Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

christy c · 18-11-2017 10:12pm

tomwaterford wrote: »

Pretty sure the eu only requested payment on taxes due from eu sales??

What oz has to do wit it...Idk? ?

It is what they are...fraudentry playing the system to benefit yourself Is close to cute hoorism definotion yous are likely to get

Cheers for best wishes though

Final reply and them I'm out

Apple sales international had sales from many countries including Oz. The EU's thinking was that this was not taxed correctly in Ireland (which I disagree with) and this amounted to state aid. They therefore did not make a distinction between EU/non EU countries.

Anyway we'll probably both agree that we should have something better to do than argue about tax on a Saturday night!

Good loser · 19-11-2017 1:41am

tomwaterford wrote: »

Ireland was eu hq...money funnelled through here...tax due here

But ya...your honestly going to tell your kids that it's ok yous paying through the nose and those richer can pay less.....logic i can't ever fathom tbh??
In a republic country of equals....rich companies only have to pay a token amount of tax???...in no world is that right

Where are apple going to go in the eu and get away with paying 0.05% tax??. ...this is same logic has rte paying it's "stars" outrageous money.....

You have a very simplistic (and mistaken) understanding of the nuances of the Apple tax situation.

For starters do you know that Apple are the biggest taxpayers in the State as things stand? - they pay about €400 m per annum. As well as employing 6,000 workers in Cork and paying millions in rates to the City Council - my guess is that they are probably the biggest ratepayers in the City.
If you mess around too much with them are you prepared to put these payments (and jobs) at risk? Are you up for that?

See what happened with Apple in Athenry - a €850 million investment was postponed or cancelled because they were mucked about at planning? Was that a good or a bad thing? Varadker went to America to get Cook to commit to the building - and got nowhere! Yet you consider they are in cahoots.

That 0.005% is a rubbish statistic anyway broadcast far and wide by SF and the ignorant. Because taxes are not computed ever on turnover but on profits.

James Brown · 20-11-2017 5:05pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problem with "we can surely find money" is that it's nothing more than hand-wringing, especially in the same thread where property taxes and water charges are denounced as immoral.

There's something depressingly predictable about the whole "it's a disgrace that the government isn't raising someone else's taxes to pay for this problem that I feel strongly about" line of argument.

That's simply Fine Gael protectionism, intended or not.

Frankly, arguing the state hasn't the money for Social housing and lambasting the tax paying public for not supporting Mr. O'Brien's last state sponsored waste of money and time, due to protesters saying there's no money in their pockets, is laughable.
It seems the zero hour contract minimum wage worker has bottomless pockets for scams that make Fine Gael and friends money, but the state is too strapped to do it's job...

Somebody complains about something, they are asked for a solution. They provide a solution, they are asked for costing etc. Meanwhile we spend other money we seemingly don't have on a poor band-aid that fills the pockets of hoteliers/B&B's/landlords, (the real homeless industry).

I am saying we certainly can find the money. We find the money to feed the problem and waste money on a service we shouldn't need except in an emergency, it's even in the name. Emergency accommodation has become so par for the course they've decided to rename it to hide their shame.

You have not answered my question, but responded with Varadkar level spin/bites. It's diversion and deflection. The current state of the housing/homeless crises are being downplayed as they worsen. That's a fact.

Do you believe what the state is currently doing is the best road to follow?

Wringing your hands and saying 'no, but sure what can you do?' as it's made worse and costs spiral, simply isn't good enough. Although it might see Fine Gael through for a while longer and that's the goal after all.

At least if Varadkar had some integrity he'd acknowledge it as a crisis and tackle it accordingly. I expect he's off somewhere giving a speech about eating your vegetables or some other PR jaunt.

FreudianSlippers · 21-11-2017 12:22pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Frankly, arguing the state hasn't the money for Social housing and lambasting the tax paying public for not supporting Mr. O'Brien's last state sponsored waste of money and time, due to protesters saying there's no money in their pockets, is laughable.
It seems the zero hour contract minimum wage worker has bottomless pockets for scams that make Fine Gael and friends money, but the state is too strapped to do it's job...

I don't follow the logic here.

What does the State not having money for social housing have to do with "Mr. O'Brien" or zero hour contracts?

I am saying we certainly can find the money. We find the money to feed the problem and waste money on a service we shouldn't need except in an emergency, it's even in the name. Emergency accommodation has become so par for the course they've decided to rename it to hide their shame.

Ok... where do we find the money?

Idbatterim · 21-11-2017 12:30pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't follow the logic here.

What does the State not having money for social housing have to do with "Mr. O'Brien" or zero hour contracts?

Ok... where do we find the money?

From the hundreds of thousands of low paid contributing a pittance in direct taxes. The world class welfare rates? Hiking the pathetic low rate of lpt? Reintroduce water charges? Hiking motor tax rates on new diesels. Getting rid of the lower vat rate for hospitality would raise 3 odd billion I think I read!! There are some suggestions....

Or did you mean politically palatable for the government suggestions?

In which case short of them striking gold under government buildings etc. Forget it, do the absolute minimum you can get away with is actually how government here operates. Don't expect much to change.

James Brown · 21-11-2017 3:01pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't follow the logic here.

What does the State not having money for social housing have to do with "Mr. O'Brien" or zero hour contracts?

You should read back for context.
The public were criticised for not supporting/being able to afford the double charge for water, which included a fat contract to a non-resident, who doesn't pay for his water at either the front or back end. Yet we are to take on board that the state which also spent millions on consultants for IW and Fine Gael crony appointments, 'we look after our own', in short we are to accept that the government 'can't pay, won't pay' for Social Housing and leave it at that.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ok... where do we find the money?

The same place we fund emergency accommodation, where we got the money for Irish Water consultants? It can be found. They find it every day.

Just because there's less profit for private concerns in social housing than there is in the governments current practice, doesn't mean it's the best deal for the tax payer. With social Housing, we would build housing stock and not be so reliant on the private market, a market which is kept in profit by the tax payer.

As my question has gone unanswered and I've answered yours;
Let's not be distracted, what is so great about the current government, and previous government, overseeing a worsening record breaking homeless crisis that leads you to believe they are on the right track to tackling it?

blanch152 · 21-11-2017 5:51pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's simply Fine Gael protectionism, intended or not.

Frankly, arguing the state hasn't the money for Social housing and lambasting the tax paying public for not supporting Mr. O'Brien's last state sponsored waste of money and time, due to protesters saying there's no money in their pockets, is laughable.
It seems the zero hour contract minimum wage worker has bottomless pockets for scams that make Fine Gael and friends money, but the state is too strapped to do it's job...

Somebody complains about something, they are asked for a solution. They provide a solution, they are asked for costing etc. Meanwhile we spend other money we seemingly don't have on a poor band-aid that fills the pockets of hoteliers/B&B's/landlords, (the real homeless industry).

I am saying we certainly can find the money. We find the money to feed the problem and waste money on a service we shouldn't need except in an emergency, it's even in the name. Emergency accommodation has become so par for the course they've decided to rename it to hide their shame.

You have not answered my question, but responded with Varadkar level spin/bites. It's diversion and deflection. The current state of the housing/homeless crises are being downplayed as they worsen. That's a fact.

Do you believe what the state is currently doing is the best road to follow?

Wringing your hands and saying 'no, but sure what can you do?' as it's made worse and costs spiral, simply isn't good enough. Although it might see Fine Gael through for a while longer and that's the goal after all.

At least if Varadkar had some integrity he'd acknowledge it as a crisis and tackle it accordingly. I expect he's off somewhere giving a speech about eating your vegetables or some other PR jaunt.

This is one of the strangest posts I have read on this forum.

The state doesn't have money or can't make up money. It relies on what it gets in and therefore the state only has the money it can raise from the public.

Therefore, if we increase LPT, a tax on those who own homes, we can raise money for the homeless. Similarly, if we bring in water charges, a charge paid by those who own homes, then we can spend €350m used to prop up Irish Water on social housing.

Otherwise you can't spend money you don't have.

Idbatterim · 21-11-2017 6:14pm

blanch152 wrote: »

This is one of the strangest posts I have read on this forum.

The state doesn't have money or can't make up money. It relies on what it gets in and therefore the state only has the money it can raise from the public.

Therefore, if we increase LPT, a tax on those who own homes, we can raise money for the homeless. Similarly, if we bring in water charges, a charge paid by those who own homes, then we can spend €350m used to prop up Irish Water on social housing.

Otherwise you can't spend money you don't have.

I agree! who in gods name comes up with the budget every year, our useless government! Its based on decades of banana republic electioneering! They have declared emergency budgets not long ago, I suggest they do the same soon!

We wait one year for them to barely tinker around the edges when drastic intervention is required and we wonder why things are getting worse!

James Brown · 21-11-2017 6:40pm

blanch152 wrote: »

This is one of the strangest posts I have read on this forum.

The state doesn't have money or can't make up money. It relies on what it gets in and therefore the state only has the money it can raise from the public.

Therefore, if we increase LPT, a tax on those who own homes, we can raise money for the homeless. Similarly, if we bring in water charges, a charge paid by those who own homes, then we can spend €350m used to prop up Irish Water on social housing.

Otherwise you can't spend money you don't have.

But we do. Emergency accommodation costs on a daily basis, 55k per year for some families, and soon after the last crash we found around 86m for consultants on IW.
So the state can find it if it wants to.
This is all an aside to the main question;
Do you believe paying out for emergency accommodation and rent subsidies is better value to the tax payer than funding social housing? Do you feel the current ongoing 'tactics' of the state are the way to go, given the crisis, (Varadkar's spin aside) gets worse and worse?

Idbatterim · 21-11-2017 7:44pm

" we dont have the money" note how they pull at least a billion out of their ass every year come election time, more in an election year... That isnt a one off billions, that billion is an extra billion every year going forward :mad::rolleyes:

blanch152 · 21-11-2017 7:45pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

But we do. Emergency accommodation costs on a daily basis, 55k per year for some families, and soon after the last crash we found around 86m for consultants on IW.
So the state can find it if it wants to.

There isn't a sofa in Government buildings with money stuffed down it.

You have to cut one item of expenditure in order to spend the money on something else. Your suggestion seems to be stop spending money on emergency accommodation and let families sleep in the streets while they wait for housing to be built - madness!!

You other idea - 86m on consultants just shows a lack of understanding of public budgeting. That money is spent and was reallocated to something else the next year - it isn't there anymore.

The only fair way to pay for housing the homeless is to tax those who already have homes through LPT and water charges. It is an absolute disgrace that the Dublin councils have cut LPT when they need the money.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is all an aside to the main question;
Do you believe paying out for emergency accommodation and rent subsidies is better value to the tax payer than funding social housing? Do you feel the current ongoing 'tactics' of the state are the way to go, given the crisis, (Varadkar's spin aside) gets worse and worse?

No, as I point out above, it is absolute madness that the Dublin councils have cut LPT when they need so much money for housing. Each and every one of the councillors who voted for that should be thrown out on their ear come local election time.

Where FG are letting the country down is in postponing a revaluation for LPT. Rather than putting it off for a few more years, they should backdate an increase to 1 January 2016 and collect the money and use it for housing.

FrancieBrady · 21-11-2017 8:30pm

Leo presiding over the continuing disgraceful incompetent handling of the McCabe issue and the Gardai.

His Tainiste facing another grilling tonight over it.

James Brown · 21-11-2017 8:44pm

blanch152 wrote: »

There isn't a sofa in Government buildings with money stuffed down it.

Is that were it gets the money for emergency accommodation? Must be a big sofa be god.

blanch152 wrote: »

You have to cut one item of expenditure in order to spend the money on something else. Your suggestion seems to be stop spending money on emergency accommodation and let families sleep in the streets while they wait for housing to be built - madness!!

What did we cut for IW consultants? Did we do without water until we had metering in place?
No. It is that Social Housing would be a better plan than emergency accommodation and rent subsidies.

blanch152 wrote: »

You other idea - 86m on consultants just shows a lack of understanding of public budgeting. That money is spent and was reallocated to something else the next year - it isn't there anymore.

You are fudging to suit. Did I say we could re-use money spent?
My point was we found money for consultants at a time when, if Fine Gael are to be believed at all, the economy was way worse than it is now.

blanch152 wrote: »

The only fair way to pay for housing the homeless is to tax those who already have homes through LPT and water charges. It is an absolute disgrace that the Dublin councils have cut LPT when they need the money.

We all want to concentrate on Sinn Fein led LA's, (the blaggards).... However, my point, all along, was Varadkar downplayed the housing crisis and has not made any move to tackle it other than more of the same tack that has seen it get worse.

blanch152 wrote: »

No, as I point out above, it is absolute madness that the Dublin councils have cut LPT when they need so much money for housing. Each and every one of the councillors who voted for that should be thrown out on their ear come local election time.

Where FG are letting the country down is in postponing a revaluation for LPT. Rather than putting it off for a few more years, they should backdate an increase to 1 January 2016 and collect the money and use it for housing.

You want to discuss LPT. That's fine.
Seems we are in agreement. Social housing is the way to go and why aren't Fine Gael addressing it? We are debating how to fund it. That's progress. For a minute there I thought people were jumping on me for criticising Fine Gael.

I see Varadkar is now suggesting he misheard the question:

She had asked the Taoiseach about Ireland having one of the highest homelessness figures “to date”.

"The question as I understood it was, and I think… if I’m quoting correctly, was that homelessness in Ireland was one of the highest, and I understood that to mean one of the highest in an international context.
Perhaps that wasn’t the question. But it’s not for me to explain what someone’s question was, I can only explain the answer and defend the answers that I give."

http://www.thejournal.ie/taoiseach-homelessness-international-figures-3706599-Nov2017/

He's some chancer

oscarBravo · 21-11-2017 9:02pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you believe paying out for emergency accommodation and rent subsidies is better value to the tax payer than funding social housing?

There's something shockingly dishonest about the way you keep presenting this as a dichotomy. You first tried to present it as one when asked how you would fund social housing, and you said you would do so by not paying for emergency accommodation.

Now you're doing it again: you're demanding that people answer the disingenuous question - and that's being kind - as to whether it's better to pay for emergency accommodation or social housing.

So, make up your mind: do you want the government to stop paying for emergency accommodation in order to pay for social housing? Because, if that's not what you want, then stop asking other people to make a decision in your false dichotomy.

It's a bit like the poster who was determined to believe that the government couldn't be bothered collecting tax, and that this made more sense than the suggestion that the government didn't think it was owed the tax: you're trying to argue that the government is paying for emergency accommodation because they think it's good value for money, as opposed to the much saner explanation that the government is paying for emergency accommodation because a short term solution is needed while longer-term solutions are put in place.

But hey: in a thread about what a disgrace the government is, I guess bitching about the government is more important than actually bothering to make any sense.

James Brown · 21-11-2017 9:29pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's something shockingly dishonest about the way you keep presenting this as a dichotomy. You first tried to present it as one when asked how you would fund social housing, and you said you would do so by not paying for emergency accommodation.

Incorrect.
Money spent on Emergency accommodation would be better spent on social housing. You inferred I meant stopping one to fund the other. Ideally over time, little to no emergency accommodation would be the goal.

Now you're doing it again: you're demanding that people answer the disingenuous question - and that's being kind - as to whether it's better to pay for emergency accommodation or social housing.

The question being, why aren't we building social housing? Rather than continuing to pay for emergency accommodation.

So, make up your mind: do you want the government to stop paying for emergency accommodation in order to pay for social housing? Because, if that's not what you want, then stop asking other people to make a decision in your false dichotomy.

You've not been paying attention. We seemingly don't have/can't get the money. I was suggesting if we can finance Emergency accommodation, which is dead money, although for a 'service' it's dead money considering we could be spending on building housing stock, with houses to show for it. I can't help but feel you are being pedantic to further some crusade, what ever that may be.
If you go back to the question I put to you earlier;

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you believe what the state is currently doing is the best road to follow?

All I've been suggesting all along is that social housing is a better deal for the tax payer than what Fine Gael have been implementing, as we watch the crisis get worse and worse. It was a response to 'what would I do?' which was followed by 'where would the money come from?' There is nothing nefarious in it.

It's a bit like the poster who was determined to believe that the government couldn't be bothered collecting tax, and that this made more sense than the suggestion that the government didn't think it was owed the tax: you're trying to argue that the government is paying for emergency accommodation because they think it's good value for money, as opposed to the much saner explanation that the government is paying for emergency accommodation because a short term solution is needed while longer-term solutions are put in place.

Incorrect. I am stating it's not value for money. I am stating the crisis is feeding it and the tax payer treated like a bottomless pocket. I am inferring that Fine Gael are happy with things as is. Never did I state they thought it was value for money. In fact the whole discussion relied upon the waste of the 'service' over social housing.

But hey: in a thread about what a disgrace the government is, I guess bitching about the government is more important than actually bothering to make any sense.

Sorry, that's based on your incorrect assumptions and musing.
The thread is based upon Varadkar giving a false incorrect answer to a question he wasn't asked. It's about downplaying a national crisis and my being decent enough to answer questions as best I can based on my opinion as laid out. Your criticisms have added nothing.

McMurphy · 21-11-2017 10:06pm

So, make up your mind: do you want the government to stop paying for emergency accommodation in order to pay for social housing? Because, if that's not what you want, then stop asking other people to make a decision in your false dichotomy.

Yes.

Though I don't believe anyone anywhere was insisting the govt did both things, completely - and at the same time.

A gradual transition.

I find it hard to believe that anyone in this thread misconstrued his post (or any one else that suggested it) that they suggested a complete cessation to emergency accommodation funding.

oscarBravo · 21-11-2017 10:13pm

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Yes.

Though I don't believe anyone anywhere was insisting the govt did both things, completely - and at the same time.

A gradual transition.

Fine. When you find evidence that the government plans not to gradually transition from paying for emergency accommodation to paying for social housing, I'll no longer consider it a stupid question.

McMurphy · 21-11-2017 10:23pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fine. When you find evidence that the government plans not to gradually transition from paying for emergency accommodation to paying for social housing, I'll no longer consider it a stupid question.

Did you just assume that the poster was advocating the immediate transition from one to the other, because that's how I read your post.

Or where you deliberately misconstruing the question?

oscarBravo · 21-11-2017 10:52pm

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Did you just assume that the poster was advocating the immediate transition from one to the other, because that's how I read your post.

Or where you deliberately misconstruing the question?

It's a stupid question. Nobody thinks paying for emergency accommodation is better value for money than investing is social housing. The government isn't paying for emergency accommodation because it's good value for money; it's paying for emergency accommodation because that's what's needed right now.

The false dichotomy is informed by the ridiculous idea that the government would rather pay for emergency accommodation than social housing, which is an idea informed by nothing other than the premise of this thread: that the government is a disgrace, therefore rabble rabble.

Idbatterim · 21-11-2017 10:55pm

"There isn't a sofa in Government buildings with money stuffed down it.

You have to cut one item of expenditure in order to spend the money on something else. Your suggestion seems to be stop spending money on emergency accommodation and let families sleep in the streets while they wait for housing to be built - madness!!"

No you don't. You can raise more through increased tax or cuts in spending. Or simply stop sending up hundreds of millions in smoke at election time!!!

oscarBravo · 21-11-2017 10:57pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

You can raise more through increased tax...

Sure - as long as it's someone else's taxes that are raised.

blanch152 · 21-11-2017 11:14pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is that were it gets the money for emergency accommodation? Must be a big sofa be god.

What did we cut for IW consultants? Did we do without water until we had metering in place?
No. It is that Social Housing would be a better plan than emergency accommodation and rent subsidies.

You are fudging to suit. Did I say we could re-use money spent?
My point was we found money for consultants at a time when, if Fine Gael are to be believed at all, the economy was way worse than it is now.

We all want to concentrate on Sinn Fein led LA's, (the blaggards).... However, my point, all along, was Varadkar downplayed the housing crisis and has not made any move to tackle it other than more of the same tack that has seen it get worse.

You want to discuss LPT. That's fine.
Seems we are in agreement. Social housing is the way to go and why aren't Fine Gael addressing it? We are debating how to fund it. That's progress. For a minute there I thought people were jumping on me for criticising Fine Gael.

I see Varadkar is now suggesting he misheard the question:

He's some chancer

More absolute nonsense.

You seem to believe that because the government found some money one time for one thing, that means they can just magic up some money anytime for your favourite project.

As for the Council reference, it isn't just Sinn Fein, it is a whole bunch of so-called left-wing councillors who are doing everything in their power from cutting LPT to bringing in development plans that don't allow for high-density housing in order to ensure that the homeless are left on the street. Absolutely disgusting hypocrisy from them.

Idbatterim · 21-11-2017 11:34pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure - as long as it's someone else's taxes that are raised.

Laughable. You can't raise the the pathetic lpt. The minuscule joke that hundreds of thousands of low paid workers pay in direct taxes (which is far less than other countries). Have you noticed the hospitality industry are creaming it back in? I think adjusting it back to the old rate would raise 3 billlion odd. and if you fancy a dick measuring contest you can come back to me when your efforts contribute 50,000k a year or thereabouts to revenue! Is that enough for me to have an opinion ? I know exactly who is getting done here and who isn't. The highish and high earners here are bent over backwards to the benefit of everyone else! That's politics. Not about fairness, they just make up probably a single digit percentage of the electorate.

They should be working on reducing the cost of living particularly on housing. Taking more out of the tax net is madness. It also makes very little difference to people's income, they pay in virtually nothing anyway...

Also you'll probably find it hard to believe that someone running a business doesn't support fg. Or no longer does. They are a disgrace. I cannot believe how bad the housing crisis in Dublin is , a recent staff member who moved here recently , living on a couch for the last two months said he would never have moved here if he knew how bad it would be. I've mates on 45 k or thereabouts living at home as it's better than the alternatives. Ie paying e1500 ex bills a month to live on your own in an average area in an average apartment. They don't give a **** local and national government, because they themselves their family and cronies aren't dealing with the effects of it.

Third world transport system. Appalling planning practices. You could write a book on it. We are twenty years behind Europe minimum in certain areas.

Good loser · 22-11-2017 2:03am

Idbatterim wrote: »

Laughable. You can't raise the the pathetic lpt. The minuscule joke that hundreds of thousands of low paid workers pay in direct taxes (which is far less than other countries). Have you noticed the hospitality industry are creaming it back in? I think adjusting it back to the old rate would raise 3 billlion odd. and if you fancy a dick measuring contest you can come back to me when your efforts contribute 50,000k a year or thereabouts to revenue! Is that enough for me to have an opinion ? I know exactly who is getting done here and who isn't. The highish and high earners here are bent over backwards to the benefit of everyone else! That's politics. Not about fairness, they just make up probably a single digit percentage of the electorate.

They should be working on reducing the cost of living particularly on housing. Taking more out of the tax net is madness. It also makes very little difference to people's income, they pay in virtually nothing anyway...

Also you'll probably find it hard to believe that someone running a business doesn't support fg. Or no longer does. They are a disgrace. I cannot believe how bad the housing crisis in Dublin is , a recent staff member who moved here recently , living on a couch for the last two months said he would never have moved here if he knew how bad it would be. I've mates on 45 k or thereabouts living at home as it's better than the alternatives. Ie paying e1500 ex bills a month to live on your own in an average area in an average apartment. They don't give a **** local and national government, because they themselves their family and cronies aren't dealing with the effects of it.

Third world transport system. Appalling planning practices. You could write a book on it. We are twenty years behind Europe minimum in certain areas.

There are plenty houses in Dublin to rent at 2k to 3k per annum.
Shared between 4 that's €500 to €750 per month each.

Good loser · 22-11-2017 2:15am

blanch152 wrote: »

More absolute nonsense.

You seem to believe that because the government found some money one time for one thing, that means they can just magic up some money anytime for your favourite project.

As for the Council reference, it isn't just Sinn Fein, it is a whole bunch of so-called left-wing councillors who are doing everything in their power from cutting LPT to bringing in development plans that don't allow for high-density housing in order to ensure that the homeless are left on the street. Absolutely disgusting hypocrisy from them.

Excellent post.

Anybody who supports the abolition of water charges has no moral authority to criticise the spend on housing by the Govt.

As J Ganesh said in today's IT 'When easy sounding ideas (in politics) do not happen, it is because they are not easy'.

Paraphrasing him 'Varadkar's critics are not knaves, they are just wafflers'.

FreudianSlippers · 22-11-2017 2:10pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't follow the logic here.

What does the State not having money for social housing have to do with "Mr. O'Brien" or zero hour contracts?

You should read back for context.
The public were criticised for not supporting/being able to afford the double charge for water, which included a fat contract to a non-resident, who doesn't pay for his water at either the front or back end. Yet we are to take on board that the state which also spent millions on consultants for IW and Fine Gael crony appointments, 'we look after our own', in short we are to accept that the government 'can't pay, won't pay' for Social Housing and leave it at that.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ok... where do we find the money?

The same place we fund emergency accommodation, where we got the money for Irish Water consultants? It can be found. They find it every day.

Just because there's less profit for private concerns in social housing than there is in the governments current practice, doesn't mean it's the best deal for the tax payer. With social Housing, we would build housing stock and not be so reliant on the private market, a market which is kept in profit by the tax payer.

As my question has gone unanswered and I've answered yours;
Let's not be distracted, what is so great about the current government, and previous government, overseeing a worsening record breaking homeless crisis that leads you to believe they are on the right track to tackling it?

But you haven't actually answered my question; you've engaged in vague whataboutery without actually addressing the issue that this money doesn't exist.

As an aside, I have seen no evidence to support that this is "record breaking" homeless crisis at all.

TheDoc · 22-11-2017 2:16pm

Don't know how people keep falling for it, I guess it's the desperation for an actual functioning leader or functioning government.

When he came on the scene, seemed to be pretty modern and I liked his directness and no bull**** on certain things, but then you quickly realise he's just another TD and politician that sounds great in opposition, where its easy, to then become a bit of a bluffer and spoof when it comes to actually taking action and making the hard decisions. Kenny was the same, as have so many.

Been a general sad state of affairs for so long now. I tend to just look after me and my own, and roll my eyes or just tut at the general state of our politics and politicians.

22-11-2017 2:23pm

TheDoc wrote: »

I tend to just look after me and my own, and roll my eyes or just tut at the general state of our politics and politicians.

Id say you are the average regular voter.

James Brown · 22-11-2017 2:38pm

blanch152 wrote: »

More absolute nonsense.

You seem to believe that because the government found some money one time for one thing, that means they can just magic up some money anytime for your favourite project.
....

Your post relies on your assumption.
It can't be any more plain. We were in the throws of a financial crisis and the government had the money for consultants etc. and a dubious metering contract. The point is they seem to have access to money for projects that interest them.
'Can't pay, won't pay' doesn't cut it.

**************

The goal posts are spinning here. When the current policy of using 'emergency' accommodation, renaming it 'family hubs' in a PR effort to normalise it, six or seven years of the same policies towards the crisis, the crisis breaking records ongoing, Varadkar downplaying it with the answer to a question he wasn't asked to put a spin on it; it is quite obvious Fine Gael are not planning on changing direction anytime soon.
Suggesting Social housing is the way to go, is just that.
I believe it is the best option for the tax payer. I know on the surface it upsets some and looks like freebies etc. but we would have housing stock to show. Currently we are spending money to try stem an ever growing tide not to mention cost.
It is not genuine to suggest Fine Gael are obviously, any minute now, going to move away from dependence on emergency accommodation. Ramping up policies they've already been following, looking to the private market, will continue to allow them preside over a worsening crisis, but the right people will continue to make money until we see another crash. I say that because it's the only logic I can see in continuing as they seem set to do.

Idbatterim · 22-11-2017 4:49pm

Good loser wrote: »

Excellent post.

Anybody who supports the abolition of water charges has no moral authority to criticise the spend on housing by the Govt.

As J Ganesh said in today's IT 'When easy sounding ideas (in politics) do not happen, it is because they are not easy'.

Paraphrasing him 'Varadkar's critics are not knaves, they are just wafflers'.

First of all I agree about the water charges! I am not talking about radical reform of welfare or hauling hundreds of thousands back into the tax net! I am talking about what would actually be feasible politically to start making inroads into far more urgent and worthy areas. You are telling me that simply not hiking JSA or JSB each budget is drastic, that not taking more workers out is drastic? nothing should be tinkered with, regards LPT either, all they have to do there, is done nothing and it will generate hundreds of millions more, WOW how drastic! That allowing higher density in dublin for more hotel rooms etc to increase supply and reduce prices for tourists, so that the hospitality rate could be increased back to 13.5% or whatever it was to raise several billion? You dont think thats relatively easy?

The wafflers are in leinster house and the local authorities! But if they i.e. the government think they can solve things problems while doing virtually nothing to change the situation, as is the case. They are even bigger idiots than I already give them credit for!

Your post relies on your assumption.
It can't be any more plain. We were in the throws of a financial crisis and the government had the money for consultants etc. and a dubious metering contract. The point is they seem to have access to money for projects that interest them.
'Can't pay, won't pay' doesn't cut it.

100% look at the bank guarantee as just an example of what they can pull out of their ass when needs be, tens of billions guaranteed if I am not mistaken.The same every budget and particularly in election years. It is as you say Matt, a matter of will and priority for them... Actions speak louder than words!

I am assuming the people defending the clowns in leinster house own their own property or are not in Dublin, because you would feel very different if you were!

blanch152 · 22-11-2017 5:02pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Your post relies on your assumption.
It can't be any more plain. We were in the throws of a financial crisis and the government had the money for consultants etc. and a dubious metering contract. The point is they seem to have access to money for projects that interest them.
'Can't pay, won't pay' doesn't cut it.

**************

The goal posts are spinning here. When the current policy of using 'emergency' accommodation, renaming it 'family hubs' in a PR effort to normalise it, six or seven years of the same policies towards the crisis, the crisis breaking records ongoing, Varadkar downplaying it with the answer to a question he wasn't asked to put a spin on it; it is quite obvious Fine Gael are not planning on changing direction anytime soon.
Suggesting Social housing is the way to go, is just that.
I believe it is the best option for the tax payer. I know on the surface it upsets some and looks like freebies etc. but we would have housing stock to show. Currently we are spending money to try stem an ever growing tide not to mention cost.
It is not genuine to suggest Fine Gael are obviously, any minute now, going to move away from dependence on emergency accommodation. Ramping up policies they've already been following, looking to the private market, will continue to allow them preside over a worsening crisis, but the right people will continue to make money until we see another crash. I say that because it's the only logic I can see in continuing as they seem set to do.

"They seem to have access"

That is a load of rubbish. All of that money was budgeted for in the annual budget, taxes were designated to fund it, allocations were made to government departments to spend it, all part of the normal annual budgeting process.

If you want to spend money on building public housing (which I haven't opposed), then you need to raise that money from taxes or cut something else. You appear to think money can be conjured out of nowhere - the fabled magic money tree, while I prefer to focus on LPT and other measures.

Chips Lovell · 22-11-2017 5:33pm

It's probably worth looking at the numbers to get some perspective.

There's now 91,600 people on waiting lists for local authority housing. That's up 1,728 (around 2 percent form three years ago).

But the big issue is that there's now around 7,000 people officially classed as homeless, with around 4,500 of them in emergency accommodation. We're housing people at a rate of around 5,000 per annum but that means people are being made homeless faster than we can house them by around 2,000 per annum.

So the main priority is getting that number down to more acceptable levels.

According to the National Housing Agency we need a minimum of 81,118 homes to be built annually between 2016 – 2020.

The government's latest promise is that 25,000 houses would be built in both the public and private sector next year, 4,000 of which would be directly built by local authorities.

That's kind of in the ballpark, assuming the government is right in it's projections and the NHA is right in its estimates.

All of this stems from house building, both private and public, pretty much grinding to a halt after the property crash. Before the crash we were building around 5,000 local authority houses a year. Last year we built 638. It's a case of not only getting back up to speed but also making up years of non-activity.

Idbatterim · 22-11-2017 5:39pm

It's probably worth looking at the numbers to get some perspective.

There's now 91,600 people on waiting lists for local authority housing. That's up 1,728 (around 2 percent form three years ago).

the waiting list is one thing, people on ok to good incomes struggling to get anywhere in dublin is a bigger scandal in my opinion! The government can change this pretty quickly if they wanted too and it would cost nothing to change regulations, as they are allegedly going, in fact it will raise revenue! lets see what they come up with!

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/dubliners-spend-55-of-take-home-pay-on-rent-1.3267093

Chips Lovell · 22-11-2017 5:46pm

Every few years, the government is required to do a Housing Needs Assessment, which is basically a tally of all the local authority housing waiting lists. Here's all the recent ones:

1993 - 28,200
1996 - 27,427
1999 - 39,176
2002 - 48,413
2005 - 42,946
2008 - 56,249
2011 - 98,318
2013 - 89,872
2016 - 91,600

The real jump came in 2011 and you may have been able to predict a crisis would happen if the economy picked up but construction didn't.

James Brown · 22-11-2017 5:49pm

blanch152 wrote: »

"They seem to have access"

That is a load of rubbish. All of that money was budgeted for in the annual budget, taxes were designated to fund it, allocations were made to government departments to spend it, all part of the normal annual budgeting process.

If you want to spend money on building public housing (which I haven't opposed), then you need to raise that money from taxes or cut something else. You appear to think money can be conjured out of nowhere - the fabled magic money tree, while I prefer to focus on LPT and other measures.

I was attempting not to use the term 'they can find' again, lest we have more magic money tree, sofa analogies. Seems 'seems' won't cut it either.
They can appropriate? get? have access to? funds at will when it's of interest.
You are quite mistaken. I think Fine Gael/Labour would disagree that 86m for consultants was planned. If it were, they certainly kept that quiet. The inference that IW couldn't support itself financially even with 100% compliance aside.

The premise being put forward by some is that relying on the private market with emergency accommodation, tax payer subsidies and grants is a stop gap emergency footing. It certainly does not look that way.

As regards LPT, I've already said I'm against it. On second homes or investment properties I believe in this crisis, people should be hammered with tax. Property speculators should be discouraged until the crisis lessens.

You appear to think money can be conjured out of nowhere - the fabled magic money tree, while I prefer to focus on LPT and other measures.

Can you quit this repeated codology? The state has money we don't have to feed the growing crises. We can put some of that financial MacGyverism towards Social Housing. The point is, the government like things as is, IMO.

If I were to suggest to you, put all the homeless families up in B&B's and Hotels, you might ask, 'where would we find the money?' A fair question.
It seems when benefiting private concerns we have all the money in the world, but when looking to assist the public, because there's little private profit in it, some talk of sofa's and magic money trees.

Let's not forget, Fine Gael aren't even talking or seemingly planning Social housing builds on any meaningful effective level, let alone taking the homeless crisis seriously.

oscarBravo · 22-11-2017 6:22pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The point is, the government like things as is, IMO.

That's a bizarre charge. What evidence do you have that the government likes having a homelessness crisis?

Or is this one of those "I don't need evidence, I have an opinion" posts?

22-11-2017 6:28pm

There’s a housing crisis in the UK too. One contributor to a debate on BBC says that the Government can promise any number of homes, but delivering them is a different story. It’s the same here. A proposed development in Dublin met with massive opposition from residents. Even the Socialist party (or whatever they’re calling themselves today) voted against another development recently because it wasn’t big enough! Planning is a minefield. Whatever about finding the money and land.

Obvious Otter · 22-11-2017 6:30pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It's probably worth looking at the numbers to get some perspective.

There's now 91,600 people on waiting lists for local authority housing. That's up 1,728 (around 2 percent form three years ago).

But the big issue is that there's now around 7,000 people officially classed as homeless, with around 4,500 of them in emergency accommodation. We're housing people at a rate of around 5,000 per annum but that means people are being made homeless faster than we can house them by around 2,000 per annum.

So the main priority is getting that number down to more acceptable levels.

According to the National Housing Agency we need a minimum of 81,118 homes to be built annually between 2016 – 2020.

The government's latest promise is that 25,000 houses would be built in both the public and private sector next year, 4,000 of which would be directly built by local authorities.

That's kind of in the ballpark, assuming the government is right in it's projections and the NHA is right in its estimates.

All of this stems from house building, both private and public, pretty much grinding to a halt after the property crash. Before the crash we were building around 5,000 local authority houses a year. Last year we built 638. It's a case of not only getting back up to speed but also making up years of non-activity.

The government can’t just build all these social houses. We just couldn’t pay for it. The government isn’t going to increase income tax or corporation tax so how exactly can the government afford to subsidise housing for so many people on a massive scale? The housing problem was caused by really poor regulation and still the government expects the private sector to build houses that people can’t afford to buy to an extremely high standard. The Irish electorate need to get real if we are to deal with this crisis.

James Brown · 22-11-2017 6:35pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a bizarre charge. What evidence do you have that the government likes having a homelessness crisis?

No, same sentiment as before. What's bizzare is you adding your own spin.
The record breaking emergency accommodation / homeless crisis and Varadkar ramping up on the same policies of Kenny's time. Either they like things as is or they are incompetent.

Or is this one of those "I don't need evidence, I have an opinion" posts?

Great input.

blanch152 · 22-11-2017 7:08pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I was attempting not to use the term 'they can find' again, lest we have more magic money tree, sofa analogies. Seems 'seems' won't cut it either.
They can appropriate? get? have access to? funds at will when it's of interest.
You are quite mistaken. I think Fine Gael/Labour would disagree that 86m for consultants was planned. If it were, they certainly kept that quiet. The inference that IW couldn't support itself financially even with 100% compliance aside.

I don't want to go over and over this again. However, the simple fact of the matter is that the relevant budget set aside money for the setting up of Irish Water. That included the cost of the consultants. It was voted through by the Dail.

The faux outrage came later.

So the same applies here, you either have to cut some other expenditure or raise some other tax, the budget has been agreed out to end-2018. There is a certain amount of fiscal space uncommitted for 2019.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The premise being put forward by some is that relying on the private market with emergency accommodation, tax payer subsidies and grants is a stop gap emergency footing. It certainly does not look that way.

I don't get what you are saying here. Emergency accommodation will always be needed because we don't have (and we will never have) a supply of empty houses sitting waiting for the next person that becomes homeless.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As regards LPT, I've already said I'm against it. On second homes or investment properties I believe in this crisis, people should be hammered with tax. Property speculators should be discouraged until the crisis lessens.

Fine, you are a right-wing conservative, opposing taxes on property. I can accept that.

I happen to be a traditional European left-of-centre social democrat with a green tinge who favours taxes on property and usage charges over income tax and would like more done on climate change.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Can you quit this repeated codology? The state has money we don't have to feed the growing crises. We can put some of that financial MacGyverism towards Social Housing. The point is, the government like things as is, IMO.

If I were to suggest to you, put all the homeless families up in B&B's and Hotels, you might ask, 'where would we find the money?' A fair question.
It seems when benefiting private concerns we have all the money in the world, but when looking to assist the public, because there's little private profit in it, some talk of sofa's and magic money trees.

Let's not forget, Fine Gael aren't even talking or seemingly planning Social housing builds on any meaningful effective level, let alone taking the homeless crisis seriously.

The repeated codology is that the state just has money lying around waiting to be spent. Do you think they can just print new Euro notes?

James Brown · 22-11-2017 7:19pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't want to go over and over this again. However, the simple fact of the matter is that the relevant budget set aside money for the setting up of Irish Water. That included the cost of the consultants. It was voted through by the Dail.

The faux outrage came later.

So the same applies here, you either have to cut some other expenditure or raise some other tax, the budget has been agreed out to end-2018. There is a certain amount of fiscal space uncommitted for 2019.

I don't get what you are saying here. Emergency accommodation will always be needed because we don't have (and we will never have) a supply of empty houses sitting waiting for the next person that becomes homeless.

Fine, you are a right-wing conservative, opposing taxes on property. I can accept that.

I happen to be a traditional European left-of-centre social democrat with a green tinge who favours taxes on property and usage charges over income tax and would like more done on climate change.

The repeated codology is that the state just has money lying around waiting to be spent. Do you think they can just print new Euro notes?

Your belief people pretended to be outraged is risible.
They generated money for a project. They can do so when it suits.

Emergency accommodation, like homelessness will always be with us. Fine Gael are not effectively working towards making society less reliant on it. That's what I am saying.

You keep inferring I think money is etc. etc. I don't know where Noonan found the money to cut O'Brien a good deal on Siteserv, (sorry Noonan's department, Noonan said he knew nothing). I don't know where the money came from to 'look after our own' by appointing a car driver to the board of IW. Again, they can put the money together if they want to. They don't seem to want to. Money is not the problem, will is.

They would rather play down the crisis than lose profits for the homeless industry, (Hotels/B&B's/grants etc.).

oscarBravo · 22-11-2017 7:24pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No, same sentiment as before. What's bizzare is you adding your own spin.

I don't think you know what "spin" means.

The record breaking emergency accommodation / homeless crisis and Varadkar ramping up on the same policies of Kenny's time. Either they like things as is or they are incompetent.

Well, we'll allow for incompetence as a real possibility. But it's awfully easy to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about what a terrible job other people are doing when there's no pressure on you to solve the same problems.

But the two explanations you've offered are not the only possibilities. I suppose I should be grateful that you've opened your mind to a possibility other than the single ridiculous one you started off with, but why not keep going? Is it possible that the government is trying its best to address an extremely complicated problem with limited resources? Or does that veer too far from your narrative?

Great input.

It could be worse. I could have said something ridiculous about how the government enjoys having a homelessness crisis.

blanch152 · 22-11-2017 7:24pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Your belief people pretended to be outraged is risible.
They generated money for a project. They can do so when it suits.

Emergency accommodation, like homelessness will always be with us. Fine Gael are not effectively working towards making society less reliant on it. That's what I am saying.

You keep inferring I think money is etc. etc. I don't know where Noonan found the money to cut O'Brien a good deal on Siteserv, (sorry Noonan's department, Noonan said he knew nothing). I don't know where the money came from to 'look after our own' by appointing a car driver to the board of IW. Again, they can put the money together if they want to. They don't seem to want to. Money is not the problem, will is.

They would rather play down the crisis than lose profits for the homeless industry, (Hotels/B&B's/grants etc.).

Noonan didn't cut a deal on Siteserv, NAMA did!!! Nama was financed and budgeted for in a particular way and will make a profit by the time it is wound up.

There was a vacancy on the board of IW, who fills it is immaterial, it was funded already!!!!!

You really have no grasp of how government finances work.

James Brown · 22-11-2017 7:36pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't think you know what "spin" means. Well, we'll allow for incompetence as a real possibility. But it's awfully easy to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about what a terrible job other people are doing when there's no pressure on you to solve the same problems.

But the two explanations you've offered are not the only possibilities. I suppose I should be grateful that you've opened your mind to a possibility other than the single ridiculous one you started off with, but why not keep going? Is it possible that the government is trying its best to address an extremely complicated problem with limited resources? Or does that veer too far from your narrative? It could be worse. I could have said something ridiculous about how the government enjoys having a homelessness crisis.

I didn't stand for political office.
It is my right to complain if I believe the government are doing a piss poor job at governing. I know FG don't take criticism well, but that's the job they chose. Trying to silence criticism from behind a keyboard is pitiful.
As regards spin, like Varadkar, you are constantly attempting to take the discussion off road. It is not believable that the government is trying it's best. I do not believe they are that stupid. I do however believe private profit is more of a driving force for them. Hence their willing reliance on the private market.

If you truly believe they might be trying their best, (difficult to pin you to a position) you must be very disappointed with them.
Have you an idea as to how we might proceed, or is that me being all Machiavellian by posing a direct question?

I'll give you 'bizarre'; criticising without taking a stand of your own or adding any input. Neither supporting nor criticising the government. Fancy footwork.

However it's spun, the crisis gets worse and emergency accommodation requirements grow and Varadkar is content to downplay.

oscarBravo · 22-11-2017 8:08pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It is my right to complain if I believe the government are doing a piss poor job at governing. I know FG don't take criticism well, but that's the job they chose. Trying to silence criticism from behind a keyboard is pitiful.

Who's trying to silence you? I'm taking issue with some of your dafter claims. You have a right to complain, but you don't have a right to have your complaints uncritically accepted.

It is not believable that the government is trying it's best. I do not believe they are that stupid. I do however believe private profit is more of a driving force for them. Hence their willing reliance on the private market.

The claim of yours that I took issue with is that the government is happy with the current situation. You can try to wriggle away from that one to your heart's content, but it's like the other claim that Revenue couldn't be bothered to collect taxes: far-fetched.

If you truly believe they might be trying their best, (difficult to pin you to a position) you must be very disappointed with them.
Have you an idea as to how we might proceed, or is that me being all Machiavellian by posing a direct question?

I think the government is doing what it thinks is best while balancing competing interests. I think the balance that's found will always be open to criticism, because different people will perceive the balance differently.

I'll give you 'bizarre'; criticising without taking a stand of your own or adding any input. Neither supporting nor criticising the government. Fancy footwork.

I have no problem with criticising the government. I just think that criticism should rise above the level of what's muttered into your eighth pint, and "the government likes the homelessness crisis" falls short of even that level of coherence.

James Brown · 22-11-2017 8:38pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have no problem with criticising the government. I just think that criticism should rise above the level of what's muttered into your eighth pint, and "the government likes the homelessness crisis" falls short of even that level of coherence.

Good.

Emergency accommodation figures continue to break records.
The states reliance on the private market to attempt to quell the rise grows.
I think this is an unfortunate state of affairs.
I do not believe reliance on the private market is the way to go. We've been at that for years and the crises simply worsen.
The only reason I can see for this is, at this stage, they have no problem or real concern past lip service, for the crises.
The fact that this takes money from the tax payer and puts it in the pocket of those profiting from the crises is deplorable. FG measures to continue in this vein are foolish.
Varadkar downplaying the homeless crisis by answering a question he wasn't asked, is spin and despicable.

Idbatterim · 22-11-2017 9:26pm

The repeated codology is that the state just has money lying around waiting to be spent. Do you think they can just print new Euro notes?

they decide how 60,000,000,000 a year odd is spent! a spectacular amount of money! of course matt, like you say, sure they have no control over anything :rolleyes: Their lack of urgency on anything has my jaw on the floor. The third world public transport in Dublin is another disgrace, a bit of rain today and the city shuts down!

I do not believe reliance on the private market is the way to go. We've been at that for years and the crises simply worsen.
The only reason I can see for this is, at this stage, they have no problem or real concern past lip service, for the crises.

you absolutely cant blame the private companies for doing what is in their interests. You and I do the same, anyone who says they dont is a hypocrite. That is why the government are 100% responsible for this entire housing scandal. Nobody other than local and national government is reponsible!!!

Also notice how I point out very easy routes to raise more revenue and the other posters here simply ignore them!

22-11-2017 9:44pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Also notice how I point out very easy routes to raise more revenue and the other posters here simply ignore them!

Like people paying for services they use? Like water? Oh, no, someone else will pay for that. Just let other services suffer. Like housing.

Good loser · 23-11-2017 2:50am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Good.

Emergency accommodation figures continue to break records.
The states reliance on the private market to attempt to quell the rise grows.
I think this is an unfortunate state of affairs.
I do not believe reliance on the private market is the way to go. We've been at that for years and the crises simply worsen.
The only reason I can see for this is, at this stage, they have no problem or real concern past lip service, for the crises.
The fact that this takes money from the tax payer and puts it in the pocket of those profiting from the crises is deplorable. FG measures to continue in this vein are foolish.
Varadkar downplaying the homeless crisis by answering a question he wasn't asked, is spin and despicable.

Funny in all your confused and confusing posts you rarely resort to numbers. Why is this?

Could you tell us rationalists how much money the Govt should spend directly on social housing in 2018/2019/2020? In millions or billions?

Do you know that in Dublin the average LA house generates €3,000 per year in rent and maintenance on average costs €2,000 per annum. So the net rent to the Council is €1,000 per annum. So every property built by the State in Dublin at a minimum cost of €300,000 a pop is effectively given away to the recipients for free.

And you, who won't pay water charges or LPT, want them to build more and more.

That's either waffling or hypocrisy or both.

Chips Lovell · 23-11-2017 10:53am

Obvious Otter wrote: »

The government can’t just build all these social houses. We just couldn’t pay for it. The government isn’t going to increase income tax or corporation tax so how exactly can the government afford to subsidise housing for so many people on a massive scale?

No, I'm not suggesting that we can build 91,000 local authority houses straight away. But there's a difference between that and building enough to ease homelessness levels.

Homelessness and affordability are two separate (albeit related issues). And the former takes priority over the latter.

On a separate point, arguing about paying money to private landlords for emergency accommodation is a red herring. We can't turf these people out on the street. We have to keep paying it until more accommodation is built.

Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

Comments