General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

James Brown

Here's something:

a three-bed semi D in Dublin

Construction costs make up less than half the total of building a new home in the capital, a new report has found.

According to the report by the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland (SCSI), the average cost of building a three bedroom, semi-detached house in the greater Dublin area is €330,000.

The construction costs – or “hard costs” - came to €150,000, amounting to less than half (45pc) of the total cost of building the house.

The remaining €180,000 consists mainly of “soft costs” such as the land and acquisition costs of €57,000 (17pc of total), VAT of €39,000 (12pc) and a margin of €38,000 (11pc).
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/surveyors-break-down-the-cost-of-building-a-threebed-semi-d-in-dublin-34726020.html

Now this is from 2016.
So lets look at this €330,000. Hard costs of €150,000. The remainder is all monies going to the state in some form. The state can make allowances and even if not, it's going back to the public coffers anyway.

Now this is from March 2017, but as close in the timeline as I could find

The average cost of a three-bed semi-detached home in Dublin is now more than €400,000, according to the Real Estate Alliance (REA).

The agency’s latest survey found prices in the capital had risen by €15,000, or 3.9 per cent, to €404,167 in the last three months.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/average-cost-of-dublin-three-bed-semi-rises-above-400-000-1.3026124?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Faverage-cost-of-dublin-three-bed-semi-rises-above-400-000-1.3026124

So to buy at the time roughly €400,000

To build roughly €330,000, with a little more than half of this going back to the tax payer in some form. So the cost would be roughly €150,000. Take into account hiring a firm to build a great number, rather than a one off and you'd likely see a drop there too.

Now unless all the developers bank rolled by NAMA or other sources are in it for giggles, I would assume there's a profit in building to sell. Therefore, building stock is cheaper than buying stock. Ipso fatso.

If we can find the money to buy or rent privately or even to loan to others, we can find the money to build.

ancapailldorcha

Post deleted and ban issued.

James Brown

Just saw this:

Many Irish wealthy declared less income than average industrial wage – C&AG
Many of those with over €50 million in assets paid small amounts of income tax

More than 80 of the country’s richest taxpayers declared taxable income less than the average industrial wage in 2015, according to a study by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/many-irish-wealthy-declared-less-income-than-average-industrial-wage-c-ag-1.3644850?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Fmany-irish-wealthy-declared-less-income-than-average-industrial-wage-c-ag-1.3644850

If we are going to get into, 'Fair play sure they aren't doing anything illegal', lets do the same for those on low income looking for social housing.
Maybe the Indo will do a case study on one of these lads a la the wan sleeping in a Garda station.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Just saw this:




If we are going to get into, 'Fair play sure they aren't doing anything illegal', lets do the same for those on low income looking for social housing.
Maybe the Indo will do a case study on one of these lads a la the wan sleeping in a Garda station.

Given our stupid social welfare and medical card rules, those lads probably qualify for Family Income Supplement and medical cards.

Good loser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Here's something:

a three-bed semi D in Dublin



Now this is from 2016.
So lets look at this €330,000. Hard costs of €150,000. The remainder is all monies going to the state in some form. The state can make allowances and even if not, it's going back to the public coffers anyway.

Now this is from March 2017, but as close in the timeline as I could find




So to buy at the time roughly €400,000

To build roughly €330,000, with a little more than half of this going back to the tax payer in some form. So the cost would be roughly €150,000. Take into account hiring a firm to build a great number, rather than a one off and you'd likely see a drop there too.

Now unless all the developers bank rolled by NAMA or other sources are in it for giggles, I would assume there's a profit in building to sell. Therefore, building stock is cheaper than buying stock. Ipso fatso.

If we can find the money to buy or rent privately or even to loan to others, we can find the money to build.

You're on here morning, noon and night windbagging about social housing being cheaper than buying from the market etc. In this current post by some Cro Magnum maths you figure out houses can be built for €150,000 a pop.


In posts 414 and 420 above it was pointed out that the 54 social houses in Teresa's Gardens cost €500,000 each (half of these were 1 bed or 2 bed) and also stated that the cost of building a social home in Dublin on land owned by the Council was €300,000. You hadn't the decency to respond to them!



These facts utterly disprove the theory you have have bombarded us with ad nauseum. Give over.

James Brown

Good loser wrote: »

You're on here morning, noon and night windbagging about social housing being cheaper than buying from the market etc. In this current post by some Cro Magnum maths you figure out houses can be built for €150,000 a pop.


In posts 414 and 420 above it was pointed out that the 54 social houses in Teresa's Gardens cost €500,000 each (half of these were 1 bed or 2 bed) and also stated that the cost of building a social home in Dublin on land owned by the Council was €300,000. You hadn't the decency to respond to them!



These facts utterly disprove the theory you have have bombarded us with ad nauseum. Give over.

I'll take tried and tested practically proven common knowledge facts over your slurs.
I respond to everyone unless they're on ignore, in which case I'm spared their 'facts'.

The construction costs – or “hard costs” - came to €150,000, amounting to less than half (45pc) of the total cost of building the house.

According to the report by the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland (SCSI)

All your insults aside, why are developers in business if they are losing money? Can you respond like a civil person please?

Idbatterim

Say someone gets a 4% pay rise , half is taken off. You think 2% covers general and property related inflation? Lol!

http://shr.gs/iRSNbml

ancapailldorcha

Good loser wrote: »

You're on here morning, noon and night windbagging about social housing being cheaper than buying from the market etc. In this current post by some Cro Magnum maths you figure out houses can be built for €150,000 a pop.

In posts 414 and 420 above it was pointed out that the 54 social houses in Teresa's Gardens cost €500,000 each (half of these were 1 bed or 2 bed) and also stated that the cost of building a social home in Dublin on land owned by the Council was €300,000. You hadn't the decency to respond to them!

These facts utterly disprove the theory you have have bombarded us with ad nauseum. Give over.

Cut out the tone please.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll take tried and tested practically proven common knowledge facts over your slurs.
I respond to everyone unless they're on ignore, in which case I'm spared their 'facts'.



All your insults aside, why are developers in business if they are losing money? Can you respond like a civil person please?

Both of you are correct.

The "hard costs" come to €150,000 in the average house built by private developers. YOu are correct about that. However, that is a very flawed and limited analysis.

These are not the only costs. From planning costs to architect fees to tendering costs, as well as administration costs and site preparations there are other costs for local authorities, and you need to account for the lack of efficiency generally. That is why, when someone like you does an exercise on paper or in theory, they come up with a cost of €150,000, but reality is far different from theory or imagination. The actual facts of what it costs to build social housing have been provided in the posts mentioned by Good Loser. They demonstrate time and again that it is not possible for public bodies to deliver commercial outcomes such as building houses in as cost-effective a manner as private developers.

Your theory doesn't survive contact with reality or to put it a different way, it is a battle plan that doesn't survive contact with the enemy of real life. If you want to show that social housing can be built for €150,000, you can look at any number of the current projects that are taking place. While social housing isn't being built to the extent you want, if it could be built, then at least one of the current projects would be building it for €500,000. Until you come up with that example, your theory will be subject to ridicule for the reasons set out above.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's a balancing act. As long as enough of the right people, (voters, backers) are kept happy FF/FG can get up to all sorts.
As for the government indies, they're all culpable. Like FG's Catherine Byrne the other day and Leo when he was heading one department passing judgment on others, it's all very well to talk the talk but they're all in it together. FF or a number of Indies could cause a change if they wanted. FF would rather FG in office than risk raising the profile of a third option be it a party or a conglomerate of like minded Indies. I mean FF were the worst thing on Earth in recent years, now they're good enough to govern with, 'for the good of the country, stable government...nobody really wanted...with a leader nobody voted for.. something something..' I ask you.

If you have a look back to 2016 we had an election, we all know the way the chips fell, it was either cobble something together or go back to the polls.
We got what we have because that's what we voted for, FG still the biggest party.
While any credible chance of putting them out of office couldn't get together with anything close to agreeing a deal to govern, we got the current govt .
It's not by any means the best govt we could have, but looking at it rationally it's the best of what we voted for.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

If you have a look back to 2016 we had an election, we all know the way the chips fell, it was either cobble something together or go back to the polls.
We got what we have because that's what we voted for, FG still the biggest party.
While any credible chance of putting them out of office couldn't get together with anything close to agreeing a deal to govern, we got the current govt .
It's not by any means the best govt we could have, but looking at it rationally it's the best of what we voted for.

2016 was the most recent verifiable figures I could find on short notice.

The election had absolutely no bearing on FG housing policy. It's the same ideology as under Kenny. Look to the private market.

We had FG get into bed with FF despite everything Kenny and FG said about them. The idea that FF were the best option is a lie made by FG. FF were the best option to quell the rise of any non civil war alternative what ever form that might be.

My point was/is FF and the indies could finish the current government if they wished so therefore they are all culpable for the growing crises. 'Best of a bad lot', 'better the devil you know' doesn't take away from that.
It seems FF are only the worst thing to happen to the country if there's an election and you're running against them.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

2016 was the most recent verifiable figures I could find on short notice.

The election had absolutely no bearing on FG housing policy. It's the same ideology as under Kenny. Look to the private market.

We had FG get into bed with FF despite everything Kenny and FG said about them. The idea that FF were the best option is a lie made by FG. FF were the best option to quell the rise of any non civil war alternative what ever form that might be.

My point was/is FF and the indies could finish the current government if they wished so therefore they are all culpable for the growing crises. 'Best of a bad lot', 'better the devil you know' doesn't take away from that.
It seems FF are only the worst thing to happen to the country if there's an election and you're running against them.

The rewriting of the history of the outcome of the last general election is interesting.

Sinn Fein sat on their hands and said they didn't have a mandate to join a government. Even if they had showed interest, there are too many skeletons in their cupboard to make them suitable for a national government.

PBP and the rabble of the left have no appetite for decisions, the politics of protest is their mantra and means you only have to ask questions, but not provide answers.

Labour, the Greens, Social Democrats and reasonable independents did not have enough seats to help either FG or FF form a government.

The current outcome happened by default as others took themselves off the playing pitch, refused to play at all or just couldn't make up the numbers for a team. It wasn't that FF were the best option for FG, they were the only option other than a second general election.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

2016 was the most recent verifiable figures I could find on short notice.

The election had absolutely no bearing on FG housing policy. It's the same ideology as under Kenny. Look to the private market.

We had FG get into bed with FF despite everything Kenny and FG said about them. The idea that FF were the best option is a lie made by FG. FF were the best option to quell the rise of any non civil war alternative what ever form that might be.

My point was/is FF and the indies could finish the current government if they wished so therefore they are all culpable for the growing crises. 'Best of a bad lot', 'better the devil you know' doesn't take away from that.
It seems FF are only the worst thing to happen to the country if there's an election and you're running against them.

For what end result though given the polls at the minute?
SF and FF are the only realistic coalition that can replace FG in govt.
There is no prospect of agovt being able to be formed without either one or the other of FF or FG in it, be that junior or senior party.
While your ideal of getting rid of what we have, as you think it might solve the housing problem, is probably what is needed for policy change to suit your agenda on it, the numbers don't stack up for any really different govt.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

For what end result though given the polls at the minute?
SF and FF are the only realistic coalition that can replace FG in govt.
There is no prospect of agovt being able to be formed without either one or the other of FF or FG in it, be that junior or senior party.
While your ideal of getting rid of what we have, as you think it might solve the housing problem, is probably what is needed for policy change to suit your agenda on it, the numbers don't stack up for any really different govt.

In memory of the late Bunny Carr, 'stop the lights'.
I said FF and the indies were as culpable as FG as regards the crises and they could pull the plug anytime as was my 'rant'. I also said it was a balancing act to stay in power.
Back to your point, which seems to be FF were the only viable alternative for FG.
How important is it to form a government if you are willing to sell your ethics, morals and supposed ideology? What's the point? Is it just to be in power at all costs? FG sell themselves as a party of scruples and morals, the law and order party, so if we are to believe FG/Kenny, why on earth would they go into a power agreement with FF? The people who destroyed the economy. The people who almost had us "eating out of bins"? Wouldn't the decent thing to do to save us from more FF be to either take the loss or try anything, but go in with FF? Just my opinion.
And again, I don't care who collects the brownie points. I hope FG tackle the housing crisis in a positive way. The last and current government have made all crises worse year on year. More of the same is IMO a blatant disregard for the fact that looking to the private market is costing us and not working. I supposedly have the same agenda as FG as regards the crises, but their idea on it is making it worse is all.
As for the numbers, I never said they were an illegal illegitimate government, just not very good. I don't believe in the 'sure what can you do?' philosophy of the casual FG/FF supporter whose mantra is 'better the devil you know'. FG are the party best equipped to tackle these crises. They need put the tax payer above private business. There is no merit to the trickle down myth.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

In memory of the late Bunny Carr, 'stop the lights'.
I said FF and the indies were as culpable as FG as regards the crises and they could pull the plug anytime as was my 'rant'. I also said it was a balancing act to stay in power.
Back to your point, which seems to be FF were the only viable alternative for FG.
How important is it to form a government if you are willing to sell your ethics, morals and supposed ideology? What's the point? Is it just to be in power at all costs? FG sell themselves as a party of scruples and morals, the law and order party, so if we are to believe FG/Kenny, why on earth would they go into a power agreement with FF? The people who destroyed the economy. The people who almost had us "eating out of bins"? Wouldn't the decent thing to do to save us from more FF be to either take the loss or try anything, but go in with FF? Just my opinion.
And again, I don't care who collects the brownie points. I hope FG tackle the housing crisis in a positive way. The last and current government have made all crises worse year on year. More of the same is IMO a blatant disregard for the fact that looking to the private market is costing us and not working. I supposedly have the same agenda as FG as regards the crises, but their idea on it is making it worse is all.
As for the numbers, I never said they were an illegal illegitimate government, just not very good. I don't believe in the 'sure what can you do?' philosophy of the casual FG/FF supporter whose mantra is 'better the devil you know'. FG are the party best equipped to tackle these crises. They need put the tax payer above private business. There is no merit to the trickle down myth.

Forgive the " rant " analogy, a bit of a joke taken too seriously i thought, I have nothing but respect for most of your posts.
But anyway, as you have developed the topic I see where you are coming from perhaps.
It sounds to me now,and I may be wrong again, as if you want FG to change their policy to suit yours, as opposed to believing any other combination can or would do any better?

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

Forgive the " rant " analogy, a bit of a joke taken too seriously i thought, I have nothing but respect for most of your posts.
But anyway, as you have developed the topic I see where you are coming from perhaps.
It sounds to me now,and I may be wrong again, as if you want FG to change their policy to suit yours, as opposed to believing any other combination can or would do any better?

I believe social and affordable is the only way to tackle the crisis. I personally gain nothing from this save value for the tax money they spend.
If anyone can point to a better way, I'll sign up. We have had 8 or so years of variations on the same theme, looking to the private market, with a nod to a pittance of social housing. It does not work. That much we know.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

In memory of the late Bunny Carr, 'stop the lights'.
I said FF and the indies were as culpable as FG as regards the crises and they could pull the plug anytime as was my 'rant'. I also said it was a balancing act to stay in power.
Back to your point, which seems to be FF were the only viable alternative for FG.
How important is it to form a government if you are willing to sell your ethics, morals and supposed ideology? What's the point? Is it just to be in power at all costs? FG sell themselves as a party of scruples and morals, the law and order party, so if we are to believe FG/Kenny, why on earth would they go into a power agreement with FF? The people who destroyed the economy. The people who almost had us "eating out of bins"? Wouldn't the decent thing to do to save us from more FF be to either take the loss or try anything, but go in with FF? Just my opinion.
And again, I don't care who collects the brownie points. I hope FG tackle the housing crisis in a positive way. The last and current government have made all crises worse year on year. More of the same is IMO a blatant disregard for the fact that looking to the private market is costing us and not working. I supposedly have the same agenda as FG as regards the crises, but their idea on it is making it worse is all.
As for the numbers, I never said they were an illegal illegitimate government, just not very good. I don't believe in the 'sure what can you do?' philosophy of the casual FG/FF supporter whose mantra is 'better the devil you know'. FG are the party best equipped to tackle these crises. They need put the tax payer above private business. There is no merit to the trickle down myth.

Is it better to be in government and achieve 50% of your ethics, moral and ideology or better to be outside and achieve 0%?

I see that Sinn Fein have made a decision to put money in the hands of private landlords.

http://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-feins-alternative-budget-2019-4262148-Oct2018/


"On the tax spend side of almost €600 million the party looks to give a month’s rent relief to all those renting,"

Landlords will be very grateful for the opportunity to increase rents thanks to a Sinn Fein government helping with affordability. I wonder if this proposal will get as much criticism as other proposals have done around here. Arguably it is the worst possible measure as it is untargeted, indiscriminate and will have little practical effect on housing affordability, and will make the fiscal situation worse by diverting available tax resources from where they might better be employed.

Gunmonkey

blanch152 wrote: »

"On the tax spend side of almost €600 million the party looks to give a month’s rent relief to all those renting,"

Landlords will be very grateful for the opportunity to increase rents thanks to a Sinn Fein government helping with affordability. I wonder if this proposal will get as much criticism as other proposals have done around here. Arguably it is the worst possible measure as it is untargeted, indiscriminate and will have little practical effect on housing affordability, and will make the fiscal situation worse by diverting available tax resources from where they might better be employed.

It would be pretty much unworkable! How will it be paid ,and to whom? How does someone qualify, because if you would have to submit an application with copies of your lease would only imagine the paperwork alone would melt a Gov office. Add on the inevitable issues with what month counts, do you have to be renting for a certain period beforehand?

Only workable solution would be to give it to registered landlords or such, at which point the majority would pocket the cash...whats their tenant gonna do, march out to face homelessness over a months rent? Given any housing policy will take years to resolve the issue (if it does at all) then all this is is a nice topup for landlords as blanch said!

Far better to just dump that into house construction if they want to spend it, that will make a bigger difference to the situation than this policy.

Sad Professor

Tax relief for tenants was only just phased out last year. Wouldn't surprise me if FG re-introduce it. It would be a good way of catching amateur landlords who aren't paying tax and aren't registered with the RTB. Either way they need a method of forcing landlords to register their properties and the rent being paid. The RTB amendment bill is coming up soon, so I assume they are thinking about things like this.

As for SF's proposal for the same, I think that needs to be seen in context of their plan to freeze rents for 3 years, stop evictions, and basically ignore the private sector while building council houses.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How important is it to form a government if you are willing to sell your ethics, morals and supposed ideology? What's the point? Is it just to be in power at all costs? FG sell themselves as a party of scruples and morals, the law and order party, so if we are to believe FG/Kenny, why on earth would they go into a power agreement with FF? The people who destroyed the economy. The people who almost had us "eating out of bins"? Wouldn't the decent thing to do to save us from more FF be to either take the loss or try anything, but go in with FF? Just my opinion.

Literally the only alternatives were the current scenario or another, potentially inconclusive, election. Your question may as well just start and end with "How important is it to form a government?"

blanch152

Sad Professor wrote: »

Tax relief for tenants was only just phased out last year. Wouldn't surprise me if FG re-introduce it. It would be a good way of catching amateur landlords who aren't paying tax and aren't registered with the RTB. Either way they need a method of forcing landlords to register their properties and the rent being paid. The RTB amendment bill is coming up soon, so I assume they are thinking about things like this.

As for SF's proposal for the same, I think that needs to be seen in context of their plan to freeze rents for 3 years, stop evictions, and basically ignore the private sector while building council houses.

Tax relief for tenants only boosts the coffers of landlords who can then increase rents. It is a bad idea and does nothing to increase supply of housing.

We have already seen how difficult it is to control rents.

If you are going to offer tax relief, tax relief for new purchases and new builds of housing for renting would at least incentivise new supply, though it wouldn't be the best tax spend.

McMurphy

I see Lowry could be looked upon for support by the govt for the budget after Louth TD Peter Fitzpatrick has resigned from FG.

What will the long term effects be for the minority government if P.F decides to start voting against them rather than with them?

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I see Lowry could be looked upon for support by the govt for the budget after Louth TD Peter Fitzpatrick has resigned from FG.

What will the long term effects be for the minority government if P.F decides to start voting against them rather than with them?

His seat is by no means safe in the event of election (count 11 in 2016, count 13 in 2011 - both final seat), but the other FG candidate wasn't safe in 2016 either (serious drop-off from 2011).

It'd be interesting to see the polling numbers, but I'm not sure either FF or FG would see an opportunity here in terms of an election. That being said, I'm not positive FG would see him as a major risk if they did go to the polls.

With that caveat in terms of polling, I don't think this will have any significant impact and I'd suggest he will vote with the Government on the vast majority of issues.

James Brown

I don't see how SF policies counter or make good FG's proven failure policies.
Is saying SF would be worse some how an alternative to social and affordable housing? Because I've yet to hear a better alternate suggestion.

Podge_irl wrote: »

Literally the only alternatives were the current scenario or another, potentially inconclusive, election. Your question may as well just start and end with "How important is it to form a government?"

So just form a government no matter who with? No thanks.

Growing crises and for example..

Many Irish wealthy declared less income than average industrial wage – C&AG
Many of those with over €50 million in assets paid small amounts of income tax

More than 80 of the country’s richest taxpayers declared taxable income less than the average industrial wage in 2015, according to a study by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/many-of-ireland-s-wealthiest-taxed-at-rate-below-average-worker-1.3644850?pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Fmany-irish-wealthy-declared-less-income-than-average-industrial-wage-c-ag-1.3644850&auth-failed=1&mode=sample

I suppose tax law, like the health service, was like that when we (FG) got here?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I see Lowry could be looked upon for support by the govt for the budget after Louth TD Peter Fitzpatrick has resigned from FG.

What will the long term effects be for the minority government if P.F decides to start voting against them rather than with them?

I liked the 'style over substance' quip. Describes Leo and Eoghan to a T.

Idbatterim

I hope the other candidates in Varadkars constituency in a way bandy together and run on a "drain the swamp" platform.. Might aswell start with the biggest reptile!

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

I hope the other candidates in Varadkars constituency in a way bandy together and run on a "drain the swamp" platform.. Might aswell start with the biggest reptile!

He's a PR caretaker. They may as well put the government on cruise control and hire the equivalent of a conservative shock jock mouthpiece. When he's not reading propaganda he's behaving like a brat. He's a front man for bad policies.

abcabc123123

Idbatterim wrote: »

I hope the other candidates in Varadkars constituency in a way bandy together and run on a "drain the swamp" platform.. Might aswell start with the biggest reptile!

You've expressed this fantasy already. However Dublin West has a fairly solid cohort of centrist voters so it's unlikely either Varadkar or Chambers will be unseated.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So just form a government no matter who with? No thanks.

So you would have preferred another election?

And had that given a similar result? Ultimately FG are stuck in the real world and have to deal with actual possibilities.

Unless your actual preferred solution was continued elections until someone could form a majority government?

abcabc123123

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Growing crises and for example..

How is that an example of a growing crisis?

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

So you would have preferred another election?

And had that given a similar result? Ultimately FG are stuck in the real world and have to deal with actual possibilities.

Unless your actual preferred solution was continued elections until someone could form a majority government?

I would have preferred a FG that stood for what it claimed. FF's poor governance got them in in 2011 and helped them stay in in 2016. It's the height of political sleeveenism.
Either another election or some form of coalition. We've a minority government beholden to FF and private business with a selfie merchant at the helm.

abcabc123123 wrote: »

How is that an example of a growing crisis?

It's not. The 'and for example' is a bit of a tell. Both things wrong which need addressing. Symptoms of a willfully ignorant government IMO.