GE Exit Poll 10 pm

Boggles

astrofool wrote: »

It feels like MLM is in a Trump situation, didn't expect the numbers they got, but burned too many bridges with other parties to do anything with it.

I mean, spending the election painting FF/FG as the devil incarnate, then blaming them for not wanting to deal with you, in other news, water wet.

When was that election?

You must have been out of the country the last couple of weeks when both FF/FG focused their entire campaign against Sinn Fein (with the help of the usual friendly media).

Obviously their internal polling forecast what was coming.

If you going to try a history rewrite, give it more than a fortnight FFS.

Foxtrol

Boggles wrote: »

When was that election?

You must have been out of the country the last couple of weeks when both FF/FG focused their entire campaign against Sinn Fein (with the help of the usual friendly media).

Obviously their internal polling forecast what was coming.

If you going to try a history rewrite, give it more than a fortnight FFS.

SF supporters are only second to Trump's regarding moaning about the media. Most of the coverage in the lead up to the election was due to SF shooting themselves in both legs regarding the Quinn murder.

If anything, it helped SF as it focused on a subject that a sizable portion of the electorate clearly didn't care about. FF/FG would have been much better suited to focusing on SF's magic money tree manifesto and how they were lying to the electorate.

Loafing Oaf

Boggles wrote: »

When was that election?

You must have been out of the country the last couple of weeks when both FF/FG focused their entire campaign against Sinn Fein (with the help of the usual friendly media)

Couldn't both be true (about what the campaigns were focused on I mean)?

efanton

astrofool wrote: »

It feels like MLM is in a Trump situation, didn't expect the numbers they got, but burned too many bridges with other parties to do anything with it.

I mean, spending the election painting FF/FG as the devil incarnate, then blaming them for not wanting to deal with you, in other news, water wet.

I'm not sure which parties you mean, unless you are talking about FF and FG in which case those bridges were already in flames at the other side before and during the election. SF didnt burn any bridge that were not alight already.

Its almost certain that FG are out of this election and any government unless as FF/FG/Greens coalition is formed, but even the Greens have been very candid about their misgivings of that particular scenario.

If FG were honest about not having enough money to spend on additional housing, where is the money going to come from in order to implement the red lines that the Greens have set along with a massive home building program. I cant see FG agreeing to additional taxation. If this is the case it hard to see how FG and the Greens could be together in the same coalition unless one of them backed down significantly.

This will be a difficulty for SF as well, even though they claim their would be a small budget surplus with their new taxation, it hard to see how they could afford the new homes AND the Greens demands.

it doesn't matter which government is formed now, they are going to have to dramatically increase the number of homes being built. How is the next government going to build the extra homes AND implement the Greens red lines?

Have the Greens killed any hope of a coalition?

Water John

It's amazing how parties, who have preached for many years that funds aren't available for certain projects, but in changed circumstances, it can suddenly be found. The UK Tory party is a good example.
FG walked through the whole of the last Govn't without one idea. The Inds in the Govn't didn't do any thing either.

Idbatterim

Water John wrote: »

It's amazing how parties, who have preached for many years that funds aren't available for certain projects, but in changed circumstances, it can suddenly be found. The UK Tory party is a good example.
FG walked through the whole of the last Govn't without one idea. The Inds in the Govn't didn't do any thing either.

billions can be pulled out of their ass for health every years, NCH , rural broadband, just not housing?

Imagine living in a parallel universe for a minute, where those living in social housing, actually paid a reasonable rent and this went to providing more social and affordable housing... :eek:

efanton

Water John wrote: »

It's amazing how parties, who have preached for many years that funds aren't available for certain projects, but in changed circumstances, it can suddenly be found. The UK Tory party is a good example.
FG walked through the whole of the last Govn't without one idea. The Inds in the Govn't didn't do any thing either.

I agree.
This argument there is no money for something important is pure nonsense.

If your boiler of some other high cost appliance decides to give up the ghost in your own home you do not say, we cant afford a new one we will do without.
You will trim your budget or housekeeping in other areas so that it can be replaced. You might make sacrifices in other areas for a short period, but you will without doubt find that money for things that are essential.

Last year the Government gave €16.8 million to the greyhound industry.
No doubt it gave similar amounts to large numbers of other organisation that were not essential to the country. Cut those budgets in half and suddenly you are looking at close to €100 million, maybe more, without even adjusting taxes or budget for essential services.

The government had €80 billion to spend last year. Admittedly a large chunk of that disappeared almost immediately to service the country's debt, but I think any government would find it hard to explain how it could not find 5 or 6 billion for something that was essential. Adjustments would have to be made but what is more important the country as a whole or the local parish pump?

Idbatterim

Did varadkars kite not pick up the SF surge?

efanton

Idbatterim wrote: »

billions can be pulled out of their ass for health every years, NCH , rural broadband, just not housing?

Imagine living in a parallel universe for a minute, where those living in social housing, actually paid a reasonable rent and this went to providing more social and affordable housing... :eek:

In principal I would agree. Some household are paying as little as €35 a week.
The question arises though that if you increase rents will a government then increase welfare payments in order for some individuals to afford that rent. Not everyone living in a social home has a load of kids boosting their welfare payments.

The other issue I have with this argument is where is all the existing rent money going. I seriously doubt is going back in to building new homes or renovating existing homes in need of repair. If the money is not going straight back into a housing program then is there any point in raising rents?

FG claim they can provide a home for €160,000. SF claim it slightly less at arount €126,000. SF figure is lower because they would build on government owned sites so site cost is not included and there would be no profit. Dont forget that all taxation is deductible in both cases ,so both figure are reasonable close to the mark although the SF cost seems ambitious.

But lets go with the FG figure. A €160,000 home amortised over 25 years work out at €6,400 per year + interest (which is almost zero for the government at the moment) per home. Thats roughly 533 a month. If the rent was charges at that rate, which is most definitely is not, building social homes comes close to a zero cost exercise. As far as I could get accurate figured the average social rent is closer to €50 rather then the minimum €35. Thats roughly €2600 per year rent collected per social home.

Yet the current government is spending close to €16,000 a year in the Dublin area renting private properties for the HAP scheme. You would wonder why people are complaining about rents, when the government is wasting a potential €12,000 for ever HAP scheme home it has in the Dublin Area.
Obviously costs drop significantly for the rest of the country, but I couldn't see those costs dropping by more than 50%

Even if you were just to make the argument as to whether the country could afford to build social homes on a cost based argument its obvious they way they are provided now is pure lunacy.
To build a social home costs the government (ANY government) far far less than it does to rent them from the private sector, in fact at least €6000 per year per home. Add up all the homes in the HAP scheme (the current government claims 50,000 homes in the HAP scheme) and its currently costing the government €612m per year
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/state-has-paid-landlords-612m-under-hap-tenant-scheme-1.4044451

Idbatterim

Yet the current government is spending close to €16,000 a year in the Dublin area renting private properties for the HAP scheme. You would wonder why people are complaining about rents, when the government is wasting a potential €12,000 for ever HAP scheme home it has in the Dublin Area.
Obviously costs drop significantly for the rest of the country, but I couldn't see those costs dropping by more than 50%

bear in mind that any HAP payments, will be likely taxed at 50% and the landlord has to do all the maintenance etc and pays LPT...

I believe some landlords in Dublin, are receiving E3000 a month in hap for a single property!!!

take a read of this, it broadly proposes , what you suggest, I remember reading it years ago...

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/lets-join-the-21st-century-with-an-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis-once-and-for-all/

no I propose on ringfencing the money for more social and affordable housing , pointless otherwise, as you correctly point out...

efanton

Idbatterim wrote: »

bear in mind that any HAP payments, will be likely taxed at 50% and the landlord has to do all the maintenance etc and pays LPT...

I believe some landlords in Dublin, are receiving E3000 a month in hap for a single property!!!

take a read of this, it broadly proposes , what you suggest, I remember reading it years ago...

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/lets-join-the-21st-century-with-an-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis-once-and-for-all/

no I propose on ringfencing the money for more social and affordable housing , pointless otherwise, as you correctly point out...

Thanks for that.

I had just worked it out for myself, with what numbers I could find. I am no economist, nor do I profess to be one, but its nice to see that what I was suggesting has been supported by a respected economist.

I just cant understand some of the FG supporters claiming that their government was the only one that was prudent and could be trusted with the states finances when at the same time FG have squandered half a billion euro every year in government and seem intent on continuing to do so while the housing crisis continues to accelerate into a national catastrophe.

Imagine spending half a billion a year and getting nothing for it and by continuing to do so actually make things worse.

It sounds very much like the behaviour of an addict. They know what they are doing is wrong, they know things are getting worse, but just as long as they can keep up the payments they continue headlong into oblivion.

And yes if all rent collected was put into a housing fund, I could see a fair argument for raising rents in social homes.

Suckit

efanton wrote: »

Thanks for that.

I had just worked it out for myself, with what number I could find. I am no economist, nor do I profess to be one, but its nice to see that what I was suggesting has been supported by a respected economist.

I just cant understand some of the FG supporters claiming that their government was the only one that was prudent and could be trusted with the states finances when at the same time FG have squandered half a billion euro every year in government and seem intent on continuing to do so while the housing crisis continues to accelerate into a national catastrophe.

Imagine spending half a billion a year and getting nothing for it and by continuing to do so actually make things worse.

It sounds very much like the behaviour of an addict. They know what they are doing is wrong, they know things are getting worse, but just as long as they can keep up the payments they continue headlong into oblivion.

And yes if all rent collected was put into a housing fund, I could see a fair argument for raising rents in social homes.

As long as they can keep pointing at the other addicts that are 'worse' in their opinion, they will never see how bad they are or how bad they are perceived.

Uriel.

efanton wrote: »

In principal I would agree. Some household are paying as little as €35 a week.
The question arises though that if you increase rents will a government then increase welfare payments in order for some individuals to afford that rent. Not everyone living in a social home has a load of kids boosting their welfare payments.

The other issue I have with this argument is where is all the existing rent money going. I seriously doubt is going back in to building new homes or renovating existing homes in need of repair. If the money is not going straight back into a housing program then is there any point in raising rents?

FG claim they can provide a home for €160,000. SF claim it slightly less at arount €126,000. SF figure is lower because they would build on government owned sites so site cost is not included and there would be no profit. Dont forget that all taxation is deductible in both cases ,so both figure are reasonable close to the mark although the SF cost seems ambitious.

But lets go with the FG figure. A €160,000 home amortised over 25 years work out at €6,400 per year + interest (which is almost zero for the government at the moment) per home. Thats roughly 533 a month. If the rent was charges at that rate, which is most definitely is not, building social homes comes close to a zero cost exercise. As far as I could get accurate figured the average social rent is closer to €50 rather then the minimum €35. Thats roughly €2600 per year rent collected per social home.

Yet the current government is spending close to €16,000 a year in the Dublin area renting private properties for the HAP scheme. You would wonder why people are complaining about rents, when the government is wasting a potential €12,000 for ever HAP scheme home it has in the Dublin Area.
Obviously costs drop significantly for the rest of the country, but I couldn't see those costs dropping by more than 50%

Even if you were just to make the argument as to whether the country could afford to build social homes on a cost based argument its obvious they way they are provided now is pure lunacy.
To build a social home costs the government (ANY government) far far less than it does to rent them from the private sector, in fact at least €6000 per year per home. Add up all the homes in the HAP scheme (the current government claims 50,000 homes in the HAP scheme) and its currently costing the government €612m per year
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/state-has-paid-landlords-612m-under-hap-tenant-scheme-1.4044451

You do also need to factor in the cost of managing the social housing rents - administration, rent collection, managing delinquent tenants, repairs and maintenance, damage/criminal damage, furnishing, legal fees etc.

Then you've the crap of actually dealing with arseholes, going to court etc and suddenly the state is in the spotlight for evictions and the poor mouth stories, media hype and political nonsense etc.

Nothing is as is easy as suggesting stop HAP and funnel the funding into building, managing and landlording public housing.

Brendan Bendar

Uriel. wrote: »

You do also need to factor in the cost of managing the social housing rents - administration, rent collection, managing delinquent tenants, repairs and maintenance, damage/criminal damage, furnishing, legal fees etc.

Then you've the crap of actually dealing with arseholes, going to court etc and suddenly the state is in the spotlight for evictions and the poor mouth stories, media hype and political nonsense etc.

Nothing is as is easy as suggesting stop HAP and funnel the funding into building, managing and landlording public housing.

Over 31 million owed to DCC in rent.

Shows how well that’s managed.

How could the taxpayer have confidence in that kind of admin.

Uriel.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Over 31 million owed to DCC in rent.

Shows how well that’s managed.

How could the taxpayer have confidence in that kind of admin.

You couldn't sure and it is to open to political interference in the same way as our health system is. Public landlords are not able to do what's needed.

is_that_so

efanton wrote: »

I'm not sure which parties you mean, unless you are talking about FF and FG in which case those bridges were already in flames at the other side before and during the election. SF didnt burn any bridge that were not alight already.

Its almost certain that FG are out of this election and any government unless as FF/FG/Greens coalition is formed, but even the Greens have been very candid about their misgivings of that particular scenario.

If FG were honest about not having enough money to spend on additional housing, where is the money going to come from in order to implement the red lines that the Greens have set along with a massive home building program. I cant see FG agreeing to additional taxation. If this is the case it hard to see how FG and the Greens could be together in the same coalition unless one of them backed down significantly.

This will be a difficulty for SF as well, even though they claim their would be a small budget surplus with their new taxation, it hard to see how they could afford the new homes AND the Greens demands.

it doesn't matter which government is formed now, they are going to have to dramatically increase the number of homes being built. How is the next government going to build the extra homes AND implement the Greens red lines?

Have the Greens killed any hope of a coalition?

Housing is not a money thing, it's a building thing. With a lead time of 9-12 months and more, anyone coming in now can reap whatever rewards comes out of that as evidence of the success of their own policies. There will need to be compromise, something SF will also have to face. Most of what they claim they want to do is incompatible, completely with FG and in large parts with FF. The Greens will deal but with some hard red lines.

LuckyLloyd

New post election poll in the Irish Daily Mail:

SF 35%
FG 18%
FF 17%
Green 9%
Ind 7%
Soc Dems 5%
Labour 3%
Sol-PBP 3%
Others 4%

Brendan Bendar

Uriel. wrote: »

You couldn't sure and it is to open to political interference in the same way as our health system is. Public landlords are not able to do what's needed.

Vienna is often touted as the poster boy in the rental field.

I’d love to know the level of rental debt in that jurisdiction.


Is it any wonder the Trotters want services like waste collection and such given back to the councils.

The auld nod and wink would be on the rise again.

Yurt2

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Vienna is often touted as the poster boy in the rental field.

I’d love to know the level of rental debt in that jurisdiction.

Shur why don't you go on a Google rampage, find out and tell us?

Leroy42

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Over 31 million owed to DCC in rent.

Shows how well that’s managed.

How could the taxpayer have confidence in that kind of admin.

It appears a large number, but over what time frame is that and how many people? What % of the overall does it equate to?

A single developer alone would have costed the state many multiple times that in Nama.

LuckyLloyd

Brendan doesn’t get it. He thinks it’s a battle between ‘squeezed middle’ and ‘scroungers’. And you know it might have been were it not for the fact that a large swathe or a generation who work hard are locked out from property and cannot take their place in the ‘squeezed middle’ the way they’re supposed to. Because they can’t get a lend off their da, as suggested by Leo.

Hence:

New poll in the Irish Daily Mail:

SF 35%
FG 18%
FF 17%
Green 9%
Ind 7%
Soc Dems 5%
Labour 3%
Sol-PBP 3%
Others 4%

Brendan, like FFG, better wake up quick.

Jinglejangle69

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Brendan doesn’t get it. He thinks it’s a battle between ‘squeezed middle’ and ‘scroungers’. And you know it might have been were it not for the fact that a large swathe or a generation who work hard are locked out from property and cannot take their place in the ‘squeezed middle’ the way they’re supposed to. Because they can’t get a lend off their da, as suggested by Leo.

Hence:

New poll in the Irish Daily Mail:

SF 35%
FG 18%
FF 17%
Green 9%
Ind 7%
Soc Dems 5%
Labour 3%
Sol-PBP 3%
Others 4%

Brendan, like FFG, better wake up quick.

All that tells me is FG clearly aren't wanted back in government.

The onus on SF to deliver the change they promised.

The electorate want it.

JohnnyFlash

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

All that tells me is FG clearly aren't wanted back in government.

The onus on SF to deliver the change they promised.

The electorate want it.

Absolutely. I’d go so far as to say the electorate wants another election based on that poll. SF could then run two candidates in most constituencies.

is_that_so

Leroy42 wrote: »

It appears a large number, but over what time frame is that and how many people? What % of the overall does it equate to?

A single developer alone would have costed the state many multiple times that in Nama.

This is the cost to the organisation who would be tasked with property maintenance. Without it that money would have to come from other areas of their remit. The only solutions are increasing LPT, which most councils have never done do and increased commercial rates, which they are bad at collecting.

Jinglejangle69

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Absolutely. I’d go so far as to say the electorate wants another election based on that poll. SF could then run two candidates in most constituencies.

Seems SF supporters are still fixated on FG.

Really strange, I still can't understand it.

They got the boot, time to forget about FG for a while.

Yurt2

FG voters seem to be happy with their declining vote. They're almost down to core 'vote FG no matter what' territory and pleased with it.

A bizzare set of circumstances that they have champagne bottles out for a dire situation for their party.

Jinglejangle69

Yurt! wrote: »

FG voters seem to be happy with their declining vote. They're almost down to core 'vote FG no matter what' territory and pleased with it.

A bizzare set of circumstances that they have champagne bottles out for a dire situation for their party.

No, the voters spoke.

They don't want FG anymore.

Accept defeat and move on.

No point flogging a dead horse.

JohnnyFlash

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Seems SF supporters are still fixated on FG.

Really strange, I still can't understand it.

They got the boot, time to forget about FG for a while.

People want change. Let’s give them change. Another election. 60-70 seats for SF. Coalition of the left. It’s time for it. Eoin O’B in solving housing (and getting rid of LPT - sweet), Louise O’R sorting out the issues around health etc.

I’ll vote for them myself to be honest. That’s how much I now want to see change.

Yurt2

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

No, the voters spoke.

They don't want FG anymore.

Accept defeat and move on.

No point flogging a dead horse.

Could be another election yet. I think it's only right that people keep flogging and drawing attention until then.

It's nice that they want to hide with a paper bag over their heads, but until a government is formed, they should at least pretend that they having the national interest in mind.

FrancieBrady

If FG are out of ideas and need to rebuild the party into something relevant, they should look to support a minority government in this situation. 'For the good of the country' and all that. May boost their popularity.