and be destroyed. Why the SDs would do it, you'd have to presume they all entered politics yesterday. Or Labour which has already gone through it in recent memory. That leaves independents for FFG.
That's if any of these smaller parties have memory that exceeds ten years.
Twix is in trouble.
He’s a bit of a drifter
Last edited:
Tbf to the Greens they leveraged their position in government to get quite a lot of policy influence on issues that are priorities for them. They're not quite a single-issue party, but they are a party with a relatively narrow focus, and if they feel they can influence government on those issues they might feel the the deal with the devil is worth it.
Realistically they'll likely be back in contention for another junior role in government by the time the next election roles around, and would probably make the exact same deal with the exact same outcome again.
I think it's more of a problem for Soc Dems/Labour if you believe their political outlook should be broader and more ambitious than simply selling themselves for some poliicy concessions in exchange for being a sacrifical punching bag. Which I do.
This is exactly it for the Greens. A few years in power will make a vastly bigger difference than infinity in opposition.
Biggest issue for voters as per exit poll:
Housing & Homlessness: 28%
Cost of Living: 19%
Health: 17%
Economic Stability: 9%
Immigration: 6%
Climate Change: 4%,
Crime: 2%
Local Transport and Roads: 2%
Childcare: 2%
Value For Money in Public Spending: 1%.
"Something else" and "no response" making up the rest.
Housing & Homlessness: 28%
Cost of Living: 19%
Health: 17%
Economic Stability: 9%
Immigration: 6%
Climate Change: 4%,
Crime: 2%
Local Transport and Roads: 2%
Childcare: 2%
Value For Money in Public Spending: 1%.
"Something else" and "no response" making up the rest.
I have to say that I really dislike the transfer system that’s used here in politics
It's not perfect but I think it's much better than first past the post.
I think it’s absolutely miles better than the Uk system.
I fundamentally disagree with this as a tactic. A dogged unified opposition can be just as effective in getting legislation done.
Have we ever had a dogged unified opposition?
I think transfers indicate that we are getting savvy. FG and FF seem to be transferring freely and vote left / transfer left seems to be taking hold.
Agree wholeheartedly with this
The Greens won't have enough seats in our lifetime to ever form a relevant role in a dogged opposition.
I don’t like the fact that I may vote for person A and their votes may transfer to person B even through that person is someone I absolutely would not vote for
No. Obviously. What is the point of glib rhetoric?
This multi choice democracy is all very new so that sort of retrospective told you so is irrelevant without context.
The parties that have lubed up, jumped into power and fecked over their voters is an absurd way to run a political party. If they got the alleged green legislation in they would retain their votes.
They literally have just come out of a parliament where they held the balance of power.
And if they had chose not to go into government, they would have been irrelevant in opposition.
I think it’s great and gives smaller parties more options. The Uk has basically turned into a two party system because of the first over the line approach.
We can’t do anything right. feck sake.
There isn’t a single “their vote” though. Your vote for them will transfer to whoever you put down your list of preferences.
That's not how it works.
I don't know about that, the government won a lot of votes this term very narrowly. It usually takes a decade to recover from what is happening today. If they were as effective is being claimed then why are their voters abandoning them?
Unless you put a number beside their name they won't get your vote.
Fair enough. It's just that if the option is go in and get some of your aims on the agenda vs having feck all influence from the outside, as a small party, then I can see why they'd do it. Although it does seem to feck them over afterwards.
To be honest I'm not sure about party politics at all really. Although I've not looked into the alternatives or thought about it too deeply.