Leo is the new king of Ireland.

charlie14

Edward M wrote: »

That's a good point.
But the housing industry is in general a private operation, profit driven.
Sadly, accommodation of any kind is crazy mad in the capital, I honestly don't think there is a govt of any kind, short of forced purchase that can solve the housing crisis in it.
The best option is relocation, but that brings its problems too.

Is that not perhaps part of the problem.
The present policy being followed appears to be leave it too the market to solve the problem.
A policy that for all intents and purposes if not a national crisis, is rapidly heading down the road to becoming one

Nitrogan

charlie14 wrote: »

Perhaps you could point me to where the EU took a collective decision to expel Russian diplomats and as such how many each state was required to expel

You're right to point that out.

The EU doesn't make decisions like that.

The Irish government expelled a Russian diplomat.

Edward M

charlie14 wrote: »

Is that not perhaps part of the problem.
The present policy being followed appears to be leave it too the market to solve the problem.
A policy that for all intents and purposes if not a national crisis, is rapidly heading down the road to becoming one

It is one already I'd say.
But how do you solve it, short of nationalising all building.
Cheaper homes can be built outside the capital, or you can build high rise developments inside the city, small dwellings that most families wouldn't want anyway.
It'd be very easy to end up with ghettos if the wrong approach is taken, and our capital right now is the most expensive location in the country for anything right now, you know that as well as me.
A shoebox in Dublin would cost as much as a standard three bed in most other counties.
The people who are buying and building themselves, what about them?

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Perhaps you could point me to where the EU took a collective decision to expel Russian diplomats and as such how many each state was required to expel
Faik the only collective position taken by the EU was to recall their Russian ambassador ?

Amused by your reference to Boris Johnston.
Is that the same Boris Johnston the British Foreign Secretary that a day after thanking the EU for their solidarity, posted a picture of the white cliffs of Dover with a reference to in one years time Britain would, to paraphrase Martin Luther King "Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty we are free at last" ?

I have a feeling you will find if you are expecting any sympathy from Britain on the border issue based on us expelling a Russian diplomat, you will be sadly mistaken.
As their Foreign Secretary highlighted, eaten bread is soon forgotten.

I was responding to a point about sanctions against Russia. Read the sequence of posts.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I was responding to a point about sanctions against Russia. Read the sequence of posts.

Those sanctions were imposed by the EU as far back as July 2014 in relation to Ukraine, and have nothing to do with the Skripal poisoning in England.
The only action the EU took in relation to that was recalling its Russian ambassador.
Any member of the EU that expelled Russian diplomats, Ireland included, did so unilaterally.
It had nothing to do with the EU or EU sanctions
.

charlie14

Edward M wrote: »

It is one already I'd say.
But how do you solve it, short of nationalising all building.
Cheaper homes can be built outside the capital, or you can build high rise developments inside the city, small dwellings that most families wouldn't want anyway.
It'd be very easy to end up with ghettos if the wrong approach is taken, and our capital right now is the most expensive location in the country for anything right now, you know that as well as me.
A shoebox in Dublin would cost as much as a standard three bed in most other counties.
The people who are buying and building themselves, what about them?

The present government policy of depending on the markets isn`t solving it.
If anything possibly exacerbating the problem.
This government need to get more pro-active, because imo if this housing crisis and the situation in HSE does not start to show drastic improvement soon then come the next GE both are going to be millstones around their necks.
The present policies on both are simply not working.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So Leo is saying that they have managed to turn the homeless issue into a 'crisis' but the opposition would have done much worse, so everything is actually ok?

Is that the gist of it?

It's classic politicking.
There's a crisis. It's getting worse. The costs to attempt to handle it becoming more ridiculous; agree but do nothing different. Make it about the problem.
Varadkar is terrible frustrated, he agrees it's a terrible state of affairs....next.

Last year, the overall amount paid out to hotels by Dublin City Council totalled €46.9m - a 20.5 per cent jump on the €38.94m paid out in 2016.

In addition, the council paid €12.3m to hostels and b&bs
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-hotel-paid-over-4-million-to-house-homeless-people-1.3445916%3fmode=amp/

It's a bigger problem than caretaker politician Varadkar can solve and of course councils play a role too, but watching things get worse while staying the course is ludicrous. Bragging about pumping more money into a stop gap measure is a complete deflection not to mention a waste.

We need social housing to rent at rates based on income. We can get the money. The will isn't there because it will hurt the profits of developers and TD landlords.

Good loser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's classic politicking.
There's a crisis. It's getting worse. The costs to attempt to handle it becoming more ridiculous; agree but do nothing different. Make it about the problem.
Varadkar is terrible frustrated, he agrees it's a terrible state of affairs....next.



It's a bigger problem than caretaker politician Varadkar can solve and of course councils play a role too, but watching things get worse while staying the course is ludicrous. Bragging about pumping more money into a stop gap measure is a complete deflection not to mention a waste.

We need social housing to rent at rates based on income. We can get the money. The will isn't there because it will hurt the profits of developers and TD landlords.

You have an incredibly simple-minded attitude to the housing 'problems'.
Any suggestions you make show no appreciation of the complexity and expenses involved in making inroads into the 'crisis'.

One question how much money per annum do you think the Govt should devote to the issue?

Another Do you consider we should have more developers and builders or less?

Your answer to the first question seems to be limitless. And to the second, seems to be, we should have none.

FrancieBrady

I wonder will Leo comment on the Belfast rape case? IMO the country needs to calm down and accept that an allegation does not mean guilt.
Hard to do with a party whose former leader stood for photo ops with a now senator who alleged and alleged when her case was not tested in a court and her alleged abuser was in court willing to mount a defence.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Those sanctions were imposed by the EU as far back as July 2014 in relation to Ukraine, and have nothing to do with the Skripal poisoning in England.
The only action the EU took in relation to that was recalling its Russian ambassador.
Any member of the EU that expelled Russian diplomats, Ireland included, did so unilaterally.
It had nothing to do with the EU or EU sanctions
.

Yes, I know that, and I know the sanctions were increased, but that was the subject of the discussion I was having. Why you conflated that with the Russian diplomat story baffles me.

James Brown

Good loser wrote: »

You have an incredibly simple-minded attitude to the housing 'problems'.
Any suggestions you make show no appreciation of the complexity and expenses involved in making inroads into the 'crisis'.

One question how much money per annum do you think the Govt should devote to the issue?

Another Do you consider we should have more developers and builders or less?

Your answer to the first question seems to be limitless. And to the second, seems to be, we should have none.

I don't know how much the government should spend. To continue as is shoveling money at emergency accommodation so developers can maintain profits is a waste.
We need to build more social housing. For that we need builders and developers. We will be paying them to build for us rather than them building for themselves to sell to the state at market rates while we part fund their customer base with customers, tenants and buyers, dependent on tax grants and rent allowance. It's a ponzi scheme.

Limitless? No. Enough to take us out of crisis.
Do you believe the current model of record breaking crises and continue as is with spiraling costs for supposed stop gap emergency measures is the path to stay on? It isn't even easing the problem.

Please note, Fine Gael are not only not making inroads, they are feeding it and making it worse. The figures speak for themselves.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, I know that, and I know the sanctions were increased, but that was the subject of the discussion I was having. Why you conflated that with the Russian diplomat story baffles me.

What baffles me is while you have kept insisting it was important that we showed solidarity with Britain, you are now saying this was in relation to sanctions imposed on Russia going back as far as 2014.
These sanctions had nothing to do with Britain.
They were in relation to Ukraine, not Britain.

But then perhaps it is just simply a case of you assuming the decision to expel diplomats was a collective EU decision rather than what it actually was.
A unilateral decision by various states that had nothing to do with a collective decision by the EU.
The only collective decision by the EU in relation to Britain was to recall the Russian ambassador.

Nitrogan

Weepsie wrote: »

High rise developments needn't be small dwellings. Good design, communal space inside and out, external storage, lots of natural light, large private balconies etc etc would all make apartments realistic and sensible options for families.

It's the total lack of imagination that's a big part of the problem. You could have what 12 or so 2 storey, 3/4 bedroom apartments ( so 6-7 storeys highs) in the same space you might have 3/4 houses. Wouldn't trust them to be built well though

Also good services is hugely important. I'm entirely put off buying in certain areas because restrictions in place by management companies, which don't offer what I'd expect for the fees they want. People are getting the mortgage exception to move into new developments and then pay 1k a year plus for what exactly? I understand it in apartments, and some gated communities, but not in the likes of where it's popping up (including Leo's back garden)

I'm stunned by the sprawl of Dublin and continued critical demand for housing. But we can't build up beyond the 4/5 storey skyline DCC and the NIMBYs have in their heads so it just goes out.

charlie14

Nitrogan wrote: »

I'm stunned by the sprawl of Dublin and continued critical demand for housing. But we can't build up beyond the 4/5 storey skyline DCC and the NIMBYs have in their heads so it just goes out.

Perhaps a lot of that refusal to consider building up is related to the Ballymun flats of the 60`s.
Structurally and accommodation wise afaik they were fine (excluding lifts perhaps), but perhaps it`s more to do with the resulting social problems in the area that has left some so opposed to the idea of building up as they look on it as creating ghettos.

Nitrogan

charlie14 wrote: »

Perhaps a lot of that refusal to consider building up is related to the Ballymun flats of the 60`s.
Structurally and accommodation wise afaik they were fine (excluding lifts perhaps), but perhaps it`s more to do with the resulting social problems in the area that has left some so opposed to the idea of building up as they look on it as creating ghettos.

Ghettos are created by demand. No one wants to mortgage their life to live next door to a family that they might feel their taxes are paying for. It's not a good social fit anyway, resentment can lead to conflict from both sides.

Social housing should be from the top down. If you seek work you get a house close to employment opportunities.

However it seems the system is prioritised towards people with 'needs' and the services aren't available where the vacant housing is.

No win situation it seems.

James Brown

The idea that a great part of the problem is people who won't work is a distraction.
If it were so, with sizable amounts of people doing it, where are the checks and measures? Why aren't these rule breakers penalised?
Truth be told there is not a sizable amount causing the crises, but it makes for great distraction. These are mostly low income people dependent on state aid. Now our choice is, we ignore the problem and keep throwing tax money at the ever increasing cost, like we are doing or we change tack with social housing. One way the problem and cost continuously increases, the other, we won't really try because 'people want something for nothing' etc. So let's continue to put them up in hotels. Sure it costs us more and doesn't help, but we can begrudge them paying rent to us on their own 'forever home'. Talk about cutting your nose.
I would suggest small sized estates of houses and low rise. The sprawling council estates with little or no amenities is where the problems lie.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The idea that a great part of the problem is people who won't work is a distraction.
If it were so, with sizable amounts of people doing it, where are the checks and measures? Why aren't these rule breakers penalised?
Truth be told there is not a sizable amount causing the crises, but it makes for great distraction. These are mostly low income people dependent on state aid. Now our choice is, we ignore the problem and keep throwing tax money at the ever increasing cost, like we are doing or we change tack with social housing. One way the problem and cost continuously increases, the other, we won't really try because 'people want something for nothing' etc. So let's continue to put them up in hotels. Sure it costs us more and doesn't help, but we can begrudge them paying rent to us on their own 'forever home'. Talk about cutting your nose.
I would suggest small sized estates of houses and low rise. The sprawling council estates with little or no amenities is where the problems lie.

That's about the size of a solution written on a postes.
Its not a solution at all workable and that's been proven in every average size town in the country with small housing estates.
Don't say you don't know them, because if you know of these estates at all you'd know of the problems in them, in average rural towns even.

Good loser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't know how much the government should spend. To continue as is shoveling money at emergency accommodation so developers can maintain profits is a waste.
We need to build more social housing. For that we need builders and developers. We will be paying them to build for us rather than them building for themselves to sell to the state at market rates while we part fund their customer base with customers, tenants and buyers, dependent on tax grants and rent allowance. It's a ponzi scheme.

Limitless? No. Enough to take us out of crisis.
Do you believe the current model of record breaking crises and continue as is with spiraling costs for supposed stop gap emergency measures is the path to stay on? It isn't even easing the problem.

Please note, Fine Gael are not only not making inroads, they are feeding it and making it worse. The figures speak for themselves.

Fair play to you for addressing the questions. The answers are still woefully inadequate.

If you don't know how much the Govt should spend (as you state) perhaps you should divert some of the time you devote to this avalanche of posts into inquiring. You see if the problem cost €500 m to solve, it could be done overnight, but if it cost €100 billion (which is much nearer being correct) it will take 20 years plus.

You don't seem to be very numerate as you give out yards about the cost of emergency measure, circa €60 million, which is peanuts in the scale of the issue. Plus you seem to think builders/developers provide this accommodation.

You also think developers/builders should build on cost plus contracts. Every developer around would love that for obvious reasons! Know what I mean?

A major problem with 'solving' the housing crisis is the effect on those that currently scrimp and save to provide their own stuff. It must always be difficult to get a house - if it was otherwise people would be making impossible demands re the standards, locations, neighbours etc.

Finally I am not sure your attitude to Water Charges but anybody that opposed those and complains about the housing 'crisis' is a hypocrite.
Including the Fianna Fail party.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

Fair play to you for addressing the questions. The answers are still woefully inadequate.

If you don't know how much the Govt should spend (as you state) perhaps you should divert some of the time you devote to this avalanche of posts into inquiring. You see if the problem cost €500 m to solve, it could be done overnight, but if it cost €100 billion (which is much nearer being correct) it will take 20 years plus.

You don't seem to be very numerate as you give out yards about the cost of emergency measure, circa €60 million, which is peanuts in the scale of the issue. Plus you seem to think builders/developers provide this accommodation.

You also think developers/builders should build on cost plus contracts. Every developer around would love that for obvious reasons! Know what I mean?

A major problem with 'solving' the housing crisis is the effect on those that currently scrimp and save to provide their own stuff. It must always be difficult to get a house - if it was otherwise people would be making impossible demands re the standards, locations, neighbours etc.

Finally I am not sure your attitude to Water Charges but anybody that opposed those and complains about the housing 'crisis' is a hypocrite.
Including the Fianna Fail party.

You really need to get over Water Charges.
That ship sailed long ago.
It started out its voyage the day of the first marches when Fine Gael back bench T.D`s saw so many of their own supporters out marching in protest.
It sailed off over the horizon after that.
The next ship waiting to dock is the housing crisis.
This governments policy on housing, no matter how they have tried to massage the figure, has been shown to been an failure.
Unless they change tact, and swiftly, then Fine Gael are going to suffer come the next GE.
They would be wise mind you to keep a weather eye on that other ship heading toward the docks, the health services.
Record numbers on trolleys is not a great vote-getter.

Edward M

charlie14 wrote: »

You really need to get over Water Charges.
That ship sailed long ago.
It started out its voyage the day of the first marches when Fine Gael back bench T.D`s saw so many of their own supporters out marching in protest.
It sailed off over the horizon after that.
The next ship waiting to dock is the housing crisis.
This governments policy on housing, no matter how they have tried to massage the figure, has been shown to been an failure.
Unless they change tact, and swiftly, then Fine Gael are going to suffer come the next GE.
They would be wise mind you to keep a weather eye on that other ship heading toward the docks, the health services.
Record numbers on trolleys is not a great vote-getter.

Enda Kenny was right though, in the final analysis.
The percentage of tax needing to be raised to cover the shortfall from things such as the lack of water charges is the real talking point here.
Now any govt can do that, stick on 1, 2, 3,% etc on taxes to raise the funding that could conceivably fix or at least alleviate the current problems.
But having to compete with party's and individuals talking utter rubbish about the facts as they stand is not helping the situation.
Sure, a courageous govt would take that stance, they'd do it and maybe achieve something, but five years at most is all they'd last, because the rubbish talkers would grab the voters with their false promises next time around.
FG are culpable as any of them, don't get me wrong, I'm not defending them, I'm talking about the whole political establishment here.
Fear of losing votes and hopes of gaining them is the whole obstacle to any real change that might be achieved with realistic government.
That and the total real cost of the bust, still the biggest millstone around our necks.

mattser

charlie14 wrote: »

You really need to get over Water Charges.
That ship sailed long ago.
It started out its voyage the day of the first marches when Fine Gael back bench T.D`s saw so many of their own supporters out marching in protest.
It sailed off over the horizon after that.
The next ship waiting to dock is the housing crisis.
This governments policy on housing, no matter how they have tried to massage the figure, has been shown to been an failure.
Unless they change tact, and swiftly, then Fine Gael are going to suffer come the next GE.
They would be wise mind you to keep a weather eye on that other ship heading toward the docks, the health services.
Record numbers on trolleys is not a great vote-getter.

Problems inherited from the the worst governance in the history of the state was never going to be an easy fix.
I think you might be underestimating the vote giver at the next election. I doubt they will want to return to a combination of those that sunk us, and a few minnows.

McMurphy

mattser wrote: »

Problems inherited from the the worst governance in the history of the state was never going to be an easy fix.
I think you might be underestimating the vote giver at the next election. I doubt they will want to return to a combination of those that sunk us, and a few minnows.

mattser, I don't know how much you've been paying attention to elections here since 2011, but during the last financial meltdown, FF were rightly turfed out on their ear, but even then FG couldn't garner enough votes to get in on a majority, they needed their socialist buddies in labour to shore them up.

Roll on 2016, and FF were almost neck and neck with FG again, indeed FG could not, and cannot govern without FFs say so.

FG lost 26 of its seats, while FF increased theirs by 24

That's pretty impressive comeback achieved in a 5 year period.

Keep that in mind when you talk about underestimating voters, and what they want or do not want a return to.

emo72

mattser wrote: »

I think you might be underestimating the vote giver at the next election. I doubt they will want to return to a combination of those that sunk us, and a few minnows.

I think Fg are in for a big kicking in the next election. They got one in the last one too, which I guessed would happen too. Lots of people fed up with FF and labour too. No credible alternative available yet, I suspect a rise for the social democrats, maybe modest but still.

Don't see anything but a mauling for FG. Those lads seriously have an empathy deficit.

James Brown

Good loser wrote: »

Fair play to you for addressing the questions. The answers are still woefully inadequate.

If you don't know how much the Govt should spend (as you state) perhaps you should divert some of the time you devote to this avalanche of posts into inquiring. You see if the problem cost €500 m to solve, it could be done overnight, but if it cost €100 billion (which is much nearer being correct) it will take 20 years plus.

You don't seem to be very numerate as you give out yards about the cost of emergency measure, circa €60 million, which is peanuts in the scale of the issue. Plus you seem to think builders/developers provide this accommodation.

You also think developers/builders should build on cost plus contracts. Every developer around would love that for obvious reasons! Know what I mean?

A major problem with 'solving' the housing crisis is the effect on those that currently scrimp and save to provide their own stuff. It must always be difficult to get a house - if it was otherwise people would be making impossible demands re the standards, locations, neighbours etc.

Finally I am not sure your attitude to Water Charges but anybody that opposed those and complains about the housing 'crisis' is a hypocrite.
Including the Fianna Fail party.

You misunderstood; if you want a house built, what do you do? You pay an architect, a builder and it gets built. You pay their salary and for materials. You have a house. This way you get a house, they get paid for their time. This is very basic stuff. The other option is to buy at a price dependent on the going market rate which includes a profit on the cost of salaries and materials. This is very basic commerce.
The more state owned social housing we build the less reliant we will be on hotels. Also we will be getting money back by way of rent.
These are people working and paying tax too not all the boys drinking cans. Every day people are feeling the pressure.

So you think it is a better deal for the tax payer to simply continue with the crisis becoming worse and the cost of 'emergency' accommodation rising? Or do you have an alternative?

FYI: IW was a con too far. Dinny made out, so alls well...

Edward M wrote: »

That's about the size of a solution written on a postes.
Its not a solution at all workable and that's been proven in every average size town in the country with small housing estates.
Don't say you don't know them, because if you know of these estates at all you'd know of the problems in them, in average rural towns even.

Of course it's workable. It worked before. How do you think we moved ffrom the slums?
Do you think it's less workable than child homelessness doubling and costs spiraling?

James Brown

mattser wrote: »

Problems inherited from the the worst governance in the history of the state was never going to be an easy fix.
I think you might be underestimating the vote giver at the next election. I doubt they will want to return to a combination of those that sunk us, and a few minnows.

The banks and bondholders were an easy fix weren't they?
All the crises are worse so how does that pan out against high employment and a super duper economy?

There's an imbalance that needs addressing.
Who is the best party to do it? Fine Gael. They are in government and able to change current poliices. I wish them every success.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You misunderstood; if you want a house built, what do you do? You pay an architect, a builder and it gets built. You pay their salary and for materials. You have a house. This way you get a house, they get paid for their time. This is very basic stuff. The other option is to buy at a price dependent on the going market rate which includes a profit on the cost of salaries and materials. This is very basic commerce.
The more state owned social housing we build the less reliant we will be on hotels. Also we will be getting money back by way of rent.
These are people working and paying tax too not all the boys drinking cans. Every day people are feeling the pressure.

So you think it is a better deal for the tax payer to simply continue with the crisis becoming worse and the cost of 'emergency' accommodation rising? Or do you have an alternative?

FYI: IW was a con too far. Dinny made out, so alls well...



Of course it's workable. It worked before. How do you think we moved ffrom the slums?
Do you think it's less workable than child homelessness doubling and costs spiraling?

Nice little soundbite, how'd Ballymun workout?
Of course its possible too, if you bury your budget in to it, how much do you think and where do you get it from?
Homeless is a bit of a misnomer really, sheltered accommodation, albeit not ideal is better than being on the street.
Maybe we should have a housing stock in place, ready for them as soon as they become homeless.
Hurling on the ditch is easy, come up with a plan and costs or some sort of a figure that could just make all this happen.

charlie14

Edward M wrote: »

Enda Kenny was right though, in the final analysis.
The percentage of tax needing to be raised to cover the shortfall from things such as the lack of water charges is the real talking point here.
Now any govt can do that, stick on 1, 2, 3,% etc on taxes to raise the funding that could conceivably fix or at least alleviate the current problems.
But having to compete with party's and individuals talking utter rubbish about the facts as they stand is not helping the situation.
Sure, a courageous govt would take that stance, they'd do it and maybe achieve something, but five years at most is all they'd last, because the rubbish talkers would grab the voters with their false promises next time around.
FG are culpable as any of them, don't get me wrong, I'm not defending them, I'm talking about the whole political establishment here.
Fear of losing votes and hopes of gaining them is the whole obstacle to any real change that might be achieved with realistic government.
That and the total real cost of the bust, still the biggest millstone around our necks.

Water charges were a complete clusterf**k from the word go.
The fixed charges were a it of a con in that even if everyone paid then the revenue gathered would not of even cover Irish Water`s overheads never mind do anything to improve the water and waste water services.
The whole fiasco was a cart before the horse where rather than use tax money to bring the service up to some decent standard (Kenny`s promise of a world class service before any charges), we got over half a billion euro worth of meters buried with an intended spend of the same again to bury more.
Even now there are plans for Irish Water to pipe water from the Shannon to Dublin, again at huge cost, so that 60% plus of it can leak from Dublin mains.

I`m not that sure if a government would not get more than 5 years if they did increase taxes by a few percent if they clearly stated what specifically those taxes were for and that they would be ring-fenced.
GE 2016 politically much was made off reducing the USC and reducing taxes, yet it was only the primary consideration of 5% of voters when casting their first preference votes.

charlie14

mattser wrote: »

Problems inherited from the the worst governance in the history of the state was never going to be an easy fix.
I think you might be underestimating the vote giver at the next election. I doubt they will want to return to a combination of those that sunk us, and a few minnows.

The whole problems inherited and blaming FF ran out of traction with the electorate quite a while before GE 2016, so I cannot see it getting this government much sympathy come the next GE.

I don`t believe I am underestimating the vote givers.
The only accurate poll of the 2016 GE was the exit poll carried out over all constituencies. It showed that the largest single issue as to where voters placed their first preference was health services at 20%.
That is one vote giver that has certainly not diminished in the interim.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

mattser, I don't know how much you've been paying attention to elections here since 2011, but during the last financial meltdown, FF were rightly turfed out on their ear, but even then FG couldn't garner enough votes to get in on a majority, they needed their socialist buddies in labour to shore them up.

Roll on 2016, and FF were almost neck and neck with FG again, indeed FG could not, and cannot govern without FFs say so.

FG lost 26 of its seats, while FF increased theirs by 24

That's pretty impressive comeback achieved in a 5 year period.

Keep that in mind when you talk about underestimating voters, and what they want or do not want a return to.

emo72 wrote: »

I think Fg are in for a big kicking in the next election. They got one in the last one too, which I guessed would happen too. Lots of people fed up with FF and labour too. No credible alternative available yet, I suspect a rise for the social democrats, maybe modest but still.

Don't see anything but a mauling for FG. Those lads seriously have an empathy deficit.

Fine Gael got 25.5% in the last general election.

They have consistently polled over 30% for the last six months. It will take a big swing to some unknown political force for them to do worse next time out than they did last time out.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

You really need to get over Water Charges.
That ship sailed long ago.
It started out its voyage the day of the first marches when Fine Gael back bench T.D`s saw so many of their own supporters out marching in protest.
It sailed off over the horizon after that.
The next ship waiting to dock is the housing crisis.
This governments policy on housing, no matter how they have tried to massage the figure, has been shown to been an failure.
Unless they change tact, and swiftly, then Fine Gael are going to suffer come the next GE.
They would be wise mind you to keep a weather eye on that other ship heading toward the docks, the health services.
Record numbers on trolleys is not a great vote-getter.

Others have already pointed out to you the link between revenue-raising through instruments like water charges and expenditure on housing.

However, the water charges issue has a more direct relevance to housing than any other issue. The introduction of water charges was designed to take pressure of the Local Authority funding mechanism and free up expenditure for items such as.......let me see........housing.

So Fine Gael share the blame for some of the woes in housing, their abandonment of water charges reduced the ability to spend money on housing.