General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But basically everyone buying or renting out properties are vultures, very few are in it not to make money.
Our economy is Dublin driven, trying to get a better spread of work to outside the capital would be a bigger help imo.
This measure won't open up the housing or rental market, it will stifle it I think.

And BTW, FF jumping on this bandwagon has convinced me more that its the wrong thing to do.

Not at all. People looking to invest and people looking for a roof are completely different things.
Looking to become a land lord is fine, making it attractive for companies to distort and make the market queered against the individual tax payer be they a landlord or renter/buyer for themselves is something else.

Yeah, I can't see the rent freeze helping any individual already struggling. It will eat into the potential profits of those already making a killing, which I doubt will make much of any difference.

Bishop of hope

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yeah, I can't see the rent freeze helping any individual already struggling. It will eat into the potential profits of those already making a killing, which I doubt will make much of any difference.

OK, that's OK.
Basically this won't help anyone, but it's just a populist shout out prior to an election, soapboxing, you just admitted that yourself.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

OK, that's OK.
Basically this won't help anyone, but it's just a populist shout out prior to an election, soapboxing, you just admitted that yourself.

Yes, likely. Never championed it. Some might genuinely believe in it, but I can't see how.

beggars_bush

Basically the big issue is the state are not building houses or apartments.

We need to get people on social housing out of rented private dwellings and into properties owned by the state.

That will free up a huge amount of housing stock for rental in private sector

James Brown

beggars_bush wrote: »

Basically the big issue is the state are not building houses or apartments.

We need to get people on social housing out of rented private dwellings and into properties owned by the state.

That will free up a huge amount of housing stock for rental in private sector

Cool the private market too.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Cool the private market too.

We have now got to the stage where the way to solve the housing problem is to cool the market i.e stop the building of houses.

I am baffled.

beggars_bush

blanch152 wrote: »

We have now got to the stage where the way to solve the housing problem is to cool the market i.e stop the building of houses.

I am baffled.

Not what he said

blanch152

beggars_bush wrote: »

Not what he said

He said "cool the private market", which to me means stop the building of houses by developers. Is there an alternative interpretation?

An explanation as to how this would help those first-time buyers currently renting but wishing to buy would be welcome.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

He said "cool the private market", which to me means stop the building of houses by developers. Is there an alternative interpretation?

An explanation as to how this would help those first-time buyers currently renting but wishing to buy would be welcome.

You are indeed 'baffled'.
It's a waste of time to constantly, constantly mind, willfully misinterpret the comments of others and then claim to become 'baffled'.

What I meant was, quite clearly, that once we have enough social housing builds to meet the crisis, which will have the effect of cooling the private market, to an affordable level, we can look at building less social housing.

It's a fact that buying social housing is more expensive than building. Yet we continue to buy and lease.

beggars_bush

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are indeed 'baffled'.
It's a waste of time to constantly, constantly mind, willfully misinterpret the comments of others and then claim to become 'baffled'.

What I meant was, quite clearly, that once we have enough social housing builds to meet the crisis, which will have the effect of cooling the private market, to an affordable level, we can look at building less social housing.

It's a fact that buying social housing is more expensive than building. Yet we continue to buy and lease.

builders love a FG government
social houses being bought off the plans

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are indeed 'baffled'.
It's a waste of time to constantly, constantly mind, willfully misinterpret the comments of others and then claim to become 'baffled'.

What I meant was, quite clearly, that once we have enough social housing builds to meet the crisis, which will have the effect of cooling the private market, to an affordable level, we can look at building less social housing.

It's a fact that buying social housing is more expensive than building. Yet we continue to buy and lease.

It is not a fact that buying social housing is more expensive than building, that is a fallacy, you have been called out on it many times.

tobsey

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's a fact that buying social housing is more expensive than building. Yet we continue to buy and lease.

That is not a fact, you've stated it multiple times but not offerred any evidence.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not a fact that buying social housing is more expensive than building, that is a fallacy, you have been called out on it many times.

tobsey wrote: »

That is not a fact, you've stated it multiple times but not offerred any evidence.

Revealed: State spends €1.2bn on housing even though building is cheaper

The trawl shows the average price paid for a social housing unit was €158,200 nationally, while this rises to €223,951 in Dublin. The cost of building a new home in Dublin during the same period would have been €199,000, according to Department of Housing figures.

In Dublin, around 1,100 homes could have been built for the amount it cost the State to buy 974 properties, which could have been bought instead by people hoping to own their first home.

Last year, a mere 838 homes were built by local authorities despite the worsening housing crisis.

Figures from the Central Statistics Office show there were more than 378,000 housing transactions between January 2011 and the end of February this year.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-state-spends-1-2bn-on-housing-even-though-building-is-cheaper-38125430.html

If you both wish to go on and play silly beggars citing the cost of one solo build as compared to the private rent of one home, I've no interest in such diversionary childishness.

Previously we only ever bought privately or rented privately in an emergency as a stop gap. Single builds have never taken place in any scenario AFAIK.

Colonel Claptrap

Any thoughts on when an election will be called?

It's time to put this lame duck government to bed I think.

Hoping for a broad coalition to be returned. I even asked Santa.

Confidence and supply was an interesting experiment but ultimately gave us a government with 1 arm tied behind it's back.

Kudos to the opposition for not making a political football of Brexit. They showed maturity and restraint for the most part.

It's time for a new government.

James Brown

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Any thoughts on when an election will be called?

It's time to put this lame duck government to bed I think.

Hoping for a broad coalition to be returned. I even asked Santa.

Confidence and supply was an interesting experiment but ultimately gave us a government with 1 arm tied behind it's back.

Kudos to the opposition for not making a political football of Brexit. They showed maturity and restraint for the most part.

It's time for a new government.

I've a feeling it'll be more of the same with FF taking the top bunk.

Bishop of hope

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Any thoughts on when an election will be called?

It's time to put this lame duck government to bed I think.

Hoping for a broad coalition to be returned. I even asked Santa.

Confidence and supply was an interesting experiment but ultimately gave us a government with 1 arm tied behind it's back.

Kudos to the opposition for not making a political football of Brexit. They showed maturity and restraint for the most part.

It's time for a new government.

Pretty much time to get back to concentrating on our internal needs, brexit excuse for everything being on hold should now be behind us.
Looks like an early new year election is on the agenda, FG will use brexit negotiations success as their main achievement and want to do so while it's still in the news.
Not much else they can brag about.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-rallies-the-troops-as-fine-gael-get-ready-for-snap-poll-in-wake-of-uk-election-38784368.html

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you both wish to go on and play silly beggars citing the cost of one solo build as compared to the private rent of one home, I've no interest in such diversionary childishness.

Previously we only ever bought privately or rented privately in an emergency as a stop gap. Single builds have never taken place in any scenario AFAIK.

That refers to the costs of building a house. It doesn’t factor in all of the other costs:

Procurement Costs
Developer Profit
Cost of buying land or opportunity cost of land used
Civil service administrative costs

Etc. Etc.

A naive simplistic news article.

Bishop of hope

This current Govt and Dail set up has made a mockery of our political system. How long has this fobbing in to get expenses when absent and voting for others been going on.
It has outlived its usefulness now and its time to move on and let the people have a go at deciding whom best they think to try and salvage some semblance of respect for our democracy.
It's a tough one, flagrant violations from our current crew and an absence of any credible alternatives.
Bishop of hope sees fcek all hope of real governance without some sort of shenanigans behind the scenes, it's what they do apparently.
Anyway I'm with MM on this one!

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/step-in-and-give-some-certainty-martin-demands-election-date-in-letter-to-varadkar-38785992.html

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

That refers to the costs of building a house. It doesn’t factor in all of the other costs:

Procurement Costs
Developer Profit
Cost of buying land or opportunity cost of land used
Civil service administrative costs

Etc. Etc.

A naive simplistic news article.

Factual.
Do you seriously suggest the cost of a house doesn't include...the cost of the house? Just the bricks, sans haulage fee? Give over.

You are desperate to defend FG policy that has been shown to be flawed and more costly than other options. Unless of course you've an opinion on how to tackle it?

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

This current Govt and Dail set up has made a mockery of our political system. How long has this fobbing in to get expenses when absent and voting for others been going on.
It has outlived its usefulness now and its time to move on and let the people have a go at deciding whom best they think to try and salvage some semblance of respect for our democracy.
It's a tough one, flagrant violations from our current crew and an absence of any credible alternatives.
Bishop of hope sees fcek all hope of real governance without some sort of shenanigans behind the scenes, it's what they do apparently.
Anyway I'm with MM on this one!

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/step-in-and-give-some-certainty-martin-demands-election-date-in-letter-to-varadkar-38785992.html

I think it's an insight to how they all are. It's like a little bubble with it's own 'ah sure..' attitude. If they can't or won't vote themselves, which IMO is their key reason for being politicians, they have no business being there. Just turning up or having someone clock you in so you get paid and expenses should have you automatically thrown out IMO.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Factual.
Do you seriously suggest the cost of a house doesn't include...the cost of the house? Just the bricks, sans haulage fee? Give over.

You are desperate to defend FG policy that has been shown to be flawed and more costly than other options. Unless of course you've an opinion on how to tackle it?

Are you seriously suggesting that the cost of a house only includes the cost of the bricks plus labour, because that's what the newspaper article did?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that the cost of a house only includes the cost of the bricks plus labour, because that's what the newspaper article did?

To be clear, you are answering my question by asking me the question. Just so we are clear.

You are possibly defending buying, leasing, renting over building. You have yet to offer an opinion so I say 'possibly'.

Have you any alternatives or are you cool with the state spending on leases and buying even though building is a better deal for the tax payer and leaves us with more housing stock? What is it you think the tax payer benefits from this unsustainable policy of FG's?
The state using tax payer money is in direct competition with any potential home buyer.
If you have nothing to offer by way of your own opinion, leave it there we are going in circles.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

To be clear, you are answering my question by asking me the question. Just so we are clear.

You are possibly defending buying, leasing, renting over building. You have yet to offer an opinion so I say 'possibly'.

Have you any alternatives or are you cool with the state spending on leases and buying even though building is a better deal for the tax payer and leaves us with more housing stock? What is it you think the tax payer benefits from this unsustainable policy of FG's?
The state using tax payer money is in direct competition with any potential home buyer.
If you have nothing to offer by way of your own opinion, leave it there we are going in circles.

As with everything, there is no one correct solution or even just one solution.

The public sector is inefficient at doing some things that the private sector does well - procurement of development is one, as we have seen with the Children's Hospital. As a result, it is not necessarily the case that in every situation, it is cheaper to build rather than buy, neither is it always cheaper to build rather than lease, especially if the demand is only temporary. Generally, a mix of solutions, as we are seeing at present is the best solution.

Particular challenges present themselves with building social housing. The abolition of household rates together with the continuing failure to actually collect rents not to mention the current public debt mean that we just cannot finance and build the requisite number of social houses needed. Leasing offers an option in those circumstances.

You speak as if the government is only pursuing a policy of leasing and buying. Like so much of your posts, that is simply untrue. There is building by local authorities, there is building by housing bodies, there is building by the private sector, there is building in co-operation between the local authorities and the private sector. All are addressing the housing issue.

Finally, saying that "the state using tax payer money is in direct competition with any potential home buyer" and then asking the state to use tax payer money to pay developers to build social housing which is also in direct competition with any potential home buyer is a baffling proposal.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

As with everything, there is no one correct solution or even just one solution.

The public sector is inefficient at doing some things that the private sector does well - procurement of development is one, as we have seen with the Children's Hospital. As a result, it is not necessarily the case that in every situation, it is cheaper to build rather than buy, neither is it always cheaper to build rather than lease, especially if the demand is only temporary. Generally, a mix of solutions, as we are seeing at present is the best solution.

Particular challenges present themselves with building social housing. The abolition of household rates together with the continuing failure to actually collect rents not to mention the current public debt mean that we just cannot finance and build the requisite number of social houses needed. Leasing offers an option in those circumstances.

You speak as if the government is only pursuing a policy of leasing and buying. Like so much of your posts, that is simply untrue. There is building by local authorities, there is building by housing bodies, there is building by the private sector, there is building in co-operation between the local authorities and the private sector. All are addressing the housing issue.

Finally, saying that "the state using tax payer money is in direct competition with any potential home buyer" and then asking the state to use tax payer money to pay developers to build social housing which is also in direct competition with any potential home buyer is a baffling proposal.

But they procure housing for social tenants by leasing and purchasing. By your argument we might get a better rate there too. It's a moot point because it's the same organisations and people doing it so it's no more an argument against or for one over the other.
In what universe is this demand temporary? Unless you know the market will bottom out soon?

We are buying and leasing houses to house the same people. Again the issue of rent arrears is neither an argument for or against either option, (building/buying/leasing). We will have social housing tenants in all formats.
Leasing is great as a stop gap short term option but It's not short term and the quantities required are not a handful here and there.

Most of my posts are untrue? That's not very nice.
Every one of my posts are my opinions based on news items I've read. I can be mistaken on the bases of an opinion but I am not pretending to have particular opinions.
I have spoke on all you mention. Which brings us back to my view, they are not building enough social housing. We should be making that a priority. The PPP is a bad deal often giving away public land for a percentage of social housing. That's how I speak. I could hardly criticise what they do if I never mentioned it.

No. If a developer builds a new estate and puts it on the market and the state/LA buys them up, that's direct competition with home buyers.
If the state/LA pay a developer to build social housing, they will not be on the market at all. Pretty straight forward.

Do you support leasing and buying over building?

Jinglejangle69

Bishop of hope wrote: »

This current Govt and Dail set up has made a mockery of our political system. How long has this fobbing in to get expenses when absent and voting for others been going on.
It has outlived its usefulness now and its time to move on and let the people have a go at deciding whom best they think to try and salvage some semblance of respect for our democracy.
It's a tough one, flagrant violations from our current crew and an absence of any credible alternatives.
Bishop of hope sees fcek all hope of real governance without some sort of shenanigans behind the scenes, it's what they do apparently.
Anyway I'm with MM on this one!

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/step-in-and-give-some-certainty-martin-demands-election-date-in-letter-to-varadkar-38785992.html

Leo Varadkar asked FF 18 months ago for a May 2020 and got no answer!!

Now FF pull a stunt asking for April 2020!!

They could pull the plug any minute.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

But they procure housing for social tenants by leasing and purchasing. By your argument we might get a better rate there too. It's a moot point because it's the same organisations and people doing it so it's no more an argument against or for one over the other.
In what universe is this demand temporary? Unless you know the market will bottom out soon?

We are buying and leasing houses to house the same people. Again the issue of rent arrears is neither an argument for or against either option, (building/buying/leasing). We will have social housing tenants in all formats.
Leasing is great as a stop gap short term option but It's not short term and the quantities required are not a handful here and there.

Most of my posts are untrue? That's not very nice.
Every one of my posts are my opinions based on news items I've read. I can be mistaken on the bases of an opinion but I am not pretending to have particular opinions.
I have spoke on all you mention. Which brings us back to my view, they are not building enough social housing. We should be making that a priority. The PPP is a bad deal often giving away public land for a percentage of social housing. That's how I speak. I could hardly criticise what they do if I never mentioned it.

No. If a developer builds a new estate and puts it on the market and the state/LA buys them up, that's direct competition with home buyers.
If the state/LA pay a developer to build social housing, they will not be on the market at all. Pretty straight forward.

Do you support leasing and buying over building?

If the choice is not building because there isn't enough money, then the PPP is a good deal, don't you agree?

tayto lover

Something I learned in 2008 - never vote FF again.
I am learning similar about other parties for the past few years.

I’m running out of options.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

If the choice is not building because there isn't enough money, then the PPP is a good deal, don't you agree?

No. I don't believe there isn't enough money. And if there wasn't it's cheaper to build than buy so in every scenario PPP is the lesser option. If we've money for 25 year leases and 300,000 (typo) 3,000 a month apartments and a skys the limit NCH, we can get the money.

To be clear, you answered another direct question with a question.

I have never dodged a direct question and you have accused me of doing so with 'as usual' and the like.
I do not know your opinion on housing policy. You evade and attack.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. I don't believe there isn't enough money. And if there wasn't it's cheaper to build than buy so in every scenario PPP is the lesser option. If we've money for 25 year leases and 300,000 apartments and a skys the limit NCH, we can get the money.

To be clear, you answered another direct question with a question.

I have never dodged a direct question and you have accused me of doing so with 'as usual' and the like.
I do not know your opinion on housing policy. You evade and attack.

My opinion has been clear from the start and repeated just a few posts ago - as with everything, there is no one correct solution or even just one solution.

The simplistic nature of your proposals leave them open to valid critical analysis. It has already been shown that there are effects of the NCH overspend. Spending on schools will be flat in 2020 being one example. If money has to be found instead of PPPs, it won't be found by taxing unicorns and rainbows, real measures that affect people will be required.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

My opinion has been clear from the start and repeated just a few posts ago - as with everything, there is no one correct solution or even just one solution.

The simplistic nature of your proposals leave them open to valid critical analysis. It has already been shown that there are effects of the NCH overspend. Spending on schools will be flat in 2020 being one example. If money has to be found instead of PPPs, it won't be found by taxing unicorns and rainbows, real measures that affect people will be required.

So leasing and buying over building is more complicated and somehow legitimised? I have at great pains endeavoured to make it as simple as possible.

You are copping out here. All you are saying is if we spend on one thing we need spend less on another. That's a pointless non argument. Maybe use the Lease, buy, rent money to build? We've been here before. I once showed all the FG plan housing spends and suggested they be moved towards building. This was some time ago. This is the part where you say something like 'what about the people who need housing now?' etc. It's not an either or, we could go your mixed approach, but heavy on the building.