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.
I meant all of the stuff around the 300k home in Dublin and the controlled price home scheme based on financial products that don't exist and mass purchase/usage of government land etc., it sounds great to some but unrealistic and in some cases damaging to others, it allowed for a lot of fear-mongering and patronisation from their detractors. They need their housing policies to appeal to a lot more people to get more votes(along with other things), and it seems, in my opinion anyway, that the way they're going about it may not be the right way, but I'm not too knowledgable on the stuff, to be fair.
Last edited:
Careful now, that's at least 50% of the country.
There's levels of scum.
Closer for about 40% based on this election. Which is interesting because there is 60% of the electorate who do not want FFG. 55-60% at any rate. That, if nothing else, is encouraging.
Because the value of one's house is the most important (often, only) financial asset one has, and is far more valuable than any increase in wages or benefits (like healthcare) that might be part of a political trade-off?
I don't know about the specifics of Ireland, but this explains the politics of homeownership in the US and UK at least.
The whole Hutch thing is ironic, “protest votes” from the communities that he has helped pump drugs into causing drug problems with knock on effect to those he’ll claim to represent.
Can’t help but think that a big portion of his votes or family, friends, cronies, people persuaded’
Can’t help but think that a big portion of his votes or family, friends, cronies, people persuaded’
Sure, but social housing doesn't interfere with the value of one's house except in the most minimal of ways. You cannot sell it. There is little to no inflationary value at all.
Unless there is the option to buy it and then sell which I'm against. I think every adult/family should be entitled to one social house which they can do whatever they want with except buy/sell. If you want to buy a house, you then ought go to the market and vacate the social housing. By this, you can construct a lot of social housing which has no inflationary metric on the private market.
There is. Hutch is more in your face about it but hasn't ruined nearly as many lives as the elected officials of FFG.
I was including people voting for far right parties as well but you're right. Hopefully it makes a dent at the next election, I'm not sure I can put up with much more of this shit.
Social housing is the key along with a state construction company.
You’re the second person to say this nonsense. One is a set of politicians who make bad decisions, the other is the head of a drug gang who pumps drugs into the country and has overseen a feud with the kinehan gang which so far has led to 18 murders that we know off
Ahh but sure he’s just a little gangster
"Sure he's no more dishonest than the other politicians", say some of the most braindead people in the country.
He's literally just a little gangster in comparison to the government, why do you think gangsters hide from the cops and not the other way around? Hutch has never made 15,000 people homeless through intentionally exploitative housing policies as an example. It's easy to say TDs are just making bad decisions but in reality it ruins lives and kills people, far more than somebody like Hutch ever could.
I agree with your policy. I am a renter in NYC and will never afford an apartment till I die on my salary. And even besides that, as a leftist, I think housing should be a right.
But I disagree with your first lines.
The ability for everyone to rent or buy an affordable home after govt intervention in housing, will significantly reduce the price of current housing. That price is based on scarcity and the expectation of low levels of construction in the future. It is in a homeowner's interest for that to continue, and for homelessness to persist. Just like, if the govt were to start a bakery selling bread at cost, that would not be in the interest of existing bakeries. The reason this value is important is because it is the major source of wealth for most ordinary people (who don't own millions in stocks and shares).
About "you cannot sell it" - some can, but for those who won't, I presume you can mortgage it for a loan? In the US at least, it's possible: https://themortgagereports.com/72317/can-i-get-a-mortgage-on-a-house-i-already-own-free-and-clear
Wow
This is fecking mad.
You’re off your rocker pal.That's some absurd relativism.
I'm proposing a fundamentally different model. You cannot buy the social house you are allocated. And if you want to move into the private market, you must vacate that housing.
The people who would be housed here are not in the supply/demand economy of the private market. Them being housed - and those houses never being allowed to enter the private market - reduces inflationary metrics. It is offset to things like construction.
As for mortgaging - not for my model. You would own the house but you cannot mortgage it, nor sell it. It is yours until you (if you ever do) vacate it. This minimizes interactions with the private market qua housing. I.e., a first house/home policy where all are entitled to such but if you want a second home (or a home which is not social) you must vacate the first. You then effectively enter the private market.
The price is based on scarcity of privately available housing (more than anything else). It is housing which can be bought, sold, etc., which has the largest inflationary/deflationary effect here. A large social scheme would have little effect on this if it adhered to an intelligent model.
I.e., if all the people renting were socially housed tomorrow, in houses they own until they vacate but cannot possibly "buy" (in the sense to sell and so not mortgage either), it would have an effect on the rental market. No doubt. A large one. But I do not see how that has a massive effect on the prices of houses generally. Those which are earmarked for rent could themselves be bought up by government schemes if their value was to fall. I mean, it would absolutely hit landlords. But it has to happen one way or another. Especially in this country. It requires a lot of thought but it is entirely viable. This post won't do it justice (you need proper economic analysis and stress tests).
From Mary Regan via RTE.ie
As the results of the first counts start to come in, and the tallies are being parsed. Here are five things to look for as you settle in for the count:
Hutch Hunch: There's a big focus on Gerard Hutch being in the hunt for a seat in Dublin Central. The former justice minister, Michael McDowell, has been telling Miriam O'Callaghan on her RTÉ panel that people need to hold their horses saying Hutch will lose out on transfers.
Hutch is in a battle for the last seat with Labour's Marie Sherlock, who is 617 votes behind, according to a full tally. But it is the tally of transfers that is now being poured over in the count centre.
They show that half of Malachy Steenson's second preferences are going to Hutch. Fianna Fáil's Mary Fitzpatrick and Green Party's Neasa Hourigan's votes will also have to be distributed. But how many will be used to get Fine Gael's Paschal Donohoe and Social Democrats' Gary Gannon over the line? And what then will be left for Sherlock?
Tallies suggest Fitzpatrick will distribute around 10% to Sherlock while Hourigan will transfer around 40%. This is extremely tight but some constituency observers believe Hutch will shave it.
The Labour candidate's campaign slogan has been "Sherlock is on the case" and this looks like the biggest one for her to crack.
As the results of the first counts start to come in, and the tallies are being parsed. Here are five things to look for as you settle in for the count:
Hutch Hunch: There's a big focus on Gerard Hutch being in the hunt for a seat in Dublin Central. The former justice minister, Michael McDowell, has been telling Miriam O'Callaghan on her RTÉ panel that people need to hold their horses saying Hutch will lose out on transfers.
Hutch is in a battle for the last seat with Labour's Marie Sherlock, who is 617 votes behind, according to a full tally. But it is the tally of transfers that is now being poured over in the count centre.
They show that half of Malachy Steenson's second preferences are going to Hutch. Fianna Fáil's Mary Fitzpatrick and Green Party's Neasa Hourigan's votes will also have to be distributed. But how many will be used to get Fine Gael's Paschal Donohoe and Social Democrats' Gary Gannon over the line? And what then will be left for Sherlock?
Tallies suggest Fitzpatrick will distribute around 10% to Sherlock while Hourigan will transfer around 40%. This is extremely tight but some constituency observers believe Hutch will shave it.
The Labour candidate's campaign slogan has been "Sherlock is on the case" and this looks like the biggest one for her to crack.
This dynamic duo will take the fist two of four seats in Sligo/Leitrim
This is fecking mad.
Hutch is a monster but so is FFG, they've caused misery to untold thousands. Dressing it up as just "bad decisions" is insulting.
I never said it was just bad decisions. But I don't want to debate it, let's just disagree.
You’ve spouted some nonsense in this thread in the last few days but this takes the cake. I think you need to rethink where you consume your news from.
Nice one, I'll be sure to do that
No, you didn't, the person I initially replied to did though.
On the whole monk thing -
I think theres a level of cynicism amongst the electorate that believes most of our politicians are crooks and criminals that makes arguments to exclude someone like Hutch on the basis of criminality unconvincing. That would be my interpretation
Probably helps that his criminal actions were against criminals, instead of the electorate. Or at least maybe thats how people interpret it.
I think theres a level of cynicism amongst the electorate that believes most of our politicians are crooks and criminals that makes arguments to exclude someone like Hutch on the basis of criminality unconvincing. That would be my interpretation
Probably helps that his criminal actions were against criminals, instead of the electorate. Or at least maybe thats how people interpret it.
I know someone who voted for him and just thinks it's 'gas'.
Thats pretty cynical isn't it?
Miaybe, but n this case, cynical would be attributing a little too much thought.
It's his only vote ever in a general election, he's 32. So maybe there is something about engaging those people, but also you can't spoonfeed people.
I wouldn't think its a particularly thought through response in general. I'm guessing obviously, throwing ideas out there, so not confident in the theory
That's certainly part of it. I don't know anyone who's been fecked by Hutch, I know hundreds that have been fecked by FFG.
Edit: I would never vote for scum like Hutch, but then again, I'd never vote for scum like FFG either.
Only very very stupid people would interpret it that way. Which brings us back to the point. Anyone who voted for him is thick as feck.
Aye, dunno. I'm at a loss. I get the far-right thing, as in I understand it, but this is absurd.
Yeah that seems a safe assumption.
Like moses said i can get going far right but this is a weird choice.
That's rather low empathy logic, despite appearances. I have lived in areas that have seen the results of his ilk.
I have been active on the political left since I was a kid, and I think he's easily worse.
He had no mandate, he's just a violent self-serving prick that we the people had no say in. No mitigation.
Just goes to show what people think of politics in this country. People are either seeing it as the joke it is or are so fed up with the status quo that they misguidedly think a hard man like Hutch will be able to fix it for them. This, again, is a failure of the political establishment.
If anyone seriously thinks Hutch will fix anything that’s a failure of their brain, not the political establishment.
You seem to be implying the only options that these cretins could vote for were FFG or Hutch. That clearly wasn’t the case.
Like I said, I would never vote for him. I was outlining my logic as to why I call FFG a pack of criminals.
I've grown up around gang violence, not Hutch, but similar. The only way to stop people like Hutch is improving the material conditions of the people in those areas, something that would likely stop the rise of the far right as well. Funnily enough, FFG are responsible for those material conditions.
He ran for election and secured enough votes (is the count finished yet?). It says a LOT about those who voted for him because it's weird on top of being morally repugnant. I'd imagine the people voting for him probably aren't being quiet about it.
As someone who has a lot of time for anarchist theory, this is a repulsive idea.
People need to take responsibility.
Blaming Varadkar or the system on some feckless wanker (my 2nd cousin) voting for The Hutch instead of the left wing candidate with his interests at heart is nonsense.
There were better votes for him to cast but he's too stupid to see that.
. If anything it's more damning for the education system and the media, but still, only a fraction of the blame goes anywhere except on the heads of the twats who voted for him.