FF/FG/Green Next Government

ExMachina1000

McMurphy wrote: »

That's because the political leaders of the day would rather paint things differently..

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1130836512097132544?s=19

Rte ran an ad for fg.
Was backed up by official figures though

BonnieSituation

Truthvader wrote: »

Well that me told. Successive Irish goverments wrestling with the housing issue since the foundation of the state and some bloke Boards has the answer. And it was simple all the time. Who knew?

Do you know how housing worked in this State since foundation or do you think that nothing happened before 2002?

Shambolic level of posting.

BonnieSituation

christy c wrote: »

Agreed. That's why I'd like to see a right/centre right party emerge from the rubble of this recession.

Like Renua then?

---

What sort of policies would they pursue that you'd vote for?

blanch152

Yurt! wrote: »

There's a mad zealotry to people opposing social housing in any form at play in this thread and others, no matter what model it takes that's quite frankly only explainable by the own property situation they're in that's stinging them some way.

There's a genuine psychosis at play. They have visions of an army of fictional single mothers rifling through their possessions and adding interest rate points to their over-leveraged buy to let mortgages that were a crap idea in the first place.

I've no problem making fun of these people, they're cartoon characters

That was funny, thanks for the laugh.

christy c

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Like Renua then?

---

What sort of policies would they pursue that you'd vote for?

I am not too keen on Renuas abortion policy (ironically the reason they existed in the first place). But they had some economic policies that at least were a change from the usual pandering to the "most vulnerable". Dont know what they are about at the moment.

Truthvader

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Do you know how housing worked in this State since foundation or do you think that nothing happened before 2002?

Shambolic level of posting.

??????! Maybe read back a bit before compulsively posting whatever comes into your head.

BonnieSituation

christy c wrote: »

I am not too keen on Renuas abortion policy (ironically the reason they existed in the first place). But they had some economic policies that at least were a change from the usual pandering to the "most vulnerable". Dont know what they are about at the moment.

So what right wing policies are you looking for a party to implement that you'd vote for?

christy c

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So what right wing policies are you looking for a party to implement that you'd vote for?

Are you going to start a party for me? Not giving welfare increases bigger than income tax cuts would be a start.

BonnieSituation

Truthvader wrote: »

??????! Maybe read back a bit before compulsively posting whatever comes into your head.

I asked you a question.

You seem to think that housing the people of Ireland was a struggle since the foundation of the State.

Now, I don't believe it had been, so it strikes me that you're likely not au fait on this subject at all.

So tell me, would the policy changes under FF and the PDs which have become the prevailing policies of all subsequent governments be all you have experience of?

BonnieSituation

christy c wrote: »

Are you going to start a party for me? Not giving welfare increases bigger than income tax cuts would be a start.

So a party that engages in blunt top line economic policy is what you're after?

Surely we have that in spades across the whole spectrum?

christy c

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So a party that engages in blunt top line economic policy is what you're after?

Surely we have that in spades across the whole spectrum?

I gave an example of something that is being done that I disagree with. No party was offering that in spades.

Truthvader

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I asked you a question.

You seem to think that housing the people of Ireland was a struggle since the foundation of the State.

Now, I don't believe it had been, so it strikes me that you're likely not au fait on this subject at all.

So tell me, would the policy changes under FF and the PDs which have become the prevailing policies of all subsequent governments be all you have experience of?

Not here to give you a history lesson. Even before independence Dublin was reowned for having the worst slums in Europe. You can take things from there.

Born in the 60's so I expect I have more experience than most of the various governments long before there was any such thing as a PD

BonnieSituation

Truthvader wrote: »

Not here to give you a history lesson. Even before independence Dublin was reowned for having the worst slums in Europe. You can take things from there.

A widely known fact indeed. And what have slums in Dublin before independence got to do with housing since independence?

Born in the 60's so I expect I have more experience than most of the various governments long before there was any such thing as a PD

Don't fall into the trap of confusing age with wisdom.

BonnieSituation

christy c wrote: »

I gave an example of something that is being done that I disagree with. No party was offering that in spades.

Oh, you want a one issue party?

christy c

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Oh, you want a one issue party?

No, that was one example. Good night.

Bannasidhe

christy c wrote: »

I think the current parties are centre left in a lot of ways, look at the current issue we are discussing, not a peep from them. Plus the growing welfare budget.

I think a right wing party is needed just to tip the scales back slightly in certain areas, where things like the enormous amount of jobless households are spoken about and some plan is tried to tackle it.

If they were in any way shape or form left they would not be reliant on the private sector to provide housing.
They would be actually implementing slaintecare.
They would not be wedded to Thatcherite neo-liberal flog it all off to quangos/developers and let the market decide.

Centre left my hole.

They are centre -right.
Own it.
They are doing what the centre right does.
Free market, light touch regulation, market forces.
Own it.

christy c

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If they were in any way shape or form left they would not be reliant on the private sector to provide housing.
They would be actually implementing slaintecare.
They would not be wedded to Thatcherite neo-liberal flog it all off to quangos/developers and let the market decide.

Centre left my hole.

They are centre -right.
Own it.
They are doing what the centre right does.
Free market, light touch regulation, market forces.
Own it.

20 billion on welfare, high health spend, people on welfare better off than workers. Own it, right wing my hole.

Truthvader

BonnieSituation wrote: »

A widely known fact indeed. And what have slums in Dublin before independence got to do with housing since independence?



Don't fall into the trap of confusing age with wisdom.

You raised these issues my friend. A smart arse comment when the answers dont suit you is hardly appropriate

BonnieSituation

christy c wrote: »

No, that was one example. Good night.

Good night I guess.

BonnieSituation

Truthvader wrote: »

You raised these issues my friend. A smart arse comment when the answers dont suit you is hardly appropriate

Is that what is happening here?

Seems a wee bit "projection-y".

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

20 billion on welfare, high health spend, people on welfare better off than workers. Own it, right wing my hole.

Funny how pandering to the most vulnerable with increasing welfare spends fills the pockets of landlords and build to rent companies.
While letting health fester feeds private clinics and insurance companies.

Bannasidhe

christy c wrote: »

20 billion on welfare, high health spend, people on welfare better off than workers. Own it, right wing my hole.

How much of that 20 bn is pensions?
How much is for people with disabilities? Carers?
Pensioners and people with disabilities who live alone will get an extra €5 a week - over 200,000 of them = €1m just to give the most vulnerable who live alone an extra fiver a week.

509,000 people were in receipt of a State pension in 2018 which accounted for 7.7 bn.

Training?
2.5m plus 2m for training those on CE scheme - plus BTEA for those in further education.

School meals?
An additional 35,000 children to be included in that.

How much is to supplement the below living wage of working people with families?
55,000 families are expected to need their wages supplemented - an additional €10 will cost €19m. They are the working poor.



How much is HAP which a direct subsidy of private landlords?

Over 400m in 2019.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/state-has-paid-landlords-612m-under-hap-tenant-scheme-1.4044451

How much is paying private providers of Direct Provision?
72m in 2018.

Stop acting like 20 bn is going into the pockets of people on welfare, a hell of a lot of it is profit for private landlords and private providers.

The bulk of direct payment to welfare recipients is to pensioners - How will your new right wing party reduce that exactly?
What will they do to reduce payments to the working poor?
How will they cut the bill for Carers?

christy c

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How much of that 20 bn is pensions?
How much is for people with disabilities? Carers?
Pensioners and people with disabilities who live alone will get an extra €5 a week - over 200,000 of them = €1m just to give the most vulnerable who live alone an extra fiver a week.

509,000 people were in receipt of a State pension in 2018 which accounted for 7.7 bn.

Training?
2.5m plus 2m for training those on CE scheme - plus BTEA for those in further education.

School meals?
An additional 35,000 children to be included in that.

How much is to supplement the below living wage of working people with families?
55,000 families are expected to need their wages supplemented - an additional €10 will cost €19m. They are the working poor.



How much is HAP which a direct subsidy of private landlords?

Over 400m in 2019.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/state-has-paid-landlords-612m-under-hap-tenant-scheme-1.4044451

How much is paying private providers of Direct Provision?
72m in 2018.

Stop acting like 20 bn is going into the pockets of people on welfare, a hell of a lot of it is profit for private landlords and private providers.

The bulk of direct payment to welfare recipients is to pensioners - How will your new right wing party reduce that exactly?
What will they do to reduce payments to the working poor?
How will they cut the bill for Carers?

You are now arguing the rights/wrongs of policies such as pension and carer payments, not whether they are left/right. So i will leave you to that piece.

A right wing policy would not subsidise rent to keep a roof over someone's head, they would be booted out (not that I am advocating that).

Look if you dont want a different party that's fine, and the way the votes are at the moment you are safe enough. But don't be surprised that someone wants something different.

Bannasidhe

christy c wrote: »

You are now arguing the rights/wrongs of policies such as pension and carer payments, not whether they are left/right. So i will leave you to that piece.

A right wing policy would not subsidise rent to keep a roof over someone's head, they would be booted out (not that I am advocating that).

Look if you dont want a different party that's fine, and the way the votes are at the moment you are safe enough. But don't be surprised that someone wants something different.

I'm not surprised.
I'm far from happy with the way things are run.
I think there is an appalling waste of taxpayers money going on, far too many vested interests feeding off the State Teats, and a lack of accountability that comes from the top and trickles down.

What does surprise me is when people think yet another party on the right will make a difference in a country where parties on the right have dominated.

efanton

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not surprised.
I'm far from happy with the way things are run.
I think there is an appalling waste of taxpayers money going on, far too many vested interests feeding off the State Teats, and a lack of accountability that comes from the top and trickles down.

What does surprise me is when people think yet another party on the right will make a difference in a country where parties on the right have dominated.

What did Einstein say about repeating the same experiment.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

The truth is even the FF/FG fanboys are less than impressed with the way their leaders and TD's have behaved over the last ten years or so.
But thinking that a new party formed from the same gene-pool would be any different really is insanity.

Its a personal opinion but I think the worlds economy and the way it is run is completely broke.
Workers are working harder for less gain both financially and in their personal/family lives, big business seems to do what they want when they want to the degree where they have so much power they can now more or less control governments, and the poor and least well off are caught in between constantly being paraded as the whipping boys that must be punished or put down lest they rise up and try overturn the whole sorry mess. As long as there is a target for the middle income angst, things will continue very much as they are now. The squeezed middle will be squeezed even more no matter what is done regarding socail welfare, if social welfare was reduced or removed, the squeezed middle will never see any benefit.

The current tax system is a joke, the more well off you are the easier it is to avoid contributing your fair share. We have financial and accounting institutions both aiding and abetting large companies and the wealthy in ever more complicated schemes to avoid or evade tax,and the biggest joke of all is that it is these same institutions that the government turns to for advice on the economy and taxation. Does anyone truly believe that KPMG, Deloitte, PWC, or any of the other accounting/advisory companies will put the country before their clients?

If you really want to see how this works just do a search on the way the Savoy Hotel in London, and General Electric pay zero tax or a tiny percentage of what they should be contributing.
This article will give you a taste of what really is going on, but if those of you that want to live in your own little bubble and continue blaming the tiny percentage of people in this country that are gaming the social welfare system continue on, there nothing I or anyone else can say to persuade you otherwise.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/it-s-a-matter-of-fairness-squeezing-more-tax-from-multinationals-1.4299357


The sad thing is the so called squeezed middle are so busy blaming the very people who are worst affected rather than those that are are evading or avoiding paying their fair share of the tax and are the real cause for the them to have to pay more taxation, accept longer work hours and a lower quality of life.

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

But anyone suggesting we build Social housing, which also could also be paid back over decades (not to mention meaning we could park the hotels, B&Bs and paying hedgefunds their 25year leases) possessed a magic money tree.

And by the way, when cost of building the social housing is paid back, it's a state asset.


The money is always there when it has to be by the looks of things.

Social houses we sell on at a loss?
If the state kept all these social houses and recycled them through generations like they do on the continent, you would have a point, but this is Ireland, so we get the taxpayer to build social houses and then sell them on at a loss, and think we are great!

Until the next generation wants the same.
Socialists against property tax? Only in Ireland.

Anyway, its mute, Ireland like all EU countries are subject to fiscal rules. FF, FG Labour or SF cannot change that fact and if SF or some other party is telling you the government can do what it wants, borrow what it wants and spend what it wants, I have a UKIP sized magic bean to sell you.

markodaly

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Yup. Absolutely it should.

But again, I have experience in this regard. The biggest blocks to evictions from LA housing, are councillors. Public servants, doing their jobs, try to collect rents from tenants and try to evict non-payers.

A great example from 10 years ago:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/family-evicted-despite-plea-for-mercy-over-unpaid-rent-26655360.html

It's interesting to read something like that when you know the full story, which isn't being reported.

RBB comes across being reasonable there, but obviously he failed to tell the Indo about how he egged on that family and the whole of the PBP tribe in DL intimidated staff and encouraged that family to camp outside the Town Hall.

But yeah, Social Housing as a concept is a problem when you read some of the posts on here.

Social housing as a concept is sound and I don't think anyone objects to it in principle. However, there are of courses issues with it in practicality, especially in the fairness of it by those working.

Once a council house is given, its there for life. That is wrong IMO.

Of course, this being Ireland we have an aversion to the last resort of evictions.
If one doesn't pay their rent of mortgage, you will still see a quite sizable cohort advocating not to evict people, in ANY circumstances. The problem with that is, of course, is moral hazard. If people stop paying rent/mortgage with no consequence then one can quickly see the issues that can cause. The whole system will just keel over.

The issues with housing in Ireland are very much cultural and until we grow up and adopt a more pragmatic continental style solution, with both carrot and a stick, then we will be forever wading through the mud.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Social houses we sell on at a loss?
If the state kept all these social houses and recycled them through generations like they do on the continent, you would have a point, but this is Ireland, so we get the taxpayer to build social houses and then sell them on at a loss, and think we are great!

Until the next generation wants the same.
Socialists against property tax? Only in Ireland.

Anyway, its mute, Ireland like all EU countries are subject to fiscal rules. FF, FG Labour or SF cannot change that fact and if SF or some other party is telling you the government can do what it wants, borrow what it wants and spend what it wants, I have a UKIP sized magic bean to sell you.

Can you supply a link showing the sale of houses built in the 1930/40/50's was done so at a loss? Or any built at any time?

If we've money for 25 year leases and buying houses off the market to use as social, we can use that money to build instead.

efanton

markodaly wrote: »

Social houses we sell on at a loss?
If the state kept all these social houses and recycled them through generations like they do on the continent, you would have a point, but this is Ireland, so we get the taxpayer to build social houses and then sell them on at a loss, and think we are great!

Until the next generation wants the same.
Socialists against property tax? Only in Ireland.

Anyway, its mute, Ireland like all EU countries are subject to fiscal rules. FF, FG Labour or SF cannot change that fact and if SF or some other party is telling you the government can do what it wants, borrow what it wants and spend what it wants, I have a UKIP sized magic bean to sell you.

While any thought of borrowing 6 billion to build housing is more or less gone with the Covid crisis, the simple fact remains that this country collects €85 billion a year in assorted revenues. Where does it all go?
Trying to argue the money is not there is a stupid argument. The truth is the money is here for what ever project a government set its mind too, the question is in order to increase funding in one area what funding in another areas can we reduce to afford that.
There also seem to be a culture within the government we have had over the last twenty years that when spending tax payers money it doesnt seem to matter if some is wasted or there are massive cost over-runs.

There's a lot of of sick children in this country and we do need a modern fit for purpose hospital for them, but are you suggesting that every cent of what we are eventually going to pay was good value for money?
Private businesses would never sign a contract that did not have fixed prices, penalty clauses, and delivery deadlines so why is it that our recent governments think that these are superfluous?
If that project had have been managed properly they would probably have been at least two or three hundred million to spend else where.
The government signed a contract with the private hospital not knowing whether they would be needed or not. Reasonable enough, but why a contract for the duration it was and not 3 months on a rolling basis? More money wasted.
The government has committed itself to renting apartments for 25 years for multiples of the cost of construction. The argument given was to avoided the maintenance costs and the hassle of managing these properties.
Are you honestly going to argue that had the government built these apartments, that they would spend nearly as much again managing them or maintaining them?

I could name half a dozen more 'projects' where serious amount of money were spent and they same argument could be made that we did not get anywhere near good value for money.

Add up all that wasted money and there would be no need for magic money trees.
The money was there, is there, and will always be there we just need a government that gets its act together and actually ensures that when spending tax payers money they make sure they get good value and cost overruns are not acceptable. Minsters are supposed to be accountable for the money they spend.

Its a case of focusing on the priorities, and not being totally incompetent, especially when it comes to tax payers money. Sadly something the last few governments appear to have little concept of.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Social housing as a concept is sound and I don't think anyone objects to it in principle. However, there are of courses issues with it in practicality, especially in the fairness of it by those working.

Once a council house is given, its there for life. That is wrong IMO.

Of course, this being Ireland we have an aversion to the last resort of evictions.
If one doesn't pay their rent of mortgage, you will still see a quite sizable cohort advocating not to evict people, in ANY circumstances. The problem with that is, of course, is moral hazard. If people stop paying rent/mortgage with no consequence then one can quickly see the issues that can cause. The whole system will just keel over.

The issues with housing in Ireland are very much cultural and until we grow up and adopt a more pragmatic continental style solution, with both carrot and a stick, then we will be forever wading through the mud.

Exact same people in leased and privately rented social accommodation.

We could easily take rent from source, wages/welfare.
We can set what ever maintenance agreement we choose.
We can set rent rates to income and take homes away from people if they begin to earn too much.
If they don't they should stay and that's the point.

Anyone who bought a council house is no longer in need of state accommodation.