FF/FG/Green Next Government

markodaly

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.

Em, all parties, including 'right-wing' FF and FG want to implement SlainteCare.
FG were in government last time out when the plan was developed and released. It is a core part of their policy platform. Now, Covid-19 has put it on the back burner, for a little but Slaintecare is the way forward.

Now, I know you are a SD voter, I am myself in part, but where were the SD's when it came to government formation talks. Nowhere, yea, so they cant be cribbing now when the horse has a jockey that Slaintecare is not a priority this year...

FG are very much like New Labour, FF are just more populist and will go whatever way there is a vote and we have seen the consequences of that.
Irish politics is very much centrist and state spending is quite left-wing. Just look at the 3 biggest spending departments and the billions the state spends.

Thatcherite we are not. Anyone who thinks we have a free market in health or housing needs a lesson in economics and civics. They are some of the most regulated sectors of our society.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

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.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/local_authority_and_social_housing/buying_your_local_authority_house.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/council-tenants-may-get-60-discount-to-buy-houses-1.2625578

More than 11,000 council house tenants in Dublin are to be offered the opportunity to buy their homes at discounts of up to 60 per cent of the market value in the coming weeks.

You are welcome.

Tenants of council houses have been able to buy their homes from individual local authorities since the 1930s, and a national scheme for the sale of council houses was introduced in 1973.

All the problems started in 70's with the abolition or rates. Afaik, there was also an extra rate for property owners to supply social housings, also abolished.
Yet, all left wing parties are against the property tax... go figure.

The last tenant-purchase scheme was discontinued in 2012, and many were critical of the Government’s decision to reintroduce the right to buy council houses at a discount given the chronic shortage of social housing.

Simon Brooke, head of policy with housing body Clúid, has described the scheme as “selling off the family silver at a knock-down price”.

Cluid, a right-wing lobby group I suppose. :rolleyes:

Yurt2

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?

A poster was on-topic talking about housing and all you added was a smart*rse post.

Nobody made claims housing is easily solved, but chuckleheads like you offer less than nothing to the debate.

KyussB

efanton wrote: »

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.
...

You do genuinely want change and reform, for things to be run more equitably - but it's precisely the quoted way of viewing macroeconomics which guarantees no escape from things continuing down their current path.

Until people see idle labour (high unemployment/underemployment) and idle resources (industry that is below capacity for demand reasons, with plenty of ability to ramp up), as the perfect opportunity to put workers and resources together on work that urgently needs doing (e.g. building houses) - and instead see money as something that should be used to restrict the ability to do useful/urgent work, that we already have the workers/resources for - then we are permanently fucked, because those that control/limit the flow of money will have all the power.

When money is used to hold economies back from Full Output, holding back putting together idle workers and idle resources to do useful work, by artificially restricting the supply of money - then that is bad economics and bad for everybody.

Until that is rejected - Euro or not, EU restrictions or not - until that is universally rejected as wrong and bad economics, then we're going to be spinning around in circles having the same waste of time poor quality discussions about government finances, that will always lose to "but where will the money come from?" - which is always going to be a discussion-ending winning point, bolstering the status quo forever - until what I described above is rejected by everybody.

The narrative you have chosen to accept is a permanently losing one, and what you desire to see happen, can only become a winning alternative with a fundamental change in narrative.

markodaly

efanton wrote: »

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?

Is that a rhetorical question? It goes to pay for all and any state service. Health, education, law, defence, housing, pensions etc.....

Even after all that, we still had to borrow to make up the difference. We did well to plug the hole since 2010, but Covid has put a dent into that for the next year or two.



At the end of the day, the government can spend money it raises by taxes, or spending money it borrows, which stays on the balance sheet and has to be serviced. There is no other magic bean or bullet.

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.

You tell me, what area can the government cut x Billion from in order to fund Housing to take one example. Give me a working example.

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.

How much do you know about public procurement and publicly funded projects? This is a feature of all governments right across the world. Just look at the North and the debacle over the A5, or cash for ash. Makes our government look world class.

I would agree that the civil service should be reformed to be more robust and accountable but Unions hold a lot of power there, so good luck to you.

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?

There is a lot to untangle there and the new NCH could be a book in of itself, but briefly, the civil service, when it came to the NCH, were out of their depth as they never had to manage a project of this scale before.

Mistakes were made and have to be learnt. Leo himself stood in the Dail and told us, that if he had his way, a certain contractor *cough* BAM *cough* would never get another state contract ever again.
BAM came out firing...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/bam-gave-varadkar-2-hour-ultimatum-to-clarify-lowballing-remark-1.3797184

BAM are known for this though and its only on public contracts that they act up.

Simply put, it's like this.
Politicians are policymakers.
The Civil Service enact that policy.

The government wanted to build a New Children's Hospital and sent the Civil Service off to make it happen. As you well know, there as been talk of a new Children's hospital since 1993 and its has been a long long long road of planning, reports, more reports when finally they gave it the go-ahead and BAM signed the contract in 2016.

My answer may not satisfy, but its a hell of a lot more complicated than some make out.

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.

If you argument is that we should hire better people in the civil service and fire those who are not up to it, then you will have no argument from me.

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.

In fairness, that is an overly simplistic statement and argument. The overrun of the NCH has meant that some other projects were delayed and put back. This is a fact.

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.

And the solution is... to vote in a new government and expect radically different results?
Overspends happen all around the world for various reasons. Now, unless you are advocating actual reform of the civil service, who are the people behind these mistakes, then you are wasting your time and vote expecting radical changes by just changing the guy in the minister's chair.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

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

Are you in favour of selling social housing units to tenants, when we know the damage this causes? Cluid are against it, for a reason.

efanton

Bowie wrote: »

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.

Bowie, to be fair here I think you are missing a point.

So what if a council house was built in the 50's for let say 50k and then sold it to the tenant in the 60's for say 70k. Is there any profit there?
Absolutely not because its is likely to cost the council the 70k and more to replace that house.

This was the biggest con going, getting council tenants to buy homes that they had anyhow for a lifetime, and it was used in both the UK and Ireland. A house has absolutely no profit in it if you are faced with spending the same amount or more replacing it for another home to live in. For those that are selling up and leaving the country, selling a second home, or selling a house they inherited, then there's profit.

But for the councils or the state to sell homes and not use the money to immediately rebuild another was pure stupidity, and under no circumstance was there ever going to be any sort of gain or profit. That was the problem, what the councils were getting simply was not enough to replace the homes they sold.

markodaly

efanton wrote: »

Bowie, to be fair here I think you are missing a point.

So what if a council house was built in the 50's for let say 50k and then sold it to the tenant in the 60's for say 70k. Is there any profit there?
Absolutely not because its is likely to cost the council the 70k and more to replace that house.

This was the biggest con going, getting council tenants to buy homes that they had anyhow for a lifetime, and it was used in both the UK and Ireland. A house has absolutely no profit in it if you are faced with spending the same amount or more replacing it for another home to live in. For those that are selling up and leaving the country, selling a second home, or selling a house they inherited, then there's profit.

But for the councils or the state to sell homes and not use the money to immediately rebuild another was pure stupidity, and under no circumstance was there ever going to be any sort of gain or profit. That was the problem, what the councils were getting simply was not enough to replace the homes they sold.

I think we agree. We can trace many problems of housing back to these three issues.

1) Getting rid of rates (property tax)
2) Selling council houses to tenants for a discount
3) Getting of the older social rate on property

The irony of irony is, these three things are held up as good things by the opposition parties.

efanton

markodaly wrote: »

Is that a rhetorical question? It goes to pay for all and any state service. Health, education, law, defence, housing, pensions etc.....

Even after all that, we still had to borrow to make up the difference. We did well to plug the hole since 2010, but Covid has put a dent into that for the next year or two.



At the end of the day, the government can spend money it raises by taxes, or spending money it borrows, which stays on the balance sheet and has to be serviced. There is no other magic bean or bullet.




You tell me, what area can the government cut x Billion from in order to fund Housing to take one example. Give me a working example.



How much do you know about public procurement and publicly funded projects? This is a feature of all governments right across the world. Just look at the North and the debacle over the A5, or cash for ash. Makes our government look world class.

I would agree that the civil service should be reformed to be more robust and accountable but Unions hold a lot of power there, so good luck to you.



There is a lot to untangle there and the new NCH could be a book in of itself, but briefly, the civil service, when it came to the NCH, were out of their depth as they never had to manage a project of this scale before.

Mistakes were made and have to be learnt. Leo himself stood in the Dail and told us, that if he had his way, a certain contractor *cough* BAM *cough* would never get another state contract ever again.
BAM came out firing...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/bam-gave-varadkar-2-hour-ultimatum-to-clarify-lowballing-remark-1.3797184

BAM are known for this though and its only on public contracts that they act up.

Simply put, it's like this.
Politicians are policymakers.
The Civil Service enact that policy.

The government wanted to build a New Children's Hospital and sent the Civil Service off to make it happen. As you well know, there as been talk of a new Children's hospital since 1993 and its has been a long long long road of planning, reports, more reports when finally they gave it the go-ahead and BAM signed the contract in 2016.

My answer may not satisfy, but its a hell of a lot more complicated than some make out.






If you argument is that we should hire better people in the civil service and fire those who are not up to it, then you will have no argument from me.



In fairness, that is an overly simplistic statement and argument. The overrun of the NCH has meant that some other projects were delayed and put back. This is a fact.



And the solution is... to vote in a new government and expect radically different results?
Overspends happen all around the world for various reasons. Now, unless you are advocating actual reform of the civil service, who are the people behind these mistakes, then you are wasting your time and vote expecting radical changes by just changing the guy in the minister's chair.

Yes I am totally with having ministers and civil servants totally accountable for decisions on spending. I fail to see how massive projects can not have fixed pricing, fixed deadlines, and penalty clauses. Any minister who signs a contract without actually having a reasonable accurate estimation of cost should not be signing that contract, or should simply be removed from office having done so.
Likewise for senior civil servants.

I am also totally with a complete reform of how our civil service works (or doesnt).
Personally I would have all the top jobs on a contract only basis, those that deliver and save money reward them with bonuses, those that fail miserably do not renew the contract, and there would be no shifting them to a different department where they could do yet more damage as being on a contract they would not be civil servants.

I would argue its not an over simplification to ask the question how much money is wasted and what could have been done instead with that wasted money.
As you rightly agreed there is only a finite amount of money to spend, and if you want to spend beyond that then we are into substantial borrowing which should be avoided if possible. If tighter control of budgetary spending by government ministers is a way to avoid borrowing then thats what should be happening.

Had BAM signed a contract with fixed cost, fixed deadlines and penalty clauses would they have been able to act up? They are known for under costing so better to give the contract to a company that would agree to fixed pricing and delivery, even if their initial bid was slightly more.

Also for your last comment, I am not putting a party political slant on this.
What I have said should apply to ANY government.
No businessman in his right mind would sign the contracts our ministers and senior civil servants seem happy enough to have signed.
There are no serious repercussion for failing as a minister or senior civil servant and it is this that needs to change.
When SF finally get into government I would expect exactly the same of them, and would be equally critical if they agreed similar contracts..

Brendan Bendar

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.

Correct, needs to be more personal responsibility in this area.

Far too many areas where as you say there seems to be no consequence for serial defaulters.

37. Million owed to DCC.

Then you have populist lefty TDs stoking things up when they should be trying to recover this appalling arrears.

More interested in flying flags than working for the taxpayer.

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

Yes I am totally with having ministers and civil servants totally accountable for decisions on spending. I fail to see how massive projects can not have fixed pricing, fixed deadlines, and penalty clauses. Any minister who signs a contract without actually having a reasonable accurate estimation of cost should not be signing that contract, or should simply be removed from office having done so.
Likewise for senior civil servants.

I am also totally with a complete reform of how our civil service works (or doesnt).
Personally I would have all the top jobs on a contract only basis, those that deliver and save money reward them with bonuses, those that fail miserably do not renew the contract, and there would be no shifting them to a different department where they could do yet more damage as being on a contract they would not be civil servants.

I would argue its not an over simplification to ask the question how much money is wasted and what could have been done instead with that wasted money.
As you rightly agreed there is only a finite amount of money to spend, and if you want to spend beyond that then we are into substantial borrowing which should be avoided if possible. If tighter control of budgetary spending by government ministers is a way to avoid borrowing then thats what should be happening.

Had BAM signed a contract with fixed cost, fixed deadlines and penalty clauses would they have been able to act up? They are known for under costing so better to give the contract to a company that would agree to fixed pricing and delivery, even if their initial bid was slightly more.

Also for your last comment, I am not putting a party political slant on this.
What I have said should apply to ANY government.
No businessman in his right mind would sign the contracts our ministers and senior civil servants seem happy enough to have signed.
There are no serious repercussion for failing as a minister or senior civil servant and it is this that needs to change.
When SF finally get into government I would expect exactly the same of them, and would be equally critical if they agreed similar contracts..

Unfortunately if that reform you seek is to take place what you are talking about is years in the doing.
It won't happen in the term of any govt, it would take years if not decades to implement and involve the virtual privatisation of our public services for that system to work.
The truth is that its not our civil service that's the problem, its our politicians.
They make promises to get elected and they estimate everything at the bottom end of the scale.
Take housing for instance, say they promise to build 10000 social houses a year, if they achieve that scale it would be great, but the true cost of that to the taxpayer will be much higher than any or at least most of them are bidding for our votes with.
If they happened to be more truthful and realistic with what they can achieve it would be a bigger help to us than most else.
The promise politics has become our biggest problem, they're all guilty of it, but SF and left of that are by far the worst offenders.

Brendan Bendar

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Unfortunately if that reform you seek is to take place what you are talking about is years in the doing.
It won't happen in the term of any govt, it would take years if not decades to implement and involve the virtual privatisation of our public services for that system to work.
The truth is that its not our civil service that's the problem, its our politicians.
They make promises to get elected and they estimate everything at the bottom end of the scale.
Take housing for instance, say they promise to build 10000 social houses a year, if they achieve that scale it would be great, but the true cost of that to the taxpayer will be much higher than any or at least most of them are bidding for our votes with.
If they happened to be more truthful and realistic with what they can achieve it would be a bigger help to us than most else.
The promise politics has become our biggest problem, they're all guilty of it, but SF and left of that are by far the worst offenders.

Unfortunately it’s the section of the electorate who believe and vote for these people and support these ‘money tree’ tax the rich merchants that need to open their eyes.

Brendan Bendar

Someone tell these goons there is no airport in Monaco.

Nearest airport Nice, then it’s overland.

Unless you have a helicopter.

mattser

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Someone tell these goons there is no airport in Monaco.

Nearest airport Nice, then it’s overland.

Unless you have a helicopter.

Where did they say there was an airport in Monaco ?

markodaly

efanton wrote: »

Yes I am totally with having ministers and civil servants totally accountable for decisions on spending. I fail to see how massive projects can not have fixed pricing, fixed deadlines, and penalty clauses. Any minister who signs a contract without actually having a reasonable accurate estimation of cost should not be signing that contract, or should simply be removed from office having done so.
Likewise for senior civil servants.

Do you think a minister is an expert in project management, costing and procurement? The minister is simply the public face of the department, the policy maker. How are they to know if a plan is put before them for x that it will really cost x+y in years down the track? If every minister in the world was fired because of cost overruns then there would simply be no ministers left.

I don't disagree in principal but the issue is really within the civil service here and how procurement and tendering works, not the minister who signed off on the deal, per say.
Go visit the infrastructure forum and you will see good posts by people very familiar with the process who can shed light on the whys of things.

This is a fairly interesting thread detailing the delays of the Dunkettle roundabout.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055546082&page=23

I suppose my point is, instead of railing against the minster, who is only there for a year or two, until the next guy comes along, the department itself stays and the people within it also stay.

I am also totally with a complete reform of how our civil service works (or doesnt).
Personally I would have all the top jobs on a contract only basis, those that deliver and save money reward them with bonuses, those that fail miserably do not renew the contract, and there would be no shifting them to a different department where they could do yet more damage as being on a contract they would not be civil servants.

I could agree with that. One thing that Covid has shown us is that much of our civil service is not fit for purpose. Look at the debacle in the Dept. of Education. The guys couldn't plan a piss-up in a brewery.

When Covid dies down, there should be an investigation on how the civil service operates and how it can be made more agile and nimble to be able to respond to changes quickly. The whole civil service is a hulking mess of incompetence and inertia and outdated work practices ifested by work-shy jobs worths who are protected by Unions who look after their own no matter what.

If it were me, I would fire the worst-performing 10% of them, every year for 3 years. That would cull a lot of the wasters. But I would be branded an arch-right-wing Thatcherite for that.

I would argue its not an over simplification to ask the question how much money is wasted and what could have been done instead with that wasted money.
As you rightly agreed there is only a finite amount of money to spend, and if you want to spend beyond that then we are into substantial borrowing which should be avoided if possible. If tighter control of budgetary spending by government ministers is a way to avoid borrowing then thats what should be happening.

I again, agree in principle but politically its more complex than that.

Had BAM signed a contract with fixed cost, fixed deadlines and penalty clauses would they have been able to act up? They are known for under costing so better to give the contract to a company that would agree to fixed pricing and delivery, even if their initial bid was slightly more.

I suppose the question then is, why would BAM or anyone sign a contract like that. They carry all the risk then. The government will then have no one tendering for work.

Afaik, with the NCH is that the civil service messed up the procurement on their side and BAM had come back. I am not absolving BAM here, but I would hazard a guess that BAM have smarter guys working for them, than we have for the Dept. of Health or whomever was behind the project.

We commissioned a report with PWC to find out the why.
https://merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/News-Room/Releases/20190409_NCH_Report.pdf

Also for your last comment, I am not putting a party political slant on this.
What I have said should apply to ANY government.
No businessman in his right mind would sign the contracts our ministers and senior civil servants seem happy enough to have signed.
There are no serious repercussion for failing as a minister or senior civil servant and it is this that needs to change.
When SF finally get into government I would expect exactly the same of them, and would be equally critical if they agreed similar contracts..

I agree that we do not really do accountability in Ireland. This is mostly a cultural thing to be honest, the 'honest mistake' clause we envoke.

However, we mostly get it right. Most road projects are delivered on time and on budget. Luas cross city came in on time and below budget as an other example.
The NCH is the obvious big one, we are not as bad as one might think but we can of course do better.

Oh and there isn't a government in the world not immune to budget overruns and mishaps. Have you head of the failure of the new airport in Berlin?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport#Delayed_opening_and_construction_flaws

As to SF, well do a google on the A5 scheme for example, in the North. Makes our handling of the NCH look competent in comparision.
Unless SF have a plan of reform and bringing up the CS up to speed, then their talk is just that talk.

jmayo

markodaly wrote: »

Do you think a minister is an expert in project management, costing and procurement? The minister is simply the public face of the department, the policy maker. How are they to know if a plan is put before them for x that it will really cost x+y in years down the track? If every minister in the world was fired because of cost overruns then there would simply be no ministers left.

No but anyone with a bit of cop on should not sign something that is completely open ended.

markodaly wrote: »

Afaik, with the NCH is that the civil service messed up the procurement on their side and BAM had come back. I am not absolving BAM here, but I would hazard a guess that BAM have smarter guys working for them, than we have for the Dept. of Health or whomever was behind the project.

We commissioned a report with PWC to find out the why.
https://merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/News-Room/Releases/20190409_NCH_Report.pdf

The NCH was wrong from the start and involved too much politics, both actual elected politicians and medical professionals, and hence we have had to deal with cost of siting it in the wrong places from the start.
That has always been it's underlying issue.

markodaly wrote: »

I agree that we do not really do accountability in Ireland. This is mostly a cultural thing to be honest, the 'honest mistake' clause we envoke.

However, we mostly get it right. Most road projects are delivered on time and on budget. Luas cross city came in on time and below budget as an other example.
The NCH is the obvious big one, we are not as bad as one might think but we can of course do better.

Oh and there isn't a government in the world not immune to budget overruns and mishaps. Have you head of the failure of the new airport in Berlin?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport#Delayed_opening_and_construction_flaws

.

Ehh you are being a bit disingenuous there with Luas, when you totally neglect the horse's ar** made out of the initial project.
Years over runs, totally over budget and ill fitting.
Then there was M50 and the toll bridge.
Half way through when they reached Firhouse, it was obvious it was inadequate, yet they ploughed ahead only to come back and start widening it.

Then you have debacles like e-voting, PPARS.
Oh and how much did bertie bowl cost, how much was spent on land for new prision ?

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

Em, all parties, including 'right-wing' FF and FG want to implement SlainteCare.
FG were in government last time out when the plan was developed and released. It is a core part of their policy platform. Now, Covid-19 has put it on the back burner, for a little but Slaintecare is the way forward.

They can call it a core policy all they want but their actions tell a tale of kicking the can down the road.

Slaintecare was agreed to be a very good idea in 2017. It was a 10 year plan.
It is now 3 years later and all we have is a plan on paper. That does not say 'core part of policy platform' to me. That says stick it on the long finger and sure inertia will put an end to it.

2017 - Harris states he is committed to making Slaintecare happen.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/whatever-happened-to-the-promise-of-sl%C3%A1intecare-1.3289122?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fwhatever-happened-to-the-promise-of-sl%25C3%25A1intecare-1.3289122

2018

May - calls for implementation plan to be released a year after report was published

The Health Reform Alliance, of which the Irish Heart Foundation is a member, has today [Wednesday 30 May 2018 ] called on the Government to publish its implementation plan for the Sláintecare report without delay.

The Alliance, which is made up of a number of charities and groups including the Irish Heart Foundation, the Irish Cancer Society and the Alzheimer Society of Ireland made the call at a press conference to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the publication of the Slaintecare report.

The Alliance said Ireland now has a detailed roadmap to achieve universal, publicly funded health care, but it was being held back by stasis in its implementation.

https://irishheart.ie/news/frustration-with-slaintecare-stagnation-1-year-on/

Aug -Uncertainty as to how implementation will be paid for.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30860978.html

Oct- Slaintecare Implementation Advisory Council formed. https://www.thejournal.ie/brendan-courtney-slaintecare-4265204-Oct2018/


2019
Mar - Action plan published
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sl%C3%A1intecare-needs-buy-in-from-varadkar-and-donohoe-1.3827175?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fsl%25C3%25A1intecare-needs-buy-in-from-varadkar-and-donohoe-1.3827175


2020
Can kicked down the road due to budgetary restraints - again.

THE State's fiscal watchdog has said there are "big questions" on how Sláintecare will be financed under plans in the Programme for Government.

Acting chairperson of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (IFAC) Sebastian Barnes made the remarks at the Dáil's Special Committee on Covid-19 Response.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/big-questions-on-how-slaintecare-will-be-funded-under-programme-for-government-tds-told-39291369.html

The programme for government has completely relegated Slaintecare to sometime in the future, the chair of the committee that established the plan for the health service has said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sl%C3%A1intecare-relegated-to-sometime-in-the-future-in-programme-for-government-1.4281796

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

I think we agree. We can trace many problems of housing back to these three issues.

1) Getting rid of rates (property tax)
2) Selling council houses to tenants for a discount
3) Getting of the older social rate on property

The irony of irony is, these three things are held up as good things by the opposition parties.

I actually agree with you mark. I think we should both take a moment as this may never happen again. :P

Lynch's cynical promise to abolish rates has cost us dearly. I am old enough to remember that election (I hasten to say I was a child) and the jubilation over his victory.

I was in the UK when council property was being sold off under Thatcher and not replaced. Could have bought 'my' 3 bed flat in walking distance to City of London for 60% less than market value. I didn't. I thought it was a bloody stupid policy that would lead to big problems in a short period of time. I bought a private house at market value and left my flat for the next person who needed it.
When I saw the same Thatcherite policy being implemented here - when the problems with it were already becoming evident in the UK - I considered it doubling down on stupidity.

christy c

efanton wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure how much of this was aimed at me, but I have voted for fg since 2011 as best of a bad lot. If that makes me a fan boy then so be it, but yes I am not happy with their and other parties performances. I actually considered not voting in 2011 such was my disillusionment with politics at the time (still disillusioned, but vote anyway).

When I said I would like a new party, I dont care where it comes from, as long as they propose and implement sensible policies. If that is Pearse Doherty or Leo Varadkar that has a epiphany moment it doesn't matter to me.

To borrow Brian Cowen's phrase, we are where we are so we need to make the best of it. The world is a flawed place, agreed, but shouting "fairness" and not proposing anything sensible will not fix anything. Things like spending Apple's money and reducing the pension age might sound "fair", but are completely stupid.

I mentioned last night about the huge number of jobless households, that is an issue no matter how much all our political parties bury their heads in the sand. As are other things you mentioned.

Brendan Bendar

christy c wrote: »

I'm not sure how much of this was aimed at me, but I have voted for fg since 2011 as best of a bad lot. If that makes me a fan boy then so be it, but yes I am not happy with their and other parties performances. I actually considered not voting in 2011 such was my disillusionment with politics at the time (still disillusioned, but vote anyway).

When I said I would like a new party, I dont care where it comes from, as long as they propose and implement sensible policies. If that is Pearse Doherty or Leo Varadkar that has a epiphany moment it doesn't matter to me.

To borrow Brian Cowen's phrase, we are where we are so we need to make the best of it. The world is a flawed place, agreed, but shouting "fairness" and not proposing anything sensible will not fix anything. Things like spending Apple's money and reducing the pension age might sound "fair", but are completely stupid.

I mentioned last night about the huge number of jobless households, that is an issue no matter how much all our political parties bury their heads in the sand. As are other things you mentioned.

Very sensible post, Christy.

blanch152

markodaly wrote: »

Do you think a minister is an expert in project management, costing and procurement? .

A Minister is expected to be expert in all of those, yet only work 8 hours a day, five days a week.

Bannasidhe

blanch152 wrote: »

A Minister is expected to be expert in all of those, yet only work 8 hours a day, five days a week.

I hear that ministers have these highly paid advisers who are paid to advise them plus whole departments of civil servants who would have some experience in the minister's portfolio.
Perhaps if govt had less PR advisers and more technically skilled advisers ministers might have a better grasp of their responsibilities.

Truthvader

Yurt! wrote: »

A poster was on-topic talking about housing and all you added was a smart*rse post.

Nobody made claims housing is easily solved, but chuckleheads like you offer less than nothing to the debate.

Simply untrue. See cut and paste of suggestion yesterday that the solution was in fact easy. That was what I was responding to. Make an effort to be truthful if nothing else




The solutions are remarkably easy. Most of Europe has this sussed.[/COLOR]

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/local_authority_and_social_housing/buying_your_local_authority_house.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/council-tenants-may-get-60-discount-to-buy-houses-1.2625578


You are welcome.


All the problems started in 70's with the abolition or rates. Afaik, there was also an extra rate for property owners to supply social housings, also abolished.
Yet, all left wing parties are against the property tax... go figure.



Cluid, a right-wing lobby group I suppose. :rolleyes:

Your links have nothing to do with your claim of being sold at a loss.

Again, we can amend it or completely do away with Tennant purchases.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

......


You tell me, what area can the government cut x Billion from in order to fund Housing to take one example. Give me a working example.

....

Revealed: State spends €1.2bn on housing even though building is cheaper
7,169 homes purchased 'could have gone to first time buyers'

The Government has spent €1.2bn throughout the housing crisis buying up almost 7,200 privately built homes, directly competing with first-time buyers in the property market, the Sunday Independent can reveal.

New figures show how local authorities have spent the significant sum buying privately built properties for social housing even though it would cost the State less to build its own new houses and apartments instead.

In Dublin, around 1,100 homes could have been built for the amount it cost the State to buy 974 properties, which could have been bought instead by people hoping to own their first home.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-state-spends-12bn-on-housing-even-though-building-is-cheaper-38125430.html

So as well as the cost by the state buying social housing they are making it more difficult for private individuals to buy or rent.

So that's 1.2 billion just from stopping purchases.

HAP was first brought in on a phased basis by local authorities from 2014, and has formed a central part of the Department of Housing’s Rebuilding Ireland strategy, which was introduced two years later.

The payment is funded annually through the Exchequer, rising from €0.5 million in 2014 to €423 million in 2018.

Last year, the government ringfenced an additional €80m for HAP as part of Budget 2020, bringing the annual budget for the payment to €502.7 million.

But in a revised estimate published in December, this allocation was downgraded to €497.7 million.

The same estimate shows that the government also allocated €789 million to local authorities to build social housing this year – almost €300 million more than its allocation for HAP.

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-spend-rent-subsidies-social-housing-5004540-Feb2020/

So lets say that's 1.7 Billion available from the budget if we don't buy or use the HAP model.

Rent subsidies:

Exchequer funding of €134 million has been provided to support the cost of RAS in 2019

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-07-23/2967/

So subsidised tenants get/got that in 2019 towards private rentals.

So there's the guts of 2 billion and I've not even found any data on leasing yet.

The Government is using the same approach in its housing leasing scheme as in the national broadband plan by allowing private developers to own the asset after a “no risk investment”, according to the Green Party.

Party leader Eamon Ryan said the leasing scheme the Government was promoting was very similar in its approach to the national broadband plan and “costing us a fortune”.

“You’re effectively saying to private developer ‘you’ve a no risk guaranteed income for 25 years and at the end of it you own the asset’,” he told Taoiseach Leo Varadkar.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/private-developers-bearing-no-risk-under-house-leasing-scheme-1.3893675

James Brown

efanton wrote: »

Bowie, to be fair here I think you are missing a point.

So what if a council house was built in the 50's for let say 50k and then sold it to the tenant in the 60's for say 70k. Is there any profit there?
Absolutely not because its is likely to cost the council the 70k and more to replace that house.

This was the biggest con going, getting council tenants to buy homes that they had anyhow for a lifetime, and it was used in both the UK and Ireland. A house has absolutely no profit in it if you are faced with spending the same amount or more replacing it for another home to live in. For those that are selling up and leaving the country, selling a second home, or selling a house they inherited, then there's profit.

But for the councils or the state to sell homes and not use the money to immediately rebuild another was pure stupidity, and under no circumstance was there ever going to be any sort of gain or profit. That was the problem, what the councils were getting simply was not enough to replace the homes they sold.

He said we were selling at a loss.
I wanted data to show it, he hasn't supplied it.

While selling to a tenant is a loss of stock but it's also one less family in need of social housing.
Tenant purchasing 'at a loss' was thrown in to confuse the debate on building social over buying or leasing for social.

markodaly wrote: »

I think we agree. We can trace many problems of housing back to these three issues.

1) Getting rid of rates (property tax)
2) Selling council houses to tenants for a discount
3) Getting of the older social rate on property

The irony of irony is, these three things are held up as good things by the opposition parties.

How does buying from market or leasing from market improve or make better the idea of building social housing?
So let's say we buy a home off the market, use it for social and then sell it to the tenant?

We can always have no tenant purchases.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

Your links have nothing to do with your claim of being sold at a loss.

Again, we can amend it or completely do away with Tennant purchases.

What do you call selling property for up to 60% discount related to market value? A profit? :rolleyes:

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

How does buying from market or leasing from market improve or make better the idea of building social housing?

The benefits is the quick turn around time. Someone can be housed in weeks.
Building social housing takes years, and may be cheaper longer term but its very capital intensive.

Do you know the difference between CapEx and OpEx? If you do, you wouldn't need to ask me that question.

So let's say we buy a home off the market, use it for social and then sell it to the tenant?

Why would anyone do that?

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

What do you call selling property for up to 60% discount related to market value? A profit? :rolleyes:

How much did it cost to build and how much was spent on maintenance?
The private market price is not relevant. You are confusing loss with missed profit.

Again, third time, we can completely scrap Tenant purchase schemes. I'm easy. You raised it. I just wanted data on your claim.

I just want us to build rather than buy or lease. You saw we spend about 2bn per year on housing initiatives and that's not including leasing.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

The benefits is the quick turn around time. Someone can be housed in weeks.
Building social housing takes years, and may be cheaper longer term but its very capital intensive.

Do you know the difference between CapEx and OpEx? If you do, you wouldn't need to ask me that question.



Why would anyone do that?

We use to buy to use as social in an emergency. Now it's policy.
I heard that argument nearly ten years ago. It doesn't age well.