The decline of FG?

Keep believing all that SF spin if you wish. However, the trends are clear - FG has stopped the decline and is on the way back up.

The issue with the National Maternity Hospital was that SF complained that the owners of the land could influence the owners of the property which was built on the land, and could restrict the owners of the property from doing certain things because of this and the things that they could restrict stretched far far beyond the property itself (like not just the building, rooms, renovations etc) but into what the people in the property could do.

If SF were right on the National Maternity Hospital, it would mean that the government, as the owners of the land could restrict the owners of the SF houses from watching any TV other than TG4 and listening to any music other than the Wolfe Tones, in accordance with SF ideology.

Hard to compare because FF/SF don't have the same historical (almost) zero-sum that existed between the UK Con's and Labour, and continues to poison British politics. At one stage back in 2020 I actually thought there would be a FF/SF get-together and that MM was about to be thrown out the window in order to enable it.

FF/FG are now basically stable-mates so SF/FF is as likley as SF/FG, which is not very.

Yeh blanch, the church owning the leasehold of a national maternity hospital is the same as the state owning it.

Good lord, stop digging on this one like FG seem to have done. Harris put his size 9’s in it again.

These days the purchaser would buy the land as well as the house

Exactly.

The more I think about it the scheme is bizarre.

Extremely bizarre.

Build affordable homes and get the state to offer a long term lease on it.

Why build affordable homes on public lands, then sell them privately to people?

Do you concede the fact that its also a Leasehold?

A leasehold from the state of which I'm sure there will be an option to buy it out in years to come. When the alternative is high levels of homelessness, high rents and high house prices I'm not sure what the issue is with the plan really

A leasehold from the state of which I'm sure there will be an option to buy it out in years to come

Wait, what?

So you mean that affordable house, that was subsided by the taxpayer can be taken from the affordable housing stock i.e. bought out at a discount and not be an affordable house anymore? LOL

You do know the country did that in the past with council houses, which had disastrous consequences. Yet here you are advocating the same.

When the alternative is high levels of homelessness, high rents and high house prices I'm not sure what the issue is with the plan really

It's not a binary choice. It's not 'The SF plan' or 'nothing'

You have no answered my point. Why dont they just build these houses on public lands, where they remain in the hands of the state, and give tenants long term affordable leases? Schemes such as these already exist by the way.

SF's plan is biazzare. It was thought up last minute as a ploy to win over 'FTB' as for years they said they wanted to build social and affordable housing only.

I'm hearing (not confirmed so I won't name him) that a FG minister signed off on this. By signing off on it he has facilitated whatever incompetence was involved. The CS need ministerial sign off to get away with something like this. He could have, with the stroke of a pen, stopped the extravagance/incompetence/corruption or whatever it was inflated the cost. Do you think he has hastened the decline of FG? Does this kind of arrogance with public money hasten the decline of a party?

You are speculating about a party this thread is not about because you don't want to confront the falures of the party the thread is about. .

The Sinn Fein proposal makes absolutely clear that there will not be an option to buy it out in years to come. The leaseholder and their descendants will only be able to sell the property to a restricted number of people in the future who also qualify to be a leaseholder.

This is significantly more restrictive than the current government's scheme which allows the house owner at anytime to buy out the government's 30% share. Interestingly, the value of the leasehold under the SF plan is around 30% of the value of the property, making you wonder what exactly is the added benefit of the SF scheme. Given its restrictions, it appears to actually make things worse.

You obviously have never heard of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Maybe Louise O-Reilly could fill you in later.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/how-parliament-is-run/houses-of-the-oireachtas-commission/membership/

Banks hand out mortgages to leasehold properties every day, no reason why they wouldn't do the same here

Which if you think about it makes sense because then you can keep the house in the affordable area of the market. If they did this everywhere the runaway prices we see now would be a thing of the past

I think the members of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission should resign, after all, they are responsible for the management of the Oireachtas.

You mean procurement managers in the civil service ? Yes

You don't think even the oireachtas commission would have approved the 300k bike shed expenditure had they seen it ?

My guess is they didn't and they are more a review body than a decision body,what use is that ?But I don't know

The desired aspect of these houses is the initial price, not the price it might rise to in a few years time. If you could buy a house for 250k instead of 600k but in the same area but in 10 years time it has to be sold for less than 300k, is that really such a bad thing?

Whether it should is another matter. I don’t think so as that could lead to huge conflicts of interest. Comptroller and Auditor General remains the place to surface this misspending.

It is,if you have a desire to get a bigger house on the open market as your family grows or move area

What if the cap is 335000 eh ?

There is a serious flaw in your argument

The question is if your underling spends their discretionary sum on something frivolous or wasteful,should you go too,even if it is not routine for you to be across their day to day decisions ?

Before it got anywhere near the OPW, it had to be a request from the Oireachtas, as the OPW are only the contractor for the Oireachtas in this case. So the relevant Department is the Oireachtas Commission, so according to your own line of responsibility the buck stops there.

As usual, in your desperation to stick every thing that goes wrong on a Minister, you overlooked the reality. There is an Oireachtas Commission with wide membership, including from FF and FG as well as your own party, that has ultimate responsibility.

You shouted first about people taking responsibility and now you get upset because other posters point out that the responsibility leads to your own door.

I'm sure there are,probably mnc's,but a 10th of that could be viewed as outrageously wasted

clearly the OPW in this case does have that type of discretionary spend

An AIB branch manager afaik has a loan discretion of 40k before having to go higher,are their regional managers to be sacked if a few of the bank manager loans go south ?

Theres reason to be outraged at the bike shed but using it as a political football is just a kind of schadenfreude

Another attempt to wash hands. Government not responsible again, no surprises at all.

OK, we will see what comes out of the familiar, obscene hand washing here.

Wait a minute here. You came out all guns blazing, wanting to blame a FG Minister for something, without engaging any thought before you launched the attack.

Facts get pointed out, and you go back to attacking the motives of the poster pointing out the problem you have with facts.