I suppose it’s a bit like waiting for an organ transplant and being told the Government can no longer afford the medicine to keep 40 people functioning so they will become critically ill and jump above you in the queue.
So what you’re saying is A&E canny take no more captain!
BTW the Housing list has been 50-90K for at least two decades no. Perhaps it’s part of the problem.
This is a completely spurious argument.
The government has finite resources to supply housing to those in need. If the government (or the state-owned banks) pay to
preferentially house those in mortgaged houses in arrears then the loser’s are those who are homeless and those on the waiting lists for LA housing. This allows all classes of mortgage defaulters to leapfrog everyone else on the housing list. Those on the housing list have met some criteria for entry. Why should they be down-prioritised in order to pay for a mortgage defaulter’s housing?
Defaulter may be eligible for prioritised housing after repossession and in that case they can be granted it using the housing list mechanism. Some defaulters wont be eligible and it is terribly unfair to deny those in verified, genuine need in order to pay for the housing of mortgage defaulters who would not otherwise be eligible for assistance.
Agree wholeheartedly with NC that interference is not desirable.
If it is necessary (to maintain the banks balance sheets etc), then it should at least be argued for on that basis rather than with spurious emotive arguments.
You would first have to admit there is a problem and even then the waiting list is only tangentially connected in the same way as high SVR and arrears are to lack of repossessions and those to unaffordable house prices. A chart of housing issues and tangents would just show a square which clearly to any Irish person would just make them think of home and suddenly all is ok and there are no problems; apart from the lack of rain, the grass will be turning yellow if this week of sunshine lasts any longer.
In fairness, it is difficult to see how somebody who cannot pay rent could maintain a mortgage in any event. Therefore, it is not clear on what basis the banks might leave them be in the houses they cannot pay for.
There are a lot of people staying in hotels and other accommodation where they do not have cooking facilities to cook healthy meals for children. I expect that Fr. Sean Healy is quite blinkered in his anxiety to help those people and probably couldn’t give a toss about moral hazard or borrowing too much compared to the moral duty to protect children and families. I would not criticise him for that.
I like I like humming already… and it is true, even the Zodiac is founded on Houses, each of us with 12 Zodiac gaffs no less! WTF?
One would swear from the usual trotted out argument you are making, that once a property is repossessed it disappears and is never used again.
Would these repossessed properties not be released to the market and either a) bought by a person as a personal home or b) bought by an investor to rent out to renters.
At this stage it is perfectly justifiable to tell the banks to get off their ars**es and stop kicking the can down the road, using future customers and taxpayers as a cash cow to cover their losses.
Likewise with government.
You have mentioned “fairness” in one of your posts.
Well I will ask you where is the fairness in asking my family and I to continue to make sacrifices in order to help others stay in properties they are not paying for, indeed properties we could never aspire to owning or even renting.
And I would presume I am one of many with the same outlook.
And it is also quiet clear that economic decisions should not be made or influenced by people whose primary job is to pedal belief in imaginary beings.
I can’t understand how we have now gotten to a situation in this country where people think it is totally understandable to allow certain people remain in property they are not paying for over a long period of time, just because they signed up to a mortgage.
What makes Irish defaulters immune to normal borrowing rules ?
I could just imagine the outcry, much of it I would hazard from the self same people (especially those by to let landlords), if renters were allowed the same leeway.
Ireland now has a massive chasm between the rights of our two classes of home dwellers.
The property owning class have way more leeway in avoiding their contractual duties whereas the rental class are just meant to suck it up.
In fact the rental class are now to be permanently renting to help ensure the former class are immunised from their bad or unlucky financial decisions.
I congraulate IMHO on this initiative and whole heartedly support it.
It is Father Sean Healy’s argument, not mine. He said the houses would be bought/rented but not by those on the housing lists. His concern was how it would affect those in need of state housing. As stated above, I think the argument does not stack up as people who are going to end up on the street if their houses are repossessed are unlikely to be able to service a mortgage in any shape or form, restructured or otherwise.
I don’t think you should be asked to make any further sacrifices to support the banks. I think the banks should bear the losses. I think Michael McGrath is 100% right on this.
It should not be forgotten that it is first and foremost a matter for the parties to a contract to decide of their own free will to what extent they will enforce their contractual rights. The main disparity, and there is a huge disparity in legal rights, is that the banks have not been foreclosing because they have not been in as good a position as residential landlords to recoup their losses after repossession, i.e. there were not sufficient people to buy and the market would have collapsed further worsening the banks financial wellbeing. Contractual rights do not stand in isolation of a the consequences of exercising such rights. That is life in a market rather than in a moral fairy-tail.
I will not make any comment on your denigration of Father Sean Healy based on his religious beliefs.
As already noted, tone is really important ‘going forward’ in any interaction with the media. The other side will want to paint you as vindictive and privileged, so the message should be delivered more in sorrow than anger. Avoid public scraps with the usual suspects. We all know that many young people bought in fear they would be closed out of the market altogether. The positives for the country of restoring a normal approach to debt should be emphasised.
I note that there are only 3 signatures today. It is starting to loose momentum. I suggest that you should engage with the media now or risk missing the opportunity. Engaging with the MSM will expand the message considerably
Launch a party. Political watchdogs on the prowl for any Moral Hazard in Irish politics, you won’t stand for it, except to be elected for it of course!
That’s your mandate. To weigh up the pros and cons for the greater moral good. It would probably give you a higher moral ground than a LTD Co. fronted by a Casino Owner who his trying to get a law changed for a to financially benefit a minority of citizens. We’ve seen this happen before. It doesn’t work right?
This is true. Just back from a weekend away and watched the RTEPT “debate” (why are these things only given 5mins? Why not an hour and tease out all the issues) between D Hall and S Coffey. Hall seriously struggled and made a fool of himself with his 3 instances/quotes from the IT article “vilifying” Borrowers. He will not be so poorly prepared in future.
Regardless, Hall’s strategy was to repeatedly pigeonhole KD, SC & BB as Bank apologists, ignorant of the facts, unsympathetic, anti-Borrower etc… Given the lack of substance to the non-repo but debt forgiveness argument, the aim of the Free Everything brigade will be to paint the “pro repo” messenger in as bad a light as possible.
Lots of posters tilting and windmills and arguing about how to best conduct the media debate. There still isn’t any ‘debate’!! The whole media narrative is still resolutely anti repos, a few people posting here notwithstanding.
Googling IMHO doesn’t bring up the Moral Hazard Page in the first page of results. Halls outfit are top of the pile though. Be nice to get atop the search returns.
An unexpected ally in AIB’s David Duffy perhaps?
Will he comment on the lack of provenance of the bank’s security?
Duffy has decent form in telling it like it is.
In a previous contribution to the committee:
IMHO should be tweeting about the AIB guys comments and including the interested journalists in the tweet.
We need to help make the public link high SVR’s with mortgage arrears.
It’s not in the interests of certain advocacy groups to go down the road of parsing stats, or even acknowledging them. The lack of stats in the first place is dismaying. It allows the debate to be an emotional and very woolly high level one. A few anecdotes and hard luck stories seem to be all the public have in able to form an opinion on the topic.
So it’s bad bankers who ruined the country vs. hard pressed home ‘owners’. Very little is ever made to drill down and the see the diversity of circumstances that may exist in the tens of thousands in arrears.
The obvious response to David Duffy’s contribution will be something like -
Sure the bankers are all thieves, snakes and liars. Don’t believe them. The likes of Karl Deeter, Seamus Coffey are fifth columns doing the bidding for the banks, don’t believe them either!
You are right everyone love a story they can relate to. Most people just agree with the person speaking at the time.
You need a hard luck story of somone struggling to meet their high SVR morgage repayments but who is actualy paying it. If only they could get a cheaper morgage but those not paying theirs would push up rates for everyone else. “My mother always told me to cut your cloth to suit your means, we may have to down size or adjust our lifestyle. If there wernt so many morgage arrears we would have a cheaper morgage.”