The only way to actually reach the targets would be to actually fuck people out of hotels, the HAP scheme and cut charity budgets for 5 years. That’s aside from the actual logistics of getting that many builders in.
At least the left have kept things vague and gone with “tax the rich” and “Apple money!”.
It seems their plans and details are all over the place. They do clearly state it is an additional €500m per year over and above existing expenditure, but now they have that same figure over 5 years.
But they have some brilliant use of business jargon. I’m going to use “Dunkirk style approach” today. I’m not sure how and where, but I suppose that really isnt important when you use business jargon and great buzzwords that make fuck all sense.
Labour have stated a figure of 80,000 houses for €16bn over 5 years. A somewhat realistic proposal. Just they will never ever see the light of day with that though.
This is a good article on our counterproductive short term housing policies. Same applies to health. The FG cheerleaders would like people to believe that properly investing in public services would bankrupt us. In reality it is the policy choices of the FG government that have led to unsustainable current spending and crises in housing and health, and the same policy choices that have left us without the ability to properly invest money where we should.
Basically, FG policy is to heap more and more money into expensive short term fixes because they are ideologically opposed to the state providing proper services. This leaves us without the scope or ability to invest in proper or long term solutions cause FG have blown the budget on current spending. This is the crowd that market themselves as the fiscally prudent lads. You couldn’t make it up.
So has @glasagusban, and every time he suggests something prudent and sustainable the FG bully boys scream magic money tree at him. Meanwhile, where are they getting the money to fund their out of control current spending?
I’m just making the point. He lives in a private housing estate that is the definition of leafy middle class and protected.
He advocates for mass social housing estates because he was brought up in one and is fine.
Fintan is divorced from reality because he is the boy done good. The policy of moving away from those estates is because they were a failure by and large, storing up further problems for the future.
You keep saying mass social housing estates. The state building houses does not necessarily mean mass social housing estates, which I have not seen anyone advocating for. This is my second time pointing this out to you. You can’t help yourself replying to points no one made.
You’ve also decided you can invalidate a person’s opinion based on where they live. Very interesting. Not surprising coming from you of course.
@chocolatemice has also pointed this out — the old boys club think that the state building housing means housing for the poor and working class… Very shallow and arrogant thinking.
The funniest part is that Tim thinks that posh private school boys club FG politicians’ opinions on social housing are valid, but the opinion of someone who grew up in social is invalid if they moved to a private house. I think Tim is labelling O’Toole a class traitor because he has no response to the valid points raised about FGs wildly irresponsible spending record.