FF/FG/Green Next Government

Truthvader wrote: »

Not here to give you a history lesson. Even before independence Dublin was reowned for having the worst slums in Europe. You can take things from there.

A widely known fact indeed. And what have slums in Dublin before independence got to do with housing since independence?

Born in the 60's so I expect I have more experience than most of the various governments long before there was any such thing as a PD

Don't fall into the trap of confusing age with wisdom.

christy c wrote: »

No, that was one example. Good night.

Good night I guess.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not surprised.
I'm far from happy with the way things are run.
I think there is an appalling waste of taxpayers money going on, far too many vested interests feeding off the State Teats, and a lack of accountability that comes from the top and trickles down.

What does surprise me is when people think yet another party on the right will make a difference in a country where parties on the right have dominated.

What did Einstein say about repeating the same experiment.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

The truth is even the FF/FG fanboys are less than impressed with the way their leaders and TD's have behaved over the last ten years or so.
But thinking that a new party formed from the same gene-pool would be any different really is insanity.

Its a personal opinion but I think the worlds economy and the way it is run is completely broke.
Workers are working harder for less gain both financially and in their personal/family lives, big business seems to do what they want when they want to the degree where they have so much power they can now more or less control governments, and the poor and least well off are caught in between constantly being paraded as the whipping boys that must be punished or put down lest they rise up and try overturn the whole sorry mess. As long as there is a target for the middle income angst, things will continue very much as they are now. The squeezed middle will be squeezed even more no matter what is done regarding socail welfare, if social welfare was reduced or removed, the squeezed middle will never see any benefit.

The current tax system is a joke, the more well off you are the easier it is to avoid contributing your fair share. We have financial and accounting institutions both aiding and abetting large companies and the wealthy in ever more complicated schemes to avoid or evade tax,and the biggest joke of all is that it is these same institutions that the government turns to for advice on the economy and taxation. Does anyone truly believe that KPMG, Deloitte, PWC, or any of the other accounting/advisory companies will put the country before their clients?

If you really want to see how this works just do a search on the way the Savoy Hotel in London, and General Electric pay zero tax or a tiny percentage of what they should be contributing.
This article will give you a taste of what really is going on, but if those of you that want to live in your own little bubble and continue blaming the tiny percentage of people in this country that are gaming the social welfare system continue on, there nothing I or anyone else can say to persuade you otherwise.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/it-s-a-matter-of-fairness-squeezing-more-tax-from-multinationals-1.4299357


The sad thing is the so called squeezed middle are so busy blaming the very people who are worst affected rather than those that are are evading or avoiding paying their fair share of the tax and are the real cause for the them to have to pay more taxation, accept longer work hours and a lower quality of life.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Yup. Absolutely it should.

But again, I have experience in this regard. The biggest blocks to evictions from LA housing, are councillors. Public servants, doing their jobs, try to collect rents from tenants and try to evict non-payers.

A great example from 10 years ago:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/family-evicted-despite-plea-for-mercy-over-unpaid-rent-26655360.html

It's interesting to read something like that when you know the full story, which isn't being reported.

RBB comes across being reasonable there, but obviously he failed to tell the Indo about how he egged on that family and the whole of the PBP tribe in DL intimidated staff and encouraged that family to camp outside the Town Hall.

But yeah, Social Housing as a concept is a problem when you read some of the posts on here.

Social housing as a concept is sound and I don't think anyone objects to it in principle. However, there are of courses issues with it in practicality, especially in the fairness of it by those working.

Once a council house is given, its there for life. That is wrong IMO.

Of course, this being Ireland we have an aversion to the last resort of evictions.
If one doesn't pay their rent of mortgage, you will still see a quite sizable cohort advocating not to evict people, in ANY circumstances. The problem with that is, of course, is moral hazard. If people stop paying rent/mortgage with no consequence then one can quickly see the issues that can cause. The whole system will just keel over.

The issues with housing in Ireland are very much cultural and until we grow up and adopt a more pragmatic continental style solution, with both carrot and a stick, then we will be forever wading through the mud.

markodaly wrote: »

Social houses we sell on at a loss?
If the state kept all these social houses and recycled them through generations like they do on the continent, you would have a point, but this is Ireland, so we get the taxpayer to build social houses and then sell them on at a loss, and think we are great!

Until the next generation wants the same.
Socialists against property tax? Only in Ireland.

Anyway, its mute, Ireland like all EU countries are subject to fiscal rules. FF, FG Labour or SF cannot change that fact and if SF or some other party is telling you the government can do what it wants, borrow what it wants and spend what it wants, I have a UKIP sized magic bean to sell you.

While any thought of borrowing 6 billion to build housing is more or less gone with the Covid crisis, the simple fact remains that this country collects €85 billion a year in assorted revenues. Where does it all go?
Trying to argue the money is not there is a stupid argument. The truth is the money is here for what ever project a government set its mind too, the question is in order to increase funding in one area what funding in another areas can we reduce to afford that.
There also seem to be a culture within the government we have had over the last twenty years that when spending tax payers money it doesnt seem to matter if some is wasted or there are massive cost over-runs.

There's a lot of of sick children in this country and we do need a modern fit for purpose hospital for them, but are you suggesting that every cent of what we are eventually going to pay was good value for money?
Private businesses would never sign a contract that did not have fixed prices, penalty clauses, and delivery deadlines so why is it that our recent governments think that these are superfluous?
If that project had have been managed properly they would probably have been at least two or three hundred million to spend else where.
The government signed a contract with the private hospital not knowing whether they would be needed or not. Reasonable enough, but why a contract for the duration it was and not 3 months on a rolling basis? More money wasted.
The government has committed itself to renting apartments for 25 years for multiples of the cost of construction. The argument given was to avoided the maintenance costs and the hassle of managing these properties.
Are you honestly going to argue that had the government built these apartments, that they would spend nearly as much again managing them or maintaining them?

I could name half a dozen more 'projects' where serious amount of money were spent and they same argument could be made that we did not get anywhere near good value for money.

Add up all that wasted money and there would be no need for magic money trees.
The money was there, is there, and will always be there we just need a government that gets its act together and actually ensures that when spending tax payers money they make sure they get good value and cost overruns are not acceptable. Minsters are supposed to be accountable for the money they spend.

Its a case of focusing on the priorities, and not being totally incompetent, especially when it comes to tax payers money. Sadly something the last few governments appear to have little concept of.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If they were in any way shape or form left they would not be reliant on the private sector to provide housing.
They would be actually implementing slaintecare.
They would not be wedded to Thatcherite neo-liberal flog it all off to quangos/developers and let the market decide.

Centre left my hole.

They are centre -right.
Own it.
They are doing what the centre right does.
Free market, light touch regulation, market forces.
Own it.

Em, all parties, including 'right-wing' FF and FG want to implement SlainteCare.
FG were in government last time out when the plan was developed and released. It is a core part of their policy platform. Now, Covid-19 has put it on the back burner, for a little but Slaintecare is the way forward.

Now, I know you are a SD voter, I am myself in part, but where were the SD's when it came to government formation talks. Nowhere, yea, so they cant be cribbing now when the horse has a jockey that Slaintecare is not a priority this year...

FG are very much like New Labour, FF are just more populist and will go whatever way there is a vote and we have seen the consequences of that.
Irish politics is very much centrist and state spending is quite left-wing. Just look at the 3 biggest spending departments and the billions the state spends.

Thatcherite we are not. Anyone who thinks we have a free market in health or housing needs a lesson in economics and civics. They are some of the most regulated sectors of our society.

efanton wrote: »

While any thought of borrowing 6 billion to build housing is more or less gone with the Covid crisis, the simple fact remains that this country collects €85 billion a year in assorted revenues. Where does it all go?

Is that a rhetorical question? It goes to pay for all and any state service. Health, education, law, defence, housing, pensions etc.....

Even after all that, we still had to borrow to make up the difference. We did well to plug the hole since 2010, but Covid has put a dent into that for the next year or two.



At the end of the day, the government can spend money it raises by taxes, or spending money it borrows, which stays on the balance sheet and has to be serviced. There is no other magic bean or bullet.

Trying to argue the money is not there is a stupid argument. The truth is the money is here for what ever project a government set its mind too, the question is in order to increase funding in one area what funding in another areas can we reduce to afford that.

You tell me, what area can the government cut x Billion from in order to fund Housing to take one example. Give me a working example.

There also seem to be a culture within the government we have had over the last twenty years that when spending tax payers money it doesnt seem to matter if some is wasted or there are massive cost over-runs.

How much do you know about public procurement and publicly funded projects? This is a feature of all governments right across the world. Just look at the North and the debacle over the A5, or cash for ash. Makes our government look world class.

I would agree that the civil service should be reformed to be more robust and accountable but Unions hold a lot of power there, so good luck to you.

There's a lot of of sick children in this country and we do need a modern fit for purpose hospital for them, but are you suggesting that every cent of what we are eventually going to pay was good value for money?
Private businesses would never sign a contract that did not have fixed prices, penalty clauses, and delivery deadlines so why is it that our recent governments think that these are superfluous?
If that project had have been managed properly they would probably have been at least two or three hundred million to spend else where.
The government signed a contract with the private hospital not knowing whether they would be needed or not. Reasonable enough, but why a contract for the duration it was and not 3 months on a rolling basis? More money wasted.
The government has committed itself to renting apartments for 25 years for multiples of the cost of construction. The argument given was to avoided the maintenance costs and the hassle of managing these properties.
Are you honestly going to argue that had the government built these apartments, that they would spend nearly as much again managing them or maintaining them?

There is a lot to untangle there and the new NCH could be a book in of itself, but briefly, the civil service, when it came to the NCH, were out of their depth as they never had to manage a project of this scale before.

Mistakes were made and have to be learnt. Leo himself stood in the Dail and told us, that if he had his way, a certain contractor *cough* BAM *cough* would never get another state contract ever again.
BAM came out firing...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/bam-gave-varadkar-2-hour-ultimatum-to-clarify-lowballing-remark-1.3797184

BAM are known for this though and its only on public contracts that they act up.

Simply put, it's like this.
Politicians are policymakers.
The Civil Service enact that policy.

The government wanted to build a New Children's Hospital and sent the Civil Service off to make it happen. As you well know, there as been talk of a new Children's hospital since 1993 and its has been a long long long road of planning, reports, more reports when finally they gave it the go-ahead and BAM signed the contract in 2016.

My answer may not satisfy, but its a hell of a lot more complicated than some make out.

I could name half a dozen more 'projects' where serious amount of money were spent and they same argument could be made that we did not get anywhere near good value for money.

If you argument is that we should hire better people in the civil service and fire those who are not up to it, then you will have no argument from me.

Add up all that wasted money and there would be no need for magic money trees.
The money was there, is there, and will always be there we just need a government that gets its act together and actually ensures that when spending tax payers money they make sure they get good value and cost overruns are not acceptable. Minsters are supposed to be accountable for the money they spend.

In fairness, that is an overly simplistic statement and argument. The overrun of the NCH has meant that some other projects were delayed and put back. This is a fact.

Its a case of focusing on the priorities, and not being totally incompetent, especially when it comes to tax payers money. Sadly something the last few governments appear to have little concept of.

And the solution is... to vote in a new government and expect radically different results?
Overspends happen all around the world for various reasons. Now, unless you are advocating actual reform of the civil service, who are the people behind these mistakes, then you are wasting your time and vote expecting radical changes by just changing the guy in the minister's chair.

Bowie wrote: »

Can you supply a link showing the sale of houses built in the 1930/40/50's was done so at a loss? Or any built at any time?

If we've money for 25 year leases and buying houses off the market to use as social, we can use that money to build instead.

Bowie, to be fair here I think you are missing a point.

So what if a council house was built in the 50's for let say 50k and then sold it to the tenant in the 60's for say 70k. Is there any profit there?
Absolutely not because its is likely to cost the council the 70k and more to replace that house.

This was the biggest con going, getting council tenants to buy homes that they had anyhow for a lifetime, and it was used in both the UK and Ireland. A house has absolutely no profit in it if you are faced with spending the same amount or more replacing it for another home to live in. For those that are selling up and leaving the country, selling a second home, or selling a house they inherited, then there's profit.

But for the councils or the state to sell homes and not use the money to immediately rebuild another was pure stupidity, and under no circumstance was there ever going to be any sort of gain or profit. That was the problem, what the councils were getting simply was not enough to replace the homes they sold.

markodaly wrote: »

Is that a rhetorical question? It goes to pay for all and any state service. Health, education, law, defence, housing, pensions etc.....

Even after all that, we still had to borrow to make up the difference. We did well to plug the hole since 2010, but Covid has put a dent into that for the next year or two.



At the end of the day, the government can spend money it raises by taxes, or spending money it borrows, which stays on the balance sheet and has to be serviced. There is no other magic bean or bullet.




You tell me, what area can the government cut x Billion from in order to fund Housing to take one example. Give me a working example.



How much do you know about public procurement and publicly funded projects? This is a feature of all governments right across the world. Just look at the North and the debacle over the A5, or cash for ash. Makes our government look world class.

I would agree that the civil service should be reformed to be more robust and accountable but Unions hold a lot of power there, so good luck to you.



There is a lot to untangle there and the new NCH could be a book in of itself, but briefly, the civil service, when it came to the NCH, were out of their depth as they never had to manage a project of this scale before.

Mistakes were made and have to be learnt. Leo himself stood in the Dail and told us, that if he had his way, a certain contractor *cough* BAM *cough* would never get another state contract ever again.
BAM came out firing...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/bam-gave-varadkar-2-hour-ultimatum-to-clarify-lowballing-remark-1.3797184

BAM are known for this though and its only on public contracts that they act up.

Simply put, it's like this.
Politicians are policymakers.
The Civil Service enact that policy.

The government wanted to build a New Children's Hospital and sent the Civil Service off to make it happen. As you well know, there as been talk of a new Children's hospital since 1993 and its has been a long long long road of planning, reports, more reports when finally they gave it the go-ahead and BAM signed the contract in 2016.

My answer may not satisfy, but its a hell of a lot more complicated than some make out.






If you argument is that we should hire better people in the civil service and fire those who are not up to it, then you will have no argument from me.



In fairness, that is an overly simplistic statement and argument. The overrun of the NCH has meant that some other projects were delayed and put back. This is a fact.



And the solution is... to vote in a new government and expect radically different results?
Overspends happen all around the world for various reasons. Now, unless you are advocating actual reform of the civil service, who are the people behind these mistakes, then you are wasting your time and vote expecting radical changes by just changing the guy in the minister's chair.

Yes I am totally with having ministers and civil servants totally accountable for decisions on spending. I fail to see how massive projects can not have fixed pricing, fixed deadlines, and penalty clauses. Any minister who signs a contract without actually having a reasonable accurate estimation of cost should not be signing that contract, or should simply be removed from office having done so.
Likewise for senior civil servants.

I am also totally with a complete reform of how our civil service works (or doesnt).
Personally I would have all the top jobs on a contract only basis, those that deliver and save money reward them with bonuses, those that fail miserably do not renew the contract, and there would be no shifting them to a different department where they could do yet more damage as being on a contract they would not be civil servants.

I would argue its not an over simplification to ask the question how much money is wasted and what could have been done instead with that wasted money.
As you rightly agreed there is only a finite amount of money to spend, and if you want to spend beyond that then we are into substantial borrowing which should be avoided if possible. If tighter control of budgetary spending by government ministers is a way to avoid borrowing then thats what should be happening.

Had BAM signed a contract with fixed cost, fixed deadlines and penalty clauses would they have been able to act up? They are known for under costing so better to give the contract to a company that would agree to fixed pricing and delivery, even if their initial bid was slightly more.

Also for your last comment, I am not putting a party political slant on this.
What I have said should apply to ANY government.
No businessman in his right mind would sign the contracts our ministers and senior civil servants seem happy enough to have signed.
There are no serious repercussion for failing as a minister or senior civil servant and it is this that needs to change.
When SF finally get into government I would expect exactly the same of them, and would be equally critical if they agreed similar contracts..