Leo is the new king of Ireland.

2018 style

blanch152 wrote: »

The best way of dealing with situations like that is to focus on the facts. That is why I have given clear examples of the failures of Dublin City Council - Phibsboro LAP, St. Michael's regeneration, Tara Street etc. I could go on, there are plenty more. I have also contrasted their performance with that of Fingal County Council and asked why do Fingal appear to be doing a better job? Nobody has addressed that comparison. I also pointed to counties like Leitrim and Monaghan where there is barely a housing problem and certainly not a housing crisis.

Eoghan Murphy's policies and the government's policies are the same whether you are in Fingal, Monaghan, Leitrim or Dublin City. Why then is the situation in Dublin City so criticial? Is it because Dublin City Council have reduced the tax take from the LPT and have less money? Is it because they are incompetent?

If some counties have no problem - Leitrim and Monaghan - and other counties are getting to grips with their problem - Fingal - how come it is the Minister's fault when there is a crisis in Dublin City Council? At the very least DCC have at least as much blame as the Minister. If you believe that the Minister should resign/be fired, surely you should apply the same logic to DCC?

The discussion isn't rigged. It is just there are very serious questions about the performance of Dublin City Council that many posters are too afraid to address.

Fingal Co Co are 'getting to grips' with the homeless crisis FG have inflicted on the country?
What planet do you live on?
If paying landlords almost €2k a month of taxpayers money for a 2 bed flat in Balbriggan is 'getting to grips' with it, then we're truly screwed....

quintana76

2018 style wrote: »

Fingal Co Co are 'getting to grips' with the homeless crisis FG have inflicted on the country?
What planet do you live on?
If paying landlords almost €2k a month of taxpayers money for a 2 bed flat in Balbriggan is 'getting to grips' with it, then we're truly screwed....

Meanwhile our representatives are now in Italy begging 600 hundred "refugees" to choose Ireland. They really do live on another planet.

emo72

Surprised nobody mentioning the issue with the smear test victims being dragged through the courts after leo personally saying they wouldn't be. I'm sure there was almost even tears at his press conference. What a farce.

Women dying, and Leo goes quiet. It speaks volumes about him.

http://www.thejournal.ie/alan-kelly-cervicalcheck-4154517-Jul2018/

tobsey

emo72 wrote: »

Surprised nobody mentioning the issue with the smear test victims being dragged through the courts after leo personally saying they wouldn't be. I'm sure there was almost even tears at his press conference. What a farce.

Women dying, and Leo goes quiet. It speaks volumes about him.

http://www.thejournal.ie/alan-kelly-cervicalcheck-4154517-Jul2018/

This article was up before you even posted: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-i-should-have-been-clearer-in-cervical-cancer-court-comments-1.3580685

The state have already admitted liability, so that is not in question in any court. It is up to the victims to decide if they want to go to court, if they feel that is what's best for them and their families. The government can do nothing about that.

It's not true that these cases are being dragged through the courts. They are in court because the victims chose to go there, probably to ensure a timely end to the proceedings. The way you are saying it it sounds like the state are fighting these cases, which is not true.

tobsey

Idbatterim wrote: »

here is another angle, FG dont want to sort out Dublins issues and grow to its potential. As it would mean a power shift from rural ireland > dublin. Those who have the power, always want to keep it...

I think the current situation suits far too many people, including the majority of voters who are home owners. Then the td's own property goes up in value, if they have rental properties, they get more from them. It literally is the biggest money for nothing racket, that there is. I can see why they are feigning interest and doing nothing... Its disgusting and they are morally corrupt beyond belief. I honestly reckon, that until there is serious backlash and the hundreds of thousands effected by this shambles, do something about it, the government certainly wont...

Two of the three most powerful figures in FG, with probably the two most high profile offices of government, are northside Dublin TDs.

James Brown

Nitrogan wrote: »

There are vacant houses all over the country but no one wants to live in them. The crisis is that too many people want to live in places where there aren't enough houses.

The most vexing thing is that people who have to pay for their own accommodation have to suck it up and live where they can afford to, no matter how far it is from work, friends and family while the people relying on the state for housing can pick and choose where they'll accept a free home.

Higher density housing is a possible solution but that will be objected to locally almost everywhere there is most need for housing and being realistic it will bring more social problems.

There's an expectation that everyone gets to live in a 3 bed semi 20 mins from their every need. It's just not realistic and in my opinion that expectation need to be cut out explicitly from state provision. Living off the state should be a lot less desirable than paying your own way. FG are a useless shower for letting this go on since 2011.

All fair points, but what about working tax payers dependent on the state despite their best efforts? The crisis might be eased a little by the above, but it neglects the vast majority who do not choose to be in crisis to play the system at some level or whatever, (which seems to be fine unless you're a mere taxpayer by the way). Also the only expectation is if you work hard and pay your taxes you should be able to afford to buy a home at some point, granted those days are pretty much leaving many of us but it's not being unrealistic to try work towards that and believe in the possibility. FG let this go on because the housing industry relies on tax payers getting grants/aid from the state to rent or buy. The housing industry would need take a hit to their profit margin if anything was done to tackle the crisis, so they do piecemeal faux efforts to placate.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

All fair points, but what about working tax payers dependent on the state despite their best efforts? The crisis might be eased a little by the above, but it neglects the vast majority who do not choose to be in crisis to play the system at some level or whatever, (which seems to be fine unless you're a mere taxpayer by the way). Also the only expectation is if you work hard and pay your taxes you should be able to afford to buy a home at some point, granted those days are pretty much leaving many of us but it's not being unrealistic to try work towards that and believe in the possibility. FG let this go on because the housing industry relies on tax payers getting grants/aid from the state to rent or buy. The housing industry would need take a hit to their profit margin if anything was done to tackle the crisis, so they do piecemeal faux efforts to placate.

What do you mean by working tax payers dependent on the state? It doesn't make sense, if they are dependent on the state, than how are they tax payers for example?

honeybear

Solicitor representing cervical cancer cases won’t be on Leo’s Christmas card list-he kept criticizing Leo on Drivetime today

ancapailldorcha

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

True.

Even Leo would give out.


Criticism as Leo Varadkar opposes four-storey development in his constituency

Coming up as a 404 for me.

Anyway, I'll take your word for it. NIMBYism beats principles it would seem.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

What do you mean by working tax payers dependent on the state? It doesn't make sense, if they are dependent on the state, than how are they tax payers for example?

People on low incomes who have rent subsidised. People getting a first time buyers grant. The housing crisis doesn't begin and end with some girl with seven kids featured in the Independent.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Coming up as a 404 for me.

Anyway, I'll take your word for it. NIMBYism beats principles it would seem.

Found these.

https://www.newstalk.com/Criticism-as-Leo-Varadkar-opposes-fourstorey-development-in-his-constituency

http://www.thejournal.ie/castleknock-planning-varadkar-burton-3646235-Oct2017/

https://www.buzz.ie/news/varadkar-high-rise-opposing-constituency-254616

James Brown

honeybear wrote: »

Solicitor representing cervical cancer cases won’t be on Leo’s Christmas card list-he kept criticizing Leo on Drivetime today

He over did it on the thoughts and prayers spiel is all. Not out of character for him to speak out of place, except now he's Taoiseach he can't disappear back into the woodwork, although he makes a great effort.

Topgear on Dave

honeybear wrote: »

Solicitor representing cervical cancer cases won’t be on Leo’s Christmas card list-he kept criticizing Leo on Drivetime today

Watching a few medics on twitter and they are basically accusing the solicitor of touting for business and the screening programs are going to end up totally f*cked.

https://twitter.com/Antcon7062/status/1024196761953427456

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

People on low incomes who have rent subsidised. People getting a first time buyers grant. The housing crisis doesn't begin and end with some girl with seven kids featured in the Independent.

None of that means that they are dependent on the State. Some of them are just getting back some of what they pay in taxes.

emo72

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He over did it on the thoughts and prayers spiel is all. Not out of character for him to speak out of place, except now he's Taoiseach he can't disappear back into the woodwork, although he makes a great effort.

He's the taoiseach. We expect a certain level of competence. Certainly don't commit to things you can't deliver. He looks like a fool right now.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

None of that means that they are dependent on the State. Some of them are just getting back some of what they pay in taxes.

Are you suggesting state monies come from elsewhere? If a working taxpayer needs a rent supplement from the state. That's a tax payer dependent on the state. You can disagree with the plain fact of it all you like. And again you are ignoring the point, the housing crisis is a lot more to do with strapped tax payers than some wan not wanting to move away from the mammy. It's easier to disregard a problem when you convince yourself it's only happening to chancers who've only themselves to blame, but that's not always the case. Pointing that out. The 'nothing to see here' is tedious.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are you suggesting state monies come from elsewhere? If a working taxpayer needs a rent supplement from the state. That's a tax payer dependent on the state. You can disagree with the plain fact of it all you like. And again you are ignoring the point, the housing crisis is a lot more to do with strapped tax payers than some wan not wanting to move away from the mammy. It's easier to disregard a problem when you convince yourself it's only happening to chancers who've only themselves to blame, but that's not always the case. Pointing that out. The 'nothing to see here' is tedious.

If a taxpayer pays 20k in tax and gets 10k back in rent supplement, he is not dependent on the state.

If a taxpayer gets 20k in benefits and pays 10k back in tax, then he is dependent on the state.

There is a difference in the maths.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

If a taxpayer pays 20k in tax and gets 10k back in rent supplement, he is not dependent on the state.

If a taxpayer gets 20k in benefits and pays 10k back in tax, then he is dependent on the state.

There is a difference in the maths.

You're wrong. If you are working, paying tax but can't afford a roof, you need apply and then receive state aid, why don'y they just stop charging you tax, cut of the middle man?

smurgen

emo72 wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He over did it on the thoughts and prayers spiel is all. Not out of character for him to speak out of place, except now he's Taoiseach he can't disappear back into the woodwork, although he makes a great effort.

He's the taoiseach. We expect a certain level of competence. Certainly don't commit to things you can't deliver. He looks like a fool right now.

Maybe like the time he told trump he'd look into the planning permission of that windfarm

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Then everyone is dependent on the state, because everyone gets something from the State.

We all pay tax, we all get something back. The traditional definition of those that are dependent on the State are those that get back more than they put in.

You're wrong. For example; You work. You can't afford rent. The state provides. Without the state you work, but have no roof of your own. For a roof, you are depending on the state for a roof. Simples. You're going off the rails fair play. I suppose I'm dependent on the state because I use traffic lights, same thing? Gas man
So you're just not interested in the point that the housing crisis is more about tax payers unable to rent or purchase without state supplements, than it is about us all expecting 3 bedroom houses where we want? Okey doke.

Robert McGrath

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Watching a few medics on twitter and they are basically accusing the solicitor of touting for business and the screening programs are going to end up totally f*cked.

https://twitter.com/Antcon7062/status/1024196761953427456

Some of the media reporting on this has been absolutely deplorable. At one point in her interview with the solicitor acting for many of the women yesterday, Sarah McInerney said “well, in some of these cases there will be more negligence than in others”. She appeared to be starting from the assumption that all of the cases in mediation involve some negligence rather than statistically inevitable false negatives (which has yet to be proven either by the courts or Scally)

While I might disagree with him, the solicitor is just doing his job for his clients. The media, on the other hand, have a responsibility to challenge him, establish the facts and inform the public instead of selling an emotional narrative that is light on evidence and fact-based assertions. And they have failed miserably to do so.

Good loser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're wrong. For example; You work. You can't afford rent. The state provides. Without the state you work, but have no roof of your own. For a roof, you are depending on the state for a roof. Simples. You're going off the rails fair play. I suppose I'm dependent on the state because I use traffic lights, same thing? Gas man
So you're just not interested in the point that the housing crisis is more about tax payers unable to rent or purchase without state supplements, than it is about us all expecting 3 bedroom houses where we want? Okey doke.

Or
You work. You can't afford rent. You work harder/longer/better. You can afford the rent! The State has no need to provide.

Or
Without the State you work, but have no roof of your own.
So you get a mortgage, borrow from the parents, wait for an inheritance, share a house, get married, win the lotto, get lucky etc etc.

Life throws up many options.

Hitman3000

A report carried in today's Indo. The sale of 10,000 home loans to a VF is news to Leo. Considering the bad press around VFs I'm surprised Leo has such a flippant response.

Hitman3000

Good loser wrote:

Or You work. You can't afford rent. You work harder/longer/better. You can afford the rent! The State has no need to provide.

My son is a Garda, he can't afford to rent where he is stationed, so he has to commute nearly 2 hours each day after a minimum 10 hour shift. He can't get a mortgage . Any suggestions?

emo72

Has Leo not got any advisors? How the **** could he not be briefed about the PTSB sale?

He didn't know, or, doesn't want to know, or, just doesn't give a ****.

seamus

Maybe it doesn't matter? Banks sell loan books all the time. Should the government be involved in the minutiae of every decision made by banks' boards?

I know it's trendy at the moment for people to cry about "vulture funds", but this kind of activity has been going on for decades. That doesn't make it good or bad, but it also doesn't mean the state should be interfering just because it's the populist thing to do.

emo72

Hitman3000 wrote: »

My son is a Garda, he can't afford to rent where he is stationed, so he has to commute nearly 2 hours each day after a minimum 10 hour shift. He can't get a mortgage . Any suggestions?

The government doesn't care. It's unreal that people with good jobs can't buy houses, so are left paying extortionate rents instead. Basically our quality of life is being degraded so banks and financial institutions can make more profits. Its outrageous, and you'll get posters on saying the government is doing a great job. It's nuts.

emo72

seamus wrote: »

but this kind of activity has been going on for decades. That doesn't make it good or bad,

I'm pretty sure it's bad. And so what it's being going on for decades? That's certainly no reason to keep it going.

Plenty of things went on for decades here that the government didn't want to know about.

blanch152

emo72 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's bad. And so what it's being going on for decades? That's certainly no reason to keep it going.

Plenty of things went on for decades here that the government didn't want to know about.

How are you pretty sure it is bad?

And who is bad for?

Is it bad for the people who have been refusing to pay their mortgages? Yes, because the vulture funds might make them pay up after all these years or sell their house to someone who can afford to buy it.

Is it bad for the people who will now be able to get mortgages because the banks have got rid of their bad loans? Is it bad for the economy in general? Is it bad for the taxpayer who will see the value of their stake in the banks increase? No, all of those will benefit.

tobsey

emo72 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's bad. And so what it's being going on for decades? That's certainly no reason to keep it going.

Plenty of things went on for decades here that the government didn't want to know about.

These are non-performing loans, as in loans to people who haven't been paying them back. These are the costs the banks are sufferring which is resulting in the rest of us paying exorbitant interest rates.

These people signed for the mortgages, they knew what the debt was, and then for whatever reason they've failed to pay it back as agreed. The banks are absolutely right to do whatever they have to do to realise the best return on them.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

My son is a Garda, he can't afford to rent where he is stationed, so he has to commute nearly 2 hours each day after a minimum 10 hour shift. He can't get a mortgage . Any suggestions?

Was like that for me in the 1980s.

All of the cities have grown in size since and you can't build more houses where there is no land unless you build up. And I have shown time and again on here that the fault with not building up lies with local authorities especially DCC as the government have put in place the policies to allow for high-density high-rise in Dublin but they refuse to comply.