Irish Politics

In some senses we are doing well relative to other countries.

The economy is (currently) healthy, we had some of the lowest inflation in europe this year, 2/3rds of voters said they are as well or better off than they were 12 month ago (as per the exit poll), and if you compare our recent budget to the UK's for example we're very far from the austerity-chasing position they're in. And while there has been an upsurge in far-right activism, it hasn't translated to any electoral success, nor has the cultural war bullshit infected our mainstream parties to the same extent it has other countries.

The problem is simply that none of that has translated to adequate infrastructure, or left Ireland feeling anything like as wealthy a country as it actually is in terms of public services.
Pretty much.
 
Part of stopping with the provision of social housing and leaving it to the markets is an example of policy influenced by neoliberal economics.
Yep, and this has been the most devastating effect upon the nation really. The rest, imo, follows. It isn't that easy, but I'd rather whether a period of austerity or cost of living crisis in a nation where there is no housing crisis.
 
you'd swear we were living in a world of despair here.
60% (or just under) voted for parties that are not going to form the next government (even with turnout down). When it comes to housing, homelessness, and healthcare, unless you're well off, or relatively so, it is a world of fecking despair. And as bad as it has ever been.

I disagree entirely with the narrative that people didn't vote for change. They clearly did. It's just the way our system works that it wont manifest as a government. There needs to be a strategy. A lot of centre left parties should coalesce to become SF's next block in terms of government making.
 
It's an economic theory.

Part of stopping with the provision of social housing and leaving it to the markets is an example of policy influenced by neoliberal economics.

There would be no consequences on our global position?

Edit - from Wikipedia

"The Handbook of Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy."

It’s globalism. Allowing money to flow as freely as possible around the world. If any individual government chooses to impede that flow through their country there’s a high price to pay. And Ireland - more than almost anyone else - have done extremely well out of this globalised economy.

Ireland does provide social housing, by the way. Or am I missing something?
 
I would basically ignore the hyperbole being spewed by some in this thread, you'd swear we were living in a world of despair here.

Ah it's not hyperbole.

Our two main parties and state in general deserve amazing credit. From having a civil war in the twenties, the new state then having to deal with WW2 in its embryonic days. From there what was achieved under Keynesian economics can't be understated.


Likewise, a rejection of those policies and the subsequent damage it has done needs to be challenged as strongly as possible.
 
Ireland does provide social housing, by the way. Or am I missing something?
It does provide social housing but the statistics are damning. The takeaway is that we're 250k (minimally) houses short of being able to accommodate the nation in any sustainable way.

As to the social/private breakdown of that figure, see all manifestos and civil service statistics I suppose. What I do know is social housing fell to its lowest level in a long time over a twenty year period. The promise is that FFG are going to make good on that this time around with soundbites being "we have built more social houses [in the past year or so] than has been the case for years". There's a lot to this. But it has been a failure in social housing policy.

It's the lowest rate of home ownership, in this nation, since the 1950s. I mean, that's pretty damning.

The sheer number of people, couples say, who are working to save for a mortgage and paying rents that are up 80% over four years. The struggle is fecking real.

I'll never stop advocating for a model where everyone is entitled to a house, social, which they cannot buy or leverage in anyway but absolutely own until they vacate. If they want something better/bigger/more, then there's the private market. Even a push towards something like this, even if not everyone gets in, will have such an effect that the government's own social housing schemes, which have been broken for five years (HAP and so on), would work again with rents falling back in line with what the government offers through those schemes.
 
Last edited:
It’s globalism. Allowing money to flow as freely as possible around the world. If any individual government chooses to impede that flow through their country there’s a high price to pay. And Ireland - more than almost anyone else - have done extremely well out of this globalised economy.

Ireland does provide social housing, by the way. Or am I missing something?

That's globalisation and global trade, that is not the determining factor in domestic policies. The EU was built on pre neoliberal Keynesian economics.

There has been a marked decrease in the social housing provided in favour of market let solutions which is classic neoliberal economics. It's a choice.
 
It does provide social housing but the statistics are damning. The takeaway is that we're 250k (minimally) houses short of being able to accommodate the nation in any sustainable way.

As to the social/private breakdown of that figure, see all manifestos and civil service statistics I suppose. What I do know is social housing fell to its lowest level in a long time over a twenty year period. The promise is that FFG are going to make good on that this time around with soundbites being "we have built more social houses [in the past year or so] than has been the case for years". There's a lot to this. But it has been a failure in social housing policy.

It's the lowest rate of home ownership, in this nation, since the 1950s. I mean, that's pretty damning.

The sheer number of people, couples say, who are working to save for a mortgage and paying rents that are up 80% over four years. The struggle is fecking real.

I'll never stop advocating for a model where everyone is entitled to a house, social, which they cannot buy or leverage in anyway but absolutely own until they vacate. If they want something better/bigger/more, then there's the private market. Even a push towards something like this, even if not everyone gets in, will have such an effect that the government's own social housing schemes, which have been broken for five years (HAP and so on), would work again with rents falling back in line with what the government offers through those schemes.

Yeah, I’m not going to argue that our housing system is working well. I’m a parent who would rather not have my kids forced to live with me into their 30s, which is looking on the cards right now. And that’s nuts.

Something needs to be done but I’m not entirely sure what. Hopefully people smarter than me can come up with a solution. Because the issue definitely goes beyond Ireland, which presumably means it’s going to be very difficult to fix. Or someone else would have worked it out by now.
 
Yeah, I’m not going to argue that our housing system is working well. I’m a parent who would rather not have my kids forced to live with me into their 30s, which is looking on the cards right now. And that’s nuts.

Something needs to be done but I’m not entirely sure what. Hopefully people smarter than me can come up with a solution. Because the issue definitely goes beyond Ireland, which presumably means it’s going to be very difficult to fix. Or someone else would have worked it out by now.
Multiple countries have or have found ways to avoid creating the problem in the first place. Its a familiar call of neo liberalism - theres no alternative, its unavoidable ... ignore all them examples of others countries ... it would destroy the economy if we changed it etc.
 
Ah it's not hyperbole.

Our two main parties and state in general deserve amazing credit. From having a civil war in the twenties, the new state then having to deal with WW2 in its embryonic days. From there what was achieved under Keynesian economics can't be understated.


Likewise, a rejection of those policies and the subsequent damage it has done needs to be challenged as strongly as possible.
The 2 main parties have various problems and should absolutely shoulder some of the blame for issues in the country. But the level at which some people are talking in this thread is just ridiculous, to the point that passers by think we've elected a Trump Republican style party/gang of criminals.
 
The 2 main parties have various problems and should absolutely shoulder some of the blame for issues in the country. But the level at which some people are talking in this thread is just ridiculous, to the point that passers by think we've elected a Trump Republican style party/gang of criminals.

Some people. That's such a FG voter thing to say. ;)
 
Good and lively thread! Glad the rightist knuckle draggers and criminal types didn’t get far.
 

Not sure about that. The reality seems to be a bit more complicated than you think.

This housing model is a legacy of “Red Vienna”, a period after the first world war when a socialist city council started building proletarian fortresses such as the gigantic Karl-Marx-Hof. It has recently been attracting enormous interest from abroad. Droves of American city planners grappling with homelessness and soaring rents have come over to learn whether the Viennese model can work in places like San Diego. The New York Times has lauded Vienna as a “renters’ utopia”.

That all depends on who is renting. True, young people can ditch their parents in their early 20s. But even many Viennese acknowledge that the model is no longer fit for purpose in a fast-growing, prosperous city. Designed to provide housing for the poorest, Vienna’s social housing now mostly benefits the well-off.
 
They have? Who?
I'm not saying Netherlands is the model to follow but they have 35% of social housing stock relative to the entire supply.

Only 9% of Irish housing is social housing.

Then you have HAP and HAS or whatever else it's called where the money the government provides can by 30-50% of what the actual rental average is (I'd need to double check this, but it's grim). And all of that money goes direct to landlords.

The problem is vast.

The current need, based only on the social housing waiting lists, HAP tenancies, RAS tenancies and households in receipt of Rent Supplement is over 157,000​

157k is almost the 9% of social housing that does exist (2 million or so houses in Ireland in total).

That's an immense fecking problem which this government has had a long time to solve. I'm all for FFG solving the problem (I have no ideological bias against necessary things being done by parties whose ideologies historically do not align with my own concrete idealism). I just don't expect it. All this talk of buffering. I get a buffer is smart. 60 billion or something is what is being cited. But you could take 20 billion of that and scale up housing and even healthcare.

This "weather the storm" shite FFG are spouting is not good enough. The nation is on the brink and only those who are living in affluent bubbles (not all of them to be fair) cannot see that. Requires immediate and meaningful action.

(That's just the need for social housing: people who cannot afford to save for mortgages or enter that market btw). This where you get a 300k shortfall in housing figure from.
 
Last edited:
Good and lively thread! Glad the rightist knuckle draggers and criminal types didn’t get far.
Exactly.

Agree on the thread. No harm in voices from either end of the economic spectrum. It's essential so whoever is in power is answerable and doesn't march off untethered.
 
I didn't say it was simple. And go away with an article from the economist ffs.

Ok, good. Because you seemed to be disagreeing with my point. Which is that it’s the opposite of simple to fix. Hence nobody has fixed it. And if Austria’s relatively good housing situation is in large part because of massive building projects after the First World War then you can see why comparing them with Ireland isn’t really comparing apples with apples?

Side note. You can find similar articles from loads of other sources. Economist was my first hit.
 
Ok, good. Because you seemed to be disagreeing with my point. Which is that it’s the opposite of simple to fix. Hence nobody has fixed it. And if Austria’s relatively good housing situation is in large part because of massive building projects after the First World War then you can see why comparing them with Ireland isn’t really comparing apples with apples?

Side note. You can find similar articles from loads of other sources. Economist was my first hit.
Its not. And the only problem with their housing situation listed in the economist from the bulletproof, unquestionable, eminently qualified 'many vienesse' is that they're not extracting maximum profits from renters. If thats the standard of argument then no thanks. Cant be fecked with that silliness
 
Ok, good. Because you seemed to be disagreeing with my point. Which is that it’s the opposite of simple to fix. Hence nobody has fixed it. And if Austria’s relatively good housing situation is in large part because of massive building projects after the First World War then you can see why comparing them with Ireland isn’t really comparing apples with apples?

Side note. You can find similar articles from loads of other sources. Economist was my first hit.

While I don't think it is solely that, it'd still be ok to compare. My generation and the previous one saw the benefits of a massive wave of social housing built in the 50s. It doesn't matter when it is built as long as you at least endeavour to build enough. Which we don't anymore, instead rejecting Keynesian thought and embracing Milton's small government market based solution.

It's a definite choice.
 
Its not. And the only problem with their housing situation listed in the economist from the bulletproof, unquestionable, eminently qualified 'many vienesse' is that they're not extracting maximum profits from renters. If thats the standard of argument then no thanks. Cant be fecked with that silliness

Is the Guardian close enough to the politics of your echo chamber to be acceptable as a source?

Because it includes both of the points you disagree with when The Economist makes them.

1. Importance of post WWI building projects

Many of these apartments came into being a century ago, as part of an enormously ambitious building programme after the end of the first world war, when Vienna was awash with people uprooted by the collapse of the Habsburg empire. Funded primarily through a hypothecated tax on luxuries such as champagne or horse-riding, the inaugural phase of socialist-governed “Red Vienna” saw 65,000 socially rented apartments shoot up within the city by the time of the Nazi coup attempt in 1934.

2. Facing the same problems as other counties more recently, especially in fast-growing, prosperous cities

The other downside of the Vienna model is that while 60% of the city’s residents have hit the jackpot by getting into a Gemeindebau or subsidised co-op, that still excludes a large chunk of the population of a city in which 80% are renters. Only those who have resided permanently in Vienna for two years can apply for social housing, and those who stay in private rentals face problems more familiar from other European cities.
 
Is the Guardian close enough to the politics of your echo chamber to be acceptable as a source?

Because it includes both of the points you disagree with when The Economist makes them.

1. Importance of post WWI building projects



2. Facing the same problems as other counties more recently, especially in fast-growing, prosperous cities
Your argument is dumb Pogue. Think about it for 5 seconds ffs. Dozens of countries invested in social housing in that period. How many retain a healthy housing market because of investments made 70 years ago?
They have a social housing stock because they've been building social housing for about 80 years, with frequent significant investments over the decades. They never stopped building them. You've told me 20% of viennese renters are suffering due to the problems of private rentals as an argument for private rentals?
Try thinking about what your writing instead of regurgitating the first crap google spits out at you.
 
From the by no means radical Soc Dems website on housing.

"One of the most basic requirements in a functioning society is the provision of secure and affordable housing. This government claims that housing is its top priority, when in reality, it is its biggest failure. The results speak for themselves with record levels of rents, record levels of homelessness, and the record numbers of people in their twenties and thirties still living in their childhood bedrooms.

At the heart of the housing crisis is an affordability crisis. The Social Democrats would do everything we can to drive down prices – so that people on average incomes can again aspire to own their own home.

To solve this crisis, we need to radically rethink and reimagine the way we provide housing.

Our Housing Priorities​

  • Put affordability centre-stage and build an average of 29,000 affordable rental, affordable purchase, and social homes every year from 2026 to 2030"

Just provide social and entry housing, it is just that simple. It alleviates the pressure right to the top.
 
From the by no means radical Soc Dems website on housing.

"One of the most basic requirements in a functioning society is the provision of secure and affordable housing. This government claims that housing is its top priority, when in reality, it is its biggest failure. The results speak for themselves with record levels of rents, record levels of homelessness, and the record numbers of people in their twenties and thirties still living in their childhood bedrooms.

At the heart of the housing crisis is an affordability crisis. The Social Democrats would do everything we can to drive down prices – so that people on average incomes can again aspire to own their own home.

To solve this crisis, we need to radically rethink and reimagine the way we provide housing.

Our Housing Priorities​

  • Put affordability centre-stage and build an average of 29,000 affordable rental, affordable purchase, and social homes every year from 2026 to 2030"

Just provide social and entry housing, it is just that simple. It alleviates the pressure right to the top.
It’s certainly a start but it won’t address our 60,000 a year shortfall. Building loads of affordable homes for low earners and as social housing will be great but also continue to really piss of middle class workers who can’t afford homes on the market.

We are pretty much at max capacity with construction anyway. I said it before but it needs an enormous shift in the industry, to basically abandon commercial property in favour of building homes, and that’s a very hard sell without spending crazy money and causing huge inflation.
 
Your argument is dumb Pogue. Think about it for 5 seconds ffs. Dozens of countries invested in social housing in that period. How many retain a healthy housing market because of investments made 70 years ago?
They have a social housing stock because they've been building social housing for about 80 years, with frequent significant investments over the decades. They never stopped building them. You've told me 20% of viennese renters are suffering due to the problems of private rentals as an argument for private rentals?
Try thinking about what your writing instead of regurgitating the first crap google spits out at you.

You keep accusing me of making arguments I haven’t actually made. It’s not cool. So I’m out.
 
It’s certainly a start but it won’t address our 60,000 a year shortfall. Building loads of affordable homes for low earners and as social housing will be great but also continue to really piss of middle class workers who can’t afford homes on the market.

We are pretty much at max capacity with construction anyway. I said it before but it needs an enormous shift in the industry, to basically abandon commercial property in favour of building homes, and that’s a very hard sell without spending crazy money and causing huge inflation.

No, I'm just saying it's not some abstract malaise. It's a policy issue.
 
No, I'm just saying it's not some abstract malaise. It's a policy issue.
Oh god yeah, FFG have done everything they possibly could to prop up house values and rent costs in the last decade, no doubt about it, but sure that’s their primary voter base so of course they will.
 
Paul "With all due respect, in the most unparliamentary language, feck you Deputy Stagg! feck you!" Gogarty was elected after about 10 years away from the Dail.

Except he didn't say feck.
 
It’s certainly a start but it won’t address our 60,000 a year shortfall. Building loads of affordable homes for low earners and as social housing will be great but also continue to really piss of middle class workers who can’t afford homes on the market.

We are pretty much at max capacity with construction anyway. I said it before but it needs an enormous shift in the industry, to basically abandon commercial property in favour of building homes, and that’s a very hard sell without spending crazy money and causing huge inflation.

Presumably the idea is that a glut of new, very low priced and/or social housing will make the bottom fall out of the housing market overall, which will make property more affordable for everyone?

No ides if that actually works in practice. Bound to be some unintended consequences. I’ve not heard of this being done to good effect anywhere recently.
 
Presumably the idea is that a glut of new, very low priced and/or social housing will make the bottom fall out of the housing market overall, which will make property more affordable for everyone?

No ides if that actually works in practice. Bound to be some unintended consequences. I’ve not heard of this being done to good effect anywhere recently.
It seems rather unlikely. As long as there is much more demand than supply then it’s basically impossible for prices to drop. That’s just basic economics isn’t it?
 

Summary​

Research from Shelter and the National Housing Federation, carried out by CEBR, shows that building 90,000 social rented homes [1] would add £51.2bn to the economy.
Most of this impact would happen quickly
– £32.6bn would be generated within a year of building the homes, supporting almost 140,000 jobs. Within three years, the programme would break even, with the wider economic benefits surpassing the upfront cost of building, largely by boosting the construction industry.
The economic benefits continue over the longer term, through the management of more social homes, savings on housing benefit, and wider benefits including reduced homelessness, increased employment, and improved healthcare.
Within 11 years the initial government funding to build the homes would be fully paid back. Over a 30 year period, building 90,000 social homes results in a £12bn profit for the taxpayer.

The wider benefits of social housing​

Social rented homes are the most affordable housing option – rents are about 50% of the market average – and they have more secure tenancies than other homes. The social benefits of people gaining more secure, affordable homes is clear, but the economic impact of these benefits aren’t always clear.
[1] This is widely accepted as the level required annually for at least 10 years to meet housing need, based on research by the NHF and Crisis. This research is based on 90,000 total, not 90,000 a year.
Our research shows that building 90,000 social homes and providing people with a stable, affordable place to live would generate £31.4bn in societal benefits through:
Higher employment – £8.9bn

A stable home helps people to get and keep work, and reduces the long-term scarring effect that being homeless or in insecure housing can have on employment prospects, generating £8.9bn for the economy and a further £3.8bn in tax revenue.
Lower benefit costs – £3.3bn
Due to higher employment, yearly benefit claims would be cut by £1,218 per household, generating £3.3bn in savings over the long term.
Improved healthcare – £5.2bn
On average social homes have fewer health hazards and stable homes are linked to better wellbeing, generating £5.2bn through NHS savings.
Reducing homelessness – £4.5bn
More social homes would mean fewer people living in temporary accommodation and requiring homelessness assistance, saving local authorities £4.5bn.
Reduced crime – £3.1bn
People in inadequate housing are more likely to experience crime. Social homes lead to fewer police callouts and reduced cost of crime, generating savings of £3.1bn.
Better life chances for children – £2.7bn
Unstable homes can harm children by disrupting their education, which leads to lower economic contributions, increased crime, and greater use of public services. Reducing these disruptions would generate £2.7bn in savings.
UK study but most of this is just common sense.

What Milton Friedman would call "neighborhood effects".

In any of the areas that people care about, in a nation, building social housing just cannot be bad. It isn't possible. You might find 1% of mentalists who object for some weird reason, but overall it makes the nation more cohesive, less violent, and generally better off economically over the decades to come.
 
Presumably the idea is that a glut of new, very low priced and/or social housing will make the bottom fall out of the housing market overall, which will make property more affordable for everyone?

No ides if that actually works in practice. Bound to be some unintended consequences. I’ve not heard of this being done to good effect anywhere recently.
Crikey. We are so far away from the bottom falling out of the market. There is acres of space between where we are now and an oversupply.

Anyway protecting the market at the expense of the citizens is outrageous.
 
It seems rather unlikely. As long as there is much more demand than supply then it’s basically impossible for prices to drop. That’s just basic economics isn’t it?

I’m no economist but I always thought that increasing supply, assuming fixed demand, is going to apply downward pressure on prices. Obviously that could just mean a reduction in the rate of increase but still, a step in the right direction?
 
I’m no economist but I always thought that increasing supply, assuming fixed demand, is going to apply downward pressure on prices. Obviously that could just mean a reduction in the rate of increase but still, a step in the right direction?
There is an ever increasing demand though.