Register to Comment
Page 2 of 132 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 1320
Like Tree682Likes
  1. #11
    Florence Florence is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,213

    Quote Originally Posted by SayItAintSo View Post
    Listening to one of the participants in the show on rte now. This lady works 29 hours a week and cant afford to live any kind of normal life, this is so so wrong!

    Up to now I'd just seen the trailer where the little boy who couldn't be more than 5 saying 'I hate this hotel' in such a plaintive voice, its heart breaking.
    I heard that interview too and like you I felt moved by her situation. However, I was annoyed that Tubridy didn't ask some relevant questions. Like where is the father of her 9 year old daughter and why is he not providing financial support, like why when she says the hotel is convenient to where she works and the child's school she is running a car, like what is her take home pay and is she getting family income supplement. She was renting but I think she said for only a few months, was misinformed about the rent support she might get then found she could not afford the rent and then ended up in the hotel.
    It is stupid that the state pays hotel costs which is much more than subsidising the rent which they will partly get back from the tax the landlord will pay on the rent.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #12
    PBP voter PBP voter is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    5,007

    Quote Originally Posted by Roll_On View Post
    Why should it be 80% in one development? experience shows us that lumping social housing together all in the one spot is a bad policy.
    It's not. It works fine in other countries.

    Plus SF claim they didn't support such actions. Now they are voting for it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #13
    Fullforward Fullforward is offline
    Fullforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    8,030

    Labourgaels "Fairytail Economics" at play here. For decades the massive profits for the Banks went into the pockets of the shareholders and other vested interests but the moment they make a loss the senior people are given massive pay-offs and the Taxpayer foots the bill.

    Another result of Labourgaels "Magic Money Tree" economic philosophy is that the same re-financed Banks then start dumping Families out only for the Taxpayer to once again stump up the cash to put them in Hotels where the claustrophobic conditions lead to inevitable tension between the Family and coupled with the fact that in most cases the children are a bus journey or two from their School, GAA or Soccer club and their friends. Labourgaels leadership care nothing for the long term consequences of such policies for society as they ride off into the sunset with their massive pensions in their Bank accounts.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #14
    Fullforward Fullforward is offline
    Fullforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    8,030

    Quote Originally Posted by PBP voter View Post
    It's not. It works fine in other countries.

    Plus SF claim they didn't support such actions. Now they are voting for it.
    Can you tell me all of the good laws that PBP have passed?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #15
    hammer hammer is offline
    hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    62,967

    Quote Originally Posted by Florence View Post
    I heard that interview too and like you I felt moved by her situation. However, I was annoyed that Tubridy didn't ask some relevant questions. Like where is the father of her 9 year old daughter and why is he not providing financial support, like why when she says the hotel is convenient to where she works and the child's school she is running a car, like what is her take home pay and is she getting family income supplement. She was renting but I think she said for only a few months, was misinformed about the rent support she might get then found she could not afford the rent and then ended up in the hotel.
    It is stupid that the state pays hotel costs which is much more than subsidising the rent which they will partly get back from the tax the landlord will pay on the rent.
    Tubridy is batting for Fianna FAIL all the time.

    Something really needs to be done about absent fathers and the contributions they dont make.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #16
    hollandia hollandia is offline
    hollandia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    22,377

    Quote Originally Posted by PBP voter View Post
    With FF/FG/LAB/SF selling off prime development land in Dublin it's only going to get worse.

    Dublin City Council Pushes Forward on Plan for 1,345 Homes

    Only 30% will go to social housing when it should be at least 80%.
    Tell us what PBPs alternative is.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #17
    Toland Toland is offline
    Toland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    72,338

    Quote Originally Posted by hammer View Post
    Tubridy is batting for Fianna FAIL all the time.

    Something really needs to be done about absent fathers and the contributions they dont make.
    I'd be interested to see the programmes. I probably can't get them from here without using a proxy server, though. I think Ryan Tubridy will have to tread very carefully here to avoid the perception of party-political bias on this particular subject.

    Who knows? Maybe he can manage it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #18
    Toland Toland is offline
    Toland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    72,338

    Quote Originally Posted by PBP voter View Post
    It's not. It works fine in other countries.
    Does it?

    It very, very often doesn't. See Paris Banlieux. See some of the social housing ghettos From Spain to eastern Germany. And large expanses of almost purely social housing have had very mixed results in Ireland. Now you could argue that the lack of facilities or the quality of the architecture or support infrastructure, or bad public attitudes were part of the cause in most cases of severe ghettoisation, but Ockham's Razor would suggest that simply concentrating too many people in need of social housing together was a central problem. Imo, mixed private and social housing is the way to go to preserve quality of life, social mobility and social cohesion. An 80/20 split doesn't sound very mixed to me.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #19
    realistic1 realistic1 is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,938

    Quote Originally Posted by Roll_On View Post
    Why should it be 80% in one development? experience shows us that lumping social housing together all in the one spot is a bad policy.
    Nothing wrong with placing Social housing together. You have problems with Social housing when anti-social behavior/criminality is tolerated, area is not properly maintained by the local councils and you have no Political activists living in these areas.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #20
    Toland Toland is offline
    Toland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    72,338

    Quote Originally Posted by realistic1 View Post
    Nothing wrong with placing Social housing together. You have problems with Social housing when anti-social behavior/criminality is tolerated, area is not properly maintained by the local councils and you have no Political activists living in these areas.
    That's only part of it, imo.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 2 of 132 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment