FF/FG/Green Next Government

markodaly · 22-07-2020 02:49PM

Bowie wrote: »

How much did it cost to build and how much was spent on maintenance?
The private market price is not relevant. You are confusing loss with missed profit.

Brilliant, just brilliant. Your posts make a lot more sense now with that tidbit.

Selling off social housing stock to tenants with a deep discount is a loss, because you have to replace that unit, with TODAY's prices.

I just want us to build rather than buy or lease. You saw we spend about 2bn per year on housing initiatives and that's not including leasing.

Where are you getting that 2Billion from, exactly?

markodaly · 22-07-2020 02:53PM

Bowie wrote: »

We use to buy to use as social in an emergency. Now it's policy.
I heard that argument nearly ten years ago. It doesn't age well.

Even though we planned to spend 1.1 Billion in 2020 alone to build social houses?

It is clear to anyone that both is happening. The government wants to build more social houses for the long term, and for the short term fund HAP until there is enough capacity to reduce it.

You can, of course, stop HAP tomorrow but then you are throwing thousands onto the streets.

markodaly · 22-07-2020 02:57PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They can call it a core policy all they want but their actions tell a tale of kicking the can down the road.

Slaintecare was agreed to be a very good idea in 2017. It was a 10 year plan.
It is now 3 years later and all we have is a plan on paper. That does not say 'core part of policy platform' to me. That says stick it on the long finger and sure inertia will put an end to it.

2017 - Harris states he is committed to making Slaintecare happen.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/whatever-happened-to-the-promise-of-sl%C3%A1intecare-1.3289122?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fwhatever-happened-to-the-promise-of-sl%25C3%25A1intecare-1.3289122

2018

May - calls for implementation plan to be released a year after report was published
https://irishheart.ie/news/frustration-with-slaintecare-stagnation-1-year-on/

Aug -Uncertainty as to how implementation will be paid for.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30860978.html

Oct- Slaintecare Implementation Advisory Council formed. https://www.thejournal.ie/brendan-courtney-slaintecare-4265204-Oct2018/

2019
Mar - Action plan published
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sl%C3%A1intecare-needs-buy-in-from-varadkar-and-donohoe-1.3827175?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fsl%25C3%25A1intecare-needs-buy-in-from-varadkar-and-donohoe-1.3827175

2020
Can kicked down the road due to budgetary restraints - again.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/big-questions-on-how-slaintecare-will-be-funded-under-programme-for-government-tds-told-39291369.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sl%C3%A1intecare-relegated-to-sometime-in-the-future-in-programme-for-government-1.4281796

Well there has been this Global Pandemic due to a Coronoavirus, maybe you heard of it, some things have been put on the backburner until we get out of this mess.
Like, I doubt the government can go ahead with a huge restructure of the health system, right in the middle of this Pandemic. Do you?

blanch152 · 22-07-2020 02:59PM

Bowie wrote: »

How much did it cost to build and how much was spent on maintenance?
The private market price is not relevant. You are confusing loss with missed profit.

Again, third time, we can completely scrap Tenant purchase schemes. I'm easy. You raised it. I just wanted data on your claim.

I just want us to build rather than buy or lease. You saw we spend about 2bn per year on housing initiatives and that's not including leasing.

You are confusing historical cost with current replacement cost.

Your plans are madness.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-12-10/652/

€502m spent on HAP to support 67,750 households

"Budget 2020 increased the Exchequer funding for the HAP scheme to €502.7 million. This will enable a further 15,750 households to be supported, as well as continuing support for the over 52,000 existing HAP tenancies which will be in place at end 2019."

You want to stop paying this money and build houses with it. So most of those 67,750 households will be made homeless overnight (assuming a very low level of fraud). In the meantime, assuming you have the land available, the expertise available, and enough construction workers, you will be able to build 2,500 houses over the year with that €502m.

What will the other 65,250 do in the meantime? It will take nearly 30 years to house them all with the money you have saved. Will they spend it in camps?

That is how the difference between current expenditure and capital expenditure works.

Even if we manage to cut all housing services, which would include all money to Simon, Focus Ireland etc., and save the €2bn, that would still only build 10,000 houses, leaving over 50,000 swinging.

The simplistic solution of using the other money spent on housing to build housing is even more silly than the magic money tree solution. At least the 67,000 wouldn't be made homeless with the magic money tree.

James Brown · 22-07-2020 03:01PM

markodaly wrote: »

No its not. You don't even know the basics.

If you stop the 1.2 billion from being spent, you still need to provide social homes.
That 1.2 Billion provided 1,100 social homes. That money was not 'wasted'.

To build those social homes would cost about the same, as buying second-hand homes in the country is cheaper than building and would offset the loss in Dublin.

At very very most, the saving is 10% if one builds rather then buys and that is best-case scenario.
So over an eight-year period, where these figures come from, you save 10% per year on a sum of 1.2 Billion. So you save 120 million over an 8 year period
which works out at about 15 million a year... yea earth-shattering savings right there!!

In fact you have proven the point for me.

.

Again, you are making the mistake of taking multi-annual spends on a program and coming up with a big round figure to scare people.

You are making up numbers as well. We do not spend 1.7 Billion on HAP per year, the article you referenced makes this clear.

Stop trying to over exaggerate claims in order to bolster the argument.

You tried this angle before suggesting the idea was to build housing like we did in the 1930's, with lead pipes and other environmental and safety hazards. It's not genuine.
Of course we can't stop and simply start building. You asked were we could cut the money from I gave you examples.

If I buy a house in the arsehole of nowhere and my auntie had balls, sure.

In your haste to rebut you missed the comment itself. You got it wrong. I did not claim HAP cost 1.7bn.

But in a revised estimate published in December, this allocation was downgraded to €497.7 million.

So lets say that's 1.7 Billion available from the budget if we don't buy or use the HAP model.

Cut the spin. Read and quote don't make up things to try win points.

James Brown · 22-07-2020 03:09PM

markodaly wrote: »

Brilliant, just brilliant. Your posts make a lot more sense now with that tidbit.

Selling off social housing stock to tenants with a deep discount is a loss, because you have to replace that unit, with TODAY's prices.

Where are you getting that 2Billion from, exactly?

Tried this one on before too.

If it cost 200,000 to build and you sell it for 200,000 you break even. If a lad up the road might buy it for 300,000, you didn't lose 100,000. You broke even. Really basic stuff.

No you don't. Sell one, one less family needing social. Either way, 4th time, I'm open to not even keeping the practice. It has zero bearing on the discussion of building over buying.

Re-read the comment: Buying, HAP, rent supplement just under 2bn. Not including leasing costs.

BonnieSituation · 22-07-2020 03:52PM

markodaly wrote: »

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.

But people clearly object to it. The second it gets discussed we get the shouts of "free houses".

The issue with housing in Ireland is that policy changes have shifted the responsibility and the supply for social housing from LAs to the private sector, and we are getting gouged for it for little return.

BonnieSituation · 22-07-2020 04:02PM

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Correct, needs to be more personal responsibility in this area.

Far too many areas where as you say there seems to be no consequence for serial defaulters.

37. Million owed to DCC.

Then you have populist lefty TDs stoking things up when they should be trying to recover this appalling arrears.

More interested in flying flags than working for the taxpayer.

I explained yesterday why this is the case in DCC and other LAs. Councillors are the problem not the public servants in charge of the schemes.

I gave an example where I was involved in an eviction in DLR in 2010 and know the full background, and we had to deal with councillors and TDs being "aghast" at the idea of evictions during a recession.

For all her faults, it was Maria Bailey who pushed the DLR Housing Dept line of eviction being a last resort.

There's loads of solutions to the uncollected rent debacle and payment at source is a start.

The Household Budget scheme url]https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/claiming_a_social_welfare_payment/household_budget_scheme.html[/url is used for serial offenders and does tend to work quite well, as does signing up to Standing Orders for the rent, but a more systematic approach should be welcome. Anyway...

BonnieSituation · 22-07-2020 04:11PM

Truthvader wrote: »

Simply untrue. See cut and paste of suggestion yesterday that the solution was in fact easy. That was what I was responding to. Make an effort to be truthful if nothing else

BonnieSituation wrote:

The solutions are remarkably easy. Most of Europe has this sussed

So you don't agree?

suicide_circus · 22-07-2020 04:24PM

what is the objection, moral/legal, to collecting social housing rent at source where the individual refuses to pay or engage?

blanch152 · 22-07-2020 04:42PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But people clearly object to it. The second it gets discussed we get the shouts of "free houses".

The issue with housing in Ireland is that policy changes have shifted the responsibility and the supply for social housing from LAs to the private sector, and we are getting gouged for it for little return.

I don't think there are many posters who disagree with the notion that the State should build more social housing.

The problem is that there are posters who claim that "the money is there" or we can just abolish HAP and other supports to fund the building of State houses. That sort of nonsense makes the magic money tree look realistic.

The reality is clear - we must increase taxes if we want to fund the building of State houses. This doesn't mean fantasy taxes on the rich which are uncollectable (though may be desirable from a presentational point of view), it means real taxes on you and me. That being the case, many want to see that the system will only give State houses to those that deserve it (there are even TDs on 100k in LA housing) and that those who get them pay up the minimal amount that they are charged.

James Brown · 22-07-2020 04:44PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

what is the objection, moral/legal, to collecting social housing rent at source where the individual refuses to pay or engage?

I don't see the issue with it. If you are receiving state aid by way of low cost rental taking rent from source should be written into the tenancy agreement.

Bishop of hope · 22-07-2020 04:49PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I explained yesterday why this is the case in DCC and other LAs. Councillors are the problem not the public servants in charge of the schemes.

I gave an example where I was involved in an eviction in DLR in 2010 and know the full background, and we had to deal with councillors and TDs being "aghast" at the idea of evictions during a recession.

For all her faults, it was Maria Bailey who pushed the DLR Housing Dept line of eviction being a last resort.

There's loads of solutions to the uncollected rent debacle and payment at source is a start.

The Household Budget scheme url]https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/claiming_a_social_welfare_payment/household_budget_scheme.html[/url is used for serial offenders and does tend to work quite well, as does signing up to Standing Orders for the rent, but a more systematic approach should be welcome. Anyway...

You're in dangerous territory ré evictions.
It's not the fact that evictions are the solution its the fact that that they then become the problem. If it were banks looking to evict defaulting borrowers there are people on here would be up in arms over it.
If the LAs are responsible for housing people who can't afford to pay for private rent or purchase, who's responsible for housing the ones evicted for not paying social housing rents.
Do you throw them on the streets?

James Brown · 22-07-2020 04:50PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think there are many posters who disagree with the notion that the State should build more social housing.

The problem is that there are posters who claim that "the money is there" or we can just abolish HAP and other supports to fund the building of State houses. That sort of nonsense makes the magic money tree look realistic.

The reality is clear - we must increase taxes if we want to fund the building of State houses. This doesn't mean fantasy taxes on the rich which are uncollectable (though may be desirable from a presentational point of view), it means real taxes on you and me. That being the case, many want to see that the system will only give State houses to those that deserve it (there are even TDs on 100k in LA housing) and that those who get them pay up the minimal amount that they are charged.

Who, any quotes?

Is it? Links to that?
It was asked where money might come from. The more we build the less we need spend on HAP, buying, leasing renting. I'm sure we could begin reducing the budget for hotels. We could also look into getting people to be as fiscally concerned when overseeing state projects to ensure costs don't spiral etc. Many things could be looked at.

Can you show how building would mean raising taxes but the increasing spend on HAP, leasing and buying won't?

Social builds will be a big investment but leasing, HAP, rentals cost an increasing amount year on year. We can't afford it indefinitely.

Higgins5473 · 22-07-2020 04:52PM

Why does Catherine Martins husband feel the need to be in as many photo opportunities as possible with Catherine? So what if he’s a TD from the same party, let her stand on her own two feet without trying to show what a band of happy campers they are. Doesn’t help that he has one of the most smug looking punchable faces I’ve ever seen. Arsehole.

blanch152 · 22-07-2020 04:56PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

You're in dangerous territory ré evictions.
It's not the fact that evictions are the solution its the fact that that they then become the problem. If it were banks looking to evict defaulting borrowers there are people on here would be up in arms over it.
If the LAs are responsible for housing people who can't afford to pay for private rent or purchase, who's responsible for housing the ones evicted for not paying social housing rents.
Do you throw them on the streets?

No, of course you don't, you give them a free forever home beside Mammy with a back garden and a trampoline.

markodaly · 22-07-2020 04:58PM

Bowie wrote: »

You tried this angle before suggesting the idea was to build housing like we did in the 1930's, with lead pipes and other environmental and safety hazards. It's not genuine.
Of course we can't stop and simply start building. You asked were we could cut the money from I gave you examples.

And you think cutting HAP entirely and throwing tens of thousands of people onto the streets is a genuine alternative.
Well, of course one could say that is one example. Sure may as well say we disband the Dept. of Education overnight. A saving of 16 Billion or so....

:D:D

Of course my entire point went over your head, its not about what is theoretically possible to save money, e.g. Dispand HAP overnight, get rid of the Dept. of Education, its about how money can be saved and people not go crazy over it.
So far, no viable alternatives have been put forward, which says it all.

In your haste to rebut you missed the comment itself. You got it wrong. I did not claim HAP cost 1.7bn.

So, what does the 1.7 Billion include 'exactly'.

James Brown · 22-07-2020 05:04PM

markodaly wrote: »

And you think cutting HAP entirely and throwing tens of thousands of people onto the streets is a genuine alternative.
Well, of course one could say that is one example. Sure may as well say we disband the Dept. of Education overnight. A saving of 16 Billion or so.... :D:D

Of course my entire point went over your head, its not about what is theoretically possible to save money, e.g. Dispand HAP overnight, get rid of the Dept. of Education, its about how money can be saved and people not go crazy over it.
So far, no viable alternatives have been put forward, which says it all.

So, what does the 1.7 Billion include 'exactly'.

No I don't. You are purposefully misrepresenting, or you'd be quoting right?

You are being facetious because you ran out of road.

The 1.7 is in the comment and article posted you got the number from. You read it but keep pretending you didn't or don't understand. That's for you to reconcile. 1.2 spent on buying houses to use as social. "Estimate published in December, this allocation was downgraded to €497.7 million" for HAP.

blanch152 · 22-07-2020 05:04PM

Bowie wrote: »

Who, any quotes?

Is it? Links to that?
It was asked where money might come from. The more we build the less we need spend on HAP, buying, leasing renting. I'm sure we could begin reducing the budget for hotels. We could also look into getting people to be as fiscally concerned when overseeing state projects to ensure costs don't spiral etc. Many things could be looked at.

Can you show how building would mean raising taxes but the increasing spend on HAP, leasing and buying won't?

Social builds will be a big investment but leasing, HAP, rentals cost an increasing amount year on year. We can't afford it indefinitely.

Of course, if you could magic up 60,000 homes overnight, you could spend less on HAP, buying, leasing, renting etc. The problem is you can't magic up 60,000 homes overnight, the money for them needs to come from somewhere else while we keep filling the trough of HAP etc.

So, as the question keeps being asked, where is the money for social builds going to come from? We have had two main suggestions from posters

(1) The Apple money - that is now gone
(2) HAP, etc. - that money is still needed until the houses are built so we can't spend it on building

There are a number of other sources that would need to be combined to generate the revenue. Here are some suggestions:

(1) Double the LPT, it is a tax on those who own houses, they are the lucky ones.
(2) Extend commercial rates to businesses operating out of private houses
(3) Introduce a 2% tax rate on all income, including the lower-paid, as they will benefit most from the social housing
(4) Collect the rent due on social housing from source
(5) Increase the pension age to save money
(6) Increase the carbon tax and use extra receipts to build carbon-neutral social housing

markodaly · 22-07-2020 05:06PM

Bowie wrote: »

No you don't. Sell one, one less family needing social.

It is also one less social house available to people. Unless you want the stock to go to Zero, it has to be replenished by new builds, which costs money, a lot of it.

Selling houses at a loss in today's market, means the tax payer has to cover the cost to build that new house at today's prices.

Re-read the comment: Buying, HAP, rent supplement just under 2bn. Not including leasing costs.

I don't even know if you are genuine here anymore as its hard to keep tabs of your nonsensical figures you spout, that only you can understand.

You do know the figure you quoted also provides and replenishes social housing stock, as in money given to LA's to build, yes BUILD social houses?

"BUILD MORE SOCIAL HOUSES!!" you continuously tell us.

To fund it, lets cut 2Billion from a housing budget so we can build social houses, even though 800 million of that is money is.... yes, you guessed it BUILDS social houses.

So tell me again, how is that a saving, exactly?

It's like thinking to yourself you saved money by not going for a pint or two after work, but instead stopped off at an off-license and bought a 6 pack of craft beer instead!!

markodaly · 22-07-2020 05:10PM

Bowie wrote: »

No I don't. You are purposefully misrepresenting, or you'd be quoting right?

You are being facetious because you ran out of road.

The 1.7 is in the comment and article posted you got the number from. You read it but keep pretending you didn't or don't understand. That's for you to reconcile. 1.2 spent on buying houses to use as social. "Estimate published in December, this allocation was downgraded to €497.7 million" for HAP.

I think you need to re-read the journal.ie article again.
As in your 1.2 Billion is just under 800 million to be given to LA's to build social houses.

James Brown · 22-07-2020 05:11PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course, if you could magic up 60,000 homes overnight, you could spend less on HAP, buying, leasing, renting etc. The problem is you can't magic up 60,000 homes overnight, the money for them needs to come from somewhere else while we keep filling the trough of HAP etc.

So, as the question keeps being asked, where is the money for social builds going to come from? We have had two main suggestions from posters

(1) The Apple money - that is now gone
(2) HAP, etc. - that money is still needed until the houses are built so we can't spend it on building

There are a number of other sources that would need to be combined to generate the revenue. Here are some suggestions:

(1) Double the LPT, it is a tax on those who own houses, they are the lucky ones.
(2) Extend commercial rates to businesses operating out of private houses
(3) Introduce a 2% tax rate on all income, including the lower-paid, as they will benefit most from the social housing
(4) Collect the rent due on social housing from source
(5) Increase the pension age to save money
(6) Increase the carbon tax and use extra receipts to build carbon-neutral social housing

That's a silly idea Blanch. Who are these posters suggested such a thing, still no quotes?

BonnieSituation · 22-07-2020 05:13PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

You're in dangerous territory ré evictions.
It's not the fact that evictions are the solution its the fact that that they then become the problem. If it were banks looking to evict defaulting borrowers there are people on here would be up in arms over it.
If the LAs are responsible for housing people who can't afford to pay for private rent or purchase, who's responsible for housing the ones evicted for not paying social housing rents.
Do you throw them on the streets?

There's a whole heap of work that goes on before an eviction is ever carried out.
Yes, the engagement with social and homeless services soon follows but these are the tools we have.

Then again, when the refrain from our resident right-wingers is "forever homes beside mammy", then what's the point of having serious engagement on the topic.

James Brown · 22-07-2020 05:14PM

markodaly wrote: »

I think you need to re-read the journal.ie article again.
As in your 1.2 Billion is just under 800 million to be given to LA's to build social houses.

I think you clicked the wrong link:

Revealed: State spends €1.2bn on housing even though building is cheaper
7,169 homes purchased 'could have gone to first time buyers'

The Government has spent €1.2bn throughout the housing crisis buying up almost 7,200 privately built homes, directly competing with first-time buyers in the property market, the Sunday Independent can reveal.

New figures show how local authorities have spent the significant sum buying privately built properties for social housing even though it would cost the State less to build its own new houses and apartments instead.

In Dublin, around 1,100 homes could have been built for the amount it cost the State to buy 974 properties, which could have been bought instead by people hoping to own their first home.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-state-spends-12bn-on-housing-even-though-building-is-cheaper-38125430.html

The key bit is "could have".

The Journal link was regarding the HAP, but you 'misread' that one earlier too in your haste.

Bannasidhe · 22-07-2020 05:14PM

markodaly wrote: »

Well there has been this Global Pandemic due to a Coronoavirus, maybe you heard of it, some things have been put on the backburner until we get out of this mess.
Like, I doubt the government can go ahead with a huge restructure of the health system, right in the middle of this Pandemic. Do you?

I knew you would say that.

Sure, a global pandemic named Covid 19 that hit Ireland in 2020 caused a delay of a year in publishing a plan between 2017 and 2018, it then caused some more delays in 2019.

See, I was careful to show it never made it to the frontburner - in 2018 there were complaints about it being on the backburner.

Nice try but it won't fly.

Brendan Bendar · 22-07-2020 05:19PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I knew you would say that.

Sure, a global pandemic named Covid 19 that hit Ireland in 2020 caused a delay of a year in publishing a plan between 2017 and 2018, it then caused some more delays in 2019.

See, I was careful to show it never made it to the frontburner - in 2018 there were complaints about it being on the backburner.

Nice try but it won't fly.

There was a huge recession in 2011....total tanking.

The economy had to be re structured, takes time dude.

markodaly · 22-07-2020 05:23PM

Bowie wrote: »

I think you clicked the wrong link:

The key bit is "could have".

The Journal link was regarding the HAP, but you 'misread' that one earlier too in your haste.

Oh, we are back to that 1.2 Billion figure now, a figure which represents a cumulative price of purchasing 1,100 houses on the market to be used for social housing, over about an 8-9 year period, about 150 million per year, which as I already stated, if one was to build your own (which takes time), instead of on the market would save you about 15 million a year.

Its a saving, but nowhere, NOWHERE near enough...

Any other bright ideas or savings up your sleave?

markodaly · 22-07-2020 05:25PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I knew you would say that.

Sure, a global pandemic named Covid 19 that hit Ireland in 2020 caused a delay of a year in publishing a plan between 2017 and 2018, it then caused some more delays in 2019.

See, I was careful to show it never made it to the frontburner - in 2018 there were complaints about it being on the backburner.

Nice try but it won't fly.

Yet, you keep looking back.

What in 2020 do you want the government to do regards Slaintecare?
Its a pity the SD's didn't have the stomach for government, otherwise, perhaps we could be closer to getting it, instead they preferred to sit and moan.

Bishop of hope · 22-07-2020 05:30PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

There's a whole heap of work that goes on before an eviction is ever carried out.
Yes, the engagement with social and homeless services soon follows but these are the tools we have.

Then again, when the refrain from our resident right-wingers is "forever homes beside mammy", then what's the point of having serious engagement on the topic.

But that's a stock response re right wingers too.
There are considerable considerable costs in following these defaulters too, both legal and physical, as most of those not paying are letting their rentals fall into disrepair and there's a considerable cost involved in getting the properties ready for rent again + the loss of revenue while it's being sorted.
I said it earlier, most parties involved in promising this social housing are greatly underestimating the cost of the provision of it and then the upkeep of it as we go on.
The cost to the taxpayer is at the end of the day the real issue and its a fact that private housing last much longer and is much better overall value than social housing.
In short, social housing is a bottomless money pit and the bigger the hole you make with it the bigger amount you need to tip into it.
Go figure how to solve that problem, I don't know how it can be done.

efanton · 22-07-2020 05:35PM

markodaly wrote: »

Do you think a minister is an expert in project management, costing and procurement? The minister is simply the public face of the department, the policy maker. How are they to know if a plan is put before them for x that it will really cost x+y in years down the track? If every minister in the world was fired because of cost overruns then there would simply be no ministers left..

I don't disagree in principal but the issue is really within the civil service here and how procurement and tendering works, not the minister who signed off on the deal, per say.
Go visit the infrastructure forum and you will see good posts by people very familiar with the process who can shed light on the whys of things.

Simple answer. The details of the contract.
FIXED PRICE, fixed deadlines, and penalty clause. If the contract does not have all three then the minister takes on full responsibility if that contract is signed.

It really not that hard a principle to understand, even a FF minister could understand that.
If the contractor fecks up and the three clauses are there, then the minister is covered, he did his job and its down to the civil servants and the contractor to sort to out the mess. If the three clauses are not there then the minister made a judgement call which was a bad judgement and takes on full responsibility

When Covid dies down, there should be an investigation on how the civil service operates and how it can be made more agile and nimble to be able to respond to changes quickly. The whole civil service is a hulking mess of incompetence and inertia and outdated work practices ifested by work-shy jobs worths who are protected by Unions who look after their own no matter what.

If it were me, I would fire the worst-performing 10% of them, every year for 3 years. That would cull a lot of the wasters. But I would be branded an arch-right-wing Thatcherite for that.

No need to sack any civil servant.
If the top jobs are contract only, that reward those that deliver with a higher wage and bonuses for cost saving, only those that are confident they can deliver will apply lest they lose their civil service pension and cushy little number. The other advantage of putting the top civil service jobs out to contract is that it need not be a civil servant that apply for the job.

I again, agree in principle but politically its more complex than that.

Nothing politically complex about it at all. Making the top jobs in the civil service contract only will not affect 99.999% of the civil service, and dare I say it but ordinary hard working civil servants are probable likely to support it.
How many of them are sick and tired of having to clean up the mess of a lazy or incompetent boss?

I suppose the question then is, why would BAM or anyone sign a contract like that. They carry all the risk then. The government will then have no one tendering for work.

Its a tender process. Given that the contract would have fixed price and deadline no doubt the likes of BAM would demand a higher initial cost. They know if they do not take the contract competitors might, so yes I think even the likes of BAM would accept a fixed price contract. Market economics 101.

I have no doubt that tendered prices might be higher, but they would be fixed price, with little possibility of over runs in both cost or time.
Obviously there will be occasions here and there where an over-run happens due to unforeseen circumstances such as covid, labour strikes etc, but that is then a decision for a government to make as to how much additional cost they are will to accept or how long extra they are prepared to wait for a contract to be completed.
But the point is here that a government could plan budgets and borrowing confidently, and any possible additional cost would be far outweighed by potential overruns and deliberate under-costings by the likes of BAM

Afaik, with the NCH is that the civil service messed up the procurement on their side and BAM had come back. I am not absolving BAM here, but I would hazard a guess that BAM have smarter guys working for them, than we have for the Dept. of Health or whomever was behind the project.

Which is precisely why I advocate top civil service jobs being contract based. Only the smartest and most effective would apply. Also as stated earlier who said these contracts need be only open to existing civil servants. Plenty of extremely effective professional around the world make a living out of contracts such as these. The are well paid (because they deliver and get the bonuses), enjoy the variety of having multiple jobs and new challenges in their career, have the people management and organisational skills that would be required to deal with those working in the civil service, and their reputation is everything to them so they are unlikely to feck up.

Also if fixed price price, fixed deadlines and penalties were all included in the contract the wide boys that the likes of BAM employ to negotiate deals wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

FF/FG/Green Next Government

Comments