Leo is the new king of Ireland.

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

And repeal the 8th, and Ruth koppinger, ff, sf, Murphy etc etc.

Yet this poster in every post brings it all back to Leo.

Slighy strange.

Not getting into a silly argument, but the clue is in the thread title -

Leo is the new king of Ireland.

My guess is if we started to constantly try and discuss a random subject such as perpetual motion, or a random person like Franz Beckenbauer sanctions would be forthcoming.

Are you annoyed that the poster is discussing Leo in a thread about Leo, or is it because they're discussing what could be perceived as in a negative way?

Wheeliebin30

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is it down because of something he did? Care to detail?

Is it up because of something he did every other month?

Wheeliebin30

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Not getting into a silly argument, but the clue is in the thread title -

My guess is if we started to constantly try and discuss a random subject such as perpetual motion, or a random person like Franz Beckenbauer sanctions would be forthcoming.

Are you annoyed that the poster is discussing Leo in a thread about Leo, or is it because they're discussing what could be perceived as in a negative way?

I’m not annoyed Johnny, amused is more the feeling to be honest:)

It’s like a personal vendetta against the king , some folk have the time on their hands for such behaviour , which I also find strange seems we are all so busy contributing to the pot these days...

blackwhite

When Eoin o’Broin is on the news claiming that someone with a 12-month contract in a home is homeless, then you know that the usuals are just grasping at straws to push a fairly blatant agenda.

For the 14-odd years I was renting I never had a lease that had more than 12 month duration. By the logic of the O’Broin and the usual “anti-establishment” gang, I was actually homeless and just didn’t realise :rolleyes:

Wheeliebin30

blackwhite wrote: »

When Eoin o’Broin is on the news claiming that someone with a 12-month contract in a home is homeless, then you know that the usuals are just grasping at straws to push a fairly blatant agenda.

For the 14-odd years I was renting I never had a lease that had more than 12 month duration. By the logic of the O’Broin and the usual “anti-establishment” gang, I was actually homeless and just didn’t realise :rolleyes:

And do you think he actually cares about people who rent from their own pocket?

Of course not, not many votes in that as people understand the real world, he’s aiming at the people who think they shouldn’t have to pay for anything including rent, that’s where the votes are for our champagne socialist friend.

Idbatterim

Obroin amd Varadkar are both total spoofers. Most of my mates and family of Varadkar has changed very quickly. He’s a smarmy, waffler!

Colonel Claptrap

blackwhite wrote: »

By the logic of the O’Broin and the usual “anti-establishment” gang, I was actually homeless and just didn’t realise :rolleyes:

Sorry to hear about your desperate situation.

Can I offer help in any way? Some spare change perhaps? A hot meal? A taxpayer funded forever home with draught free windows?

blackwhite

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Sorry to hear about your desperate situation.

Can I offer help in any way? Some spare change perhaps? A hot meal? A taxpayer funded forever home with draught free windows?

That’s the real endgame for plenty - live off the work of others and take f. all responsibility for themselves or trying to improve their own situation.

FrancieBrady

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Is it up because of something he did every other month?

You can't or won't answer my question?

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

That’s the real endgame for plenty - live off the work of others and take f. all responsibility for themselves or trying to improve their own situation.

With Ruth Coppinger at the helm, there’ll be free houses and free contraception for all. Wowzers. What a gal. BTW, what’s become of Paul Murphy? Seems to have disappeared down a dark hole of late.

Edward M

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With Ruth Coppinger at the helm, there’ll be free houses and free contraception for all. Wowzers. What a gal. BTW, what’s become of Paul Murphy? Seems to have disappeared down a dark hole of late.

Well at least now thanks to Leo, Simon and co there might not necessarily be a population explosion, housing needs could actually level out in 20 years or so, next generation like!

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Every post is Leo this Leo that.

You strike me as one of those people who expects to be held by the hand from the cradle to the grave.

Price of milk is too dear and your local traffic light doesn’t change in time you blame Leo Varadkar, maybe I’m wrong.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I’m not annoyed Johnny, amused is more the feeling to be honest:)

It’s like a personal vendetta against the king , some folk have the time on their hands for such behaviour , which I also find strange seems we are all so busy contributing to the pot these days...

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

And repeal the 8th, and Ruth koppinger, ff, sf, Murphy etc etc.

Yet this poster in every post brings it all back to Leo.

Slighy strange.

Some of us see the lead policy maker in the country, as worthy of commenting on, in a politics forum in a Leo thread. Slightly odd? :rolleyes:
I am commenting on a news item regarding the homeless crisis/cost of it and false reporting on social housing 'builds'. Your comment suggests you've no interest, odd you're posting on a Leo thread regarding a discussion on politics, but have no input regarding either other than an attempt to distract maybe?

blackwhite wrote: »

When Eoin o’Broin is on the news claiming that someone with a 12-month contract in a home is homeless, then you know that the usuals are just grasping at straws to push a fairly blatant agenda.

For the 14-odd years I was renting I never had a lease that had more than 12 month duration. By the logic of the O’Broin and the usual “anti-establishment” gang, I was actually homeless and just didn’t realise :rolleyes:

What's your point? This is beyond labels. Murphy is merely moving the same tax bill from column A to column B. It's not saving us money or solving anything.
We can get into trite little digs on whats homeless and what isn't but they can change the definition all they like, we are still paying the rent to private concerns, for these people. We may be picking up the tab for the not homeless for longer than when they were homeless, due to them falling off the embarrassing 'homeless' radar.
And then we've the relabeling and redefining of social housing builds, which it turns out means buying privately owned property for the use as social housing. Again, it costs us more than actual 'social builds', to use the oldspeak, but hey, it's all about optics and socks.

ancapailldorcha

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

In a thread about Leo Varadkar.......:eek:

The horror.

This nonsense isn't constructive. No more please.

Good loser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Some of us see the lead policy maker in the country, as worthy of commenting on, in a politics forum in a Leo thread. Slightly odd? :rolleyes:
I am commenting on a news item regarding the homeless crisis/cost of it and false reporting on social housing 'builds'. Your comment suggests you've no interest, odd you're posting on a Leo thread regarding a discussion on politics, but have no input regarding either other than an attempt to distract maybe?



What's your point? This is beyond labels. Murphy is merely moving the same tax bill from column A to column B. It's not saving us money or solving anything.
We can get into trite little digs on whats homeless and what isn't but they can change the definition all they like, we are still paying the rent to private concerns, for these people. We may be picking up the tab for the not homeless for longer than when they were homeless, due to them falling off the embarrassing 'homeless' radar.
And then we've the relabeling and redefining of social housing builds, which it turns out means buying privately owned property for the use as social housing. Again, it costs us more than actual 'social builds', to use the oldspeak, but hey, it's all about optics and socks.

Thing is your comments are relentlessly negative and destructive.



Loads of whinging about the housing crisis etc but no solutions other than the Govt should not be doing what it is now doing.


If nothing else the Govt would have €600m per annum extra for the housing if they didn't have to pay the water charges. Would you support that? Think about it!

blackwhite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Some of us see the lead policy maker in the country, as worthy of commenting on, in a politics forum in a Leo thread. Slightly odd? :rolleyes:
I am commenting on a news item regarding the homeless crisis/cost of it and false reporting on social housing 'builds'. Your comment suggests you've no interest, odd you're posting on a Leo thread regarding a discussion on politics, but have no input regarding either other than an attempt to distract maybe?



What's your point? This is beyond labels. Murphy is merely moving the same tax bill from column A to column B. It's not saving us money or solving anything.
We can get into trite little digs on whats homeless and what isn't but they can change the definition all they like, we are still paying the rent to private concerns, for these people. We may be picking up the tab for the not homeless for longer than when they were homeless, due to them falling off the embarrassing 'homeless' radar.
And then we've the relabeling and redefining of social housing builds, which it turns out means buying privately owned property for the use as social housing. Again, it costs us more than actual 'social builds', to use the oldspeak, but hey, it's all about optics and socks.

Trying to label anyone and everyone possible as homeless just for an opportunity for political point-scoring is stupid - but it’s not surprised to see it’s the same people over and over again who try to do so to push their own political agenda.

This notion that someone should be housed for life by the state if they ever have a short period where they cannot house themselves is also ridiculous - especially from people who pretend that they are looking to save the taxpayer from waste - yet they want them in the hook to pay for everything for people (but only certain people) from the cradle to the grave.

Agenda-driven pushing of the notion that every “homeless” person should be provided a “forever home” is merely trying to drive a nouveau-Marxist ideal whereby the state is expected to provide everything in perpetuity, and remove the responsibility from people to get off their backsides and actually try and improve things for themselves.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

Thing is your comments are relentlessly negative and destructive.



Loads of whinging about the housing crisis etc but no solutions other than the Govt should not be doing what it is now doing.


If nothing else the Govt would have €600m per annum extra for the housing if they didn't have to pay the water charges. Would you support that? Think about it!

If they had not buried the guts of 1 Billion euro worth of water meters that will never be used, plus the annual interest on borrowed money for same, they would quids in.
And that is without the fortune spent creating the fiasco in the first place plus the continuing yearly costs.

charlie14

blackwhite wrote: »

Trying to label anyone and everyone possible as homeless just for an opportunity for political point-scoring is stupid - but it’s not surprised to see it’s the same people over and over again who try to do so to push their own political agenda.

This notion that someone should be housed for life by the state if they ever have a short period where they cannot house themselves is also ridiculous - especially from people who pretend that they are looking to save the taxpayer from waste - yet they want them in the hook to pay for everything for people (but only certain people) from the cradle to the grave.

Agenda-driven pushing of the notion that every “homeless” person should be provided a “forever home” is merely trying to drive a nouveau-Marxist ideal whereby the state is expected to provide everything in perpetuity, and remove the responsibility from people to get off their backsides and actually try and improve things for themselves.

Simple question.
With the present price of houses and apartments, especially in or near the main urban centers, how would you see anyone working for the average industrial wage or all those earning below that level, being able to purchase a house or apartment.?
Through a mortgage.?

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

If they had not buried the guts of 1 Billion euro worth of water meters that will never be used, plus the annual interest on borrowed money for same, they would quids in.
And that is without the fortune spent creating the fiasco in the first place plus the continuing yearly costs.

600m a year pays for the meters in two years, if the water charges had been introduced in 2015 they would already be quids in and continuing to be 600m better off.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

600m a year pays for the meters in two years, if the water charges had been introduced in 2015 they would already be quids in and continuing to be 600m better off.

What are you talking about?

Even if everyone had of paid their capped charges , they wouldn't have surpassed 250m per annum.


Nothing about Irish Water was a good idea, it was all wrong, it was planned wrong and implemented wrongly.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Even if everyone had of paid their capped charges , they wouldn't have surpassed 250m per annum.


Nothing about Irish Water was a good idea, it was all wrong, it was planned wrong and implemented wrongly.

So four years to pay off the cost of the meters and we would have 250m a year from next year to pay for housing or the health service. Either way, the country would be quids in for other things if water charges had remained in place.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

600m a year pays for the meters in two years, if the water charges had been introduced in 2015 they would already be quids in and continuing to be 600m better off.

Now now you know as well as I do that the water charges, even if everyone had paid, would only have covered Irish Water`s office overheads without a single cent going to water and waste water services.
And that was before they borrowed more money to fund the same amount again, to bury more meters as they intended.

A very expensive financial and political cock up from start to finish.

sexmag

Good loser wrote: »

If nothing else the Govt would have €600m per annum extra for the housing if they didn't have to pay the water charges. Would you support that? Think about it!

Wait! The water charges were to give the government money to sort out the homeless crisis?
Not their over inflated salaries, ridiculous expenses or dail pub bill?

And here i am thinking thats where the money was going....well sheeeeettt, someone should have said something then!

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

600m a year pays for the meters in two years, if the water charges had been introduced in 2015 they would already be quids in and continuing to be 600m better off.

Where are you finding this 600 million ?
If every household had paid there would only have been 250 million which only covered the yearly overheads of Irish Water without a red cent going to water services.
To even achieve that figure the government were going to continue paying every household 100 euro annually until at least 2018 under the hilariously termed water conservation grant.
Seeing as Irish Water claimed there were 1.7 million household liable for metering, this would have cost the state 170 million.


To paraphrase.
Had everyone paid and claimed their grant the state would have been minus 170 million year on year.
It was a complete farce from start to finish.
And that is not even to mention some dodgy cronyism and ongoing public inquiries.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

So four years to pay off the cost of the meters and we would have 250m a year from next year to pay for housing or the health service. Either way, the country would be quids in for other things if water charges had remained in place.

You really should be able to recall this from the Irish Water thread.


Of that mythical annual 250 million - (which Irish Water never came close to collecting even with a government bribe of 100 euro to each household) - only 45 million was going towards paying of the cost of meters.
The rest was just to feed the dis-functional entity.

Wanderer78

Johnny Dogs wrote:

Can't believe some of the same old rhetoric is being rolled out....... again.

Will we hear 'keep the recovery going' once again, on the build up to the next ge?

McMurphy

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Will we hear 'keep the recovery going' once again, on the build up to the next ge?

Or the hundreds of millions of euro fines that now seem to no longer be an actual thing.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Now now you know as well as I do that the water charges, even if everyone had paid, would only have covered Irish Water`s office overheads without a single cent going to water and waste water services.
And that was before they borrowed more money to fund the same amount again, to bury more meters as they intended.

A very expensive financial and political cock up from start to finish.

Even if that was true, which it isn't, that doesn't take away from the fact that those office overheads are still being paid by the Irish taxpayer and the 600m Good Loser stated or the 250m which Johnny Dogs stated, could be used for other things like housing or health.

tobsey

charlie14 wrote: »

Simple question.
With the present price of houses and apartments, especially in or near the main urban centers, how would you see anyone working for the average industrial wage or all those earning below that level, being able to purchase a house or apartment.?
Through a mortgage.?

The average industrial wage is a national statistic. It takes account of wages in both rural and urban settings. It makes more sense to compare the average wage to the average house price. The national average for house prices is 242k: https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/house-prices-rose-by-an-average-of-50-in-five-years-1.3342246?mode=amp.

Average earnings is 38.5k according to cso: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elcq/earningsandlabourcostsq42017finalq12018preliminaryestimates/

So a couple where both earn the average industrial wage need a deposit of 25k and a mortgage of 2.8 Times their income, well less than the 3.5 max.

Property in major urban centres is more expensive but wages are also generally higher there too.

McMurphy

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Will we hear 'keep the recovery going' once again, on the build up to the next ge?

I see some one deleted the post of mine you quoted.

Why?

Beats me tbh.

Wanderer78

Johnny Dogs wrote:

Why?

Multitude of reasons, contact mod for info, always stimulating