General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

I'm not going to respond to each point individually, but all that ignores the problems I mentioned with social housing: welfare traps, disincentives to work, social problems, subsidising private profit, etc. As I said I'm not a fan of the current setup, I think we should try the high rise option, regulations... To borrow your phrase, it may not solve things but I don't think it would make it worse.

Apologies, I wasn't ignoring it, I don't believe in welfare traps relating to housing.
I can only go by the small numbers on (edit: unemployment) welfare and the criteria any recipient needs meet. You can't walk in the door and expect welfare. That's a myth. I'm sure there are a number of chancers but they'd need be pretty wily. In short I do not believe people generally like being poor even if it means they don't have to get up early of a morning.
From personal experience, I grew up beside a formally 100% social housing estate, which is now pretty much private. There's even a FG TD in their number. To suggest aiding tax payers with affordable housing might cause them to be trapped is not what I've seen. What's the difference between building affordable housing or paying the rent to a private landlord concern as regards the poverty trap? I don't see any difference in that. In fact I would suggest the possibility of owning your home might be a driving factor, where living in a private rental it wouldn't as much.
hi-rise would be good if it was affordable/social. Otherwise it's merely more of the same but condensed.

James Brown

severeoversteer wrote: »

I must admit that leo really tightened the screw with his PR thing!! :rolleyes:

you say tax payers should fund this and fund that! I don't think anyone should be subsidising homes for others, people stuck in bedsits and living in tenement like situations should be motivated enough to get there sh1t in order and better themselves by working hard like everyone else, there is a bit of merit in tough love, don't let them sleep on streets but don't give them a safety net that lasts a lifetime.


for people struggling to purchase first home in new developments a reduction in vat would be a good idea, but on a vat back scenario,

savings should be incentivised more by the government, like an ssia scheme

quick solutions to housing problems will never be looked back on as being good decisions.

also, hate to burst your bubble but if your the matt barrett I know, you don't have any experience in property development.

I agree people should help themselves but if you're on a low income and the cheapest rent isn't cheap enough, what do you do?

Sam Russell

Edward M wrote: »

That wasn't your proposal at all, your proposal was to sell houses at market rates to some and at a greatly reduced rate to others, who if they were cute hoors could sell on again in a few years at the market rate.
If you think people wouldn't take advantage of that then you are more trusting than me.
Either that or the people who paid the higher price would quickly find themselves in negative equity.

My proposal was that the proportion of social, affordable, and open market houses would be 30% 30% 40%. The land would be state owned with a notional value of €50 k per site and cost of build at €200 k. Open market houses could be built for a greater price, and they could be larger than the rest. The price of those would be market rate.

To get an affordable house would require the recipient to be at lowish income (set by politicians), and be subject to a claw back if sold at a profit within a set period (I would think a decade).

Recycle the VAT and site cost, and the social houses are paid for, and the rest are funded by the new owners.

That is the proposal.

We need 5,000 social houses in Dublin a year, so this scheme would need to deliver about 17,000 houses a year and the 12,000 houses sold would take the heat out of both the rental market and the house purchase market.

All together it should be a good direction to solve the current problem.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Apologies, I wasn't ignoring it, I don't believe in welfare traps relating to housing.
I can only go by the small numbers on (edit: unemployment) welfare and the criteria any recipient needs meet. You can't walk in the door and expect welfare. That's a myth. I'm sure there are a number of chancers but they'd need be pretty wily. In short I do not believe people generally like being poor even if it means they don't have to get up early of a morning.
From personal experience, I grew up beside a formally 100% social housing estate, which is now pretty much private. There's even a FG TD in their number. To suggest aiding tax payers with affordable housing might cause them to be trapped is not what I've seen. What's the difference between building affordable housing or paying the rent to a private landlord concern as regards the poverty trap? I don't see any difference in that. In fact I would suggest the possibility of owning your home might be a driving factor, where living in a private rental it wouldn't as much.
hi-rise would be good if it was affordable/social. Otherwise it's merely more of the same but condensed.

By welfare traps I meant where someone would be better off on the welfare (not just dole)i.e. where they would actually loose money by going back to work. You also have the distinctives to work and subsidising private profit issues as well.

As I said, I'm not in favour of the current setup, so no point making comparisons. But yes, HAP etc. also creates welfare traps.

The whole point of high rise and overhauling regulations I mentioned was to reduce the cost and thus make it affordable by increasing supply. And then eliminate or at least massively reduce the need for social housing.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

By welfare traps I meant where someone would be better off on the welfare (not just dole)i.e. where they would actually loose money by going back to work. You also have the distinctives to work and subsidising private profit issues as well.

As I said, I'm not in favour of the current setup, so no point making comparisons. But yes, HAP etc. also creates welfare traps.

The whole point of high rise and overhauling regulations I mentioned was to reduce the cost and thus make it affordable by increasing supply. And then eliminate or at least massively reduce the need for social housing.

Fair enough. I thought you meant becoming so use to social housing they don't bother looking to get ahead.

but all that ignores the problems I mentioned with social housing: welfare traps, disincentives to work, social problems, subsidising private profit, etc.

The more prices get beyond a reasonable wage and the state needs to step in with financial aid, the more this would happen. It all goes back to the state and LA's helping to keep market prices high IMO.
The trouble is regardless of how cheap the state makes it to build, private landlords and developers will charge as much as they can get. That's business. I'd like to see the correlation between houses sold at market and those sold at market having availed of cheaper NAMA loans. I can't see any private developer selling at below market, digging into his/her profits.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Fair enough. I thought you meant becoming so use to social housing they don't bother looking to get ahead. The more prices get beyond a reasonable wage and the state needs to step in with financial aid, the more this would happen. It all goes back to the state and LA's helping to keep market prices high IMO.
The trouble is regardless of how cheap the state makes it to build, private landlords and developers will charge as much as they can get. That's business. I'd like to see the correlation between houses sold at market and those sold at market having availed of cheaper NAMA loans. I can't see any private developer selling at below market, digging into his/her profits.

I see your point, but what I would think would happen is if we managed to massively increase supply is that the market price would drop. A developer could still ask for whatever they like, but would you pay it if there was 3 similar houses down the road for a lesser price?

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

I see your point, but what I would think would happen is if we managed to massively increase supply is that the market price would drop. A developer could still ask for whatever they like, but would you pay it if there was 3 similar houses down the road for a lesser price?

I can only see that happening if there's a massive injection of tax payer money into the private market. We'd essentially be spending tax monies on building grants or cutting tax/fees, selling off public land to encourage more private builds, in the hopes it would lead to lower prices.

From the tax payers perspective, I believe the cheaper option of state/LA builds is the better way. We cannot depend on the private market.
Companies are building and buying to rent to the state. This is causing the problem it's profiting off.
The state and LA's by looking to such companies is encouraging it.
It's literally feeding the problem.

Sam Russell

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I can only see that happening if there's a massive injection of tax payer money into the private market. We'd essentially be spending tax monies on building grants or cutting tax/fees, selling off public land to encourage more private builds, in the hopes it would lead to lower prices.

From the tax payers perspective, I believe the cheaper option of state/LA builds is the better way. We cannot depend on the private market.
Companies are building and buying to rent to the state. This is causing the problem it's profiting off.
The state and LA's by looking to such companies is encouraging it.
It's literally feeding the problem.

Exactly.

Gov builds, and gets to decide cost location and selling prices and proportion of social and affordable houses.

Private developer builds using Gov land and cheap NAMA loans, decides to only go ahead if social housing is a minimum, and gets to keep huge profits.

Gov building does not mean direct labour model necessarily, and does mean Gov control of process. Gov building motorways is done by contracting out to private builders.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I can only see that happening if there's a massive injection of tax payer money into the private market. We'd essentially be spending tax monies on building grants or cutting tax/fees, selling off public land to encourage more private builds, in the hopes it would lead to lower pricess

Maybe, but why not try my way first? Social housing has the range of issues I already outlined. The current method has it's drawbacks. Nothing to loose really.

Edited to add, I'd be open to other options too- obviously what I've said is not very detailed.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Maybe, but why not try my way first? Social housing has the range of issues I already outlined. The current method has it's drawbacks. Nothing to loose really.

Edited to add, I'd be open to other options too- obviously what I've said is not very detailed.

We are doing what you suggest just not in as big a number required. It seems they are using the private market to maintain and service the housing crisis. As noted, this is leading to more builds designed for the HAP kind of market IMO.

I honestly don't see how and rent arrears, anti-social behaviour and say being taken advantage of by ner do wells, differs from social housing to houses bought or rented privately to be used as social housing.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We are doing what you suggest just not in as big a number required. It seems they are using the private market to maintain and service the housing crisis. As noted, this is leading to more builds designed for the HAP kind of market IMO.

I honestly don't see how and rent arrears, anti-social behaviour and say being taken advantage of by ner do wells, differs from social housing to houses bought or rented privately to be used as social housing.

We're not doing what I suggest, what is the highest residential building in Dublin? Why are non contributors still being housed in cities? (Go back to my earlier post where I am not blaming the problems on this). Why do we still have some ridiculous building regulations? (Note some, not all).

As i said, i am not in favour of the current system. So yes, we have similar problems in both systems, but as I'm not in favour of either you won't find me defending them.

Anyway, over and out. Don't think I've much more to add.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I can only see that happening if there's a massive injection of tax payer money into the private market. We'd essentially be spending tax monies on building grants or cutting tax/fees, selling off public land to encourage more private builds, in the hopes it would lead to lower prices.

From the tax payers perspective, I believe the cheaper option of state/LA builds is the better way. We cannot depend on the private market.
Companies are building and buying to rent to the state. This is causing the problem it's profiting off.
The state and LA's by looking to such companies is encouraging it.
It's literally feeding the problem.

The Cheaper Option?

I am sure that you have an independent study to back this up.

The only one I have seen suggests that this isn't always the case.

PeadarCo

blanch152 wrote: »

The Cheaper Option?

I am sure that you have an independent study to back this up.

The only one I have seen suggests that this isn't always the case.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/horrendous-procurement-rules-pushing-up-social-housing-costs-1.3637482?mode=amp

The government isn't necessarily the cheapest option as government bodies have to deal with government procurement rules that add time and money. These are regulations private companies don't have to worry about. See the link above.

Itssoeasy

The vote on the Sinn Fein motion of no confidence in the Housing minister is taking place in the dail at the moment. I assume that he will survive with FF help.

blanch152

PeadarCo wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/horrendous-procurement-rules-pushing-up-social-housing-costs-1.3637482?mode=amp

The government isn't necessarily the cheapest option as government bodies have to deal with government procurement rules that add time and money. These are regulations private companies don't have to worry about. See the link above.

Exactly, but why do people keep telling us that building social housing is cheaper???

Itssoeasy

There was an electronic vote by which I think the Motion was defeated but now there is a manual (through the voting lobbies) vote because of the blue votes according to Sinn Fein. The blue votes are abstentions from FF.

Edward M

Itssoeasy wrote: »

There was an electronic vote by which I think the Motion was defeated but now there is a manual (through the voting lobbies) vote because of the blue votes according to Sinn Fein. The blue votes are abstentions from FF.

Hard to see the FF angle here really. Abstaining, is that an expression of no confidence really but we will let him work away anyway?

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

We're not doing what I suggest, what is the highest residential building in Dublin? Why are non contributors still being housed in cities? (Go back to my earlier post where I am not blaming the problems on this). Why do we still have some ridiculous building regulations? (Note some, not all).

As i said, i am not in favour of the current system. So yes, we have similar problems in both systems, but as I'm not in favour of either you won't find me defending them.

Anyway, over and out. Don't think I've much more to add.

I was talking about not going with Social housing. We are using the private market and I agree high density/high rise is a good idea in certain areas, but again they'd need be affordable to the working tax payers without the need of state aid.
Thanks for talking it out.

It seems every qualified commentator says social and affordable is the only way to go.

Edward M wrote: »

Hard to see the FF angle here really. Abstaining, is that an expression of no confidence really but we will let him work away anyway?

It's playing both sides. They've not given approval so they can faux complain about Murphy, but they've not voted against him so they're all still pals. It's the sneakiest. Any upcoming election will be quite amusing. FG talking about how bad their partners FF are and FF doing same.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It seems every qualified commentator says social and affordable is the only way to go.

Does it? I haven't seen anything to suggest every qualified commentator says social and affordable is the only way to go.

I would guess that every qualified commentator says that we need to find a way to house people, but that they then differ on the multitude of solutions on offer.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/horrendous-procurement-rules-pushing-up-social-housing-costs-1.3637482?mode=amp

Given the cost of social housing as outlined in that Irish Times article, there may well be better and cheaper options as already outlined.

Just saying that we believe in social housing just doesn't cut it for me.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It seems every qualified commentator says social and affordable is the only way to go.

I'm not sure exactly what makes you a "qualified commentator"?

Idbatterim

It should be universal public housing in my opinion. The state builds the scheme on land we own. They always maintain ownership, you pay roughly 25% of your income as rent. It’s open to all citizens on all incomes. It’s the model they use to house 60% of Vienna’s population and I think it’s fair to say, that is a far better run city than this joke !

Idbatterim

blanch152 wrote: »

Exactly, but why do people keep telling us that building social housing is cheaper???

This may be the case. It it’s madness and something those morons could change if they were bothered / competent ...

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure exactly what makes you a "qualified commentator"?

Tax paying resident of the state isn't a qualified commentator

What a bizarre comment.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Tax paying resident of the state isn't a qualified commentator

What a bizarre comment.

There's no evidence that this person is a taxpaying resident of Ireland. There's less support for every Tom, Dick and Harry being allowed to thumb in their silly ideas for infrastructure, planning and (most importantly) economics because they are a "tax paying resident".

Sometimes the unwashed masses need to be informed that their opinions on every little matter belong on Joe Duffy and don't deserve to be taken as gospel.

What's "bizarre" is that we continue to allow this fantasy football style posting in this forum. Great - let's form policy based on the ultra-leftist boards.ie posters and forget about reality!

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We are using the private market and I agree high density/high rise is a good idea in certain areas, but again they'd need be affordable to the working tax payers without the need of state aid.
Thanks for talking it out.

This is one of the most contradictory statements I think I've read on this forum ever. We have this poster on about social housing building being the only way - the only solution - and then saying that we somehow need a private market to build affordable houses without state aid?

Can someone even start to explain the logic of this statement and what it actually means?

Is it just pure spin or can these posts be confined to the Cafe of AH where they belong?

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There's no evidence that this person is a taxpaying resident of Ireland. There's less support for every Tom, Dick and Harry being allowed to thumb in their silly ideas for infrastructure, planning and (most importantly) economics because they are a "tax paying resident".

Sometimes the unwashed masses need to be informed that their opinions on every little matter belong on Joe Duffy and don't deserve to be taken as gospel.

Lol.

Going by this logic, no one has any business commenting on any thing our govt legislate for, or (indeed fail to), or how they allocate or spend cash from state coffers, unless they qualify to do so, under some unknown set of rules or qualifications.

Where does it begin and end?

Men shouldn't have had an input as to how pregnant women dealt with their pregnancies unless they were the father of unborn?

This is a very "shut up plebs" kind of an attitude this is.

What's "bizarre" is that we continue to allow this fantasy football style posting in this forum. Great - let's form policy based on the ultra-leftist boards.ie posters and forget about reality!

We should all sing of the same hymn sheet?

No one should question or have an alternative view on anything you have?

Seems a bit of a totalitarian regime tbh, I'll let you at it.

James Brown

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Tax paying resident of the state isn't a qualified commentator

What a bizarre comment.

And in a forum for people to discuss politics no less
I suppose all them developers are building at a loss because they just like to build god bless.

I think some folk just want government press releases posted and passer bys can nod or 'thank' approval. Anything negative is to be ridiculed or ignored. But of course every view is welcome in a discussion forum.....right?

Housing crisis, check.
Government policy making it worse, check.
Building cheaper than buying, check.

The unanswered question; is building to use as social housing a better deal for the tax payer than buying off the market to use as social housing?
Any talk of arrears or troublesome tenants applies to either.

My ideas are merely a rehash of ideas carried out by the state in the 30's and 40's. They worked. Then as now we might need an outsider to come in and knock a few parish pump heads together.

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

It should be universal public housing in my opinion. The state builds the scheme on land we own. They always maintain ownership, you pay roughly 25% of your income as rent. It’s open to all citizens on all incomes. It’s the model they use to house 60% of Vienna’s population and I think it’s fair to say, that is a far better run city than this joke !

On the one hand some say a subsided house, (social/affordable) shouldn't be next to a house someone paid the going rate for, which I agree with. But we've Leo calling out Solidarity for saying that claiming they want to segregate. I am amused by the term 'socialists'. I think we need more socialist thinking.
Social housing was generally built to reasonable standard with no frills in areas where they were needed. This goes against Leo and Eoghan's plans of slipping in private builds on some public land using a pittance of a percentage of social and affordable to grease the deal. Saying socialists want to segregate communities is disingenuous and low level spin, but that's all Leo has to offer IMO. At least Kenny's tall tales were funny, to a point.

ancapailldorcha

We don't preapprove individual posts on this forum. Any posts which breach the charter should be reported. Feel free to discuss the forum, the charter or the moderation in Feedback or with a CMod please. Back on topic.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And in a forum for people to discuss politics no less
I suppose all them developers are building at a loss because they just like to build god bless.

I think some folk just want government press releases posted and passer bys can nod or 'thank' approval. Anything negative is to be ridiculed or ignored. But of course every view is welcome in a discussion forum.....right?

Housing crisis, check.
Government policy making it worse, check.
Building cheaper than buying, check.

The unanswered question; is building to use as social housing a better deal for the tax payer than buying off the market to use as social housing?
Any talk of arrears or troublesome tenants applies to either.

My ideas are merely a rehash of ideas carried out by the state in the 30's and 40's. They worked. Then as now we might need an outsider to come in and knock a few parish pump heads together.

If we want to rehash the 30s and 40s, we need to make homosexual acts a crime, ban divorce and abortion, introduce rationing of basic foodstuffs, censor newspapers and books and reinstate the special position of the Catholic Church. The social conditions of the 1930s and 1940s where individual freedoms were suppressed and controlled allowed for the massive state projects of rural electrification and the building of social housing.

The current Ireland is a very different place, and measures to address social housing need different solutions. The Ireland of the 1930s and 1940s didn't have social welfare systems that allowed people to live a decent life if they chose not to work. It didn't have people with aspirations of holidays abroad and trampolines in the back garden while living on social welfare as a single parent. It didn't have huge numbers of people addicted to hard-core drugs unable to hold down a job. Yes, there were alcoholics who drank every penny, but the Ireland of the 1930s and 1940s had manual labour jobs for them and allowed them to go home and beat and rape their wives.

It is just not possible to replicate the house-building of the 1930s and 1940s unless there are major sacrifices from everyone in society. That means cuts to social welfare as those who will benefit most will have to pay something as well. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair.

Nobody wants "government press releases posted and passer bys can nod or 'thank' approval." What we do want, and what has been totally absent from this thread, are well-thought out ideas, backed up by independent reports and independent statistics that demonstrate how these ideas will work.

Recreating the desperate Ireland of the 1930s and 1940s isn't the solution.

So to answer the so-called unanswered question "is building to use as social housing a better deal for the tax payer than buying off the market to use as social housing?"

Firstly, it isn't a binary choice.
Secondly, Ireland is a different country now
Thirdly, cost rental, shared ownership, affordable housing, private builds, new housing regulations, increasing density and height in city centres, all have a role to play.
Fourthly, there isn't a magic money tree to pay for social housing, neither do we have the enforced and unjust social consensus that we had in the 1930s and 1940s.

All of the above solutions in the third option are being put forward in different ways by the current government. All of them will take time to work through the system. Some will work better than others, but you can be sure that even if everyone is housed, the ones that don't work will be used as a stick to beat Leo and Eoghan.

Finally, there needs to be a realisation in this country. Not everybody will end up owning a house. Not everybody will be able to live in a three-bedroom house with a back garden with a trampoline within walking distance of Dublin City Centre. Until those expectations change, housing policy will always fail, because expectations of many are deluded.

James Brown

Good move by Zappone removing funding.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0927/998492-scouting-ireland/

I would have thought it was a no brainer. Garda make recommendations to Scouting Ireland, Zappone asks for assurances, gets them, then no follow through.

McMurphy

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Good move by Zappone removing funding.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0927/998492-scouting-ireland/

I would have thought it was a no brainer. Garda make recommendations to Scouting Ireland, Zappone asks for assurances, gets them, then no follow through.

Was reading about this earlier, bit mad that scouting Ireland just felt fit to disregard the recommendations ref the garda vetting.

Proper order from K.Z

Idbatterim

I was just looking at the below link, imagine being able to get rid of the head serpent? all non FG td's should run on a combined platform of "could it get any worse?" picture of leo varadkar on their posters etc, I'd say the non voters, are most likely for left leaning parties, if it could be spun as a "remove the key figure of evil" way!

"Get out and get him out! " "Five minutes for five better years" whatever. These FG and FF sc*m, there has to be some other practical solution that hoping some new competent party forms and wins enough seats to be a game changer... Them finding some sort of moral conscience is a longer shot than the euromillions!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_West_(D%C3%A1il_constituency)#2016_general_election

James Brown

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.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Fourthly, there isn't a magic money tree

There is, but it only exists for banks.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's a balancing act. As long as enough of the right people, (voters,) are kept happy............

Isn't that how democracy works?

If the majority of the people aren't happy, they elect someone else.

Unless you live in a socialist paradise, where you don't get a choice who to elect.

christy c

Idbatterim wrote: »

all non FG td's should run on a combined platform of "could it get any worse?"

Well with idiots like Mary Lou, Micheal Martin, etc., the answer to that question would be yes.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Lol.

Going by this logic, no one has any business commenting on any thing our govt legislate for, or (indeed fail to), or how they allocate or spend cash from state coffers, unless they qualify to do so, under some unknown set of rules or qualifications.

No no no no no no no no no... these people can have their opinion all they want. They don't get to have that opinion weighed as heavily or taken as seriously as (i) facts (ii) opinions based on facts (iii) opinions of experts in the field.

If one has the opinion that the government should somehow magically build infinite social housing for everyone without stating where we get that money, what we do in the meantime, how that impacts the markets, what we do with people who have huge mortgages on houses pre this socialist utopia, what we do with private dwellings now that a significant portion of them are in crippling negative equity due to this rampage of social housing... the list goes on and on and on. Fine. That's their "opinion" but it doesn't deserve to be treated as gospel and to go unchallenged - and let's not forget that when challenged, the response is basically equal parts deflection and nonsense.

Men shouldn't have had an input as to how pregnant women dealt with their pregnancies unless they were the father of unborn?

Agreed.

This is a very "shut up plebs" kind of an attitude this is.

Agreed.

We should all sing of the same hymn sheet?

Didn't say that, but whatever.

No one should question or have an alternative view on anything you have?

I don't care about the opinions of people calling into Joe Duffy or the likes of same online on, frankly, anything.

Seems a bit of a totalitarian regime tbh, I'll let you at it.

:rolleyes:

Idbatterim

Has there ever been a case of a Taoiseach not being re-elected ? You say ff, sf would be worse, the worst option is to keep onas we are in my opinion. If the government are acting against the interests of the people, one constituency voting out that snake, would shake things up big time !

Idbatterim

christy c wrote: »

Well with idiots like Mary Lou, Micheal Martin, etc., the answer to that question would be yes.

I think it could get worse for the haves and better for the have nots. With the current appalling position people find themselves in, and fg intransigence, I don’t really agree with the “better the devil you know stance”

blanch152

Idbatterim wrote: »

Has there ever been a case of a Taoiseach not being re-elected ? You say ff, sf would be worse, the worst option is to keep onas we are in my opinion. If the government are acting against the interests of the people, one constituency voting out that snake, would shake things up big time !

Where do we start with this? OK, let us start with economic growth:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/esri-doubles-2018-growth-forecast-for-irish-economy-1.3641303

"In its latest quarterly economic commentary, the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) has forecast GDP growth of 8.9 per cent for 2018, followed by growth of 4.5 per cent for 2019. This compares with a GDP growth forecast of 4.7 per cent for 2018 and 3.9 per cent for 2019 given by the ESRI in June."

Are you seriously saying that it is not possible for economic growth to get worse?

Well how about unemployment? From the same article we read:

"Unemployment will fall to 5.7 per cent this year, and to 5.1 per cent in 2019, the ESRI has also said"

We are hitting full employment now, can it really not get worse?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/unemployment-at-lowest-level-in-more-than-10-years-866723.html

"“The August jobless rate was the lowest since April 2008 and an almost ten-and-a-half percentage point improvement from the peak of 16% hit in January/February 2012 during the financial crisis,” said Mr McQuaid."

So 16% down to 5.1% over the course of FG's time in government, and it couldn't get any worse?

Even in a no-deal Brexit, the economy will still grow. That says something:

https://www.businessworld.ie/economy/Irish-economy-would-still-grow-in-2019-in-event-of-no-deal-Brexit-says-Finance-Minister-571399.html


What about social issues, I hear them cry. Cripes, is same-sex marriage and abortion not enough? I doubt that a FF/SF government led by Eamon O'Cuiv would have delivered that.

Housing, I hear you say. House prices rise in a growing economy and supply struggles to keep up with demand from people getting jobs. It seems now that we are getting somewhere.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/house-prices-housing-drop-13323105

I know, it's the Mirror, but what it says is true - house prices in Dublin are falling.

However, as has been said on this thread many times, unless expectations are more realistic - the demand for a three-bedroom house with a garden for a trampoline for a single mother was one example of silly expectations - there will be a housing crisis. As has also been pointed out, the Government has put in place policies from housing regulations, to height regulations, to capital investment but if Dublin City Council can't even put in a proper planning application to An Bord Pleanala, what can the Government do about that level of incompetence in a Council run by FF, SF and looney lefties?

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/revealed-fasttrack-plan-for-thousands-of-new-homes-in-tatters-37362725.html

But despite all the good news and the progress, still some people think it can't get any worse. Unbelievable.

The actual debate that is required is to choose between different policy options going forward. The FG government has done a good job, but has it put enough emphasis on climate change or public transport? Has it put too much money into social welfare? With unemployment so low, surely our social welfare bill should be shrinking dramatically? Should Ireland continue to seek FDI?

These are policy choices that are now available because FG has been so successful in rescuing the economy from the mess that FF created. So yes, things could have been a lot, lot worse under FF or SF, and there is no evidence that anything could be better under them. In fact, given the promises being made, all the evidence suggests that either of those parties would make things a lot, lot worse. As for those who don't have a clue - the Mick Barrys and Mick Wallaces of this world - we should all emigrate if they get near power.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

That's a good old rant alright.
Now deep breath and relax, ahhh.

I'll not lower myself to show you the same disrespect.
It's a calm and measured critique of the quality we have in regard to a fellow posters comments.
You don't think FF and Indies could bring down the government if they wanted? Or do you think everything is swell and the Indies/FF have no such power?
Which part do you not understand well enough to comment on?

christy c wrote: »

Well with idiots like Mary Lou, Micheal Martin, etc., the answer to that question would be yes.

That's the anecdote alright. I suppose they could create a super duper record breaking in child homeliness.

The State paid €15.8m in rent and service costs for the new headquarters for the Department of Health from December 2016, but the building remained unoccupied up to April 2018, according to the latest report of the State's financial watchdog.
https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2018/0928/998687-c-ag-health/

I wonder which SF LA's are responsible for this?

It's always a good idea to critique the what ifs of a different government when faced with the indefensible actions of the current. Well it's a nice distraction anyway.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll not lower myself to show you the same disrespect.
It's a calm and measured critique of the quality we have in regard to a fellow posters comments.
You don't think FF and Indies could bring down the government if they wanted? Or do you think everything is swell and the Indies/FF have no such power?
Which part do you not understand well enough to comment on?



That's the anecdote alright. I suppose they could create a super duper record breaking in child homeliness.



I wonder which SF LA's are responsible for this?

It's always a good idea to critique the what ifs of a different government when faced with the indefensible actions of the current. Well it's a nice distraction anyway.

Once again, there are comprehensive posts put up, with factual links and information, setting out the government's record and someone comes along and says, ah they wasted £15.8m over there.

Let us be clear, the country is enjoying record-breaking employment, record-breaking economic growth, household debt is in decline and property prices are stabilising. Very few in 2011 on here predicted that. We were told that generations would never work, that emigration would touch the heights of the middle of the last two centuries and that we would default by the end of the week (some posters regularly predicted that every week).

The worries we have now need to be remembered in that context. In fact, the biggest concerns are how we build for the future. The Government has made a good start in that - Project 2040 is a good plan - but more is required. Do FG have all the answers? No, but their record is good, far better than the main opposition party FF. The loony left - SF, PBP and the rest of the rabble - don't have a clue and are only interested in crying, whinging, moaning and protesting. Rent-a-cause springs to mind.

There will be many who think we are fine as we are - they will vote FG, possibly as much as 35-40% of them in the next election. There will be those, like me, who think the general approach is fine, but that tweaks are needed, and will vote for rational parties - Greens, SDs, Labour - whichever are proposing the right tweaks, and then probably continue preferences to FG. Then there will be those who are permanently disgruntled, weighed down by family tradition or simply unable to remember how bad things were, and they will vote for PBP, SF and FF.

James Brown

Havockk wrote: »

There is, but it only exists for banks.

Developers, landlord firms and Cerberus if Eoghan Murphy wants to buy houses off them or any other private concern.

Idbatterim

blanch152 in response to your post, I dont doubt the economy is growing and that unemployment is down, even with their dubious way of measuring unemployment. But here is a FACT! many people standards of living is going down, despite this "boom" that we keep hearing about. If last year is anything to go by, a worker on E30,000 will get back roughly E6 a month from a usc cut. Meanwhile "renters in the capital are paying E128 a month more on average than last year" If you get a few percent pay hike, that scum take half it over 34,500 odd. The rising tide lifts all boats claim, is laughable! Id say that if you were renting or looking to buy during the recession and working, your living standard then was probably higher or significantly higher than now...

https://www.herald.ie/news/renters-in-the-capital-are-paying-128-more-a-month-than-last-year-37359049.html

James Brown

If the economy isn't having the anecdotal knock on effect of the trickle down myth, who cares if it's going well? It means more security to carry out flawed policies, so, so what? As I've said before if we have a growing healthy economy and a housing crisis, there's a disconnect. We know government policy is making matters worse.
Forgive me, I must be ranting again. Funny how cold reality comes across as ranting to those not willing to acknowledge we are in crisis.
The economy and the tax payers quality of life are not separate. One doing badly such as with the housing crisis isn't countered or made better by citing how well the economy is doing. When Noonan's Cerberus and friends prosper, so does the economy. Hardly a reason for celebration if the tax payer is left wallowing.

blanch152

Idbatterim wrote: »

blanch152 in response to your post, I dont doubt the economy is growing and that unemployment is down, even with their dubious way of measuring unemployment. But here is a FACT! many people standards of living is going down, despite this "boom" that we keep hearing about. If last year is anything to go by, a worker on E30,000 will get back roughly E6 a month from a usc cut. Meanwhile "renters in the capital are paying E128 a month more on average than last year" If you get a few percent pay hike, that scum take half it over 34,500 odd. The rising tide lifts all boats claim, is laughable! Id say that if you were renting or looking to buy during the recession and working, your living standard then was probably higher or significantly higher than now...

https://www.herald.ie/news/renters-in-the-capital-are-paying-128-more-a-month-than-last-year-37359049.html

Think about what you are saying. You have said that there are some in the recession who were doing well even though the majority weren't. Now, there are some who aren't doing well, but the majority are.

There are always those who are doing better than others, unless you live in a socialist utopia where everyone is doing crap except the socialist overlords.

Even your example of a worker on €30,000, something like 80% of employers are giving a pay increase this year, so the worker on €30,000 last year is now on €33,000 or €35,000, so he is doing better because of the economy.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If the economy isn't having the anecdotal knock on effect of the trickle down myth, who cares if it's going well? It means more security to carry out flawed policies, so, so what? As I've said before if we have a growing healthy economy and a housing crisis, there's a disconnect. We know government policy is making matters worse.
Forgive me, I must be ranting again. Funny how cold reality comes across as ranting to those not willing to acknowledge we are in crisis.
The economy and the tax payers quality of life are not separate. One doing badly such as with the housing crisis isn't countered or made better by citing how well the economy is doing. When Noonan's Cerberus and friends prosper, so does the economy. Hardly a reason for celebration if the tax payer is left wallowing.

As soon as I got as far as the word "anecdotal", I knew that this would be a post empty of facts.

Later on your state "We know government policy is making matters worse". That isn't presented as an opinion i.e. "I believe government policy is making matters worse". It is presented as a fact. Worse, it is presented as a fact without having any evidence to back it up such as "This independent report demonstrated that government policy is making matters worse and here is the link".

You then go on to self-parody "Forgive me, I must be ranting again". Well, to be honest, and this is my opinion, if you are presenting opinion as fact, with no supporting independent verification, and you do so repeatedly, people are free to draw their own conclusions and have a view on the merits of your opinions.

Finally as for quality of life, we are 26th in the world (see link to back up my opinion)

https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp

That isn't bad for a small cold little island on the edge of a continent, with all the disadvantages of an island. Interestingly, if you rank us by how cheap it is to buy, we are 15th cheapest place to buy a house relative to income.


https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp

Idbatterim

youre not ranting Matt, your points are bang on, are FG better than the other joke options? probably, but their policies and lack of action is a total and utter joke. In fact its such a joke, that there is no way anyone here can credibly defend their failure, without being some cast of Leo's idea to create accounts to praise FG and I used to vote from them by the way...

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

youre not ranting Matt, your points are bang on, are FG better than the other joke options? probably, but their policies and lack of action is a total and utter joke. In fact its such a joke, that there is no way anyone here can credibly defend their failure, without being some cast of Leo's idea to create accounts to praise FG and I used to vote from them by the way...

This forum is for discussion and opinions, as I understand it.
I would love FG to solve the crisis. I'm not big on team sports. I don't care who the glory goes to.
As regards housing, FG are not bringing us in the right direction. This is reality.
I see house prices may be holding or leveling out for now. Sadly we are long beyond manageable.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This forum is for discussion and opinions, as I understand it.
I would love FG to solve the crisis. I'm not big on team sports. I don't care who the glory goes to.
As regards housing, FG are not bringing us in the right direction. This is reality.
I see house prices may be holding or leveling out for now. Sadly we are long beyond manageable.

It is funny, but if prices start to fall in 2019 and 2020, we will have the same posters here crying and whinging about the people who bought in 2017 and 2018 because FG were pumping the boom and now they are in negative equity and what are the government going to do for them and isn't it a disgrace.

Some people will never be happy.