Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

1…34689…93

Comments

  • #152
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,726 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    If you actually look at the underlying data and weighting you will see that rent and energy is included in the CPI.
    Rent and energy may have gone up, but other things like food, clothing, alcohol may have gone down.

    Now, if you have an issue with the underlying algorithm that spits out the data, by all means, share to us your own improved version.


  • #153
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,799 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    markodaly wrote: »
    If you actually look at the underlying data and weighting you will see that rent and energy is included in the CPI.
    Rent and energy may have gone up, but other things like food, clothing, alcohol may have gone down.

    Now, if you have an issue with the underlying algorithm that spits out the data, by all means, share to us your own improved version.

    Rents may have gone up but interst on mortgages has gone down. Oil has gone down making heating and driving cheaper.

    CPI is very difficult to second guess without significant research. I am sure Lidl and Aldi have made a contribution at keeping the CPI in check - imagine if Tesco had no cmpetition.


  • #154
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Yeah that's it.

    Pay attention to the bolded parts - this is where I asked him to be more specific.

    It's all about context.


    Are you saying that you don't believe the CSO statistics or that there is something wrong with them?

    The CSO link provided by the other poster says that the cost of living is 0.6% below 2008, if you doubt this, it is up to you to explain why, with something to back it up.


  • #155
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    blanch152 wrote: »
    When a tenant doesn't pay his rent, the landlord evicts him, and the property is available to someone who will pay the rent.

    As has been pointed out on this thread and others already, the local authorities don't even collect the rent, let alone evict the non-payers. Until that is tackled, your scheme doesn't work.

    Have you ever seen the hoops that LAs have to go through to evict a tenant?

    It's a nightmare. I've been party to an eviction when I worked for an LA in Dublin and when you see what we had to put up with to get rid of a family after non payment for nearly 6 years you'll see the hypocrisy from political representatives.


  • #156
    Good loser
    Registered Users Posts: 3,208 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Yeah that's it.

    Pay attention to the bolded parts - this is where I asked him to be more specific.

    It's all about context.


    So all that mattered first was the stats and the source of the stats.


    When these are supplied it all becomes the 'context'.


    You then argue with the basis of the CSO stats. Dredged from nowhere.



    First the rigour, then the waffle.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    When a tenant doesn't pay his rent, the landlord evicts him, and the property is available to someone who will pay the rent.

    As has been pointed out on this thread and others already, the local authorities don't even collect the rent, let alone evict the non-payers. Until that is tackled, your scheme doesn't work.

    You keep diverting my points. Nobody is okay with rent arrears. The LA's should invoke evictions for rent arrears and anti social behaviour. A spell in a hotel will put manners on them.
    Again, the idea is sound, the practice needs enforcing.
    You say the LA's don't collect rent, then how can there be any arrears?
    Once again you've dodged my question and the key point I am trying to make when allowed;
    Even with current arrears, do you think social housing is a better alternative to selling off homes cheaply to have them rented back to us, renting off private landlords, giving cheap loans of tax payer money to developers and buying homes at market rate to use as social housing?


  • #158
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Is a link behind a paywall still a link?

    Any road, the brass neck knows no bounds.
    NAMA sells properties to Cerberus, the state buys properties off Cerberus?
    The Department of Housing confirmed to The Sunday Business Post that a number of homes which were sold by Nama to Cerberus in recent years are part of a portfolio of properties under offer by the Housing Agency
    https://www.businesspost.ie/news/state-pays-market-price-buy-back-properties-sold-discount-vulture-funds-423895

    Now would this 'Department for Housing' be run by which PBP led council?
    I'd say Noonan is beside himself with faux outrage....


  • #159
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Is a link behind a paywall still a link?

    Any road, the brass neck knows no bounds.
    NAMA sells properties to Cerberus, the state buys properties off Cerberus?



    Now would this 'Department for Housing' be run by which PBP led council?
    I'd say Noonan is beside himself with faux outrage....

    And what control does the Department have over the day-to-day operation of either NAMA or the Housing Agency?

    Aside from that, have you checked the facts rather than the newspaper?

    https://www.housingagency.ie/NAMA


  • #160
    Red_Wake
    Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Red_Wake


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    blanch152 wrote: »
    When a tenant doesn't pay his rent, the landlord evicts him, and the property is available to someone who will pay the rent.

    As has been pointed out on this thread and others already, the local authorities don't even collect the rent, let alone evict the non-payers. Until that is tackled, your scheme doesn't work.

    You keep diverting my points. Nobody is okay with rent arrears. The LA's should invoke evictions for rent arrears and anti social behaviour. A spell in a hotel will put manners on them.
    Again, the idea is sound, the practice needs enforcing.
    You say the LA's don't collect rent, then how can there be any arrears?
    Once again you've dodged my question and the key point I am trying to make when allowed;
    Even with current arrears, do you think social housing is a better alternative to selling off homes cheaply to have them rented back to us, renting off private landlords, giving cheap loans of tax payer money to developers and buying homes at market rate to use as social housing?

    I'm guessing these hotels will only have the one pool will they?

    Some punishment.


  • #161
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    You keep diverting my points. Nobody is okay with rent arrears. The LA's should invoke evictions for rent arrears and anti social behaviour. A spell in a hotel will put manners on them.
    Again, the idea is sound, the practice needs enforcing.
    You say the LA's don't collect rent, then how can there be any arrears?
    Once again you've dodged my question and the key point I am trying to make when allowed;


    It is not diverting your points to demonstrate that your plan of the LAs building social housing and renting it out is fatally flawed because the LAs can't collect rent and arrears build up.

    The ability of the private landlord to evict tenants who don't pay gives a competitive and cost advantage to the State funding private landlords. To regain the competitive and cost advantage and to persuade central Government to invest in local authority social housing, local authorities first need to get their act together and evict tenants who don't pay and collect the arrears.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    It is not diverting your points to demonstrate that your plan of the LAs building social housing and renting it out is fatally flawed because the LAs can't collect rent and arrears build up.

    The ability of the private landlord to evict tenants who don't pay gives a competitive and cost advantage to the State funding private landlords. To regain the competitive and cost advantage and to persuade central Government to invest in local authority social housing, local authorities first need to get their act together and evict tenants who don't pay and collect the arrears.

    You've still not answered a direct question put to you three times. I'll take that as you've no intention of an honest open discussion and seem to be engaging only to shut down talk that doesn't suit.
    blanch152 wrote: »
    And what control does the Department have over the day-to-day operation of either NAMA or the Housing Agency?

    Aside from that, have you checked the facts rather than the newspaper?

    https://www.housingagency.ie/NAMA

    Sorry your 'nothing to see here' efforts are in vain. Why you persist I don't know.
    Are you saying the Department of Housing is wrong? Are you saying each entity is beholden only to itself and the government are merely suggesting things while these entities, NAMA and the Department of Housing do what they like with tax payer money, answerable to no government? Like Leo would like us to believe the DoJ acts?
    That's poor diversionary tactics Blanch. It seems, likely unbeknownst to yourself, that you can't discuss something without leaping to the defence of a government and departments, you seem to be claiming are responsible for little and beholden to nobody. It makes for aggressive two sided arguing and kills debate IMO.

    The Dept. of Housing has purchased housing from Cerberus, that Cerberus, putting inappropriate behavior by Noonan aside, bought on the cheap off NAMA. This is a disgusting con on the tax payer or an incompetent waste of tax payer money. There certainly is something to see here.
    Then we've Murphy today saying he expects homeless figures to rise, but they are doing the right thing in trying to tackle it? He also says the cause of the housing crisis is not enough housing available and we need more builds. He's half right. We need more builds tax payers can afford. He says 1 in 5 will be social housing, will the other 4 be bought off cerberus, properties the tax payer use to own?
    Now don't try dismiss this as being on the doorstep of Mick Wallace or whom ever, surely it can be discussed without the embarrassment of trying to claim the Dept. of Housing have clean hands on this and NAMA are a rogue loose cannon Dirty Harry type organisation but with tax payers monies and government play no role.
    At best this is idiocy.


  • #163
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    You've still not answered a direct question put to you three times. I'll take that as you've no intention of an honest open discussion and seem to be engaging only to shut down talk that doesn't suit.



    Sorry your 'nothing to see here' efforts are in vain. Why you persist I don't know.
    Are you saying the Department of Housing is wrong? Are you saying each entity is beholden only to itself and the government are merely suggesting things while these entities, NAMA and the Department of Housing do what they like with tax payer money, answerable to no government? Like Leo would like us to believe the DoJ acts?
    That's poor diversionary tactics Blanch. It seems, likely unbeknownst to yourself, that you can't discuss something without leaping to the defence of a government and departments, you seem to be claiming are responsible for little and beholden to nobody. It makes for aggressive two sided arguing and kills debate IMO.

    The Dept. of Housing has purchased housing from Cerberus, that Cerberus, putting inappropriate behavior by Noonan aside, bought on the cheap off NAMA. This is a disgusting con on the tax payer or an incompetent waste of tax payer money. There certainly is something to see here.
    Then we've Murphy today saying he expects homeless figures to rise, but they are doing the right thing in trying to tackle it? He also says the cause of the housing crisis is not enough housing available and we need more builds. He's half right. We need more builds tax payers can afford. He says 1 in 5 will be social housing, will the other 4 be bought off cerberus, properties the tax payer use to own?
    Now don't try dismiss this as being on the doorstep of Mick Wallace or whom ever, surely it can be discussed without the embarrassment of trying to claim the Dept. of Housing have clean hands on this and NAMA are a rogue loose cannon Dirty Harry type organisation but with tax payers monies and government play no role.
    At best this is idiocy.


    Not surprised to hear homelessness may get worse before it gets better when you read the statistics:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0828/988057-cso-migration/

    Population is unexpectedly rising. The whingers of the left have been telling us that FG policies to rescue the economy would not work and that we would be faced with net emigration for years. Well, it seems they were wrong about that.

    "The CSO said there was a net inward migration of Irish nationals for the first time since 2009"

    I assume you welcome that?

    And it is not just people coming into the country, jobs are coming too:

    https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/rise-of-employment-far-from-over-as-latest-cso-figures-reveal-increase-of-34pc-37259802.html

    The number of people at work is rising, the number of people in the Labour Force is rising, the number of people unemployed is dropping. All of this is good news - excepts that it increases the demand for housing faster than expected.

    On your latest NAMA conspiracy, I heard Eoin O'Broin on the radio and he admitted that there were 20 houses involved in a bundle of around 200 being bought by the Housing Agency. As he said, if they are being offered as part of a job lot that the HA got a discount on, then it could well be good business. He also pointed out that 4,000 NAMA houses were rejected by the local authorities some two years ago, and that the 20 were part of these, and we need to know why the local authorities rejected them.

    Not my words, this time, just a SF politicians. Now I've got to go and do penance because I agree with a SF politician. So rather than jumping to conclusions that the local authorities are sweetly innocent and that the evil NAMA and Cerebus were in cronyist corrrupt cahoots, maybe you should wait for the facts.

    P.S. At least we can celebrate the great news on Irish people coming home and more jobs being created, can't we?


  • #164
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Not surprised to hear homelessness may get worse before it gets better when you read the statistics:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0828/988057-cso-migration/

    Population is unexpectedly rising. The whingers of the left have been telling us that FG policies to rescue the economy would not work and that we would be faced with net emigration for years. Well, it seems they were wrong about that.

    "The CSO said there was a net inward migration of Irish nationals for the first time since 2009"

    I assume you welcome that?

    And it is not just people coming into the country, jobs are coming too:

    https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/rise-of-employment-far-from-over-as-latest-cso-figures-reveal-increase-of-34pc-37259802.html

    The number of people at work is rising, the number of people in the Labour Force is rising, the number of people unemployed is dropping. All of this is good news - excepts that it increases the demand for housing faster than expected.

    On your latest NAMA conspiracy, I heard Eoin O'Broin on the radio and he admitted that there were 20 houses involved in a bundle of around 200 being bought by the Housing Agency. As he said, if they are being offered as part of a job lot that the HA got a discount on, then it could well be good business. He also pointed out that 4,000 NAMA houses were rejected by the local authorities some two years ago, and that the 20 were part of these, and we need to know why the local authorities rejected them.

    Not my words, this time, just a SF politicians. Now I've got to go and do penance because I agree with a SF politician. So rather than jumping to conclusions that the local authorities are sweetly innocent and that the evil NAMA and Cerebus were in cronyist corrrupt cahoots, maybe you should wait for the facts.

    P.S. At least we can celebrate the great news on Irish people coming home and more jobs being created, can't we?

    Gas.
    Things in crisis generally do get worse before they get better. That's a law of nature really. Darkest before the dawn and so on. A bird in the hand and all that :)
    The economy is doing great, the housing industry and vulture funds, with the assistance of government, are going gang busters alright. Pity it's not seeming to translate to the Irish so much.
    So what do you think about the Housing Department buying units off Cerberus that NAMA previously sold to Cerberus?
    I think it's a poor use of tax payer monies myself.


  • #165
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Gas.
    Things in crisis generally do get worse before they get better. That's a law of nature really. Darkest before the dawn and so on. A bird in the hand and all that :)
    The economy is doing great, the housing industry and vulture funds, with the assistance of government, are going gang busters alright. Pity it's not seeming to translate to the Irish so much.


    Apart from people being able to return to Ireland for the first time since 2009 and more people in jobs than ever before? What did the Romans ever do for us:rolleyes:?


    Matt Barrett wrote: »

    So what do you think about the Housing Department buying units off Cerberus that NAMA previously sold to Cerberus?
    I think it's a poor use of tax payer monies myself.

    The Housing Agency (not the Housing Department, let's keep to the facts) have apparently bought a job lot of 200 units off Cerebus. 20 of those units were originally in NAMA and rejected by the local authorities as unsuitable two years ago.

    A number of possibilities:

    (1) Cerebus have renovated them, making them suitable
    (2) The local authorities were incompetent to reject them at the time
    (3) They were too expensive at the time for the local authorities
    (4) The terms of the job lot sale by Cerebus meant the Housing Agency had to accept the 20 units for the greater benefit
    (5) The deal makes sense financially and for housing the homeless


    I am sure that you can think of more. For me, the rejection by the local authorities is key. Either the local authorities made a mistake two years ago, or the Housing Agency is making a mistake now or Cerebus have done something to make them suitable.

    Without further information, it is impossible to know whether the State has got a good deal. And to be fair to the local authorities, we are talking about 20 properties out of a total of 4,000 that the local authorities rejected. Even if they were wrong, the error level was only 0.5%.

    I suppose that for you any contact with Cerebus by a government agency is a bad thing.


  • #166
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Apart from people being able to return to Ireland for the first time since 2009 and more people in jobs than ever before? What did the Romans ever do for us:rolleyes:?





    The Housing Agency (not the Housing Department, let's keep to the facts) have apparently bought a job lot of 200 units off Cerebus. 20 of those units were originally in NAMA and rejected by the local authorities as unsuitable two years ago.

    A number of possibilities:

    (1) Cerebus have renovated them, making them suitable
    (2) The local authorities were incompetent to reject them at the time
    (3) They were too expensive at the time for the local authorities
    (4) The terms of the job lot sale by Cerebus meant the Housing Agency had to accept the 20 units for the greater benefit
    (5) The deal makes sense financially and for housing the homeless


    I am sure that you can think of more. For me, the rejection by the local authorities is key. Either the local authorities made a mistake two years ago, or the Housing Agency is making a mistake now or Cerebus have done something to make them suitable.

    Without further information, it is impossible to know whether the State has got a good deal. And to be fair to the local authorities, we are talking about 20 properties out of a total of 4,000 that the local authorities rejected. Even if they were wrong, the error level was only 0.5%.

    I suppose that for you any contact with Cerebus by a government agency is a bad thing.

    Yes it is because it usually means the tax payer lost money or the tax payer will need pay more for rents/buys.
    The state is encouraging profiteering off a crisis. This might be good for some economic numbers but not so much for the tax payer. There is a massive disconnect going on here in the logic of which ever deity is given responsibility of looking after the Irish taxpayer.
    You go on like I'm making it up and come back with reasoning explaining away why what I'm commenting on might have taken place and then tell me to stick to facts. You couldn't make it up.
    Once again you try make this about LA's versus national government. You're the only one fighting that imagined war. I know it helps to always have a whatabout, but sometimes it's acceptable to comment on a news item.
    Do you realise you've not once given an opinion on this? Merely thrown up ifs and buts as to why the tax payer took a loss selling properties to Cerberus and later bought them back?
    This goes back to the question you kept dodging. On an amended version; do you think the state, in a housing crisis, where the housing minister says we need more units, should be selling off housing units rather than using them or upgrading if needed? Would that be a better deal for the tax payer? The LA's didn't sell to Cerberus, but did possibly refuse them. Maybe they'd good reason, maybe they didn't.
    The state sells stock, rents or buys it back at a later date, is one of the ways the state avoids making social housing builds in any meaningful number, taking any rent arrears into account I think social housing and affordable housing are the best deals for the tax payer in tackling this worsening crisis.


  • #167
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Yes it is because it usually means the tax payer lost money or the tax payer will need pay more for rents/buys.
    The state is encouraging profiteering off a crisis. This might be good for some economic numbers but not so much for the tax payer. There is a massive disconnect going on here in the logic of which ever deity is given responsibility of looking after the Irish taxpayer.
    You go on like I'm making it up and come back with reasoning explaining away why what I'm commenting on might have taken place and then tell me to stick to facts. You couldn't make it up.
    Once again you try make this about LA's versus national government. You're the only one fighting that imagined war. I know it helps to always have a whatabout, but sometimes it's acceptable to comment on a news item.
    Do you realise you've not once given an opinion on this? Merely thrown up ifs and buts as to why the tax payer took a loss selling properties to Cerberus and later bought them back?
    This goes back to the question you kept dodging. On an amended version; do you think the state, in a housing crisis, where the housing minister says we need more units, should be selling off housing units rather than using them or upgrading if needed? Would that be a better deal for the tax payer? The LA's didn't sell to Cerberus, but did possibly refuse them. Maybe they'd good reason, maybe they didn't.
    The state sells stock, rents or buys it back at a later date, is one of the ways the state avoids making social housing builds in any meaningful number, taking any rent arrears into account I think social housing and affordable housing are the best deals for the tax payer in tackling this worsening crisis.

    We don't know whether the taxpayer took a loss - Eoin O'Broin said as much this morning, he said it was possible it was a very good deal for the taxpayer.

    Now, if the LAs had the opportunity to buy the properties, but stupidly turned them down, and the taxpayer, in need of housing quickly now has to buy them back at a loss, that isn't the government's fault, that is the fault of the local authorities.

    And once again, it is only 20 properties out of 4,000.


  • #168
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    We don't know whether the taxpayer took a loss - Eoin O'Broin said as much this morning, he said it was possible it was a very good deal for the taxpayer.

    Now, if the LAs had the opportunity to buy the properties, but stupidly turned them down, and the taxpayer, in need of housing quickly now has to buy them back at a loss, that isn't the government's fault, that is the fault of the local authorities.

    And once again, it is only 20 properties out of 4,000.

    Cerberus bought them off us and sold them back to us at a cheaper rate? I don't think that's likely.
    How is buying property at market rate from a company/entity making a profit in any way the better deal for the tax payer, putting aside we sold it to them in the first place?
    If you are suggesting tax payer money being used by different government entities are unrelated, I disagree, it's all tax payer money.

    Now you give benefit of the doubt to the housing department but not the LA's?
    We do know that the state took a loss in selling these properties to Cerberus and we do know the state bought them back. Still no idea how you feel about that, still no idea if you think all these efforts are a good deal for the tax payer over and above social/affordable housing.
    This is very one sided. I put forth commentary on a news item, you give no opinion and try change the narrative. It's pointless responding to you.


  • #169
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Cerberus bought them off us and sold them back to us at a cheaper rate? I don't think that's likely.
    How is buying property at market rate from a company/entity making a profit in any way the better deal for the tax payer, putting aside we sold it to them in the first place?
    If you are suggesting tax payer money being used by different government entities are unrelated, I disagree, it's all tax payer money.

    Now you give benefit of the doubt to the housing department but not the LA's?
    We do know that the state took a loss in selling these properties to Cerberus and we do know the state bought them back. Still no idea how you feel about that, still no idea if you think all these efforts are a good deal for the tax payer over and above social/affordable housing.
    This is very one sided. I put forth commentary on a news item, you give no opinion and try change the narrative. It's pointless responding to you.


    If you know the bit in bold for a fact, you will be able to point to a link to back you up.

    You gave a link to a news item from the Sunday Business Post behind a paywall, so how can I comment just on your interpretation of it. I heard the SF representative on it, and his words were measured, and he wants to wait and see before commenting. Even he thought there was a chance that the Housing Agency got a good deal or that it was the Local Authorities' fault, he just wanted more facts.

    Your rush to judgement that everything is FG bad, cronyism and corruption is tired, old, outdated and mostly completely wrong. It is a problem on these boards that everyone jumps on the latest news item. We had it with Shatter, we had it with Garda Harrison and many other issues where the people who rushed to judgement and condemned all and sundry were plain wrong.


  • #170
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    If you know the bit in bold for a fact, you will be able to point to a link to back you up.

    You gave a link to a news item from the Sunday Business Post behind a paywall, so how can I comment just on your interpretation of it. I heard the SF representative on it, and his words were measured, and he wants to wait and see before commenting. Even he thought there was a chance that the Housing Agency got a good deal or that it was the Local Authorities' fault, he just wanted more facts.

    Your rush to judgement that everything is FG bad, cronyism and corruption is tired, old, outdated and mostly completely wrong. It is a problem on these boards that everyone jumps on the latest news item. We had it with Shatter, we had it with Garda Harrison and many other issues where the people who rushed to judgement and condemned all and sundry were plain wrong.

    I quoted a news item. That's all we have to go on. Where I read a news item and comment on it, you dive in to fight the good fight defending government and trying to throw in a dig or two to the LA's or Paul Murphy or who ever.
    Are you denying any such thing happened or just trying to dismiss it?
    You will constantly find criticism of bumbling government antics. That's par for the course. There's no conspiracy in commenting on news items. You can surmise that down the road they'll amount to nothing and sometimes that's true. These boards gather dust until somebody like myself posts commentary on a news item, which tend to awaken the likes of yourself, who put forward no opinion, as is tradition in a discussion, but spend your time trying to quash the subject matter, to the point where you've admitted only recently you've sometimes no actual interest in a topic itself. So why you spend time on it only you can answer. That's the big problem with these boards, lack of genuine discussion, risks of getting another thread criticising government closed down. Odd goal for any politics forum poster I'll grant you.
    In this case you are true to form.
    The state sold properties at a loss, I say loss because NAMA was in the business of off loading property in the debt throws of a crash. Prove me wrong.
    Nama, the bad bank set up to clear toxic property loans from Irish bank balance sheets, on Wednesday sold loans linked to Irish property and land with a par value of €800m to a joint venture company in which it will retain a 20 per cent stake. The remaining 80 per cent equity is owned by a consortium led by Starwood Capital. Other consortium members include Key Capital Real Estate and Catalyst Capital.

    The loans were sold for about €200m, which amounts to a 75 per cent haircut on the original loan value.
    https://www.ft.com/content/0dac849a-b330-11e2-95b3-00144feabdc0

    We do know the state sold properties to a vulture fund Noonan had inappropriate dealing with, read any conspiracy into that you like, and then bought them back. We also know you refuse to give an opinion on this yet persist in trying to dismiss it as nothing to see here.
    I'll not waste my time on your ifs and buts and hyperbollo.
    Enjoy.


  • #171
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I quoted a news item. That's all we have to go on. Where I read a news item and comment on it, you dive in to fight the good fight defending government and trying to throw in a dig or two to the LA's or Paul Murphy or who ever.
    Are you denying any such thing happened or just trying to dismiss it?
    You will constantly find criticism of bumbling government antics. That's par for the course. There's no conspiracy in commenting on news items. You can surmise that down the road they'll amount to nothing and sometimes that's true. These boards gather dust until somebody like myself posts commentary on a news item, which tend to awaken the likes of yourself, who put forward no opinion, as is tradition in a discussion, but spend your time trying to quash the subject matter, to the point where you've admitted only recently you've sometimes no actual interest in a topic itself. So why you spend time on it only you can answer. That's the big problem with these boards, lack of genuine discussion, risks of getting another thread criticising government closed down. Odd goal for any politics forum poster I'll grant you.
    In this case you are true to form.
    The state sold properties at a loss, I say loss because NAMA was in the business of off loading property in the debt throws of a crash. Prove me wrong.



    We do know the state sold properties to a vulture fund Noonan had inappropriate dealing with, read any conspiracy into that you like, and then bought them back. We also know you refuse to give an opinion on this yet persist in trying to dismiss it as nothing to see here.
    I'll not waste my time on your ifs and buts and hyperbollo.
    Enjoy.


    I apply some discernment to newspaper articles and items. Over the last decade there has been a tendency for news items to focus on scandal and hyperbole at the expense of humdum truth and reality. We then get shouts of cronyism, corruption etc from the loudest empty vessels. Unfortunately, most of the time, there is really nothing to see here.

    So FG Ministers are not spending their time dreaming up schemes to make Denis O'Brien richer, neither are they wining and dining in expensive restaurants discussing how to sell more of the State silver to vulture funds.

    However, we still get a situation where 20, yes 20, out of 4,000 houses rejected by local authorities and subsequently sold by NAMA to Cerebus, before being bought back by the Housing Agency (and correct any of that if it isn't true) is a scandal of gigantic proportions requiring the condemnation of the FG Minister for Housing rather than an acceptable error rate of 0.5% or perhaps a mistake made by local authorities.

    So sorry if I don't want to join the circus of hyperbole and hysterics and just want to look at the bare mundane facts. Unless you have some new piece of information to add, I am with the SF spokesperson who wants more real information before he comments.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    More factual news for comment:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0828/988059-employment-up-3-4-in-q2-according-to-cso/

    "The Department of Finance said it was the highest level of employment ever within the State."

    Good news all round.


  • #173
    Mongfinder General
    Registered Users Posts: 1,992 ✭✭✭Mongfinder General


    blanch152 wrote: »
    More factual news for comment:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0828/988059-employment-up-3-4-in-q2-according-to-cso/

    "The Department of Finance said it was the highest level of employment ever within the State."

    Good news all round.

    So the employment rate is approx 62% (not including black economy). Not bad but not great.


  • #174
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Mongfinder General wrote: »
    So the employment rate is approx 62% (not including black economy). Not bad but not great.


    It is on a rising trend which is good.


  • #175
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Mongfinder General wrote: »
    So the employment rate is approx 62% (not including black economy). Not bad but not great.

    It's good news. But we can't look at one side of the story. Bragging about more people returning than leaving is a little sad. How many years before that's reversed again?
    All down to the way we do business. The same goes for housing and the working tax payer needing state aid to get by. It's a ponzi scheme waiting to be found out. It could not be more plainly spelled out than a housing and local authority minister, (that's right Eoghan is the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government) buying houses off the market to pass off as social housing and NAMA selling to Noonan's Cerberus chums only for Eoghan to buy them back at a later date. Of course it'll be the left and the unions fault when it goes arse about tit again. And we'll still have the myriad crisis, either making too much private profit (housing) or not enough money in it to bother tackling (health).


  • #176
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's good news. But we can't look at one side of the story. Bragging about more people returning than leaving is a little sad. How many years before that's reversed again?
    All down to the way we do business. The same goes for housing and the working tax payer needing state aid to get by. It's a ponzi scheme waiting to be found out. It could not be more plainly spelled out than a housing and local authority minister, (that's right Eoghan is the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government) buying houses off the market to pass off as social housing and NAMA selling to Noonan's Cerberus chums only for Eoghan to buy them back at a later date. Of course it'll be the left and the unions fault when it goes arse about tit again. And we'll still have the myriad crisis, either making too much private profit (housing) or not enough money in it to bother tackling (health).

    What is the ponzi scheme? Explain that reference to me, please.


  • #177
    Red_Wake
    Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Red_Wake


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Mongfinder General wrote: »
    So the employment rate is approx 62% (not including black economy). Not bad but not great.

    It's good news. But we can't look at one side of the story. Bragging about more people returning than leaving is a little sad. How many years before that's reversed again?
    All down to the way we do business. The same goes for housing and the working tax payer needing state aid to get by. It's a ponzi scheme waiting to be found out. It could not be more plainly spelled out than a housing and local authority minister, (that's right Eoghan is the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government) buying houses off the market to pass off as social housing and NAMA selling to Noonan's Cerberus chums only for Eoghan to buy them back at a later date. Of course it'll be the left and the unions fault when it goes arse about tit again. And we'll still have the myriad crisis, either making too much private profit (housing) or not enough money in it to bother tackling (health).

    Certainly couldn't be looking too closely at anything that paints the country as doing well under FG.....


  • #178
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Red_Wake wrote: »
    Certainly couldn't be looking too closely at anything that paints the country as doing well under FG.....

    I disagree. As a former FG voter, among others, I'm very happy for any good news regardless of which party happens to be at the helm. It's just unfortunate it often becomes a game of sides and supporting your team.

    I think selling properties likely at a loss to the tax payer only to buy them back at a latter date from the same people you sold them to is being a bit of a silly billy with the tax payers money. I'd feel the same if it was Clare Daly or Dustin the Turkey in government.


  • #179
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's good news. But we can't look at one side of the story.

    How is there another side to the story that more people are working, less people are unemployed, more Irish are coming home etc.????

    How is there a downside to that?


  • #180
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I disagree. As a former FG voter I'm very happy for any good news regardless of which party happens to be at the helm. It's just unfortunate it often becomes a game of sides and supporting your team.

    I think selling properties likely at a loss to the tax payer only to buy them back at a latter date from the same people you sold them to is being a bit of a silly billy with the tax payers money. I'd feel the same if it was Clare Daly or Dustin the Turkey in government.

    20 properties, yes 20.

    How is that important?

    I know a civil servant who once told me he put in an expense claim with a bus ticket for €1.60 that he found on the ground. Should I have reported that corruption to SIPO?

    You have a blindspot where some tiny little things assume huge importance at the expense of the big picture. The country is getting back on its feet, people are working and earning again, great news, but, but, but, 20 properties. Perspective is needed.

    That doesn't mean I believe it was right, that doesn't mean I believe it should be disregarded, it only means that I believe it is a small issue in the greater scheme of things, given its scale - only 20 properties. If more comes out, if more is shown to have transpired, of course, it could mean something, but it is a small issue at the moment.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Red_Wake
    Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Red_Wake


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Red_Wake wrote: »
    Certainly couldn't be looking too closely at anything that paints the country as doing well under FG.....

    I disagree. As a former FG voter, among others, I'm very happy for any good news regardless of which party happens to be at the helm. It's just unfortunate it often becomes a game of sides and supporting your team.

    I think selling properties likely at a loss to the tax payer only to buy them back at a latter date from the same people you sold them to is being a bit of a silly billy with the tax payers money. I'd feel the same if it was Clare Daly or Dustin the Turkey in government.

    Is there anything you'd commend the current government[let's include Lab/FG in there as well] for?

    I don't think I've ever seen you say anything remotely positive about the Government.


Advertisement