FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

smurgen wrote: »

If it's anything like they US infant mortality rates then god bless America!almost every EU country has a lower one than the U.S.

You got that from a Bernie speech? The Dear Leader is good at hiding statistics/causality relationship and even better at hiding advantages of Americas healthcare system (that I mentioned above)?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161013103132.htm
Is a baby born weighing less than a pound and after only 21 weeks' gestation actually "born?" In some countries, the answer is no, and those births would be counted as stillbirths. In the United States, on the other hand, despite these premature babies' relatively low odds of survival, they would be considered born -- thus counting toward the country's infant mortality rates.
These premature births are the biggest factor in explaining the United States' high infant mortality rate.

smurgen

J_1980 wrote: »

I am against bailouts.
But if the government shuts businesses and grounds airlines, that’s not exactly a free market either, is it?

What markets closed?

Lots. S&P stopped trading on the 18th a few others over the last few weeks. Are you against these shutdown? Airlines haven't been shutdown.why do they deserve a bailout?

smurgen wrote: »

Lots. S&P stopped trading on the 18th a few others over the last few weeks. Are you against these shutdown? Airlines haven't been shutdown.why do they deserve a bailout?

Wasn't really shut, just a volatility interruption.

Travel is restricted. Im in favor of shutdowns, but that is not a classical failure bailout then. It’s a bailout to make good for (necessary) intervention in the free market. Sounds fair.
Best comparison:
Taking control of industries in wartimes isn’t communism either.....
You get my point.

smurgen

J_1980 wrote: »

Wasn't really shut, just a volatility interruption.

Travel is restricted. Im in favor of shutdowns, but that is not a classical failure bailout then. It’s a bailout to make good for (necessary) intervention in the free market. Sounds fair.
Best comparison:
Taking control of industries in wartimes isn’t communism either.....
You get my point.

Not really. You move your goalposts every posts.i'll leave ya to it. Let's come back in a month and see how the U.S and UK have done on the virus.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

What was your opinion on the manifesto.

Some reviewers
https://www.charteredaccountants.ie/News/the-sinn-fein-manifesto
Some more details here
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/cianan-brennan-the-sinn-fein-manifesto-what-is-doable-what-is-not-981202.html

That's a guess. How exactly do you quantify rich? just so I know.

Personally I think the SF manifesto is doable, if there was a will to get it done, and it was managed correctly unlike existing capital expenditure projects.

The capital expenditure would be amortised, so despite what some people say, its perfectly affordable.
6 billion extra for housing, amortised over 25 years would cost the state less than 250 million per year. I don't think anyone would deny that we need that additional housing, and on a massive scale compared to what is built now

FG currently spend in excess of €612 million a year on HAP per year
€170 million was spent in Dublin alone on emergency housing last year, expand that out to the rest of the country and you are talking in excess of 200 million
These costs will inevitably rise over coming years

Compare the 250 million a year that SF will spend building homes that the state will own to the nearly €800 million a year that the current government are spending renting private properties for social housing and emergency housing and over the same time period FG will have spent close to 20 billion. When you put 20 billion side by side with 6 billion, its a no brainer.

SF want to reshape the HSE and make it less top heavy, which can only be a good thing. the HSE has become an administration behemoth rather than an organisation delivering healthcare. SF want more people giving care rather than to many people administrating.
They intend to turn all the current positions filled by agency staff into full time positions which will save the state millions.
Get rid of the dual wage system introduced by FG where new doctors and consultants earn considerably less then those already employed. Its all well and good FG crying about additional taxation that SF propose to introduce, but they neglect to inform the electorate at the same time the very people they say will be be dissuaded from applying for these jobs are already dissuaded because FG refuse to pay them the same as existing doctor and consultants. Far better to give them a fair pay in my opinion and tax them on that, than refuse to employ them at a reasonable wage considering their qualifications and expertise.

THat too will cost a lot of money, SF estimate 6 billion over the term of a government, much of this is capital expenditure so will be amortised, but given the state of the HSE and the obvious mismanagement of funds they receive its hard to tell how much would be a reasonable estimate. Having said that I dont think anyone will deny that the HSE is in desperate need of reform and that is something the FG ad FF have previously refused to do

The issue here though is not whether we as a nation can afford what SF want to do, we certainly can, but that means making choices on how other money the state receives is spent. Do we really need to give the greyhound industry 15 million a year for example, when the same money would employ an additional 350 nurses?
In 2018 the state collected €78 BILLION total in revenues, are you really going to suggest that with some reallocation of funding that the SF manifesto could not possibly be funded and still stay withing the fiscal space available?

THe FG manifesto isnt so safe either.
FG predicate all its spending polices on increasing employment by at least 40,000 employees every year. Some how FG think that there will be 200,000 additional people working than there was at the start of this year. Yet at the same time FG claim there is only 120,000 people unemployed in total
That's a very nice trick if you could pull it off,
maybe a FG magic worker tree rather than the SF magic money tree?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/state-has-paid-landlords-612m-under-hap-tenant-scheme-1.4044451

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/homelessness-crisis-dublin-hotel-received-over-4m-last-year-for-emergency-housing-1.4181148

Table 1: Department of Finance Economic projections 2020-2025
Change 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Gross Domestic Product (%
increase) 3.9 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.5
New jobs 42,000 40,000 38,000 39,000 40,000 38,000

From the FG manifesto page 104
https://election2020.finegael.ie/pdf/FG_GE20_Manifesto.pdf

https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/monthlyunemployment/

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/giea/governmentincomeandexpenditurejuly2019/

efanton wrote: »

Personally I think the SF manifesto is doable, if there was a will to get it done, and it was managed correctly unlike existing capital expenditure projects.

The capital expenditure would be amortised, so despite what some people say, its perfectly affordable.
6 billion extra for housing, amortised over 25 years would cost the state less than 250 million per year. I don't think anyone would deny that we need that additional housing, and on a massive scale compared to what is built

The problem isn't the 6bn, it’s very doable over even shorter time than 25y.
Problem is the number of housing units (100k).

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/two-bed-apartment-in-dublin-costs-463-000-to-build-report-says-1.4201418?mode=amp

At current build costs that gets you 15k apartments assuming no inflation. Now add in the maintenance costs (which are higher than council rents) and it’s probably less.

It’s just these blatant lies (or bull**** to be more honest) that is so unique to the left globally. When Corbyns Labour pledges £58bn for women caught in pension trap as if this is supermarket change everyone in UK knew the whole manifesto was just fantasy lala land politics. This number (100k home) is similar nonsense, maybe the Irish are indeed too dim-witted to see the obvious.....

J_1980 wrote: »

The problem isn't the 6bn, it’s very doable over even shorter time than 25y.
Problem is the number of housing units (100k).

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/two-bed-apartment-in-dublin-costs-463-000-to-build-report-says-1.4201418?mode=amp

At current build costs that gets you 15k apartments assuming no inflation. Now add in the maintenance costs (which are higher than council rents) and it’s probably less.

It’s just these blatant lies (or bull**** to be more honest) that is so unique to the left globally. When Corbyns Labour pledges £58bn for women caught in pension trap as if this is supermarket change everyone in UK knew the whole manifesto was just fantasy lala land politics. This number (100k home) is similar nonsense, maybe the Irish are indeed too dim-witted to see the obvious.....

To be honest I thought that too, initially.

But digging deeper these costs that SF use for their housing proposal are exactly the same as those used by the existing FG government.
In fact SF and FG use essentially the same methodology to cost their housing programmes.
FG claims it can provide homes for €160,000 SF claims it can provide them for about €126,000, but does so by using state owned sites and obviously because they are building rather then buying all profits are also removed. Both numbers seem low but both parties have removed VAT and other taxes.

Also the homes built by private developers are generally bigger and more expensive than homes built by county councils. I see no need for social hosing to be any bigger than 1100 sq ft, or requiring large gardens. The design used has a big bearing on the final cost.
FG would be buying these private developer built more expensive homes, SF would not be building homes of that quality or size.
Government built homes might not, or should not, be of an equal quality or size to those offered in the private sector.

Read these and you will see the SF housing plan is more than feasible.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/dermot-desmond-everyone-has-a-right-to-a-home-here-is-how-it-can-be-done-1.4195439

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/lets-join-the-21st-century-with-an-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis-once-and-for-all/

Shefwedfan

It’s been done to death as to shorten it, send me one link of one economist in Ireland that’s says the SF manifesto is achievable

Your post is just a copy and paste from some SF site

efanton wrote: »

To be honest I thought that too, initially.

But digging deeper these costs that SF use for their housing proposal are exactly the same as those used by the existing FG government.
In fact SF and FG use essentially the same methodology to cost their housing programmes.
FG claims it can provide homes for €160,000 SF claims it can provide them for about €126,000, but does so by using state owned sites and obviously because they are building rather then buying all profits are also removed. Both numbers seem low but both parties have removed VAT and other taxes.

Also the homes built by private developers are generally bigger and more expensive than homes built by county councils. I see no need for social hosing to be any bigger than 1100 sq ft, or requiring large gardens. The design used has a big bearing on the final cost.
FG would be buying these private developer built more expensive homes, SF would not be building homes of that quality or size.
Government built homes might not, or should not, be of an equal quality or size to those offered in the private sector.

Read these and you will see the SF housing plan is more than feasible.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/dermot-desmond-everyone-has-a-right-to-a-home-here-is-how-it-can-be-done-1.4195439

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/lets-join-the-21st-century-with-an-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis-once-and-for-all/

Where does FG claim 160k? By giving development sites to private developers and in return take back 20% social units for free you can bring down the costs ON AVERAGE to 160k
126k is laughable no matter what size. Apartment interior full refurbishments are quoted between 50-100k in Dublin.

And oh yes self building by state is so mich more efficient than private developers..... efficient like the HSE?

That David mcWilliams article is a joke. Why doesn't he start his own business, building cheaper than all others? If he knows something no one else knows?
I know the answer.
Its all the usual BS from the left. Lefties are all writers and journalists etc. zero real world experience.

J_1980 wrote: »

Where does FG claim 160k? By giving development sites to private developers and in return take back 20% social units for free you can bring down the costs ON AVERAGE to 160k
126k is laughable no matter what size. Apartment interior full refurbishments are quoted between 50-100k in Dublin.

And oh yes self building by state is so mich more efficient than private developers..... efficient like the HSE?

That David mcWilliams article is a joke. Why doesn't he start his own business, building cheaper than all others? If he knows something no one else knows?
I know the answer.
Its all the usual BS from the left. Lefties are all writers and journalists etc. zero real world experience.

Its quite simple. Nearly 50% of the cost of a house is what they call 'soft' costs or charges, surveyor fees, planning, developers profit etc etc. Then
government taxes are then added to that.

So take your typical small new 3 bedroom home in Dublin, they are going for about 300k.

Cut that in half and remove the site cost. That's what it is going to cost the government Any government be it SF or FG to build a house.

I notice you ignored what Dermot Desmond said.

I did have a link for the FG €160k cost, but am unable to find it. will continue to look for it.

Sultan_of_Ping

efanton wrote: »

of the the three main parties FG got the least support.
somehow I think the majority of the electorate totally disagree with you.

Why would you be concerned about left of centre parties being involved if the aim for a national government would be to take expert opinion and put that into practice, unless of course you believe FG will refuse to implement expert advice.

I worry when parties and governments cling to power, usually bad things result.
.........[snip]
.

FG are not clinging to anything - it's just no other party has been able to command enough support to form a government. As soon as they do, Leo et al are for the chicken 'n' chips circuit.

efanton wrote: »

You might not agree with those that did not vote FG, but I believe this is still a democracy. If there is to be a national gov
ernment the it should include ALL parties who should proportionally make up that government according to the seats they hold.

It is not for FG to dictate what is right or wrong, nor decide who is or is not included in a national government. This i not a dictatorship even though it appears some in FG would prefer that. Dont forget FG have drastically reduced voting rights in the Dail now and they have no mandate to do so. They have every right to refuse to form a coalition with another party but a national government is not a typical coalition, it is a government of all parties.

Personally I would prefer to see a new government formed, or for FG and FF to be honest and say they cannot form a government and make preparations for a new election.

What cracks me up about the FG supporters is this claim that SF or any other party demonises the rich or attacks property rights. Especially when these same supporters obviously are not rich themselves.
Increasing taxation is exactly what FG have been good at, although they have been careful to use levies to hide the amount of additional taxation they have collected. What surprises me is with all the taxation collected FG did such a lousy job providing for the needs of the services that now most depend on in this crisis. No doubt this will become even more apparent in the ext few months.

Ireland is a republican democracy, not a people's democracy - the distinction is not unimportant.

Also, national governments don't require the participation of all parties. Of the seven national governments that operated in the UK in the 1930s and 1940s only one comprised of all the parties. The Labour Party stayed out of most of them, and had about 30% of the seats.....a similar proportion to what SF hold currently.

No need for SF, PBP or the Greens to get involved, just leave it to the "adults" in the room.....

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

FG are not clinging to anything - it's just no other party has been able to command enough support to form a government. As soon as they do, Leo et al are for the chicken 'n' chips circuit.

Ireland is a republican democracy, not a people's democracy - the distinction is not unimportant.

Also, national governments don't require the participation of all parties. Of the seven national governments that operated in the UK in the 1930s and 1940s only one comprised of all the parties. The Labour Party stayed out of most of them, and had about 30% of the seats.....a similar proportion to what SF hold currently.

No need for SF, PBP or the Greens to get involved, just leave it to the "adults" in the room.....

and who gets to determine who the 'adults' are?

Personally I think a national government is a terrible idea, and should only be considered if FF and FG cant get their act together and form a government as an interim measure until such time a new election could take place.

FG only said last week they want to be in opposition.

And yet we still have SF supporters here ranting that FG have some masterplan to now get into government because of the coronavirus?

Its all a conspiracy i tell ya.

One question.

What exactly do you SF lads want right now????

landofthetree

efanton wrote: »

and who gets to determine who the 'adults' are?

Personally I think a national government is a terrible idea, and should only be considered if FF and FG cant get their act together and form a government as an interim measure until such time a new election could take place.

FF FG are 7 TDs short.

The Greens have run away. They dont want to go into an austerity government again.

Sultan_of_Ping

efanton wrote: »

and who gets to determine who the 'adults' are?

Personally I think a national government is a terrible idea, and should only be considered if FF and FG cant get their act together and form a government as an interim measure until such time a new election could take place.

You'll know them when you see them.

Varadkar, Harris and Coveney are doing an excellent job in my view. And in some way we're lucky they've been voted out because they don't need to be populist. They can make the tough decisions because whatever happens at the end of this they are likely out on their ear.

Much better they're running the show rather than some new, inexperienced, populist driven whacky coalition.......we'd be dead!

THe FG'ers are going to love this.

FG recently updated their website.
https://www.finegael.ie/our-policies/a-housing-system-with-the-citizen-at-the-centre/

Our ambition is to ensure:

there is a strong construction sector focused on the building of homes in all price ranges, not on land speculation;
that we are building in excess of 25,000 new houses per annum in 2020, rising to 35,000 in the years thereafter, and those houses are in locations with access to employment, public transport, and other essential amenities;
12,000 new homes are added to the social housing stock each year by 2021 and that level is maintained thereafter;

So in 5 years FG claim they will build more than the ambitious 100,000 that SF proposed. In fact a total of 165,000 homes.
Obviously from the above not all homes would be social housing, but they promise 60,000 would be.
Looks like they took a page out of SF plans and then trumped it.

Are we still going to have people here claiming that 100,000 homes could not be built in 5 years?

smurgen

efanton wrote: »

THe FG'ers are going to love this.

FG recently updated their website.
https://www.finegael.ie/our-policies/a-housing-system-with-the-citizen-at-the-centre/

So in 5 years FG claim they will build more than the ambitious 100,000 that SF proposed. In fact a total of 165,000 homes.
Obviously from the above not all homes would be social housing, but they promise 60,000 would be.
Looks like the took a page out of SF plans and then trumped it.

Are we still going to have people here claiming that 100,000 homes could not be built in 5 years?

And yet SF are the populist party

landofthetree wrote: »

FF FG are 7 TDs short.

The Greens have run away. They dont want to go into an austerity government again.

I understand that. They will have to go running to the independents many of which can be bought at a price as that is their sole purpose.
I wonder how much 7 independent TD's will cost?

If they cant form a government the they should be honest about it and allow a new election to be called once it is safe for TD's to canvass and polling station to be opened. This dilly-dallying will only cost both parties votes in the long run.

With Labour dropping out SF had to accept they could not get the numbers, but at least they didn't keep the nation hanging.

FrancieBrady

landofthetree wrote: »

FF FG are 7 TDs short.

The Greens have run away. They dont want to go into an austerity government again.

Hey...looking after window sill gardens takes time!

efanton wrote: »

THe FG'ers are going to love this.

FG recently updated their website.
https://www.finegael.ie/our-policies/a-housing-system-with-the-citizen-at-the-centre/

So in 5 years FG claim they will build more than the ambitious 100,000 that SF proposed. In fact a total of 165,000 homes.
Obviously from the above not all homes would be social housing, but they promise 60,000 would be.
Looks like they took a page out of SF plans and then trumped it.

Are we still going to have people here claiming that 100,000 homes could not be built in 5 years?

Ehhhh Sinn Féins promises are social and affordable housing.

FG's is overall housing.

Literally cringing here for you.

Hard luck.

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Em SFs claims are social and affordable housing.

FG's is overall housing.

Literally cringing here for you.

Hard luck.

Can you not read? I already said that. I clearly stated 60k social homes.

Obviously from the above not all homes would be social housing, but they promise 60,000 would be.

Suddenly from 6k-7k social houses a year a year, targets that were never met, FG somehow now thinks it can build at least 12k social homes a year. Were FG lying last year when they said 7k was the best they could achieve.

But there has been people posting here earlier in the thread saying building 100,000 homes would be an impossibility for our construction industry. Seems now FG disagree with that.

efanton wrote: »

Can you not read? I already said that. I clearly stated 60k social homes.

Suddenly from 6k-7k social houses a year a year, targets that were never met, FG somehow now thinks it can build at least 12k social homes a year. Were FG lying last year when they said 7k was the best they could achieve.

But there has been people posting here earlier in the thread say building 100,000 homes would be an impossibility for our construction industry. Seems now FG disagree with that.

So FG promises 60,000 social houses and SF promise 100,000?

Sorry I'm not getting your point here??

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

So FG promises 60,000 social houses and SF promise 100,000?

Sorry I'm not getting your point here??

My point being, Last year Eoghan Murphy was adamant that as many social homes were being built as was possible. Their target was 6k-7k homes and they didnt even meet that.

Now magically they are going to build 12k social houses per year.

Other people posting here earlier in this thread claimed that building 100,00 homes would be an impossibility for the Irish construction industry, yet now FG believe that 165,000 home could be built in the same period.

So who is or was lying?

landofthetree

Houses wont be needed after the C19 reccession. Hundreds of thousands will leave as other countries recovery quickly.

Shefwedfan

landofthetree wrote: »

Houses wont be needed after the C19 reccession. Hundreds of thousands will leave as other countries recovery quickly.

Way to be positive!!!

landofthetree

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Way to be positive!!!

FG have increased public spending by 13 billion since 2016.

Now we have to have austerity because of it.

Thank God for EU rules or it would have been a lot more.

efanton wrote: »

Its quite simple. Nearly 50% of the cost of a house is what they call 'soft' costs or charges, surveyor fees, planning, developers profit etc etc. Then
government taxes are then added to that.

So take your typical small new 3 bedroom home in Dublin, they are going for about 300k.

Cut that in half and remove the site cost. That's what it is going to cost the government Any government be it SF or FG to build a house.

I notice you ignored what Dermot Desmond said.

I did have a link for the FG €160k cost, but am unable to find it. will continue to look for it.

50% soft cost is excessive. You still need planning, utility connections etc anyway. Only the profit not there, but thats 10% max.
Dermot article is paywall.

All these house building promises were pre-Corona anyway. All too optimistic. Tax receipts will drop 10bn, expenses go up 5bn. And that will be the recurring theme for the coming decade.

There will be a bailout but at a cost. Why should Irish retire at 65 when the Germans bail them out and retire at 68, maybe 70 soon??
Same with the dole. A German gets 470 a month, the Irish some lavish 850. And Germans bail you lot out again?? There will be a price, you can not sell this to the German/Dutch public again.