General Election and Government Formation Megathread (see post #1)

tobsey · 27-01-2020 02:53PM

Fianna F&#225 wrote: »

Owning your own home
Delivering 200,000 new homes by 2025 and ending long-term homelessness
Fianna Fáil is the party that builds homes. The housing crisis is a social and economic emergency and is one of our main priorities if elected to government. Fine Gael has consistently failed to get to grips with the scale of the problem. Tenants face unaffordable rents, homelessness continues to grow unabated and a generation of young people are unable to buy a home. Fine Gael has abandoned supporting home ownership as a core objective and left an entire generation at the mercy of a rip off rental market.
Our central goal in government will be to build homes and ensure people can own the roof over their heads and tackle homelessness.
Our goals
• Increased home ownership rates.
• Build 200,000 new homes including 50,000 new build social housing units & 50,000 new affordable units.
• Ending the rip off rental market.
• Eliminate long-term homelessness.
Our policy has 6 central strands to get bricks and mortar into the ground.
1. Strengthening Home Ownership
2. Cutting construction costs
3. Penalising hoarding and underuse of land and property
4. Build social and affordable homes
5. Helping Generation Rent
6. Ending Homelessness

Fianna Fáil are the party that build housing bubbles! This is nonsense. They want to double house construction. That’ll require a flood of new workers in the sector and ramp up prices from labourers and contractors. Then when the market crashes due to oversupply these workers will all be back on the dole and the tax take will plummet. It’s exactly what they did last time. They’ve learned nothing.

horsebox1977 · 27-01-2020 03:21PM

road_high wrote: »

1 absolutely atrocious "TD" in the form on Kathleen Funchion in Carlow Kilkenny. Really one of the poorest, dimmest performers I've seen in the Dail ever. Absolutely nothing going on upstairs.
They also lost all their Co Councillors here (which was a very good thing) and a clear reflection of both her breathtaking inabilities and their own. If anyone thinks these bunch are going "to solve housing" or anything else for that matter they are very very sadly mistaken.

Never heard or her and your not the 1st person to say this either!

Just googled her and she was married to David Cullinane.

Jim Root · 27-01-2020 03:25PM

smelly sock wrote: »

Hard to believe FF still do so well after ruining the country.

Did FF cause the US banks to fail?

is_that_so · 27-01-2020 03:33PM

tobsey wrote: »

Fianna Fáil are the party that build housing bubbles! This is nonsense. They want to double house construction. That’ll require a flood of new workers in the sector and ramp up prices from labourers and contractors. Then when the market crashes due to oversupply these workers will all be back on the dole and the tax take will plummet. It’s exactly what they did last time. They’ve learned nothing.

Hmm, really competing with SF now I see. This report from February last year suggests 35,000 a year for a decade is the level needed.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/report-35k-new-homes-needed-annually-in-next-decade-905413.html

For comparison: some 93,419 houses were built in 2006; 78,027 in 2007; 51,724 in 2008. Also can't see how we need 10,000 social houses a year with under 10,000 families requiring a home.

Here's a more up to date piece with thoughts on the various promises. Hard questions do need to be asked about these huge numbers.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/housing-cure-needs-careful-consideration-of-all-options-not-a-knee-jerk-reaction-977897.html

L1011 · 27-01-2020 03:43PM

is_that_so wrote: »

. Also can't see how we need 10,000 social houses a year with under 10,000 families requiring a home.

There's about 90k households on the housing lists / receiving HAP (2017 figures, latest I can find). The 10k figure is the number of people in emergency accom / homeless services.

It is cheaper in the long term to get people off HAP in to a social housing unit.

enfield · 27-01-2020 03:51PM

My formula is this.

Ignore all parties. This now leaves independents.

Ignore any independent who was previously in a party.

And finally My number one vote goes to whoever is left that earns the least, No 2 vote goes to whoever earns second least and so on.

And there you have it.

Now then, how do YOU vote?

tobsey · 27-01-2020 04:02PM

is_that_so wrote: »

Hmm, really competing with SF now I see. This report from February last year suggests 35,000 a year for a decade is the level needed.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/report-35k-new-homes-needed-annually-in-next-decade-905413.html

For comparison: some 93,419 houses were built in 2006; 78,027 in 2007; 51,724 in 2008. Also can't see how we need 10,000 social houses a year with under 10,000 families requiring a home.

Here's a more up to date piece with thoughts on the various promises. Hard questions do need to be asked about these huge numbers.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/housing-cure-needs-careful-consideration-of-all-options-not-a-knee-jerk-reaction-977897.html

Yeah I knew about the numbers built in the 00s and that's why I was saying they're heading that way again.

The figure of 35k homes needed per year has been around a while but I'm not convinced it's that high. We've already seen a cooling in the demand for new houses having built 20k last year. If we ramp up too fast it could cause major problems down the line. The 35k figure also takes account of building so few houses between 2010 and 2016, so the long term figure isn't likely to be 35k. If you are used to building that many and then try and reduce, where is the workforce going to go?

I think we should be aiming to build 20-25k for the next couple of years and tweak it slightly if necessary. Definitely don't double it now and assume everything will be ok.

is_that_so · 27-01-2020 04:06PM

L1011 wrote: »

There's about 90k households on the housing lists / receiving HAP (2017 figures, latest I can find). The 10k figure is the number of people in emergency accom / homeless services.

It is cheaper in the long term to get people off HAP in to a social housing unit.

It is but these numbers are just not achievable unless we go back to the lunacy of the early noughties. I'd wonder if it's desirable to have such a huge swathe of housing managed by inept LAs.

is_that_so · 27-01-2020 04:10PM

tobsey wrote: »

Yeah I knew about the numbers built in the 00s and that's why I was saying they're heading that way again.

The figure of 35k homes needed per year has been around a while but I'm not convinced it's that high. We've already seen a cooling in the demand for new houses having built 20k last year. If we ramp up too fast it could cause major problems down the line. The 35k figure also takes account of building so few houses between 2010 and 2016, so the long term figure isn't likely to be 35k. If you are used to building that many and then try and reduce, where is the workforce going to go?

I think we should be aiming to build 20-25k for the next couple of years and tweak it slightly if necessary. Definitely don't double it now and assume everything will be ok.

I'd rather see people challenged on these numbers, especially in media appearances, rather than split hairs over 20K or 25K. It is clearly a response to what's happening on the campaign but has auction politics written all over it and that leads to disappointment for voters.

L1011 · 27-01-2020 04:12PM

is_that_so wrote: »

It is but these numbers are just not achievable unless we go back to the lunacy of the early noughties. I'd wonder if it's desirable to have such a huge swathe of housing managed by inept LAs.

There wasn't any significant volume of social housing being built in the early 00s; you need to go back to the mid 1990s for that. FF basically privatised provision; first with Part V and then with RS/RAS.

Of course, most councils were more than happy to not take the Part V % and take the cash or land instead before the 2015 rules changes so it didn't even deliver much!

I think a low five figure number of units (just over 10k) were delivered by Part V until the crash when it should have been five or six times higher than that based on the actual built figures.

Charles Babbage · 27-01-2020 04:17PM

tobsey wrote: »

Yeah I knew about the numbers built in the 00s and that's why I was saying they're heading that way again.

The figure of 35k homes needed per year has been around a while but I'm not convinced it's that high. We've already seen a cooling in the demand for new houses having built 20k last year. If we ramp up too fast it could cause major problems down the line. The 35k figure also takes account of building so few houses between 2010 and 2016, so the long term figure isn't likely to be 35k. If you are used to building that many and then try and reduce, where is the workforce going to go?

I think we should be aiming to build 20-25k for the next couple of years and tweak it slightly if necessary. Definitely don't double it now and assume everything will be ok.

The Central Bank believe the figure will be 34,000. Which of their assumptions do you specifically disagree with? Proposing a number only two thirds of this, without any data or justification, is just as irresponsible as anything the politicians are doing.

As stated above, housing numbers in 2005-2007 were twice this figure, so this is not the same, it is like saying that accelerating from 60-80Kmh is dangerous because someone crashed at 160Kmh.

tom1ie · 27-01-2020 04:19PM

IAmTheReign wrote: »

What kind of daft idea is that! People need help getting mortgages now, not in 3 to 5 years time. Telling people they need to spend at least another 3 years renting in order to get any help and the max they'll get then is 4 and a half grand won't win them any votes.

Surely giving people help to borrow more is going to lead to increased prices?
Would it not be better to reduce the actual build cost of the house and then enforce the builder to pass on those price reductions.
Getting people to borrow ever more increasing levels of debt leads to, guess what, people having more debt!

is_that_so · 27-01-2020 04:20PM

L1011 wrote: »

There wasn't any significant volume of social housing being built in the early 00s; you need to go back to the mid 1990s for that. FF basically privatised provision; first with Part V and then with RS/RAS.

Of course, most councils were more than happy to not take the Part V % and take the cash or land instead before the 2015 rules changes so it didn't even deliver much!

Since the move to ownership in the late 70s councils have lost whatever skills they might have had. I don't see it as a huge issue that it is outsourced but it's the overall management of stock where they are pretty awful.

L1011 · 27-01-2020 04:24PM

tom1ie wrote: »

Surely giving people help to borrow more is going to lead to increased prices?
Would it not be better to reduce the actual build cost of the house and then enforce the builder to pass on those price reductions.
Getting people to borrow ever more increasing levels of debt leads to, guess what, people having more debt!

Of course it will - anyone remember the near immediate drop in prices when the old First Time Buyers Grant was pulled in 2002? Builders had taken it in to their margins for years.

The problem is that the things to cut costs on the supply side would not be popular with the public.

The three that would have the most obvious impact, and why they won't do them:

*Cut VAT on new houses - people will object to any increase in taxes elsewhere to cover this and existing homeowners will moan at loss of value

*Reduce development levies - councils need more central funding or more property tax. Sure, the Local Infrastructure Housing Activation Fund is doing this a bit in a few areas, there's an estate planned near me that will have to show its -18k against market prices due to it; but a full rollout would cost.

*Row back on energy efficiency standards. Media suicide, and not really a great idea anyway!

L1011 · 27-01-2020 04:26PM

is_that_so wrote: »

Since the move to ownership in the late 70s councils have lost whatever skills they might have had. I don't see it as a huge issue that it is outsourced but it's the overall management of stock where they are pretty awful.

I would personally see it as something they need to re-learn. They also need better powers to deal with antisocial tenants quicker, garnish rents and a more realistic method for calculating differential rent in households with solid earnings.

Social housing done right should pay for itself in time - that time could be many many decades of course.

Zubeneschamali · 27-01-2020 04:30PM

I look at the manifestos and records of the parties, assess how their policies, if implemented, would affect the country and then vote for FG like my fathers before me.

tom1ie · 27-01-2020 04:34PM

L1011 wrote: »

Of course it will - anyone remember the near immediate drop in prices when the old First Time Buyers Grant was pulled in 2002? Builders had taken it in to their margins for years.

The problem is that the things to cut costs on the supply side would not be popular with the public.

The three that would have the most obvious impact, and why they won't do them:

*Cut VAT on new houses - people will object to any increase in taxes elsewhere to cover this and existing homeowners will moan at loss of value

*Reduce development levies - councils need more central funding or more property tax. Sure, the Local Infrastructure Housing Activation Fund is doing this a bit in a few areas, there's an estate planned near me that will have to show its -18k against market prices due to it; but a full rollout would cost.

*Row back on energy efficiency standards. Media suicide, and not really a great idea anyway!

also:
*open an investigation into the cost of building a house, ie how much per pallet of blocks. Then add in economies of scale. Builders saying they cant build a house for less than 300k when theyre building a couple of hundred is fairytales.
*nama and the semi states own land that can be given to local councils for nothing. The local councils can then sell that land for a nominal fee (€1) to a developer or keep the land and employ a builder on a set price to come in and build the houses, that the developer would have to reflect on his final price.
*as you say above cut V.A.T on houses. It would be seen as a tax cut to benefit the housing industry and tackle homelessness (whose high figures are overstated in the extreme I believe, but that's for a different thread) as long as the reduction is reflected in the selling price by the council/builder.

L1011 · 27-01-2020 04:44PM

I generally ignore all Independents, as we've seen they are incapable of governing and generally treat the Dail like a county council.

JohnnyFlash · 27-01-2020 04:45PM

Early and often.

Zaph · 27-01-2020 04:47PM

enfield wrote: »

And finally My number one vote goes to whoever is left that earns the least, No 2 vote goes to whoever earns second least and so on.

How do you know how much each earns?

LeinsterDub · 27-01-2020 04:51PM

enfield wrote: »

And finally My number one vote goes to whoever is left that earns the least, No 2 vote goes to whoever earns second least and so on.

So you vote depending on earnings alone? Regardless if they are a fascist or a racist or a communist or a hippy or a criminal .

I've heard some fairly moronic things in my time but I think this won't be beat , ever!

hotmail.com · 27-01-2020 04:52PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Could Barnier's visit to Dublin be considered as partial, given he is a member of the EPP?

https://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1221769360538316800

Definitely yes.

How many extra votes will this give FG? Probably about zero.

El Tarangu · 27-01-2020 05:12PM

Jim Root wrote: »

Did FF cause the US banks to fail?

No. But it could be argued that, due to their lax regulation of the financial sector here, and allowing the economy to become overheated & over-reliant on property, things were much worse than they might have been in the aftermath.

Jim Root · 27-01-2020 05:27PM

El Tarangu wrote: »

No. But it could be argued that, due to their lax regulation of the financial sector here, and allowing the economy to become overheated & over-reliant on property, things were much worse than they might have been in the aftermath.

I'm pretty agnostic party wise but I really don't think FG would have fared any better had they been in power at the time.

El Tarangu · 27-01-2020 05:41PM

Jim Root wrote: »

I'm pretty agnostic party wise but I really don't think FG would have fared any better had they been in power at the time.

I think you might you might be correct.

However, if FG had been in power before the crash, there might not have been as many Bertie-era, 'one for everyone in the audience' public sector pay deals to rollback once the sh!t did hit the fan.

Brussels Sprout · 27-01-2020 05:44PM

I really like to maximise the utility and transferability of my vote so as to share it around a bit. For this reason I never vote for the candidates who are nailed on to get elected as I figure they don’t need it.
Similarly I sometimes give my number 1 vote to a no-hoper candidate whose policies I like knowing well that they will be eliminated and all their votes transferred to other candidates and that my #2 will be just as valuable at this stage as my #1 was.

I usually have an idea who is going to be in the shake-up for the last seats in my constituency and I make sure that I rank these candidates accordingly so that my vote ultimately ends up in the pile of my preferred candidate out of these.

antimatterx · 27-01-2020 06:14PM

Fine Gael 1 & 2

blanch152 · 27-01-2020 06:29PM

https://www.redcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SBP-January-2020-Poll-Report.pdf

Here is some of the detail behind the Red C poll.

Some strange findings. Sinn Fein doing better with women than men and only 12% in Connacht/Ulster.

Charles Babbage · 27-01-2020 06:38PM

L1011 wrote: »

I would personally see it as something they need to re-learn. They also need better powers to deal with antisocial tenants quicker, garnish rents and a more realistic method for calculating differential rent in households with solid earnings.

Social housing done right should pay for itself in time - that time could be many many decades of course.

Differential rents should be abolished. Instead the market rent should be there and people can claim a reduction on this, akin to the payment to private landlords. It may be only a paper transaction but it would balance the provision to public and private housing owners.

James Brown · 27-01-2020 06:42PM

El Tarangu wrote: »

I think you might you might be correct.

However, if FG had been in power before the crash, there might not have been as many Bertie-era, 'one for everyone in the audience' public sector pay deals to rollback once the sh!t did hit the fan.

The key difference between FF and FG is FF give the public a taste while filling their pockets, whereas FG look after business. Same result.

Back to topic, my area is pretty odd. A traditional FG stronghold and down the road SF always get a look in. It's private home owners, living in formally social housing versus those renting/in social housing.

General Election and Government Formation Megathread (see post #1)

Comments