The accelerating fall in Sinn Féin support

The economy can sustain the current rent levels - it is actually doing that. If it wasn't nobody would be renting those properties.

What the economy cannot sustain is everybody who wants to live within ten minutes walk of Dublin City Centre being able to do so living in a three-bed semi-detatched and garden at a rent of less than €500 per month.

There is nothing in the SF document that addresses the real challenges that we face. If we want housing to decrease in price, we need to do things like increase housing density inside the M50, improve public transport so that there are more options for places to live. Metrolink by itself, with proper house density lead to hundreds of thousands of homes within a short commute of the city centre, not to mention DART improvements. Changing one incentive scheme (First Home Scheme) for another - SF's weird land lease scheme - will not make any significant difference. It might change the cohort of people who avail of it, but it won't increase the number of houses being built, but because of its weirdness, it might decrease the number being built, and certainly decrease the numbers wishing to avail of a scheme.

No, it isn't clearly obvious. Land is finite, you cannot build a house where there is already a house, unless you knock it down. So absent some major regeneration, those that want to live in the Borough of Dun Laoghaire will face ever increasing rents and property prices because there are only so many houses to go around on that small bit of land.

The only way to bring property prices and rental down is to build more services and better public transport to ensure that greater amounts of land have access to where people want to go.

You may not realize this but there is a lot of the country outside of the M50, I'd say most of the population wouldn't be on or near the M50 from one month to the next. Probably have been in the dart less than 10 times in their life.

Where did you pick 500 a month from.

Update from your parochial 1980s view, that is a long time ago. Deal with the now.

under financialised dynamics, which is what we have here, in regards property, the main contributing factor to price inflation is in fact the money supplied into the sector, i.e. the more money thats pushed into the market, the higher prices go, this is exactly what will happen again, with the governments current proposal, we has evidence for this here in ireland and in most other countries that have done so…..

…i.e. market equilibrium is not a reality, it simply doesnt exist, particular under such dynamics….

Same town. A reasonable starter home for the average person. At 220k or 4.6 times the average wage. It used to be 3x salary, then 3.5x salary as a guidance. Now some say 4-5. Rather than deal with the issue we are constantly resetting what is reasonable.

https://www.daft.ie/for-sale/terraced-house-89-lissadyra-ballygaddy-road-tuam-co-galway/5810322

The big problem is all the economic growth associated with increase in productivity has been diverted away from those who generated the productivity. For the house shown, for an average person in an average town the average salary should have increased with costs to 70k or the price should have remained at 135k

The finiteness of land is the issue propping up prices, increasing the amount of land with quick access to where people want to go is crucial. Metrolink and Dart West are the two most crucial pieces of infrastructure to enable larger number of houses to be built

That is where SF could have been really radical. Even on public housing, they could have said that we will demolish the existing old public apartment blocks in the city centre, treble the height of them, get rid of the parking places underground, and have extra public space as well as extra and better housing units.

Isn't that a bit of a silly response? Bit like yer one who comes on the radio, handing out school marks to the government every year.

Then Harris reported as labelling it 'mean' later on. Just a lazy response. People want a change in this area, not more of the same and Harris is fooling no one.

Going on the rte drivetime piece,they want to take away up to 70k in first time buyer grants and whats left is a 4k grant ?

They want to build 25 k social homes where the government own the ground and with limited resale ability just to other social home owners with a capped price,and they haven't got the banks to say they'll lend for that type of property yet?

Holy moley,good luck with selling this,maybe rename it 'a home you don't own,' ?

The EU wouldn't let them as we'd be breaching the CBD rules as well as with the cost of it raising government borrowing costs through the roof

That ship sailed

I noticed the same thing with their last general election manifesto. It was filled with basic spelling and grammar errors. Tables with incorrect calculations. Dead links. Just all very amateur. Which is surprising considering they have more full time staff than all the other parties put together.

Ye are captured by this idea that all the value being diverted to the few is ok and people should be happy with it.

Sure in the 70's wasn't a damp bedsit fine, at a time when we were a very poor country, so why would we not be happy with the same standard when we are one of the richest countries in the world. Sure we are happy out to have the fruits of our increased productivity and wealth go to the few. They deserve it sure.

Also, the expectation of what you can get we your money has always been higher in a less desirable location that the more desirable, so what somebody can get for a certain amount in a provincial town could reasonably be expected to be more than in a large city.

In addition, the mortgage affordability guidance changed not due to interest rates, but due to the fact that prices increased, and we had to do something to make sure the investor class and vested interest in the construction supply chains could continue to cream it. That you cant see a problem with the below chart is beyond comprehension.

Full disclosure - my own property is valued 4 times the outstanding mortgage and twice what I paid so my own vested interest is the status quo. But the countries interest is that significant change is required.

All grants do when there is a limit to supply is increase the price. Grants in the absence of supply is just a transfer of wealth from taxpayer to developer / landowner / investors.

It is not really a silly response. I heard SF spokespersons and indeed their supporters on here going on about the unprecedented length of the policy paper. When I looked at it, the padding was incredible, with actually only about ten pages containing any policy. #

This is the Current Affairs forum, so poking fun at an inadequate policy paper by comparing it to a Leaving Cert project (which is about the level it is pitched at) is par for the course. There is no thinking through of the implications of the proposals, the costs are understated, the obstacles are underestimated, and it is notable that you don't analyse or criticise the substance of any of my comments, you just throw a jibe at the style of my post.

I own my own house. But I'm not obsessed as to it's value. Most are the same, our house is not a trading commodity. In the 90/00s we got sucked into that, trading up every few years, that's over. So if any political party proposes a scheme whereby the supply meets demand and house prices stagnate, I'm not fussed. BTW a major reason for high house prices is the spec nowadays. One cannot, because of that compare house build costs of 40 and 50 years ago. There is no magic tap to supply.

That graph also ignores other factors. For example, in the mid 90s onwards house prices increased in part due to more families with 2 incomes compared to one.

😂 Yes, 2005 is the standard of affordability when we were in the middle of an irrational housing bubble 😂

And the chart is relative to average wage, not absolute value