I have no strong feelings on it myself - after spending hours regaling us on the merits of your level 9 balanced approach to analysis i just thought you might have listened to the other side too but i suppose Iâm the bigger fool for assuming
I believe that citing who said the peace and not passing it off as my own would be enough. I gave my thoughts/opinion that it was a powerful piece from MM, he performed very well, and sent Doherty and SF home with tae in their collective mugs. I donât need to know in this instance what the SF response is, but for balance, dig it out there and put it up. If the numbers that MM quoted are wrong, please use this opportunity to right them.
1 Like
Hard to disagree with any of this.
michael fucking martin, are you for real lockey boy?
the man has been at cabinet for over 20 of the last 25 years, he has a responsibility as a cabinet minister for the multiple failings of the success govts fuck up with the housing markets.
and thats even before we go anywhere near developers lodging money to his wifeâs account
1 Like
So you have no idea if MM is correct, if his points were countered or if he was sent home with his mug.
Where did you study again?
Firstly, itâs MicheĂĄl Martin. But putting that to one side, what was powerful was that particular piece that was put up by, yes FF, so itâs leaning towards their leader. And yes, FF drove our country off a cliff and yes, FF and MM were in the pockets of big developers over the years. We all have a vote and we all choose who we vote for. We live in a Republic. I can say that I have not voted for MM since 2002 (think there was an election around then) and havenât given FF any sort of a vote since 2007 (again, think there was a GE around then). I personally still wouldnât trust FF and for at least the next GE they will not get my vote. But in this instance, MM did well, in my opinion. And I know that meeting MM and indeed Michael McGrath, they are decent people and work hard for their country and their constituents. But again, my opinion, which is mine to have. By all means challenge me, this is a public forum.
2 Likes
id say people are more worried about a roof over their head than a fada in martins name
the point being that while some of the stuff the shinners may have voted against may have had limited impact on the housing situation. the real reason we are we are is because of successive government policy and intervention failures and a common theme through the last quarter of a century is micheĂĄl martin at the cabinet table.
Supply and demand innit? Economics 101
I wouldnât be one of the card carriers, and I suppose it depends, but the framing of your question seems disingenuous to me.
I genuinely donât know. Some of the language from OâBroin seems to bemoan the flight of landlords from the sector and yet their policy positions and other rhetoric seems to further tilt landlords towards selling up. They seem to want it both ways.
I have an apartment that I rent out (purchased in the 2000âs). I honestly donât know at this stage whether I should just look to sell because of the uncertainty of what either the current gov or an incoming SF gov might do next. At this stage, despite the hassle of doing it, it seems less risky just to get out.
2 Likes
I think it depends on how you frame it and that there are competing priorities. Of course they donât actually want to drive landlords out of the market, but they probably land more on the side of protecting renters over protecting landlords. In the current situation I think thatâs a reasonable approach.
To me housing seems to largely operate on a different model to supply and demand.
thats because of constant flawed government interventions
Is it? Maybe some of it is this. And maybe thatâs far too simplistic an explanation. There will always be some form of government intervention in the property market. And I think there has to be.
It seems to me you could approach this problem from about six or seven different angles. But people only ever seem to approach it from one angle, with slogans.
1 Like
up until around 1999 or perhaps 2000, housing was affordable as was rent and there was ample supplies. then there was a number of policy interventions not only in the housing sector but in other as well which had a direct knock on in the housing sector
agree 100%, it needs as holistic approach
1 Like
Irelandâs biggest problem currently is supply, thatâs clear. But economists are agreed that housing doesnât function like a normal supply and demand market and shouldnât be treated as such.
I think our population was artificially low back then too. But no doubt policies havenât helped. Some political, some not.
Werenât funds (until very recently at least) investing in the building of new estates to buy on completion? Seems like the system was rigged.