gaaboard.com

I know local elections are a lot harder to get a national view on, but I'd be interested to see how people are planning to vote in the Republic on Friday. I'm predicting a lot of Sinn Fein councillors elected, a bit of a bounce back for Fianna Fail, a lot of independents, a slight fall for Fine Gael, and a kicking for Labour.

I think you could also have predicted a landslide for SF in this poll.

(I haven't voted.)

Quote from: Hardy on May 21, 2014, 10:28:22 AM
I think you could also have predicted a landslide for SF in this poll.

(I haven't voted.)

I'm hoping the 6 counties POWs won't vote in this.

They are !!!
Sure didn't the GAA board elect Máirtín McG as President in a landslide. ::)

I think Sinn Fein will get big gains in the republic anyway, but it's a pity the lads in the wee 6 can't just let something like this play out. It might actually enlighten them as to the growth in Sinn Fein down south a bit too.

I haven't made my mind up yet but it's a toss up between Sean Haughey (FF) and
the local Shinner candidate.
I wouldn't vote FF at a general election but here it's down to local issues and Haughey has a good track record here. I expect SF to top the poll in my area anyway.
Mary Lou is a big hit with a surprisingly large number of the locals and I think that, if SF comes up with a credible manifesto for the next GF and its policies stand up to scrutiny, they will upset the status quo in a big way.

I agree Lar. Council Elections are probably as close to real day to day politics as you can get, and there's a much higher chance that a 'good worker'/'stroke puller' can get something done which benefits you or your area. For that reason my #1,#2 and #3 will be the local Labour Candidate, Fianna Fail and an Independent. In that order.

For the Euro Elections, I'm probably going to go #1 for Sinn Fein, as I think their brand of 'f**k yis' would be a refreshing challenge in the European Parliment if they can align themselves with others of a similar view. I wouldn't like Sinn Fein policies implemented as a whole, especially economically, but I think they would be a good counter balance to the corporate mandarins doing everything they want as well.

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 21, 2014, 10:18:34 AM
I know local elections are a lot harder to get a national view on, but I'd be interested to see how people are planning to vote in the Republic on Friday. I'm predicting a lot of Sinn Fein councillors elected, a bit of a bounce back for Fianna Fail, a lot of independents, a slight fall for Fine Gael, and a kicking for Labour.

Don't see FF making any recovery. SF and Independent candidates will do very well as they appear to actually give a f**k about the minions who vote for them in the bit of time between polling days.

Bit of an unwieldy thread title. Could you not have just said "Free State poll for local elections"?

Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 21, 2014, 11:25:02 AM
I haven't made my mind up yet but it's a toss up between Sean Haughey (FF) and
the local Shinner candidate.
I wouldn't vote FF at a general election but here it's down to local issues and Haughey has a good track record here. I expect SF to top the poll in my area anyway.
Mary Lou is a big hit with a surprisingly large number of the locals and I think that, if SF comes up with a credible manifesto for the next GF and its policies stand up to scrutiny, they will upset the status quo in a big way.

SF won't upset anything as long as Adams and McGuiness are hanging around.

Quote from: Syferus on May 21, 2014, 04:12:37 PM

Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 21, 2014, 11:25:02 AM
I haven't made my mind up yet but it's a toss up between Sean Haughey (FF) and
the local Shinner candidate.
I wouldn't vote FF at a general election but here it's down to local issues and Haughey has a good track record here. I expect SF to top the poll in my area anyway.
Mary Lou is a big hit with a surprisingly large number of the locals and I think that, if SF comes up with a credible manifesto for the next GF and its policies stand up to scrutiny, they will upset the status quo in a big way.

SF won't upset anything as long as Adams and McGuiness are hanging around.

I think the longer they hang around, it's the numpties in RTE/Sindo etc that they're upsetting more than anyone (and those people who have to be told what to think by said organisations), so they must be doing something right. SF's support continues to soar under their leadership. Long may they continue  :D

I'll be voting for a local independent in my area as no 1. Then maybe transfer to a FF because he's a good worker for the area. I haven't a notion who will end up topping the poll in this area because it's just such a large area and there are a number of factors to be included. We asked a candidate who is standing for election as to what first preference will be needed and it's around 1,200. It looks small, but there are 17 candidates running.

Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2014, 04:19:42 PM

Quote from: Syferus on May 21, 2014, 04:12:37 PM

Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 21, 2014, 11:25:02 AM
I haven't made my mind up yet but it's a toss up between Sean Haughey (FF) and
the local Shinner candidate.
I wouldn't vote FF at a general election but here it's down to local issues and Haughey has a good track record here. I expect SF to top the poll in my area anyway.
Mary Lou is a big hit with a surprisingly large number of the locals and I think that, if SF comes up with a credible manifesto for the next GF and its policies stand up to scrutiny, they will upset the status quo in a big way.

SF won't upset anything as long as Adams and McGuiness are hanging around.

I think the longer they hang around, it's the numpties in RTE/Sindo etc that they're upsetting more than anyone (and those people who have to be told what to think by said organisations), so they must be doing something right. SF's support continues to soar under their leadership. Long may they continue  :D

I doubt it's soaring because of a lad half the electorate believe was involved in a murder. SF need to cut the ties with the top two ASAP if it has serious intentions of being more than hurlers on the ditch in the south.

Quote from: Syferus on May 21, 2014, 11:49:29 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2014, 04:19:42 PM

Quote from: Syferus on May 21, 2014, 04:12:37 PM

Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 21, 2014, 11:25:02 AM
I haven't made my mind up yet but it's a toss up between Sean Haughey (FF) and
the local Shinner candidate.
I wouldn't vote FF at a general election but here it's down to local issues and Haughey has a good track record here. I expect SF to top the poll in my area anyway.
Mary Lou is a big hit with a surprisingly large number of the locals and I think that, if SF comes up with a credible manifesto for the next GF and its policies stand up to scrutiny, they will upset the status quo in a big way.

SF won't upset anything as long as Adams and McGuiness are hanging around.

I think the longer they hang around, it's the numpties in RTE/Sindo etc that they're upsetting more than anyone (and those people who have to be told what to think by said organisations), so they must be doing something right. SF's support continues to soar under their leadership. Long may they continue  :D

I doubt it's soaring because of lad half the electorate believe was involved in a murder. SF need to cut the ties with the top too ASAP if it has serious intentions of being more than hurlers on the ditch in the south.

Not soaring? Look at the level of their support in the past ten or twenty years. It's a story of continuous growth. Half the population believe he was involved in a murder? That says more about how easily led they are than anything else. I wonder how many of those who believe this are as quick to accept Brendan Hughes' other claim that Jean McConville was killed for being an informer? I suspect it doesn't fit the narrative for them. In the meantime, Adams was questioned for four days and released without charge and SF's growth under his leadership continues unabated  :)

To repost a quote from  Jude Collins article recently:

"Finally,  a short Catechism q and a to see if you have a firm grasp on this matter:

Q: Who killed Jean McConville?

A: Gerry Adams

Q: Why did he kill her?

A: Because she put a coat under the head of a dying soldier.

Q: Has her body ever been recovered?

A: No.

Q: Why does Gerry Adams say he wasn't in the IRA?

A: Because he likes telling lies.

Q: Some people claim that Jean McConville was an informer. Do you believe that?

A: I most certainly do not.

Q: Why do you say that?

A: The papers hardly ever mention it.

Q:OK, pick up you BT Certificate of Merit on the way out."

Quote from: Nally Stand on May 22, 2014, 12:06:36 AM

Quote from: Syferus on May 21, 2014, 11:49:29 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on May 21, 2014, 04:19:42 PM

Quote from: Syferus on May 21, 2014, 04:12:37 PM

Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 21, 2014, 11:25:02 AM
I haven't made my mind up yet but it's a toss up between Sean Haughey (FF) and
the local Shinner candidate.
I wouldn't vote FF at a general election but here it's down to local issues and Haughey has a good track record here. I expect SF to top the poll in my area anyway.
Mary Lou is a big hit with a surprisingly large number of the locals and I think that, if SF comes up with a credible manifesto for the next GF and its policies stand up to scrutiny, they will upset the status quo in a big way.

SF won't upset anything as long as Adams and McGuiness are hanging around.

I think the longer they hang around, it's the numpties in RTE/Sindo etc that they're upsetting more than anyone (and those people who have to be told what to think by said organisations), so they must be doing something right. SF's support continues to soar under their leadership. Long may they continue  :D

I doubt it's soaring because of lad half the electorate believe was involved in a murder. SF need to cut the ties with the top too ASAP if it has serious intentions of being more than hurlers on the ditch in the south.

Not soaring? Look at the level of their support in the past ten or twenty years. It's a story of continuous growth. Half the population believe he was involved in a murder? That says more about how easily led they are than anything else. I wonder how many of those who believe this are as quick to accept Brendan Hughes' other claim that Jean McConville was killed for being an informer? I suspect it doesn't fit the narrative for them. In the meantime, Adams was questioned for four days and released without charge and SF's growth under his leadership continues unabated  :)

To repost a quote from  Jude Collins article recently:

"Finally,  a short Catechism q and a to see if you have a firm grasp on this matter:

Q: Who killed Jean McConville?

A: Gerry Adams

Q: Why did he kill her?

A: Because she put a coat under the head of a dying soldier.

Q: Has her body ever been recovered?

A: No.

Q: Why does Gerry Adams say he wasn't in the IRA?

A: Because he likes telling lies.

Q: Some people claim that Jean McConville was an informer. Do you believe that?

A: I most certainly do not.

Q: Why do you say that?

A: The papers hardly ever mention it.

Q:OK, pick up you BT Certificate of Merit on the way out."

Where did I say SF weren't doing well in poling? They obviously are. Simple fact whatever the truth about the McConnvile murder or Gerry's IRA links the electorate have already mainly made up their opinions on both and it's not in a favourable light for Adams.

Until Adams (and to a somewhat lesser extent, McGuiness) retire or are retired SF will remain toxic to transfers in the south and none of the other main parties will do business with them. FF and FG would sooner be in coalition with each other than have SF involved.

The reality is nothing would actually put an end to SF's momentum in the south faster than actually having to govern, but eventually they have to make themselves palatable to the rest of Ireland and enter a government if they have any real ambition. They are the definition of a marmite party at the moment.

RTE exit poll for the local elections

FG 24%
FF 22%
SF 16%
Lab 7%
Ind 31%!!

If that holds up, I'd say Sinn Fein would be disappointed. Independents would, in that case, seem to have done the damage to Labour.

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 24, 2014, 09:44:35 AM
If that holds up, I'd say Sinn Fein would be disappointed. Independents would, in that case, seem to have done the damage to Labour.

Yeah I think if that proves accurate SF will be a wee bit disappointed. 17% in the Euros and it looks like vote in the North will be slightly down. Not the earthquake predicted.

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 24, 2014, 09:44:35 AM
If that holds up, I'd say Sinn Fein would be disappointed. Independents would, in that case, seem to have done the damage to Labour.

Should also say, I suppose that Independents must include the /Others. Socialist Party, People before Profit etc.

Quote from: AQMP on May 24, 2014, 09:54:12 AM

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 24, 2014, 09:44:35 AM
If that holds up, I'd say Sinn Fein would be disappointed. Independents would, in that case, seem to have done the damage to Labour.

Yeah I think if that proves accurate SF will be a wee bit disappointed. 17% in the Euros and it looks like vote in the North will be slightly down. Not the earthquake predicted.

That exit poll was local elections only I think and I am guessing that given the amount of regions it will have a big margin of error too.

Two exit polls taken, the euro numbers are broadly similar.

Shows how disaffected people are with the big three.

SF will fail to capitalise on a lot of tight races because, as usual, they're toxic to transfers.

Well Sinn Feins to Euro ladies are cruising in for a seat. Carthy polling bad and I think that is down to a very poor performance on the TV debates. Saying that Carthys numbers are estimated on an rte exit poll and I wouldn't trust that just yet. Ming is also cruising which is good, hell be missed in the dail.

Is it my imagination or is SF doing better than 16%??

Quote from: AQMP on May 24, 2014, 02:03:46 PM
Is it my imagination or is SF doing better than 16%??

SF are not in every parish in every county so those overall figures are misleading in terms of seats won. They have 2 big fights at the moment. Dublin west Bi election where they are neck and neck with the socialist party and also the euro seat in Midlands/West where their banker Matt Carty is not going as well as was thought.

Well, it looks like this board (including nordies :) ) is fairly out of touch with reality.

Obviously not a great comparative, given that I only asked for your first preference, but...

Fianna Fail - Board said 7.8%, and the Soldiers of Destiny (on the march again?) have won 28% of the seats so far. (35 seats left to be filled).
Independents/Others - Board said 20.4%, and the various independents and smaller socialist type parties (and the Greens) won 25% of the seats.
Fine Gael - Board said 10.9%, but Enda has some thinking to do, as it looks as if they will finish behind FF with 24% of the seats.
Sinn Fein - the Board said 39%  ::), but in reality they still won a very respectable 17% of the seats. (Trebled their representation).
Labour, poor old Labour - the Board said 1.6% and they won 5% of the seats. Almost a wipeout.

Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 26, 2014, 11:16:08 AM
Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 26, 2014, 11:16:08 AM
Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

The party that came third are claiming victory, its f*cked up.

A

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 11:28:59 AM

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 26, 2014, 11:16:08 AM
Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

A and B are a subset of C.

I didn't vote FF this time either, but are Fine Gael and Labour really that much better? I voted for the local Labour Candidate in the Council elections, but would I vote for Alan Kelly again in the GE? I don't know. I voted SF in the European election.

Well my view is that economic revovery is not under any one party's direct control - putting structures in place to make it more likely is all that can be done, and I think it is being done by the incumbents.  Whether any of the rest of them can or could do so is undetermined, but I don't think any of them could do it less painfully for everyone - so then it becomes a question of who should take most/more of the pain.  If taxes are not increased, then services must be decreased.  So:

A = FF; they got us here and shouldn't be trusted ever again (in my view); the party should fold and they should hitch their collective wagons to whichever 'ideology' fits their worldview today/tomorrow/whenever.  For the sake of our collective mental health, FF should never be on a ballot paper ever again.

B=FG/Lab; schooled in Social Democrat economics, they'll always look the same - boring, play the percentages, safe fiscal and economic policies and practices. What you see is what you get - will get us out of a mess and be hated and punished for it.  This is mainly why I think the electorate are f*cking stupid.

C=SF; the golden children - no experience, nice pictures and well able to spin; should be able to attract the rump of FF to paint a rosy picture for the masses.  Their early performance in Govt in NI doesn't set them apart yet in terms of delivery of promises - will be interesting to see how they get on in local government.  I won't be holding my breath.

D=Indies; the 'get out of jail' card - containing everything from far-left to far-right, the splitters to the nutters, but also some sensible people.  I tend to vote independent for local elections because they can be relied on to be forced into action in relation to local issues (i.e. can't hide behind party HQ 'policy'). 

E.  No comment.

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 11:37:30 AM

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 11:28:59 AM

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 26, 2014, 11:16:08 AM
Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

A and B are a subset of C.

Nope, C is Sinn Fein (and possibly include the AAA).

Economy is definitely improving under B, but no getting away from the fact that its a painful process and mistakes have been made.

At least now that C is a viable alternative in terms of voting power, they will have to come up with proper costed and published economic policy, which should mean they ditch some of the populist nonsense and come up with realistic taxing and spending policies (the major thing being to hopefully confirm they won't touch the 12.5% corporation tax rate).

But will option C bank all the difficult adjustments made to date or reverse them?

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 26, 2014, 11:58:05 AM
Well my view is that economic revovery is not under any one party's direct control - putting structures in place to make it more likely is all that can be done, and I think it is being done by the incumbents.  Whether any of the rest of them can or could do so is undetermined, but I don't think any of them could do it less painfully for everyone - so then it becomes a question of who should take most/more of the pain.  If taxes are not increased, then services must be decreased.  So:

A = FF; they got us here and shouldn't be trusted ever again (in my view); the party should fold and they should hitch their collective wagons to whichever 'ideology' fits their worldview today/tomorrow/whenever.  For the sake of our collective mental health, FF should never be on a ballot paper ever again.

B=FG/Lab; schooled in Social Democrat economics, they'll always look the same - boring, play the percentages, safe fiscal and economic policies and practices. What you see is what you get - will get us out of a mess and be hated and punished for it.  This is mainly why I think the electorate are f*cking stupid.

C=SF; the golden children - no experience, nice pictures and well able to spin; should be able to attract the rump of FF to paint a rosy picture for the masses.  Their early performance in Govt in NI doesn't set them apart yet in terms of delivery of promises - will be interesting to see how they get on in local government.  I won't be holding my breath.

D=Indies; the 'get out of jail' card - containing everything from far-left to far-right, the splitters to the nutters, but also some sensible people.  I tend to vote independent for local elections because they can be relied on to be forced into action in relation to local issues (i.e. can't hide behind party HQ 'policy'). 

E.  No comment.

Decent summary, although I think if FF can prove they have cleaned house, including the likes of Micheal Martin, then they can be rehabilitated. FG and Labour have done some good work, but largely implementing the same policies that FF themselves said would have to happen when the 'Oh Shit' moment occured. Also FG and Labour, especially FG can hardly he said to have been a voice for restraint back in the boom times. I recall FG front benchers roaring at various Finance ministers for not spending enough.

Finally, I don't accept that you have to INCREASE taxes, or else DECREASE services. You can look at value for money, because it's bullshit to say that we are getting the services we already pay for. Increasing taxes to pay back the Germans is not my idea of a public service either.

I also refrain from the smugness of calling the electorate stupid, unless you decide that every electorate everywhere are stupid. In which case the phrase 'people are stupid' is more appropriate, and no less smug.

I think the issue is the alternatives are so much the polar opposites of the central parties that it's a big jump to vote for them. It's easy to vote for Paddy Joe in the locals, but would you really send an independent to the Dail. The fact that more and more people are doing just that is indicative that people are NOT stupid, but they are struggling for a viable alternative that can make their message heard. I think SF are doing that now, and that's why they are eating up Labour. But FF and FG voters (essentially the same people I think, because the party policies are almost identical) would flock to a new, clean, party that espoused centre right or centre left thinking, but who was standing on a 'clean up the system' platform with clear proposals.

QuoteI recall FG front benchers roaring at various Finance ministers for not spending enough.

You're kidding, right - I know you must be?

QuoteIncreasing taxes to pay back the Germans is not my idea of a public service either.

The 'Germans' were the only ones with enough decency to help us out - I think that should read 'Increasing taxes to pay back the Fianna Fail mismanagement debacle is not my idea of a public service either'. 

QuoteI also refrain from the smugness of calling the electorate stupid

If anger and frustration comes across as smugness then I am very guilty indeed.

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 26, 2014, 12:47:29 PM

QuoteI recall FG front benchers roaring at various Finance ministers for not spending enough.

You're kidding, right - I know you must be?

QuoteIncreasing taxes to pay back the Germans is not my idea of a public service either.

I'm not kidding. Show me the joke.

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 26, 2014, 12:50:11 PM

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 26, 2014, 12:47:29 PM

QuoteI recall FG front benchers roaring at various Finance ministers for not spending enough.

You're kidding, right - I know you must be?

QuoteIncreasing taxes to pay back the Germans is not my idea of a public service either.

I'm not kidding. Show me the joke.

The joke is that 'experienced' politicans are claiming the 'he told me to do it' excuse beloved of primary school children.  The dog ate all those taxes we wasted, I mean, don't have any more. 

I still don't get it? Are you saying that Fine Gael were not encouraging more spending back in the boom? I'm saying they both have very similar outlooks.

I'm saying that politicians who are not holding the purse strings are liable (wrongly) to say anything to insinuate that those who are (holding the purse strings) are doing it badly - I draw your attention to the past week, for instance. 

OK. I understand that. Opposition for opposition's sake. Which is bullshit. However, there is very little I've seen in either behaviour back then, election manifestos or even performance since coming into power, which would make me think that Fine Gael are anything other than Fianna Fail with blue colours, from the Civil War. If the Civil War never happened, I think Fine Gael and Fianna Fail would be the same party.

QuoteIf the Civil War never happened, I think Fine Gael and Fianna Fail would be the same party.

I used to think that but now I don't.  My reading of it is that FG are committed to the Social Democrat model - FF are committed to, em, being elected to do whatever tastes nice.  FF will target cuts/benefits to help those who keep them in power and who influence those who will keep them in power.  FG play the manual and hurt education, health and social welfare - in Scandinavia they've played this tune for the last god-knows-how long (> 50yrs) and they continue to grow at a nice even rate, and have the highest standard of living on the planet.  If they didn't have gobshites trying to sell papers/advertising they'd be the happiest people alive.  We, on the other hand ...

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 12:01:08 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 11:37:30 AM

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 11:28:59 AM

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 26, 2014, 11:16:08 AM
Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

A and B are a subset of C.

Nope, C is Sinn Fein (and possibly include the AAA).

Economy is definitely improving under B, but no getting away from the fact that its a painful process and mistakes have been made.

At least now that C is a viable alternative in terms of voting power, they will have to come up with proper costed and published economic policy, which should mean they ditch some of the populist nonsense and come up with realistic taxing and spending policies (the major thing being to hopefully confirm they won't touch the 12.5% corporation tax rate).

That's your opinion but I think it's highly questionable. I don't accept that the economic situtation is improving. Didn't we have Noonan on about 2 billion in tax hikes and cuts a few weeks ago? Austerity is paying bank debt but crippling ordinary people and by its very nature retards economic growth.

I do not accept that SF or whoever you mean in group C would "make make an economic recovery an impossbility". Interesting that you take the line of SF's policies not being costed - something SF vehemently deny. Brian Hayes saying it would not be possible to cost a "wealth tax" the other night seemed laughable to me. I agree that the 12.5% CT rate needs to be kept to attract inward investment and promote job creation but is it really correct for all companies to avail of this rate? In a country where we cannot afford medical cards for people who are dying or seriously ill, proper care for sick and disabled people is it right that a compnay employing 5 or 6 people gets the same tax incentive as a company employing 5/6000? It needs to be discussed at the very least.

What got us here was closed minds and groupthink. We need to get away from that and challenge "accepted wisdom". If it holds up then good but if it needs changing then change it. I think we have huge scope for recovery and sustainable economic and social growth if we have brave leadership who will try to do things on their merits and not in some pre-determined (by Europe) join the dots type approach. SF and others may well turn out to be no use but FF/FG/Lab have proven over the last 95 years that they are no use.

Seanie, I think there's a small bit of obfuscation going on with regard to 'costings'. I mentioned on another thread that I heard Pat Rabbitte and Pearse Doherty going on about this yesterday, and Pat Rabbitte said that Sinn Fein have never costed a proper Budget. They have costed individual measures, but never a balanced budget. Pearse wasn't able to really take that argument apart. That makes me wonder.

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 04:58:06 PM

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 12:01:08 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 11:37:30 AM

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 11:28:59 AM

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 26, 2014, 11:16:08 AM
Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

A and B are a subset of C.

Nope, C is Sinn Fein (and possibly include the AAA).

Economy is definitely improving under B, but no getting away from the fact that its a painful process and mistakes have been made.

At least now that C is a viable alternative in terms of voting power, they will have to come up with proper costed and published economic policy, which should mean they ditch some of the populist nonsense and come up with realistic taxing and spending policies (the major thing being to hopefully confirm they won't touch the 12.5% corporation tax rate).

That's your opinion but I think it's highly questionable. I don't accept that the economic situtation is improving. Didn't we have Noonan on about 2 billion in tax hikes and cuts a few weeks ago? Austerity is paying bank debt but crippling ordinary people and by its very nature retards economic growth.

I do not accept that SF or whoever you mean in group C would "make make an economic recovery an impossbility". Interesting that you take the line of SF's policies not being costed - something SF vehemently deny. Brian Hayes saying it would not be possible to cost a "wealth tax" the other night seemed laughable to me. I agree that the 12.5% CT rate needs to be kept to attract inward investment and promote job creation but is it really correct for all companies to avail of this rate? In a country where we cannot afford medical cards for people who are dying or seriously ill, proper care for sick and disabled people is it right that a compnay employing 5 or 6 people gets the same tax incentive as a company employing 5/6000? It needs to be discussed at the very least.

What got us here was closed minds and groupthink. We need to get away from that and challenge "accepted wisdom". If it holds up then good but if it needs changing then change it. I think we have huge scope for recovery and sustainable economic and social growth if we have brave leadership who will try to do things on their merits and not in some pre-determined (by Europe) join the dots type approach. SF and others may well turn out to be no use but FF/FG/Lab have proven over the last 95 years that they are no use.

Economic recovery can only happen if the ECB changes tack.
There is nothing the Shinners can do that will change the dynamic.

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 04:58:06 PM

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 12:01:08 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 11:37:30 AM

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 11:28:59 AM

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 26, 2014, 11:16:08 AM
Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

A and B are a subset of C.

Nope, C is Sinn Fein (and possibly include the AAA).

Economy is definitely improving under B, but no getting away from the fact that its a painful process and mistakes have been made.

At least now that C is a viable alternative in terms of voting power, they will have to come up with proper costed and published economic policy, which should mean they ditch some of the populist nonsense and come up with realistic taxing and spending policies (the major thing being to hopefully confirm they won't touch the 12.5% corporation tax rate).

That's your opinion but I think it's highly questionable. I don't accept that the economic situtation is improving. Didn't we have Noonan on about 2 billion in tax hikes and cuts a few weeks ago? Austerity is paying bank debt but crippling ordinary people and by its very nature retards economic growth.

I do not accept that SF or whoever you mean in group C would "make make an economic recovery an impossbility". Interesting that you take the line of SF's policies not being costed - something SF vehemently deny. Brian Hayes saying it would not be possible to cost a "wealth tax" the other night seemed laughable to me. I agree that the 12.5% CT rate needs to be kept to attract inward investment and promote job creation but is it really correct for all companies to avail of this rate? In a country where we cannot afford medical cards for people who are dying or seriously ill, proper care for sick and disabled people is it right that a compnay employing 5 or 6 people gets the same tax incentive as a company employing 5/6000? It needs to be discussed at the very least.

What got us here was closed minds and groupthink. We need to get away from that and challenge "accepted wisdom". If it holds up then good but if it needs changing then change it. I think we have huge scope for recovery and sustainable economic and social growth if we have brave leadership who will try to do things on their merits and not in some pre-determined (by Europe) join the dots type approach. SF and others may well turn out to be no use but FF/FG/Lab have proven over the last 95 years that they are no use.

I'm confused - are you saying that we raise CT for small businesses?

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 26, 2014, 05:10:56 PM
Seanie, I think there's a small bit of obfuscation going on with regard to 'costings'. I mentioned on another thread that I heard Pat Rabbitte and Pearse Doherty going on about this yesterday, and Pat Rabbitte said that Sinn Fein have never costed a proper Budget. They have costed individual measures, but never a balanced budget. Pearse wasn't able to really take that argument apart. That makes me wonder.

I'd say a proper budget would uncover some miscalculation. Say I have €1m (I don't, at present, but hope springs eternal) in the bank, where it earns interest and I already pay €12,000 DIRT, Do SF come along and charge me 1% on my "wealth" as well, which would be €10,000?  A lot of this stuff is very poorly thought out. For example a lot of "wealthy" people also owe considerable amounts, like Sean Quinn in the past or Tony O'Reilly who is selling stuff to pay back loans (as discussed in the papers over the weekend).

Quote from: seafoid on May 26, 2014, 05:16:07 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 04:58:06 PM

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 12:01:08 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 11:37:30 AM

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 11:28:59 AM

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 26, 2014, 11:16:08 AM
Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

A and B are a subset of C.

Nope, C is Sinn Fein (and possibly include the AAA).

Economy is definitely improving under B, but no getting away from the fact that its a painful process and mistakes have been made.

At least now that C is a viable alternative in terms of voting power, they will have to come up with proper costed and published economic policy, which should mean they ditch some of the populist nonsense and come up with realistic taxing and spending policies (the major thing being to hopefully confirm they won't touch the 12.5% corporation tax rate).

That's your opinion but I think it's highly questionable. I don't accept that the economic situtation is improving. Didn't we have Noonan on about 2 billion in tax hikes and cuts a few weeks ago? Austerity is paying bank debt but crippling ordinary people and by its very nature retards economic growth.

I do not accept that SF or whoever you mean in group C would "make make an economic recovery an impossbility". Interesting that you take the line of SF's policies not being costed - something SF vehemently deny. Brian Hayes saying it would not be possible to cost a "wealth tax" the other night seemed laughable to me. I agree that the 12.5% CT rate needs to be kept to attract inward investment and promote job creation but is it really correct for all companies to avail of this rate? In a country where we cannot afford medical cards for people who are dying or seriously ill, proper care for sick and disabled people is it right that a compnay employing 5 or 6 people gets the same tax incentive as a company employing 5/6000? It needs to be discussed at the very least.

What got us here was closed minds and groupthink. We need to get away from that and challenge "accepted wisdom". If it holds up then good but if it needs changing then change it. I think we have huge scope for recovery and sustainable economic and social growth if we have brave leadership who will try to do things on their merits and not in some pre-determined (by Europe) join the dots type approach. SF and others may well turn out to be no use but FF/FG/Lab have proven over the last 95 years that they are no use.

Economic recovery can only happen if the ECB changes tack.
There is nothing the Shinners can do that will change the dynamic.

Well FF/FG/Lab sure as hell won't.

Quote from: Maguire01 on May 26, 2014, 05:31:17 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 04:58:06 PM

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 12:01:08 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 11:37:30 AM

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 11:28:59 AM

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 26, 2014, 11:16:08 AM
Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

A and B are a subset of C.

Nope, C is Sinn Fein (and possibly include the AAA).

Economy is definitely improving under B, but no getting away from the fact that its a painful process and mistakes have been made.

At least now that C is a viable alternative in terms of voting power, they will have to come up with proper costed and published economic policy, which should mean they ditch some of the populist nonsense and come up with realistic taxing and spending policies (the major thing being to hopefully confirm they won't touch the 12.5% corporation tax rate).

That's your opinion but I think it's highly questionable. I don't accept that the economic situtation is improving. Didn't we have Noonan on about 2 billion in tax hikes and cuts a few weeks ago? Austerity is paying bank debt but crippling ordinary people and by its very nature retards economic growth.

I do not accept that SF or whoever you mean in group C would "make make an economic recovery an impossbility". Interesting that you take the line of SF's policies not being costed - something SF vehemently deny. Brian Hayes saying it would not be possible to cost a "wealth tax" the other night seemed laughable to me. I agree that the 12.5% CT rate needs to be kept to attract inward investment and promote job creation but is it really correct for all companies to avail of this rate? In a country where we cannot afford medical cards for people who are dying or seriously ill, proper care for sick and disabled people is it right that a compnay employing 5 or 6 people gets the same tax incentive as a company employing 5/6000? It needs to be discussed at the very least.

What got us here was closed minds and groupthink. We need to get away from that and challenge "accepted wisdom". If it holds up then good but if it needs changing then change it. I think we have huge scope for recovery and sustainable economic and social growth if we have brave leadership who will try to do things on their merits and not in some pre-determined (by Europe) join the dots type approach. SF and others may well turn out to be no use but FF/FG/Lab have proven over the last 95 years that they are no use.

I'm confused - are you saying that we raise CT for small businesses?

I am not saying that - just that it needs to be looked at.  Why not discuss it?

Just re Shinners costings etc

They don't make things easy for themselves - I have an innate distrust of them from my own family's particular persuasion, and that distrust doesn't dispel when they are so easily challenged on their plans. They make a big deal of having the Dept of Finance  cost their proposals but never actually talk about those figures that they supposedly received. I thought Hayes demolished Lyn on that in the Prime Time debate.

But - and it is a big but - at times saying the unsayable and challenging the unchallengable is a vital public service, no matter how cartoonish your policies are. With regard to CT, I'm with Seanie - the more SF talk about it, the bigger the debate. And we need the debate.

One of the most deeply held truisms in Irish politics is that raising CT will scare away all the inward investment - especially among tech and pharma companies. Ok. I can see the logic to this position - but a debate with only one side is not a debate, it's a lecture. And with the utmost respect to Joe Higgins et al the opposing view was really only articulated by isolated, fringe figures.

Now SF has a rising tide and are articulating this position and de facto it has to be taken seriously. Which is very good for all concerned in our democracy.

As for the specific debate on CT itself, I'm always reminded of a conversation I had in 2010 with a friend of mine home from London. At the time he was a commodities trader with a large American bank in London and he earned more money than God. after a few pints I was banging on about the guarantee, the unfairness of it all etc before finishing up "Ah sure, what could we do? We guaranteed it, we had to pay it."

He starts to laugh then says to me "We had a default factored into our predictions - we thought at best we'd get 40 cents in the euro, and most of the other bondholders thought the same." So i said that's all well and good but you'd never lend to us again. He says "We would have stayed away for six months to a year and if it looked like it was turning around we would have steamed back in. We're all about making money, sometimes we get burned, but if an opportunity presents itself in the same country we wouldn't have a problem going back in"

Bear in mind this is at least a year before Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair piece.

If we were wrong about that (and despite the ECB pressure etc if we had realised the true position we could have gotten away with paying a lot less) we could be wrong about CT as well.

Group think on a giant scale got us into this position. Although, at the moment, I wouldn't vote SF, their increasing presence will force a lot of people to be more creative in their policies. Only a good thing.

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 06:50:44 PM

Quote from: seafoid on May 26, 2014, 05:16:07 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 04:58:06 PM

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 12:01:08 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 11:37:30 AM

Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 11:28:59 AM

Quote from: Billys Boots on May 26, 2014, 11:16:08 AM
Jaysus, we are one f**king stupid electorate, as if we didn't already know ...

A. Vote for the lads that crippled the country
B. Vote for the lads that are making us pay property tax, water charges, USC, that couldnt get us a good deal with the EU, and that are reducing public service levels
C. Vote for the lads who would make an economic recovery an impossbility
D. Vote for an Independent who will find it difficult to do anything other than disrupt those who try to govern.
E. Don't vote

It is the electorate in Camp A, B, C, D or E who are the f*uckin stupid ones??

A and B are a subset of C.

Nope, C is Sinn Fein (and possibly include the AAA).

Economy is definitely improving under B, but no getting away from the fact that its a painful process and mistakes have been made.

At least now that C is a viable alternative in terms of voting power, they will have to come up with proper costed and published economic policy, which should mean they ditch some of the populist nonsense and come up with realistic taxing and spending policies (the major thing being to hopefully confirm they won't touch the 12.5% corporation tax rate).

That's your opinion but I think it's highly questionable. I don't accept that the economic situtation is improving. Didn't we have Noonan on about 2 billion in tax hikes and cuts a few weeks ago? Austerity is paying bank debt but crippling ordinary people and by its very nature retards economic growth.

I do not accept that SF or whoever you mean in group C would "make make an economic recovery an impossbility". Interesting that you take the line of SF's policies not being costed - something SF vehemently deny. Brian Hayes saying it would not be possible to cost a "wealth tax" the other night seemed laughable to me. I agree that the 12.5% CT rate needs to be kept to attract inward investment and promote job creation but is it really correct for all companies to avail of this rate? In a country where we cannot afford medical cards for people who are dying or seriously ill, proper care for sick and disabled people is it right that a compnay employing 5 or 6 people gets the same tax incentive as a company employing 5/6000? It needs to be discussed at the very least.

What got us here was closed minds and groupthink. We need to get away from that and challenge "accepted wisdom". If it holds up then good but if it needs changing then change it. I think we have huge scope for recovery and sustainable economic and social growth if we have brave leadership who will try to do things on their merits and not in some pre-determined (by Europe) join the dots type approach. SF and others may well turn out to be no use but FF/FG/Lab have proven over the last 95 years that they are no use.

Economic recovery can only happen if the ECB changes tack.
There is nothing the Shinners can do that will change the dynamic.

Well FF/FG/Lab sure as hell won't.

Government debt is 130% of what the country produces in a year and anything above 100% is not ideal. 
Private debt is even higher.
How are the Shinners going to get the debt down ? Or grow the economy ?
the respectable parties have no choice either.

Quote from: seafoid
Government debt is 130% of what the country produces in a year and anything above 100% is not ideal. 
Private debt is even higher.
How are the Shinners going to get the debt down ? Or grow the economy ?
the respectable parties have no choice either.

That is termed the 'deficit'.

The National Debt is where it is because of a totally incompetent FF administration that was too inept to deal with the international market players, compounded by an equally ineptly compliant FG and Labour maladministration. 

Quote from: easytiger95 on May 26, 2014, 07:11:50 PM
Just re Shinners costings etc

They don't make things easy for themselves - I have an innate distrust of them from my own family's particular persuasion, and that distrust doesn't dispel when they are so easily challenged on their plans. They make a big deal of having the Dept of Finance  cost their proposals but never actually talk about those figures that they supposedly received. I thought Hayes demolished Lyn on that in the Prime Time debate.

But - and it is a big but - at times saying the unsayable and challenging the unchallengable is a vital public service, no matter how cartoonish your policies are. With regard to CT, I'm with Seanie - the more SF talk about it, the bigger the debate. And we need the debate.

One of the most deeply held truisms in Irish politics is that raising CT will scare away all the inward investment - especially among tech and pharma companies. Ok. I can see the logic to this position - but a debate with only one side is not a debate, it's a lecture. And with the utmost respect to Joe Higgins et al the opposing view was really only articulated by isolated, fringe figures.

Now SF has a rising tide and are articulating this position and de facto it has to be taken seriously. Which is very good for all concerned in our democracy.

As for the specific debate on CT itself, I'm always reminded of a conversation I had in 2010 with a friend of mine home from London. At the time he was a commodities trader with a large American bank in London and he earned more money than God. after a few pints I was banging on about the guarantee, the unfairness of it all etc before finishing up "Ah sure, what could we do? We guaranteed it, we had to pay it."

He starts to laugh then says to me "We had a default factored into our predictions - we thought at best we'd get 40 cents in the euro, and most of the other bondholders thought the same." So i said that's all well and good but you'd never lend to us again. He says "We would have stayed away for six months to a year and if it looked like it was turning around we would have steamed back in. We're all about making money, sometimes we get burned, but if an opportunity presents itself in the same country we wouldn't have a problem going back in"

Bear in mind this is at least a year before Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair piece.

If we were wrong about that (and despite the ECB pressure etc if we had realised the true position we could have gotten away with paying a lot less) we could be wrong about CT as well.

Group think on a giant scale got us into this position. Although, at the moment, I wouldn't vote SF, their increasing presence will force a lot of people to be more creative in their policies. Only a good thing.

Cant understand how you could say that. Hayes said she hadn't costed anything in and she pulled out a letter saying that they had. If anything Hayes looked like a fool and maybe his vote showed that.

Quote from: seafoid on May 26, 2014, 07:52:28 PM
the respectable parties have no choice either.

Respectable? FF/FG/Lab?

You havin' a laugh?

These continual snide remarks about SF are getting a little tiresome.

Quote

Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 26, 2014, 09:01:56 PM

Quote from: easytiger95 on May 26, 2014, 07:11:50 PM
Just re Shinners costings etc

They don't make things easy for themselves - I have an innate distrust of them from my own family's particular persuasion, and that distrust doesn't dispel when they are so easily challenged on their plans. They make a big deal of having the Dept of Finance  cost their proposals but never actually talk about those figures that they supposedly received. I thought Hayes demolished Lyn on that in the Prime Time debate.

But - and it is a big but - at times saying the unsayable and challenging the unchallengable is a vital public service, no matter how cartoonish your policies are. With regard to CT, I'm with Seanie - the more SF talk about it, the bigger the debate. And we need the debate.

One of the most deeply held truisms in Irish politics is that raising CT will scare away all the inward investment - especially among tech and pharma companies. Ok. I can see the logic to this position - but a debate with only one side is not a debate, it's a lecture. And with the utmost respect to Joe Higgins et al the opposing view was really only articulated by isolated, fringe figures.

Now SF has a rising tide and are articulating this position and de facto it has to be taken seriously. Which is very good for all concerned in our democracy.

As for the specific debate on CT itself, I'm always reminded of a conversation I had in 2010 with a friend of mine home from London. At the time he was a commodities trader with a large American bank in London and he earned more money than God. after a few pints I was banging on about the guarantee, the unfairness of it all etc before finishing up "Ah sure, what could we do? We guaranteed it, we had to pay it."

He starts to laugh then says to me "We had a default factored into our predictions - we thought at best we'd get 40 cents in the euro, and most of the other bondholders thought the same." So i said that's all well and good but you'd never lend to us again. He says "We would have stayed away for six months to a year and if it looked like it was turning around we would have steamed back in. We're all about making money, sometimes we get burned, but if an opportunity presents itself in the same country we wouldn't have a problem going back in"

Bear in mind this is at least a year before Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair piece.

If we were wrong about that (and despite the ECB pressure etc if we had realised the true position we could have gotten away with paying a lot less) we could be wrong about CT as well.

Group think on a giant scale got us into this position. Although, at the moment, I wouldn't vote SF, their increasing presence will force a lot of people to be more creative in their policies. Only a good thing.

Cant understand how you could say that. Hayes said she hadn't costed anything in and she pulled out a letter saying that they had. If anything Hayes looked like a fool and maybe his vote showed that.

Hayes said quite clearly that they had for asked for individual measures to be costed but had not put them all together as a plan for the Dept to see if the total added up - that was after she produced the letter. So, i thought,in my opinion, he demolished her and I find a lot of their proposals straddle the border between fantasy and balatant populism.

Not such a bad thing though - the Shinners have demonstrated up North that they soon forget about their Marxist principles once in power - I'm just looking for them to fulfil their promise and give us a moderate, progressive left option we can vote for. However you'd fear for them if they got in, the electorate has demonstrated with Labour that if you campaign on idealism, you damn well better deliver.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 26, 2014, 08:58:37 PM

Quote from: seafoid
Government debt is 130% of what the country produces in a year and anything above 100% is not ideal. 
Private debt is even higher.
How are the Shinners going to get the debt down ? Or grow the economy ?
the respectable parties have no choice either.

That is termed the 'deficit'.

The National Debt is where it is because of a totally incompetent FF administration that was too inept to deal with the international market players, compounded by an equally ineptly compliant FG and Labour maladministration.

Is it??

My understanding is that the deficit is the difference between what the exchequer takes in and what it costs to run the country - currently stands at around 13bn. This gap is a result of FF govt policy during the boom times where they placated the unions with the proceeds of the bubble (stamp duty, etc)

National debt is entirely different and the increase is directly related to the sovereign taking on the bank debts.

Open to correction on both of those however

Quote from: macdanger2 on May 26, 2014, 10:16:48 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 26, 2014, 08:58:37 PM

Quote from: seafoid
Government debt is 130% of what the country produces in a year and anything above 100% is not ideal. 
Private debt is even higher.
How are the Shinners going to get the debt down ? Or grow the economy ?
the respectable parties have no choice either.

That is termed the 'deficit'.

The National Debt is where it is because of a totally incompetent FF administration that was too inept to deal with the international market players, compounded by an equally ineptly compliant FG and Labour maladministration.

Is it??

My understanding is that the deficit is the difference between what the exchequer takes in and what it costs to run the country - currently stands at around 13bn. This gap is a result of FF govt policy during the boom times where they placated the unions with the proceeds of the bubble (stamp duty, etc)

National debt is entirely different and the increase is directly related to the sovereign taking on the bank debts.

Open to correction on both of those however

Debt increase is due to bank debts but almost as importantly the 5 years of deficits . If the budget is not balanced the deficit is funded by new debt.
McCreevy ramped up spending on Public sector salaries, pensions, social welfare basically everything. Cowen continued the party.
Charlie said "if I have money i'll spend it".
It was funded by the boom and when the boom collapsed so did revenue. Very hard to reduce the spending as it is so political. 

Quote from: macdanger2 on May 26, 2014, 10:16:48 PM
My understanding is that the deficit is the difference between what the exchequer takes in and what it costs to run the country - currently stands at around 13bn. This gap is a result of FF govt policy during the boom times where they placated the unions with the proceeds of the bubble (stamp duty, etc)

The unions got pay increases to be sure, but about the same as everyone else in those halcyon days and 3 pay cuts have changed things in that respect. The bigger increases in that period were in social welfare. But over the years stamp duty and related puff tax replaced other sources of revenue and people lost any association of getting services with having to pay for them. A large proportion of people believe that tax is something for other people.

Quote from: macdanger2 on May 26, 2014, 10:16:48 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 26, 2014, 08:58:37 PM

Quote from: seafoid
Government debt is 130% of what the country produces in a year and anything above 100% is not ideal. 
Private debt is even higher.
How are the Shinners going to get the debt down ? Or grow the economy ?
the respectable parties have no choice either.

That is termed the 'deficit'.

The National Debt is where it is because of a totally incompetent FF administration that was too inept to deal with the international market players, compounded by an equally ineptly compliant FG and Labour maladministration.

Is it??

My understanding is that the deficit is the difference between what the exchequer takes in and what it costs to run the country - currently stands at around 13bn. This gap is a result of FF govt policy during the boom times where they placated the unions with the proceeds of the bubble (stamp duty, etc)

National debt is entirely different and the increase is directly related to the sovereign taking on the bank debts.

Open to correction on both of those however

My apologies,  you're quite correct - I misinterpreted what seafoid was actually stating there.

Quote from: seafoid on May 26, 2014, 10:29:12 PM
Debt increase is due to bank debts but almost as importantly the 5 years of deficits . If the budget is not balanced the deficit is funded by new debt.
McCreevy ramped up spending on Public sector salaries, pensions, social welfare basically everything. Cowen continued the party.
Charlie said "if I have money i'll spend it".
It was funded by the boom and when the boom collapsed so did revenue. Very hard to reduce the spending as it is so political.

Personally I'd disagree about McCreevy being the main cause of overspending. Not that I'd absolve him of blame. He was certainly in favour of low tax but he wasn't a spend merchant by nature. Of course he did acquiese when cabinent members, backbenchers and opposition were all screaming at him to spend spend spend. He did at least push through the pension reserve fund, which got little favour at the time from colleagues or opposition, but saved the pain at the end from being even worse. And he was shuffled out of Finance so Cowen could come in and really go to town on the spending to win another election.

Quote from: easytiger95 on May 26, 2014, 07:11:50 PM
One of the most deeply held truisms in Irish politics is that raising CT will scare away all the inward investment - especially among tech and pharma companies. Ok. I can see the logic to this position - but a debate with only one side is not a debate, it's a lecture. And with the utmost respect to Joe Higgins et al the opposing view was really only articulated by isolated, fringe figures.

As for the specific debate on CT itself, I'm always reminded of a conversation I had in 2010 with a friend of mine home from London. At the time he was a commodities trader with a large American bank in London and he earned more money than God. after a few pints I was banging on about the guarantee, the unfairness of it all etc before finishing up "Ah sure, what could we do? We guaranteed it, we had to pay it."

He starts to laugh then says to me "We had a default factored into our predictions - we thought at best we'd get 40 cents in the euro, and most of the other bondholders thought the same." So i said that's all well and good but you'd never lend to us again. He says "We would have stayed away for six months to a year and if it looked like it was turning around we would have steamed back in. We're all about making money, sometimes we get burned, but if an opportunity presents itself in the same country we wouldn't have a problem going back in"

Bear in mind this is at least a year before Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair piece.

If we were wrong about that (and despite the ECB pressure etc if we had realised the true position we could have gotten away with paying a lot less) we could be wrong about CT as well.

I don't see how those two issues compare at all.

The 12.5% rate is a brand for Ireland. Being able to say "its rigid, it won't change, the government parties and opposition parties have all stated its here for the long term" is a super marketing tool for Ireland. Even a 1% hike changes that, as its no longer a stable rate. The thinking would be a 1% hike this year means it could be another 1% next year and onwards and upwards.

Of course a rise wouldnt mean an immediate exodus from Ireland, it would just reduce the inflow of new companies. Every time a new US MNC sets up in Ireland, it comes after it has carefully weighed up other territories likes Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, UK, etc. 

Quote from: Hound on May 27, 2014, 09:06:41 AM

Quote from: easytiger95 on May 26, 2014, 07:11:50 PM
One of the most deeply held truisms in Irish politics is that raising CT will scare away all the inward investment - especially among tech and pharma companies. Ok. I can see the logic to this position - but a debate with only one side is not a debate, it's a lecture. And with the utmost respect to Joe Higgins et al the opposing view was really only articulated by isolated, fringe figures.

As for the specific debate on CT itself, I'm always reminded of a conversation I had in 2010 with a friend of mine home from London. At the time he was a commodities trader with a large American bank in London and he earned more money than God. after a few pints I was banging on about the guarantee, the unfairness of it all etc before finishing up "Ah sure, what could we do? We guaranteed it, we had to pay it."

He starts to laugh then says to me "We had a default factored into our predictions - we thought at best we'd get 40 cents in the euro, and most of the other bondholders thought the same." So i said that's all well and good but you'd never lend to us again. He says "We would have stayed away for six months to a year and if it looked like it was turning around we would have steamed back in. We're all about making money, sometimes we get burned, but if an opportunity presents itself in the same country we wouldn't have a problem going back in"

Bear in mind this is at least a year before Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair piece.

If we were wrong about that (and despite the ECB pressure etc if we had realised the true position we could have gotten away with paying a lot less) we could be wrong about CT as well.

I don't see how those two issues compare at all.

The 12.5% rate is a brand for Ireland. Being able to say "its rigid, it won't change, the government parties and opposition parties have all stated its here for the long term" is a super marketing tool for Ireland. Even a 1% hike changes that, as its no longer a stable rate. The thinking would be a 1% hike this year means it could be another 1% next year and onwards and upwards.

Of course a rise wouldnt mean an immediate exodus from Ireland, it would just reduce the inflow of new companies. Every time a new US MNC sets up in Ireland, it comes after it has carefully weighed up other territories likes Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, UK, etc.

I think most people are agreed that the 12.5% CT rate should be sacrosanct for companies creating large numbers of jobs through inward investment. It is our one trump card in attracting inward investment which in the absense of any alternative, has to be what our economy is built on. The low rate is compensated for by the monies ploughed in and jobs created.

I'd argue though that for other companies the rate is too low. They get the same tax break without providing the same benefit to the country. Not sure that's right when individuals pay 42% tax + 11% USC/PRSI at low enough levels of income. Looks unfair to be "targetting" this sector but if you look at it realistically they've benefitted way too much over the years from this tax break.

On seafoid's points about the debt my feelings are this:

I believe FF/FG/Lab think we should pay back every cent and aren't bothered about pushing for a reduction or a deal of some kind. I have always held this belief and despite being told countless times "ah wait til such and such is out of the way and we'll get a deal."

I believe SF/PBP/SP etc do not think we should pay back the whole lot and I don't think we should either. I think SF are nothing if not pragmatic and believe they would push hard for a reduction in the debt or some kind of easing of it. I'd give them a bigger chance of reducing the debt than people who don't really want to reduce it.

Having a mandate to be in government is one thing, being in government is another, just ask Labour all about that.  I sense the reality is dawning on Sinn Fein, 'jeez, there's a very good chance we're going to be government makers in 2 year's time, if not before'  ... I've already heard comments from Gerry Adams, 'We need to prepare for being in government' ... and Mary Lou, 'We want to be in government but not at any cost'.

It's a dangerous position for Sinn Fein, when you look at how the minority party in coalition has been treated by the electorate in both Ireland and the UK.  What would /  could Sinn Fein do differently when in power to ensure the same doesn't happen to them?  Stick to their manifesto would be good for a start. 

Then again, 'if' things are improving in the south, and the next government can ride the crest of that wave of some sort of stability when compared to the last 8 years, then who knows.

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 27, 2014, 09:36:27 AM

Quote from: Hound on May 27, 2014, 09:06:41 AM

Quote from: easytiger95 on May 26, 2014, 07:11:50 PM
One of the most deeply held truisms in Irish politics is that raising CT will scare away all the inward investment - especially among tech and pharma companies. Ok. I can see the logic to this position - but a debate with only one side is not a debate, it's a lecture. And with the utmost respect to Joe Higgins et al the opposing view was really only articulated by isolated, fringe figures.

As for the specific debate on CT itself, I'm always reminded of a conversation I had in 2010 with a friend of mine home from London. At the time he was a commodities trader with a large American bank in London and he earned more money than God. after a few pints I was banging on about the guarantee, the unfairness of it all etc before finishing up "Ah sure, what could we do? We guaranteed it, we had to pay it."

He starts to laugh then says to me "We had a default factored into our predictions - we thought at best we'd get 40 cents in the euro, and most of the other bondholders thought the same." So i said that's all well and good but you'd never lend to us again. He says "We would have stayed away for six months to a year and if it looked like it was turning around we would have steamed back in. We're all about making money, sometimes we get burned, but if an opportunity presents itself in the same country we wouldn't have a problem going back in"

Bear in mind this is at least a year before Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair piece.

If we were wrong about that (and despite the ECB pressure etc if we had realised the true position we could have gotten away with paying a lot less) we could be wrong about CT as well.

I don't see how those two issues compare at all.

The 12.5% rate is a brand for Ireland. Being able to say "its rigid, it won't change, the government parties and opposition parties have all stated its here for the long term" is a super marketing tool for Ireland. Even a 1% hike changes that, as its no longer a stable rate. The thinking would be a 1% hike this year means it could be another 1% next year and onwards and upwards.

Of course a rise wouldnt mean an immediate exodus from Ireland, it would just reduce the inflow of new companies. Every time a new US MNC sets up in Ireland, it comes after it has carefully weighed up other territories likes Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, UK, etc.

I think most people are agreed that the 12.5% CT rate should be sacrosanct for companies creating large numbers of jobs through inward investment. It is our one trump card in attracting inward investment which in the absense of any alternative, has to be what our economy is built on. The low rate is compensated for by the monies ploughed in and jobs created.

I'd argue though that for other companies the rate is too low. They get the same tax break without providing the same benefit to the country. Not sure that's right when individuals pay 42% tax + 11% USC/PRSI at low enough levels of income. Looks unfair to be "targetting" this sector but if you look at it realistically they've benefitted way too much over the years from this tax break.

You've a point as no doubt there are companies setting up their HQ in Ireland to avail of the Low CT, but don't employ that many people and its just a tax avoidance scheme.
I'd have varying CT levels for companies depending on their Income tax take, employee numbers or whatever.

Multi-nations are taking advantage of Irelands tax laws but not putting anything or very little back into the country.

Anywhere I can view a map/link of the Euro Election results??

for Ireland, or for the whole of Europe?

Independent.ie, RTE.ie both have interactive maps of ROI.

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 27, 2014, 09:36:27 AM

I think most people are agreed that the 12.5% CT rate should be sacrosanct for companies creating large numbers of jobs through inward investment. It is our one trump card in attracting inward investment which in the absense of any alternative, has to be what our economy is built on. The low rate is compensated for by the monies ploughed in and jobs created.

I'd argue though that for other companies the rate is too low. They get the same tax break without providing the same benefit to the country. Not sure that's right when individuals pay 42% tax + 11% USC/PRSI at low enough levels of income. Looks unfair to be "targetting" this sector but if you look at it realistically they've benefitted way too much over the years from this tax break.

Agree with what you're saying but EU won't allow us to discriminate between different types of companies, so its a bit of "price you have to pay". We do have a 25% rate for passive (as opposed to trading) income. And as you say when money is paid out by a company as salary the high income tax rates kick in.

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 27, 2014, 09:46:34 AM
for Ireland, or for the whole of Europe?

Independent.ie, RTE.ie both have interactive maps of ROI.

For Ireland. I'll have a look. Cheers.

Quote from: balladmaker on May 27, 2014, 09:41:41 AM
Having a mandate to be in government is one thing, being in government is another, just ask Labour all about that.  I sense the reality is dawning on Sinn Fein, 'jeez, there's a very good chance we're going to be government makers in 2 year's time, if not before'  ... I've already heard comments from Gerry Adams, 'We need to prepare for being in government' ... and Mary Lou, 'We want to be in government but not at any cost'.

It's a dangerous position for Sinn Fein, when you look at how the minority party in coalition has been treated by the electorate in both Ireland and the UK.  What would /  could Sinn Fein do differently when in power to ensure the same doesn't happen to them?  Stick to their manifesto would be good for a start. 

Then again, 'if' things are improving in the south, and the next government can ride the crest of that wave of some sort of stability when compared to the last 8 years, then who knows.

That'll be a big call for sinn fein after the next election. Assuming they have say 40-50 seats in the next election, the govt will likely need two of FF/FG/SF to be in government. If SF don't go into govt, they risk becoming a protest party who have no interest in actually running the country. And with the country likely to be in a relatively improved position, the govt would be reasonably popular you'd assume. On the other hand, if they go into govt as the junior partner, they risk being the new PDs/Greens/Labour

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 27, 2014, 09:40:45 AM
On seafoid's points about the debt my feelings are this:

I believe FF/FG/Lab think we should pay back every cent and aren't bothered about pushing for a reduction or a deal of some kind. I have always held this belief and despite being told countless times "ah wait til such and such is out of the way and we'll get a deal."

I believe SF/PBP/SP etc do not think we should pay back the whole lot and I don't think we should either. I think SF are nothing if not pragmatic and believe they would push hard for a reduction in the debt or some kind of easing of it. I'd give them a bigger chance of reducing the debt than people who don't really want to reduce it.

FG/Lab will get a deal prior to the next election. I'd be close to certain on that. They've got a pretty good bargaining chip now with "If you don't give us a deal, you'll have these shower to deal with instead"!

The question is will it be a decent deal where we get genuine debt write-off, or will it be a BS kick it down the road deal where we have to pay less for a few years but will still have to pay it all eventually.

Quote from: Hound on May 27, 2014, 10:02:02 AM

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 27, 2014, 09:40:45 AM
On seafoid's points about the debt my feelings are this:

I believe FF/FG/Lab think we should pay back every cent and aren't bothered about pushing for a reduction or a deal of some kind. I have always held this belief and despite being told countless times "ah wait til such and such is out of the way and we'll get a deal."

I believe SF/PBP/SP etc do not think we should pay back the whole lot and I don't think we should either. I think SF are nothing if not pragmatic and believe they would push hard for a reduction in the debt or some kind of easing of it. I'd give them a bigger chance of reducing the debt than people who don't really want to reduce it.

FG/Lab will get a deal prior to the next election. I'd be close to certain on that. They've got a pretty good bargaining chip now with "If you don't give us a deal, you'll have these shower to deal with instead"!

The question is will it be a decent deal where we get genuine debt write-off, or will it be a BS kick it down the road deal where we have to pay less for a few years but will still have to pay it all eventually.

Well you know what I think it will be. I don't think Kenny or Noonan have the conviction to go and fight for us as I think they believe we should be good little europeans and pay back the lot. Time will tell but I would have thought themsleves and FF had better bargaining positions in the past and blew them.

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 27, 2014, 10:10:40 AM

Quote from: Hound on May 27, 2014, 10:02:02 AM

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 27, 2014, 09:40:45 AM
On seafoid's points about the debt my feelings are this:

I believe FF/FG/Lab think we should pay back every cent and aren't bothered about pushing for a reduction or a deal of some kind. I have always held this belief and despite being told countless times "ah wait til such and such is out of the way and we'll get a deal."

I believe SF/PBP/SP etc do not think we should pay back the whole lot and I don't think we should either. I think SF are nothing if not pragmatic and believe they would push hard for a reduction in the debt or some kind of easing of it. I'd give them a bigger chance of reducing the debt than people who don't really want to reduce it.

FG/Lab will get a deal prior to the next election. I'd be close to certain on that. They've got a pretty good bargaining chip now with "If you don't give us a deal, you'll have these shower to deal with instead"!

The question is will it be a decent deal where we get genuine debt write-off, or will it be a BS kick it down the road deal where we have to pay less for a few years but will still have to pay it all eventually.

Well you know what I think it will be. I don't think Kenny or Noonan have the conviction to go and fight for us as I think they believe we should be good little europeans and pay back the lot. Time will tell but I would have thought themsleves and FF had better bargaining positions in the past and blew them.

Personally I don't doubt their intentions, but agree they didnt appear to put up much of a fight to date. The cap-in-hand / "do us a favour" negotiating approach is a dead loss. As a nation I think we've probably been too eager to lay the blame at our own doorstep rather than blaming the European banks that facilitated it

Quote from: balladmaker on May 27, 2014, 09:41:41 AM
It's a dangerous position for Sinn Fein, when you look at how the minority party in coalition has been treated by the electorate in both Ireland and the UK.  What would /  could Sinn Fein do differently when in power to ensure the same doesn't happen to them?  Stick to their manifesto would be good for a start. 

In a coalition, both parties cannot implement their full manifesto.
But the first step is not to put bollix in the manifesto that could never be implemented unless a pink elephant herd arrived.

Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2014, 11:06:24 AM

Quote from: balladmaker on May 27, 2014, 09:41:41 AM
It's a dangerous position for Sinn Fein, when you look at how the minority party in coalition has been treated by the electorate in both Ireland and the UK.  What would /  could Sinn Fein do differently when in power to ensure the same doesn't happen to them?  Stick to their manifesto would be good for a start. 

In a coalition, both parties cannot implement their full manifesto.
But the first step is not to put bollix in the manifesto that could never be implemented unless a pink elephant herd arrived.

The first step before that first step is to get elected. To get elected, you have to put bollix in the manifesto. The electorate expects it and won't vote for a bollix-free manifesto. The more bollix, the more votes.

We're still even voting for FFFFS.

(FF, ffs)

Quote from: Hardy on May 27, 2014, 11:11:40 AM

Quote from: armaghniac on May 27, 2014, 11:06:24 AM

Quote from: balladmaker on May 27, 2014, 09:41:41 AM
It's a dangerous position for Sinn Fein, when you look at how the minority party in coalition has been treated by the electorate in both Ireland and the UK.  What would /  could Sinn Fein do differently when in power to ensure the same doesn't happen to them?  Stick to their manifesto would be good for a start. 

In a coalition, both parties cannot implement their full manifesto.
But the first step is not to put bollix in the manifesto that could never be implemented unless a pink elephant herd arrived.

The first step before that first step is to get elected. To get elected, you have to put bollix in the manifesto. The electorate expects it and won't vote for a bollix-free manifesto. The more bollix, the more votes.

We're still even voting for FFFFS.

(FF, ffs)

;D.  The Shinners have done that bit well anyway!

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 27, 2014, 09:40:45 AM
On seafoid's points about the debt my feelings are this:

I believe FF/FG/Lab think we should pay back every cent and aren't bothered about pushing for a reduction or a deal of some kind. I have always held this belief and despite being told countless times "ah wait til such and such is out of the way and we'll get a deal."

I believe SF/PBP/SP etc do not think we should pay back the whole lot and I don't think we should either. I think SF are nothing if not pragmatic and believe they would push hard for a reduction in the debt or some kind of easing of it. I'd give them a bigger chance of reducing the debt than people who don't really want to reduce it.

I agree with you and that is one of the reasons why I voted for the Shinners last Friday. Their massive gains will force the other parties to accept that they are going to be a force to be reckoned  with and may shake them out of their complacency.
It also means the Gerry & Co. will have to accept that they benefited from the backlash against the policies of the government and FF. They will need to prove that their way is the best way, in a manner of speaking.
I hope they can because what we are putting up with now passes belief.
Michael D gets paid more than Barak Obama!
Enda Kenny earns more than David Cameron or any other EU head of government. Alan Shatter resigns from his job and gets a sweetener of €70, 000 along with a ministerial pension after only  2 years in office. Austerity my posterior, those friggers couldn't spell the word, let alone understand what it means.
The list goes on and on and the wonder is that we, as a nation, have tolerated so much for so long.
Now, the Shinners have an opportunity to show that they can provide an alternative to the present  rotten system  and they have from here to the next general election to show that they can.
I wish them luck but it's a case of wait and see....

I don't think Sinn Fein's gains are anything close to enough to shake up the established order. It's like a version of Labour's boom before the 2011 election but with far worse transfer numbers. Good vote management by the other parties will scupper many SF candidates.

Great website here which gives a graphic illustration of each count in every council election

http://clairebyrne.ie/counts/

I had a look at the Dublin - Rathgar/Rathmines one to check on how close/far the lord mayor Oisin Quinn came, but it gave a good example of a SF candidate being 4th early on and looking very good for a seat (6 seater) but after all the transfers come in, he ends up being relegated to 7th and missing out by a whisker

On the rough basis going by the percentages last Friday - In a GE -  FG 45 seats, FF 40, SF 30, Lab 10, Loonyleft 8, Greens 5, and a scatter of about 25 -30 various shades of Independent.
Some craic trying to form a Govt then  :D

Quote from: Hardy on May 27, 2014, 11:11:40 AM
The first step before that first step is to get elected. To get elected, you have to put bollix in the manifesto. The electorate expects it and won't vote for a bollix-free manifesto. The more bollix, the more votes.

As long as people do not expect paries to put forward reasoned proposals, then little will change.

Quote from: Hardy on May 27, 2014, 11:11:40 AM
We're still even voting for FFFFS.
(FF, ffs)

FF would not do much different right now than than present incumbents, under some constraints they would be OK.

Maybe now that idiot Kenny will desist from taunting Adams about the Troubles every time the latter puts a question to him in the Dáil. If only he'd been half as interested in the Troubles at the actual time.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 27, 2014, 01:21:20 PM
Maybe now that idiot Kenny will desist from taunting Adams about the Troubles every time the latter puts a question to him in the Dáil. If only he'd been half as interested in the Troubles at the actual time.

I doubt it. It's one of the reasons why Sinn Fein have to decide is the time right to hand over to the hungry newcomers, or stick with the lads that have got this far. The Troubles will ALWAYS be on the agenda when Gerry Adams is stuck in any debate. It's just a very easy target for the likes of Martin, Kenny and whichever lucky devil leads Labour.

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 27, 2014, 01:24:38 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 27, 2014, 01:21:20 PM
Maybe now that idiot Kenny will desist from taunting Adams about the Troubles every time the latter puts a question to him in the Dáil. If only he'd been half as interested in the Troubles at the actual time.

I doubt it. It's one of the reasons why Sinn Fein have to decide is the time right to hand over to the hungry newcomers, or stick with the lads that have got this far. The Troubles will ALWAYS be on the agenda when Gerry Adams is stuck in any debate. It's just a very easy target for the likes of Martin, Kenny and whichever lucky devil leads Labour.

It's a very easy target, but at this stage who's reputation is it damaging more? I would say Kenny as it makes him look out of his depth in the debate. His snide comments about the troubles do not do him any favours at all in my opinion.

Agree with you there AZ, all in the timing, which is surely nigh. I would say, however that Kenny's puerile Dáil antics actually cost FG, and not insignificantly at that, in this election. Desperate times for Kenny,  Martin, and Burton? though, so political maturity may be some time off.

Quote from: Rossfan on May 27, 2014, 12:18:44 PM
On the rough basis going by the percentages last Friday - In a GE -  FG 45 seats, FF 40, SF 30, Lab 10, Loonyleft 8, Greens 5, and a scatter of about 25 -30 various shades of Independent.
Some craic trying to form a Govt then  :D

At some point, FF an FG will cop on that they have far more in common than differences. (Where did I hear that before) and stop trying to con people to believing they are different.

At what point will our politicians bring the future plans of Jose Manuel Baroso to the doorsteps of their electorate.

Quote from: Rossfan on May 27, 2014, 12:18:44 PM
On the rough basis going by the percentages last Friday - In a GE -  FG 45 seats, FF 40, SF 30, Lab 10, Loonyleft 8, Greens 5, and a scatter of about 25 -30 various shades of Independent.
Some craic trying to form a Govt then  :D

That's 163-168 seats - the next GE reduces numbers to 158.

Quote from: Maguire01 on May 27, 2014, 06:26:54 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on May 27, 2014, 12:18:44 PM
On the rough basis going by the percentages last Friday - In a GE -  FG 45 seats, FF 40, SF 30, Lab 10, Loonyleft 8, Greens 5, and a scatter of about 25 -30 various shades of Independent.
Some craic trying to form a Govt then  :D

That's 163-168 seats - the next GE reduces numbers to 158.

I doubt that the high % independent vote in local elections will reflect in a general election 25- 30 independents. It doesn't work like that, probably no more than 15.