Right to a house?

As well as building more social housing for the less well off, government needs to take advantage of cheap money worldwide to bring in investment and increase number of units built each year. Amateur landlords also need to be gradually replaced by large scale regulated corporate landlords.

Timing I guess. In 2005 you could go into a bank and they'd give you any mortgage if you could walk and chew gum at the same time.

Not one party or person believes or us serious about right to housing and that's just amongst those who call for it.

Comparing houses build up until the early '90's and there cost to now is ludicrous. Ya these houses look fine houses now. But they have gone through upgrades and retro fit since.

Pre 1990 houses were basically block walls, with softwood windows and doors, one bathroom, basic heating system. When these houses were build people.moved into them without kitchens, floor covering, painting and no external landscaping.

A house now build to the present regulations is a totally different product.

The requirement to profit is consistent with all types of investment, few people would invest if they were required only to break even or make a loss.

Should it be more important than the provision of accommodation where there is a critical need? Yes, because without it there would be no investment to meet that critical need.

What you should really be asking yourself is why when there is a critical undersupply, and historical levels of profit to be made, are landlords leaving the sector at a higher rate than those investing in it.

.....but under such conditions, this ultimately leads to monopolisation of markets, whereby smaller entities, i.e. smaller landlords get squeezed out of such markets, this is currently whats happening here, yes profits are necessary, but again, theres a difference between profits, and PROFITS!

....its time we grew up and started acting like adults, we must admit to ourselves this whole approach to property, i.e. the so called financialisation of our markets, has in fact catastrophically failed, and is now in a state of collapse.... it is failing for most citizens at this stage, including small landlords, who do play a critical role in helping provide this critical need.

...again asset owners have been heavily protected by public policy, in regards valuation, but small players have been ultimately thrown under the bus, along side the rest of the citizens, i.e. it has failed!

....yes, we must also admit to ourselves, financialisation ultimately leads to significant supply issues, heavily monopolised outcomes and hyper inflated prices, this approach only truly works for major plutocratic interests, while fcuking over everyone else!

I don't have to have a suggestion to see that repeating the same mistakes of the past that are self evident. Why do people think there would be a different outcome from things we did in the past?

Housing needs to be integrated that is all

This simply is not true.

Unless there is the prospect of profit for private investors, what is the incentive to invest? Remove that prospect and the situation becomes exponentially worse as the rental and building sectors would collapse as investors would look for other sectors to invest in.

I do agree that small landlords have left the market due to poorly thought out legislation/policy.

...horsesh1t, just look at our current situation, and if you think ireland is the only country experiencing such outcomes, you better think again! financialisation has collapsed, this is clearly obvious in nearly every metric now! once again, theres very little risk involved for major investors, as public policy has their backs, credit, qe, the works.... baring in mind, its also common for major investors to receive debt forgiveness, if its needed, this is less likely for smaller investors, i.e. small time landlords....i.e. they have far more favorable conditions than smaller investors, i.e. its a completely rigged game!

yes, we do need the involvement of these entities, but it needs to be a more balanced and fairer game, but thats clearly not our reality! its clearly obvious that so called laissez faire has completely failed, leading to rapid rise in wealth inequality, and other far more complex social dysfunctions, i.e. its over!

I don't disagree with you per se. Putting poor people together creates ghettos. But is that because they are poor or is that just a symptom of something else? Causation and effect and all that. Completely random example: People who drink water first thing in the day are generally thinner. So if I drink water I'll loose weight? No people who drink water first thing in the morning are more likely to look after themselves generally. So poor may not be the issue in and off itself.

So to avoid ghettos the solution is to sprinkle them among the rest of the population who pay their own way. One has to ask at this point does society not pay enough already, why should we have to live with the anti social behaviour that comes with social housing?

Being poor has several route causes but all of those factors tend to lead to other social factors along with being poor. It is all about the odds being changed by the circumstances the state puts people in. If 50% of a school class have separated parents there will be more issues with those children than if it was 10% of the class.

The issue is anti-social behaviour increases where it is more socially acceptable. By spreading out people among the population they will be less likely to be anti-social. People generally don't like to stick out and go along with the community they live in. That is why it is a bad idea to put people together like they have in the past.

These people are part of society and they in many cases are a result of poor support services which the government failed to do in the past. You seem to suggest we just write them off and importantly their children who are innocent victims of poor planing. We can warehouse these people and continually pay to support them or help them to improve their lives. There is a poverty trap involved and it is generational for some. Leaving children with alcoholic/drug addict/mental ill parents leaves the children with very bad prospects. I went to school with people from social housing. Many were fine but some were crazy and a huge disruption. As an adult I now know these people had horrible home environments and just couldn't function. Those who were trouble now have kids just like them and my fellow students are like their parents and have created horrible home environments. Their kids have little hope of becoming productive members of society. We as a nation are responsible for them.

...and what left leaning political parties have been playing a major role in implementing such polices?