Connect with us

Business

Blame game begins as Maria Steen supporters divided on why her campaign failed at last hurdle

Published

on

This post was originally published on this site.

WHILE CONSERVATIVE CAMPAIGNER MARIA Steen ultimately did not get on the ballot for this year’s presidential election, some of her most vocal backers have been keen to characterise her efforts as a success rather than a failure.

Senators Rónán Mullen and Sharon Keogan both told The Journal that she did far better than expectations and that that is the story people should be focusing on.

However, others who supported her have been quicker to look on the negative side and engage in a blame game.

For some, her failure was the fault of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael for “blocking” her route, while others believed she fell short due to aggressive online lobbying of Oireachtas members encouraging them to back Steen.

Another school of thought was that her campaign was hijacked by some supporters who “took over” her campaign and ultimately put would-be supporters off.

Others again felt that if she had a longer campaign, she might have just got it over the line.

Steen only really kick-started her campaign earlier this month, telling reporters outside Leinster House on 11 September that her supporters believed that the Irish people should have a choice other than an “establishment candidate”.

This week, after failing to woo any local authorities, Steen set her sights on securing the nominations of 20 Oireachtas members.

In the end, she got 18:

Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín, and his two party colleagues, TD Paul Lawless and Senator Sarah O’Reilly; Independent Ireland’s four TDs Michael Collins, Richard O’Donoghue, Michael Fitzmaurice and Ken O’Flynn; junior ministers Marian Harkin and Michael Healy-Rae; TDs Mattie McGrath, Carol Nolan, Gillian Toole, Paul Gogarty and Michael’s brother Danny Healy-Rae; Senators Joe Conway, Rónán Mullins, Sharon Keogan and Aubrey McCarthy.

Independent Ireland leader Michael Collins is of the view that Steen’s campaign was taken over by others, and that this was what led to its ultimate failure.

Speaking to The Journal, Collins said he felt the online campaign targeting undecided TDs and Senators was “the wrong approach”.

“Others took over her campaign, and that made a lot of people bitter and frustrated, and we have the consequences of that now. That’s my feeling anyway from talking to people inside here [Leinster House],” he said.

Collins refused to say who he was referring to, telling The Journal: “I’m not going to name them now, you know yourself”.

“I think if she was out there sooner and got to meet people, instead of others doing the talking for her, I think she would have done better,” he added.

Others involved in Steen’s campaign told The Journal that they agreed with Collins, that the way pressure was put on Oireachtas members online did not help her chances.

While the online campaign seemed to happen organically, Independent Senator Sharon Keogan was one of the vocal people on social media who encouraged voters to lobby undecided TDs and Senators to nominate Steen.

One Steen supporter, who would only speak on the condition of anonymity, said Keogan “inserted herself into the campaign and wanted to make it all about herself”.

Advertisement

“It’s pissed people off in Oireachtas circles,” the source said.

Senator Gerard Craughwell was one of the Independent Oireachtas members who was put off by the online campaign. To such an extent that he opted not to nominate any candidate.

Speaking to The Journal, Craughwell said:

“I had decided long before I was approached by Mrs Steen that I would not support her, and that was because of the online campaign that started about three weeks ago.”

He said the online messages he received from supporters of Steen became “more and more toxic as the weeks went on”.

Craughwell stressed, however, that people are entitled to lobby politicians.

Keogan firmly rejected the notion that the online pressure on Oireachtas members had any negative impact on Steen’s result.

“Gerard Craughwell would be very used to online campaigning himself, so I find it funny he would have found it too much,” the Senator told The Journal.

“Look, people are going to say why it didn’t succeed, the online campaign had nothing to do with it in my opinion,” she added.

Responding to the suggestion that her involvement in Steen’s bid to get on the ballot had a detrimental effect on her efforts, Keogan said:

“I’ve no comment to make on people who won’t speak on the record. If they have something to say, let them come to my face and say it.

“Yes, I was advocating for Maria Steen and Gareth Sheridan, they didn’t get on the ballot but they both did well. It wasn’t to be.”

Elsewhere, Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín laid the blame for Steen’s failure firmly at the feet of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.

“It is a fact that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and their so-called Independents pulled up the ladder to stop Maria Steen being able to challenge them in this election,” he said, referring to the Regional Independent TDs who are supporting the government.

Meanwhile, Senator Rónán Mullen, who was also heavily involved in efforts to get Steen on the ballot, shared Keogan’s view that although Steen wasn’t ultimately successful, she still did “remarkably well”.

Asked where he thinks things went wrong, Mullen did not wish to apportion blame but said “many will believe the political establishment has acted in an elitist way.”

“I think a lot of people don’t understand why people didn’t lift a finger to assist,” he said, referring to Oireachtas members who chose not to nominate Steen.

On whether Senator Michael McDowell’s decision not to back Steen was the death knell of her campaign, Mullen said: “I’m not blaming anybody. Everybody has their reasons.”

Asked if he had any ill feelings towards those who did not back Steen, or those who backed her too vocally, Mullen said:

“Why would I have ill feelings towards any politicians? Maria Steen got 18 votes that nobody thought a few weeks ago she would get. And she did it up against a political establishment that didn’t want her to succeed. That’s the story here.”

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone…
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.

Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Business

PTSB cuts fixed-rate mortgage interests by up to 0.2%

Published

on

Read full article on post.

image

PTSB HAS TODAY announced changes to its mortgage and deposit rates.

The mortgage rate changes take effect from today and will result in decreases of 0.15% to 0.20% on a range of fixed-rate mortgage products, from periods of two years to seven years. 

The rate decrease will apply to mortgages where the Loan to Value (LTV) is between 80% and 90%.

It also includes Green mortgages and High-Value mortgages, both of which offer lower rates in this LTV band.

The new rates for the 2-year, 3-year, 5-year and 7-year fixed terms in this LTV band will range from 3.7% to 4.4%, depending on the fixed-rate period.

This is available to both new and existing customers who want to take out a new fixed-rate product.

Advertisement

The new rate for the 4-year fixed term of 3.65%, which is a rate-only product, is available to new customers only. 

A spokesperson remarked that the 80%-90% LTV band is “particularly popular among First-Time Buyers” but added that the new rates will also be available to First-Time Buyers, switchers from other lenders and people moving house.

Meanwhile, the deposit rate changes take effect from 1 October and apply to PTSB’s 6-month, 1-year, 3-year and 5-year fixed-term deposit products.

It will also include the 6-month and 1-year online fixed-term deposit products.

PTSB’s 5-year fixed-term deposit will increase by 0.50% to 2.00%, and the 3-year fixed-term deposit will increase by 0.40% to 2.00%.

The Bank’s 1-year and 6-month fixed-term deposit accounts, including online and Interest First equivalents, will decrease by 0.25%, to 2.00% and 1.25% respectively.

Customers who have recently taken out a new fixed-term deposit have a cooling off period of up to 14 days which will allow them to switch their deposit to benefit from new, lower rates if they wish.

Customers should contact PTSB to do this before the relevant cooling off period expires.

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone…
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.

Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Continue Reading

Business

‘Every idea is a good idea’ – how would 64-team World Cup look?

Published

on

Read full article on post.

  • 18 minutes ago

A 64-team World Cup?

The concept will sound like a step too far to some, but others believe it deserves real consideration.

In April, the South American governing body Conmebol raised an official proposal to expand the 2030 tournament to 64 teams, and Fifa will discuss it with leaders from the continent in New York this week.

The first 48-team World Cup will take place next summer across the United States, Canada and Mexico – expanded from the current 32-team format – but there are serious attempts from some to make it even bigger for 2030.

That tournament will be the first to be spread across three continents to mark its 100-year anniversary, with main hosts Spain, Morocco and Portugal being joined by Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay in hosting opening-round matches.

But is the World Cup about to make more history? BBC Sport looks at whether a 64-team tournament could really happen and what it might look like.

What is being suggested?

So, what is going on?

The idea was first “spontaneously raised” at a Fifa council meeting in March by Uruguayan Football Federation president Ignacio Alonso.

It was then presented at Fifa congress in April by Conmebol, which believes it would be a fitting way to mark the World Cup’s centenary.

Fifa’s official position has always been it will discuss expansion ideas with its stakeholders and it is duty bound to consider any proposals from its council members.

The Fifa council would make the ultimate decision, but there are no signs it is something expected to be made imminently.

How dramatic would this expansion actually be?

Fairly seismic is the obvious answer.

The pace of change has been remarkable, since the long-standing 16-team format increased to 24 teams in 1982.

It became a 32-team event in 1998 before being expanded to 48 teams for next summer’s showpiece.

Adding another 16 teams for 2030 would mean the World Cup had doubled in size in eight years and would mean more than 30% of Fifa’s current 211 members would participate.

Who is in favour and who is against it?

Alejandro Dominguez and Alexander CeferinGetty Images

Fifa president Gianni Infantino said “every idea is a good idea”, but the proposal for a 64-team tournament has divided opinion among the six Fifa confederations and national associations.

Conmebol president Alejandro Dominguez said expanding the World Cup for its centenary would ensure “nobody on the planet is left out of the party”.

Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin is among those to have dismissed the proposals, with the Slovenian saying it is a “bad idea” for both the tournament itself and the qualifying process.

Victor Montagliani, president of the governing body for football in North and Central America and the Caribbean (Concacaf), said the suggestion “doesn’t feel right” and believes the expansion would damage “the broader football ecosystem”.

Asian Football Confederation (AFC) president Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa agreed, saying further expansion would bring “chaos”.

While there has been limited further public discussion, there are a few obvious reasons why people would be in favour and against the proposal.

Financially, more games would surely mean bigger TV deals and sponsorship possibilities.

The expanded 2026 format is already predicted to be generating more money than any previous World Cup through sponsorships, merchandising, ticket sales and broadcast revenues, with Fifa expecting to earn $11bn (£8.2bn) over the four-year cycle to December 2026.

By flinging its doors open wider than ever before, the tournament would be more inclusive and the change would probably result in a host of nations reaching the World Cup for the first time.

At the 2022 World Cup, hosts Qatar were the only team making their tournament debut.

Cape Verde are only one win away from joining already-qualified Jordan and Uzbekistan as debutants at the 2026 competition, while New Caledonia and Suriname could add to the growing number of debutants already in next summer’s World Cup.

A 64-team tournament would also increase the likelihood of all the world’s top players competing.

On the flip side, the competitive nature of the event would be brought into question. The potential for one-sided matches would increase, while qualifying would become even more a foregone conclusion for many nations than it is already.

Questions will be asked about the added amount of travel that players and fans will have to make, with sustainability likely to be an important issue with the increased number of flights needed to transport teams, fans and media.

What might it look like?

Gianni Infantino announces Morocco, Portugal and Spain will co-host the 2030 World CupGetty Images

This is a difficult question to answer.

The notion of a 64-team tournament is almost unprecedented in top-level international sport, so it is difficult to cite any examples.

Next summer’s expanded format is complicated enough, with the top two and best eight third-place finishers from 12 groups of four qualifying for the last 32.

The obvious structure for a 64-team World Cup in 2030 would be for the top two from 16 groups of four to qualify for the last 32. Perhaps a bit tidier than next years?

Should the proposal eventually be accepted, the 2030 edition would include 128 matches – up from the 64-game format played between 1998 and 2022.

Next year’s World Cup will have 104 matches and will take 72 games – eight games more than an entire 32-team World Cup – just to get down to 32 teams.

From the start of the 2026 tournament until the end of the last 16 there will be 96 games across 27 days, with no rest day.

Just one of those days will feature a single match, and just two days will have only two matches. The remaining 24 days will feature three, four or even six matches.

Therefore, the impact of another 16 teams joining the fray is rather mind-boggling.

How would they fit in the extra matches?

Fifa has already stated the 2030 finals will run from 8 June, with the final on 21 July, and the possibility of making the tournament longer would seem unlikely with the footballing calendar already more tightly packed than many would like.

This would mean the need for more games per day in the group stages and thus extra stadiums would have to be considered.

There have been suggestions Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay could host more games during these group stages.

And what would the impact be on qualifying?

For starters, it would be almost inconceivable that the world’s top football nations would not qualify for the World Cup.

While Italy are currently preparing to sit out a third consecutive World Cup, such shock scenarios, which are all part of the drama, are hard to envisage should a 64-team tournament become a reality.

Conmebol could already see a maximum of seven teams qualify for next summer’s event, and they would clearly want more members qualifying for an expanded tournament.

All other continents would also be expected to have more qualifying spots, but the logistics around this are purely guesswork for now.

The mere potential of a 64-team World Cup has raised plenty of questions – as well as eyebrows. Whether it gets off the ground or not remains to be seen, a matter for sporting and political power-brokers to figure out.

Related topics

Continue Reading

Business

Office investor demand was way up in the first half of 2025, according to exclusive JLL data

Published

on

Read more on post.

foreground of header

  • JLL found office transaction momentum strengthened significantly in the first half of this year, with total industry volume up 42% year over year to $25.9 billion.
  • The report notes that as we move through the third quarter, JLL is actively seeing the transition from “office curious” to “office serious” take hold across the industry.
  • There’s a flight to quality, with top-tier office buildings seeing the bulk of the demand.
Working late, office buildings, Financial District, London.
Travelpix Ltd | Stone | Getty Images

A version of this article first appeared in the CNBC Property Play newsletter with Diana Olick. Property Play covers new and evolving opportunities for the real estate investor, from individuals to venture capitalists, private equity funds, family offices, institutional investors and large public companies. Sign up to receive future editions, straight to your inbox.

The recovery in the U.S. office market has been gaining steam this year and may be set to accelerate. While vacancy rates and return-to-office employee volume have been focal points in gauging demand, a new look at interest in office from the capital markets points to an even stronger recovery than previously thought.

JLL, a global commercial real estate and investment management company, gave Property Play exclusive access to a limited distribution client report. It found that office transaction momentum strengthened significantly in the first half of this year, with total industry volume up 42% year over year to $25.9 billion.

Looking at JLL’s office sales transactions alone, volume was up 110% from the first half of 2024 to the first half of 2025, more than double the momentum of any other major property type, including data centers. 

The report notes that as we move through the third quarter, JLL is actively seeing the transition from “office curious” to “office serious” take hold across the industry. Lower interest rates are propelling much of that.

Get Property Play directly to your inbox

CNBC’s Property Play with Diana Olick covers new and evolving opportunities for the real estate investor, delivered weekly to your inbox.

Subscribe here to get access today.

In addition, the number of bids on a given transaction was up 50% over the same period, with the second quarter alone experiencing $16 billion in office bid volume, which is the highest quarterly total since the second quarter of 2022 when the 10-year treasury yield was below 3%. Bid volume can measure growth and health of a sector from a capital markets perspective. 

“What typically happens is, after a downturn, the high-net-worth private capital comes back in because of opportunistic returns, and they start buying. The REITs follow, and then the institutional capital flows, like pension funds, separate accounts, offshore capital, follow the REITs. That’s exactly what’s playing out right now,” said Mike McDonald, senior managing director and office group leader at JLL. 

Larger deal demand, that of $100 million or more, is increasing, up roughly 130% in the first half of this year compared with the same period in 2024. This is due to increasing institutional investor appetite for higher quality office, as well as better debt availability, according to the report.

There is, of course, a flight to quality, with top-tier office buildings seeing the bulk of the demand. As those buildings fill up, second-tier buildings will start to see increased demand and could actually outpace the top tier buildings as it relates to rental rates and absorption over the next five years, according to McDonald.

The massive office downturn in the first years of the pandemic caused a pullback in planning for new buildings, so there is now very little new office space under construction. The market will see just 6 million square feet of office space delivered next year, which is 90% below the four year annual average following the great financial crisis. 

“Some people may refer to it as slowing down; it’s really hitting a brick wall,” said McDonald. “There’s going to be a dearth of new deliveries the next three years, as evidenced by the 6 million square feet next year, which is anemic based on 30-year historical averages.”

He also pointed to overall reduction of office inventory, as older office buildings are either torn down or converted to residential, hospitality, self storage, or just reimagined into something other than office.

The lowest quality, distressed segment is still seeing some bargain hunters, so there is something of a bar-bell effect. 

“We call them dark matter, and they do matter. It’s that 1-million-square-foot tower in downtown Detroit or Pittsburgh or Cleveland or Dallas that is 40% occupied,” said McDonald. “Capital looking for highly distressed, very opportunistic returns, very low basis, where an asset may have traded five years ago at $300 a foot, and they can buy it now for $50 a foot. At that lower investment, they can reduce rents and have more velocity because their basis is lower, they have more of a competitive advantage.”

Demand tailwinds for office overall continue, as company downsizing rates are stabilizing. Companies are also no longer shedding very much space when they relocate; in 2022, on average, companies were getting rid of almost 20% of their space when they made a move. That is now down to 3%, according to JLL, a clear sign of stabilization.

This year REIT acquisitions have been strong. The stocks of office REITs like BXP, Vornado and SL Green are higher in the last six months, although the largest, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, is still struggling.

Lower interest rates over the next several quarters will certainly help in the cost of debt for dealmaking, but the reason rates are coming down is because of weakness in the economy. That creates a new pressure on the office market when it comes to demand from employers. 

“We’re very mindful of the impact, what that’s going to have on the actual tenant and the companies that actually occupy these buildings,” said McDonald. “You have to think about the macroeconomy, geopolitical risks, all the things that go into setting our overall capital market environment, and price of debt is just one component of it.”

McDonald said next year may be more about institutional capital taking the lead. These so-called green shoots in the office market will likely propel both leasing metrics and valuations higher over the next several years. 

Continue Reading

Trending