Enda's Jobs Plan

rodento

I'm not that intelligent and I'm struggling to come to terms with FG's job plans. So I'm asking the FG bridage to explain things to me...

In simple english:eek:

How can you be a party for jobs if you plan to slash 30,000 jobs from the public service...

Sell of AIB, Bord Gais & the ESB with-out mayor restructuring(Job Losses)

Generate jobs from water meter installation, when Bord Gias and other semi states have stated they aready that the staff in place to do the jobs(Do you let these go just to create jobs for others)

Also while your at it, how do you solve the credit crisis by making more loans available to people at higher interest rate...

Chucky the tree

I'm not the FG brigade but here we go..

1. We're running a €19bn deficit, and a lot of that has to do with Public service. Jobs have to be cut here to save money. The country needs private sector jobs, not public sector jobs.

2. Why would job losses be needed when selling AIB, Bord Gais or ESB?

3. Never heard about this. I'd have serious question about how Bord Gais can claim to be able to install water meters though. Their workers must have a lot of free time on their hands if that's the case which makes me wonder why they are currently employed?

Liam Byrne

Apparently the parties agree that 12,000 will go anyway, through retirement.

So it's actually 18,000 that they're looking at reducing by.

Gilmore pointed out tonight that if front-line staff are to be excluded that it is still a high percentage, though.

thebman

The government cannot create jobs, it can only create the conditions for businesses to expand and higher more people.

To do this you must cut expenditure.

What kind of person supports an organisation such as the HSE whose management don't know what many of the staff do and who are claiming they can do with 600-800 HR staff but employ 2,000.

Ridiculous situation IMO. Who wants to be in a job where they do nothing? Only the unmotivated so lets create the conditions to generate new and better employment.

Ray Burkes Pension

rodento wrote: »

I'm not that intelligent and I'm struggling to come to terms with FG's job plans. So I'm asking the FG bridage to explain things to me...

In simple english:eek:

How can you be a party for jobs if you plan to slash 30,000 jobs from the public service...

Sell of AIB, Bord Gais & the ESB with-out mayor restructuring(Job Losses)

Generate jobs from water meter installation, when Bord Gias and other semi states have stated they aready that the staff in place to do the jobs(Do you let these go just to create jobs for others)

Also while your at it, how do you solve the credit crisis by making more loans available to people at higher interest rate...

They want to slash public sector jobs and create private sector jobs.

Public sector jobs take money out of the budget. So cut them and cut government expenditure.
Private sector jobs pump money into the government coffers through taxes.

.BrianJM

Ray Burkes Pension wrote: »

They want to slash public sector jobs and create private sector jobs.

Public sector jobs take money out of the budget. So cut them and cut government expenditure.
Private sector jobs pump money into the government coffers through taxes.

...and also saves in welfare payments.

rodento

And as for FG and business, their plans to abolish upward only rent reviews is already threatening investment in this country:eek:

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/threat-to-euro500m-of-investment-deals-2551809.html

So much for FG been good for business and jobs

Colm R

rodento wrote: »

And as for FG and business, their plans to abolish upward only rent reviews is already threatening investment in this country:eek:

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/threat-to-euro500m-of-investment-deals-2551809.html

So much for FG been good for business and jobs

Auctioneers, valuers, estate agents. All vested interests.
Would love to know which party the elected representative comes from?

meglome

rodento wrote: »

And as for FG and business, their plans to abolish upward only rent reviews is already threatening investment in this country:eek:

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/threat-to-euro500m-of-investment-deals-2551809.html

So much for FG been good for business and jobs

Rents get cheaper allowing business to be more competitive, good for all. Though not so good for some vested interests.... boo hoo.

rodento

Rents get cheaper...

Sometimes boards really makes me laugh
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just think about it, Enda plans to change legal contracts signed in good faith... How does that sell Ireland as a place of investment :eek:

As for the owners of the property, what about them... They'll be put into a position where they may no longer be able to afford the loan on the buildings and could easily go bankrupt

paul71

rodento wrote: »

Rents get cheaper...

Sometimes boards really makes me laugh
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just think about it, Enda plans to change legal contracts signed in good faith... How does that sell Ireland as a place of investment :eek:

As for the owners of the property, what about them... They'll be put into a position where they may no longer be able to afford the loan on the buildings and could easily go bankrupt

As a place of investment where people can actually do business instead of being forced into restrictive practices that exist no-where else in the world.

As for the owners of the properties, so what if they go bankrupt, that would just mean the property would go to market through a liquidator at a cheaper rent thus making Ireland a cheaper more competative place to do business.

meglome

rodento wrote: »

Rents get cheaper...

Sometimes boards really makes me laugh
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just think about it, Enda plans to change legal contracts signed in good faith... How does that sell Ireland as a place of investment :eek:

As for the owners of the property, what about them... They'll be put into a position where they may no longer be able to afford the loan on the buildings and could easily go bankrupt

Well I'm not an economist but capitalism tends to be cyclical, boom and bust. So outside of inflation prices can go up and prices can go down. We have an odd situation here on rents and leases where they could only go up. If these prices can be set to go up in the good times it would seem very reasonable that they go down in the bad times. Profit from property speculation is not a right, some you'll win some you'll lose.

The bottom line is many leases reached ridiculous levels with Grafton street for example having some of the most expensive rents in the world. I don't know if you've looked at Grafton street recently but it's gone downhill over the last five year. If doing business in this country doesn't get cheaper we'll all suffer not just a small number of property speculators. So you can laugh all you want but it won't make the lowering of rents any less to the benefit of us all.

Liam Byrne

rodento wrote: »

Rents get cheaper...

Sometimes boards really makes me laugh
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just think about it, Enda plans to change legal contracts signed in good faith... How does that sell Ireland as a place of investment :eek:

As for the owners of the property, what about them... They'll be put into a position where they may no longer be able to afford the loan on the buildings and could easily go bankrupt

That's what happens when you have an unsustainable business plan.

If shops, etc, have to bring down their prices to survive, why not landlords?

In fact, if FF hadn't skewed the property market with NAMA, and had let reality rule, they'd be a lot worse off, because realistic prices for property would have prevailed.

gandalf

rodento wrote: »

Rents get cheaper...

Sometimes boards really makes me laugh
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just think about it, Enda plans to change legal contracts signed in good faith... How does that sell Ireland as a place of investment :eek:

As for the owners of the property, what about them... They'll be put into a position where they may no longer be able to afford the loan on the buildings and could easily go bankrupt

So what you are in favour of is artificially sustaining rents when the entire market is depressed and when it is a direct factor in the shutting down of hundreds of businesses around the country putting thousands of people out of jobs.

Sorting out upward only rent reviews is a key part to getting this country back on track. If individual landlords or property organisations who built their business plans on unsustainable growth are burnt to sort this out then so be it. We cannot sacrifice the many for the benefit of the few as the FF led Governments have done. Also what stops investment is uncertainty. If this is sorted out decisively and whole market is corrected accordingly then the market will start working again.

I think one thing is very clear from the mess we find ourselves in, there can no longer be any sacred cows in Ireland who are protected by the government to the detriment of the majority. Market forces should dictate the price of rental properties and given the glut of free property at the moment those prices should be coming down.

rodento

So your solution would be for further distressed loans to go to the banks... With Enda saying not a sent more, who will end up paying if Nama can't get in rents or more major loans default...

Wish life was as easy as a five point plan

meglome

rodento wrote: »

So your solution would be for further distressed loans to go to the banks... With Enda saying not a sent more, who will end up paying if Nama can't get in rents or more major loans default...

Wish life was as easy as a five point plan

Well to take on your premise we'd have to show that a very large number of buildings rented to businesses are down to the wire on their rents. Given that most buildings were around before the worst of the bubble and rents had only been going up I'll take some convincing that this is a big problem.

alejandro1977

rodento wrote: »

And as for FG and business, their plans to abolish upward only rent reviews is already threatening investment in this country:eek:

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/threat-to-euro500m-of-investment-deals-2551809.html

So much for FG been good for business and jobs

Investment?

A commercial transaction relating to an existing property. How many job do you reckon that will bring? Ever occur to you that high rents are costing jobs.

Nice try, Mr Vested Interest/ FF Troll

oppenheimer1

The government cannot interfere in contracts that are already written, surely that would be unconstitutional to legislate retroactively.

Surely its the fault of the business owners leasing these properties to have agreed in the first place to such a clause. There was a reason such a clause was put in and it was to protect landlords from a downturn.If tenants didn't like the terms of the lease then they shouldn't have signed. Simple.

If contracts need to be renegotiated then it needs to be on an individual level not at governmental level.

rodento

It's a big issue if government interferes in business in such a manor. Going forward is one thing but retrospective legislation in contract law sends the wrong signal to overseas investors.

The article in the indo states that 50 mill in investment is at risk over the policy. It's just another example where onecan seriously question there jobs policy

Chucky the tree

rodento wrote: »

It's a big issue if government interferes in business in such a manor. Going forward is one thing but retrospective legislation in contract law sends the wrong signal to overseas investors.

The article in the indo states that 50 mill in investment is at risk over the policy. It's just another example where onecan seriously question there jobs policy

Ah yes, Jones Lang DeSalle, Specialists in Offices, Industrial, Retail property in Ireland so we can be sure there completely impartial. Just like the trade Unions when they say we can't afford to cut job or wages in the public sector.

It reminds me of the report about Fine Gael spending €1bn to cut PS jobs! OMG, there wasting another €1bn?!! In a recession?! Completely missing the fact it will save us €5bn though. So short sighted. I've no doubt the €500bn lost in scrapping upward rent only reviews will easily be saved(and then some) by having businesses now being able to stay open and save jobs.

sensibleken

ESB and Bord Gais are still making profits. Why the hell would you sell these? Its not like privatising utilities hasnt blown up in the past, eircom anyone?

Count Dooku

rodento wrote: »

It's a big issue if government interferes in business in such a manor. Going forward is one thing but retrospective legislation in contract law sends the wrong signal to overseas investors.

1) Nobody from overseas will not gamble on Irish property anymore
2) I more like another criticism of FG plan
Punishing landlords will cost us all - Irish Times

An elderly widow whose sole income comes from a single property let to a multinational won’t thank anybody for it.

K-9

Count Dooku wrote: »

1) Nobody from overseas will not gamble on Irish property anymore
2) I more like another criticism of FG plan
Punishing landlords will cost us all - Irish Times

[img][/img]http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/cray.gif

There have been expressions of interest on some commercial property from overseas buyers but the price was too high IIRC. Probably part of the reason is leaseholders expecting big rents.

As for NAMA, we'll be caught either way. Either NAMA takes the hit or businesses go bust forced to pay bubble price leases. Might as well load it onto NAMA!

gandalf

rodento wrote: »

So your solution would be for further distressed loans to go to the banks... With Enda saying not a sent more, who will end up paying if Nama can't get in rents or more major loans default...

Wish life was as easy as a five point plan

Well NAMA certainly won't get rents if they are artificially propped up. If the Market is allowed to decide then you will find that they will rent more space. Holding retailers to ransom because a small number of developers and leasing agents got their sums wrong and did not risk analyse their business properly is wrong and it is costing the wider economy.

gandalf

Count Dooku wrote: »

1) Nobody from overseas will not gamble on Irish property anymore
2) I more like another criticism of FG plan
Punishing landlords will cost us all - Irish Times

Interesting reading who wrote that article.

Bill Nowlan is a chartered surveyor and town planner. He is managing partner of property asset management company WK Nowlan Associates

It certainly would be in his interest to maintain the status quo.

I think the main driver here is what creates/saves more jobs, maintaining things as they are so a few developers, estate agents and management companies maintain their high prices or allow for downward changes when the market dictates so a vast number of businesses can stay competitive and in some cases stay in business.

David McWilliams said last night correctly that any major uptake in employment is going to be led by the SME sector. He said there are 200,000 SME companies in the state, if each of those had their trading conditions improved to a degree that they could employ one more person each we would take a large chunk of unemployed off the register and have them contributing to the state. Everything therefore should be done to make conditions better for these businesses and if you ask any SME they will tell you that these kind of contracts especially in high profile retail outlets are crippling them.

If we have to bankrupt 10 companies to save 100 companies and 10 times more jobs then so be it.

rodento

Again i'm lost, I thought the lease issue only affected those who currently are leasing properties and are currently paying their rent/or not...

So retrospective change will only effect a small group of current leasee's but it sets out a message that we are no better than the middle east when it comes to interference in business dealings.

Also a small matter of legality of the legislation would come into play...

Groups of property holders in this category are pension holdings, so its a case of carefull who you burn:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

gandalf

So you concede that changing these leases will not lose us jobs and will in fact make it more attractive for companies to hire more people.

So now you are concerned for pension funds? So again the majority have to protect those involved in those. Personally I would prefer to sort this out so jobs can be created. You appear to want to leave things as they are forcing a large number of companies to cuts jobs or go out of business.

jmayo

rodento wrote: »

I'm not that intelligent and I'm struggling to come to terms with FG's job plans. So I'm asking the FG bridage to explain things to me...

In simple english:eek:

How can you be a party for jobs if you plan to slash 30,000 jobs from the public service...

Because these 30,000 are public sector workers who are paid for by our taxes and get this we are running a huge current budget deficit we need to do something about.
Creating jobs in the public sector is useless.
We need jobs that create exports, substitute for imports or add to the infrastructure to enable private sector job growth is uesless.

rodento wrote: »

Sell of AIB, Bord Gais & the ESB with-out mayor restructuring(Job Losses)

AIB is a zombie bank, there will have to be massive reorganisation and restructuring.
It just costs us money so dump it if we can get any eejit willing to buy it without it costing us in sweetners.

ESB Generation could be sold to get us cash to reinvest in resurecting our economy.
It is not that strategic as claimed last night by mehole martin and union man Gilmore.
In fact they offer us very little in terms of price breaks and they are competing with another semi state in the supply game. :rolleyes:

Gasfields and oilfields would be far more strategic, but ff chose to give those away.
Although AFAIK mehole helped an Irish company get them in Uganda.
Great lad that mehole. :rolleyes:

rodento wrote: »

Generate jobs from water meter installation, when Bord Gias and other semi states have stated they aready that the staff in place to do the jobs(Do you let these go just to create jobs for others)

So Bord Gais have workers available to install watermeters.
First they get into the electricity game, now water, what next ?
Healthcare !!!

rodento wrote: »

Also while your at it, how do you solve the credit crisis by making more loans available to people at higher interest rate...

Ehhh ??
Don't you mean make loans available to constructive enterprise rather than waht we had which was throw loans at people for property ?

thebman wrote: »

The government cannot create jobs, it can only create the conditions for businesses to expand and higher more people.

To do this you must cut expenditure.

What kind of person supports an organisation such as the HSE whose management don't know what many of the staff do and who are claiming they can do with 600-800 HR staff but employ 2,000.

I thought that was nice that Kenny mentioned that.
BTW AFAIK this same HR department hired an outside consultancy to do surveys for them and they spent 200,000 on recruitment even though there is hiring embarko. :rolleyes:

rodento wrote: »

And as for FG and business, their plans to abolish upward only rent reviews is already threatening investment in this country:eek:

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/threat-to-euro500m-of-investment-deals-2551809.html

So much for FG been good for business and jobs

Now I think I remember the username from Accomodation and Property ?

Perhaps that hasn't been noticable in this septic isle, but there is more to investment than buying property.
Most of the MNCs that come into this country are not interested in buying property, they are interested in producing something so that they can avail of our low corpo tax rates.

rodento wrote: »

Rents get cheaper...

Sometimes boards really makes me laugh
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just think about it, Enda plans to change legal contracts signed in good faith... How does that sell Ireland as a place of investment :eek:

As for the owners of the property, what about them... They'll be put into a position where they may no longer be able to afford the loan on the buildings and could easily go bankrupt

Ehh why don't you walk around some of the shopping streets and shoping centres in this country, then go ask the last tenants of the empty shop units why they went out of business ?
Then come back to us with the answers.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The government cannot interfere in contracts that are already written, surely that would be unconstitutional to legislate retroactively.

Surely its the fault of the business owners leasing these properties to have agreed in the first place to such a clause. There was a reason such a clause was put in and it was to protect landlords from a downturn.If tenants didn't like the terms of the lease then they shouldn't have signed. Simple.

Busines owners often didn't have choices during the boom if they wanted to site retail unit somewhere desirable for business.
Yeah lets protect the landlords, the property owners and screw everyone else.
That would be the ff way I suppose.
Somehting needs to be done to pull rents back in line with current market realities.

Count Dooku wrote: »

1) Nobody from overseas will not gamble on Irish property anymore
2) I more like another criticism of FG plan
Punishing landlords will cost us all - Irish Times

Yeah I wonder why the Irish Times would be pro property market ?
Would it have anything to do with the fact they spent 60 million on buying myhome.ie ? :rolleyes:
then of course they did rather well from property advertising.

rodento

gandalf wrote: »

So you concede that changing these leases will not lose us jobs and will in fact make it more attractive for companies to hire more people.

So now you are concerned for pension funds? So again the majority have to protect those involved in those. Personally I would prefer to sort this out so jobs can be created. You appear to want to leave things as they are forcing a large number of companies to cuts jobs or go out of business.

I concede nothing of the sort

The sale of Liffey Valley shopping centre has collapsed in advance of a possible upward-only rent review ban, according to reports.
The transaction agreed last year for F&C Reit Asset Management and Area Property Partners to buy the 475,000sq ft Liffey Valley shopping centre in Dublin from Aviva Investors and Grosvenor for €350m, has fallen through ahead of election manifesto pledges by opposition parties

The policy will cost jobs

gandalf

The policy looking at the bigger picture will save jobs and will help nurture an environment where jobs can be created. Property sales of existing and functioning business premises is NOT GOING TO CREATE JOBS.

Allowing companies renegotiate their rent based on current market forces and allowing them become more competitive creates an environment where they can plan for the future with more certainty and where they can hire more people.

meglome

rodento wrote: »

I concede nothing of the sort

The sale of Liffey Valley shopping centre has collapsed in advance of a possible upward-only rent review ban, according to reports.
The transaction agreed last year for F&C Reit Asset Management and Area Property Partners to buy the 475,000sq ft Liffey Valley shopping centre in Dublin from Aviva Investors and Grosvenor for €350m, has fallen through ahead of election manifesto pledges by opposition parties

The policy will cost jobs

Sorry you've lost me. Liffey Valley makes a profit so how would jobs be lost because the owners can't sell it for the price they want. I hate to be the bringer of bad news but property is only worth what you can sell it for.

Liffey Valley is producing a rent roll of €30 million from 46,400sq m of retail and leisure space. Last October, An Bord Pleanála refused permission for a major extension to the centre including a large food store for Tesco.

From the Irish Times.

So if rents fell retailers would be able to hire more people.

rodento

New owners may well have planned further investment and if they have pulled out of this sale, how many others have pulled out or are thinking of pulling out of investing in Ireland since Enda opened that big mouth of his

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

meglome

rodento wrote: »

New owners may well have planned further investment and if they have pulled out of this sale, how many others have pulled out or are thinking of pulling out of investing in Ireland since Enda opened that big mouth of his

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You're just not making sense. It's blatantly obvious you are a vested interest, how I'll be glad to see the back of the likes of you. You're happy that rents can, and have, steeply risen in the good times but can't be lowered in the bad times. I'm in business myself and our biggest expense after wages is rent.

Investors in Irish property will have to face the real world just like investors in other sectors.

gandalf

rodento wrote: »

New owners may well have planned further investment and if they have pulled out of this sale, how many others have pulled out or are thinking of pulling out of investing in Ireland since Enda opened that big mouth of his

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

What kind of investment. I hope you don't think that they would be investing in more construction of Office or Retail space. We have enough of that free to last years.

So what investment are you talking about? Can you be exact because I think you are spoofing at this stage. There is plenty of clear evidence of the damage that upward only rent reviews has caused the economy of this country.

This is a picture of the sign that was posted on the door of Sin E which closed on the 14th of this month.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=146986&d=1297094363

(just for clarity I took that picture from this thread in the Dublin Forum.)

Count Dooku

rodento wrote: »

I concede nothing of the sort

The sale of Liffey Valley shopping centre has collapsed in advance of a possible upward-only rent review ban, according to reports.
The transaction agreed last year for F&C Reit Asset Management and Area Property Partners to buy the 475,000sq ft Liffey Valley shopping centre in Dublin from Aviva Investors and Grosvenor for €350m, has fallen through ahead of election manifesto pledges by opposition parties

The policy will cost jobs

For whom?
Aviva and Grosvenor already own Liffey Valley
What jobs it will create if rents will increase and F&C Reit Asset Management and Area Property Partners will own Liffey Valley SC?

The Waltzing Consumer

gandalf wrote: »

What kind of investment. I hope you don't think that they would be investing in more construction of Office or Retail space. We have enough of that free to last years.

So what investment are you talking about? Can you be exact because I think you are spoofing at this stage. There is plenty of clear evidence of the damage that upward only rent reviews has caused the economy of this country.

This is a picture of the sign that was posted on the door of Sin E which closed on the 14th of this month.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=146986&d=1297094363

WTF? Sin E closed? the bar? I love that bar!!

Kernel

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'm not the FG brigade but here we go..
1. We're running a €19bn deficit, and a lot of that has to do with Public service. Jobs have to be cut here to save money. The country needs private sector jobs, not public sector jobs.

We need to be careful of false economy here though. A public sector worker is paying a lot of their earnings to the government in taxes and levies. Factor in what the worker is left with, and any disposable income is spent in the economy, further taxation is gained from this and keeps money flowing to small businesses protecting jobs.

Take that away and you may only be saving the government a few quid for the public sector pay, but you also run the risk of putting that worker on the dole, rent allowance etc. costing the exchequer more money overall and damaging the economy and ultimately private sector jobs. The private sector only went after the public sector in order to provide a convenient scapegoat to escape taxation in 2010, and to ultimately to attempt to lower pay for their own employees and maximise their profits.

rodento

At last someone with a bit of sence:D

What are the hidden costs of Enda's plans, all those people who will loss their jobs in the Public Service and the restructuring of the ESB, bord Gais & AIB after they are privatised.

Most of these people will have loans/morgages with banks etc... How will they pay em:eek:

As mentioned above enda already has investors running scared, it all costs in the end and who will pay.

If you take Enda at his word, he plans to create 100,000 jobs, my question is how many jobs will he destroy in the process and who is left holding the bill

gandalf

The PS is over populated with Admin and middle manager types. If FF were any good at governance they would have sorted this when times were good. They didn't they made it worse and hired more to the bloated PS and now we are faced with a situation where we have too many staff of one type and not enough of those that are needed and an embargo on recruitment.

Surely any person with an iota of common sense would concede that amalgamating 9 health boards into one organisation should have resulted in a lower staff count, instead with FF in charge there are now more admin staff working in the HSE! This is the madness that thankfully FG are going to address and I hope to god that they get into Government by themselves because Labour will inhibit this long overdue surgery on our Health Service.

gandalf

Interesting rodento that you have stopped discussing the cancelling of upward only rent reviews. I think you realise now that you are in the wrong.

rodento

Me thinks you should read my last post :rolleyes:

thebman

Kernel wrote: »

We need to be careful of false economy here though. A public sector worker is paying a lot of their earnings to the government in taxes and levies. Factor in what the worker is left with, and any disposable income is spent in the economy, further taxation is gained from this and keeps money flowing to small businesses protecting jobs.

Take that away and you may only be saving the government a few quid for the public sector pay, but you also run the risk of putting that worker on the dole, rent allowance etc. costing the exchequer more money overall and damaging the economy and ultimately private sector jobs. The private sector only went after the public sector in order to provide a convenient scapegoat to escape taxation in 2010, and to ultimately to attempt to lower pay for their own employees and maximise their profits.

but its false economy cos the money is borrowed. It will cost the economy more in trying to pay the interest on the loans to pay that person than you will save by borrowing to keep them employed.

Again what is the real alternative that doesn't harm the economy, there isn't one and cutting expenditure and jobs in public sector will be less harmful to the economy especially in the long run.

gandalf

rodento wrote: »

Me thinks you should read my last post :rolleyes:

I did and it is the exact same rubbish you have been posting already. No specifics on what these so called investors would invest in. What exactly do you believe they will invest in to create jobs? Buying already built and functioning buildings does not create jobs.

On the other hand I showed you a recent example of a pub forced out of business because of upward only rent reviews. I am sure with very little effort people can post further examples.

So during the last couple of years this current government could have done an awful lot to help rescue a lot of jobs. If they had taken the bull by the horns and sorted this out then how many of the 450,000+ unemployed could have held onto their jobs. How many people have lost their jobs because of FF's incompetence or even worse because they protected their vested interests and those of their supporters.

rodento

I'm sure that SIN E could have moved to a cheaper alterantive, if the business was viable.

If sure you realise that cheap alcohol from supermarkets and a fall in disposable income had a major role with SIN E closing.

I also sure you realise that when someone invests in a shopping centre they will have major plans for it and the people who sell it should also have cash to invest elsewhere;)

gandalf

rodento wrote: »

I'm sure that SIN E could have moved to a cheaper alterantive, if the business was viable.

If sure you realise that cheap alcohol from supermarkets and a fall in disposable income had a major role with SIN E closing.

Yes but in that kind of business a location that they have built up is important and the costs to move their business is not unsubstantial. So glibly saying they could move is not really an option. In reality they would have to build up their business again and if they are in a distressed state then that is not a working option.

Yes there are other pressure points on the business other than rent but when there is one that is artificially sustained like upward only rent reviews when competitors setting up new businesses in the same area who are being charge rent at half the rate you are then there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

I also sure you realise that when someone invests in a shopping centre they will have major plans for it and the people who sell it should also have cash to invest elsewhere;)

Do you know this for a fact or are you just assuming this.

What guarantee do you have that the people who sell these properties are not going to just invest that money in something other than property elsewhere no matter what happens with rent review legislation here? Absolutely none!

Again I see nothing here that will generate any substantial number of jobs.

Kernel

thebman wrote: »

but its false economy cos the money is borrowed. It will cost the economy more in trying to pay the interest on the loans to pay that person than you will save by borrowing to keep them employed.

Again what is the real alternative that doesn't harm the economy, there isn't one and cutting expenditure and jobs in public sector will be less harmful to the economy especially in the long run.

Maybe so, I'd like to see a proper analysis and real breakdown before making up my mind on the issue bman. Bearing in mind that we may all suffer a degradation in already poor public services. Reform would be more productive I would think. The slash and burn race to the bottom wont help the economy, I'm more of a proponent of the Keynesian (sp?) economic approach as it just seems to make more sense in times of recession. Unfortunately, our options are limited in this regard since we cannot issue our own currency.

Oh, and as I've always said, social welfare is the elephant in the room.

Count Dooku

rodento wrote: »

As mentioned above enda already has investors running scared, it all costs in the end and who will pay.

Do you mean that new investors will not pay for faults of previous investors?
I don't see how it will bad for country if pyramid will be broken

rodento

I would have never thought anyone would take Enda seriously, with all his promises and talk of 5 point plans, who would have thought enda mouthing off would lead to such a serious investment loss of 350,000,000

Someone should gag him quick

Count Dooku

rodento wrote: »

I would have never thought anyone would take Enda seriously

only if you don't have any alternative
unfortunately there is not much choice between idiots and imbeciles

gandalf

rodento wrote: »

I would have never thought anyone would take Enda seriously, with all his promises and talk of 5 point plans, who would have thought enda mouthing off would lead to such a serious investment loss of 350,000,000

Someone should gag him quick

Investment loss to whom though? Investment loss to where? Again no specifics just speculation and assumptions.

It sounds like all this is sour grapes from Grosvenor Estates, controlled by the Duke of Westminster, and Aviva because they didn't get their payday. The centre is already unattractive because An Bord Pleanála refused permission for a major extension to the centre including a large food store for Tesco. So you could say they blocked more jobs as well

rodento

Lets just see some of the 5 point plan....

Its all about protecting jobs and nothing about making tens of thousands redundant...

WHERE IS THE DETAIL

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

1: Jobs – protecting and creating jobs
Job losses are destroying families and crippling the economy. A new government must protect existing jobs and create new jobs as we close the budget gap and give people back their dignity. To realistically plan for job creation in the future, Fine Gael will invest in new energy, water and telecoms infrastructure and generate thousands of new jobs.
Over the next four years, Fine Gael’s Growth and Jobs Strategy will add on average 25,000 jobs each year.
We intend to cut employers’ PRSI and change the welfare system to encourage job creation. We will abolish the airport departure tax. And we will invest an extra €7bn over the next four years to build essential new infrastructure in broadband, green energy and water networks.
2: Fixing the deficit – jobs protected by no income tax increases and cutting waste
Fine Gael will fix Ireland’s budget deficit by prioritising cutting waste over raising tax. This way jobs are protected while discretionary public spending is reduced. Cutting waste will form the biggest portion of the fix and income tax will not be increased.
Unlike the other parties, Fine Gael will take on the big vested interests that have contributed to the current crisis – the bankers, the bondholders, the developers and the unions. And we will aggressively cut the waste in our public service to keep all taxes as low as possible.


4: Smaller, Better Government – Services you need are prioritised over back-room waste
Our public sector is too large, too inefficient and too expensive. Fine Gael will improve the quality of public services by prioritising frontline services- that’s teachers, health professionals Gardaí, Local Authority services etc, and will streamline systems, eliminate red tape and waste and managers will be accountable.
The outdated and inefficient annual budget system will be replaced with an open and transparent system to manage the nation’s finances.
Fine Gael’s Public Sector Strategy will reduce the cost of the Public Sector by 10% over the next four years. This will save €5bn by eliminating waste and abolishing 145 Quango’s. We estimate 30,000 administrative and bureaucratic positions can be eliminated by natural wastage, voluntary redundancy and relocation to create a better, more efficient and more customer focused public service

To qoute Gandalf

Again I see nothing here that will generate any substantial number of jobs