Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

John1648

timmyntc wrote: »

Its clear when property is overvalued - whether that be from supply shortages or other reasons, - you can base the "good value" price on construction costs, land costs, and yes some relation of affordability to the average salary in the area. Identifying the absolute peak is difficult, but its easy to say we are well above normal, and well above "value for money".

Seeing the bottom is a different story though, properties were undervalued at that stage due to such a glut of supply and non-existent demand. Country was reeling, and prices were plummeting, but you couldnt calculate what price they would fall to - because it was purely supply vs demand taken to the other extreme.

A functioning market does not see houses go up for sale well below cost price, because it isnt profitable to build them in the first place. So when it does happen, it is very unusual and not easily predictable if at all.

I have done my share of analysis, and looked at a few other markets in EU, and the Irish property is the most undervalued, compared in yearly salaries vs sale price.

40 k yearly salary, 10 yearly salaries buys you a home in the capital.

Paris, 15 years, London-18 years, Budapest - 20 years, Moscow - 25 years.

So- prices are waaaaay to go up still. Plus, the best rental yields in EU.

That is why I am considering Dublin, Citywest namely.

I would not even consider prices going down naturally in Dublin, unless a majour crash happens like in 2008, but then everyone goes down elsewhere too.

Plus, the best demographic outlook in Europe, + 30% population growth by 2050. Even if a part of youth leaves, demand will stay very strong.

What do you think?

yagan

L1011 wrote: »

PropQueries misrepresented it as support for his claim that the housing crisis doesn't actually exist, which is a farcical conclusion to draw from it. Just read the post that was initially quoted

There is a pattern of misrepresenting that articles support fanciful beliefs which has been warned about repeatedly.

There's an affordability crisis, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a housing shortage.

I know from working in the front end of property development that just because there's loads of outstanding permissions that doesn't mean they'll go ahead.

I see your responses to that one poster and I'm totally perplexed as to what's your argument.

yagan

John1648 wrote: »

So- prices are waaaaay to go up still. Plus, the best rental yields in EU.

Reported yields.

If rent breaks become permanent then you'll need to do fresh calculations.

jill_valentine

Browney7 wrote: »

I agree they should be in deep water. However, the councils have form on agreeing to rent them for social housing, Dundrum, numerous in Stoneybatter (Aberdeen standard, Bartra etc) and the DLR development mentioned at the weekend.

If these are being built on the basis that the councils are schmucks and will lease them at a "discount" to the aspirational market value that would never be realised under the enhanced leasing deals and councils follow through, we're being laughed at.

I personally have no faith in councils to act with any degree of common sense and will buckle under a weight of "we've tried absolutely nothing and we're all out of ideas".

Maybe though the state will engage in this game of chicken and refuse to blink and not pay up - I won't be holding my breath.

Fair point, not sure about these ones though. These particular fancypants blocks make a lot of the luxury angle, they're in the same realm as Capitol Docks, which stashed its social housing element off in Rialto. I'm not sure leasing these ones to the council would be The Done Thing.

Browney7

jill_valentine wrote: »

Fair point, not sure about these ones though. These particular fancypants blocks make a lot of the luxury angle, they're in the same realm as Capitol Docks, which stashed its social housing element off in Rialto. I'm not sure leasing these ones to the council would be The Done Thing.

It may not be the done thing. But if they leave them half vacant in lieu of reducing rents, does the argument being made at present of "all supply is good supply" hold up?

Time will tell but global markets seem happy to use property to park their money at present. Dermot Desmond (the raving socialist that he is) wrote an interesting piece for the Irish times last year covering a range of facets of the housing market: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/dermot-desmond-everyone-has-a-right-to-a-home-here-is-how-it-can-be-done-1.4195439

Marius34

Browney7 wrote: »

I agree they should be in deep water. However, the councils have form on agreeing to rent them for social housing, Dundrum, numerous in Stoneybatter (Aberdeen standard, Bartra etc) and the DLR development mentioned at the weekend.

If these are being built on the basis that the councils are schmucks and will lease them at a "discount" to the aspirational market value that would never be realised under the enhanced leasing deals and councils follow through, we're being laughed at.

I personally have no faith in councils to act with any degree of common sense and will buckle under a weight of "we've tried absolutely nothing and we're all out of ideas".

Maybe though the state will engage in this game of chicken and refuse to blink and not pay up - I won't be holding my breath.

I don't think it's the same type of apartments discussed in initial question for 3,500-5,000, that comes with 4-6 week free rent. I would guess those luxury city center apartments in question are not aimed for social housing by REITs.

Browney7

Marius34 wrote: »

I don't think it's the same type of apartments discussed in initial question for 3,500-5,000, that comes with 4-6 week free rent. I would guess those luxury city center apartments in question are not aimed for social housing by REITs.

I agree they're not aimed at social housing but what's to stop DCC, DLR and other councils or state funded AHBs from leasing them? If we apply the market logic that these funds need to generate a return, they won't look the gift horse that is the Irish state in the mouth for long.

I'm not saying it will happen but there is plenty evidence available to show it is happening at present.

Is there a long term market for all these existing 2.5 k per month rental apartments or €1300 a month co-living spaces and the ones scheduled to come on stream that we are told we need REITs and funds to build that isn't the Irish taxpayer? Maybe there is.

Marius34

Browney7 wrote: »

I agree they're not aimed at social housing but what's to stop DCC, DLR and other councils or state funded AHBs from leasing them? If we apply the market logic that these funds need to generate a return, they won't look the gift horse that is the Irish state in the mouth for long.

I'm not saying it will happen but there is plenty evidence available to show it is happening at present.

Is there a long term market for all these existing 2.5 k per month rental apartments or €1300 a month co-living spaces and the ones scheduled to come on stream that we are told we need REITs and funds to build that isn't the Irish taxpayer? Maybe there is.

Yes, there is. It was really lacking those type of apartments prior Covid. So it should now get more balanced.

Browney7

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, there is. It was really lacking those type of apartments prior Covid. So it should now get more balanced.

I hope you're right!

PropQueries

Browney7 wrote: »

It may not be the done thing. But if they leave them half vacant in lieu of reducing rents, does the argument being made at present of "all supply is good supply" hold up?

Time will tell but global markets seem happy to use property to park their money at present. Dermot Desmond (the raving socialist that he is) wrote an interesting piece for the Irish times last year covering a range of facets of the housing market: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/dermot-desmond-everyone-has-a-right-to-a-home-here-is-how-it-can-be-done-1.4195439

One of his arguments to prevent apartment hoarding makes perfect sense:

"All empty apartments should be deemed to be rented out at 50 per cent of the asking rent and tax should be chargeable based on that deemed income. This would provide a strong incentive to adjust rents to market clearing levels rather speculative hoarding."

One would really wonder why the Housing Minister doesn't implement just that single one quickly as a very quick win.

Mic 1972

PropQueries wrote: »

One of his arguments to prevent apartment hoarding makes perfect sense:

"All empty apartments should be deemed to be rented out at 50 per cent of the asking rent and tax should be chargeable based on that deemed income. This would provide a strong incentive to adjust rents to market clearing levels rather speculative hoarding."

One would really wonder why the Housing Minister doesn't implement just that single one quickly as a very quick win.

Maybe because not all empty apartments are the result of hoarding. Small LLs may have reasons for leaving an apartment empty for a while. The one i'm buying at the moment was occupied by the LLs daughter for 2 years at no rent

PropQueries

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Maybe because not all empty apartments are the result of hoarding. Small LLs may have reasons for leaving an apartment empty for a while. The one i'm buying at the moment was occupied by the LLs daughter for 2 years at no rent

Denmark found a simple way around that line. Property owners are required to tell the state if their property is vacant and why. Otherwise they’re fined. Simple IMO

yagan

PropQueries wrote: »

One would really wonder why the Housing Minister doesn't implement just that single one quickly as a very quick win.

One reason may be that they don't want to be seen as the ones that popped this bubble. The average FFG voter is a homeowner with no or small mortgage so they've enjoyed seeing their house value climb.

They don't give a fig about apartment dwellers as it's not a sizeable a voter wedge, and some apartment dwellers in Dublin aren't voters either.

In a market correction people will still favour houses over apartments, so apartments will never matter, as borne out by the fact that renter farmers only caused outraged when the two up/two down was involved.

As far as I can see we've probably simply created new tenements.

yagan

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Maybe because not all empty apartments are the result of hoarding. Small LLs may have reasons for leaving an apartment empty for a while. The one i'm buying at the moment was occupied by the LLs daughter for 2 years at no rent

As in propquieres post that apartment would still attract a tax based on the going rate, even if she never paid a cent to her parent for the two years.

The whole point is discovery. If housing occupancy can't be measured then it can't be managed.

PropQueries

yagan wrote: »

As in propquieres post that apartment would still attract a tax based on the going rate, even if she never paid a cent to her parent for the two years.

The whole point is discovery. If housing occupancy can't be measured then it can't be managed.

I really don’t believe they want discovery and I’ll let others make up their own minds as to why.

Unless someone here can point out how anything proposed today is going to resolve the issue, it would appear (to me anyway), that the potential number of probates that some here are predicting may be about to flood the market is one of the few things that may help resolve the crisis in the near future, assuming the state doesn’t come up with a new way of placing roadblocks in front of that potential stream of supply re-entering the market IMO

enricoh

Up to 25k houses kept idle due to high taxes paid while their owners are in nursing homes.
The government better keep the rip off tax going as we can't have the a#$e falling out of the market with supply increases!

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/up-to-25000-homes-may-be-locked-out-of-housing-market-by-fair-deal-says-td-40443304.html

PropQueries

Bernard Durkan (FG) just stated in the Dail that the Central Bank and financial regulator didn’t tell Fine Gael about the funds buying up homes and he’s raised it in a committee.

Browney7

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-saysgovernment-needs-to-look-at-introducing-a-new-vacant-homes-tax-40446519.html

Interesting development from Leo suggesting a vacant home tax. Will he see that it is done?

cnocbui

Browney7 wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-saysgovernment-needs-to-look-at-introducing-a-new-vacant-homes-tax-40446519.html

Interesting development from Leo suggesting a vacant home tax. Will he see that it is done?

That's my holiday home, it's not vacant.

hmmm

Browney7 wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-saysgovernment-needs-to-look-at-introducing-a-new-vacant-homes-tax-40446519.html

Interesting development from Leo suggesting a vacant home tax. Will he see that it is done?

Can't see it happening, too much opposition.

We need to build more, apartments in particular. Politicians need to stop objecting because they aren't getting the social welfare semi-Ds they all seem to love.

awec

Browney7 wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-saysgovernment-needs-to-look-at-introducing-a-new-vacant-homes-tax-40446519.html

Interesting development from Leo suggesting a vacant home tax. Will he see that it is done?

Oh I'd say they'll look at it alright. Then they'll argue over the definition of "vacant". Then they'll try figure out how they are going to find the vacant properties to begin with. And then they'll need to figure out what the tax will be.

And this will drag on for months and months and in the end there'll either be nothing, or some thin tax that will affect few people.

Browney7

awec wrote: »

Oh I'd say they'll look at it alright. Then they'll argue over the definition of "vacant". Then they'll try figure out how they are going to find the vacant properties to begin with. And then they'll need to figure out what the tax will be.

And this will drag on for months and months and in the end there'll either be nothing, or some thin tax that will affect few people.

Now now, don't be cynical, Leo will fix it with his kite!

Ozark707

hmmm wrote: »

Can't see it happening, too much opposition.

We need to build more, apartments in particular. Politicians need to stop objecting because they aren't getting the social welfare semi-Ds they all seem to love.

Leo really is not at the races. He knows that his time will come to an end unless he can deliver something meaningful. If he is just talking about setting up a committee to look into it then that is unlikely to deliver any noticeable increase in supply before the next election. If he is serious he would come out proposing what sort of tax it would be.

awec

Browney7 wrote: »

Now now, don't be cynical, Leo will fix it with his kite!

REITs can't vote, so maybe they'll find a way to structure it so that it only affects institutions.

cnocbui

Well that was pretty prophetic of me:

I have chosen not to renovate my 'holiday' home because I did not think the revenue that might be achievable would justify the cost. I could have predicated my cost benefit on an income stream from AirBnb and the government could hove come along a week after I had hocked myself to the eyeballs and banned AirBnb due to some local nimby with an existing hotel making a stink.

He also said he was working on the regulation of online letting platforms, such as AirBnB, with Tourism Minister Catherine Martin and that he hoped this work will be concluded before the end of the summer. Under the new plan a property could not be advertised on the platform without the requisite planning permission having been obtained, Mr O'Brien said.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-saysgovernment-needs-to-look-at-introducing-a-new-vacant-homes-tax-40446519.html

And we all know you'd have no chance of being granted planning - a system that is very broken. And people wonder why property owners don't borrow money to fix up old structures.

PropQueries

awec wrote: »

REITs can't vote, so maybe they'll find a way to structure it so that it only affects institutions.

It’s hardly rocket science and there’s plenty of off the shelf templates from other countries they could use if they truly wanted. As mentioned, Denmark requires property owners to inform the state when a property becomes vacant and if it remains vacant, to explain why or they fine the property owner.

Whatever their reasons for not resolving the housing issue, it’s not due to a lack of off the shelf solutions already used in many other countries IMO

Roisin Shortall said in the Dail tonight that Paris has a 60% vacant home tax. Can anyone here clarify if she’s right and if so, how it works?

Pussyhands

Browney7 wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-saysgovernment-needs-to-look-at-introducing-a-new-vacant-homes-tax-40446519.html

Interesting development from Leo suggesting a vacant home tax. Will he see that it is done?

No.

Leo is master of saying good things.

"We should/could/would do [insert X]"

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

It’s hardly rocket science and there’s plenty of off the shelf templates from other countries they could use if they truly wanted. As mentioned, Denmark requires property owners to inform the state when a property becomes vacant and if it remains vacant, to explain why or they fine the property owner.

Whatever their reasons for not resolving the housing issue, it’s not due to a lack of off the shelf solutions already used in many other countries IMO

Roisin Shortall said in the Dail tonight that Paris has a 60% vacant home tax. Can anyone here clarify if she’s right and if so, how it works?

I can tell you are very excited by the thought of a 60% tax on property owners.

I believe that tax does not relate to the market value of the property, but is a sort of surcharge on existing rates. There are a few caveats as well - the property has to have been vacant for two years, it doesn't apply if the cost to renovate to a habitable standard is greater than 25% of the market value, they have to be free of furniture, exempting secondary residences, also exempt if advertised for rent at market rates but no one has taken it up. Also exempt if the property is occupied for 3 month stretch in a year.

coolshannagh28

PropQueries wrote: »

Bernard Durkan (FG) just stated in the Dail that the Central Bank and financial regulator didn’t tell Fine Gael about the funds buying up homes and he’s raised it in a committee.

He has started to put the meal behind the pot !

Bass Reeves

cnocbui wrote: »

I can tell you are very excited by the thought of a 60% tax on property owners.

I believe that tax does not relate to the market value of the property, but is a sort of surcharge on existing rates. There are a few caveats as well - the property has to have been vacant for two years, it doesn't apply if the cost to renovate to a habitable standard is greater than 25% of the market value, they have to be free of furniture, exempting secondary residences, also exempt if advertised for rent at market rates but no one has taken it up. Also exempt if the property is occupied for 3 month stretch in a year.

In other words another tax that is easy to get around. It's a great sound bite for leftist thinking but immaterial in the scale of things

PropQueries

Bass Reeves wrote: »

In other words another tax that is easy to get around. It's a great sound bite for leftist thinking but immaterial in the scale of things

Leftest? Dermot Desmond said last year:

“All empty apartments should be deemed to be rented out at 50 per cent of the asking rent and tax should be chargeable based on that deemed income. This would provide a strong incentive to adjust rents to market clearing levels rather speculative hoarding."

Link to Dermot Desmond in Irish Times here: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/dermot-desmond-everyone-has-a-right-to-a-home-here-is-how-it-can-be-done-1.4195439

PropQueries

cnocbui wrote: »

I can tell you are very excited by the thought of a 60% tax on property owners.

I believe that tax does not relate to the market value of the property, but is a sort of surcharge on existing rates. There are a few caveats as well - the property has to have been vacant for two years, it doesn't apply if the cost to renovate to a habitable standard is greater than 25% of the market value, they have to be free of furniture, exempting secondary residences, also exempt if advertised for rent at market rates but no one has taken it up. Also exempt if the property is occupied for 3 month stretch in a year.

Well if it stops any further taxes on my home, income or pension, then yes, I would be very excited about a proper and enforced tax on vacant or derelict property

Murph85

They are going to have to find tax increases from somewhere shortly fo pay for covid and the tens of billions borrowed. Good luck trying to get that from workers etc again, so soon after the previous bust. It will be the old reliables in the budget and likely more money raised from vacant properties, incresed stamp duty, councils actually collecting the social housing rents due etc...

yagan

Murph85 wrote: »

They are going to have to find tax increases from somewhere shortly fo pay for covid and the tens of billions borrowed. Good luck trying to get that from workers etc again, so soon after the previous bust. It will be the old reliables in the budget and likely more money raised from vacant properties, incresed stamp duty, councils actually collecting the social housing rents due etc...

You're right. The voter dial is shifting against vacants and the investor model, so the current government are only chasing that narrative rather than shaping it.

Trying to apply more tax on workers while investor funds enjoy tax breaks is only going to be a festering sore.

genericgoon

Vacant house/site levies are far too easy to get around. Would make more sense to increase local property tax (LPT) substantially and then give an exemption/credit based on declaration to Revenue that the house is a principal private residence (PPR) and thus switch around the burden of proof and thus ability to punish those making false statements.

In addition, a benchmark of a fair rental contract should be introduced with controlled rents. "Fair" rent could be on the basis of equivalent cost rental or tied explicitly to median incomes (my preference), then give these the same LPT exemption/credit as PPRs. Would also give an opportunity to set a standardized contract that removes the biggest sources of tension between tenants (withheld deposits, maintenance) and landlords (anti-social behaviour, unpaid rent) with clauses relating to third party deposit holding, removing all non-payment related eviction criteria and other needed changes. Offer a fast track RTB scheme (since contract will be known a priori) which means better outcomes against bad landlords (maintenance) and bad tenants (faster eviction for non-payment).

Then introduce a site tax for all undeveloped (and classify it as undeveloped until the houses/apartments are eligible for LPT) zoned land and ramp this up way high and use that revenue to reduce development levies and/or VAT on building. Reform the SHD legislation to be more Japan-like i.e. if your development is consistent with local development plan then can be fast tracked. That should hopefully give a leg up to those who want to build rather than speculative chancers looking to increase site values with deliberately provocative plans.

A lot of people would likely lose money quickly on the above (banks, holiday home owners, developers etc. etc.) but at this point the long term costs of not doing so will be much bigger thanks to emigration, misplaced investment, poverty/homelessness etc.

MacronvFrugals

I see Jim O' Callaghan wants to put a muzzle on REIT's somewhat...


https://twitter.com/McConnellDaniel/status/1395113899985444872?s=20

timmyntc

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

I see Jim O' Callaghan wants to put a muzzle on REIT's somewhat...


https://twitter.com/McConnellDaniel/status/1395113899985444872?s=20

In fairness that is the right approach - we want REITs to add to supply, not buy existing supply.

Right now between REIT and council we have extra demand but no extra supply.

MacronvFrugals

timmyntc wrote: »

In fairness that is the right approach - we want REITs to add to supply, not buy existing supply.

Right now between REIT and council we have extra demand but no extra supply.

I sense FF know deep down its a shift to the left or annihilation

Ozark707

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

I sense FF know deep down its a shift to the left or annihilation

Yep it looks like annihilation as these measures being proposed are unlikely to increase the supply enough in the short to medium term to reduce house prices or deliver a step decrease in rents.

Villa05

Cyrus wrote:

its a typical clickbait twitter post, clearly apartments at 3.5k per month arent meant for the 75% of people who earn less than 40k a year, a monkey could tell you that.

Are we not at 2,5k per month for social housing. That's unaffordable for the majority of workers

Maybe we should get monkeys to run the country

L1011 wrote:

PropQueries misrepresented it as support for his claim that the housing crisis doesn't actually exist, which is a farcical conclusion to draw from it. Just read the post that was initially quoted

FG appointed Conor Skehan to chair of the housing agency and he continually declares that there is no housing crisis and that our housing market is normal

Zenify

Anyone hear anything about an amendment to the housing bill to include all homes?

I assume it is by SF and so will not pass but I couldn't see any articles about it online?

awec

Zenify wrote: »

Anyone hear anything about an amendment to the housing bill to include all homes?

I assume it is by SF and so will not pass but I couldn't see any articles about it online?

Is that not the one that was defeated last night?

Zenify

awec wrote: »

Is that not the one that was defeated last night?

yeah, found a link that talks about it.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2021/0518/1222462-dail-housing/

I'm not one to moan about politics but by God I'm unhappy with how things are going at the moment. And it's not just my situation I'm unhappy about, it's the entire country. I'm mostly unhappy about this because of all the poor single people out there... I'm married so not looking for an apartment.

I wonder is there something underneath all of this to encourage people to couple up and have children to support all the old people who caused the mess....

MacronvFrugals

Villa05 wrote: »

Are we not at 2,5k per month for social housing. That's unaffordable for the majority of workers

Maybe we should get monkeys to run the country




FG appointed Conor Skehan to chair of the housing agency and he continually declares that there is no housing crisis and that our housing market is normal

On Brendan O' Connors's show last August Skehan proclaimed "Dublin will be a city for the wealthy in the future"

jill_valentine

Zenify wrote: »

yeah, found a link that talks about it.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2021/0518/1222462-dail-housing/

I'm not one to moan about politics but by God I'm unhappy with how things are going at the moment. And it's not just my situation I'm unhappy about, it's the entire country. I'm mostly unhappy about this because of all the poor single people out there... I'm married so not looking for an apartment.

I wonder is there something underneath all of this to encourage people to couple up and have children to support all the old people who caused the mess....

If there is, it's the opposite that's happening. People are putting off having families because they haven't got space or security for it, and people living in 5 person house shares or back with mam and dad are going to find it hard to couple up.

I know a couple of folks in their late twenties who all live at home and sometimes treat themselves to a night in the hotel just down the road with their gf/bf. They just take it for granted that privacy is a luxury, a place only to yourselves is something for special occasions.

That's not very condusive to functional adult relationships and I think it's one of the under-discussed aspects of the crisis, the actual material effect it has on people's personal lives.

Geuze

timmyntc wrote: »

In fairness that is the right approach - we want REITs to add to supply, not buy existing supply.

Right now between REIT and council we have extra demand but no extra supply.

Surely the whole point of a REIT is to own property?

Do REITs get involved in development, i.e. buying sites, getting planning, design, etc.?

timmyntc

Geuze wrote: »

Surely the whole point of a REIT is to own property?

Do REITs get involved in development, i.e. buying sites, getting planning, design, etc.?

They can contract/tender out the whole process - indeed some actually do already.
Its the same as if they bought afterwards, only they put the finance up front, which is handier for the developers too.

And sure at the end of the day it will cost the same as buying a block thats already built - which is the end goal, to own property and get a rental yield on it.

Jmc25

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

I sense FF know deep down its a shift to the left or annihilation

Certainly on housing anyway. I've no fondness for FF but when they took housing in the current government I imagined they were being their usual pragmatic selves - having seen the SF surge on the back of the housing issue in the last election they'd shift policy direction in that area to the left. Not only have they not changed direction, they've doubled down on developer-led policies with the shared equity scheme.

Either FF lurch fairly hard to the left on housing fairly soon or they're looking at total wipeout in the next election. It's them losing votes to SF, not FG.

Zenify

Jmc25 wrote: »

Either FF lurch fairly hard to the left on housing fairly soon or they're looking at total wipeout in the next election. It's them losing votes to SF, not FG.

I've always voted FF in the past. You could say FF is in my family. But I won't vote for them again. Even my mother who has done loads of work for the party during her life is even contemplating not voting FF.

I won't vote FG either. I don't like SF.... but what other options have we got? I think most people will vote SF to see if they can live up to their promises. I doubt they will but I'm going to give them a chance anyway.

PropQueries

Jmc25 wrote: »

Certainly on housing anyway. I've no fondness for FF but when they took housing in the current government I imagined they were being their usual pragmatic selves - having seen the SF surge on the back of the housing issue in the last election they'd shift policy direction in that area to the left. Not only have they not changed direction, they've doubled down on developer-led policies with the shared equity scheme.

Either FF lurch fairly hard to the left on housing fairly soon or they're looking at total wipeout in the next election. It's them losing votes to SF, not FG.

It never made sense to me that Micheal Martin accepted the money hungry Departments of Housing, Health and Public Expenditure while leaving the purse strings firmly in the grasp of FG.

FG have little incentive to help out FF in either housing, health or public expenditure as the Minister for Finance/Fine Gael most likely won't be held responsible for the state of these departments come next election IMO

The only thing that FF can do to salvage themselves in implement proper reforms that don't cost these departments anything (as Pascal won't be providing much help IMO) but that also doesn't appear likely.