Election called for Saturday 8 February

FrancieBrady

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1219538283367190529?s=20

Has this been posted already? Can’t get over the sheer arrogance of that internal “memo”.

I, personally, would have thought that the state broadcaster, and others, were never, outwardly, “against” FG but here they are saying that they are. And with “curled lips” no less.

Smacks of being totally out of “touch”, if you ask me. Honestly, I will not be impressed if they blow this one and hand back the reigns to those “cowboys” in FF.

Timely reminder in the comments on that tweet.

https://twitter.com/duzBme/status/1219550614629298176

LeinsterDub

Phoebas wrote: »

The only thing that will solve affordability is more supply.

The Central Bank rules are there to prevent another credit fuelled bubble, followed by another crash. Hopefully even FF have learned that lesson.

I agree with the purpose of the rules just pointing out that it's not just houses they have to be houses in the right place at the right time. Matt Cooper just reporting their the majority of these houses are in commuter towns and Goodbody have suggested we need 35k units now.

is_that_so

saabsaab wrote: »

Where are the manifestos? You would think the major parties would have then ready to roll.

Give it a week till they've done the press launches!

Muahahaha

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how SF's legal challenge goes.
FF/FG no longer have majority support. Interestingly Leo's approval is 16% down on October's figure of 51% to 35% just ahead of Mary Lou by 1 point.

Thats the real takeaway from that poll, if it is correct it is a huge drop in his personal approval rating at a time when his face is up thousands of poles across the country. He was asked on the TV3 news if he should step back from campaigning given his slump in the poll and as he came out with the usual 'only poll that matters' line Simon Coveney was standing right behind him with shifty eyes !

is_that_so

Muahahaha wrote: »

Thats the real takeaway from that poll, if it is correct it is a huge drop in his personal approval rating at a time when his face is up thousands of poles across the country. He was asked on the TV3 news if he should step back from campaigning given his slump in the poll and as he came out with the usual 'only poll that matters' line Simon Coveney was standing right behind him with shifty eyes !

But, but, but, still the most popular choice for Taoiseach!

Phoebas

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I agree with the purpose of the rules just pointing out that it's not just houses they have to be houses in the right place at the right time. Matt Cooper just reporting their the majority of these houses are in commuter towns and Goodbody have suggested we need 35k units now.

Here's what the CSO says about that (number is for Q3).

CSO wrote:

60% of all new dwelling completions in Q3 2019 are in Dublin or the Mid-East
The number of new dwelling completions in Q3 2019 was highest in Dublin at 1,912 followed closely by the Mid-East with 1,499. This accounts for 60.2% of all new dwelling completions.

Of the 1,083 apartments completed in Q3 2019, 778 (71.8%) were in Dublin.

Agreed that we do need more and for sure the government haven't been quick enough in providing them, but the trajectory is going in the right direction.

smurgen

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1219538283367190529?s=20

Has this been posted already? Can’t get over the sheer arrogance of that internal “memo”.

I, personally, would have thought that the state broadcaster, and others, were never, outwardly, “against” FG but here they are saying that they are. And with “curled lips” no less.

Smacks of being totally out of “touch”, if you ask me. Honestly, I will not be impressed if they blow this one and hand back the reigns to those “cowboys” in FF.

No idea why people are shocked by this.this same party wanted to spend public funds commemorating the RIC. An organisation who actually terrorised Irish citizens.they've reached drunken levels of delusion and the public are going to sobar them up something fierce.

James Brown

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

When is there not a health crisis?

I know right? Record breakingly. It's almost as if FF and FG are not up to or willing to take on the task.

blanch152

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I agree with the purpose of the rules just pointing out that it's not just houses they have to be houses in the right place at the right time. Matt Cooper just reporting their the majority of these houses are in commuter towns and Goodbody have suggested we need 35k units now.

Majority of houses are being built outside Dublin, but that's because the building regulations introduced by Murphy and are now working with more apartments being built in Dublin.

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

I think when he says 'steady eddy' he means stuff like this


We're at a record high now - new home completions for 2019 at 21.5k are at at decade high.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0121/1109790-goodbody-home-figures/

They still need to be a lot higher, but the trajectory is clear.

And I'd chicken for lunch, what's your point?
This is a major factor exacerbating the housing crisis.

"The build-to-rent sector is driving apartment building, while the public sector and Approved Housing Bodies (AHBs) are contributing to a surge in social housing," Mr O'Leary said.

Private concerns are building so the state/LA's will buy and lease off them for 25 years or so. Hardly a bragging point from so called fiscal conservatives.
Steadily making it worse was my point.

Mad_maxx

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1219538283367190529?s=20

Has this been posted already? Can’t get over the sheer arrogance of that internal “memo”.

I, personally, would have thought that the state broadcaster, and others, were never, outwardly, “against” FG but here they are saying that they are. And with “curled lips” no less.

Smacks of being totally out of “touch”, if you ask me. Honestly, I will not be impressed if they blow this one and hand back the reigns to those “cowboys” in FF.

What's strange about it?

RTE has a left wing bias

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

The only thing that will solve affordability is more supply.

The Central Bank rules are there to prevent another credit fuelled bubble, followed by another crash. Hopefully even FF have learned that lesson.

That's not true.
The supply is out of many peoples price range and as shown in your article they are building to rent/lease because...there's a housing crisis and FG are their best customer.

The bottom will fall out. We are spending tax payer money to give business to the low taxed vulture funds making prices out of reach for most, who then need a government/state dig out. It's a ponzi scheme.

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And I'd chicken for lunch, what's your point?

The point is that we are building more homes and the rate that we are building them is accelerating.
I'm not sure how you had difficulty grasping it - I even posted a graph.
Maybe the chicken was off.

Private concerns are building so the state/LA's will buy and lease off them for 25 years or so. Hardly a bragging point from so called fiscal conservatives.
Steadily making it worse was my point.

I don't have too much of a problem with long term leases given the urgency of the situation.
The main thing is to get the supply - maybe we should put aside ideological concerns for the greater good.

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's not true.
The supply is out of many peoples price range and as shown in your article they are building to rent/lease because...there's a housing crisis and FG are their best customer.

It's a pretty basic principle of economics that increasing supply with put a downward pressure on prices.
There are other tools to moderate prices, like the CB rules - and we can see recent price moderation as a result.

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

The point is that we are building more homes and the rate that we are building them is accelerating.
I'm not sure how you had difficulty grasping it - I even posted a graph.
Maybe the chicken was off.


I don't have too much of a problem with long term leases given the urgency of the situation.
The main thing is to get the supply - maybe we should put aside ideological concerns for the greater good.

Vulture funds are building more and the state is buying and leasing off them to use as social housing, because vulture funds are driving up prices...
What did I miss?

Urgency? It's been building for nearly a decade and the leases are for 25 years in some cases. Give over.
I'm all about policy. I couldn't give two Eoghan Murphy's who implements good ones once they do.

ChikiChiki

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1219538283367190529?s=20

Has this been posted already? Can’t get over the sheer arrogance of that internal “memo”.

I, personally, would have thought that the state broadcaster, and others, were never, outwardly, “against” FG but here they are saying that they are. And with “curled lips” no less.

Smacks of being totally out of “touch”, if you ask me. Honestly, I will not be impressed if they blow this one and hand back the reigns to those “cowboys” in FF.

Why does this shock you? It is how FG people are thinking right now. According to them, it's everyone else that is the problem.

They will never admit their own failings and it makes the public even more pissed each time they do it whether it's the Maria Bailey internal investigation or the RIC commemoration.

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

It's a pretty basic principle of economics that increasing supply with put a downward pressure on prices.
There are other tools to moderate prices, like the CB rules - and we can see recent price moderation as a result.

Not when the customer, Government/LA is waiting in the wings. We'll have more lease and bought social housing. The prices need never drop.
The only way more will mean lower prices is if the market is flooded...how could that be a problem? :rolleyes:

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not when the customer, Government/LA is waiting in the wings. We'll have more lease and bought social housing. The prices need never drop.

The only way more will mean lower prices is if the market is flooded...how could that be a problem? :rolleyes:

Its a pretty binary world you inhabit, where the government must pay what the developers demand, until a tipping point where the market is flooded, and normal principles of supply and demand don't work because ... vulture funds?


Meanwhile, in actual fact, completions are up and accelerating and prices are moderating.

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

Its a pretty binary world you inhabit, where the government must pay what the developers demand, until a tipping point where the market is flooded, and normal principles of supply and demand don't work because ... vulture funds?


Meanwhile, in actual fact, completions are up and accelerating and prices are moderating.

They are paying the market rate, no?
How is paying a 25 year lease just because we've an urgency? Seems they intend lease for some time and when the lease is up the company has a house paid for by the state, at a profit, to do with what they wish.
Developers and funds, by your article, are mostly building to rent. They are feeding off the crisis. How is this helping the average tax payer who in built up parts of the country are being priced out by these investment funds?
If it's over your head just ask, no need to get all sarky.

'Brexit certainty bounce' to see house prices rise by 2.4pc in year ahead as growth returns

House prices across Ireland are expected to rise by 2.4pc on average in 2020, according to a survey on value expectations for the new year commissioned by the Irish Independent.
https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/brexit-certainty-bounce-to-see-house-prices-rise-by-24pc-in-year-ahead-as-growth-returns-38875645.html

FYI: We've folk on here will say there's nobody to build them, if you can believe that. Depends on the topic under discussion of course. Now it's supposedly great there are more (private) builds, nobody questions were the skilled workers are coming from. Talk about ideology over logic.

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They are paying the market rate, no?

How do you figure they're not paying the market rate?
Do you mean compared to the market that would exist if the government weren't participating in it, or do you mean that the government are paying more than they need to pay?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How is paying a 25 year lease just because we've an urgency? Seems they intend lease for some time and when the lease is up the company has a house paid for by the state, at a profit, to do with what they wish.
Developers and funds, by your article, are mostly building to rent. They are feeding off the crisis. How is this helping the average tax payer who in built up parts of the country are being priced out by these investment funds?
If it's over your head just ask, no need to get all sarky.

I'm finding it difficult to follow the points your making here I'm afraid.
Are you against leasing property as a matter of principal or do you consider that not owning it outright means that they somehow don't derive value from it?

Phoebas

Here's what the CSO say about moderating house price inflation; moderate increases nationally with small declines in Dublin.
(this obviously doesn't complete with a survey of Estate Agents linked to a couple of posts up)

CSO wrote:

Residential property prices increased by 1.4% nationally in the year to November. This compares with an increase of 1.0% in the year to October and an increase of 7.2% in the twelve months to November 2018.

In Dublin, residential property prices decreased by 0.7% in the year to November - house prices decreased by 0.5% and apartments decreased by 1.2%. The highest house price growth in Dublin was in Fingal at 3.0%, while Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown saw a decline of 6.3%.

Residential property prices in Ireland excluding Dublin were 3.6% higher in the year to November, with house prices up by 3.6% and apartments by 3.9%. The region outside of Dublin that saw the largest rise in house prices was the Border at 9.9% - at the other end of the scale, the Mid-East saw a 0.4% rise.

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

How do you figure they're not paying the market rate?
Do you mean compared to the market that would exist if the government weren't participating in it, or do you mean that the government are paying more than they need to pay?

I assumed they were paying market rate. I asked you were they not.
The going market rate is based on what people will pay.
If the new builds are build to rent/lease with a customer, state/LA in the wings, I assume the builder/funds are expecting market rates.
Therefore more of these builds will not result in any sizable drop in market prices. Why would you lower prices when the customer is paying at current rates?
How will more of these result in lower pricing as you suggested? Because these are the lion's share of new builds as per the article you supplied.

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm finding it difficult to follow the points your making here I'm afraid.
Are you against leasing property as a matter of principal or do you consider that not owning it outright means that they somehow don't derive value from it?

I'm all for building. I believe paying a developer to build housing stock for us is a better deal for the tax payer than 25 year leases or other rentals from private companies or buying at the market rate.
Market rate = cost to build, (wages, fees, taxes etc.), plus profit margin added.

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I assumed they were paying market rate. I asked you were they not.
The going market rate is based on what people will pay.
If the new builds are build to rent/lease with a customer, state/LA in the wings, I assume the builder/funds are expecting market rates.
Therefore more of these builds will not result in any sizable drop in market prices. Why would you lower prices when the customer is paying at current rates?
How will more of these result in lower pricing as you suggested? Because these are the lion's share of new builds as per the article you supplied.

I take it that the state is paying market rate albeit in a badly functioning market.

The fact about supply remains. When there are more properties available, no matter how they were provided, this has a downward effect on prices generally in the market. On the long term leases, I believe the rents are linked to HICP and reviewed every few years.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm all for building. I believe paying a developer to build housing stock for us is a better deal for the tax payer than 25 year leases or other rentals from private companies or buying at the market rate.
Market rate = cost to build, (wages, fees, taxes etc.), plus profit margin added.

Hard to know and depends on how the lease is arranged, including how much needs to be paid upfront etc. I'm assuming that the 25yr enhanced leases mean that we don't have to pay the full price up front.

I can see that you may favour one approach over another, but I think that the overriding consideration is to get supply in the market and people in stable long term homes.

Pintman Paddy Losty

smurgen wrote: »

No idea why people are shocked by this.this same party wanted to spend public funds commemorating the RIC. An organisation who actually terrorised Irish citizens.they've reached drunken levels of delusion and the public are going to sobar them up something fierce.

Whoever wrote that memo is absolutely spot on.


RTE is full of spotty-faced researchers who are clearly left leaning and want to shaft FG at any opportunity. The head honchos are no fans either. Obviously hoping that they will get a new broadcast charge brought in by some commie coalition.



Doesn't matter an iota though because people who actually get up and go out on polling day know what side their bread is buttered on and will be voting for a responsible and fiscally prudent form of steady governance and not a load of chuckies and pay-for-nothing but get 1st class public service merchants.


That memo should never have been shared though. It was an internal message.

Snow Garden

Originally Posted by Pintman Paddy Losty
Very few Eric, and no more so than in beds.

Speak to medical professionals and they will tell you they are
sick to their teeth with the media obsession with trolleys. They care about
patient outcomes - of which there is no evidence that patients on a trolley are more at risk.

Snow Garden wrote: »

My oh my. You've said some idiotic things in the past but this takes the biscuit. How can you represent medical professionals with this stupidity and get away with it?

I posted a link to an interview just last week where Regina Doherty (FG) got ripped apart by an A&E consultant over the trolley crisis. The doctor said repeatedly that it was much more difficult to treat patients on trolleys in comparison to treating someone with their own bed. Trolleys are often parked in parallel rows in A&E corridors so she said it was difficult to examine someone with any privacy and it was difficult to move around the patient to make a detailed examination. Patients are always highlighting that they get forgotten in A&E due to overcrowding, especially during shift changes. Ah there is no point in explaining that to you, you just make up stupid nonsense to deflect. It's amusing how Cartman actually thanked that guff.

I'll find the interview link for you.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112224179&postcount=598
A few others heard it too.
Radio 1, Saturday 11th Jan. Cormac Ó hEadhra

Good to have you back Paddy....so Paddy, did you listen and learn?

C__MC

Looking ominous for fine Gael
Varadkar in all sorts of problems and is under huge pressure going into TV debates. Martin done very well in 11 and 16 during live debates.

Do people see fine Gael overturning the recent opinion polls or is it back to fianna fail and the greens?

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

I take it that the state is paying market rate albeit in a badly functioning market.

The fact about supply remains. When there are more properties available, no matter how they were provided, this has a downward effect on prices generally in the market. On the long term leases, I believe the rents are linked to HICP and reviewed every few years.

I would agree but we have the state playing the customer buying and leasing waiting in the wings for new builds. And you just know these funds aren't building in a vacuum, they know their buyer, (state/LA) is waiting.
It stands to reason they'll keep building.
Two issues here. We are leasing/renting/buying for use as social housing. Who is building for the private individual not eligible for social and can they afford the price to buy or rent?

Phoebas wrote: »

Hard to know and depends on how the lease is arranged, including how much needs to be paid upfront etc. I'm assuming that the 25yr enhanced leases mean that we don't have to pay the full price up front.

The main features of the lease are:

-The lease term is 25 years

-The Local Authority (the lessee) pays up to 95% of an agreed market rent at commencement of the lease to the lessor (owner of property)

-Rent is reviewed every 3 years, linked to the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP)

-The Lessor is obliged to provide Management Services for the properties

-The relevant Local Authority is the landlord to the tenant and collects differential rent from them

-Each proposal should include a minimum of 20 no. properties in any Local Authority area (that can be on multiple sites)

https://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/leasing/enhanced-long-term-social-housing-leasing-scheme

Upfront, at least 95% is something.
People complain about social housing builds because: there is no skilled workers to build them - False.
Why build social housing when the tenants won't pay rent - Same tenants are in the leased properties.

Phoebas wrote: »

I can see that you may favour one approach over another, but I think that the overriding consideration is to get supply in the market and people in stable long term homes.

I don't buy that. It's been a long time worsening. Yet every time it's discussed it's like we, (the royal we) only realised today.
I think excuses are made to keep using private sources. I do not believe this is a good deal for the tax payer. I do believe it's a great deal for investment funds and other private investors.
I believe FG follow these policies for the enrichment of private business. If they think it's the best way for the tax payer they are flawed IMO.
Leasing a properties for 25 years with no stock to show at the end is not a good deal for the tax payer.

James Brown

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Whoever wrote that memo is absolutely spot on.


RTE is full of spotty-faced researchers who are clearly left leaning and want to shaft FG at any opportunity. The head honchos are no fans either. Obviously hoping that they will get a new broadcast charge brought in by some commie coalition.



Doesn't matter an iota though because people who actually get up and go out on polling day know what side their bread is buttered on and will be voting for a responsible and fiscally prudent form of steady governance and not a load of chuckies and pay-for-nothing but get 1st class public service merchants.


That memo should never have been shared though. It was an internal message.

In danger of singing off a Trump's hymn sheet Paddy
Meeja out to get yis....

If RTE report lies about FG let us know.

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would agree but we have the state playing the customer buying and leasing waiting in the wings for new builds. And you just know these funds aren't building in a vacuum, they know their buyer, (state/LA) is waiting.
It stands to reason they'll keep building.
Two issues here. We are leasing/renting/buying for use as social housing. Who is building for the private individual not eligible for social and can they afford the price to buy or rent?

The LA is the landlord on the 25yr lease scheme, so I presume thats for social housing, but I guess that's up to the LAs. Private individuals not eligible for social housing may benefit from HAP/RAS.

Every other renter on the market is participating in the rest of the market. Obviously if the government is heavily involved in one part of the market, then this can have effects on other parts of it. But I'm back to the overarching point - more supply is good overall for buyers and renters.

Upfront, at least 95% is something.

That's 95% of the market rent - that's were the rent is set at the beginning of the lease, not what the property owner gets upfront.

Leasing a properties for 25 years with no stock to show at the end is not a good deal for the tax payer.

Fair enough, but I think that's an ideological position. Personally, I don't have a problem in principle with long term leasing.

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

Fair enough, but I think that's an ideological position. Personally, I don't have a problem in principle with long term leasing.

I want the best deal for the tax payer is all.
I don't believe FG do, based on record and policy not because they are FG.