FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

Idbatterim

Listen, I dont blame FG for wanting to run for the hills and go into opposition, them and FF have created such a cluster****, that its now obvious to FG at least, what is coming down the tracks and the dirty work that will have to be done to address things, FG didnt want to address, hence have lost seats...

they just thought they could cruise along on easy street, varadkars bull**** and an electorate who would never put their foot down... WRONG!

Foxtrol

Idbatterim wrote: »

Listen, I dont blame FG for wanting to run for the hills and go into opposition, them and FF have created such a cluster****, that its now obvious to FG at least, what is coming down the tracks and the dirty work that will have to be done to address things, FG didnt want to address, hence have lost seats...

they just thought they could cruise along on easy street, varadkars bull**** and an electorate who would never put their foot down... WRONG!

How is what is coming the 'dirty work' when you compare it to the pain that had to be dished out to get us back to a balanced budget?

This is the much easier part, SF just went out and massively over-promised and even if there were no 'legacy issues' I doubt any large party would want to be tied to being judged against them.

James Brown

Foxtrol wrote: »

How is what is coming the 'dirty work' when you compare it to the pain that had to be dished out to get us back to a balanced budget?

This is the much easier part, SF just went out and massively over-promised and even if there were no 'legacy issues' I doubt any large party would want to be tied to being judged against them.

The idea was getting the economy back on track so we could tackle the then and oncoming social issues. The whole point of a government.
They opted to tackle the part suited them and either throw money, ignore or exacerbate the problems they inherited and helped create.
The 'dirty work' would have been tackling health for example.
If this is the much easier part it just adds to the conclusion, FG weren't interested in tackling it, aside from housing which was about private concerns making money and I think that was/is going okay for them. Apart from the whole losing their arse in the general election.

Foxtrol

Bowie wrote: »

The idea was getting the economy back on track so we could tackle the then and oncoming social issues. The whole point of a government.
They opted to tackle the part suited them and either throw money, ignore or exacerbate the problems they inherited and helped create.
The 'dirty work' would have been tackling health for example.
If this is the much easier part it just adds to the conclusion, FG weren't interested in tackling it, aside from housing which was about private concerns making money and I think that was/is going okay for them. Apart from the whole losing their arse in the general election.

FG laid out how they planned to continue to tackle health and housing and the electorate rejected them, with both SF and FF gaining more seats and 1st preference votes.

SF refused to talk to anyone at the last election, so by your logic at that point they weren't interested in the 'dirty work' of balancing the budget, health, or housing.

Idbatterim

Foxtrol wrote: »

How is what is coming the 'dirty work' when you compare it to the pain that had to be dished out to get us back to a balanced budget?

This is the much easier part, SF just went out and massively over-promised and even if there were no 'legacy issues' I doubt any large party would want to be tied to being judged against them.

freezing welfare etc now and doing what they should, will be a far harder sell than when they barely cut it during the recession when it had to be done, no choices! Reinstating the welfare bonus to one hundred percent, while mental health budgets and god knows how many others are woefully indadequately funded? people in the defence forces cant live on their wages, but we have 80k gross for margaret cash? they are going to reap what they sow here, it hasnt even started! I think Vardadkar now etc can see the predicaments and while nobody thinks less of him than me, fleeing to the opposition benches, makes total sense!

Idbatterim

Bowie wrote: »

The idea was getting the economy back on track so we could tackle the then and oncoming social issues. The whole point of a government.
They opted to tackle the part suited them and either throw money, ignore or exacerbate the problems they inherited and helped create.
The 'dirty work' would have been tackling health for example.
If this is the much easier part it just adds to the conclusion, FG weren't interested in tackling it, aside from housing which was about private concerns making money and I think that was/is going okay for them. Apart from the whole losing their arse in the general election.

dirty work is tackling health, law and order (LOL) housing etc. They didnt want to touch it for reasons I understand, morally corrupt reasons. But I think this could really blow up, when FF or FG whoever, try several more years of fobbing off a very angry section of the electorate!

Listen, if they can hand out free luxury housing to wasters here, they can come up with a scheme , to make housing affordable to people on modest wages, should be easy for them! They were able to solve a problem when they they had a gun to their head with the bank guarantee in record time! They can spare me on any recession tough choices too! A tough choice would have been to live within our means, they borrowed what? over a hundred billion EASILY to avoid any truly hard decisions. You can see on the motors forum, people lining up to spend stupid money on **** cars, I hope one of them, isnt the guard who had his kids living on cereal during the recession :rolleyes:

Foxtrol

Idbatterim wrote: »

freezing welfare etc now and doing what they should, will be a far harder sell than when they barely cut it during the recession when it had to be done, no choices! Reinstating the welfare bonus to one hundred percent, while mental health budgets and god knows how many others are woefully indadequately funded? people in the defence forces cant live on their wages, but we have 80k gross for margaret cash? they are going to reap what they sow here, it hasnt even started! I think Vardadkar now etc can see the predicaments and whily nobody thinks less of him than me, fleeing to the opposition benches, makes total sense!

I don't disagree with a lot of the above but the fact is that there wasn't a party out there that was against social welfare increases in some form or another, especially none of the 'parties of change'. Given the hypocritical 'posh boys' crap that is thrown from SF at FG, can you imagine if they didn't increase it while increasing other payments?

I agree that those elements of 'dirty work' were not taken but many hard choices were made to balance budgets, that took money out of peoples pockets or their services. It is complete nonsense to claim that those hard choices were less 'dirty work' than throwing money around that is to come, be it to mental health, defense forces or anywhere else.

James Brown

Foxtrol wrote: »

FG laid out how they planned to continue to tackle health and housing and the electorate rejected them, with both SF and FF gaining more seats and 1st preference votes.

SF refused to talk to anyone at the last election, so by your logic at that point they weren't interested in the 'dirty work' of balancing the budget, health, or housing.

You suggested it was easy, all that's left is the easy part. All that's left are key crises FG have overseen becoming worse. Why on earth would anybody wait just a little bit longer for more of the same? That's by my logic.

Foxtrol

Bowie wrote: »

You suggested it was easy, all that's left is the easy part. All that's left are key crises FG have overseen becoming worse. Why on earth would anybody wait just a little bit longer for more of the same? That's by my logic.

I never used the term easy but now that you say it, I would argue that yes dealing with the current issues with a budget surplus is easier than dealing with those same issues plus high unemployment and a large budget deficit.

James Brown

Foxtrol wrote: »

I never used the term easy....

Foxtrol wrote: »

How is what is coming the 'dirty work' when you compare it to the pain that had to be dished out to get us back to a balanced budget?

This is the much easier part, SF just went out and massively over-promised and even if there were no 'legacy issues' I doubt any large party would want to be tied to being judged against them.

Foxtrol wrote: »

.... but now that you say it, I would argue that yes dealing with the current issues with a budget surplus is easier than dealing with those same issues plus high unemployment and a large budget deficit.

It costs more money to buy social housing than build it, (en masse). Leasing for 25 years and hotels aren't cheap either. More money to spend on such things may solve the issue if you want to waste massive amounts of money over many years.
Health needs to be over hauled. What good is a balanced budget if frittered away in such a manner as the NCH?
Party of fiscal responsibility my arse.

Loafing Oaf

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't disagree with a lot of the above but the fact is that there wasn't a party out there that was against social welfare increases in some form or another, especially none of the 'parties of change'. Given the hypocritical 'posh boys' crap that is thrown from SF at FG, can you imagine if they didn't increase it while increasing other payments?

Yeah gas the way some right-wingers are twisting the SF Surge into some kind of vindication of their position:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-quinn-old-parties-sleepwalking-with-woke-agenda-b6dmd85zt

Foxtrol

Hands up, thought I just quoted the dirty work element.

Bowie wrote: »

It costs more money to buy social housing than build it, (en masse). Leasing for 25 years and hotels aren't cheap either. More money to spend on such things may solve the issue if you want to waste massive amounts of money over many years.
Health needs to be over hauled. What good is a balanced budget if frittered away in such a manner as the NCH?
Party of fiscal responsibility my arse.

What you're saying above is akin to telling a broke couple renting isn't cheap, so why don't they just build your own house. The government didn't have the money to deal with those in emergency situation while also taking on large scale building. Even if you ignore the issues with planning, number of builders etc, people struggling still needed a roof over their heads, be it private housing or hotels. Are you arguing they should have been left on the street until houses were built?

You're continuing to ignore my OP and repeated point to how dealing with the problems today with a budget surplus is somehow more difficult than trying to deal with the same problems, plus high unemployment and a large budget deficit? If you're going to keep ignoring it then there is no point in continuing.

James Brown

Foxtrol wrote: »

Hands up, thought I just quoted the dirty work element.



What you're saying above is akin to telling a broke couple renting isn't cheap, so why don't they just build your own house. The government didn't have the money to deal with those in emergency situation while also taking on large scale building. Even if you ignore the issues with planning, number of builders etc, people struggling still needed a roof over their heads, be it private housing or hotels. Are you arguing they should have been left on the street until houses were built?

You're continuing to ignore my OP and repeated point to how dealing with the problems today with a budget surplus is somehow more difficult than trying to deal with the same problems, plus high unemployment and a large budget deficit? If you're going to keep ignoring it then there is no point in continuing.

Not to worry. More important to know for discussion purposes.

No it's not. It's exactly putting people up in a hotel or leased private apartment or house you bought, instead of building and putting them up in that while charging them rent.
Yes they did. They had the money for Reilly's clinics, Irish Water, IW consultants , crony appointments and the Siteserv deal, (still under investigation). They money for hotels and B&B's and buying houses....all rather than building.
That reasoning only makes sense for the first few years while you begin building stock.

I didn't ignore it. I directly responded to that very point.

More money to spend on such things may solve the issue if you want to waste massive amounts of money over many years.
Health needs to be over hauled. What good is a balanced budget if frittered away in such a manner as the NCH?
Party of fiscal responsibility my arse.

Spending money talking the wrong route isn't a good idea. Having more money to spend taking the wrong route is not much better.
For the tax payer, building social housing is a better deal than buying or leasing social housing.

Idbatterim

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't disagree with a lot of the above but the fact is that there wasn't a party out there that was against social welfare increases in some form or another, especially none of the 'parties of change'. Given the hypocritical 'posh boys' crap that is thrown from SF at FG, can you imagine if they didn't increase it while increasing other payments?

I agree that those elements of 'dirty work' were not taken but many hard choices were made to balance budgets, that took money out of peoples pockets or their services. It is complete nonsense to claim that those hard choices were less 'dirty work' than throwing money around that is to come, be it to mental health, defense forces or anywhere else.

the thing is here when it comes to cuts or increases, they dont want to discriminate, they will cut everyones taxes and increase welfare or vice verca. This nonsense of increased tax "good", "increased spending" good... listen , if the ****s hits the fan here again, whether they reduce taxes by a billion or increase spending by a billion, you still have a billion euro problem. RTE and their propaganda, "people want better services" no no no no no, what that means is, that the vast majority here, who dont pay in anything like the taxes in, that average person is receiving, wants other people, to pay more, who are already disporportiantely hit. I dont want "better services" I want tax cuts, so I can keep my money and save it towards a house etc. "better services" comedy, any extra money here , they will blow on ****e. Is better services, a public sector pay increase? I cant wait to see how the next few years go, this boom isnt like the last boom, where you can throw a fortune at everyone, and nodoby gives a ****, because even the bin man can afford to buy in dublin. This "boom" is very , very different! With diminishing living standards for many, thats the irony of it!

we hear a lot about the garda station closures, post office closures, this has damaged them massively in rural ireland! To save what? an absolute irrelevance of money, an absolute irrelevance of money, not even a drop in the ocean in the scheme of things. then you see the insane money they pull out of their ass when needs be , the NCH, health budget, rural broadband, all money no object areas! Ill tell you what, if the **** hits the fan again here, let the IMF come in and make the decisions on where the axe should fall and which taxes should rise, because I will tell you now, no other country, runs such an outrageous narrow tax base, no water charges, as good as no property tax and an obscene hold your hand out, welfare state...

"Spending money talking the wrong route isn't a good idea. Having more money to spend taking the wrong route is not much better." no, they know best, housing people in dundrum now on a 25 year lease for extortionate sums! Dont dare question it though.... I mean with very limited resources, using the rip off option , makes total sense...
For the tax payer, building social housing is a better deal than buying or leasing social housing.

Idbatterim

Foxtrol wrote: »

Hands up, thought I just quoted the dirty work element.



What you're saying above is akin to telling a broke couple renting isn't cheap, so why don't they just build your own house. The government didn't have the money to deal with those in emergency situation while also taking on large scale building. Even if you ignore the issues with planning, number of builders etc, people struggling still needed a roof over their heads, be it private housing or hotels. Are you arguing they should have been left on the street until houses were built?

You're continuing to ignore my OP and repeated point to how dealing with the problems today with a budget surplus is somehow more difficult than trying to deal with the same problems, plus high unemployment and a large budget deficit? If you're going to keep ignoring it then there is no point in continuing.

we talk about making decisions, lets start right here, social housing! Would it be fair to say, we could provide far more, if those already in it and benefitting greatly, paid more than a pittance, if they even bother at all? Now we are getting to making decisions, they wouldnt touch it with a barge pole! so nobody here need tell me any decisions are being made. You simply cant sort the issues here, while sitting on your hands! Given that FF are virtually Fg, with their mates, trying to please everyone, I cant see them doing any better!

Foxtrol

Bowie wrote: »

Not to worry. More important to know for discussion purposes.

No it's not. It's exactly putting people up in a hotel or leased private apartment or house you bought, instead of building and putting them up in that while charging them rent.
Yes they did. They had the money for Reilly's clinics, Irish Water, IW consultants , crony appointments and the Siteserv deal, (still under investigation). They money for hotels and B&B's and buying houses....all rather than building.
That reasoning only makes sense for the first few years while you begin building stock.

None of those costs come close to the capital expenditure required for the large scale building projects that are required and underway now.

I didn't ignore it. I directly responded to that very point.

Spending money talking the wrong route isn't a good idea. Having more money to spend taking the wrong route is not much better.
For the tax payer, building social housing is a better deal than buying or leasing social housing.

That doesn't respond to my point, you're just highlighting that their approach to those issues were the right ones.

My point was that dealing with housing and health issues now isn't as difficult as trying to deal with both of them alongside massive unemployment and a deficit. Whether you agree or disagree with the approach, the government is in a better position to do it now than 9 or even 4 years ago.

A simple example, do you think the structural changes to Health would have been easier or harder when at the same time you're cutting the pay and conditions of staff?

Idbatterim

Foxtrol wrote: »

None of those costs come close to the capital expenditure required for the large scale building projects that are required and underway now.



That doesn't respond to my point, you're just highlighting that their approach to those issues were the right ones.

My point was that dealing with housing and health issues now isn't as difficult as trying to deal with both of them alongside massive unemployment and a deficit. Whether you agree or disagree with the approach, the government is in a better position to do it now than 9 or even 4 years ago.

A simple example, do you think the structural changes to Health would have been easier or harder when at the same time you're cutting the pay and conditions of staff?

time will tell, but I and much of the commentary I read in the press etc, actually think things will get worse if we stay on the current path! Are they in a better position? the biggest issue with housing, is affordability , any plans on addressing that?

Foxtrol

Idbatterim wrote: »

the thing is here when it comes to cuts or increases, they dont want to discriminate, they will cut everyones taxes and increase welfare or vice verca. This nonsense of increased tax "good", "increased spending" good... listen , if the ****s hits the fan here again, whether they reduce taxes by a billion or increase spending by a billion, you still have a billion euro problem. RTE and their propaganda, "people want better services" no no no no no, what that means is, that the vast majority here, who dont pay in anything like the taxes in, that average person is receiving, wants other people, to pay more, who are already disporportiantely hit. I dont want "better services" I want tax cuts, so I can keep my money and save it towards a house etc. "better services" comedy, any extra money here , they will blow on ****e. Is better services, a public sector pay increase? I cant wait to see how the next few years go, this boom isnt like the last boom, where you can throw a fortune at everyone, and nodoby gives a ****, because even the bin man can afford to buy in dublin. This "boom" is very , very different! With diminishing living standards for many, thats the irony of it!

we hear a lot about the garda station closures, post office closures, this has damaged them massively in rural ireland! To save what? an absolute irrelevance of money, an absolute irrelevance of money, not even a drop in the ocean in the scheme of things. then you see the insane money they pull out of their ass when needs be , the NCH, health budget, rural broadband, all money no object areas! Ill tell you what, if the **** hits the fan again here, let the IMF come in and make the decisions on where the axe should fall and which taxes should rise, because I will tell you now, no other country, runs such an outrageous narrow tax base, no water charges, as good as no property tax and an obscene hold your hand out, welfare state...

"Spending money talking the wrong route isn't a good idea. Having more money to spend taking the wrong route is not much better." no, they know best, housing people in dundrum now on a 25 year lease for extortionate sums! Dont dare question it though.... I mean with very limited resources, using the rip off option , makes total sense...
For the tax payer, building social housing is a better deal than buying or leasing social housing.

Idbatterim wrote: »

we talk about making decisions, lets start right here, social housing! Would it be fair to say, we could provide far more, if those already in it and benefitting greatly, paid more than a pittance, if they even bother at all? Now we are getting to making decisions, they wouldnt touch it with a barge pole! so nobody here need tell me any decisions are being made. You simply cant sort the issues here, while sitting on your hands! Given that FF are virtually Fg, with their mates, trying to please everyone, I cant see them doing any better!

All of that and you haven't been able to point to any of the 'dirty work' that you claim he is running away from. No party, definitely not any of the so called parties for change, is taking on any of the efforts that you crave, no party even claimed that they would during the election.

Slaintecare may improve things in Health but no party has the mandate to take on the unions or professional moaners for the root and branch reforms that are required.

You really do have to pray for the IMF to come as there isn't public appetite for the reform you're seeking, the pain associated more specifically. The thought that FG as the 3rd biggest party is going to drive it is fairy tale stuff.

Idbatterim

Foxtrol wrote: »

All of that and you haven't been able to point to any of the 'dirty work' that you claim he is running away from. No party, definitely not any of the so called parties for change, is taking on any of the efforts that you crave, no party even claimed that they would during the election.

Slaintecare may improve things in Health but no party has the mandate to take on the unions or professional moaners for the root and branch reforms that are required.

You really do have to pray for the IMF to come as there isn't public appetite for the reform you're seeking, the pain associated more specifically. The thought that FG as the 3rd biggest party is going to drive it is fairy tale stuff.

he is running away from the dirty work in housing, because he fully supports rip off housing, would probably hurt him too much to do anything about it himself and he cant bring himself to it! Would damage his rep with the speculators and bankers, the people he really cares about. Let someone else do it, he can stay in their perk circle then

Jinglejangle69

Idbatterim wrote: »

he is running away from the dirty work in housing, because he fully supports rip off housing, would probably hurt him too much to do anything about it himself and he cant bring himself to it! Would damage his rep with the speculators and bankers, the people he really cares about. Let someone else do it, he can stay in their perk circle then

Heard newstalk yesterday and the topic was the policies in housing been done now and the last few years will be seen in 2 years time and whoever is in power will reap the benefits.

Short term pain for long term gain.

smurgen

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Heard newstalk yesterday and the topic was the policies in housing been done now and the last few years will be seen in 2 years time and whoever is in power will reap the benefits.

Short term pain for long term gain.

Do you think Jennifer McNeil of FG will really help the housing issues?

https://twitter.com/Astraea1974/status/1229888036969861120?s=19

Fann Linn

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Heard newstalk yesterday and the topic was the policies in housing been done now and the last few years will be seen in 2 years time and whoever is in power will reap the benefits.

Short term pain for long term gain.

Not really. Article in todays IT states 'Yes-21000 homes built last year BUT 13000 of these are single one off rural builds SO in effect only 8000 homes built for open market.

Yurt2

Fann Linn wrote: »

Not really. Article in todays IT states 'Yes-21000 homes built last year BUT 13000 of these are single one off rural builds SO in effect only 8000 homes built for open market.

Didn't think the stats were that grim.

Those who suggest the market alone (and I know it has its role) need to start taking this things a bit more seriously. This isn't about Margret Cash and her ilk, nor has it ever been.

The Bank of International Settlement's report that puts Ireland in an unenviable second place makes for interesting reading.

Essentially it pinpoints that in this ultra-low interest rate environment, investment funds and internationally mobile capital have been feeding on various country's property sectors as an easy source of yield. Ireland appears to be one of the easier places these funds can feast on.

They point towards the music possibly stopping on this phenomenon in the near future.

Irish house buyers of the last few years may we'll find themselves in a similar situation to those a few years ago.

Mr. teddywinkles

Bowie wrote: »

Your post once again, has nothing to do with mine. Weird.
Tell us all about the greens in this. Be nice to have some insight. Will they go in the FG?
Varadkar seems pretty excited about being in opposition where he can do nothing and not have to be seen to do something.

Like he's being doing. Election was a joke pandering to the public from all parties with no actual reasonable ideas. Just bribery. If someone had suggested to pay down national debt. (Even if most of it shouldn't have being ours) Would have being a runner.

is_that_so

smurgen wrote: »

Do you think Jennifer McNeil of FG will really help the housing issues?

https://twitter.com/Astraea1974/status/1229888036969861120?s=19

Yeah, this was known, also a rugby hero so your point here is what?

Yurt2

is_that_so wrote: »

Yeah, this was known, also a rugby hero so your point here is what?

Must've missed Hugo's comic book series. Hugo vs The Joker. Very limited edition.

Spoiler: Hugo destroys The Joker by offering him a high-interest loan with hidden fees.

is_that_so

Yurt! wrote: »

Must've missed Hugo's comic book series. Hugo vs The Joker. Very limited edition.

Yes, very limited is right.

Jinglejangle69

Fann Linn wrote: »

Not really. Article in todays IT states 'Yes-21000 homes built last year BUT 13000 of these are single one off rural builds SO in effect only 8000 homes built for open market.

Have you a link to that?

Not doubting you but that 13,000 figure seems huge.

Loafing Oaf

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Like he's being doing. Election was a joke pandering to the public from all parties with no actual reasonable ideas.

And the party making the most extravagant offers got the most votes. Go figure...

Yurt2

Irish adults aged 25-29 almost twice as likely to be living with parents than their peers in the UK or France. The latest Irish figures are from 2017, but the picture isn't pretty. 47 percent of that age cohort are in the family home.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/jump-in-young-irish-adults-living-with-parents-among-highest-in-eu-1.4177848?mode=amp