FF/FG/Green Next Government

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

No one is suggesting they shouldn't be allowed vote or anything.

However, if the Greens reject it then they have clearly shown they will not compromise at all to get into government which means they will never be in government so what on earth is the point of voting for them?

Or they don't want to give up too much just to sit in government as puppets, (except Eamo maybe). If they support it they are happy with it, if they don't they are not. Nobody including FF/FG knows the finer details. Maybe the Greens have certain things they want to do and what would be the point of signing up to this if their hands are tied?

FrancieBrady

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Same could be said of SF to be hoenst. They ran under the tag of "change" and once they got sight of actually having to go into power they legged it.

You will hear a load of waffle on here but not a single SF person was knocking around for months, then when FF/FG/Greens are about to go into power they are all over the TV again shouting and roaring.

If this fails it will be terrible for SF. They need 5 years to try and pull the party together and get seom decent politicians

At the moment, SF go into power. Who have they to run in minster positions?

You are talking about SF AGAIN on a thread about FF/FG and the Greens.

Somebody is going to be very cross with you! (can't think what his name is )

Snow Garden

The country needs an FFG led government. I will celebrate when that happens.

The confidence and supply nonsense (coalition really) was the first step.

An FFG led government would I believe force the 2 parties to merge for the next election. It would be good for our political system. Some maturity after years of playacting.

Does anyone here think FG are in any way different to FF?

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Or they don't want to give up too much just to sit in government as puppets, (except Eamo maybe). If they support it they are happy with it, if they don't they are not. Nobody including FF/FG knows the finer details. Maybe the Greens have certain things they want to do and what would be the point of signing up to this if their hands are tied?

As puppets?

You obviously have no faith in the ability of individuals to stand up to Fine Gael. I can tell you that Eamon Ryan and Catherine Martin won't be puppets in any government.

There are three choices for the Greens

(1) Go into government now and get an awful lot of your policies implemented
(2) Don't go into government, cause an election, and probably get the blame and possibly not end up back in government
(3) Talk to Sinn Fein, who are against the carbon tax and want to exclude agriculture from emissions and try and form a government with them.

(1) is clearly the best choice.

antimatterx

Snow Garden wrote: »

The country needs an FFG led government. I will celebrate when that happens.

The confidence and supply nonsense (coalition really) was the first step.

An FFG led government would I believe force the 2 parties to merge for the next election. It would be good for our political system. Some maturity after years of playacting.

Does anyone here think FG are in any way different to FF?

FG are more progressive, liberal and financially conservative. They have the approach of letting a free market take control.

FF are more conservative socially, spend money like the clappers and would rather the state take control of services.

McMurphy

antimatterx wrote: »

FG are more progressive, liberal and financially conservative. They have the approach of letting a free market take control.

FF are more conservative socially, spend money like the clappers and would rather the state take control of services.

Would explain why it was housing and health services that collapsed the last govt, and resulted in the shinners winning more seats than fg for the first time ever.

9 years of free market fixing things right there.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

As puppets?

You obviously have no faith in the ability of individuals to stand up to Fine Gael. I can tell you that Eamon Ryan and Catherine Martin won't be puppets in any government.

There are three choices for the Greens

(1) Go into government now and get an awful lot of your policies implemented
(2) Don't go into government, cause an election, and probably get the blame and possibly not end up back in government
(3) Talk to Sinn Fein, who are against the carbon tax and want to exclude agriculture from emissions and try and form a government with them.

(1) is clearly the best choice.

You didn't understand.

In response to this:

However, if the Greens reject it then they have clearly shown they will not compromise at all to get into government which means they will never be in government so what on earth is the point of voting for them?

My point was, if the Greens decide not to go ahead, that does not mean they can't be trusted, or they should be shunned because of it. It simply means they didn't like the deal. There is no point getting into this if you are merely there for window dressing. So yes, I have faith that if they vote against it, it's with similar concerns as I have listed twice now, no point if it doesn't suit their goals. therefore I do have faith that those 'naysayers' do so for Green party reasons. The options could be go in and look like asses again and get wiped out again or go in happy they'll get somethings done or don't go in at all.

James Brown

antimatterx wrote: »

FG are more progressive, liberal and financially conservative. They have the approach of letting a free market take control.

FF are more conservative socially, spend money like the clappers and would rather the state take control of services.

Nearly a decade of worsening record breaking crises doesn't give you pause for thought?
The only difference I can see is one, (FF) will likely be beholden to developers and crony deals and the other (FG) will be beholden to vulture funds, investment firms, Landlord companies, developers and crony deals. At least FF seem willing to move away from 25 year lease luxury apartments to social housing builds.
Denying society to enrich private business is conservative but not financially so, for the tax payer anyway.

Bishop of hope

The lads in Cavan aren't happy with Michael it seems, going to vote against the deal and allegations, of bullying to get it across the line.

https://www.northernsound.ie/micheal-martin-denies-claims-local-councillors/

Podge_irl

Bowie wrote: »

My point was, if the Greens decide not to go ahead, that does not mean they can't be trusted, or they should be shunned because of it. It simply means they didn't like the deal. There is no point getting into this if you are merely there for window dressing. So yes, I have faith that if they vote against it, it's with similar concerns as I have listed twice now, no point if it doesn't suit their goals. therefore I do have faith that those 'naysayers' do so for Green party reasons. The options could be go in and look like asses again and get wiped out again or go in happy they'll get somethings done or don't go in at all.

I mean, sure. There may be elements of the GP that think they can get a better deal then when they basically have the other parties over a barrel desperate for their support and manage to bring in quite a large swathe of their proposals into the PfG. Maybe they think they will get even more seats in a re-run election and still be in a power brokering position.

But that seems pretty fantastical to me. Rejection of this deal (negotiated by them, let's not forget) would imply that the party as a whole simply will not compromise in order to implement any of its policies. Their input into the PfG is far from window dressing. Elements such as the 2:1 split on active transport funding over road building is a key tenant of Green policy and not a very popular one with large sections of society and yet they have managed to get it included. I genuinely do not understand what more they think they will manage to get in any other scenario.

LawBoy2018

Bowie wrote: »

The only difference I can see is one, (FF) will likely be beholden to developers and crony deals and the other (FG) will be beholden to vulture funds, investment firms, Landlord companies, developers and crony deals. At least FF seem willing to move away from 25 year lease luxury apartments to social housing builds.
Denying society to enrich private business is conservative but not financially so, for the tax payer anyway.

What percentage of Irish land/properties are owned by oversea speculators? The Greens/SF should draft a bill akin to New Zealand's Overseas Investment Act. Vulture funds don't benefit anyone. Has anyone read the Currency's recent article re Cereberus and their elaborate tax structures? All of this is being facilitated by FG.

How the **** can FG folk turn a blind eye to these parasite companies? I don't mean to be rude, but it genuinely boggles me. Have you no conscience? Do you carry that much disdain in your hearts for the vulnerable Irish people being priced out of ever being able to afford a home? Why don't Leo & co. put an end to this? What do they have to gain? Peter McVerry highlighted this issue on Tonight VMTV last night and I suspect that if there's another election, people will soon remember why FG were reduced to just 35 TDs in the last election.

Podge_irl

Is there any evidence that "vulture" funds are leading to higher priced housing? I'm not even sure of the logic behind the statement. "Vulture" funds take on perceived bad debt - they are taking on mortgages that already exist. Technically, taken to its logical conclusion, a mortgage owner more willing to enforce evictions on bad mortgages would lead to lower house prices, not higher.

Foreign speculators are a different thing again. It is not a well regulated area, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it either. It makes far more sense to have build to rent apartment blocks owned by investment companies rather than piecemeal individual buy-to-let properties. There will always be a market for rentable accommodation Joe Bloggs owning two apartments with interest only mortgages on them while he rents to students for the max return he can manage while trying to avoid getting hands on in management is pretty much the worst model of rental properties I can think of.

Ultimately, the only solution is going to be more housing being built. It is not unusual for housing to lag economic prosperity though.

Snow Garden

antimatterx wrote: »

FG are more progressive, liberal and financially conservative. They have the approach of letting a free market take control.

FF are more conservative socially, spend money like the clappers and would rather the state take control of services.

They weren't too financially conservative with the following;
- The Irish Water superquango
- The Childrens Hospital
- The Rural Broadband scheme
- Massive HSE budget for poor service (e.g. Cervical Check), trolley crisis and waiting lists
- Cairn Homes social housing apartments
- TD expenses (e.g. Dara Murphy)
- Numerous reports (e.g. Seanad reform) and inquiries that achieve nothing and hold nobody accountable.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I can tell you that Eamon Ryan and Catherine Martin won't be puppets in any government.

Hilarious again, given that Martin is being lambasted by the Green party members themselves for doing just that, just to accept the deal. The 'we might' or we 'hold a wish' speak of the PfG isn't cutting any sustainably grown mustard it seems.

Truthvader

Snow Garden wrote: »

The country needs an FFG led government. I will celebrate when that happens.

The confidence and supply nonsense (coalition really) was the first step.

An FFG led government would I believe force the 2 parties to merge for the next election. It would be good for our political system. Some maturity after years of playacting.

Does anyone here think FG are in any way different to FF?

Agreed. There are really very little ideological differences now. They are both very centrist parties with some capable personnel despite the labelling and stupid accusations made here. Ultimately, if Labour got their act together and recruited and/or merged with the less mad Green/ PBP/ Left independents they might form a credible opposition and attract those who feel the more disadvantaged should get more free stuff and services etc. The real problem is that Sinn Fein have inserted themselves into the mix by pretending to be a proper left wing party and have attracted the more gullible left leaning voters who don't understand what they are and then are mystified when no-one will talk to them so that quite a big left wing mandate is wasted.

LawBoy2018

Podge_irl wrote: »

Is there any evidence that "vulture" funds are leading to higher priced housing? I'm not even sure of the logic behind the statement. "Vulture" funds take on perceived bad debt - they are taking on mortgages that already exist. Technically, taken to its logical conclusion, a mortgage owner more willing to enforce evictions on bad mortgages would lead to lower house prices, not higher.

Foreign speculators are a different thing again. It is not a well regulated area, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it either. It makes far more sense to have build to rent apartment blocks owned by investment companies rather than piecemeal individual buy-to-let properties. There will always be a market for rentable accommodation Joe Bloggs owning two apartments with interest only mortgages on them while he rents to students for the max return he can manage while trying to avoid getting hands on in management is pretty much the worst model of rental properties I can think of.

Ultimately, the only solution is going to be more housing being built. It is not unusual for housing to lag economic prosperity though.

But what is the logic for allowing them into our country? State-owned banks selling perceived bad debts (aka Irish properties) to vulture funds (foreign speculators) at the expense of vulnerable Irish people, who are then made homeless and are forced to rely on the state via HAP or whatever scheme they require, funded by Irish taxpayers.

The vulture fund then rents out the property they acquired at an extortionate rate, well above market value, squeezing as much profit as possible out of Irish renters, thus inflating the entire market. The more vulnerable renters will then either be priced out of the market or be forced to rely on HAP, again at the expense of Irish taxpayers.

But at least the vulture funds will pay tax on the astronomical profits they make from Irish renters, right? Wrong. They pay effectively 0 tax here in Ireland. It's a national scandal facilitated by FG, either as a result of intense lobbying or their (the FG TDs who are landlords) vested interests.

Truthvader

Bowie wrote: »

Nearly a decade of worsening record breaking crises doesn't give you pause for thought?
The only difference I can see is one, (FF) will likely be beholden to developers and crony deals and the other (FG) will be beholden to vulture funds, investment firms, Landlord companies, developers and crony deals. At least FF seem willing to move away from 25 year lease luxury apartments to social housing builds.
Denying society to enrich private business is conservative but not financially so, for the tax payer anyway.

Again with this crony deal and corruption nonsense. Yes FG/FF made a bollocks of the hospital. No argument. But

a) What crony deals?
b) How is the "beholden to vulture funds or builders or investment banks" evidenced? What does that even mean?
c) Are you merely saying that multinationals get tax deals? They do but not so that Leo or "Mehole" (as he is known here) can live like Charlie Haughey but so that they stay and provide jobs so we can all buy houses and go to the pub. It is certainly an argument that we should tax everyone the same and just suck up the consequences. If that is your position just advance it like a grown up without all the adolescent moaning and babyish hints about corruption and cronyism.

And the last decade has been one of continued growth. One way we know this is because houses cost more and more because people have more and more money

Shefwedfan

Bowie wrote: »

Nearly a decade of worsening record breaking crises doesn't give you pause for thought?
The only difference I can see is one, (FF) will likely be beholden to developers and crony deals and the other (FG) will be beholden to vulture funds, investment firms, Landlord companies, developers and crony deals. At least FF seem willing to move away from 25 year lease luxury apartments to social housing builds.
Denying society to enrich private business is conservative but not financially so, for the tax payer anyway.

What's a vulture fund?

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

You didn't understand.

In response to this:



My point was, if the Greens decide not to go ahead, that does not mean they can't be trusted, or they should be shunned because of it. It simply means they didn't like the deal. There is no point getting into this if you are merely there for window dressing. So yes, I have faith that if they vote against it, it's with similar concerns as I have listed twice now, no point if it doesn't suit their goals. therefore I do have faith that those 'naysayers' do so for Green party reasons. The options could be go in and look like asses again and get wiped out again or go in happy they'll get somethings done or don't go in at all.

Bowie wrote: »

Or they don't want to give up too much just to sit in government as puppets, (except Eamo maybe). If they support it they are happy with it, if they don't they are not. Nobody including FF/FG knows the finer details. Maybe the Greens have certain things they want to do and what would be the point of signing up to this if their hands are tied?

Your two posts are not consistent.

JohnnyFlash

Wasting your time, lads.

blanch152

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

But what is the logic for allowing them into our country? State-owned banks selling perceived bad debts (aka Irish properties) to vulture funds (foreign speculators) at the expense of vulnerable Irish people, who are then made homeless and are forced to rely on the state via HAP or whatever scheme they require, funded by Irish taxpayers.

The vulture fund then rents out the property they acquired at an extortionate rate, well above market value, squeezing as much profit as possible out of Irish renters, thus inflating the entire market. The more vulnerable renters will then either be priced out of the market or be forced to rely on HAP, again at the expense of Irish taxpayers.

But at least the vulture funds will pay tax on the astronomical profits they make from Irish renters, right? Wrong. They pay effectively 0 tax here in Ireland. It's a national scandal facilitated by FG, either as a result of intense lobbying or their (the FG TDs who are landlords) vested interests.

How do you rent a property out at an extortionate rate, well above market value?

Asking for a friend who has two properties both well below market rate and who both bores me to death and scares me off renting out a place with his stories of tenants who don't pay, wreck the place and are impossible to evict?

As far as I can see, by getting the freeloaders hogging houses out, the houses are released to the market, pushing down house prices, and allowing people who can afford mortgages to buy a house.

blanch152

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Wasting your time, lads.

There are some stunning levels of inconsistency and ignorance being demonstrated on this thread by a number of posters.

Truthvader

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

But what is the logic for allowing them into our country? State-owned banks selling perceived bad debts (aka Irish properties) to vulture funds (foreign speculators) at the expense of vulnerable Irish people, who are then made homeless and are forced to rely on the state via HAP or whatever scheme they require, funded by Irish taxpayers.

The vulture fund then rents out the property they acquired at an extortionate rate, well above market value, squeezing as much profit as possible out of Irish renters, thus inflating the entire market. The more vulnerable renters will then either be priced out of the market or be forced to rely on HAP, again at the expense of Irish taxpayers.

But at least the vulture funds will pay tax on the astronomical profits they make from Irish renters, right? Wrong. They pay effectively 0 tax here in Ireland. It's a national scandal facilitated by FG, either as a result of intense lobbying or their (the FG TDs who are landlords) vested interests.

The Irish Banks sell their bad debts at a huge knockdown so that they aren't forced to repossess houses from people who can't lay for them. The "Vulnerable Irish People" very often live rent free without paying any mortgage in houses they have no right to be in for up to 10 years while the Irish Banks dither. Even the vulture funds then rarely repossess but usually do deals to sell allowing the same people to make off with a windfall after their 10 years free accommodation.

Your rental argument is just nonsense. Rents may be perceived to be high but surprise that is the "market value". If the rent is actually too high people will rent the cheaper one nest door. That is definition of market rent. Moreover the payment of rent is now an entirely voluntary system in Ireland. That is why the private landlords fled. Again and again they were stuck with a tenant paying nothing for two years who thrashed the place when they left. That is why the Landlords are all institutions now as they have the wedge to absorb a bad tenant here and here who would destroy a private individual

Not sure of your tax point and if true you're right you can be my best friend because they should be paying tax like everyone else. Its not as if they are providing employment etc

LawBoy2018

blanch152 wrote: »

How do you rent a property out at an extortionate rate, well above market value?

Asking for a friend who has two properties both well below market rate and who both bores me to death and scares me off renting out a place with his stories of tenants who don't pay, wreck the place and are impossible to evict?

As far as I can see, by getting the freeloaders hogging houses out, the houses are released to the market, pushing down house prices, and allowing people who can afford mortgages to buy a house.

So you're denying the fact that the average cost of a room/house within the Irish rental market is grossly inflated? Your friend mustn't have gotten the memo:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/dublin-most-expensive-place-to-live-in-euro-zone-due-to-high-rents-1.4273703?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Fdublin-most-expensive-place-to-live-in-euro-zone-due-to-high-rents-1.4273703

Podge_irl

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

But what is the logic for allowing them into our country? State-owned banks selling perceived bad debts (aka Irish properties) to vulture funds (foreign speculators) at the expense of vulnerable Irish people, who are then made homeless and are forced to rely on the state via HAP or whatever scheme they require, funded by Irish taxpayers.

The vulture fund then rents out the property they acquired at an extortionate rate, well above market value, squeezing as much profit as possible out of Irish renters, thus inflating the entire market. The more vulnerable renters will then either be priced out of the market or be forced to rely on HAP, again at the expense of Irish taxpayers.

But at least the vulture funds will pay tax on the astronomical profits they make from Irish renters, right? Wrong. They pay effectively 0 tax here in Ireland. It's a national scandal facilitated by FG, either as a result of intense lobbying or their (the FG TDs who are landlords) vested interests.

That is not how they work at all. The funds are not generally interested in rental income, they buy bad debt at discount rates and try to turn it into functioning debt. This is why they are more prone to evictions, but it is worth remembering that Ireland has a very low eviction rate in global terms and a mortgage system with zero evictions simply isn't working efficiently. We all end up paying for it.

Topgear on Dave

Is there another consequence of having professional funds and foreign companies involved.

I remember 15-20 years ago every small Irish investor had a rental, every man & his dog. It became a political imperative to have the price of these increasing, although I think the rents at the time seemed fairly stable.

We all know how that ended but we have swapped the investors feeling the pain for the renter's feeling the pain.

blanch152

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

So you're denying the fact that the average cost of a room/house within the Irish rental market is grossly inflated? Your friend mustn't have gotten the memo:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/dublin-most-expensive-place-to-live-in-euro-zone-due-to-high-rents-1.4273703?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Fdublin-most-expensive-place-to-live-in-euro-zone-due-to-high-rents-1.4273703

You have claimed that vulture funds are renting out houses at extortionate rates, above market value.

I am asking how that is possible. Surely, if the rents being asked are above market value, then there will be no takers?

Truthvader

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

So you're denying the fact that the average cost of a room/house within the Irish rental market is grossly inflated? Your friend mustn't have gotten the memo:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/dublin-most-expensive-place-to-live-in-euro-zone-due-to-high-rents-1.4273703?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Fdublin-most-expensive-place-to-live-in-euro-zone-due-to-high-rents-1.4273703

"Expensive" is not the same this as "inflated". They are expensive because in a wealthy successful society (who knew?) loads of people have loadsamoney and they bid against each other in the rental market to get the best property they can afford. Prices go up. You can buy a house in Detroit for $50 because there are no jobs and its ****.

LawBoy2018

Truthvader wrote: »

The Irish Banks sell their bad debts at a huge knockdown so that they aren't forced to repossess houses from people who can't lay for them. The "Vulnerable Irish People" very often live rent free without paying any mortgage in houses they have no right to be in for up to 10 years while the Irish Banks dither. Even the vulture funds then rarely repossess but usually do deals to sell allowing the same people to make off with a windfall after their 10 years free accommodation.

Your rental argument is just nonsense. Rents may be perceived to be high but surprise that is the "market value". If the rent is actually too high people will rent the cheaper one nest door. That is definition of market rent. Moreover the payment of rent is now an entirely voluntary system in Ireland. That is why the private landlords fled. Again and again they were stuck with a tenant paying nothing for two years who thrashed the place when they left. That is why the Landlords are all institutions now as they have the wedge to absorb a bad tenant here and here who would destroy a private individual

Not sure of your tax point and if true you're right you can be my best friend because they should be paying tax like everyone else. Its not as if they are providing employment etc

Repossessions are on the rise, executed by both domestic banks and vulture funds:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/house-repossessions-jump-75-central-bank-figures-show-1.4016085?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Fhouse-repossessions-jump-75-central-bank-figures-show-1.4016085

I have little sympathy for the small percentage of defaulters you have described above, however, you are mistaken if you believe that such cases are the norm. They are very rare in my experience.

"Rents may be perceived to be high but surprise that is the "market value". If the rent is actually too high people will rent the cheaper one nest door. That is definition of market rent." Do you not see the gaping hole in this remark? Have you ever heard of supply & demand? If there was an endless supply of "houses next door", then there wouldn't be a housing crisis in this country. What's with your anti-lessee mentality?

Regarding the tax structures of the vulture funds, give this a read: https://www.thecurrency.news/articles/18696/cerberus-uncovered-how-the-hound-of-hell-uses-dutch-co-ops-to-guard-irish-profits-against-tax

LawBoy2018

blanch152 wrote: »

You have claimed that vulture funds are renting out houses at extortionate rates, above market value.

I am asking how that is possible. Surely, if the rents being asked are above market value, then there will be no takers?

The extortionate rates of rent demanded by the vulture funds/foreign speculators inflate the market value of the properties. How can this be so difficult for you to comprehend? Lol.

It's possible because there's a crippling housing crisis/lack of supply in this country, an issue which hasn't been addressed by FG or FF for the last 5 years.