FF/FG/Green Next Government

efanton · 22-07-2020 05:41PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

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

For starter they would not be 'private ministers'.

As for payment, I would actually pay them more in line with any top business management or protect management job in hte private sector. I would also include bonuses related to any savings that department made.

You are going to go on a rant now that we could not afford that and you are completely wrong.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2019/Documents/Part%20II%20-%20Expenditure%20Allocations%202019-21%20(2).pdf

Take any government department you wish to name.

If a simple saving of 0.01% was made from any of them it would not only pay top rate for any one taking up these positions but there would be a return for the government too.

For example Rural & Community Development has a current budget of €144 million, which is probably one of the departments that has the smallest budget.

0.01% of that would be €1.44 million.
Are you suggesting to me that you could not employ from among the very best, pay them very handsomely, give them a bonus related to cost savings, and still not have significant change in your pocket from that amount?

Now consider what the effect would be on departments that have €500 million and beyond as their budget.

James Brown · 22-07-2020 05:50PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

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.

If I may...
Defaulters are not the norm. That said what are the considerable costs in getting properties rental ready? I'm not disagreeing, they are valid concerns and costs.
We can take rent from source, (rent arrears would be an issue in private or state owned rentals).
We have Tenant agreements where they sign a contract to meet certain points of responsibility. We can write that up anyway we want. We can take any damages from source or garnish over time. These could be useful deterrents.

When the state pays to build a house we recoup overtime and have a house.
When the state leases or rents, we are paying likely a lot more per month than we would be towards the cost of the build and we'd have no stock to show after the 25 years or whatever. That's your money pit.

Generations were raised in social housing. We've been following the private market model for many years. I believe building en masse and renting to workers based on income is the way to go. Feeding the build to rent industry is making it difficult for the public to buy and a waste of tax money IMO.

We always ignore the working tax payer to talk about single mothers looking for houses near their mother and spongers who wreck these properties. What ever numbers we believe these people make up putting them in privately owned apartments and paying rents is an exercise in cutting the taxpayers nose to spite his face, as regards, 'forever homes'.

Bishop of hope · 22-07-2020 05:57PM

Bowie wrote: »

If I may...
Defaulters are not the norm. That said what are the considerable costs in getting properties rental ready? I'm not disagreeing, they are valid concerns and costs.
We can take rent from source, (rent arrears would be an issue in private or state owned rentals).
We have Tenant agreements where they sign a contract to meet certain points of responsibility. We can write that up anyway we want. We can take any damages from source or garnish over time. These could be useful deterrents.

When the state pays to build a house we recoup overtime and have a house.
When the state leases or rents, we are paying likely a lot more per month than we would be towards the cost of the build and we'd have no stock to show after the 25 years or whatever. That's your money pit.

Generations were raised in social housing. We've been following the private market model for many years. I believe building en masse and renting to workers based on income is the way to go. Feeding the build to rent industry is making it difficult for the public to buy and a waste of tax money IMO.

We always ignore the working tax payer to talk about single mothers looking for houses near their mother and spongers who wreck these properties. What ever numbers we believe these people make up putting them in privately owned apartments and paying rents is an exercise in cutting the taxpayers nose to spite his face, as regards, 'forever homes'.

It's simple to look at it in this respect.
Even if the state has to subsidise rents for people it's overall cheaper than providing a build and maintaining it over the lifetime of a tennancy.
That's not speculation that's a fact.

RandomViewer · 22-07-2020 06:22PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's simple to look at it in this respect.
Even if the state has to subsidise rents for people it's overall cheaper than providing a build and maintaining it over the lifetime of a tennancy.
That's not speculation that's a fact.

Will you agree that high rents are stifling employment, social housing frees up private accommodation, the alternative is rent controls and all state subsidised rental properties controlled by a central state controlled letting agency with monthly checks and fines for landlords who fail to keep properties to highest standard,

James Brown · 22-07-2020 06:26PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's simple to look at it in this respect.
Even if the state has to subsidise rents for people it's overall cheaper than providing a build and maintaining it over the lifetime of a tennancy.
That's not speculation that's a fact.

Can you show that?
How much would a council spend on maintenance over a year? Especially taking into account that they can give up or take responsibility as they see fit.

efanton · 22-07-2020 06:26PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's simple to look at it in this respect.
Even if the state has to subsidise rents for people it's overall cheaper than providing a build and maintaining it over the lifetime of a tennancy.
That's not speculation that's a fact.

I fails to see how that can be so. In fact have you got evidence to back this up?

The life time of a tenancy is more often than not going to be two separate leasing agreements.

Now considering that a leasing agreement is considerably more than the initial build cost, I fail to see how maintaining ANY property over its lifetime could cost more than actually building it. If it did we are all in the wrong line of work, everyone would be into the property maintenance game

Bishop of hope · 22-07-2020 06:36PM

RandomViewer wrote: »

Will you agree that high rents are stifling employment, social housing frees up private accommodation, the alternative is rent controls and all state subsidised rental properties controlled by a central state controlled letting agency with monthly checks and fines for landlords who fail to keep properties to highest standard,

To an extent yes some of that is correct maybe.
It's making for commutes definitely.
Rents are driven by the market for them and in areas of high demand they are very expensive for sure.
Landlords should be responsible for keeping their properties to a high standard, but tenants should be responsible for anything they cause to take away from that too.
But that's another topic and is based on terms and conditions.
Building isn't necessarily the cheapest option to providing social housing in the short or long term.

Bishop of hope · 22-07-2020 07:10PM

efanton wrote: »

I fails to see how that can be so. In fact have you got evidence to back this up?

The life time of a tenancy is more often than not going to be two separate leasing agreements.

Now considering that a leasing agreement is considerably more than the initial build cost, I fail to see how maintaining ANY property over its lifetime could cost more than actually building it. If it did we are all in the wrong line of work, everyone would be into the property maintenance game

A firm I worked with did a study for four local authorities in the Midlands, a private report at the behest of each and found that to be the case in connection with council owned housing as opposed to subsidised rentals.
The difference even in upkeep of the supplemented rentals was huge as a lot were based in shared private residential estates too.
I car link the study as, as far as I know it was being used as to a formulation of housing policy going forward.
Admittedly, this was outside the capital and midland based where rents are lower, but providing the housing would also be cheaper too.
While some building is still taking place in these counties, the majority is being subrented as it is economically more viable.

Bishop of hope · 22-07-2020 07:18PM

Bowie wrote: »

Can you show that?
How much would a council spend on maintenance over a year? Especially taking into account that they can give up or take responsibility as they see fit.

The cost would vary, but in council estates that includes all services as well as the housing.
Try as you might to keep it it's a fact that the cost of maintaining council housing estates is far greater than private residential areas.
It's just an attitude thing probably, and that's not me being down on council estates or the people in them, it's probably just because it's not in anyone's interest to keep them to a standard as it doesn't benefit them in terms of future marketability of the houses.

efanton · 22-07-2020 07:35PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

A firm I worked with did a study for four local authorities in the Midlands, a private report at the behest of each and found that to be the case in connection with council owned housing as opposed to subsidised rentals.
The difference even in upkeep of the supplemented rentals was huge as a lot were based in shared private residential estates too.
I car link the study as, as far as I know it was being used as to a formulation of housing policy going forward.
Admittedly, this was outside the capital and midland based where rents are lower, but providing the housing would also be cheaper too.
While some building is still taking place in these counties, the majority is being subrented as it is economically more viable.

So basically no evidence to say that building homes would be more expensive over the lifetime of that home.
Exactly what time period was this study done over to account for costs. Was it done over the period of a year, 5 years, 10 years or the actual lifetime of the property?

I get the argument that potentially in the first 25 years, there might not be much difference or possibly a saving in in favour of leasing property but you forget two important factor, maintenance work force and that beyond 25 years that lease will have to be renewed.
Like I previously stated I fail to see how over the lifetime of a tenancy (40 to 60 years typically) that the maintenance of a property could amount to the same cost of building it.

Now all maintenance, upgrades, or renovation are no longer carried out by workers employed directly by most councils. With an increase in the number of state owned homes, councils employing full time maintenance workers would become far more cost effective. I get that in rural counties where there is a low volume of state owned or leased property that there might not be enough work to warranty the employment of full time electricians, plumbers, and general maintenance staff. But if the government were to go ahead and build 100,000 homes there certainly would be for most councils.

Private contractors do not work as a non profit benefactors of the state. With state or council employed maintenance workers there is no additional profit to factor in, just the consideration that is there enough work to justify employing workers full time.

Bishop of hope · 22-07-2020 07:54PM

efanton wrote: »

So basically no evidence to say that building homes would be more expensive over the lifetime of that home.
Exactly what time period was this study done over to account for costs. Was it done over the period of a year, 5 years, 10 years or the actual lifetime of the property?

I get the argument that potentially in the first 25 years, there might not be much difference or possibly a saving in in favour of leasing property but you forget two important factor, maintenance work force and that beyond 25 years that lease will have to be renewed.
Like I previously stated I fail to see how over the lifetime of a tenancy (40 to 60 years typically) that the maintenance of a property could amount to the same cost of building it.

Now all maintenance, upgrades, or renovation are no longer carried out by workers employed directly by most councils. With an increase in the number of state owned homes, councils employing full time maintenance workers would become far more cost effective. I get that in rural counties where there is a low volume of state owned or leased property that there might not be enough work to warranty the employment of full time electricians, plumbers, and general maintenance staff. But if the government were to go ahead and build 100,000 homes there certainly would be for most councils.

Private contractors do not work as a non profit benefactors of the state. With state or council employed maintenance workers there is no additional profit to factor in, just the consideration that is there enough work to justify employing workers full time.

I can't remember the, figures offhand and I no longer work there either so can't reference it tbf, so I'm just speaking on the findings so you're right of course.
It was based on a 50 year period with a house built at current costs and it was 2017.
But in reference to your reply, the country is full of boarded up houses on council estates of a lot less than your lifetime of a tennancy.
While there are exceptions to that they aren't in the majority.

You should look up the rates being paid in the private sector for qualified maintainence men and wonder how much they would cost on an annual salary to keep in place to compete with that.
While your thoughts aren't profit based, these workers are.

James Brown · 22-07-2020 07:54PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

The cost would vary, but in council estates that includes all services as well as the housing.
Try as you might to keep it it's a fact that the cost of maintaining council housing estates is far greater than private residential areas.
It's just an attitude thing probably, and that's not me being down on council estates or the people in them, it's probably just because it's not in anyone's interest to keep them to a standard as it doesn't benefit them in terms of future marketability of the houses.

It doesn't many things are the tenants responsibility. Admittedly my knowledge would be dated but the Tenancy agreement can be amended to put more of the onus onto the tenant is that;s a big problem.
Not trying anything. My goal is the best deal for the tax payer.
I rented for many years and I never wrecked any place I was in and I grew up surrounded by social housing estates and aside from a very small few dodgy families people kept the places well. This is just my experience of course.
On that note I've seen many a private rental in bad shape because the landlord didn't want to put any more money in than was needed.

I look at it like this:

Private:

Recoup cost to build/buy + Profit margin based on going market rate = Rent/sale price.

One is cheaper by virtue of not trying to gouge. The private landlord/seller we buy or rent off is trying to make as much as they can. So we would be and are paying to line their pockets on top of any costs.

KyussB · 22-07-2020 07:59PM

efanton wrote: »

So basically no evidence to say that building homes would be more expensive over the lifetime of that home.
Exactly what time period was this study done over to account for costs. Was it done over the period of a year, 5 years, 10 years or the actual lifetime of the property?

I get the argument that potentially in the first 25 years, there might not be much difference or possibly a saving in in favour of leasing property but you forget two important factor, maintenance work force and that beyond 25 years that lease will have to be renewed.
Like I previously stated I fail to see how over the lifetime of a tenancy (40 to 60 years typically) that the maintenance of a property could amount to the same cost of building it.

Now all maintenance, upgrades, or renovation are no longer carried out by workers employed directly by most councils. With an increase in the number of state owned homes, councils employing full time maintenance workers would become far more cost effective. I get that in rural counties where there is a low volume of state owned or leased property that there might not be enough work to warranty the employment of full time electricians, plumbers, and general maintenance staff. But if the government were to go ahead and build 100,000 homes there certainly would be for most councils.

Private contractors do not work as a non profit benefactors of the state. With state or council employed maintenance workers there is no additional profit to factor in, just the consideration that is there enough work to justify employing workers full time.

Consider as well, that if it pays for itself over time as well, then it doesn't make sense to not borrow to fund it (factoring in debt servicing costs and interest).

The same automatically goes for everything in goverment finances that is a recuperable capital expense, and not an everyday running cost.

In fact, Keyne's advocated for segregating such investments and its servicing costs from the main government budget.

After all, if something pays for itself over time, it's meaningless to be including it as a measure of sustainability in Public Debt figures, or in debt servicing costs, or in considering whether such measures should restrict further government spending - yet this is something people do pretty much all the time, and is codified in EU law despite being bad economics...

Bishop of hope · 22-07-2020 08:12PM

Bowie wrote: »

It doesn't many things are the tenants responsibility. Admittedly my knowledge would be dated but the Tenancy agreement can be amended to put more of the onus onto the tenant is that;s a big problem.
Not trying anything. My goal is the best deal for the tax payer.
I rented for many years and I never wrecked any place I was in and I grew up surrounded by social housing estates and aside from a very small few dodgy families people kept the places well. This is just my experience of course.
On that note I've seen many a private rental in bad shape because the landlord didn't want to put any more money in than was needed.

I look at it like this:

Private:

Recoup cost to build/buy + Profit margin based on going market rate = Rent/sale price.

One is cheaper by virtue of not trying to gouge. The private landlord/seller we buy or rent off is trying to make as much as they can. So we would be and are paying to line their pockets on top of any costs.

Basically all I see is anti Profit at more cost to the taxpayer overall B.
There is nothing wrong with people making a profit you know, that's how the world works and how efficiency is achieved.
Our problem with providing housing at low costs is having to compete with the private market money wise to get the work done.
There aren't too many builders going to volunteer cheap labour, be it contractors or just ordinary trades people and that's the biggest cost.

efanton · 22-07-2020 08:37PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Basically all I see is anti Profit at more cost to the taxpayer overall B.
There is nothing wrong with people making a profit you know, that's how the world works and how efficiency is achieved.
Our problem with providing housing at low costs is having to compete with the private market money wise to get the work done.
There aren't too many builders going to volunteer cheap labour, be it contractors or just ordinary trades people and that's the biggest cost.

I'm not against anyone making a profit.

What I am against is people making the argument that we as a country should spend more because they are against any form of social ownership.

If the numbers really did stack up and were proven to cost more buying property and maintaining rather than leasing it, I would be for leasing.
I have yet to see any analysis done that proves that over the lifetime of a property that more than the initial cost of building it will be spent on upkeep and repairs.

Seriously, are you for one minute suggesting that for a house that cost 250k to build that over 40 to 60 years a further 250k and more will be spent on management and maintenance?
Are you going to argue that every single year between €4,166 and €6,250 will be spent on average on every single state owned property?
If you are, it's going to be very hard for me to take you seriously at all

Bishop of hope · 22-07-2020 08:57PM

efanton wrote: »

I'm not against anyone making a profit.

What I am against is people making the argument that we as a country should spend more because they are against any form of social ownership.

If the numbers really did stack up and were proven to cost more buying property and maintaining rather than leasing it, I would be for leasing.
I have yet to see any analysis done that proves that over the lifetime of a property that more than the initial cost of building it will be spent on upkeep and repairs.

Seriously, are you for one minute suggesting that for a house that cost 250k to build that over 40 to 60 years a further 250k and more will be spent on management and maintenance?
Are you going to argue that every single year between €4,166 and €6,250 will be spent on average on every single state owned property?
If you are, it's going to be very hard for me to take you seriously at all

No I'm not saying that at all, but a lot of them never reach their expected lifetime at all so jacking up the cost.

James Brown · 22-07-2020 09:02PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Basically all I see is anti Profit at more cost to the taxpayer overall B.
There is nothing wrong with people making a profit you know, that's how the world works and how efficiency is achieved.
Our problem with providing housing at low costs is having to compete with the private market money wise to get the work done.
There aren't too many builders going to volunteer cheap labour, be it contractors or just ordinary trades people and that's the biggest cost.

There is when it's off the taxpayer B.
Why? We can hire the same developers and pay the going rate.
Going to market we have to factor in them wanting to make a profit on top of paying for costs and wages.

Truthvader · 22-07-2020 09:06PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So you don't agree?

Nope. Every city in the world has a homeless problem. If it was "easy" to fix it would be fixed. As is evidenced here, for kick off you have to tackle the left wing right wing name calling. The usual example wheeled out as the " easy" solution is Helsinki. Firstly Helsinki made it a priority and it took 30 years. Secondy the tax rate on €33K per annum in Helsinki is 65%. And upwards from there. Plus guess what a pint costs. Not personally adverse to this solution but you cant pretend it is "easy". Plus it remains to be seen whether the Finns can keep it up.

To adopt the Helsinki model would involve a massive change in social habits, the dismatling of the capitalist / meritocracy model and it may be simply impossible to impose it on the Irish psyche. Even the suggestion that we pay for water led to huge civil unrest.

All this may be good or even achievable. Know people in Helsinki who love it. BUT if anyone things it is "easy" they are insane. It would be a bitter 50 year project to enforce a complete reimagination of how an entire society works and how you can expect to be rewarded for your work or to choose what you spend your money on. So good luck with having Boyd Barrett or Mary Lou even attempt to start the process.

Easy?????

Truthvader · 22-07-2020 09:21PM

Correction 57% 0n €33K

Bishop of hope · 22-07-2020 09:23PM

Bowie wrote: »

There is when it's off the taxpayer B.
Why? We can hire the same developers and pay the going rate.
Going to market we have to factor in them wanting to make a profit on top of paying for costs and wages.

But you're still talking provision at a much higher cost than is being touted.
We've gone full circle now and we are back at where we started.
If you take workers away from the private market then you see the cost of private construction increase because of a worker shortage and you have to compete with that.
It's a vicious circle.

James Brown · 22-07-2020 10:22PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But you're still talking provision at a much higher cost than is being touted.
We've gone full circle now and we are back at where we started.
If you take workers away from the private market then you see the cost of private construction increase because of a worker shortage and you have to compete with that.
It's a vicious circle.

So what's the difference to the private market/worker shortage if we:

A) pay developers to build housing for us...

or

tell developers to build and guarantee them we'll buy/rent them on completion?

I think it's nothing. Is it nothing?

efanton · 22-07-2020 10:53PM

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But you're still talking provision at a much higher cost than is being touted.
We've gone full circle now and we are back at where we started.
If you take workers away from the private market then you see the cost of private construction increase because of a worker shortage and you have to compete with that.
It's a vicious circle.

Sorry but we have heard this argument before in this country, and its just as much boloney now as it was then.

We are part of the EU, where there are open borders and free movement of workers.

In the early 90's we heard that contractors could not get labour for love nor money.
Yet just a few years later there was a building boom going full swing, and there was absolutely no shortage of labour jobs in the building industry. In fact workers were travelling from across Europe to work here.

If the work is there, at reasonable pay, those jobs will be filled.

markodaly · 22-07-2020 11:46PM

Bowie wrote: »

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 are posting the 1.2 Billion figure as if we can save this off the bat every year if we build or something. That of course is bull****, and now you know that.
I have demonstrated that you actually save **** all per year, regardless of the headline big number you put forward.

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.

Yea, 15 million extra per year will surely solve the housing crisis for us. It will what, build an extra 75 houses per year.

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?

It comes out of borrowing or taxes. As I said before. Now if someone is advocating massive spending spree to fix a problem, for them to point out to existing spending as some 'saving' when its not really a saving anyway, tells us all how they do not understand the basics.

markodaly · 22-07-2020 11:55PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

It is and was core policy, it was part of their manifesto in the last election.
FG as government launched the plan and started implementing it, in small parts granted, but the ball was moving.

Again, a certain thing called Covid-19 has kinda changed things a bit and the government is a little bit pre-occupied.
Now if you are seriously suggesting that the government should be completely reforming the health system in the middle of a Global and national pandemic then I feel you are being totally unrealistic and unfair in your criticism.

James Brown · 23-07-2020 12:07AM

markodaly wrote: »

You are posting the 1.2 Billion figure as if we can save this off the bat every year if we build or something. That of course is bull****, and now you know that.
I have demonstrated that you actually save **** all per year, regardless of the headline big number you put forward.

Yea, 15 million extra per year will surely solve the housing crisis for us. It will what, build an extra 75 houses per year.

It comes out of borrowing or taxes. As I said before. Now if someone is advocating massive spending spree to fix a problem, for them to point out to existing spending as some 'saving' when its not really a saving anyway, tells us all how they do not understand the basics.

You wanted to know where we could get money. If you want to go that route I could say building would be really expensive one year then free the next. I AM NOT SAYING THAT BY THE WAY, JUST TO BE CLEAR.
Houses will need be done in batches over a number of years I'd imagine.
You seem angered.
You have not demonstrated anything. You keep throwing up crap and then moving goal posts when challenged. You've also a habit of asking questions then avoiding answers you don't like.

Where did you pull 15m out of? You asked were money would come from. You got some examples. All you have to offer is borrowing and more taxes.

Here's as basic as I can make it.
The more we invest in building, the less we need spend on buying or leasing.

markodaly · 23-07-2020 12:10AM

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.

Lots of contracts are fixed prices however some arent especially when the terms of the contract are still up in the air, as was the NCH because the project was so big.
Afaik, I remember that one of the reasons the bill escalated was that the design team kept changing the terms and the fit out of the hospital.

Better people than me can answer that question in lots more details, but again, its a little bit more complicated than you put forward.

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

Yes, its sooooo simple.... :rolleyes:

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.

Even though they royally screw up?
Sorry but if you want accountability, there has to be the option of getting rid of people in the process.

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?

There is zero point hiring the top guy on a contact basis, when those directly under them in the Dept. continue on working in the same vein.
Its like hiring a new manager, expecting magical results but the football team are still unfit and lazy.

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.

Is that how it worked in the NBP? If the government makes the contract process so difficult,then they will have a hard time getting tenders accepted.

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

So, from the frying pan into the fire. Costs and expenses will go up anyway... don't see how we are saving in the long run so.

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.

I do not disagree in principal to the concept of having the people at the top of the Civil Service tree contract only, but it would not be the silver bullet you make it out to be at all.

markodaly · 23-07-2020 12:14AM

Bowie wrote: »

You wanted to know where we could get money. If you want to go that route I could say building would be really expensive one year then free the next. Houses will need be done in batches over a number of years I'd imagine.

And the government is doing this no? Providing money to build social houses.

Where did you pull 15m out of? You asked were money would come from. You got some examples. All you have to offer is borrowing and more taxes.

All money spent is either tax money raised or money borrowed.
The 15 million is the savings one would have building those 1,100 houses rather than buying them on the market.

The point, the savings echoed by you are no where near the big headline figures you pronounce of 1.2 Billion or other such nonesense.

Here's as basic as I can make it.
The more we invest in building, the less we need spend on buying or leasing.

Great, so where will be get the extra funds needs for this capital spending?

James Brown · 23-07-2020 02:20AM

markodaly wrote: »

And the government is doing this no? Providing money to build social houses.

So you've gone from throwing obstacles in front of the idea to saying its already happening. Piecemeal.

You tell me. Social housing use to mean state building. Only buying one or two at a time for emergency cases.
Now it's more buying, leasing and renting than ever before. We should be working towards less leasing or buying.

markodaly wrote: »

All money spent is either tax money raised or money borrowed.
The 15 million is the savings one would have building those 1,100 houses rather than buying them on the market.

A paltry 15 million is it? How many more houses could we build with that? Every saving helps. We can't go on leasing, theres no magic money tree.
Is your argument that we save money but not enough? So we spend more...that's the solution?

markodaly wrote: »

The point, the savings echoed by you are no where near the big headline figures you pronounce of 1.2 Billion or other such nonesense

You are misrepresenting the article and my comments on it. 1.2 billion was spent on buying houses to use as social. I was showing there was money to spend and for example that 1.2 billion could have gone on building.
The article went on to show how building was cheaper than buying and gave the savings.
You are twisting it to sound like we didn't spend 1.2 billion on buying. We did. We could have spent 1.2 billion on building and got more houses for the money than we did. That's the point you are side stepping.

I quoted numbers from articles and a government source on the amount spent on HAP, buying and rent subsidies. You keep inferring I'm wrong or making it up. I posted links. Took you a few times to catch that.
Again, you asked were money would come from. Again, I never claimed these figures would cover the entire cost. Again, we dont know the cost until we decide how many to build.

markodaly wrote: »

Great, so where will be get the extra funds needs for this capital spending?

Same place we get the money for 25 year leases, buying off market and subsidising private rentals I'd imagine. Also, 'extra'? Building is cheaper. Kinda my point.

Yeah buying a house in the middle of nowhere might be cheaper than building....etc. Be great if we could find as many as we needed and move them around to where we needed them.

Yurt2 · 23-07-2020 03:23AM

blanch152 wrote: »

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

Oh ffs. This is the level of debate from the do nothing right.

There's some genuine ideas being explored here and blanch is back to this scrot.

You're actually a silly human blanch.

Bishop of hope · 23-07-2020 05:40AM

efanton wrote: »

Sorry but we have heard this argument before in this country, and its just as much boloney now as it was then.

We are part of the EU, where there are open borders and free movement of workers.

In the early 90's we heard that contractors could not get labour for love nor money.
Yet just a few years later there was a building boom going full swing, and there was absolutely no shortage of labour jobs in the building industry. In fact workers were travelling from across Europe to work here.

If the work is there, at reasonable pay, those jobs will be filled.

But none of that changes the cost of providing these houses overall.
You can flood the market with builders and, trades people for sure, but that in itself pushes up demand for housing as well.

FF/FG/Green Next Government

Comments