FF/FG/Green Next Government

BonnieSituation · 22-07-2020 03:11PM

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 03:24PM

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 03:42PM

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 03:44PM

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 03:49PM

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 03:50PM

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 03:52PM

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 03:56PM

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 03:58PM

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 04:04PM

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 04:04PM

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 04:06PM

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 04:10PM

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 04:11PM

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 04:13PM

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 04:14PM

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 04:14PM

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 04:19PM

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 04:23PM

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 04:25PM

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 04:30PM

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 04:35PM

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.

Bishop of hope · 22-07-2020 04:36PM

efanton wrote: »

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

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.

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 servant 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?

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 an over 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

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 skills that would e 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.

Where would you stand on the salaries of these private ministers virtually that you're looking for?

James Brown · 22-07-2020 04:38PM

markodaly wrote: »

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?

It's like a game of three card monte with you.

You made a mistake, or pretended to, twice now on two figures I supplied with links.
Your last post claimed the 1.2 billion spent on buying houses to use as social was an error on my behalf as it pertained to builds.
I re-posted it to clarify.
Now you are posting like I pulled it out of my arse for no reason. It was reposted for your benefit.

You asked where money would come from I gave some examples of savings we could make on a move to building. I never claimed it would or would not cover the complete cost of an as yet unknown amount of social builds for an as yet unknown cost, no.

Can you tell me where we'll get the tens of millions a year required for the yearly cost of buying, leasing and renting for use as social housing? Or is that the money tree I keep hearing about?

RandomViewer · 22-07-2020 04:52PM

christy c wrote: »

No, Michael has a job hence it's not a jobless household. Thought Denis lives in Malta?

Family is here

James Brown · 22-07-2020 04:59PM

RandomViewer wrote: »

Family is here

So he's a resident of Malta, which is nice for taxation purposes, but his family are based in ireland?
Revenue should hang their heads. What a farce.

Bannasidhe · 22-07-2020 04:59PM

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

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

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

Do you even know what we are talking about dude?

Slaintecare.

Cross party agreement this was as a good thing in 2017.
Minister for Health Simon Harris all gung-ho about it.

What has happened since dude?

A plan was published.

Bannasidhe · 22-07-2020 05:02PM

markodaly wrote: »

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.

Looking back to see how much of a core policy it was?
You betcha.

Why are you whinging about the SD's - you are the one who claimed it was a core policy of the govt?

What to I want them to do?
Get their fingers out of the amply fed arses and start implementing the plan it took them 2 years to come up with - since it's a core policy.

efanton · 22-07-2020 05:22PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Unfortunately if that reform you seek is to take place what you are talking about is years in the doing.
It won't happen in the term of any govt, it would take years if not decades to implement and involve the virtual privatisation of our public services for that system to work.

I totally disagree with you on time scale.

Simply replace the top civil service jobs as and when natural attrition allows it (retirement, resignation, death etc). Of course this would take years to fully come into force, but no one in their right mind would think that it could be done in any other way.
The argument that it will take longer than the term of a government simply does not hold water. How many contracts or projects does the government sign off each year where delivery will be beyond the term of their government. Do government refuse to commit to these projects because they will not reap the rewards?

As for privatising the civil service, where did I suggest that?
The civil service employs contractors all the time for various specif tasks, I know that because I was one of them. The civil service did not change one iota while I was there, but the job was done on time and within budget.
For ordinary civil servants there would be no change, except that maybe they would be working for a more competent boss and no doubt many hard working civil servants would appreciate that.

The truth is that its not our civil service that's the problem, its our politicians.
They make promises to get elected and they estimate everything at the bottom end of the scale.
Take housing for instance, say they promise to build 10000 social houses a year, if they achieve that scale it would be great, but the true cost of that to the taxpayer will be much higher than any or at least most of them are bidding for our votes with.
If they happened to be more truthful and realistic with what they can achieve it would be a bigger help to us than most else.
The promise politics has become our biggest problem, they're all guilty of it, but SF and left of that are by far the worst offenders.

The truth is it is not the politicians either.
The biggest players in the success or failure of any government initiative is those at the top of the civil service.
It is the intransigence and reluctance of any rapid change that has prevented many government initiatives from actually delivering the benefits they promised.

If a minister does his job properly and actually consults with those that will carry out the task at hand why would there be any problems delivering promises?
Having the top jobs in the civil service on a contract basis would mean a minister having to deal with a 'free agent'. If a minister demands something that is simply unachievable do you think someone on a contract is going to accept that? of course they are not. They would have to alter the plan so that it is achievable. In fact your argument would be turned on its head because the minister could be reasonably confident that what he promises can be delivered.
Take the situation we have now, if a top civil servant is asked to do something he or she doesn't care whether it is deliverable or going to be on budget. That minister will be out of office long before that civil servant retires, and will not be held accountable in any way for cost over-runs, feck ups or delays. So if a minister promises to build a million social homes that civil servant is simply going to say 'Yes minister' and continue on as they always have, knowing that what was promised by a minister will never be delivered.

Making the top jobs in the civil service contract only would ensure that those that take them have an incentive to deliver.
If you have a guaranteed job for a lifetime whats the rush to get something done?
If what is asked by politicians when creating that contract is unreasonable then it simply will mean no sensible person would take on that contract. The politicians would have to rework their contract until what is demanded is achievable and deliverable.

BonnieSituation · 22-07-2020 05:35PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But that's a stock response re right wingers too.

It's a stock response because it LITERALLY keeps being repeated on this thread and elsewhere. Blanch is using it as his new go to.

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.

I've had my fill of talking about housing policy today. I'll check back in tomorrow on this post and continue my rebuttal.

FF/FG/Green Next Government

Comments