Sean O'Rourke Today Show

constitutionus

that ENTIRE peice on pokemon was LOLtastic !

sean clearly had no clue what he was talking about and going by script alone. fair play to him for running with it

sligojoek

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Silly season in full swing.

Callan57

What a load of old waffle from Barry Cowan ... revitalised, reenergised etc etc (Why use one word when you can use a whole dictionary and still say shag all

PeterTheNinth

I always find this Scottish psychologist guy hard listening. Lots of sweeping generalisations.

Ridiculous amount of mic banging and general noise this morning.

thesandeman

Only Seán can say Trump is a feckn eejit in a politically correct way.
"What do you think of his psychological makeup?"

Callan57

I can't but feel somewhat wary of this new housing plan ... will it all end in tears I wonder when the law of unintended consequences kicks in????

BarryD

Callan57 wrote: »

I can't but feel somewhat wary of this new housing plan ... will it all end in tears I wonder when the law of unintended consequences kicks in????

Very hard to fiddle with the property market without having some knock on effects that others won't like. Maybe it's a case of serving the greater good? Can't see local authorities going back to the days where they build large estates. Too many issues there. Part of this problem is that many local authorities were keen to divest themselves of this stock and get rid of ongoing maintenance costs and responsibility etc. They won't want to go back there anymore than collecting rubbish, I think. So that leaves private enterprise.

Bellerstring

Damien O'Reilly.......Holy Jaysus..

Harry Angstrom

Farming with Damo.

honeybear

Callan57 wrote: »

I can't but feel somewhat wary of this new housing plan ... will it all end in tears I wonder when the law of unintended consequences kicks in????

Heard Eugene Cummins being interviewed by Audrey Carville on Morning Ireland this morning - it would not inspire confidence in new plan.

robo

honeybear wrote: »

Heard Eugene Cummins being interviewed by Audrey Carville on Morning Ireland this morning - it would not inspire confidence in new plan.

Eugene Cummins was not prepared for that interview...wonder was he thinking..."I'll have a chat with Audrey & sure I've missed a bullet then avoiding Sean cos I was on Morning Ireland" - Audrey certainly had her weetabix this morning!

kazamo

robo wrote: »

Eugene Cummins was not prepared for that interview...wonder was he thinking..."I'll have a chat with Audrey & sure I've missed a bullet then avoiding Sean cos I was on Morning Ireland" - Audrey certainly had her weetabix this morning!

Audrey has her Weetabix most mornings.
Having heard her on the Late Debate for a couple of years, I always thought she was wasted on late night radio.
Audrey should be on now instead of Damo.

Callan57

I'd nearly rather listen to Trump than Ruth Coppinger ... Lyric I think

Brendan Bendar

Callan57 wrote: »

I'd nearly rather listen to Trump than Ruth Coppinger ... Lyric I think

Id rather listen to anyone.........

Brendan Bendar

robo wrote: »

Eugene Cummins was not prepared for that interview...wonder was he thinking..."I'll have a chat with Audrey & sure I've missed a bullet then avoiding Sean cos I was on Morning Ireland" - Audrey certainly had her weetabix this morning!

Probably you are right about the preparation, and I was only listening with half attention.

However the bottom line was that 47k units of social housing would be provided which is the most important point.

Audrey tried to tie him down to specifics and numbers, and succeeded, but it was all a little like a certain forum on this platform, going round in circles repeating the same stuff over and over.

47k units- that's where it's at.

Having said that the lad should have been better prepared.

BarryD

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Probably you are right about the preparation, and I was only listening with half attention.

However the bottom line was that 47k units of social housing would be provided which is the most important point.

Audrey tried to tie him down to specifics and numbers, and succeeded, but it was all a little like a certain forum on this platform, going round in circles repeating the same stuff over and over.

47k units- that's where it's at.

Having said that the lad should have been better prepared.

He was very reluctant to put a number on the houses that local authorities might build and you could hear him think about the interview replay in a few years time! He might be better facing up to those that want local authorities to build large numbers of houses and challenge them on the issues that have arisen in the past and which issues would likely repeat in the future. It's cheap political rhetoric for some to call on local authorities to do this but they won't have to deal with the consequences.

robo

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Probably you are right about the preparation, and I was only listening with half attention.

However the bottom line was that 47k units of social housing would be provided which is the most important point.

Audrey tried to tie him down to specifics and numbers, and succeeded, but it was all a little like a certain forum on this platform, going round in circles repeating the same stuff over and over.

47k units- that's where it's at.

Having said that the lad should have been better prepared.

Or he just should have said that they hadn't got down & dirty into planning how many to be built & how many to be bought yet, just be honest :rolleyes:

honeybear

honeybear wrote: »

However the bottom line was that 47k units of social housing would be provided which is the most important point.

That's not the bottom line at all.

If houses aren't being built , and the State simply transfers existing housing onto its books, it's a zero-sum game. In fact, it's worse than that. Because the population is steadily increasing in urban centres, and the stock of housing isn't increasing by sufficient amounts.

In that situation, private-sector demand will rise relative to supply (further pushing up prices), and more and more would-be buyers will be forced to seek social housing, creating a negative-feeback loop in an already distorted market.

The State should be focused on changing the equilibrium by building new housing.

Therefore it is crucial to know the number of new houses that the State will build over the next five years.

"47,000" houses being transferred to local authorities tells us next to nothing about market equilibrium.

Brendan Bendar

robo wrote: »

Or he just should have said that they hadn't got down & dirty into planning how many to be built & how many to be bought yet, just be honest :rolleyes:

Yes, you are correct in that.

He should have come into the interview with those ballpark numbers at the ready.

If they hadn't got those numbers worked out, he should have said so.

This is where Browne and other 'presenters' get string.

Audrey was wooding up big time during that interview.

Have your numbers ready and stick to them.

BarryD

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The State should be focused on changing the equilibrium by building new housing.

I could be wrong but I just can't see the state through local authorities or otherwise get back into building large amounts of 'social housing', 'council ghettos', 'high rise slums' or whatever other form we've seen in the past. It may solve a problem temporarily, but is laden with difficulties down the road. Never mind issues with public service recruitment and unions etc.

Mixed areas are the only way to go with a variety of privately owned housing and state owned social housing. This in itself has caused difficulties in the past with developers claiming (perhaps reasonably) that social housing will drag down their returns and undermine viability of schemes etc. I suspect that's where the tax payers money will go, subsidising this form of development.

Harry Angstrom

The State won't get involved because there are far too many rich vested interests with skin in the game.
Back in the 60's and 70's, local authority housing was the norm. Councils were involved in building houses for families who paid rent according according to their means. Supply and demand were pretty much in equilibrium. Homelessness wasn't an issue. The idea of families being put up in hotels would have been greeted with amusement and incredulity.

Contrast that with today's property circus. Developers and builders are accommodated by the State because the government "don't want to get involved in the market", which basically means that these leeches can screw the public. Demand outstrips supply. Councils don't build houses any more. The whole system is biased in favour of the property magnates, and the Government will do fcuk all to change things, because any attempt to do so will result in a short term reduction in revenue. The social imperative of ensuring that every citizen being entitled to a roof over their head has been superseded by pure economics. Most developers have bounced back from the bust (ably assisted by the State), while ordinary people continue to suffer. And the major political parties continue to wonder why the electorate have turned against them?

Brendan Bendar

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

The State won't get involved because there are far too many rich vested interests with skin in the game.
Back in the 60's and 70's, local authority housing was the norm. Councils were involved in building houses for families who paid rent according according to their means. Supply and demand were pretty much in equilibrium. Homelessness wasn't an issue. The idea of families being put up in hotels would have been greeted with amusement and incredulity.

Contrast that with today's property circus. Developers and builders are accommodated by the State because the government "don't want to get involved in the market", which basically means that these leeches can screw the public. Demand outstrips supply. Councils don't build houses any more. The whole system is biased in favour of the property magnates, and the Government will do fcuk all to change things, because any attempt to do so will result in a short term reduction in revenue. The social imperative of ensuring that every citizen being entitled to a roof over their head has been superseded by pure economics. Most developers have bounced back from the bust (ably assisted by the State), while ordinary people continue to suffer. And the major political parties continue to wonder why the electorate have turned against them?

Some very valid points there Harry but I would disagree that most developers have " bounced back".

Brian Scan

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Probably you are right about the preparation, and I was only listening with half attention.

However the bottom line was that 47k units of social housing would be provided which is the most important point.

Audrey tried to tie him down to specifics and numbers, and succeeded, but it was all a little like a certain forum on this platform, going round in circles repeating the same stuff over and over.

47k units- that's where it's at.

Having said that the lad should have been better prepared.

The Liveline thread, I presume.

BarryD

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

....The social imperative of ensuring that every citizen being entitled to a roof over their head has been superseded by pure economics...

When did this idea 'that every citizen is entitled to a roof over their head' come into popular thinking?

It certainly didn't exist in the 1800s and through much of the 1900s when the social welfare systems were either non existent or in infancy.

It's a bit like the 'right to water' or 'right to an income'.

Back 25 years ago, we couldn't afford to buy a house where we wanted to live. We cut our cloth to suit our measure, moved further from Dublin and bought a place that we could afford. There's a good deal of rural housing stock in Ireland but people don't want to live here. They'd prefer to be where property and housing is often at a premium. 'Prefer' being a key word here.

Harry Angstrom

BarryD wrote: »

When did this idea 'that every citizen is entitled to a roof over their head' come into popular thinking?

It certainly didn't exist in the 1800s and through much of the 1900s when the social welfare systems were either non existent or in infancy.

I'd like to think that we've moved on a bit since Victorian times.

Brendan Bendar

Brian Scan wrote: »

The Liveline thread, I presume.

No Mr S, much more deep and meaningful than that...it's a big 'un.;)

Edit: not radio Brian.

Brian Scan

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

No Mr S, much more deep and meaningful than that...it's a big 'un.;)

Edit: not radio Brian.

Could anything be more deep and meaningful than the Liveline thread?

BarryD

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I'd like to think that we've moved on a bit since Victorian times.

It didn't exist for many of the early decades of this state. If there was no roof or work at home, you went to England or America.

I agree that people should be able to afford a stable rent at a reasonable cost and that if they wish to purchase a home, it should be affordable within a reasonable span of years of one income.

But that doesn't imply that people must be able to live where they want and nor should it imply a right to a roof. Too many people in this wee country are keen on rights and downplay obligations, like paying your way.

BarryD

BarryD wrote: »

I could be wrong but I just can't see the state through local authorities or otherwise get back into building large amounts of 'social housing', 'council ghettos', 'high rise slums' or whatever other form we've seen in the past. It may solve a problem temporarily, but is laden with difficulties down the road. Never mind issues with public service recruitment and unions etc.

I disagree, but my opinion on that point is irrelevant.

Whether a small number or a big number, the gentleman we're discussing should have been able to state the number of new houses that will be built by local authorities. Because simply transferring 47,000 existing houses from the private sector is rearranging deckchairs on the titanic. You're only shifting the deficit elsewhere, and probably increasing the demand for social housing!

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a viable housing strategy, so we need to know how many houses will be supplied (built) this year.

BarryD

The chap said that 47,000 units of social housing was the figure to be delivered. Why does it matter what the mix is between 'local authority' built units and ones that are built by other developers? I don't get the zero sum.

Suppose the private sector would ordinarily build x units over a particular period. There's no reason why they should not build x + y units over the same period, where y is the figure required to make up their contribution towards the 47,000 units above.

You can argue that it's immoral for the private sector to profit like this from tax payers funds but that's a different matter. From the government's POV, outsourcing the building of these units is more attractive and you could see why they might choose to invest taxpayers money in employing others to do this rather than taking on a raft of new public service employees to do same.

BarryD

BarryD wrote: »

The chap said that 47,000 units of social housing was the figure to be delivered. Why does it matter what the mix is between 'local authority' built units and ones that are built by other developers? I don't get the zero sum.

Because the private developers are not building affordable family homes ! That's the whole point!

If it were the Minister's intention to enable the developers to build affordable housing, he can say that. But he's said the opposite : he's said that he intends to build thousands of local authority homes via local authorities.

Stop pursuing an ideological line... It's beside the point. The guy failed to answer the question, and it seems that's because he hadn't a clue. Audrey carville had to tell him the answer, and even then, he couldn't stand over it.

This is why Carville is such a marvellous broadcaster. She gets straight to the point, calmly and concisely. With gentle persistence, she draws out any attempt at bluffing, and being unfamiliar with your brief is quickly exposed.

BarryD

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Stop pursuing an ideological line... It's beside the point.

The ideological block seems to be coming from your direction! I'm simply looking at the problem from a common sense point of view. It's going to cost the state (taxpayer) money to solve this problem - how should this money be spent to best effect:

1. Employ large numbers of new local authority staff (public servants) to design local authority housing estates and apartment blocks and to build and maintain these properties.

2. Subsidise private sector builders to do same and tie this subsidy to mixed housing developments where estates are a mix of privately owned (mortgaged) properties and social housing.

If both solutions end up with a supply of social housing (47,000 units) at a similar cost then which is best?

From my common sense taxpaying POV, no 2 is more desirable.

padd b1975

Some manners on Colm O'Gorman.....

The guy has a horrible attitude to anyone that holds an opinion that differs to his own.

BarryD

BarryD wrote: »

The ideological block seems to be coming from your direction! I'm simply looking at the problem from a common sense point of view. It's going to cost the state (taxpayer) money to solve this problem - how should this money be spent to best effect:

1. Employ large numbers of new local authority staff (public servants) to design local authority housing estates and apartment blocks and to build and maintain these properties.

2. Subsidise private sector builders to do same and tie this subsidy to mixed housing developments where estates are a mix of privately owned (mortgaged) properties and social housing.

If both solutions end up with a supply of social housing (47,000 units) at a similar cost then which is best?

From my common sense taxpaying POV, no 2 is more desirable.

How are you not getting this??

It's not about which is right or wrong, it's about what the policy is. The guy wasn't being asked to decide between policies, the policy has already been described by the Minister for the Environment and his Junior Minister, Damian English.

Both ministers have said, before and after this particular interview, that social housing in the amount of 26,000 houses will be built by Government, acting via local authorities, over five years.

This was the answer that Audrey Carville was seeking.

I don't care if it's a good policy or not. The man in charge of it seems to be totally oblivious to the figure. he doesn't seem to know a very basic aspect of the housing strategy, and even when prompted by Carville, he was clueless. That's a problem.

BarryD

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't care if it's a good policy or not. The man in charge of it seems to be totally oblivious to the figure. he doesn't seem to know a very basic aspect of the housing strategy, and even when prompted by Carville, he was clueless. That's a problem.

Well my strong impression from that radio interview was that he didn't want to give a figure for fear of the interview being replayed in years to come. He didn't want to give a specific figure for fear of being held to account for it. Was that not the sense of it?

And why might he not want to give a figure? It seems that many local authorities are not mad about the idea of having to provide social housing or halting sites etc etc.

BarryD

BarryD wrote: »

Well my strong impression from that radio interview was that he didn't want to give a figure for fear of the interview being replayed in years to come. He didn't want to give a specific figure for fear of being held to account for it. Was that not the sense of it?

The Minister had already given a well-publicised figure. He has since repeated it, and so has the Junior Minister in that Department.

I certainly don't see it as a virtue if he was too afraid to give the figure as opposed to simply not being on top of his brief. One is as bad as the other. In fact, refusing to give a figure is probably worse, since it is an act of defiance of one's own boss, and certainly wouldn't be tolerated in another organisation.

BarryD

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The Minister had already given a well-publicised figure. He has since repeated it, and so has the Junior Minister in that Department.

I certainly don't see it as a virtue if he was too afraid to give the figure as opposed to simply not being on top of his brief. One is as bad as the other. In fact, refusing to give a figure is probably worse, since it is an act of defiance of one's own boss, and certainly wouldn't be tolerated in another organisation.

Well then why was the journalist hounding him over the question, if she knew the answer well enough?? To embarrass him?? That'd hardly be very professional, would it?

BarryD

BarryD wrote: »

Well then why was the journalist hounding him over the question, if she knew the answer well enough?? To embarrass him?? That'd hardly be very professional, would it?

In the words of Harper Lee, “Never, never, never, on cross-examination ask a witness a question you don't already know the answer to, was a tenet I absorbed with my baby-food".

Current affairs interviews are games of chess. I assume Carville was going somewhere with her line of questioning, but she was absolutely entitled to push Eugene Cummins when he appeared to be reluctant to give a figure, and to inquire into his reluctance to give a figure.

You can't go on radio without knowing your brief and expect kid-gloves, at least not when you're dealing with a professional broadcaster. You'd probably get away with such amateurism on Sean O'Rourke, as long as you followed it up with a wisecrack, but not with a serious professional such as Carville, Gavin Jennings or Pat Kenny.

BarryD

Ah it's not worth the trouble of typing but if she knew the answer well enough, it was clear he didn't want to give the answer and that's all.

sligojoek

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You can't go on radio without knowing your brief and expect kid-gloves, at least not when you're dealing with a professional broadcaster. You'd probably get away with such amateurism on Sean O'Rourke, as long as you followed it up with a wisecrack, but not with a serious professional such as Carville, Gavin Jennings or Pat Kenny.

About GAA, Golf' Galway or Meath.

Callan57

Pat Hickey waffling .... it's all about money absolutely nothing else matters but the money

lawlolawl

This solicitor guy is great.

Pretty much all of his anecdotes are about women ****ing people out of inheritances. Have this as a weekly segment!

BarryD

€3000 for a family spend for a weekend in Ballymahon site?? Will the ordinary public still be able to visit the area, as they do now I wonder?

honeybear

BarryD wrote: »

€3000 for a family spend for a weekend in Ballymahon site?? Will the ordinary public still be able to visit the area, as they do now I wonder?

Poor Sean nearly had a fit!

BarryD

honeybear wrote: »

Poor Sean nearly had a fit!

He did too! The area is a popular enough spot with local walkers, fishermen and paddlers, I wonder is that potential loss of access the basis of objections?

Does anyone else find Lara Marlow's voice a distraction from what she's saying?

Especially when she over-pronounces French names & places. I speak French, but I don't go around employing the guttural R, telling people about Paʁi, and performing enormous Gallic shrugs. Calm it down, Lara.

L1011

BarryD wrote: »

€3000 for a family spend for a weekend in Ballymahon site?? Will the ordinary public still be able to visit the area, as they do now I wonder?

I've stayed at European Centreparcs and spent nowhere near that. €600 for the housing (6 people - two doubles two singles) for three nights wasn't uncommon and there were a fair few activities free or very very cheap.

UK arm is barely connected anymore so maybe they're really dear and are building the one here. Won't last though.

honeybear

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Does anyone else find Lara Marlow's voice a distraction from what she's saying?

Especially when she over-pronounces French names & places. I speak French, but I don't go around employing the guttural R, telling people about Paʁi, and performing enormous Gallic shrugs. Calm it down, Lara.

I struggled with French in the LC but agree. Maybe it's a language thing. I find the same with Paddy Agnew, corresspondant from Italy. Now he can drawlllllllll

PeterTheNinth

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Does anyone else find Lara Marlow's voice a distraction from what she's saying?

Yeah, my brother is always going on about it, since she's been on the radio so much lately. She sounds likes she's just got out of bed or something. And the WAY over the top French pronunciations, she sounds like Delboy saying "Mange Tou".

IvyTheTerrible

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Yeah, my brother is always going on about it, since she's been on the radio so much lately. She sounds likes she's just got out of bed or something. And the WAY over the top French pronunciations, she sounds like Delboy saying "Mange Tou".

Maybe it's because I live in France but I like that she pronounces French words properly. Drives me up the wall when Irish journalists can pronounce François Hollande 3 different incorrect ways in one item.