Ireland politics (Part 2)

Current Affairs
1866

Doesn’t really seem to be any strong consequences.

Harsh financial penalties on directors and other sever measures should be introduced but it seems to be the usual lax attitude to corporate crime.

1 Like
1867

I think there should be some form of redress because I agree with you there is some moral imperative on the state. Ultimately the state should show solidarity with citizens who have bad things happen to them (see social welfare, health etc)

I don’t think it should be uncapped or 100% - people need to have skin in the game or else the scheme will be gamed. Also it’s a very dangerous principle that the state should get into blank cheque territory.

I think its fairly clear that if the state pays for Mica redress (and Pyrite) then essentially the other construction defects of the Celtic Tiger years are on its watch too so that needs to be addressed within the same scheme.

I think its an opportunity to upgrade the BER of these houses which will assist meeting our climate goals so this should be taken as should the opportunity where possible and also use it to increase our building resource through apprentice schemes etc

I think the likely cost of the whole thing should be properly and realistically costed - not an initial number that is low balled to make it politically palatable and then creeps up too a much bigger one. Say it’s €10 billion over 5 years and lets be pleasantly surprised when we do it for less. This figure be put into the budgets by legislation (or something that doesn’t allow politicians to fudge it) , not dissimilar to the way that public pay deals are done now, so it is clear that this needs to be funded over a discreet period of time

Then starting with this budget, we should be outlining how we are going to fund it - probably through an increased tax take. I think this should be broad-based - solidarity should come from across the state and from all its citizens - perhaps in the form of a discreet levy which should be progressive in its nature.

4 Likes
1868

I was talking to a blocklayer friend about this issue recently and he was making the point that foremost amongst those getting off scot free are the engineers who signed off on these buildings initially.

He said in his line of work it’s virtually impossible to do anything these days without the engineer giving it the ok as there appears to be a legal liability on them. Whilst quarries/builder’s merchants etc have certainly cut corners, his argument is that the civil engineers have a hell of a lot to answer for here as they are supposed to possess the expertise to identify these issues before they arise.

2 Likes
1869

You seem to be agreeing with me on pretty much everything I’ve said.

On funding, you seem to want the government to wind up taxes and specifically tell the public that their taxes are going up to pay for this redress scheme for a period of ten years or whatever it is you’re telling me. That seems a strange approach.

We’re in a situation where taxes need to be increased/broadened as it is. Funnily enough it’s the leader of “the fiscally prudent party” (snigger) who’s promising the most in tax cuts and spending increases at the moment.

1 Like
1870

I’m guessing this €3.2 Billion estimate will be way off and it will cost much more, it’s some bill for the state to landed with and also sets a worrying precedent.

1 Like
1871

What qualifications would an engineer have as regards a responsibility to test concrete blocks?

I was of the opinion that every batch ( dunno numbers ) of blocks through a plant are tested before overall production is okayed?

Essentially the Cassidy’s pulled a rotten dirty stroke here.

It went on with pyrite too which was tipped in Quarry yards supposedly only to be sold for filling on farm roads etc.
Sure lads took loads for that purpose but it ended up in floors of houses and god knows where else.

2 Likes
1872

The State should get an interest in the houses it is supporting for this - any sale of house at a profit in the future should be reclaimed.

Legislation should also be passed to seize all Cassidy assets to pay for this. Let them challenge it.

7 Likes
1873

Sure they don’t even know how many properties around the country have this Mica problem.

1874

Can change the name slightly and set up a new entity so you’re not liable for anything.

They own a number of quarries under different companies and the stupid cunts of at the County Council are still using them for work. They say they legally have to consider them in the tender process and they win some of the contracts.

It’s enough to make you sick.

There’s more on this in the corruption thread.

2 Likes
1875

Would there have been regulations back then on who would have signed off on builds?

How long did it take homeowners to recognise that the blocks were shit?

Presumably the banks have financed millions on mortgages on these homes. Surely it’s now the time for the banks to foot the bills for the state and taxpayers here, they’ll be their assets or repayments at the end of the day.

1 Like
1876

Good point.

If the homeowners stop payments what do the banks do?

1, repair and sell on?
2, sell sites and write off the liability?

1877

See my point above re jangle mail. The mortgagee still owes the outstanding mortgage amount to the bank, unless they declare bankruptcy. The bank can take possession of the site and still pursue for a remainder of there is any.

In lots of countries the debt only follows the security. So, if in negative equity or such a person can hand the property over to the bank and walk away from the debt and that’s the end of the relationship.

That’s a much fairer situation.

2 Likes
1878

This is the biggest issue. There weren’t really enforceable one as far as I understand it, so Cassidy’s can claim that they did nothing wrong. That’s horseshit though because if you supply a product which isn’t fit for purpose in any walk of life then you’re liable for this.

The lack of regulation(s) put in place by the Government means that they are also, to an extent, liable for not protecting the house buyers. There is also some responsibility on the engineers that passed the house for mortgage approval - and possible some blame on the part of the banks as well.

An absolute clusterfuck.

Cheek of the banks to ask this week why should they pay for something that they didn’t cause. Irony so thick you could choke on it.

1 Like
1879

Not an option as the credit rating system in ireland is unforgiving and you can’t just walk away from a mortgage and hand the keys to the bank like you’d be able to in other countries. We asked this :stuck_out_tongue:

1880

What’s not been discussed is, why are backwater hicks in Donegal paying 350k on a house in the first place, to keep up w the Jones?

1881

Ah bollocks, you’re effected?

Is Pearse Doherty making any noise about this at all? I haven’t anything from him personally.

He has to be fair called out the Insurance sector. I’d assume he’d be gunning for the Cassidy’s here?

1882

“The report said that homeowners on the working group advised that the average size of home affected is 2,400sq.ft with “many homes” between 3,000-4,000sq.ft.”.

Fine size of a home

1 Like
1883

Massive houses.

Christ, the cost of repairs in the current climate :nauseated_face:

1884

Yeah we have it. Haven’t applied for the scheme until we see what it is. it’s going to be a huge issue trying to rebuild houses now at the same cost as when they were built.

All the politicians up here have been very careful, backing the MICA action group without committing to anything. They could have done more but at least they’ve lent some support. Pringle probably the most outspoken.

If the report isn’t seen as sufficient I’d say there will definitely be a MICA action group candidate in the next GE that would seriously fuck up both MacLochlainn and McConalogue.

1885

Doherty?