nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

satguy

It seems FG will be very happy to just sit on their hands for 5 years. Would FG voters be happy with this, as it means all those FG votes mean nothing, and do nothing.

Having been in power for 9 years, they did nothing, people have no homes, people still on trollies.

FG may have given some of their rich buddies some tax breaks.

But other than that, they did what FG do best, are their poor hands not numb by now.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Leonard Hofstadter

Bishop of hope wrote: »

On Facebook this morning Aontu posters giving MM a lashing, Leo getting it too over his park lark while gardai are trying to keep order at beaches and parks this weekend, wondering where they were when Leo wasn't social distancing and picnicing.

Doesn't seem to have affected his or his party's standing with the public though judging by the polls!

I get that some people absolutely hate Leo, and that some will criticise him no matter what he says or does, and they were having a field day over this supposed 'scandal', but for everyone else, it was just a total storm in a teacup - and the RedC one at least reflects that (it was done over a seven-day period, but it included Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, when 'Parkgate' was most definitely in the public domain).

StackSteevens

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you wanted a signal as to what the agenda is here, there you have it.

The only "agenda" at work here is Frankie's bitter disappointment that the Covid 19 emergency hasn't caused more political damage to FG.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

FG on 35% unchanged.
SF on 27% unchanged.
FF on 15% up one.
Green on 6% down 1.
Sds on 4% up 1.
Labour on 3% unchanged
Spbp on 2% unchanged
Aontu on 1% unchanged
Renua on 0% down 1
Indrpendents on 7% down 1.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2020/0531/1143630-politics-poll/

Luckily for FG the poll was taken before the Covid-19 committee started asking serious and awkward questions.

Having said that I am still a bit surprised at FG remaining at 35% I genuinely thought that would drop by a few percentage points, and that FF would have dropped by 4% or 5%.

Very much a case now as to whether a government can be formed before the end of June, and whether the government can ramp up the testing capability and sustain it at the 100,000 tests per week. Without that, then many of the measures to reverse the Covid restrictions simply will not be allowed take place. If the government cant succeed at both of them then I would imaging poll results for both FF and FG will start dropping substantially in subsequent polls

There's already rumblings in the FG and FF camps that a separate committee is required to argue the case for lifting restrictions and reduce the influence, (possibly undue influence), NPHET seems to have, and start introducing measures that start to get the country back to normal as soon as possible..
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fine-gael-td-calls-for-new-state-body-to-help-lead-economic-recovery-1.4266140

FrancieBrady

StackSteevens wrote: »

The only "agenda" at work here is Frankie's bitter disappointment that the Covid 19 emergency hasn't caused more political damage to FG.

Except that I have been giving FG praise for handiling the Covid 19 emergency from the start...minus what they got wrong, lapsed on.

I also predicted a bounce for them. I now expect their 'curve to flatten' and begin to fall back to election levels as we come out of it.

Colonel Claptrap

I wonder does this strengthen the case for Varadkar to go first in a rotating Taoiseach scenario.

Bishop of hope

SF are undefcutting FG in the housebuilding market by €100000 a house I see and capping family rentals at €900.
This being done by cutting out the middleman and direct labour.
So these lads on direct labour will probably be having to take a considerable wage cut and the greedy developers will still be greedy developers, good luck with that.
Before anyone cuts me up for talking SF on here,
Read the headline.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-outlines-plan-build-22108207

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

SF are undefcutting FG in the housebuilding market by €100000 a house I see and capping family rentals at €900.
This being done by cutting out the middleman and direct labour.
So these lads on direct labour will probably be having to take a considerable wage cut and the greedy developers will still be greedy developers, good luck with that.
Before anyone cuts me up for talking SF on here,
Read the headline.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-outlines-plan-build-22108207

Crucially, he said that the hard-working builders would still get the same profit margin of 5-6% under his plan as they get under Fine Gael’s.

But with the absence of a developer’s cut of around 15%, and the massive whack that can be added when land speculation is factored-in, Mr Ó Broin said that homes can be delivered for €230,000 max.

15% of a €320,000 house would be €48k for the developer. With site cost out of the equation, and removing taxes and levies, building a house for 220k should be perfectly doable.

Leonard Hofstadter

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think they have to take notice of two different polls from two different companies, saying the exact same thing about all of them Colonel. They might not say it...but it will be having an impact.

Internal dissent in FF will get bolder and louder. McMurphy might not be too far off the money...popcorn time!

I think you're right.... according to the Irish Times, Fine Gael have already been not exactly acquiescent to everything the Greens want, while both parties agree that FF is desperate for a deal.

I doubt Fine Gael are going to be much easier to deal with for either party on the back of today's news.

In fairness, why should they?

There's not much point in voting for a party if they don't do what they said they were going to do at election time.
I think most people vote (aside from the usual 20-odd% who protest vote) for particular parties on the basis that if they are in Government, they will try to make sure that they get some of their policies implemented.

Secondly, the polls. Fine Gael has, by far, the least amount to lose out of the three parties if the talks don't conclude successfully. The Greens are second, people know about their antics at this stage but they're on more or less the same amount of FPV as they were in February (a 1% difference is within the margin of error), so while they would definitely lose a few seats, in the long term there would be a different leader who as we know voted against talking to FF/FG. FF obviously is in the weakest position by a mile of these three parties if the talks go belly up.

Politicians are politicians after all, it must be unbelievably tempting to go back and seek a fresh mandate when you are on 35% not low 20s per cent. Getting 35% would net somewhere around the 70 seat mark (FG got 76 seats in 2011 on 36%, but there were 166 seats then compared to 160 now and if SF really are on 27% then there won't be the kind of seat bonus that was there in 2011 - back then the party with the next highest level of support - Labour - got 19%, SF will take some of those last seats instead). There is also a view in FG that even if they were to get 21% again (not impossible given FG's spectacular ability to misread the mood of the electorate and campaign on the wrong things), like in the General Election, they would get a few more seats, as the feeling is that they let too many seats go astray due to running too many candidates, bad vote management, etc. Alternatively, if SF in particular did as well as today's poll did, let them in and confront the realities of being in power instead.

So, it had better be a damn good deal from FG's point of view.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/bickering-and-blaming-sees-patience-wear-thin-in-government-formation-talks-1.4266008

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Except that I have been giving FG praise for handiling the Covid 19 emergency from the start...minus what they got wrong, lapsed on.

I also predicted a bounce for them. I now expect their 'curve to flatten' and begin to fall back to election levels as we come out of it.

My God Francie, you are a complete genius.

No one, I say no one, could have foreseen that.

We are so lucky to have your amazing ability to foresee stuff:rolleyes:

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

15% of a €320,000 house would be €48k for the developer. With site cost out of the equation, and removing taxes and levies, building a house for 220k should be perfectly doable.

Why would the site cost be out of the equation?
It's part of the equation everywhere.

[Deleted User]

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Why would the site cost be out of the equation?
It's part of the equation everywhere.

Build on state land already owned?

Its double accounting otherwise

(same ****e used in banking bailouts to hide 40 odd billion in bank losses through nama,which enable state to proclaim banks bailout a success and nama profitable,while taxpayer picks up tab for billions and anyone who dares points this out is regarded as econmically illterate

)

RandomViewer

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I wonder does this strengthen the case for Varadkar to go first in a rotating Taoiseach scenario.

If Mickey doesn't get first the deal will be off, he wants the title so bad

Bishop of hope

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Build on state land already owned?

Its double accounting otherwise

(same ****e used in banking bailouts to hide 40 odd billion in bank losses through nama,which enable state to proclaim banks bailout a success and nama profitable,while taxpayer picks up tab)

So these sites cost the taxpayer nothing?
Why don't we just renovate the thousands of houses already closed up?

[Deleted User]

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So these sites cost the taxpayer nothing?
Why don't we just renovate the thousands of houses already closed up?

The tax payer owns them.already,time to use em,why not??
There is no further payment on them

(indeed could also use double accounting to proclaim devloping these would improve state asset sheet as their value increase due to being developed,double accounting the scourge of logic,brought to you by liberials)

Indeed,it is time to get renovating these and demolish/replace those,where its cheaper to do so

Bishop of hope

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The tax payer owns them.already,time to use em,why not??
There is no further payment on them

(indeed could also use double accounting to proclaim devloping these would improve state asset sheet as their value increase due to being developed,double accounting the scourge of logic,brought to you by liberials)

Indeed,it is time to get renovating these and demolish/replace those,where its cheaper to do so

I'm not against the idea, but the fact that the taxpayer owns them already doesent matter.
They have a value, a current market value to the taxpayer, just as valuable as any other sites, and that's taxpayer owned.
Not counting that is false advertising also, the site is a cost to the taxpayer.

[Deleted User]

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'm not against the idea, but the fact that the taxpayer owns them already doesent matter.
They have a value, a current market value to the taxpayer, just as valuable as any other sites, and that's taxpayer owned.
Not counting that is false advertising also, the site is a cost to the taxpayer.

The site is already owned by taxpayer....its costing money to maintain as it is

Quite,why you wish to handwave away ownership of said site is beyond me...im.going about building my own house in next few years,i have a site already picked out...this makes building a house for me,significantly cheaper

site value is irrelavant as i already own it and wouldnt sell it??

efanton

RandomViewer wrote: »

If Mickey doesn't get first the deal will be off, he wants the title so bad

Well of course that going to be the real battle. If FF/FG/Green are to be believed where there will be massive spending in the first two years, and tightening of budgets and measures to speed prepayment of borrowing in the second two years who is going to be wanting to be Taoiseach after two years of belt tightening?

Micheal Martin will want the credit for the spending splurge, not the the opposite.

smurgen

Looked on twitter and I've seen a number of FG fanboys decrying the use of heavy handed police tactics in the US yet seem to always play down the treatment of Catholics in the north at the hands of the British. Ah the twisted logic of political animals.

FrancieBrady

Leo would be well within his rights to tell Martin he can have a coalition but no Taoiseach role.

We need a laugh!

Bishop of hope

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The site is already owned by taxpayer....its costing money to maintain as it is

Quite,why you wish to handwave away ownership of said site is beyond me...im.going about building my own house in next few years,i have a site already picked out...this makes building a house for me,significantly cheaper site value is irrelavant as i already own it and wouldnt sell it??

Fair enough, I see your point.
There are other problems too, like getting a mortgage for a house that you don't own the site of.
How many lenders would approve that?
If its defaulted how do they get their money back?
Ive seen this problem before withbsewage areas not being on sites, I know in cities that doesent matter, but it's the legality even of such a sale, buying a house where the vendor retains the ownership of the site?
The proposal is just empty rhetoric, and the taxpayer is donating the site, that is what is being proposed, and that donation is someone getting a house €100000 cheaper at the taxpayers expense, I call bull**** on it.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Fair enough, I see your point.
There are other problems too, like getting a mortgage for a house that you don't own the site of.
How many lenders would approve that?
If its defaulted how do they get their money back?
Ive seen this problem before withbsewage areas not being on sites, I know in cities that doesent matter, but it's the legality even of such a sale, buying a house where the vendor retains the ownership of the site?
The proposal is just empty rhetoric, and the taxpayer is donating the site, that is what is being proposed, and that donation is someone getting a house €100000 cheaper at the taxpayers expense, I call bull**** on it.

Its quite common in the UK for properties to be leasehold and financed though mortgages.

I cont see why lenders would have a problem if they hold ownership of the lease in the case that someone defaults.

Better the land be used to provide public housing that be given away to a developer. Where's the benefit to the taxpayer in that?
The only people making profit will be the developers if it is given to them to build housing. the taxpayer would still be on the hook for paying for the housing but at an even greater cost.

efanton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo would be well within his rights to tell Martin he can have a coalition but no Taoiseach role.

We need a laugh!

FG need FF just as badly as FF need FG.
One without the other would mean neither party could realistically form a government.

Why would we need an excuse to laugh at Micheal Martin?

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

Its quite common in the UK for properties to be leasehold and financed though mortgages.

I cont see why lenders would have a problem if they hold ownership of the lease in the case that someone defaults.

Better the land be used to provide public housing that be given away to a developer. Where's the benefit to the taxpayer in that?
The only people making profit will be the developers if it is given to them to build housing. the taxpayer would still be on the hook for paying for the housing but at an even greater cost.

Ah who said anything about giving it away, are we giving it away to developers?
As I said, I'm not against the SF idea, it's a good idea even, but you must include the cost of the, site to find the true cost of the houses provided.
If at current value the site is say €75000 in Dublin then that's got to be included in the cost of the build to the taxpayer.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Ah who said anything about giving it away, are we giving it away to developers?
As I said, I'm not against the SF idea, it's a good idea even, but you must include the cost of the, site to find the true cost of the houses provided.
If at current value the site is say €75000 in Dublin then that's got to be included in the cost of the build to the taxpayer.

If we are talking about accountancy then yes I agree with you.
The true cost of those houses will be the cost of construction and delivery plus the value of the site they were built on.

If we have to raise money to pay for these houses then it makes perfect sense to use these sites already in public ownership. Why should we borrow more than we need to?

I think what SF are getting at is what additional money do we have to spend to deliver these homes. I would totally support the SF approach, build as many homes as possible at the lowest additional cost. Farming this construction work out to private developers is not going to be the way to deliver that.

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

If we are talking about accountancy then yes I agree with you.
The true cost of those houses will be the cost of construction and delivery plus the value of the site they were built on.

If we have to raise money to pay for these houses then it makes perfect sense to use these sites already in public ownership. Why should we borrow more than we need to?

I think what SF are getting at is what additional money do we have to spend to deliver these homes. I would totally support the SF approach, build as many homes as possible at the lowest additional cost. Farming this construction work out to private developers is not going to be the way to deliver that.

Fair enough, but we are agreed then that SF press release is deliberately misleading at best.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Fair enough, but we are agreed then that SF press release is deliberately misleading at best.

No not at all. Something you have already bought does not cost you anything more, unless it requires maintenance and upkeep.

What is misleading about SF saying they will spend 230k max on building a house? They cant buy the same site twice.

What we are talking about is borrowing and spending, not eventual absolute cost.

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

No not at all. Something you have already bought does not cost you anything more, unless it requires maintenance and upkeep.

What is misleading about SF saying they will spend 230k max on building a house? They cant buy the same site twice.

What we are talking about is borrowing and spending, not eventual absolute cost.

Put it this way, if a fella, comes to you on the site you own you talked about earlier and tells you he will put a house up for you for €230000, but you must sign your site over to him and leave it in his name then you can live in the house, would you consider he was building you a, house for €230k?
Any way you look at it he isn't building you a house for €230k, he is scamming you, but maybe you'd go for that.
I wouldn't, I'd kick him off down da road, and so would you I'd say.

At a cursory glance also this is well above the cost of the housing SF were going to provide in their election manifesto.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Put it this way, if a fella, comes to you on the site you own you talked about earlier and tells you he will put a house up for you for €230000, but you must sign your site over to him and leave it in his name then you can live in the house, would you consider he was building you a, house for €230k?
Any way you look at it he isn't building you a house for €230k, he is scamming you, but maybe you'd go for that.
I wouldn't, I'd kick him off down da road, and so would you I'd say.

The land is owned by the state.

The state is building the houses.

If a particular house end up as social housing both the house and the site remain in state ownership, so your argument is totally moot.

If the house is sold as an affordable home, at a massive discount compared to a similar home on the open market I might add, one of the conditions of sale is that if the owner wishes to sell they must sell back to the state at current market price. So even in this scenario being that the site will always be in public ownership your argument is totally null and void yet again.

Of course people wishing to buy a home do not have to choose to buy one of these, they can buy a home developed by a private developer at a significant increased cost. The whole point is to make a permanent home affordable to those that might not get mortgage approval for a more expensive home.

I see absolutely no draw backs in what SF have proposed (except the borrowing that will have to take place), and many benefits. Its the type of scheme that should have been put in place years ago, it would have gone some way in kerbing the excessive increases in property prices and at the same time reduced demand on private rental properties thus either reducing rents or making sure there were enough rental properties to fulfil demand.

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

The land is owned by the state.

The state is building the houses.

If a particular house end up as social housing both the house and the site remain in state ownership, so your argument is totally moot.

If the house is sold as an affordable home, at a massive discount compared to a similar home on the open market I might add, one of the conditions of sale is that if the owner wishes to sell they must sell back to the state at current market price. So even in this scenario being that the site will always be in public ownership your argument is totally null and void yet again.

Of course people wishing to buy a home do not have to choose to buy one of these, they can buy a home developed by a private developer at a significant increased cost. The whole point is to make a permanent home affordable to those that might not get mortgage approval for a more expensive home.

I see absolutely no draw backs in what SF have proposed (except the borrowing that will have to take place), and many benefits. Its the type of scheme that should have been put in place years ago, it would have gone some way in kerbing the excessive increases in property prices and at the same time reduced demand on private rental properties thus either reducing rents or making sure there were enough rental properties to fulfil demand.

So when the land runs out, and it will, the cost of housing then reverts back to having to factor in the price of the site as part of the house?

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So when the land runs out, and it will, the cost of housing then reverts back to having to factor in the price of the site as part of the house?

So where are FG and FF going to build their social houses and affordable homes?
Are they going to buy green field sites so that they can hoard perfectly good for building homes?

What Eoin Ó Broin has put forward makes so much sense. I personally dont care whether it is SF that gets to build them when they are in government, or FF/FG build them if they actually can get a government formed. 100+ days now and still no government, and FG were bleating that SF could not form a government in the first week. How ironic.

The important thing for me personally, is that the housing crisis is addressed and this scheme helps those who need to avail of social housing and also those young couples who have been priced out of the property market.

Like Eoin Ó Broin has said he has done Eoghan Murphy's job for him because that guy hasnt got a clue, he couldn't run a sweet shop let alone a government department.
If I was Eoghan Murphy I wouldn't be looking a gift horse in the mouth. I would be working away developing this plan, so that if a FF/FG government is formed he can get to work straight away implementing it.