Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated at 12.20pm
FORMER JUSTICE MINISTER Alan Shatter has hit out at Fine Gael’s organisation of the election campaign, and he’s warned that for the good of the country, his party should avoid entering into any “short-term” government arrangements.
Speculation as to the make-up of the next government is continuing this morning – but no real progress is expected for weeks.
After Fianna Fáil ended up just a few seats short of Fine Gael’s total in Friday’s election, Michéal Martin has said Dáil reform must be prioritised before talk can turn to forming an administration.
In a statement last night, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said his party would engage “fully and inclusively” with other parties, groups and independents to ensure a government is established.
Shatter lost his seat in Dublin-Rathdown at the weekend – while his party colleague, the less high-profile Josepha Madigan, was elected.
Speaking in the immediate aftermath of his defeat, Shatter blamed “unnecessary interference” from party HQ in the campaign.
On Today with Sean O’Rourke this morning, Shatter said there were serious questions his party needed to ask and answer as they approached the formation of the next government.
He said the parliamentary party needed to examine what’s in the best interests of the country and of Fine Gael, warning that it was imperative they:
Don’t enter into short-term arrangements simply for the sake of particular individuals remaining in power.
Asked by the presenter whether he was referring specifically to the Taoiseach’s position he said “I’m not going beyond what I said”.
Shatter insisted he was not “out to get” anybody, but warned that another election was likely in the next 18 months
For the sake of the nation, he said, mistakes made this time around “must not be repeated”.
I think there are people who have serious questions to answer about various matters that occurred during our time in government, about the manner this campaign was run – and I don’t say that solely applied to the Taoiseach.
He said a “far more sensitive and understanding approach” needed to be taken “to what I believe is the inevitable election that will occur within the next 18 months”.
Giving his first extensive interview since count day, Shatter didn’t reserve his ire for the Taoiseach, saying other ministers also needed to look at what went wrong.
He singled out Leo Varadkar, the outgoing health minister, for particular criticism.
“It is quite bizarre that you had three senior cabinet ministers involved in, for practically a year, running committees, to work out where the strategy went,” Shatter said.
“Frances [FitzGerald] would have been chairperson of the strategy committee; Leo [Varadkar] on – God help us – the communications committee, because the communications were a disaster; and then, you have all the backroom group.
“And there is a problem with the manner with which the party is now organised,” he added.
There is a perception, I think, at leadership level, that you can frame and manipulate events to the benefit of the party… and that you can bring the general public along with you, and on occasions, you don’t necessarily tell the full truth.
Fitzgerald, Varadkar and Simon Coveney headed up strategy committees for the party in the run up to the general election (Coveney was in charge of policy). Brian Hayes, the Dublin TD turned MEP, was director of elections.
Fine Gael came in for criticism throughout the campaign as a result of the ‘keep the recovery going’ tagline. Opposition parties and many commentators argued that large swathes of the electorate weren’t feeling the recovery to begin with.
A sample of 20 properties out of 48,000 can hardly be considered representative of the total, that is only 0.04%. To have a 95% confidence level, normal in statistics, the sample size should be over 100 times greater, about 2,000 properties.
@D. Memery: Sure that would likely cost billions just to complete the surveys!
@Chris Linehan: not sure it would be billions, but not cheap either, which in of itself highlights just how big the issue is. However, that still doesn’t diminish the fact that the report lacks any statistical foundation from which to draw valid empirical conclusions from such a small sample size compared to what is required.
Every town and village in the country has derelict /vacant properties.. they may not be derilict , but it’s a shame to see them empty.. I would love to see the properties chosen for this survey.
@Daniel Morrissey: it is a shame – but many are in the wrong place to assist with the homeless housing list despite the fact that many small villages could do with an injection of residents
@Daniel Morrissey: Many of which should be razed to the ground and a building with a suitable layout put back in it’s place. The trouble is, these properties are an expensive site so buyers are not interested – and often the owners don’t have the funds to carry out the work. Renovating them doesn’t appeal either because the costs are as much as the aforementioned replace and build. Then add in the stringent planning laws and people just say it’s not worth it. It’s a vicious circle.
Sure derelict buildings are costly to repair, but where and what type of ones. The ones with 50 acre land close to Dublin that nobody can buy bar the crony friend in government / council member / builder… who will get 100.000 free renovation ticket?
I can smell the trickery being cook!
Cpo them , put them up for auction and let the market decide , anyone not developing them within 3 years forfeits the property and what they paid back to the state
Of course a property that is not suitable for living in is exempt from LPT – local property tax – so the idea of paying someone to repair a property sounds great on paper but suddenly this property becomes liable to a tax that did not apply before. One would also be well advised to insure the property. There are ongoing maintenance charges Also, if one rents the property after renovation, one is faced with more taxes and responsibility and also the prospect of not being able to sell the property because of sitting tenants. Why not lease them to the local authority who then become responsible for repair and maintenance and all charges etc. not to mention being able to give homes to people on the housing list
@Niall Ó Cofaigh: I see where are you coming from Niall, do you think that if somebody has building connections or even a company, they could take the 50.000 or 100.000 free to renovate the house nicely, sell it to or even better rent it to the local authority that as you said “have people in the housing list” for a nice price, and pocket the money over and over and over… one house at a time or 50.
Another advantage will be that renovating cost less most times than building from scratch but you can sell it for the same market value pretty much. Better margin! Sounds like a great business to me.
Buildings not suitable for renovation should be forfeited to the state at site value. That might make the owners renovate them on time.
@Tom O’Hanlon: Unfair on owners who just don’t have the funds to renovate.
Total lies, fantastic Herbert Sims buildings lying idle in Ballybough under the shadow of Croke Park and have been for years not sure how many families they could house.
have your say