The accelerating fall in Sinn Féin support

It would do the exact opposite.

The reasonably priced, part state owned homes, that have a capped value and can only be sold to people on median or lower incomes, will not have a value limiting bearing on the private market.

What we are talking about here is social affordable homes vs private homes.

Two different markets.

And if the SF homes were built, in order to build them we would need to divert resources away from private builds, which means fewer private homes are built and so private house prices will rise.

Remember the folks buying privately dont qualify for the SF homes. So they are in a different market, a market which now has even less supply than it does today.

You are wrong on this. Leasehold tenures are free to sell to anyone else. Purchasers under the weird SF scheme are not free to sell to anyone else. They can only sell to some future person who qualifies under the future scheme on unknown terms and at a price heavily discounted to the market. That would be a crazy investment to make in your children's futures.

As I said already, the only difference between the weird SF scheme and the Government's First Home Scheme, is that the SF scheme restricts who you can sell to.

Scam or not, does Ireland have have higher completions than 18 other European countries?

Thats a Europe wide issue atm though

I'm sure you'd welcome hospitality in other countries if your neighbour was blowing up appartment blocks and killing so many people with Ballistic missiles ?

Btw,with so many Irish in Australia,ts worth noting,it's not a housing nirvana,prices are soaring and availability as bad as here if not much worse

They've also double the amount of homeless per head of population than we have

https://youtu.be/vWlh41jJ2Ww?si=aaRy_JxCDKvTb_Pz

The other bizarre aspect is E O'BROIN's inheritance model, where the children and grandchildren will be able to inherit the home. All of them? What if there's a dispute between siblings and a court orders the house to be sold, same in the event of a relationship break up. And where do they live while they wait for the parents to die? Most people would be at least in their fifties at that stage.

There are so many holes in this plan when subjected to reality rather than O'BROIN's utopian socialist society.

The Shinners are not looking to avoid the privatisation of social housing. If they wanted to avoid privatisation of the social housing stock, they would just build more social housing stock and not sell to tenants.

Instead they have this weird plan whereby if you qualify to buy one of their houses now, you might be able to sell it at some future time to somebody who also qualifies at that future time under unknown parameters. The scheme is wide open to abuse. Just look at what was going on in Peter McVerry Trust so see how a socialist arrangement works. Those in the know got looked after, while the real poor didn't.

I look at a neighbour of mine, two children. One has just bought a house with her partner, 425k, one of them came through apprenticeship, the other works in retail, live the simple life and save. No help that I am aware of from parents other than practical help.

The other child lives the good life, off on holidays all the time, nice car, out with the partner on the town every weekend, no interest in a career. Living in a Shomera at the back of someone else's home. They have a great time and fair play to them.

I don't pass judgement on either child, but if the second one was moaning to me about not being able to buy a home, I wouldn't listen.

The first child there isn't the only example. I know of at least 10 people in their late 20s, early 30s who have bought in the last two years.

Yet to be seen if the unveiling of this masterplan gives SF any sort of boost in the polls. My guess would be there are enough voters who either don't particularly care about the housing issue or aren't convinced that SF would doing a significantly better job to ensure the issue will not be an electoral game changer…

The asylum immigration issue is a different topic and I highly doubt SF are going to make any changes on that front anyway. Your SF state land owned homes will goto refugees as well as irish citizens, I expect.

The question that matters in terms of housing boils down to who can produce the most homes over the next 5 to 10 years and I am still very confident that FFG will outbuild SF.

The cost of SF having to recruit public sector workers will take time and a lot of money. We still dont know if banks will lend on these homes, not least because their price growth is capped.

SF need to build the homes on state owned land. What if permission is refused? What if there is no viable state land in certain towns or cities to build on? Even if there is state owned land, once its built on, where is the next set of land located? Its a finite amount of space upon which to build.

As per previous post, there is only so much construction resource in the country. The more is diverted to public SF homes the less building of private homes will occur- meaning the cost of private homes continues to rise and become less affordable and the wealth gap continues to broaden.

Where will the social and cost rental homes go that SF are promising? Are they to be built in the same scheme these part ownership homes will be built?

I look forward to seeing how often the staff in a state-owned construction go on strike demanding pay increases when they know the electoral leverage they would have.

Would be like the old B&I Line staff who used to call a strike every summer because they knew the company needed the holiday traffic to make any money.

Yep, its all well and good if you want to stay in the home for life, but youre stuck on the first rung of the ladder whilst the private home escalator next to you moves onward and upward.

Is it just me, or is there an air of desperation in Mary Lou's demeanour as she frantically waves her Little Red Green Book about, like Mein Kampf. It's more of an ideological treatise than a realistic development plan.

There are no out of work bricklayers waiting for your 38 billion splurge Mary, unless you advertise, in Russia or China maybe.

With a normal house or the FHS, the pool of purchasers for the bank repossessing is huge, thereby reducing the risk.

For the SF Scheme house, the pool of purchasers is smaller, is dependent on the whims of the Government of the time as to who is eligible, and what price the house can be sold for, thereby increasing the risk significantly.

That is clearly obvious to anyone who thinks for half a second about the scheme. I would expect that the banks will therefore be reluctant to lend on the same terms to the SF Scheme. For example, they may limit borrowing to three times income instead of four times, therefore balancing out the risk.

In the SF house, you are dependent on the investment matching the increase in equity and house prices, an additional risk, and you may lose on your other investment.

In the FHS house, you are investing in the asset you later wish to trade for another similar asset, which reduces the risk.

Again, the advantage is with the FHS house, but even if you are correct, that the risk is the same, you still haven't explained (and neither have SF, to be fair) how the SF house scheme is an improvement on the FHS. It simply isn't, it limits choice in terms of the house buyer's options, it permanently restricts the equity share, and it severely restricts the circumstances in which the house can be sold.

There are several problems with your analysis.

Firstly, you admit that there is a drawback "being when you come to sell the house on you won't enjoy any uplift in land values that has taken place". That means you will be at a disadvantage compared to every single person who bought outside of the scheme. Why would an individual take that on?

Secondly, you are correct that the next buyer may (and I would underline may) enjoy the benefit of a discount. But voters don't consider future buyers, neither does somebody buying a house think that it is great that someone else will get this house to my disadvantage.

Thirdly, you make an unfounded accusation that the 30% will never be paid back. It is built into the scheme that it will. What is more, the taxpayer benefits from any increase in prices.

Fourthly, and this is where it ultimately falls down. You state correctly that "the shared equity scheme might be better for individual buyers who want to get a taxpayer subsidised wealth generating boost." Those are the exact people who are most concerned by the housing issue. People like me who already own their house aren't voting in the next election based on housing. The people in the next election who are voting based on housing are individual buyers who want to get a taxpayer subsidised wealth generating boost. As you have said, and which I agree, the shared equity scheme is better for them. Of course, those with an ideological belief in the supremacy of socialism will vote for the SF scheme, but those looking for a house will want the FHS, and the rest of us with houses already, really don't care. That might be a cynical view in your eyes, but it also means the SF scheme is a vote-loser.

This all seems absurdly complicated, why not just do:

Build homes and sell them to people

Build homes and rent them to people (let them remain council houses or allow the tenants to buy them after a while)

I'm not sure what the issue with not owning the land, surely it's just a leasehold property. loads in the UK, quite often you renegotiate to 999 years when you buy.

iif the lease is plenty more than the life of the mortgage banks won't have a problem.