How hostile will the new government be for Waterford?

Wanderer78

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

There are vested interests that want high prices but I am not convinced that they are incontrol. If you look at Waterford prices, we are only up about 20% higher in median price since 2010. Have you any evidence that there is increasing precarious working environments?


No doubt that the council is sometimes the worst enemy of the city, but housing as always been seen as an investment. Without investors, there would be nothing to rent.

i think the problem is more to do with complex human behavior, than anything else. we have managed to largely convince ourselves of things such as, continually rising asset prices, particularly in relation to housing, is good for everyone, as the wealth created trickles down, but reality is showing a very different story. this has only truly worked for particular portions of society, and baring in mind, this is highly subjective. the obvious gainers have been the already wealthy, but many none wealthy have also gained from this thinking, particularly many older generations. please bare in mind, im not saying the older generations that have gained, or believed so, had an easy run of it, far from, i do realise most have probably had to make a lot of sacrifices and have worked damn hard for what they have, but some external factors were in their favor at critical times in their lives.

we have elevated particular industries in the modern economy, that have lead to very questionable activities and behaviors, we typically call this financialization, in which its activities potentially could be extremely dangerous for us all, including the wealthy. some of the biggest offenders operating in the modern economy would be the fire sectors(finance, insurance and real estate), and by default, from this thinking of things such as 'trickle down', these industries have become in effect 'the controllers'. baring in mind, id imagine most working in these industries truly believe they are doing the right thing for society and themselves of course, but simply may not be, they may in fact could be causing great harm to society as a whole.

theres loads of evidence of the increasing precariousness of working environments, both in the public and private sectors, its very noticeable in the private sector, compared to previous generations. many would say the 'job for life' is long gone, and it is, thats a clear indication, but there any many others, such as the increase in the number of service jobs etc

it is only some what true that housing has always been an investment, wind back the clock a bit, and you ll see a large proportion of housing was in fact publicly owned, rising private ownership is a relatively new concept, a few decades. of course there has always been investors in the sector, but id argue current policies are exposing both entities of the rental market, i.e. both tenants and landlords. i will agree, we do need investors in this market, but we also need a balance of both private and public housing, neither are currently truly occurring.

Yellow_Fern

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i think the problem is more to do with complex human behavior, than anything else. we have managed to largely convince ourselves of things such as, continually rising asset prices, particularly in relation to housing, is good for everyone,

I would argue that gradually slight increases housing is good for all. The problem is when it is too fast or reversed.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

sectors(finance, insurance and real estate), and by default, from this thinking of things such as 'trickle down', these industries have become in effect 'the controllers'. baring in mind, id imagine most working in these industries truly believe they are doing the right thing for society and themselves of course, but simply may not be, they may in fact could be causing great harm to society as a whole.

No one believes in trickle down. Even Ronald Reagan and Milton Freiden did not believe in trickle down. Left wing myth.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

it is only some what true that housing has always been an investment, wind back the clock a bit, and you ll see a large proportion of housing was in fact publicly owned, rising private ownership is a relatively new concept, a few decades. of course there has always been investors in the sector, but id argue current policies are exposing both entities of the rental market, i.e. both tenants and landlords. i will agree, we do need investors in this market, but we also need a balance of both private and public housing, neither are currently truly occurring.

Homeownership is not a new thing. Home ownership has been in decline for about 50 years. House prices were correlated for a long time to consumer price index until about 1996. 1996 was also the year that we achieved net positive in migration numbers and migration as well as population increases, less casual work and income growth is why houses and rent have boomed.

Wanderer78

Yellow_Fern wrote:

I would argue that gradually slight increases housing is good for all. The problem is when it is too fast or reversed.

Yea I'd some agree with this

Yellow_Fern wrote:

No one believes in trickle down. Even Ronald Reagan and Milton Freiden did not believe in trickle down. Left wing myth.

That's funny on many levels cause Reagan largely implied it during most of his time in office, Reagan and thatcher were clearly also highly conservative. the confusing part occured after their tenure, as the traditional left, or the so called left (chomsky - moderate republicans) also got into the same game, effectively abandoning their base, and went full on trickle down(which in reality is largely trickle up), and we re still largely playing the same game

Yellow_Fern wrote:

1996 was also the year that we achieved net positive in migration numbers and migration as well as population increases, less casual work and income growth is why houses and rent have boomed.

You ll actually find one of the main factors that has caused a rapid rise in housing has been the availability of credit from private sector financial institutions, hence why we recently experienced a 'credit crisis'. you ll actually find wage inflation has been relatively low in comparison to this rapid rise in the price of housing, and not really much to do with population increases

azimuth17

This thread is so puffed up with verbose self importance and has gone so far off topic that it is mind deadening. It needs to be called to order.

Wanderer 78 et al in economics 101, open a thread on local economics and post there.

Wanderer78

azimuth17 wrote: »

This thread is so puffed up with verbose self importance and has gone so far off topic that it is mind deadening. It needs to be called to order.

Wanderer 78 et al in economics 101, open a thread on local economics and post there.

you a mod? strangely enough folks, our current situation is all economics

Bards

Phoenix column in this week's News and Star sums it all up perfectly


https://waterford-news.ie/2020/07/21/phoenix-no-surrender/#.Xxbxx7fhRkw

vriesmays

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

No doubt that the council is sometimes the worst enemy of the city, but housing as always been seen as an investment. Without investors, there would be nothing to rent.

Private landlords are selling up while councils are buying up. In a few years there will be nothing to rent.

Wanderer78

vriesmays wrote: »

Private landlords are selling up while councils are buying up. In a few years there will be nothing to rent.

cant see that happening at all

spaceCreated

So has there been any news on Government implementation of making Waterford a viable alternative to Dublin or giving providing basic healthcare such as 24/7 cardiac care or have we been shafted again? I think I saw some local FG politician asking for the technical institute being given priority and WIT be emrged with Carlow? Not sure how many votes that will get anyone down here if half the courses WIT offers now end up in Carlow.

vriesmays

vriesmays wrote: »

Private landlords are selling up while councils are buying up. In a few years there will be nothing to rent.

Going by some recent national stories I can fully understand the reasons for it!

It must be a nightmare being a landlord with a bad tenant!

Wanderer78

Oscar Madison wrote:

It must be a nightmare being a landlord with a bad tenant!

A complete disaster I'd imagine, I've heard some places can be destroyed after them, costing a fortune to sort, government policies aren't helping the situation either, for both entities

BBM77

Oscar Madison wrote: »

Going by some recent national stories I can fully understand the reasons for it!

It must be a nightmare being a landlord with a bad tenant!

Yes, but some deserve what they get to. They put anybody in a house as long as they get the money and leave the neighbours suffer the consequences of the scum they put in the house.

Wanderer78

BBM77 wrote:

Yes, but some deserve what they get to. They put anybody in a house as long as they get the money and leave the neighbours suffer the consequences of the scum they put in the house.

Yea I can see both sides of this argument, I have come to the conclusion, there's probably an equal amount of arsehole tenents as there is landlords

hardybuck

Oscar Madison wrote: »

Going by some recent national stories I can fully understand the reasons for it!

It must be a nightmare being a landlord with a bad tenant!

Like SF's Violet Anne Wynn.

A charity provided her with a home for the princely sum of €63 a week. Rent arrears commenced as soon as she moved in and she paid zero rent for the final four years of her tenancy.

alias no.9

spaceCreated wrote: »

So has there been any news on Government implementation of making Waterford a viable alternative to Dublin or giving providing basic healthcare such as 24/7 cardiac care or have we been shafted again? I think I saw some local FG politician asking for the technical institute being given priority and WIT be emrged with Carlow? Not sure how many votes that will get anyone down here if half the courses WIT offers now end up in Carlow.

Why would half the courses end up in Carlow? I find the comment very strange.

Why would a TU for the South East have to be exclusively in Waterford? If merging the two IT's is what it takes to secure Technical University status, surely its a case of getting on with it. CIT and ITT are doing just that and will be formally a TU in the new year.

Bards

alias no.9 wrote: »

Why would half the courses end up in Carlow? I find the comment very strange.

Why would a TU for the South East have to be exclusively in Waterford? If merging the two IT's is what it takes to secure Technical University status, surely its a case of getting on with it. CIT and ITT are doing just that and will be formally a TU in the new year.

Cork already has a full blown university and now a TU... WIT was the first RTC and at the time only RTC upgraded to an IT on the understanding that it was a stepping stone to full University... But CRTC threw their toys out of the pram and all RTCs became ITs and Waterford was back to square 1 to where we are now today

spaceCreated

alias no.9 wrote: »

Why would half the courses end up in Carlow? I find the comment very strange.

Why would a TU for the South East have to be exclusively in Waterford? If merging the two IT's is what it takes to secure Technical University status, surely its a case of getting on with it. CIT and ITT are doing just that and will be formally a TU in the new year.

Why would a third level institute replicate a couple of hundred courses? Given the discussions taking place previously between the colleges Carlow were adamant they would be taking over the i.t, engineering and business course, they told WIT they would be welcome to running arts& humanities.

Where did I say it would be exclusively for Waterford. I just think having campuses too spread out over one city is a bad implementation. Having one split in to 2 in Waterford and Carlow is ridiculous. I'd be very surprised if Cit didn't swallow up Itt and leave a satellite in Kerry. With the lack of any political say in the country I could see Carlow getting the lions share of courses.

vriesmays

Lecturers will commute to Carlow, Waterford's too far.

Muttley79

https://www.facebook.com/120792148007585/posts/3285717264848375/
A cork TD out to sabotage the expansion of Waterford city and totally contradicts himself.pure parish pump politics to suit their own constituency

JimWinters

Muttley79 wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/120792148007585/posts/3285717264848375/
A cork TD out to sabotage the expansion of Waterford city and totally contradicts himself.pure parish pump politics to suit their own constituency

It’s amazing FG can rely on a flawed report to deny us 24/7 cardiac care and ignore another report like the boundary commission that doesn’t suit their agenda.

County Waterford’s population was 116,000 in 2016. The maximum population you can have per TD is 30k. If you added the population in the area under review (7,000 people) into Waterford’s population there would be 123,000 in County Waterford and we would then need a fifth seat for the constituency.

We’re surrounded by counties with 5 seat constituencies which always leads to us getting squeezed. I think the boundary review was rejected to ensure we did not get our fifth TD!!

spaceCreated

JimWinters wrote: »

It’s amazing FG can rely on a flawed report to deny us 24/7 cardiac care and ignore another report like the boundary commission that doesn’t suit their agenda.

County Waterford’s population was 116,000 in 2016. The maximum population you can have per TD is 30k. If you added the population in the area under review (7,000 people) into Waterford’s population there would be 123,000 in County Waterford and we would then need a fifth seat for the constituency.

We’re surrounded by counties with 5 seat constituencies which always leads to us getting squeezed. I think the boundary review was rejected to ensure we did not get our fifth TD!!

Whats surprising is that both Waterford and Wexford each stand to gain another td there is a population increase. 2 more tds for the south east would be massive.

I think Alan Kelly was happy to ignore Waterford and fk us over when in government but is trying to make all sorts of promises etc. now when eh doesn't have to do anything. But of course FG were instrumental in not implementing the boundary reccomendations
.

The definition of gerrymandering: to "manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favour one party or class."

Bards

You just can't believe anything a politician says... The phrase "judge me by my actions and not my words" should apply to all politicians

Dunmoreroader

JimWinters wrote: »

It’s amazing FG can rely on a flawed report to deny us 24/7 cardiac care and ignore another report like the boundary commission that doesn’t suit their agenda.

County Waterford’s population was 116,000 in 2016. The maximum population you can have per TD is 30k. If you added the population in the area under review (7,000 people) into Waterford’s population there would be 123,000 in County Waterford and we would then need a fifth seat for the constituency.

We’re surrounded by counties with 5 seat constituencies which always leads to us getting squeezed. I think the boundary review was rejected to ensure we did not get our fifth TD!!

Presumably, Carlow/Kilkenny would have had to have been reduced to a 4-seater for Waterford to become a 5-seater in this scenario i.e, not due to population increase just a transfer i.e. not an extra seat for the SE but yes an extra seat for the Waterford constituency?

JimWinters

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Presumably, Carlow/Kilkenny would have had to have been reduced to a 4-seater for Waterford to become a 5-seater in this scenario i.e, not due to population increase just a transfer i.e. not an extra seat for the SE but yes an extra seat for the Waterford constituency?

So article 16 of the Constitution specifies that there must be one TD for between 20,000 and 30,000 of the population. Carlow has a population of 56k and Kilkenny has a population of 99k, they should be a 6 seater constituency. If they lost the 7k from the boundary review they would remain at 5.



25 of the 40 constituencies are above the 30k limit and breach article 16 of the Constitution. County Limerick has the lowest population to TD ratio in the country, if their ratio was applied to Waterford we would already be a 5 seater.


Mr. Coveney was in charge of that Constituency Commission review too!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/census-2016-shows-the-number-of-tds-breaches-constitution-1.2722184


The number of TDs representing Waterford has not changed since 1977 when the population of the city and county was around 29k less at 87,278.

hardybuck

According to the 2016 Census 25 of the 40 constituencies were above the constitutional limit. This was a new issue due to the rapid population growth over the past 10-15 years.

A Constituency Commission was established as a response, and as noted they recommended that Waterford remain unchanged. They also noted in the report that very few submissions were received about Waterford.

Prior to the changes the average constituency had 30,114 people for every TD, and this went down to 29,762 after the changes.

The population per TD in Waterford was 29,044 - which is very favourable by national standards. Kerry (at 29,541) and Wexford (at 29,944) also remained unchanged.

Turning KK-Carlow into a 5 seater left them with 31,233 people per TD.

JimWinters

hardybuck wrote: »

The population per TD in Waterford was 29,044 - which is very favourable by national standards. Kerry (at 29,541) and Wexford (at 29,944) also remained unchanged.

Agreed, Waterford’s 5 TDs is correct for the current population. If the boundary commission’s recommendations were followed we would have 7k more in the county and would have a case for the 5th seat as we would be over the 30k.

It’s strange that just two seats were added in the 2020 election when 25 constituencies breach the ratio set out in the constitution...

hardybuck

JimWinters wrote: »

Agreed, Waterford’s 5 TDs is correct for the current population. If the boundary commission’s recommendations were followed we would have 7k more in the county and would have a case for the 5th seat as we would be over the 30k.

It’s strange that just two seats were added in the 2020 election when 25 constituencies breach the ratio set out in the constitution...

I think this was a case of improving the situation while causing as little financial and political pain as possible.

You could make a strong case for a total overhaul of many constituencies. However this annoys people in a way that isn't logical.

If you broke up the existing structure and put East Waterford, South Tipp, South Kilkenny and South Wexford into one constituency it might make sense for lots of reasons, but it would be guaranteed to drive people in each area ballistic.

BBM77

JimWinters wrote: »

Agreed, Waterford’s 5 TDs is correct for the current population. If the boundary commission’s recommendations were followed we would have 7k more in the county and would have a case for the 5th seat as we would be over the 30k.

It’s strange that just two seats were added in the 2020 election when 25 constituencies breach the ratio set out in the constitution...

Just curious when has whats correct ever come into how Waterford gets treated by government?

Muttley79

Dublin 45 seats
Cork 18 seats
Galway 8 seats
Limerick 7 seats
Waterford 4 seats
Waterford will always struggle to have a voice in the government buildings.even wexford,kilkenny-carlow have 5 seats

spaceCreated

Muttley79 wrote: »

Dublin 45 seats
Cork 18 seats
Galway 8 seats
Limerick 7 seats
Waterford 4 seats
Waterford will always struggle to have a voice in the government buildings.even wexford,kilkenny-carlow have 5 seats

True but if you get 5 in Waterford and 6 in Wexford and suddenly it is worth buying votes here by providing basic healthcare and a decent standard of education...

hardybuck

spaceCreated wrote: »

True but if you get 5 in Waterford and 6 in Wexford and suddenly it is worth buying votes here by providing basic healthcare and a decent standard of education...

That's not going to happen in the short term. When it does other areas will be ahead of Waterford in the queue as at the moment its probably in the top 25% it comes to population per TD.

spaceCreated

hardybuck wrote: »

That's not going to happen in the short term. When it does other areas will be ahead of Waterford in the queue as at the moment its probably in the top 25% it comes to population per TD.

Like it wouldn't shock me if went another few thousand by the next census. We are surely going to do better than the 5 years after 2011 where we had a 2% increase. Theres a lot more people hanging around.