Leo is the new king of Ireland.

dude_abided

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think a single FG supporter was out protesting about water charges. If anything, FG voters are the people who recognize the value in paying for water based on consumption exactly the same as electricity, coal, gas. They're also the same people who wonder why it's ok for a country to spend -6.3 billion on alcohol yet refuse to acknowledge that we need significant investment in water infrastructure that needs more money.

Prob same people that question the insane tax rate that takes away half income, seems to pay nice jobs at RTE, TD pensions etc and yet leaves them looking to raise more to cover water..

Wheeliebin30

dude_abided wrote: »

Prob same people that question the insane tax rate that takes away half income, seems to pay nice jobs at RTE, TD pensions etc and yet leaves them looking to raise more to cover water..

Half income??

Link?

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

And how does privatization benefit them???

How does privatizing something benefit a govt?

Not sure if this is a serious question tbh.

Wheeliebin30

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

How does privatizing something benefit a govt?

Not sure if this is a serious question tbh.

No how does it personally benefit politicians?

You seem to think they are these big evil people trying to bring in water charges so they can privatize water, what’s in it for them?

Hitman3000

BonnieSituation wrote:

Surely being an adult in Ireland at any point over the last 2 decades would mean you have a sense of that.

Again like so much in life it comes down to opinion and perception. I have been polite and refused to become personal in my responses I suggest you do the same with less of the condescending comments.

McMurphy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think a single FG supporter was out protesting about water charges. If anything, FG voters are the people who recognize the value in paying for water based on consumption exactly the same as electricity, coal, gas. They're also the same people who wonder why it's ok for a country to spend 6.3 billion on alcohol yet refuse to acknowledge that we need significant investment in water infrastructure that needs more money.

So FG bent the knee to people who wouldn't be voting for them regardless?

Sign of weakness, no?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Don't go there.

There were some posters around here at the time of the water charges who believed the whole thing was a FG plot to enrich Denis O'Brien. I know it sounds incredible, but they really believed it. If this thread descends into that again, who knows when and where it will stop.

Sounds incredible you say?

I reckon DOB did fairly well for himself in the whole water charges fiasco, you would have thought a FG led govt would have steered well clear of giving him a cushy state contract, but nope, they couldn't resist.

Denis O’Brien, Fine Gael And The Water Meter Deal

Last December, Independent TD for Kildare North, Catherine Murphy raised her concerns about GMC Sierra’s water meter contract, in the Dáil, asking how could GMC Sierra be awarded a contract [by former Environment Minister Phil Hogan] for water meters even though it didn’t legally come into existence until July 15, 2013, 15 days after the closing date for bids.

Zubeneschamali

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

you would have thought a FG led govt would have steered well clear of giving him a cushy state contract, but nope, they couldn't resist.

No Government is allowed to say "Company X had the best bid, but we are awarding the contract to Company Y because Denis O'Brien".

There are rules.

McMurphy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No Government is allowed to say "Company X had the best bid, but we are awarding the contract to Company Y because Denis O'Brien".

There are rules.

Indeed there are, and an inquiry is underway to see if any were breached.

Hopefully no dust will gather on the findings, should any dodgy deals be exposed.

Zubeneschamali

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Indeed there are, and an inquiry is underway to see if any were breached.

Yet you are already sure this was somehow corrupt.

Hitman3000

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Yet you are already sure this was somehow corrupt.

Corrupt or not, can't say as no findings have been published. Interesting though how someone whom was found to be corrupt was photographed sharing a podium with the then Taoiseach E Kenny shortly after the FG/Lab government took office. Purely coincidental that he seemed to do so well out of state contracts during that time. Siteserv etc, newspaper group writedowns. But of course this still does not prove corruption, the optics however were not good.

McMurphy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yet you are already sure this was somehow corrupt.

How?

Cushy doesn't mean corruption you know

Chips Lovell

AFAIK, there is no inquiry underway into the award of water meter contracts.

There is an inquiry into the sale of Siteserv to Denis O'Brien by IBRC (and all other deals by IBRC which involved a write-off of more then €10 million).

The confusion may lie in the fact that Siteserv owns 50 per cent of one of the three companies awarded water meter installation contracts.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

How do you propose to fund this social housing proposal?
....

It's a case of saving money in the long term. Something Politicians seem unwilling to do. It would be cheaper than buying homes at market rates, to rent to council tenants. It would cost a lot, but in the end we'd have housing stock at cost and rents coming in to recoup over time.
I've posted before;
Re-purpose Fine Gael's developer friendly €5.35 billion 'Social Housing' Strategy to make it a Social Housing strategy. It was essentially a private funding strategy with a nod to social housing. Scrap it and concentrate on social housing rather than trying to fix a market that is ultimately out to make money.
Re-purpose the developers friendly Bank NAMA and it's €70bn in loans at more favourable rates than other banks are willing to offer.
It may cost a lot more to reach the number of social housing we need to come out of the crisis but it's worth it and better value for the tax payer than the current ever increasing model.

Edward M wrote: »

Still the polls show no signs of any major drop or increase for any party or sector.
It looks like a cobbling job will be our lot for a while to come as no two party's could form a govt with this log jam, unless FF/FG go in to coalition!
Cant see that happening, so as we are, no appetite for an election anytime soon it looks like.
The crises aren't bringing FG down much either, looks like no one really believe the others can do much better!
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0428/958943-opinion-poll/

That's neither here nor there frankly.
We can watch things get worse and say, 'sure WWMWD?' or look at the problems not revel in the popularity and open the bottles of TK lemonade and hang sandwiches.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think a single FG supporter was out protesting about water charges. If anything, FG voters are the people who recognize the value in paying for water based on consumption exactly the same as electricity, coal, gas. They're also the same people who wonder why it's ok for a country to spend 6.3 billion on alcohol yet refuse to acknowledge that we need significant investment in water infrastructure that needs more money.

Are you talking party members or people who occasionally vote for FG? Because I personally know many people who voted FG in 2011 and marched. These are called normal people who vote on policies. I know it's easier for FG to put people in boxes, especially when they saw ordinary members of the public out marching. ISIS my hat.
IW was a crony, quango money making scam on the tax payer, (see board appointments, costs on consultants, contracts currently under investigation) at a time we were supposed to be experiencing the golden dawn of political change, instead we got the golden something else.
It's absolutely nothing to do with the water infrastructure needing repair, we knew this for decades. It's about trying to con the tax payer and they wouldn't take it. What people spend on booze is their own business, that's an old gutter FG tactic to get into such things. If it was millionaires buying up rentals to gouge tenants they'd get a pat on the back.

Privatisation; what's in it for government? Tax take remains the same and/or increases. The tax payer now has a new bill to pay and is dealing under contract with a private company. Any issues with water supply are no longer the governments problem. It's the ultimate in passing the buck and shirking responsibility while getting paid a nice lump sum off who ever wins the contract, maybe a little less depending on who's in the running...
The IW scamola tribunal is still running. We'll see if D.O'B's Sireserv got favours or not at cost to the tax payer, but he certainly did get a sweet deal to get into the water metering game.

McMurphy

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's a case of saving money in the long term. Something Politicians seem unwilling to do. It would be cheaper than buying homes at market rates, to rent to council tenants. It would cost a lot, but in the end we'd have housing stock at cost and rents coming in to recoup over time.
I've posted before;
Re-purpose Fine Gael's developer friendly €5.35 billion 'Social Housing' Strategy to make it a Social Housing strategy. It was essentially a private funding strategy with a nod to social housing. Scrap it and concentrate on social housing rather than trying to fix a market that is ultimately out to make money.
Re-purpose the developers friendly Bank NAMA and it's €70bn in loans at more favourable rates than other banks are willing to offer.
It may cost a lot more to reach the number of social housing we need to come out of the crisis but it's worth it and better value for the tax payer than the current ever increasing model.



That's neither here nor there frankly.
We can watch things get worse and say, 'sure WWMWD?' or look at the problems not revel in the popularity and open the bottles of TK lemonade and hang sandwiches.



Are you talking party members or people who occasionally vote for FG? Because I personally know many people who voted FG in 2011 and marched. These are called normal people who vote on policies. I know it's easier for FG to put people in boxes, especially when they saw ordinary members of the public out marching. ISIS my hat.
IW was a crony, quango money making scam on the tax payer, (see board appointments, costs on consultants, contracts currently under investigation) at a time we were supposed to be experiencing the golden dawn of political change, instead we got the golden something else.
It's absolutely nothing to do with the water infrastructure needing repair, we knew this for decades. It's about trying to con the tax payer and they wouldn't take it. What people spend on booze is their own business, that's an old gutter FG tactic to get into such things. If it was millionaires buying up rentals to gouge tenants they'd get a pat on the back.

Privatisation; what's in it for government? Tax take remains the same and/or increases. The tax payer now has a new bill to pay and is dealing under contract with a private company. Any issues with water supply are no longer the governments problem. It's the ultimate in passing the buck and shirking responsibility while getting paid a nice lump sum off who ever wins the contract, maybe a little less depending on who's in the running...
The IW scamola tribunal is still running. We'll see if D.O'B's Sireserv got favours or not at cost to the tax payer, but he certainly did get a sweet deal to get into the water metering game.

On this, when all is said and done, Denis always seems to have luck on his side, but especially when a certain political party does be in govt.

Denis Naughten, seems to have been shooting his mouth of to DOBs minions.

You'd have to wonder how he (DOB) always seems to be in the right place at the right time.

He does (DOB) have a seriously good knack of anticipating what the government may or may not do.

Poor Naughten was just the unlucky sod that got caught.

James Brown

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

On this, when all is said and done, Denis always seems to have luck on his side, but especially when a certain political party does be in govt.

Denis Naughten, seems to have been shooting his mouth of to DOBs minions.

You'd have to wonder how he (DOB) always seems to be in the right place at the right time.

He does (DOB) have a seriously good knack of anticipating what the government may or may not do.

Poor Naughten was just the unlucky sod that got caught.

As I understand it; the government were looking to award some company the water metering contract. D.O'B, coincidentally mind, was looking to get into that very game. Then, coincidentally, the then FG government, (with Labour) were looking to sell off Siteserv, a company with skin in the water metering game, and at a knock down price. So it all worked out great, coincidentally.
The timing of all this was mere happenstance.
If only the state knew the state was tendering out a water metering contract when the state sold Siteserv to the folks the state was awarding the water metering contract to. They might have made a profit instead of a loss. Keep the recovery going sure.

Idbatterim

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Half income??

Link?

half the income over a pittance, as you know! This is what I find truly remarkable, about this country, every tax is immoral or "unfair" on every front, except income tax, taxing at penal outrageous rates over E34,800 on that is fair game! over 50c in the euro, because youre obviously the wolf of f**cking wallstreet at that income! L O L! :rolleyes:

Idbatterim

##Mod Snip##

Please don't just post massive images..

Idbatterim

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think a single FG supporter was out protesting about water charges. If anything, FG voters are the people who recognize the value in paying for water based on consumption exactly the same as electricity, coal, gas. They're also the same people who wonder why it's ok for a country to spend 6.3 billion on alcohol yet refuse to acknowledge that we need significant investment in water infrastructure that needs more money.

6.3 billion? what a joke! of course they cant afford to pay for anything else when the number one bills like alcohol and the mobile and tv package are no expenses spared :rolleyes:

What people spend on booze is their own business, that's an old gutter FG tactic to get into such things. If it was millionaires buying up rentals to gouge tenants they'd get a pat on the back.

thats a matter of opinion, you could be giving these scroungers a thousand euro a week for free and they would claim that they couldnt afford to pay for anything!

Hitman3000

Johnny Dogs wrote:

Poor Naughten was just the unlucky sod that got caught.

Naughten is a former FG'er just outside the tent at the moment but will be back inside in the near future.

McMurphy

Idbatterim wrote: »

6.3 billion? what a joke! of course they cant afford to pay for anything else when the number one bills like alcohol and the mobile and tv package are no expenses spared :rolleyes:

I'd wager a guess that the bill for gargle is so high, is because gargle is so bloody expensive in this country to begin with.

If our prices were in line with say Spain's or Portugal, that bill would prob be half of that or under.

But.... in line with their manifesto from 2011, FG are preaching that drink here is too cheap, and want to introduce legislation to get MUP slid under the door.

Not a tax hike mind (as that's going to affect the vintners).

Seems like quite the FG thing to do mind you, (comparing alcohol with water costs).

Did someone say something about arrogance losing them the last election?

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

How does privatizing something benefit a govt?

Not sure if this is a serious question tbh.

Actually, you might explain to me how privatising something benefits a government, and what are the main issues and reasons you see for privatising something?

Edward M

Leo causing a bit of a stir north of the border.
I'm sure SF are loving it, brexit has now become a major weapon towards a UI for them.
Is Leo now becoming a pawn in a separate battle, trying to break the union?
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/leo-varadkar-accused-of-poor-manners-over-northern-ireland-visit-36859421.html

A bit of loyalist racism showing itself also!
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/lord-kilclooney-refers-to-leo-varadkar-as-a-typical-indian-following-northern-ireland-visit-36861412.html

Chips Lovell

Several people carded for ignoring previous mod warnings.

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Right, this thread has started to go downhill into trench warfare.

So everyone take a deep breath and go read the charter. If you're just here to take pucks out the other, this isn't the forum for you.

Serious, substantive posts please.

Don't say you haven't been warned.

James Brown

Minister plans supported housing for the elderly
Mr Daly’s plans would mean that, as part of planning, there would be a mandatory requirement on the HSE to commit to providing services to residences of these developments before they are built.

It is hoped that elderly people living in rural or isolated houses would be encouraged to move into these new supported settlements as unlike a nursing home they would still have a “key to their own house” and would have significantly more independence.

Mr Daly said: “At the moment, if you wanted to invest in care of the elderly and if you walked into the local authority and asked them what’s the model there, there is none there.

“If I wanted to invest in the fastest-growing industry in Ireland, care of the elderly, what would I invest in? A nursing home and that is it.

“We need to look at developing housing models with supports on site. I would say there should even be a creche on site to have an intergenerational element.”

Crucially, the houses would be rented out either to a local authority or the person living in them, meaning the development would always remain as a supported development and units would be rented out to other older people once they became free.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/minister-plans-supported-housing-for-the-elderly-470089.html

Essentially the plan is to get developers to build these homes and for the state to rent them off them for elderly care. And Mr. Daly suggests if anyone is looking to make a few bob, they should get into this rapid. I mean the tax payer is the tenant so another case of you, a private developer, having a client base ready to go with deep tax payer pockets. Grand stuff, unless you're a tax payer. Good man Jim.
I would assume the developers get some form of subsidy for willing to build, planning won't be an issue and they can set what ever rent they like?
The set up isn't the issue it's the tax payer becoming the eternal renter to a private landlord, helped become a landlord by the state.

We could be in a position like this: 'Here's a NAMA loan, you build these developments and we'll rent them off you'. The tax payer loaning money to developers so we can rent off them.

The same Mr. Daly suggested a government issued ID be a requirement for logging into social media websites.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Essentially the plan is to get developers to build these homes and for the state to rent them off them for elderly care. And Mr. Daly suggests if anyone is looking to make a few bob, they should get into this rapid. I mean the tax payer is the tenant so another case of you, a private developer, having a client base ready to go with deep tax payer pockets. Grand stuff, unless you're a tax payer. Good man Jim.
I would assume the developers get some form of subsidy for willing to build, planning won't be an issue and they can set what ever rent they like?
The set up isn't the issue it's the tax payer becoming the eternal renter to a private landlord, helped become a landlord by the state.

We could be in a position like this: 'Here's a NAMA loan, you build these developments and we'll rent them off you'. The tax payer loaning money to developers so we can rent off them.

The same Mr. Daly suggested a government issued ID be a requirement for logging into social media websites.

Sounds OK to me, I actually know a small one of these in a village beside me, 6 small old peoples residences built by a developer and rented by the council. Always full and a great solution for old people who lived rurally and couldn't manage with driving and probably maintaining their own old houses.
Its a good solution and doesn't require a big investment by the state at any particular time re having to finance builds up front.
I can see the point in your last couple of posts, but social housing provided by developers is probably financially the best way to go without having to break budgetary rules and drain other services.

Edward M

I think the govt is trying to give easier access to people re mortgages for new house builds and purchases.
I remember the local authority loans from before, they were a huge success at the time, in our area anyway, I would think that the majority of houses in our area built in the eighties and early nineties were council loans.
It could be good to see a return to this, the current govt seem to be promoting it anyway.

http://rebuildingirelandhomeloan.ie

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

Sounds OK to me, I actually know a small one of these in a village beside me, 6 small old peoples residences built by a developer and rented by the council. Always full and a great solution for old people who lived rurally and couldn't manage with driving and probably maintaining their own old houses.
Its a good solution and doesn't require a big investment by the state at any particular time re having to finance builds up front.
I can see the point in your last couple of posts, but social housing provided by developers is probably financially the best way to go without having to break budgetary rules and drain other services.

Edward M wrote: »

I think the govt is trying to give easier access to people re mortgages for new house builds and purchases.
I remember the local authority loans from before, they were a huge success at the time, in our area anyway, I would think that the majority of houses in our area built in the eighties and early nineties were council loans.
It could be good to see a return to this, the current govt seem to be promoting it anyway.

http://rebuildingirelandhomeloan.ie

Isn't this a little contradictory? One post saying renting from private means we won't have to put money up front. And the following post about how councils are lending for mortgages.

On the first post; the idea of the facility sounds good to me too.
It doesn't require any investing in the build but the HSE will be providing the amenities. And we are bank rolling builds elsewhere through NAMA. Not bank rolling, but renting accommodation for the states elderly will be costly and ongoing. It's not good financial sense to be renting from the market place at market rates, and a minister encouraging it. Furthermore, the sell of the properties will hinge on tax paid for HSE supplied services.
What ever the argument for social housing to ease the housing crisis, this minister is in effect looking to create landlords the tax payer will become eternal tenants of. Even the average person on the street knows buying a home makes more sense than renting, if you can afford it that is.
Again, short sighted. Another way we are not getting a good deal for the tax payer, We should be bank rolling our own builds from our NAMA monies for example.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Isn't this a little contradictory? One post saying renting from private means we won't have to put money up front. And the following post about how councils are lending for mortgages.

On the first post; the idea of the facility sounds good to me too.
It doesn't require any investing in the build but the HSE will be providing the amenities. And we are bank rolling builds elsewhere through NAMA. Not bank rolling, but renting accommodation for the states elderly will be costly and ongoing. It's not good financial sense to be renting from the market place at market rates, and a minister encouraging it. Furthermore, the sell of the properties will hinge on tax paid for HSE supplied services.
What ever the argument for social housing to ease the housing crisis, this minister is in effect looking to create landlords the tax payer will become eternal tenants of. Even the average person on the street knows buying a home makes more sense than renting, if you can afford it that is.
Again, short sighted. Another way we are not getting a good deal for the tax payer, We should be bank rolling our own builds from our NAMA monies for example.

I see from the website that the loans are govt guaranteed, therefore I assume the money will be from some other financial institution. The interest rates are good and guaranteed for the term of the loan.
The Nama monies are supposed to be for payback of debt I think, and Nama is due to be wound up shortly, unless someone thinks its a good idea to keep it.
Basically this sounds like the same sort of idea you mooted re Nama, not sure why it wouldn't work as being separate from fiscal debt if the money is underwritten by some other financial institution.
The only down side I see is the fact you have to have two refusals of credit from mortgage providers, that means you have failed a stress test, to get it, but its at least an option for lower paid workers to get a mortgage.
If Nama was to become a permanent fixture then I see no reason your idea wouldn't work, using Nama as the underwriter of these mortgages.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

I see from the website that the loans are govt guaranteed, therefore I assume the money will be from some other financial institution. The interest rates are good and guaranteed for the term of the loan.
The Nama monies are supposed to be for payback of debt I think, and Nama is due to be wound up shortly, unless someone thinks its a good idea to keep it.
Basically this sounds like the same sort of idea you mooted re Nama, not sure why it wouldn't work as being separate from fiscal debt if the money is underwritten by some other financial institution.
The only down side I see is the fact you have to have two refusals of credit from mortgage providers, that means you have failed a stress test, to get it, but its at least an option for lower paid workers to get a mortgage.
If Nama was to become a permanent fixture then I see no reason your idea wouldn't work, using Nama as the underwriter of these mortgages.

The builds for the elderly, as I understand it, are private developers building homes they will own and rent to the tax payer, with the tax payer funding the HSE amenities, a selling point on these homes. So it's a great deal for the developer with tenants, covered by the tax payer, already in wait. It's fish in a barrel for any developer and not a great deal for the tax payer IMO. The developer getting a stream of money for decades to come, while the tax payer is the willing tenant rather than owner, renting to itself.

The NAMA issue I have is the very people who caused the reason for a NAMA, will be getting loans from NAMA, so they can build private developments and sell at the going market rates, for profit. It's extremely odd to use money recouped at a loss to the state, to fund private profit. This is tax payer money assisting private profit. If they were building and trying to keep prices affordable there might be an argument, to me it's pretty reprehensible that these developers, went bankrupt, the tax payer took the loss and any monies we did retrieve are being in part used to help developers make a profit off the tax payer during a housing crisis.

The councils supplying mortgages is an odd one. I'm familiar with the tenant buying their council home, not so much with this. Even with that simple enough model I know cases, (some years ago) where tenants had failed the stress test and their councilor would have the rules bent to allow them get the mortgage anyway. Be interested to see how those people are coping now, (after their going mad and partying). A government funded mortgage dependent on you not earning over 50,000 a year. Strange bank. It's odd we've money for every scheme it seems, except building state owned social housing.