FF/FG/Green Next Government

Bannasidhe

MrMusician18 wrote: »

In the case of Dunkettle, do you care to think why it might be delayed? Delaying is usually in no one's interest, so they are usually for a very good reason. The main project didn't go to tender in 2018, it went last year and tenders were returned in April. The tender assessment is due to be complete by September and the main construction works start shortly after.

Public procurement is slow because it has to be fair and be seen to be fair. Yes, it's it was a private developer building this it or something similarly complex would be done by now, but they don't have to worry about getting the best value for the public purse.

If it is running a year behind schedule - which it is - then something is very wrong with the whole process.
If it didn't start on the date it was due -which it didn't- then something is very wrong with the whole process.
If the costs are increasing at a rate of 10s of millions - which they are - then something is very wrong with the process.

If private developers could get it done on time and on budget but private contractors who tender can't - there is something very wrong with the process.

But ok - shrug and accept it if you want.
I think we deserve better.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Commenting on the fact that the FG government preferred 25 year leases and PPP's built to rent. Unless you have other information?

To show that the government preferred 25 year leases and PPP’s build to rent, you would have to demonstrate, using links, that these were the majority of government-funded projects, rather than exceptional occasional solutions. Without such proof, it would be fair comment to suggest that your post outlines a conspiracy theory.

Note: Robust demolition of a nonsensical conspiracy theory does not equate to a personal attack.

Bannasidhe

Water John wrote: »

We threw €550M into the ground with water meters.

Electronic voting machines. Remember those? €54m
Or Ppars -€220m
Tribunals/Inquiries have cost close to €500m to date and the PfG is just hopping with 'promises' to have more.

blanch152

MrMusician18 wrote: »

In the case of Dunkettle, do you care to think why it might be delayed? Delaying is usually in no one's interest, so they are usually for a very good reason. The main project didn't go to tender in 2018, it went last year and tenders were returned in April. The tender assessment is due to be complete by September and the main construction works start shortly after.

Public procurement is slow because it has to be fair and be seen to be fair. Yes, it's it was a private developer building this it or something similarly complex would be done by now, but they don't have to worry about getting the best value for the public purse.

This is a very good point. Too often we have the same posters complaining about cronyism and Denis O’Brien, while lamenting the slow progress of projects. They don’t have a clue about procurement.

Bannasidhe

blanch152 wrote: »

If it was September 1st tomorrow, kids would be going five days a week.

Obviously, numbers will play a part, but that’s the way it will be so long as we don’t increase the numbers. Of course there are still questions, but talking to a number of principals, preparations are advanced.

It's July 1st tomorrow and we are being warned of a possible second wave.
The June 12th plan is still the only plan to date.
It does not address childcare for the not at school days at all.

Let's see what Foley produces before leaping to September and confidently predicting children attending school full time.

blanch152

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's July 1st tomorrow and we are being warned of a possible second wave.
The June 12th plan is still the only plan to date.
It does not address childcare for the not at school days at all.

Let's see what Foley produces before leaping to September and confidently predicting children attending school full time.

It is the only plan so far, but there are enough hints in the public pronouncements to understand where they expect to be come September. So long as the numbers stay low, all kids will be back full-time.

Bannasidhe

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a very good point. Too often we have the same posters complaining about cronyism and Denis O’Brien, while lamenting the slow progress of projects. They don’t have a clue about procurement.

And yet this poster hasn't complained about either so that's a wasted little dig.

This poster has complained about projects that have been green lit, start date agreed but constantly being delayed, costs estimated and costs spiraling before work has even begun.

Perhaps it's the people giving the green light to begin who don't have a clue since they seem to not be able to give a commencement date that is even in the realms of accurate or an estimated costs that is in the ballpark of actual costs.

Truthvader

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a very good point. Too often we have the same posters complaining about cronyism and Denis O’Brien, while lamenting the slow progress of projects. They don’t have a clue about procurement.

To be fair I have yet to see any poster have less of a clue than whoever is in charge of the hospital

Bannasidhe

blanch152 wrote: »

It is the only plan so far, but there are enough hints in the public pronouncements to understand where they expect to be come September. So long as the numbers stay low, all kids will be back full-time.

Hints??

Seriously??

The govt is giving hints to schools and that's where we are?

What's next?
A nod and wink budget?
A nose tapped health policy?

You don't run a country on bloody hints.

blanch152

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hints??

Seriously??

The govt is giving hints to schools and that's where we are?

What's next?
A nod and wink budget?
A nose tapped health policy?

You don't run a country on bloody hints.

I am in contact with a number of school principals and all share my view and are preparing accordingly.

AndrewJRenko

Edgware wrote: »

The new Chief Whip will do allright playing the long game. He has the State car, can gather the anti Martins around him, will still have enough influence to push a few goodies to Mayo.
Martin will probably stand down as F.F. leader before the next election and Dara will be in a very strong position to take the leadership

Most Ministers don't have State cars now - just Taoiseach and Justice I think.

LawBoy2018

Edgware wrote: »

The new Chief Whip will do allright playing the long game. He has the State car, can gather the anti Martins around him, will still have enough influence to push a few goodies to Mayo.
Martin will probably stand down as F.F. leader before the next election and Dara will be in a very strong position to take the leadership

He can be king of the ashes after FF are absolutely decimated in a few years, lol.

dundalkfc10

blanch152 wrote: »

I am in contact with a number of school principals and all share my view and are preparing accordingly.

Only person you are in contact with is that voice in your head you space cadet.

My sons starting school baby infants and the school have no idea when or what the schedule will be when he is back. Got his book list and a letter stating we will know more when we no know more basically.

What happens if they all can't go back, childcare, what about parents work? But sure they have a plan but nobody knows it

PixieValentine

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Most Ministers don't have State cars now - just Taoiseach and Justice I think.

Tanaiste too. Taoiseach, Tanaiste and Justice are the ones that get the cars. None of the rest of them though, you're right there.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

To show that the government preferred 25 year leases and PPP’s build to rent, you would have to demonstrate, using links, that these were the majority of government-funded projects, rather than exceptional occasional solutions. Without such proof, it would be fair comment to suggest that your post outlines a conspiracy theory.

Note: Robust demolition of a nonsensical conspiracy theory does not equate to a personal attack.

You don't know what a conspiracy theory is.

You don't believe we have a crisis so that rules out logic.
The fact that they preferred the private market to building our own stock has been shown to you. it's in their housing policy program.
Fine Gael made using hotels and B&B's the norm. They made buying houses to use as social commonplace. Formally an emergency stop gap, as was leasing private homes. All massive wastes of money IMO.
I've shown you with figures from FG themselves. When you cut through the spin they are building f*** all.

Fine Gael spends €4bn on private rental landlords, new figures reveal
Fianna Fail says Government's reliance on private rental market is 'unsustainable'

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gael-spends-4bn-on-private-rental-landlords-new-figures-reveal-36972122.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fine-gael-is-gaslighting-the-nation-over-affordable-housing-1.4041866

https://www.thejournal.ie/leo-housing-varadkar-cork-fine-gael-ideology-4894232-Nov2019/

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-housing-general-election-debate-4982691-Jan2020/

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/politics-news-pmn/irish-housing-crisis-derails-varadkars-re-election-bid

I've hopes Fianna Fail will rectify this FG housing crisis.

http://www.darraghobrien.ie/news/figures-show-long-term-cost-of-fine-gael-reliance-on-rental-sector-over-direct-build

MrMusician18

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And yet this poster hasn't complained about either so that's a wasted little dig.

This poster has complained about projects that have been green lit, start date agreed but constantly being delayed, costs estimated and costs spiraling before work has even begun.

Perhaps it's the people giving the green light to begin who don't have a clue since they seem to not be able to give a commencement date that is even in the realms of accurate or an estimated costs that is in the ballpark of actual costs.

Have you actually thought about why this might happen? There are different forms of government contract, one is the fixed price. This gives absolute cost certainty that the project will be delivered for the price come what may (almost). By forcing the contractor to shoulder all the risk in a project, they have to include for it in their price. So if an ancient burial ground appears on the site - that's the contractors problem.
The problem with this contract is that while it gives cost certainty, it's expensive and on big or complex projects it can be prohibitively so. It is usually more expensive than a project where risk is shared, because usually these risks don't materialise.
They look great politically though x project delivered on budget for €200m. Joe soap doesn't have the ability to know if €200m is good value, but "on budget" sounds good. It looks much better than the same project, where risk was shared. X project delivered for €200m, €50m over original tender. Reason for overrun, unexpected ground conditions.

Bannasidhe

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Have you actually thought about why this might happen? There are different forms of government contract, one is the fixed price. This gives absolute cost certainty that the project will be delivered for the price come what may (almost). By forcing the contractor to shoulder all the risk in a project, they have to include for it in their price. So if an ancient burial ground appears on the site - that's the contractors problem.
The problem with this contract is that while it gives cost certainty, it's expensive and on big or complex projects it can be prohibitively so. It is usually more expensive than a project where risk is shared, because usually these risks don't materialise.
They look great politically though x project delivered on budget for €200m. Joe soap doesn't have the ability to know if €200m is good value, but "on budget" sounds good. It looks much better than the same project, where risk was shared. X project delivered for €200m, €50m over original tender. Reason for overrun, unexpected ground conditions.

Sweetest divine - it's burial grounds now.

It's already a bloody roundabout.
A large roundabout with roads leading to a motorway, a tunnel, a city centre etc.

It is to be redeveloped.


This was last august

The Government has been accused of failing to deliver key infrastructure projects to the south of the country as the long-awaited €100m upgrade of the Dunkettle interchange has been stalled again due to spiralling costs.

The criticism follows confirmation that Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) is to tender for the construction stage of the Cork project as it could not agree on the costs with Sisk, the company that has carried out preparatory work on the Dunkettle interchange upgrade to date.

A statement from TII said “both parties remain committed to advancing the project”, but admitted that the need to move to tender for the construction contract will push back the estimated completion date by 12 months to 2023. However, the Construction Industry Federation warns putting the project back to tender may set it back by more than 10 years.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/100m-dunkettle-interchange-upgrade-delayed-by-a-year-944273.html

They started work and then it stalled as the price wasn't agreed. Estimates have gone from €100m to €150m. It might not be ready for 10 years according the the construction fed. It is one interchange.
That is GUBU.
This from a gov that claimed to be fiscally responsible.

I am saying when things like this happen we need to reexamine the whole blasted process of tendering to avoid things like this happening -and you are talking about there might be burial grounds.

You might be happy with this level of lack of fiscal oversight but I am not - I don't believe in the Magic Money Tree.

KyussB

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It will be very difficult to make substantive changes to health and housing if we are running enormous budget deficits, have 20% unemployment rates, and have Brexit looming.

Money doesn't grow on trees, and we are facing into some of the most extraordinary challenges we have faced as a country since our foundation. We will be borrowing heavily (pushing that can down the road for the next generations to sort out); there might be some level of debt write-off, and we will be able to tap into EU funds if they can all agree on that (that will come with its own condition though like tax harmonisation across the EU).

It's about the economy, stupid, as James Carville once quipped.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

...
No simple solutions here, dude. Big complex issues with lots of the devil in the detail. No money trees exist.

Here we go again with the thought-terminating-cliches - you obviously have no idea where money does comes from, and are just parroting a century-old narrative, that it has to be dug out of the ground ala gold or some similar nonsense.

Money is readily available - both from banks for private spending, where the loan is sustainable - and for governments through near-zero-to-negative interest rate bonds, in abundance, thanks to ECB policies...

Money grows to suit the economies demand for it, within the conditions imposed on its sustainabiltiy due to interest rates and general economic conditions.

That's how it's always worked.

The ECB and even private banks fit every facetious definition of 'money trees'...we're not in the gold standard.

KyussB

Bannasidhe wrote: »

...
I am very much beginning to think Universal Basic Income is the way to go. It would provide income supports to SME's reducing the need for grand aid, allow the unemployed to look at pt/job share work, end the cumbersome and expensive administration costs of the Dept of SP.
...

The UBI has a lot of problems - it's really a business subsidy, not an income subsidy, as businesses just slash wages over time in line with it (which means businesses get most of the subsidy) - it's inflationary, as it increases demand without requiring people to contribute to production - funding for it is always paired with Flat Taxes, i.e. massive regressive taxation, on top of the already regressive carbon taxes - it consolidates unemployment/pension and many other welfare state payments (which individually are unquestionable/sacrosanct, impossible to repeal) into a single payment that is going to be slahed enormously or retired permanently, as soon as a big enough economic crisis hits ("because money").

Be very careful with the UBI, it is a trojan horse policy - the same way the Green's have proven themselves to be an austerity-supporting trojan-horse party, who don't support real green policies.

The Job Guarantee policy is far more affordable than a UBI, and it keeps all other welfare payments alongside it - while resolving the issue of unemployment - it is a far more superior policy.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

You don't know what a conspiracy theory is.

You don't believe we have a crisis so that rules out logic.
The fact that they preferred the private market to building our own stock has been shown to you. it's in their housing policy program.
Fine Gael made using hotels and B&B's the norm. They made buying houses to use as social commonplace. Formally an emergency stop gap, as was leasing private homes. All massive wastes of money IMO.
I've shown you with figures from FG themselves. When you cut through the spin they are building f*** all.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gael-spends-4bn-on-private-rental-landlords-new-figures-reveal-36972122.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fine-gael-is-gaslighting-the-nation-over-affordable-housing-1.4041866

https://www.thejournal.ie/leo-housing-varadkar-cork-fine-gael-ideology-4894232-Nov2019/

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-housing-general-election-debate-4982691-Jan2020/

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/politics-news-pmn/irish-housing-crisis-derails-varadkars-re-election-bid

I've hopes Fianna Fail will rectify this FG housing crisis.

http://www.darraghobrien.ie/news/figures-show-long-term-cost-of-fine-gael-reliance-on-rental-sector-over-direct-build

None of those links support the specific allegation that you made which was as follows:

Bowie wrote: »

Commenting on the fact that the FG government preferred 25 year leases and PPP's built to rent. Unless you have other information?

Plenty of figures but nothing to back you up.

Brendan Bendar

blanch152 wrote: »

None of those links support the specific allegation that you made which was as follows:



Plenty of figures but nothing to back you up.

Correct, the auld ‘blind them with rubbish’ tactic, and hope you’ll get away with it.

Bishop of hope

OK, just a note to the new minister or whoever is, responsible for public announcements.
I know two families heading for Spain in the next month or so, they've paid for their packages both in the 2000 euro mark area.
Now we have the cmo saying don't go, it's too dangerous.
Both of these families now feel guilt tripped about going and fear being ridiculed because of it.
They can't as yet get their money back and can't afford to pay for a staycation unless they do.
Someone needs to step in and clear this up please.

The_Conductor

Why should the hard-pressed tax payer bail out those who spent big money on trips to Spain/Portugal (where-ever).
Surely people have travel insurance?
I genuinely do not see why our taxes should be used to bail out people who splashed major money on holidays like this- by all means get it back from the airlines if you're not going- but anyone who booked after the 12th March- its on them- it is not up to the taxpayer to bail them out. If you booked before the lockdown- its easier to argue you didn't know what was happening- after- nope, its on you.

Bishop of hope

The_Conductor wrote: »

Why should the hard-pressed tax payer bail out those who spent big money on trips to Spain/Portugal (where-ever).
Surely people have travel insurance?
I genuinely do not see why our taxes should be used to bail out people who splashed major money on holidays like this- by all means get it back from the airlines if you're not going- but anyone who booked after the 12th March- its on them- it is not up to the taxpayer to bail them out. If you booked before the lockdown- its easier to argue you didn't know what was happening- after- nope, its on you.

Both of the cases I'm talking about were booked earlier and postponed from early June.

Edgware

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

He can be king of the ashes after FF are absolutely decimated in a few years, lol.

Codswallop

dundalkfc10

Bishop of hope wrote: »

OK, just a note to the new minister or whoever is, responsible for public announcements.
I know two families heading for Spain in the next month or so, they've paid for their packages both in the 2000 euro mark area.
Now we have the cmo saying don't go, it's too dangerous.
Both of these families now feel guilt tripped about going and fear being ridiculed because of it.
They can't as yet get their money back and can't afford to pay for a staycation unless they do.
Someone needs to step in and clear this up please.

Any one who listens to Dr Tony (I'd listen to Dr Nick in Springfield before him) after he tried to cover up the cervical scandal needs head tested.

Brendan Bendar

Bishop of hope wrote: »

OK, just a note to the new minister or whoever is, responsible for public announcements.
I know two families heading for Spain in the next month or so, they've paid for their packages both in the 2000 euro mark area.
Now we have the cmo saying don't go, it's too dangerous.
Both of these families now feel guilt tripped about going and fear being ridiculed because of it.
They can't as yet get their money back and can't afford to pay for a staycation unless they do.
Someone needs to step in and clear this up please.

Correct, but it’s a difficult one.

Needs to be a possibly a EU wide policy on this as it will crop up frequently it seems.

That is Airline going, State advising not to go, money paid by client.

This needs to be sorted pronto as u say.

But it won’t be, I fear.

JohnnyFlash

KyussB wrote: »

Here we go again with the thought-terminating-cliches - you obviously have no idea where money does comes from, and are just parroting a century-old narrative, that it has to be dug out of the ground ala gold or some similar nonsense.

Money is readily available - both from banks for private spending, where the loan is sustainable - and for governments through near-zero-to-negative interest rate bonds, in abundance, thanks to ECB policies...

Money grows to suit the economies demand for it, within the conditions imposed on its sustainabiltiy due to interest rates and general economic conditions.

That's how it's always worked.

The ECB and even private banks fit every facetious definition of 'money trees'...we're not in the gold standard.

MTT dude. Haha. I know how central banking works, my friend.

Edgware

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Most Ministers don't have State cars now - just Taoiseach and Justice I think.

Sorry. You are correct about the State car. The others at Cabinet get expenses to cover the provision of a car. He wont be rolling into Ballina in a Nissan Micra but will have a car that sends out the message that he is the main man in Mayo. I have no doubt that his day will come

Podge_irl

The_Conductor wrote: »

Why should the hard-pressed tax payer bail out those who spent big money on trips to Spain/Portugal (where-ever).
Surely people have travel insurance?
I genuinely do not see why our taxes should be used to bail out people who splashed major money on holidays like this- by all means get it back from the airlines if you're not going- but anyone who booked after the 12th March- its on them- it is not up to the taxpayer to bail them out. If you booked before the lockdown- its easier to argue you didn't know what was happening- after- nope, its on you.

Travel insurance won't pay out unless there are travel advisories in place. Nor will the airlines be obliged to refund. But I don't think anyone is suggesting the state should cover expenses of those who booked holidays.

Some clarity in messaging is definitely required.