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?
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?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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.not even the Pd's or the immigration control people ?
the immigration control people ?
These are hardly a political party? Did any of them stand in the recent General Election?
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?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?
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.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'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.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.
Eh - no, you didn't. Go back and check your post. You just added the 'of where it was in the past' now.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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
.
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.
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.
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? .
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.
.
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?