Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

McMurphy

MayoSalmon wrote: »

You may debate the differing definitions of homelessness all you want but I would imagine not many countries would consider putting people up in hotels as meeting the definition of homeless the way we do.

Putting someone in a hotel means they're no longer homeless?

Not sure about that tbh. My definition would differ.

I reckon someone is no longer homeless when they've a home, maybe Alan Partridge might disagree with me on this one, but a hotel room isn't a home.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

A big problem with the homeless crises is the number of vested interests, ie charities. How many of them are paying their "Volunteers". This money could be better spent - on the Homeless.
Then you have the likes of Erica Fleming, who refused to leave hotel accommodation until she got what she wanted.
One lady made a very good point about the rough sleepers knowing where to go to get food at night. Food often delivered by unregistered and unchecked people.
Homelessness is an industry in itself. It will always be with us. Screaming for more homes to be built is futile, as there is a process to go through. One that involves people willing to allow developments in their areas.
Many, if not all rough sleepers don't want to have a roof over their heads. Not if it means taking responsibility for themselves by refraining from drinking or taking drugs.

When the Taoiseach of the country belongs to the 'NIMBY' gang, these social housing programmes might be further away than ever so.

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar's reported opposition to high-rise buildings in his own constituency.

Idbatterim

Rick Shaw wrote: »

When the Taoiseach of the country belongs to the 'NIMBY' gang, these social housing programmes might be further away than ever so.

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar's reported opposition to high-rise buildings in his own constituency.

against 4 floors in his own constituency, I am sure he's all for 40 floors in the docklands though, given how "liberal and progressive" he is :rolleyes:

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

A big problem with the homeless crises is the number of vested interests, ie charities. How many of them are paying their "Volunteers". This money could be better spent - on the Homeless.
Then you have the likes of Erica Fleming, who refused to leave hotel accommodation until she got what she wanted.
One lady made a very good point about the rough sleepers knowing where to go to get food at night. Food often delivered by unregistered and unchecked people.
Homelessness is an industry in itself. It will always be with us. Screaming for more homes to be built is futile, as there is a process to go through. One that involves people willing to allow developments in their areas.
Many, if not all rough sleepers don't want to have a roof over their heads. Not if it means taking responsibility for themselves by refraining from drinking or taking drugs.

Grand, or;

A big problem with the homeless crises is the number of vested interests, ie Fine Gael. How many of them are paying their "landlords/Hotels/B&B's". This money could be better spent - on the public by helping to provide affordable accommodation owned by the state.
Then you have the likes of Jack Watson, who died sleeping outside a shop.
Homelessness is an industry in itself. It will always be with us. Screaming for more homes to be built is futile, as there is money to be made by landlords/hotels and B&B's keeping things as is.


***

This idea that the homeless are a subspecies within our society is outdated and very lord of the manor. Like everyone, some had bad luck, some are alcoholics, some are junkies. This takes nothing away from the situation. The fact that the numbers change should prove to you that people become homeless they don't leave the womb for the street, (some probably do actually). The fact that the numbers rise in tandem with the ongoing policies of Fine Gael should also be telling you something. What the state is doing is presiding over the problem as it gets worse. This isn't a natural state for so many people.
Ah sure we'll always have homeless, what socks has Leo on today?

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It absolutely does. McVerry explained the fact that Varadkar used figures derived from a different measuring method to our own.
What do you read as up for debate in that factual reality?



It's a case of flinging the government's muck back at it.
There is a lot of value in calling out fudged figures on a national crisis, used to downplay a national crisis by the political leader of the country. Most certainly. If some are content to let false narratives be spun to deflect and downplay real serious issues, that's sad and has us with the caliber of politician we have.

Sorry there boss I missed your nom for govt

We all know you have one let's hear it

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry there boss I missed your nom for govt

We all know you have one let's hear it

This is a classic deflection tactic.

When a crisis is being discussed, wheel out the "name a better alternative govt" line.

How's about just demanding better from the govt already there?

Did I read somewhere that the state is currently throwing €2m a week to the hotel/b&b and private landlords to try and solve the problem? I'm no quantity surveyor, but that's surely better put towards constructing social housing, than enriching private individuals, No?

Trying to downplay and normailse a homeless epidemic is a new low for the state.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry there boss I missed your nom for govt

We all know you have one let's hear it

Social housing rather than dead money on hotels/B&B's/rent subsidies, buying from the market etc. I don't care which government, preferably the current.

What's yours?

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Grand, or;

A big problem with the homeless crises is the number of vested interests, ie Fine Gael. How many of them are paying their "landlords/Hotels/B&B's". This money could be better spent - on the public by helping to provide affordable accommodation owned by the state.
Then you have the likes of Jack Watson, who died sleeping outside a shop.
Homelessness is an industry in itself. It will always be with us. Screaming for more homes to be built is futile, as there is money to be made by landlords/hotels and B&B's keeping things as is.

Do you honestly think having a home would have made any difference to Jack Watson? His issues were very complex and building or buying a house for him wouldn't have been the solution.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you honestly think having a home would have made any difference to Jack Watson? His issues were very complex and building or buying a house for him wouldn't have been the solution.

Deleted User wrote: »

...
Then you have the likes of Erica Fleming, who refused to leave hotel accommodation until she got what she wanted.

Agreed, taking one example from a commonly agreed, very complex issue, just because it suits your narrative is a little disingenuous. Sorry.

johnnyskeleton

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Agreed, taking one example from a commonly agreed, very complex issue, just because it suits your narrative is a little disingenuous. Sorry.

Mod note:

This is not the place for point scoring or oneupmanship.

Wheeliebin30

Have to laugh at the suggestions that landlords are fgs pals or some other rabble.

FG have basically made thousands of landlords actually sell up because of all the new rules.

Landlords are pissed at them.

Wanderer78

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Have to laugh at the suggestions that landlords are fgs pals or some other rabble.

FG have basically made thousands of landlords actually sell up because of all the new rules.

Landlords are pissed at them.

rarely agree with you but i will on this one, its an absolute mess, and its not gonna improve

end of the road

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Have to laugh at the suggestions that landlords are fgs pals or some other rabble.

FG have basically made thousands of landlords actually sell up because of all the new rules.

Landlords are pissed at them.

if one wishes to rent out their property they must conform to a high standard and abide by the rules. if they don't wish to do any of that then they don't get to rent their property.
the private rental market and the hotel and hostel market has benefeted hugely from tax payer support in the form of subsidies to house social tenants.

Consonata

FreudianSlippers wrote:

People may dislike the fact that homelessness exists, but when viewed comparatively we're no worse than any other nations. Nobody on the "society" side seems to be aware of the fact that building massive amounts of social housing isn't going to solve homelessness in the slightest.

Its disingenous to compare statistics on homeless as different countries have hugely varied definitions on what it is to be homeless.

Take Japan for example. Statistically, it is stated by their government that they have low levels of homelessness, however many in japan do not own a home and instead book into internet Cafes and hostels for near nothing and aren't recognised on the homelessness figures.

Varadker knew what he was saying was misleading, and fundamentally dishonest. It was just fodder for his base. Nothing more.

SEPT 23 1989

This new homelessness narrative coming from the government spin doctors is a nasty turn of events and I am far from left wing

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Have to laugh at the suggestions that landlords are fgs pals or some other rabble.

You'd have to wonder where people get such crazy ideas to be honest.

One in four TDs is a landlord, the latest Dail register of interests has revealed. Of 158 deputies, 42 (26.5%) have declared themselves as landlords, with Fine Gael having the highest proportion — 18 of its 50 TDs (36%) have an income from renting out property or land.

One-third of Fianna Fail’s 45 TDs are landlords, including Stephen Donnelly, the party’s newest recruit. Only two of Sinn Fein’s 23 TDs have that status, while former environment minister Alan Kelly is the only one of seven Labour TDs to register as such.

source

Consonata

Deleted User wrote:

Not if it means taking responsibility for themselves by refraining from drinking or taking drugs.

Some of these people cannot help themselves, due to a variety of social circumstances such as mental health, addiction etc.

Does the state not have a duty of care to these people?

MayoSalmon

Consonata wrote:

Does the state not have a duty of care to these people?

No they don't. Why would they?! The role of government is to ensure the individual rights of its citizens as written into the constitution.

It's up to society as a whole to look after it's citizen's that may not be as well of as some. We can do that how we have been doing that for years through private and voluntary charity.

It is not the role of the state to provide that.

Consonata

Consonata wrote: »

Some of these people cannot help themselves, due to a variety of social circumstances such as mental health, addiction etc.

Does the state not have a duty of care to these people?

I agree that they are victims of circumstance but the Government cannot be blamed totally. One now deceased homeless person went through a couple of properties before dying on the street. He’d gotten help from all quarters but it was all in vain. One can lead a horse to water....

end of the road

MayoSalmon wrote: »

No they don't. Why would they?! The role of government is to ensure the individual rights of its citizens as written into the constitution.

It's up to society as a whole to look after it's citizen's that may not be as well of as some. We can do that how we have been doing that for years through private and voluntary charity.

It is not the role of the state to provide that.

it is the job of the state to provide that. private and voluntary charity is not enough

markodaly

The issue of housing will be arguably the biggest domestic issue to beset the nation for the next few years. Supply is the biggest issue here. Also, though is planning. Irish people want lots of houses but don't want high rise, so what do we do?

James Brown

Varadkar's attitude about those worse off is unbecoming of a national leader.
With Welfare, we saw him concentrate on fraud, with homelessness we see him use bad data to downplay the crisis.
Then we have apologists within his own party and in daily life vetting and judging people like they may or may not be less worthy of concern based on their bad luck or illness. It's all very despicable.
Yes we'll always have a homeless element, but presiding over many years as it gets worse, likely heavily linked to your own policies, to come along and down play it with spin, is a disgrace. Based on the government policy of using tax payer money for hostels/hotels/B&B's and rent subsidies as a quick costly fix, shows an inability or unwillingness to manage the states finances in that regard.
Varadkar and all levels of government have a duty not to add to or dismiss the problem.

Wheeliebin30

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Varadkar's attitude about those worse off is unbecoming of a national leader.
With Welfare, we saw him concentrate on fraud, with homelessness we see him use bad data to downplay the crisis.
Then we have apologists within his own party and in daily life vetting and judging people like they may or may not be less worthy of concern based on their bad luck or illness. It's all very despicable.
Yes we'll always have a homeless element, but presiding over many years as it gets worse, likely heavily linked to your own policies, to come along and down play it with spin, is a disgrace. Based on the government policy of using tax payer money for hostels/hotels/B&B's and rent subsidies as a quick costly fix, shows an inability or unwillingness to manage the states finances in that regard.
Varadkar and all levels of government have a duty not to add to or dismiss the problem.

For the tenth time, I think we get your point.

ZeroThreat

Consonata wrote: »

Some of these people cannot help themselves, due to a variety of social circumstances such as mental health, addiction etc.

Does the state not have a duty of care to these people?

If we say it does, then the usual neo liberal suspects start whinging about the 'nanny state'.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Varadkar's attitude about those worse off is unbecoming of a national leader.
With Welfare, we saw him concentrate on fraud, with homelessness we see him use bad data to downplay the crisis.
Then we have apologists within his own party and in daily life vetting and judging people like they may or may not be less worthy of concern based on their bad luck or illness. It's all very despicable.
Yes we'll always have a homeless element, but presiding over many years as it gets worse, likely heavily linked to your own policies, to come along and down play it with spin, is a disgrace. Based on the government policy of using tax payer money for hostels/hotels/B&B's and rent subsidies as a quick costly fix, shows an inability or unwillingness to manage the states finances in that regard.
Varadkar and all levels of government have a duty not to add to or dismiss the problem.

Would you rather they were left to themselves and not housed in B & Bs, hotels and the new hubs? The Government are doing something. They are taking people off the streets if they want. What type of home should be provided for a homeless person? A one, two or three bedroom house? An apartment? Where are these to be built? In the back end of beyond? In O’Connell Street?

Consonata

MayoSalmon wrote:

No they don't. Why would they?! The role of government is to ensure the individual rights of its citizens as written into the constitution.

So why bother build roads, hospitals, schools, improving the quality of life in the state?

Is the governments exclusive function to police the individual rights of people, and aside from that theyre on their own.

BillyBobBS

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

This new homelessness narrative coming from the government spin doctors is a nasty turn of events and I am far from left wing

Real bang of the master race off FG at the moment tbh.

MayoSalmon

Consonata wrote:

So why bother build roads, hospitals, schools, improving the quality of life in the state?

Can all be provided by private enterprise but to be honest not interesting in getting into that debate.

Merely responding to the point that many people look to the government to solve a myriad of issues and problem that they are not responsible for.

The government cannot and do not have any ability to create wealth, they merely take the peoples wealth sometimes 50% of it and spend it as they see fit.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you rather they were left to themselves and not housed in B & Bs, hotels and the new hubs? The Government are doing something. They are taking people off the streets if they want. What type of home should be provided for a homeless person? A one, two or three bedroom house? An apartment? Where are these to be built? In the back end of beyond? In O’Connell Street?

it is not sustainible or cost effective to house people in hotels, b&bs or hostels, or rely on the private rental market to meet all accommodation needs. i'm aware it's not as simple as throw up houses but we have to make a start. families are living in 1 room of a hotel or b&b, that is not justifiable in modern ireland, we were supposed to have eradicated that issue with the tenaments. there is also a potential for an issue in terms of public health for those living in those hotels.

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Can all be provided by private enterprise but to be honest not interesting in getting into that debate.

anything can be provided by private enterprise. however, it won't be as it's not profitible, without an absolutely ridiculous cost to the user. so yes, it's not worth getting into a debate for as there is nothing to debate. the government have to provide services to keep the services availible to all to insure the health and wellbeing of the nation, which in turn means a healthy and fit nation, who can contribute.

MayoSalmon

end of the road wrote:

anything can be provided by private enterprise. however, it won't be as it's not profitible, without an absolutely ridiculous cost to the user

Look your just trolling now frankly. If states can provide services cheaper wonder why Bus Eireann, Irish Rail and Aer Lingus struggled so badly under there management. Wonder why RTE is looking for more license money why the water system is crumbling, the list goes on..theres a common denominator there but sure theres no debate to be had.