# Is Pat Rabbitte safe as Labour leader?



## Purple (30 May 2007)

When Pat Rabbitte took over from Ruairi Quinn as leader of the Labour party they looked like they were set to become the main opposition party in Ireland. Ruairi had succeeded in building on the platform that Dick Spring had established when he brought Labour into the 20th century, culminating in the “Spring tide” in 1992. 
Under Quinn the gap between Fine Gael and Labour was reduced to 10 seats. The gap is now 30. This may well be due to Fine Gael’s resurgence, indeed this is probably the case, but politics can be very unforgiving and failure, even when it is not your fault, rarely goes unpunished.


----------



## z108 (30 May 2007)

Apparently his 'menopausal Paris Hilton' jibe at McDowell offended more feminists than helped McDowell haters


----------



## Caveat (30 May 2007)

Do you reckon also that his (most recent) distancing from FF is a result of him being openly criticized by party members? Broughan, on live TV, was critical of Labour's association with the 'alliance for change'.  I think there were others too.

It looks to me that to avoid an insurrection, Rabbitte had to look firm as a leader - willingness to do business with FF might have upset the more hard line elements in Labour further.


----------



## Murt10 (30 May 2007)

I think he'll do nothing until the Dail reconvenes and they aren't able to elect a Taoiseach. 

Then all bets are off and he'll "reluctantly" take ministerial office. If he has any cop he'll demand that Bertie resigns as leader before he does this as what's coming out at the Mahon Tribunal is going to keep going on and on. Eventually whoever is in power with FF will have to cut them loose if they want to retain any credibility.

When is the job in the Park up for filling. Kill two birds with one stone if Bertie was to plums for that. (1. he could resign with dignity - in the national interest and 2 also he'd be gone by 60 as he promised) . The two parties would naturally support hs candidacy for the job..


Murt


----------



## Gabriel (31 May 2007)

Murt10 said:


> I think he'll do nothing until the Dail reconvenes and they aren't able to elect a Taoiseach.
> 
> Then all bets are off and he'll "reluctantly" take ministerial office. If he has any cop he'll demand that Bertie resigns as leader before he does this as what's coming out at the Mahon Tribunal is going to keep going on and on. Eventually whoever is in power with FF will have to cut them loose if they want to retain any credibility.
> 
> ...



I'd say you'd get good odds for any of that happening...can't see any of it myself.


----------



## elefantfresh (31 May 2007)

Bertie in the park? Tell me no....


----------



## Pique318 (31 May 2007)

What a sh!t gig that'd be...he can't sing worth a damn !!

Tickets €250....construction industry free


----------



## Megan (31 May 2007)

Pique318 said:


> What a sh!t gig that'd be...he can't sing worth a damn !!
> 
> Tickets €250....construction industry free



Will they put up a TENT?


----------



## elefantfresh (31 May 2007)

But who would play support???


----------



## Caveat (31 May 2007)

elefantfresh said:


> But who would play support???


 
maybe in view of a predicted slowing down of the 'tiger' economy
Celtic Frost would be an appropriate support band...

(Obscure Swiss metal band by the way)


----------



## elefantfresh (31 May 2007)

Thats mad Ted - i saw them years ago in England.


----------



## Caveat (31 May 2007)

elefantfresh said:


> Thats mad Ted - i saw them years ago in England.


 
Ah good ol' Tom G Warrior (wasn't it?) ...wasn't a particularly funny post though...


----------



## elefantfresh (31 May 2007)

Just looked them up on wikipedia - tons of info there - trip down memory lane.
I think we've strayed from the OPs' thread tho....


----------



## RainyDay (1 Jun 2007)

Back to the original question - There are certainly rumblings among the grass roots about Rabitte's leadership. Ruairi had the decency to fall on his sword when his strategy didn't work in 2002, but Pat seems to be trying to brazen it out. His 5-year term as leader expires in November, so he will have to decide whether to put himself forward again or not (if he doesn't get the boot in the meantime). 

His saving grace is probably the lack of alternative leaders. Howlin or Gilmore would certainly be competent, but I can't see either of them bringing anything hugely different to the party. Joan Burton is a smart lady, but is just not very appealing to those outside the fold.


----------



## madisona (2 Jun 2007)

I have a feeling that Labours lack of success in the election may not so much be down to the Mullingar Accord or Pat Rabbittes refusal to answer the question regarding getting in to bed with Bertie but rather his decision to take Labour to the right, a space already occupied by Fine Fail, Fine Gael and the PDs.

Instead of advocating leftish policies like income redistribution  and better public services he instead focussed on policies that marked Labour out as a party of the right e.g.

income tax cuts
cuts in stamp duty for those purchasing multiple properties
the Begin to Buy scheme whereby he promised to pay over 1,500,000,
000 to developers in order to keep house prices rising.
tougher policing 


IMO there is a big space for a leftish alternative to voters and Labour would have done better if they instead targeted them. You might argue that he did as well but making promises of tax cuts and more spending doesn't really fool a lot of people.


----------



## Purple (4 Jun 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Back to the original question - There are certainly rumblings among the grass roots about Rabitte's leadership. Ruairi had the decency to fall on his sword when his strategy didn't work in 2002, but Pat seems to be trying to brazen it out. His 5-year term as leader expires in November, so he will have to decide whether to put himself forward again or not (if he doesn't get the boot in the meantime).
> 
> His saving grace is probably the lack of alternative leaders. Howlin or Gilmore would certainly be competent, but I can't see either of them bringing anything hugely different to the party. Joan Burton is a smart lady, but is just not very appealing to those outside the fold.


Good post RainyDay.
I agree that his strategy didn't work out but I think it had more to do with Enda Kenny than Pat Rabbitte. I thought Pats start to the campaign was excellent but he didn't finish well. The tactic of not getting into the whole payments to Bertie issue helped Enda Kenny, because he's useless at that sort of political debate, but it did Pat no favours as that's exactly the sort of thing that he excels at. 
I would think that Howlin would be well supported in the old Labour camp but you would know more about that than I. Gilmore, while being well polished and mentally agile, is not as good at Pat Rabbitte and would project the same image to the electorate. Despite her ability I think that Joan Burtons looks and voice would colour most peoples impression, unfair though that is.  

Are there any young guns on the up within the Labour party? I don't see any, and many of the old hands are out of the running. Michael D, former minister for Galway, is too old and is too much of a character to be party leader. Joe Costello is also too old (or has been around too long anyway). He is also too much of a socialist.
Liz McManus, Ruairi Quinn, Emmet Stag; all part of the old guard and despite their ability would have nothing much new to offer. So all things considered I think Pat is safe for the moment.


----------



## room305 (4 Jun 2007)

madisona said:


> the Begin to Buy scheme whereby he promised to pay over 1,500,000,000 to developers in order to keep house prices rising.



Surely this policy of direct government intervention to support a falling market is more of a shake to the left than the right?


----------



## RainyDay (4 Jun 2007)

madisona said:


> cuts in stamp duty for those purchasing multiple properties
> the Begin to Buy scheme whereby he promised to pay over 1,500,000,
> 000 to developers in order to keep house prices rising.
> tougher policing


For the record, the truth of Labour's stamp duty policies can be [broken link removed]. The proposal was to eliminate stamp duty for FTBs up to €450k and reduce stamp duty for ALL other purchases, with the highest percentage reductions aimed at purchasers around the 400k mark.

There was no proposal for 'tougher policing'. There was a proposal to provide 2,000 more Gardai, include 1,500 new positions for community Gardai.

Your spin on the Begin To Buy scheme is extremely misleading.

Your suggestion for a 'leftish alternative' doesn't hold much water, given Joe Higgins lost seat and the failure of SF to get anywhere. There is no evidence that there is any appetite for leftish policies amongst Irish voters.


Purple said:


> Are there any young guns on the up within the Labour party?


There are some good up-and-coming people out there, like Culhane in Dublin South, Hannigan in Meath, Tuffy in Dublin West, but none of them have credible experience to think about stepping into the leader's shoes.


----------



## mmclo (5 Jun 2007)

RainyDay said:


> There are some good up-and-coming people out there, like Culhane in Dublin South, Hannigan in Meath, Tuffy in Dublin West, but none of them have credible experience to think about stepping into the leader's shoes.


 
Most of the TDs will be over 60 at the next election. Succesion in these type of seats is Labours problem. Unless 10 succesor candidates appear from nowhere many of these seats will be lost


----------



## RainyDay (5 Jun 2007)

mmclo said:


> Most of the TDs will be over 60 at the next election. Succesion in these type of seats is Labours problem. Unless 10 succesor candidates appear from nowhere many of these seats will be lost



Agreed. This generation were largely the TD's that came in a bright, young(ish) things in the 1992 Spring tide. The absence of regular new intake of TDs since then may hit us hard in the future.


----------



## Purple (6 Jun 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Agreed. This generation were largely the TD's that came in a bright, young(ish) things in the 1992 Spring tide. The absence of regular new intake of TDs since then may hit us hard in the future.


Is it viable for smaller parties to run a second candidate in certain constituencies where they get a large vote in order to have an understudy ready to step in when the time comes or is this cost prohibitive?


----------



## RainyDay (6 Jun 2007)

Purple said:


> Is it viable for smaller parties to run a second candidate in certain constituencies where they get a large vote in order to have an understudy ready to step in when the time comes or is this cost prohibitive?



I doubt if cost would be prohibitive, especially if the [broken link removed] happens to come from one of Ireland's richest families.  The risk may be that few Labour candidates have very safe seats, so introducing a second candidate may well put the first candidate at risk.


----------



## Purple (7 Jun 2007)

Isn’t he the son of Lochlann Quinn and nephew of Ruairi?
That and being a Barrister (a core profession in the labour party ) do give him a very strong starting point. If he is as smart as his father, or his uncle, he will be an assett to Irish politics.


----------



## RainyDay (7 Jun 2007)

Purple said:


> Isn’t he the son of Lochlann Quinn and nephew of Ruairi?
> That and being a Barrister (a core profession in the labour party ) do give him a very strong starting point. If he is as smart as his father, or his uncle, he will be an assett to Irish politics.



That's the guy. I've heard good things (from non-Labour sources) of his barristering abilities.

On your earlier question, a candidate can spend as much or as little as they like on a campaign. If they are running with the objective of succession planning, they could cut some of the high-profile advertising costs and focus on work on the ground.


----------



## madisona (30 Jun 2007)

RainyDay said:


> For the record, the truth of Labour's stamp duty policies can be [broken link removed]. The proposal was to eliminate stamp duty for FTBs up to €450k and reduce stamp duty for ALL other purchases, with the highest percentage reductions aimed at purchasers around the 400k mark.
> 
> There was no proposal for 'tougher policing'. There was a proposal to provide 2,000 more Gardai, include 1,500 new positions for community Gardai.
> 
> ...


 

ok firstly labours stamp duty cuts for first time buyers would have benifited rich first time buyers only, as the great majority of first time buyers were already exempt from this tax. so this was definitely a proposal aimed at helping the rich. this however was only a small part of Labours stamp duty proposals,. most of the money would have gone to benifit those who already owned property. the fact is that property speculators who wanted to buy more would have been the main benificiaries. those that only wanted to buy a second property have also imo already been rewarded through making large capital appreciation gains. rewarding capital speculation rather than work is a right wing policy.

a proposal to spend more public money than the right wing parties on policing could be equated to tougher policing. the left wing alternative would have been to instead to spend more on the causes of crime such as social exclusion e.g. preventative rather that enforcement.

I am sure that there are a great many first time buyers that breathed a sigh of relief that Labour was not given the opportunity to enforce the very right wing "Begin to Buy" scheme. with speculators leaving the market due to a slowdown in prices, developers would increasingly have had to sell to first time buyers at the limit of what they could afford e.g. if a first time buyer could only afford to borrow 220k to buy a shoebox the developer would have to sell it for that. Labour proposed to use large amounts of taxpayer money to ensure however that first time buyers could bid far more than they could afford for the shoeboxes e.g they could bid 350k instead. the developer would get a much inflated price , the taxpayer would be out of pocket and the first time buyer would instead of owning a full shoebox only own a portion of it. the very large amounts of money that would have been needed for financial transfers to developers would also inevitably have led to savage cuts in the provision of social and affordable housing. 


maybe there is no appetite for a leftish alternative in irish politics that looks after the interests of the poor and disadvantaged but by moving so far to the right and championing the interests ot the rich and powerful Labour made itself indistinguishable from FF, FG and the PDs and imo made itself irrelevant


----------



## madisona (30 Jun 2007)

................


----------



## RainyDay (30 Jun 2007)

madisona said:


> ok firstly labours stamp duty cuts for first time buyers would have benifited rich first time buyers only, as the great majority of first time buyers were already exempt from this tax. so this was definitely a proposal aimed at helping the rich. this however was only a small part of Labours stamp duty proposals,. most of the money would have gone to benifit those who already owned property. the fact is that property speculators who wanted to buy more would have been the main benificiaries. those that only wanted to buy a second property have also imo already been rewarded through making large capital appreciation gains. rewarding capital speculation rather than work is a right wing policy.



Can you please be specific about which aspects of Labour's stamp duty proposals would have 'gone to benifit (sic) those who already owned property'? 

You appear to be labelling any FTB buying a house  valued between €319k and €450k as 'the rich'. Get real.



madisona said:


> a proposal to spend more public money than the right wing parties on policing could be equated to tougher policing. the left wing alternative would have been to instead to spend more on the causes of crime such as social exclusion e.g. preventative rather that enforcement.


This has all the hallmarks of politics learnt from books rather than on the ground. I'd suggest you drop out to your local hot-spot tonight (Saturday) between 11pm and 2am and start telling those who are bearing the brunt of anti-social behaviour that they don't need extra Gardai, just extra money spent on social exclusion. See how many votes you get. Hint: the answer will be zero. 

There is no either/or scenario here. It is not a case of 'preventative rather than enforcement'. You need spending on both.



madisona said:


> I am sure that there are a great many first time buyers that breathed a sigh of relief that Labour was not given the opportunity to enforce the very right wing "Begin to Buy" scheme. with speculators leaving the market due to a slowdown in prices, developers would increasingly have had to sell to first time buyers at the limit of what they could afford e.g. if a first time buyer could only afford to borrow 220k to buy a shoebox the developer would have to sell it for that. Labour proposed to use large amounts of taxpayer money to ensure however that first time buyers could bid far more than they could afford for the shoeboxes e.g they could bid 350k instead. the developer would get a much inflated price , the taxpayer would be out of pocket and the first time buyer would instead of owning a full shoebox only own a portion of it. the very large amounts of money that would have been needed for financial transfers to developers would also inevitably have led to savage cuts in the provision of social and affordable housing.


You really don't know what you're talking about here. Go read the policy document and understand how these scheme was going to be funded, and then we can have a real discussion.

Isn't it funny how we haven't seen too many developers selling their shoeboxes for €220k in the absence of the 'begin to buy' scheme? We have seen a small degree of incentives, such as six-months mortgage repayments and health club membership being tossed around by nervous developers, but no huge drops in prices - eh? 



madisona said:


> maybe there is no appetite for a leftish alternative in irish politics that looks after the interests of the poor and disadvantaged but by moving so far to the right and championing the interests ot the rich and powerful Labour made itself indistinguishable from FF, FG and the PDs and imo made itself irrelevant


Labour hasn't moved 'far to the right' and these claims detract any sense of credibility from your posts. You could make a sensible arguement about Labour moving to the centre, but not 'far to the right' - that's just exaggeration, and it really doesn't help your case.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Labour hasn't moved 'far to the right' and these claims detract any sense of credibility from your posts. You could make a sensible arguement about Labour moving to the centre, but not 'far to the right' - that's just exaggeration, and it really doesn't help your case.



There are no right  wing parties in Ireland. Some are in the centre but none are to the right of it.
I think this is a good thing.


----------



## z108 (2 Jul 2007)

Purple said:


> There are no right  wing parties in Ireland. Some are in the centre but none are to the right of it.
> I think this is a good thing.



not even the Pd's or the immigration control people ?


----------



## madisona (2 Jul 2007)

_Can you please be specific about which aspects of Labour's stamp duty proposals would have 'gone to benifit (sic) those who already owned property'? 

You appear to be labelling any FTB buying a house valued between €319k and €450k as 'the rich'. Get real._


according to an earlier post by yourself Labour planned to reduce stamp duty for ALL purchases. This would of course include speculators  who already owned multiple properties as well as those that had made large amounts in capital appreciation of their current property portfolio.

the old limit was not  just above 317.5 k.  FTB Stamp Duty also only applied to new properties larger than 125sq m. the fact is that a large majority of FTBs were under these limits and my contention that Labours propopsal would only benefit rich FTBs is valid.  It could also be argued that the old limits encouraged  FTBs to borrowing within their limits and that they in fact kept house prices down for FTBs e.g look at the large number of  3 bed and 4 bed properties available on DAFT for 317,500. Does a young FTB starting out really need a mansion?





_This has all the hallmarks of politics learnt from books rather than on the ground. I'd suggest you drop out to your local hot-spot tonight (Saturday) between 11pm and 2am and start telling those who are bearing the brunt of anti-social behaviour that they don't need extra Gardai, just extra money spent on social exclusion. See how many votes you get. Hint: the answer will be zero. 

There is no either/or scenario here. It is not a case of 'preventative rather than enforcement'. You need spending on both.
_
 
It is a question of priorities. On one extreme you have perhaps Sweden which has low spending on police and prisons and law and order. Instead there is a more equitable redistribution of income. On the other extreme perhaps there is the US which spends heavily on prison places  and greater numbers of police. by advocating spending more money on policing than the other (imo right of centre) parties, Labour has positioned itself to the right of them



You really don't know what you're talking about here. Go read the policy document and understand how these scheme was going to be funded, and then we can have a real discussion.

Isn't it funny how we haven't seen too many developers selling their shoeboxes for €220k in the absence of the 'begin to buy' scheme? We have seen a small degree of incentives, such as six-months mortgage repayments and health club membership being tossed around by nervous developers, but no huge drops in prices - eh? 


I thought that it was clear how the scheme was to be funded i.e. by the taxpayer and it was also very clear who was to get all the money i.e. wealthy property developers. Is that not the case? I think that developers are a lot more nervous now that that Labour is not in power and the promised windfall will not materalise.  I wouldn't be too sure that price drops for FTBs will not happen either.

Although I take back my claim that Begin to Buy would be funded by cutting social and affordable housing. It could just as easily be funded by cutting spending on health or education.


Labour hasn't moved 'far to the right' and these claims detract any sense of credibility from your posts. You could make a sensible arguement about Labour moving to the centre, but not 'far to the right' - that's just exaggeration, and it really doesn't help your case.


I did not say that Labour was far to the right, but rather that it had moved far to the right of where it was in the past  which has taken it to the crowded centre.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2007)

sign said:


> not even the Pd's or the immigration control people ?


The PD's support a national health care system. This is not a right wing policy, indeed it is not compatible with right wing thinking. The Immigration Control People are close but their policies are too narrow to know if they are right wing. I suspect their members are both left and right wing in their tendencies and are just united by bigotry.


----------



## ubiquitous (2 Jul 2007)

sign said:


> the immigration control people ?



These are hardly a political party? Did any of them stand in the recent General Election?


----------



## z108 (2 Jul 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> These are hardly a political party? Did any of them stand in the recent General Election?



They have a zero profile as far as I can see except  when I saw them on the late late show a couple of years ago. The only reason I thought of them is Brendan or ClubMan              (if not the same person  )                          mentioned them in a thread a few weeks ago for some reason. 
I guess the reason must have been something to do with the election. Maybe they have run in ClubMans'  constituency ?


----------



## RainyDay (2 Jul 2007)

madisona said:


> according to an earlier post by yourself Labour planned to reduce stamp duty for ALL purchases. This would of course include speculators  who already owned multiple properties as well as those that had made large amounts in capital appreciation of their current property portfolio.
> the old limit was not  just above 317.5 k.  FTB Stamp Duty also only applied to new properties larger than 125sq m. the fact is that a large majority of FTBs were under these limits and my contention that Labours propopsal would only benefit rich FTBs is valid.  It could also be argued that the old limits encouraged  FTBs to borrowing within their limits and that they in fact kept house prices down for FTBs e.g look at the large number of  3 bed and 4 bed properties available on DAFT for 317,500. [/FONT]Does a young FTB starting out really need a mansion?


Which post are you referring to? I'm pretty sure I never said any such thing, but if I did, I erred. So why don't you go read the policy and find out what you are talking about before you shoot off with the criticisms?


madisona said:


> It is a question of priorities. On one extreme you have perhaps Sweden which has low spending on police and prisons and law and order. Instead there is a more equitable redistribution of income. On the other extreme perhaps there is the US which spends heavily on prison places  and greater numbers of police. by advocating spending more money on policing than the other (imo right of centre) parties, Labour has positioned itself to the right of them


Interesting to see that more Gardai on the streets has moved from being a right wing policy to being a question of priorities. But there was no question of priorities in your earlier comments. Like I said earlier, try expounding your sociological theory to residents in certain estates who have become prisoners in their own houses as a result of failed policing and anti-social behaviour (but of course there is no shortage of Gardai acting as private security for Shell in Mayo). I'm sure those residents will be very interested in studying the fine points of the Swedish system while waiting the 20 years or so that it will take for the increased spending to take effect.



madisona said:


> I thought that it was clear how the scheme was to be funded i.e. by the taxpayer and it was also very clear who was to get all the money i.e. wealthy property developers. Is that not the case? I think that developers are a lot more nervous now that that Labour is not in power and the promised windfall will not materalise.  I wouldn't be too sure that price drops for FTBs will not happen either.
> 
> Although I take back my claim that Begin to Buy would be funded by cutting social and affordable housing. It could just as easily be funded by cutting spending on health or education.


You're digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself now. Like I said earlier, go read up on the policy and how it is funded - then come back & repost.



madisona said:


> I did not say that Labour was far to the right, but rather that it had moved far to the right of where it was in the past  which has taken it to the crowded centre.


Eh - no, you didn't. Go back and check your post. You just added the 'of where it was in the past' now.


----------



## madisona (5 Jul 2007)

madisona said:


> maybe there is no appetite for a leftish alternative in irish politics that looks after the interests of the poor and disadvantaged but by moving so far to the right and championing the interests ot the rich and powerful Labour made itself indistinguishable from FF, FG and the PDs and imo made itself irrelevant





RainyDay said:


> Labour hasn't moved 'far to the right' and these claims detract any sense of credibility from your posts. You could make a sensible arguement about Labour moving to the centre, but not 'far to the right' - that's just exaggeration, and it really doesn't help your case.





madisona said:


> I did not say that Labour was far to the right, but rather that it had moved far to the right of where it was in the past  which has taken it to the crowded centre.





RainyDay said:


> Eh - no, you didn't. Go back and check your post. You just added the 'of where it was in the past' now.





I stand by my assertion that what I meant was the Labour had moved far to the right of where it was in the past and that this meaning is the most reasonable inference from my original post


----------



## madisona (5 Jul 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Which post are you referring to? I'm pretty sure I never said any such thing, but if I did, I erred. So why don't you go read the policy and find out what you are talking about before you shoot off with the criticisms?





madisona said:


> according to an earlier post by yourself Labour planned to reduce stamp duty for ALL purchases. This would of course include speculators  who already owned multiple properties as well as those that had made large amounts in capital appreciation of their current property portfolio.
> .





RainyDay said:


> For the record, the truth of Labour's stamp duty policies can be [broken link removed]. The proposal was to eliminate stamp duty for FTBs up to €450k and reduce stamp duty for ALL other purchases, with the highest percentage reductions aimed at purchasers around the 400k mark.



I don't think that you erred at all. It clear from the policy document that speculators buying multiple properties would gain most financially from Labours stamp duty tax cuts. e.g a speculator buying three houses at €700,000 each would save an extra €69,000


----------



## madisona (5 Jul 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Interesting to see that more Gardai on the streets has moved from being a right wing policy to being a question of priorities. But there was no question of priorities in your earlier comments. Like I said earlier, try expounding your sociological theory to residents in certain estates who have become prisoners in their own houses as a result of failed policing and anti-social behaviour . I'm sure those residents will be very interested in studying the fine points of the Swedish system while waiting the 20 years or so that it will take for the increased spending to take effect.



Its always a question of priorities. Of course it would be better to have massive tax cuts and large spending increases at the same time but this lays a party open to claims that it is  engaging in auction politics and insincerity, an accusation that was do devastatingly made by Brian Cowan against Labour before the election.


I think that  your rhetoric here reveals your ideological basis. I assume that the   "residents in certain estates" to which you refer are the poor and the underclass in council estates. Unlike you I have lived in such areas and am not sure that they would agree with your somewhat patronizing insinuation that what they most need is more policing to protect themselves (and the rich) from their anti social behaviour and that they are prisoners in their own (council) houses.  Believe it or not there was even a time when Labour represented such people.


----------



## madisona (5 Jul 2007)

madisona said:


> I thought that it was clear how the scheme was to be funded i.e. by the taxpayer and it was also very clear who was to get all the money i.e. wealthy property developers. Is that not the case? .





RainyDay said:


> You're digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself now. Like I said earlier, go read up on the policy and how it is funded - then come back & repost.
> .



Ok. I've read up further  and I don't see where anyhing that I've said previously is incorrect  These are quotes from the policy document 

_" Take a couple who can get a mortgage for €250,000.  Under the ‘Begin to Buy’ scheme, they will go to the local housing authority with their mortgage approval of €250,000. Once approved....the couple to out into the market and buy for say €400,000.

The housing authority will also finance the balance, through a new Housing Assistance Fund which will be established through the National Treasury Management Agency." _

i.e. it will be funded by the taxpayer and the money will go to developers. Its main function is to address the affordability gap between the maximum amount that FTBs can borrow and the price that developers want for their properties. Its sole purpose is to allow developers to continue charging high prices and imo it could only attract FTBs if affordable housing production was slashed to remove it as an alternative for young couples.


----------



## shanegl (5 Jul 2007)

..


----------



## RainyDay (7 Jul 2007)

madisona said:


> I don't think that you erred at all. It clear from the policy document that speculators buying multiple properties would gain most financially from Labours stamp duty tax cuts. e.g a speculator buying three houses at €700,000 each would save an extra €69,000



Can you check your workings please? I make it that under the old regime, any non-FTB (including investor) would pay just under €23k on a €700k property, and under the proposed Labour policy, they would pay €33k. Where did you get your figures from?



madisona said:


> Its always a question of priorities. Of course it would be better to have massive tax cuts and large spending increases at the same time but this lays a party open to claims that it is  engaging in auction politics and insincerity, an accusation that was do devastatingly made by Brian Cowan against Labour before the election.


Was this before or after Cowen jumped on the bandwagon and offered larger tax cuts than Labour and no cap on stamp duty exemption for FTBs? The words pot, kettle & black spring to mind.


madisona said:


> I think that  your rhetoric here reveals your ideological basis. I assume that the   "residents in certain estates" to which you refer are the poor and the underclass in council estates. Unlike you I have lived in such areas and am not sure that they would agree with your somewhat patronizing insinuation that what they most need is more policing to protect themselves (and the rich) from their anti social behaviour and that they are prisoners in their own (council) houses.  Believe it or not there was even a time when Labour represented such people.


There is no rhetoric - just practical on-the-ground experiences from 18 months of canvassing. Your assumption about council estates is of course completely wrong (as is your assumption about where I live/lived). I specifically avoided linking anti-social behaviour to council estates because that does not reflect reality. Anti-social behaviour is a problem in many, many kinds of estates from a range of socio-economic classes. I'd pay good money to see you explaining your theories about social exclusion to many of the residents that I met on the canvass. You wouldn't last 60 seconds.


madisona said:


> Ok. I've read up further  and I don't see where anyhing that I've said previously is incorrect  These are quotes from the policy document
> 
> _" Take a couple who can get a mortgage for €250,000.  Under the ‘Begin to Buy’ scheme, they will go to the local housing authority with their mortgage approval of €250,000. Once approved....the couple to out into the market and buy for say €400,000.
> 
> ...



Way off the mark, for many reasons.

1) Purchases are not limited to new houses, so your rants about developers prices are misguided. Market pricing will apply, and 'begin to buy' purchasers will operate in the market along with other purchasers.
2) In parallel with this scheme, Labour committed to meeting the NESF target of 10,000 social housing units, which will take significant demand out of the market at the lower end.3) The cost of the scheme is minimal - the 'interest only' cost of the funds invested, given that the state retains a share in the property. In fact, if there continues to be a modest rise in property prices, the scheme will be self-financing.
4) The local authority can take a view on the value (or otherwise) of the purchase price and can refuse to pay exorbitant prices
5) There is excess capacity available in the market on the supply side, as we are currently building about 20,000 less units this year over last year. This will prevent any inflationary effect.

Please do something productive with your good intentions. Get out there with any political party, or get involved with a local campaign. Turn the theory into practice.


----------



## madisona (12 Jul 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Can you check your workings please? I make it that under the old regime, any non-FTB (including investor) would pay just under €23k on a €700k property, and under the proposed Labour policy, they would pay €33k. Where did you get your figures from?


 


madisona said:


> I don't think that you erred at all. It clear from the policy document that speculators buying multiple properties would gain most financially from Labours stamp duty tax cuts. e.g a speculator buying three houses at €700,000 each would save an extra €69,000


 


RainyDay said:


> For the record, the truth of Labour's stamp duty policies can be [broken link removed]. The proposal was to eliminate stamp duty for FTBs up to €450k and reduce stamp duty for ALL other purchases, with the highest percentage reductions aimed at purchasers around the 400k mark.


 
all I did was take the figures from the Labour policy document that you had earlier provided. 

_"For (a non FTB ) purchasing a house worth €700,000, duty will fall from __€63,000 under the current regime to €40,000 – a saving of €23,000. For a (non FTB purchasing) a €300,000 apartment, stamp duty will fall by €5,000."_​


----------



## madisona (12 Jul 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Way off the mark, for many reasons.
> 
> 1) Purchases are not limited to new houses, so your rants about developers prices are misguided. Market pricing will apply, and 'begin to buy' purchasers will operate in the market along with other purchasers.
> 2) In parallel with this scheme, Labour committed to meeting the NESF target of 10,000 social housing units, which will take significant demand out of the market at the lower end.3) The cost of the scheme is minimal - the 'interest only' cost of the funds invested, given that the state retains a share in the property. In fact, if there continues to be a modest rise in property prices, the scheme will be self-financing.
> ...


 
it may be more accurate to say that the money would have been paid over to "property sellers" although the majority of these property sellers would have been developers

quite extraordinary that you are claiming that the cost of the scheme would have been minimal . before the election Pat Rabitte said that it would have cost €2.5 billion. 

"_Given the political importance of the issue, the Government is likely to attack Labour's plan on the grounds that it will accelerate prices and do nothing to increase the availability of houses._
_The €2.5 billion fund would be created from exchequer funds, but it would not come from any existing State fund, such as the National Pension Reserve Fund. "It would be exchequer money," Mr Gilmore told The Irish Times."_

[broken link removed]



To say that paying such enourmous amounts of money to house sellers would not distort the market and have a inflationary effect on house prices is not credible. I would argue that FTBs are already allowed to borrow too much with lax control of salary multiples and 100% 40 yr IO mortgages and that many who have bought are already under increasing financial pressure from interest rate hikes and such unforseen events as having kids. To continue to allow them to do so but only for a part of a property is a crazy idea. 

To imply that a "modest" rise in house prices would allow FTBs to "release equity" and buy out the govts share is not credible. The only way that it would be self financing is if the govt was able to get FTBs to pay it the extra money that it was giving to property sellers on top of the maximum amount that they could borrow. IMO as FTBs are already stretched to the max this would not have happened.

A sensible policy would have sought to reduce prices for FTBs . To propose to instead do the exact opposite was imo a terrible proposed misuse of taxpayer money.


----------



## madisona (12 Jul 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Was this before or after Cowen jumped on the bandwagon and offered larger tax cuts than Labour and no cap on stamp duty exemption for FTBs? The words pot, kettle & black spring to mind.


 
I am not an apologist for Fianna Fail or Biffo. my criticisms of Labour were due to the fact that they were proposing right wing policies and that Labour had in the past been a party of the left. However a few points. Bertie panicked before the Ard Fheis and joined Labour in engaging in auction politics, by which I mean making unrealistic promises about tax cuts and spending increases. However unlike Labour, FF had been in power for 10 yrs at that stage. most sensible people dismissed their promises as electioneering and trusted them to disregard them once the election was over. On the other hand, Labour have not been in power and many were not sure whether they were just lying or whether they would follow through and bankrupt the country ( as Fianna Fail did after engaging in similar auction politics in 77)

On the issue of FTB stamp duty Biffo did a U turn . imo he did so for two main reasons.

1 It was part of the deal that he did with the Sindo. (in addition to exclusives and access to Bertie )

2 Biffo was infuriated that Labour (and FG) was saying that its tax cuts were to benefit FTBs. his protestations, that very few FTBs paid any stamp duty, and that most of Labours tax cuts would benefit non FTBs, fell on deaf ears. So under pressure, he gave in and abolished stamp duty for all FTBs . As so few FTBs paid any, the cost was minimal ( far below what Labours cuts would have costed) He had to abolish it for all FTBs, as to set a limit, no matter how high would have meant that the opposition parties could still say " Stamp duty is hurting first time buyers"


----------



## RainyDay (15 Jul 2007)

madisona said:


> it may be more accurate to say that the money would have been paid over to "property sellers" although the majority of these property sellers would have been developers
> 
> quite extraordinary that you are claiming that the cost of the scheme would have been minimal . before the election Pat Rabitte said that it would have cost €2.5 billion.
> 
> ...



Thanks for clarifying your source of figures for non-FTBs. Thanks also for clarifying your fundamental lack of understanding of the scheme. The €2.5 billion fund is not the cost of the scheme. For the €2.5 billion that could have been spent on the scheme, the state would have recieved €2.5 billion in residential property. This would of course have been purchased back from the state (at current market values) over time, replenishing the fund. It is really just a matter of moving money around - it is not a real cost.

There is of course a risk if property were to fall in value, but given your certaintly that the scheme would have an inflationary effect, I'm sure you're not going to play that card. I'd love to know that basis of your claim that most such investments would go to developers, and not private sellers - where did you get this from?


madisona said:


> I am not an apologist for Fianna Fail or Biffo. my criticisms of Labour were due to the fact that they were proposing right wing policies and that Labour had in the past been a party of the left. However a few points. Bertie panicked before the Ard Fheis and joined Labour in engaging in auction politics, by which I mean making unrealistic promises about tax cuts and spending increases. However unlike Labour, FF had been in power for 10 yrs at that stage. most sensible people dismissed their promises as electioneering and trusted them to disregard them once the election was over. On the other hand, Labour have not been in power and many were not sure whether they were just lying or whether they would follow through and bankrupt the country ( as Fianna Fail did after engaging in similar auction politics in 77)


Most analysts seem to agree that all parties cancelled each other out with auction politics, and the key deciding factor that tilted the balance back to FF in the final week of the campaign was nervousness about the economy.

Note that if you really do believe that your left-ish policies have a future - get involved. Join your local Labour branch, or even your local SF or SP branch. Try putting your policies into effect on the ground. It's a tad more tricky that policies via bulletin boards.


----------



## madisona (16 Jul 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Thanks also for clarifying your fundamental lack of understanding of the scheme. The €2.5 billion fund is not the cost of the scheme. For the €2.5 billion that could have been spent on the scheme, the state would have recieved €2.5 billion in residential property. This would of course have been purchased back from the state (at current market values) over time, replenishing the fund. It is really just a matter of moving money around - it is not a real cost.
> 
> There is of course a risk if property were to fall in value, but given your certaintly that the scheme would have an inflationary effect, I'm sure you're not going to play that card. I'd love to know that basis of your claim that most such investments would go to developers, and not private sellers - where did you get this from?



I understand how Labour said that the scheme was supposed to work. It  was  proposed to be a mere redistribution of wealth, or moving money money around  as you put it. Labour acting as the anti Robin Hood would give €2.5 billion to wealthy property sellers from exchequer funds and would then collect that money from impoverished FTBs, so there would be minimal cost to the state.   However I don't think that there is a hope in  hell that it could have worked out like that. 

The first part would be easy. Transfer €2.5 billion from the exchequer to property sellers. Getting it back from FTBs however would be much more problematic. (btw I see no  contradiction between Labours pumping that amount of money into the market and falling property prices. It would have an inflationary effect but not enough of one. As a former "Current Sentiment"  bear I see negative equity as an almost inevitable reality for any FTBs buying in the short term.)

The state would not have €2.5 billion in stand alone property. It would have shares in overpriced shoeboxes occupied by FTBs. These FTBs would have already mortgaged themselves to the hilt on 40 yr mortgages to buy their "share". The govt money would be on top of the very maximum amount that they could borrow. There may be a few that will win the lottery or get big promotions but for many others the reality will be at best standing still, at worst losing their jobs and having to work for less, getting sick or having children, so I doubt that very many will be in a position to buy out the  govts share. Of course Labour could try evicting them and their children,  selling the property and giving them a share and so bring back a tradition first started by famine landlords. 


In relation to how much property Ftbs buy from developers and how much from other sellers I don't have figures to hand but a lot of FTBs like to buy new builds, although I accept that in the past they were incentivised to buy such rather than second hand houses as a way of supporting the construction industry. However I don't think it particularly matters.  I don't think that private sellers should be subsidised in this manner either.

I also feel that Fianna Fail has its own version of a house seller assistance fund  ready to go. I expect to see the Dept of the Enviroment and local councils coming to the aid of selected hard up speculators, flippers  and developers who are unable to get the price they "deserve" on the open market in the coming months. 
e.g http://www.independent.ie/national-news/state-steps-in-for-homes-purchase-1037474.html




btw as an admirer of Joe Higgins,  I did try the Socialist Party but found them a bit too much like a religous cult, except with less connection to reality and pragmatism. bulletin  boards are the last refuge  of a cynic.


----------

