The accelerating fall in Sinn Féin support

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122586359#Comment_122586359

The best way to help younger buyers, aside from giving them govt paid deposits (which SF are getting rid of) is to build more homes.

I dont see how SF will build more homes than FFG over the next 5 years.

If its a flat out race between building the most homes, FFG won't build as many as we ideally need, but they will build more than SF.

So if we want more homes, I dont see a better option on the table than FFG, who currently have record commencements and will be pushing 50k new homes next year.

Thats a good platform to build on.

I dont see any way SF will hit 50k in 2025, when they wont have time to hire public construction staff in the numbers needed, not to mention the changes in planning and resourcing that would be required.

Galwayguy35

I don't believe SF really want to be in Government.

The same problems with Health, Housing and Immigration will still be there after the election and even more unpopular decisions will have to be made.

Easier to sit it out on the opposition benches and draw down the easy money.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122586698#Comment_122586698

You're not wrong, there are plenty on the opposition benches who are happy to make a career out of sniping that would be horrified to find themselves in Government realising that it's a thankless task.

Just ask Stephen Donnelly.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122585027#Comment_122585027

There is no need to go any further than your first sentence.

"Yes it is a drawback from an individual's point of view, but it is the only drawback."

Individuals vote and individuals buy houses. If something is a drawback, they won't vote for it or use it.

Secondly, those who cannot afford to buy outside the scheme are already advantaged by a superior scheme for an individual - the FHS Scheme. Why would anyone vote for something that is less advantegeous to them than the current scheme?

The SF Scheme will be exposed by this and won't boost their vote. I suspect that SF will end up promising to keep the FHS alongside their weird new scheme.

deezell

The last thing we need is state run commercial services, especially house building. Make it easier for the private developers to get shovels into the ground, planning needs a massive overhaul for simple house builds. Building 50 houses is just building one on repeat. Why does it take years and 100s of €k before a builder can lay a brick. Too many state agencies, enabling nimbys and random objectors. A builder I know with full pp reapplied to change about 6 of the houses from type A to B, 4 to 3 beds or something. Nothing had actually been built. You'd swear he'd applied to build a nuclear power station, with all the objectors, and paperwork, and demands for new impact reports, from the public, lefty politicians, and obscure 'agencies'.

Gloomtastic!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122587982#Comment_122587982

Well said. The lunatics have definitely taken over the asylum.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058325358/building-ireland-s-most-eco-friendly-house

Keep an eye on this thread. 😉

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122586001#Comment_122586001

Respectfully I disagree. Like FF's long tenure, the narrative of the next election for FG - will be too long in the job. The Greens are gassed and will be tossed aside for another couple of terms. That leaves the obvious FF / SF coalition.

deezell

If SF drop the protest seats they were given last time, Ff/FG won't need the greens. Who wants the unknown of SF? I feel a song coming on;

🎶 Who wants, to get a Sinn Fein Home?

I Don't

One that, you'll never bleedin' own?

I Don't! 🎶

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122589165#Comment_122589165

If MM is still leader of FF come election time, I just dont see the party siding with SF over FG. Why would they.

They have run a stable govt for this past term, much safer to stick with what they know and i also think SF having digs at FF over the last term is another reason FF wont choose to cosy up with them.

Nope, the safe bet for FF is to stick with what they know, and thats FFG.

Greens will be gone but there will be independents or a small party to make up the numbers. Doesnt really matter who.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122587908#Comment_122587908

I suspect you're right that this is not an election winning policy.

A self centred and short sighted electorate will inevitably produce self centred and short sighted governments with self centred and short sighted policies.

But whilst it may not be a vote winner, as a policy for long term improvement in the housing problems that we have for all it is undoubtedly superior to the FHS.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592726#Comment_122592726

Disagree with that.

The SF scheme blocks buyers from owning homes at market rate and also restricts the pool of people "owners" can sell to.

FHS has none of those restrictions.

A home bought under the FHS is equal to any other private home.

The SF homes are not and are effectivley a 2nd class asset.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592756#Comment_122592756

Yes, but you're viewing it from the perspective of an individual buyer.

I'm not claiming the SF scheme is superior from the point of view of an individual buyer who wants the taxpayer to subsidise their house purchase.

I am claiming it is superior from the taxpayer's point of view.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592778#Comment_122592778

Disagree there also.

With the SF house, the tax payer is footing the bill to build the house, pay for the labour, purchase the materials and so on.

They also dont qualify to own ones of the homes at the end of it all, if they earn an average salary or above.

Not sure how any of that can be considered a good deal for the tax payer, when its the tax payer that is excluded from the scheme!

Most homes built under FFG and the FHS are delivered by private companies. Everyone is entitled to access them and the govt isnt footing the bill to deliver the majority of homes.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592788#Comment_122592788

Most taxpayers already own their own homes. Their concern should be how their taxes are being spent, not that they don't qualify to buy a house they don't need. So that's an absurd argument.

As far as FFG's success in using private companies to deliver affordable houses goes, as mentioned above the fiasco that is the Oscar Traynor development ought to have people demanding a better solution.

Water John

Many taxpayers own their own homes. But IWT many are like me and don't want to pull the ladder up after us. The next gen in all our families should have a reasonable opportunity to own their own home.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592806#Comment_122592806

Totally agree. And the SF idea is better for the next generation.

All the opposition to it seems to be based on the same mentality of hoping the first rung of the ladder gets incrementally higher and higher indefinitely.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592800#Comment_122592800

Tell that to all the average salaried folks in Dublin, Cork & Galway that have to house share. You are saying most of them already own their own homes.

If thats the case, why are they living with mom and dad or living in house shares?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592818#Comment_122592818

I said most taxpayers, not most average salaried folks in Dublin, Cork and Galway.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592806#Comment_122592806

And in order for people to own their own homes, we need to build more houses and continue to give govt supports.

FFG are ramping up home building. We will see 40k this year and likley 50k from 2025 onwards. They also provide deposits to get thousands of first time buyers onto the housing ladder, every year.

SFs scheme would result in a slow down in construction, because there is no real home building infrastructure in local councils anymore, so there is nobody to build the state land owned homes.

They would also push out the investment funds that are deliveirng all of todays private estates and apartment complexes.

Put the 2 points together and the end result is a slow down in construction, coupled with removal of help to buy benefits for first time buyers.

I want to see more people own their own homes, not less.

The FFG approach is far from perfect, but its better than what SF are proposing.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592778#Comment_122592778

The taxpayers are individuals too though. The SF policy is a 'collective' ideology, where individuals sacrifice personal equity in return for 'the greater good' of society.

It's pretty clear that is O'Broins philosophy in dreaming up the policy, but it should have stayed in his head because we are a society of individuals. The plan smacks of a communist idealogy, whereby the state restricts accumulation of wealth.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592828#Comment_122592828

They are most tax payers. People earinng less than an average salary pay very little tax.

Water John

I'd agree with reinforcing the model already in place, not dismantling it. I don't have an ideological problem with a shared equity between the person and the state/LA. I don't like the model of the ground being in any way separate from the house. That has historical baggage and is messy.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592806#Comment_122592806

If that's what you want then when you sell your house sell it for what you paid plus allowance for inflation.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592846#Comment_122592846

The FHS model has no baggage yet as it's new. But that won't last.

My biggest opposition to it is I think it is going to get very messy indeed in the future, it will be riddled with unintended consequences.

For example it will inevitably have be to extended to allow the equity to transfer to subsequent properties.

And in the event of a downturn leading to negative equity, the government will have to write off big chunks of equity.

To avoid this nightmare scenario the govt has an even more powerful vested interest to keep inflating the market.

And in any event the scenario is unavoidable, because sooner or later irrespective of the state of the market somebody is going to be in financial pain, and the government will have no choice but to write off the equity.

As soon as that happens they'll be backed into a corner whereby they have little choice but to write off equity for all.

These are inherent risks of the scheme.

The SF scheme has none of these risks.

Water John

Well, I would have it that the owner/resident, or even the next gen could buy out the state's interest in time. Not interested in locking the house into a false low value.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592875#Comment_122592875

No risks? The SF house is on state land, how would a bank repossess said house in the event of default on the mortgage? How could they evict citizens off state land?

The reality is the state would have to step in and pay off the outstanding loan and the house would resort to social housing with a minimal rate of rent that a lot don't even pay.

Actually, where do i sign up for this scheme?

deezell

And when that happens and the estates start to manifest neglected houses, disrepair and unsavoury dens, the responsible sort-of owners will seek an out, and move to private estates, even if it means financial hardship, while their state reacquired house (no private owner will risk it), becomes a full on social house, and we're back to the undesirable area effect all over again. This was probably the reason that local authorities got out of building council estates in the first place, relying instead on the social and affordable quota in private developments. This has a self limiting effect, a builder will only tolerate a small percentage, else his estate becomes socialised and private buyers stay away. Attempts by councils to buy 80-90% of the houses in developments behind the backs of the first 10-20% of already resident new private owners is political suicide for councillors who support this, lefty ones included. Hark back a couple of years to Kildare CC underhand attempts using foreign pension fund leases to buy out an entire development where the first tranch of private residents were already in occupation, and the next batch had had their deposits returned. That approach was abandoned fairly lively, by KCC, builder, Councillors, and significantly, the yank pension fund, who stood to inherit an almost entire estate of council house tenants in 25 years when KCC were done with them. Not much profit in that.

ILoveYourVibes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122592832#Comment_122592832

We actually dont need to build more houses per year than we build now. We just need to stop investment funds buying the bulk of apartments and houses like is currently happening. The construction isnt the issue its the govt policy to allow investment funds to buy the MAJORITY of all homes.

85 % of homes in one estate were bought by investment firms

https://www.socialdemocrats.ie/govt-fails-first-time-buyers-as-fund-buys-85-of-homes-in-one-estate-cian-ocallaghan-td/

deezell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122593584#Comment_122593584

Which is why we need more private owned homes to reduce the demand and cost of rentals. Its all about supply and demand. Funds buying up houses can inflate rental price by controlling supply. It needs enforcement though, an estate near me had non rental or sub letting expressly forbidden in their Ts&Cs and in the final contract of sale (excluding the very few social/affordable quota available to the council), yet we watched the new family home across from a friend being sold to an Asian landlord who promptly installed three families and single men over the three floors, with double the cars allowed parked on the paths.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122593024#Comment_122593024

The SF house is on state land, how would a bank repossess said house in the event of default on the mortgage?

It's laughable how many people, our housing minister included, are trotting out this argument. The irony is off the scale.

Have you noticed anything unique about our current mortgage arrears situation and repossession statistics?

This is just clutching at straws, opposition for opposition sake.