McGreedy's Budget 2004

MDR

Does this not all smack a little of the campaign against centralisation of hospital services, to anyone at all .... ?

Are you seriously suggesting that the choice facing a couple of million people should be "move to Dublin or take your lumps"?

Nope, but if you choose to live in a very rural place, should the tax-payer in Dublin be asked to subsidise your lifestyle ? Well he or she is really oblidged to, after we live in a social democracy (of sorts), and we do believe in looking after people where-ever they live.

Ok, my next question, should the Dublin tax-payer, not at the miminium expect to enjoy the same standard of living him/herself as his regional counterpart, whose lifestyle he/she is subsidising.

Case in point education,

Dubliners are more likely to be illiterate, less likely to go to College and less likely to recieve financial assistance to go to College.

People from the regions are less likely to be illeterate, more likely to go to College and are more likely to recieve assistance for the same. They also enjoy markedily smaller class sizes than their Dublin counterparts, and their teachers are probabily more motivate because their wages (the same wage both places) goes further in the regions and the commute to and from work is less of a hassle.

Now before people start yelling at me about the standard of school building and as a person who was educated in a prefab in Dublin, I am aware that in the regions have a higher incidence of school building problems. Whether this impacts on hugely eduaction remains to be seen, whereas we all know class-size does.

Stats are from Fintan O'Toole's 'After the ball'. Do Dublin children not deserve the same standard of education as their regional counterparts ?

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
A necessary consequence of your interpretation of the human factor is that people living in the major cities have lesser rights and should be deprived of resources in favour of people who live elsewhere.

Yes, thats correct.

However, you have already argued that those in cities have a better quality of life, so by your own logic they would achieve a comparable lifestyle on fewer resources.

Again, your logic would seem to favour the balanced and even-handed distribution of resources rather than an attempt to bring a balanced and even quality of life.

And this is where my entire problem with the argument comes in. I cannot understand how someone can claim that they have a better standard of living (which you have done) and are being deprived of resources by those they are already claiming to be better off then (which you have also done).

Thats not a million miles from (although also not quite identical to) the rich saying they shouldn't have to fund social welfare for the poor. Why should they pay extra to make up for someone else's shortcomings? They didn't make the poor poor, no more than the city dwellers are making people live in the country....so why should they pay?

So, ok, at least those living down the country can notionally choose to up and move to a city, which would bring them both sets of benefits you claim are there...better quality life and a more efficient distribution of resources. But lets say they did this. After we eventually reduce the country to three large urban areas, why does your logic not also imply that we should move from three to two....and then from two to one. In fact, why start with three at all? Why not just start with one, and aim for the best solution right from the start? Anything less is simply a waste of resources....which seems to be a cornerstone of your entire argument.

I would also suggest that you have a closer look at the vast number of problems which housing in cities gives rise to which you seem to be completely disregarding. Up to the current day, architects and sociologists are still trying to figure out a better pattern for urban and suburban housing - one which will avoid the inevitable problems that all large housing experiences to one degree or another. Sci Am did a fairly in-depth article on just this a year or two ago, and it was staggering to see how much research is going into the solving of urban-induced problems.

And these problems are all human in nature. Crime, urban decay, ghettos, pollution, congestion - these are problems which were created by your "better solution". You can insist that many of them can be solved by more money, but no-one has managed to do this in any major city in the world to date...not even in the rich countries who can waste their money. Its a simple fact - the larger the urban area, the more problems it faces which are inextricably linked to urbanisation.

If you build up, you cause the problems associated with living in high-rise areas, which is also linked to the creation of many ghetto areas. If you build out, you put too much strain on local infrastructure, until you stop trying to ferry everyone into the centralised city.....until you start moving things to the outside....until you decentralise.

People living in the countryside and smaller towns do not have these problems to anything like the same degree. While Dublin - and every major city I can think of - has seen entire suburban areas turn into ghettos, I can think of precious few medium-sized towns with comparable populations to these suburban areas falling into decay for similar reasons. I can think of very very few medium-to-large sized towns who suffer hours of gridlocked traffic. It simply doesn't happen, because the volume of traffic doesn't exist to cause the problem in the first place.

These are all problems with your "better" lifestyle, and they are problems which would grow if we continued down a path of urbanisation.

I'm also wondering if you've asked many people who don't live in cities who has the better quality of life. Given that you wish to consider the human aspect, I'm sure you would listen to and value their opinions....rather than wanting to foist your own upon them as a fait accompli.

And I'm pretty sure that if given the choice, most of them would flatly refuse the offer to sit for hours in congestion, or to live in a high-rise block or an endless carbon-copy housing estate. It may be more efficient, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't see it as a better standard of living. I know I don't...and I've done both.

And thats the thing....I see governments job as being there to help make the best society within the boundaries that society wants. It is not to decide the optimum model of society and impose it on us regardless of whether we agree or not.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by MDR
Ok, my next question, should the Dublin tax-payer, not at the miminium expect to enjoy the same standard of living him/herself as his regional counterpart, whose lifestyle he/she is subsidising.

As a matter of interest, can anyone show me our cities' inhabitants are subsidising the rest of the country? And I mean show, not offer a hand-waving "just look at...." vague answer. Is there a breakdown, for example, on how much is spent per-capita on education in and outside the cities? What about on infrastructure (and lets not forget that include city-to-city road improvements benefit the city people equally if not more than the rural and small-town people)??? Are there any figures out there, or is this still just an assumption thats being made?

Do Dublin children not deserve the same standard of education as their regional counterparts ?

I've been taking exception to an argument that says city-people already have a better standard of living, which was part of the reason we should want to move there. If, as you are suggesting, that is not the case, then the first thing to do is to show whether this problem is caused by a subsidisation issue, or is an urban issue in general.

I would tend to the latter, and obviously Ishmael and I'm guessing you will turn to the former. I'm basing it off nothing more than personal experience, so I'd love to see any further info on the subject.

In either case, it would seem to indicate that we should try moving more people out of cities, so they can have these advantages, and that we shouldn't all be so keen to live in cities because we're going to be worse off if we do...which would be the reverse of what Ishmael has been arguing.

jc

oscarBravo

Originally posted by MDR
Nope, but if you choose to live in a very rural place, should the tax-payer in Dublin be asked to subsidise your lifestyle ?

Thing is, Ray, this thread isn't particularly about "very rural" places - it's about towns like Sligo and Athlone.

Your question, even without the substitution, is a can of worms: should the taxpayer in Mayo be asked to subsidise the Luas? When you go down that road, it quickly gets meaningless.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
As a matter of interest, can anyone show me our cities' inhabitants are subsidising the rest of the country? And I mean show, not offer a hand-waving "just look at...." vague answer. Is there a breakdown, for example, on how much is spent per-capita on education in and outside the cities? What about on infrastructure (and lets not forget that include city-to-city road improvements benefit the city people equally if not more than the rural and small-town people)??? Are there any figures out there, or is this still just an assumption thats being made?

Given that much of central government (mostly departments and their agencies) is based in Dublin, more government money is spent in Dublin than elsewhere (per staff member, per capita). However, providing services in Dublin is more expensive - higher rents for offices, higher delivery costs, more stress on staff from commuting, etc. However, at the same time, Dublin contributes more tax (the IFSC being a prime example, as is the higher percentage of higher professionals). Some services in Dublin do however benefit from scale - telecommunications being the obvious one.

bonkey

I'm actually referring to stuff like infrastructural expenditure Victor....

how much is spent on roads in the cities vs. outside them. Same for education, social welfare, medicine, etc.etc. etc. and all of the other "social" expenditures of the government...

Ishmael and MDR seem to be insisting/implying that Dublin is subsidising the rest of the country, and I'm not convinced that it is at all.

Id settle for Dublin/non-Dublin as opposed to "DublinCorkLimerick/TheRest", but I'd really be interested in seeing where the monies get allocated. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the answers would be quite what the two lads are implying/asserting.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm actually referring to stuff like infrastructural expenditure Victor....

this would need to be done over a period of years as individual projects will skew things hugely. For example with the near completion of the M1, the North East will have done well in the last 2-3 years, the South East less so, but once the Waterford bypass starts the reverse will be the case. However with Luas, The Port Tunnel, the M1, M11 & M50, Dublin could be considered to be doing quite well.

Teachers, Gardaí and Nurses are paid the same where ever they are in the country (specialists and higher ranks aside). School and other buildings will generally be cheaper down the country (cheaper site, cheaper design, cheaper construction).

However, the argument about say whether a bypass benefits the town's resident or the traffic that previously went through it is very subjective. However, there is a very definite pattern of developing the roads system from the cites out and thus it disproportionately benefits the city.

MDR

I don't really subscribe to any city v countryside argument, I think that the notion that moving people from the city to rural areas is going to solve any social problems is misplaced.

I don't agree completely with 'ishmael whale' but am suspect that he is arguing in more general terms rather than specifically in the case of Ireland.

I do believe that quality of life is better outside of Dublin, but I don't believe its a universal truth that regional life is always going to be better than city life. I do see this as a direct result of under-investment in Dublin, I feel that our local public representatives are letting us down.

I don't have an figures to support the contention that Dubliners are subsiding the rest of the country, however I find it difficult to believe that it is not the case. The revenue/cso don't seem to make figures for tax paid/spent per person per county available ...

I have lived in a properly invested in city (Paris) and believe given the correct level of spending (and please spare me the arguments involving rhetoric such as 'throwing money at the problem'), Dublin could grow into a much more pleasant place to live and work, the alternatives offered here, move the people and work away from Dublin are hollow to me.

Your question, even without the substitution, is a can of worms: should the taxpayer in Mayo be asked to subsidize the Luas? When you go down that road, it quickly gets meaningless.

Ok better question, Dublin and Mayo Taxpayer put an equal amount into state coffers, but the Dublin Taxpayer kids are less likely to receive a decent education, is this fair ? Should class sizes in Dublin and Mayo not be the same, so that Dublin children can get the benefits of more teacher attention ?

ishmael whale

There have been a lot of contributions since my last one, so I’m not going to attempt to answer each individually. From what I see the main two strands to be answered are:

1. Disbelief that resources that Dublin/major centres lose out
I’ve had a quick look and I can’t find any comprehensive regional breakdown of resource allocation, which shows the lack of any serious evaluation that has gone into decentralisation policy.

There is evidence of many cases where resources have been misdirected and have already been adverted to, such as the primary school information presented above, underutilised regional airport developments, Shannon stopover, hamstringing of An Post with underutilised branches and keeping open the Westport and Sligo rail lines for the optics rather than any contribution to regional development.

I sometimes wonder if regional activists would not be better off looking at the misallocated resources at their disposal and campaigning to have them better spent. If Sligo allowed its rail service to be withdrawn on the understanding that a fair share of the savings were used for some lpurpose that actually aided local development everyone would gain. There’s too much of an attitude of ‘what we have we hold’, coupled with a desire to cling on to white elephants on grounds of alleged prestige.

Sometimes contributors have commented to the effect that the cost associated with these items is not necessarily at the expense of major centres. However, money spent on one purpose is necessarily money not spent on another. We only have one pot to pay out of.

2. Concern at impact on areas not designated as centres
My essential point is those centres will decline no matter what we do. We have to pick from the menu facing us.

Consider that developing the regions has been an objective of Government policy since at least DeValera. It has failed, despite investment of considerable resources. The Buchanon report mentioned in the IT/Fitzgerald article I cited above was commissioned because of concern that Dublin’s share of the national population had increased from one quarter to one third. Now its 40% and heading for 45%.

Now, people following this debate will correctly surmise that I see no particular reason why Dublin should not be allowed to grow as much as nature intends. The State of Victoria has a population of 5 million, 3 million of which live successfully and comfortably in Melbourne. I have no hang-ups about Ireland having a similar distribution, but I appreciate others have concerns.

However, if proponents of regional development continue to spread resources too thinly, Dublin will continue to grow because no other area will have sufficient scale to draw development. So, ironically, proponents of this decentralisation and similar policy measures are working to frustrate their own objectives. However, life in Dublin will clearly be much less comfortable that it could be if we accepted this fact and planned for it. That’s why I’m worked up about it.

In Fitzgerald’s article he notes that the Buchanon report’s thinking was that the few regional centres would be engines of growth for the towns around them, so its not as if the centres will be surrounded by deserts. The correctness of this approach is shown by the growth of towns out as far as Mullingar, as a result of Dublin’s growth spreading out from the centre. Much of this growth is sadly unplanned, but it didn’t have to be.

We could learn from the mistakes of the past, rather than repeat them.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ishmael whale
If Sligo allowed its rail service to be withdrawn on the understanding that a fair share of the savings were used for some lpurpose that actually aided local development everyone would gain.

Such as?

If Sligo was allowed to develop properly, then perhaps the rail service would become more self-sustaining. Mind you, CIE is a whole 'nother can of worms...

There’s too much of an attitude of ‘what we have we hold’, coupled with a desire to cling on to white elephants on grounds of alleged prestige.

It's a strange state of affairs when inter-city rail links are considered white elephants.

Sometimes contributors have commented to the effect that the cost associated with these items is not necessarily at the expense of major centres. However, money spent on one purpose is necessarily money not spent on another. We only have one pot to pay out of.

Properly managed, economics is not a zero-sum game.

2. Concern at impact on areas not designated as centres
My essential point is those centres will decline no matter what we do.

As someone living in one of those areas, I'm happy not to share your fatalism.

The correctness of this approach is shown by the growth of towns out as far as Mullingar, as a result of Dublin’s growth spreading out from the centre. Much of this growth is sadly unplanned, but it didn’t have to be.

Here's the problem: Mullingar isn't growing in a particularly positive way. The vast bulk of the population increase is due to commuters moving out of Dublin, but continuing to work there. There have been no major industries set up there in recent years; in fact I heard (although I'm not sure about this) that Penn is closing. From what I can see, the growth industry in Mullingar at the moment is coffee shops.

I used to live and work in Mullingar - in fact I grew up there. Then I lived in Mullingar and worked in Dublin; I haven't fully recovered from the scars those couple of years inflicted on my psyche.

It's fine in theory, but it's horrific in practice. Contrast this with the growth (on a much smaller scale, but substantial nonetheless) of Tubbercurry. Many people are choosing to live there and work in Sligo - a pleasant half-hour commute. It seems to me that this model can work very well, and it doesn't need to be concentrated on one large city - or even three.

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
I’ve had a quick look and I can’t find any comprehensive regional breakdown of resource allocation, which shows the lack of any serious evaluation that has gone into decentralisation policy.

I'm not sure I agree with what it shows, but I was actually aware that those figures weren't available before I started asking anyone if they had them.

Whats enlightening is to see the argument put forward in the absence of this information is not that we need the info, but rather that people are willing to assume one way or the other that there is an imbalance, and that this imbalance is significant. I'm also willing to guess that it is mostly Dublin-dwellers who find it unbelievable that Dublin residents are not funding the rest of the country.....

There is evidence of many cases where resources have been misdirected and have already been adverted to,

I agree completely. Some resources have been badly used. Others have been well used, but not in a manner thats necessarily universally accepted. Its also not something the rural areas have a monopoly on. Dublin has had some serious misallocation and mis-spending of funds over the years, as well as decisions made on the most ill-thought-out of reasons.

For example, the reason Dublin no longer has one of the best tram systems in Europe is because it was allowed to be decomissioned to save money when it became the thinking of the day that private transport would become the travel method of choice....but no-one at the time stopped to think where all of this private transport was going to go!!!!

However, what I would have though was obvious - but has not yet been mentioned by anyone - is that it is not just Dublin which suffers from lack of investment.

People seen to forget that up until a decade or so ago, Ireland was a relatively poor country. Couple that with our successive governments' policy of maintaining a AAA credit rating (which limited potential borrowing at the benefit of lesser risk), and its clear to see that the problem is not that the country-side is bleeding Dublin resources, nor that Dublin is bleeding the rest of the nation, but rather that there has never been enough to go around - even if it was all well spent.

Everywhere suffers. Moneypoint was said to have brought West Clare from the 18th to the 19th century when it was built, and there is a grain of truth in that. Why was West Clare still in the 18 century? For the exact same reason that Dublin faces exaggerations of the big-city problems it would inevitably face. In both cases, as with virtually the entire country, there has never been enough money to go around.

Sometimes contributors have commented to the effect that the cost associated with these items is not necessarily at the expense of major centres. However, money spent on one purpose is necessarily money not spent on another. We only have one pot to pay out of.

Certainly....but if the money wasn't spent keeping Shannon open (sticking with that example), it may have gone to building the long-awaited Ennis bypass to facilitate Limerick-Galway traffic. Or it may have gone on building up Galway airport. Or perhaps some other "small town" improvement scheme, rather than Dublin. Just like Dublin, the rest of the country continues to suffer from under-developed infrastructure...and they have just as valid a claim on it as a result.

Unless we were to argue that not only should the money not have been spent on SHannon, but also should not have been spent anywhere outside our chosen main cities, then there is no way to say that it was money diverted from these areas, or that would have been spent on these areas had it not gone to Shannon.

2. Concern at impact on areas not designated as centres
My essential point is those centres will decline no matter what we do. We have to pick from the menu facing us.

But in order for that logic to hold, you would have to be able to successfully show that every town in Ireland outside your chosen three growth centres is in decline, and more importantly that every town which has had decentralisation effect it previously is in decline. Again, citing Ennis as a case in point, I can say that you would find this is not the case. Ennis, as a town, has developed beyond recognition in teh past 20 years, helped in part by previous decentralisation, which in turn helped it to be a solid choice for being the "technology town", which (despite being a joke) has led to further growth.

I have no problems agreeing that some decentralisation is badly chosen. Indeed, you could probably show that most of our current (and perhaps past) imlpementations are flawed, but that is simply an incentive to do a better job of it...not to abandon the concept entirely. The successful cases show that it can bring great benefits.

It has failed, despite investment of considerable resources.

But you've already admitted that you have no actual solid indication as to whether or not there ahve been "considerable" resources spent there, relative to Dublin.

One could just as easily say that Dublin has had considerable resources invested in it since the time of deVelera, and its in no great shape either.

In Dublin's case, you will argue that not enough was spent, and in the rest of the country you're saying "too much" was spent and we should cut our losses. And yet you can't show how much was spent on either, nor show conclusively that its not the other way round...that Dublin is a lost cause, and that we'd be better spending more on the rest of the nation.

However, if proponents of regional development continue to spread resources too thinly, Dublin will continue to grow because no other area will have sufficient scale to draw development.

Yes, I agree. Thats why there is a case to be made for better decentralisation.

However, life in Dublin will clearly be much less comfortable that it could be if we accepted this fact and planned for it.

Supposition.

Because of its geographical nature, there are fairly unique problems facing Dublin. As an urban area, it has one of the lowest population densities of any city in the world. This, in turn, causes massive problems with infrastructure implementations, supply of services, etc.

The obivous solution to this problem would be to radically shift the nature of domiciles - to abandon the pervasive Irish belief that you must own your own house, and rather have a majority of people living in flats etc. Of course, this will then engender the problems associated with increased population density that no-one knows how to plan for, so maybe its not necessarily a good idea...hence my cry of "supposition".

An alternate solution is to start devolving Dublin into a number of "centres" where people live, work and play ni a localised area, effectively turning the city into a conurbation of many mid-sized towns. Again, the mentality of home-ownership also causes logistical problems here.

With both of these solution, however, the biggest obstacle is that Dublin as we know it would have to be torn down. Dublin as it was when Ireland gained its independance would have to be significantly altered. In short, its not a quick-win simply to pump more money in.

We could learn from the mistakes of the past, rather than repeat them.

Yes, indeed we should. However, we have to clearly identify what those mistakes were first, and I'm not convinced that insisting it was X in the absence of clear information is the right way to do it.

jc

ishmael whale

Firstly on rail, the Review of Transport Infrastructure Investment Needs, done by DKM consultants in 1999 and cited by the Oireachtas Committee on Transport, is directly relevant here. I quote:

"The strongest markets for inter-urban passenger rail are city-pairs at distances which compete with the private car, at the shorter end, and with air travel, at the longer end. Rail is not competitive for shorter inter-urban trips, because total journey time, allowing for mode changes, will be shorter by car. Over longer distances, air travel will be quicker. The optimal market for inter-urban rail would be a city-pair with big cities at both ends, and distance at least 300 kms, but less than about 600 or 700 kms, where rail begins to lose out to air. Paris-Lyons, or Frankfurt-Munich, would be examples of inter-urban markets where the rail mode is an advantage.

Ireland does not have any city-pairs which meet these criteria. The closest is Dublin-Cork, with a distance of about 260 kms. But Cork is a small city, which limits service frequency, and the distance is short enough to leave the car mode competitive for many trips.

Dublin-Belfast is shorter, at about 175 kms, but the city of Belfast [is] considerably larger than Cork. Commercial and social traffic between the two is modest, and rail traffic Dublin-Belfast is much lower than on the Dublin-Cork line."

The essential conclusion is that rail is not suited to Irish conditions, even for the Dublin/Cork route. Despite this there is a campaign, http://www.westontrack.com/, demanding that money be wasted on this. Don’t ask me what better use could be made of the money in Sligo – I’m can’t think of any positive use it could be put to there. But surely we can do better than spend money on things that we know are a waste.

You might not be happy about the future of regional towns, but as I said we have to pick from the menu. The revealed results of spreading resources too thinly is more growth for Dublin. Not taking this as a given condemns nearby towns to the role of dormitory, where planned development might provide for more than that.
Even the Spatial Strategy, flawed as it was, acknowledged that at present the relative size of Dublin compared to any other centre in Ireland meant that it is the inevitable pole for growth. Check out their supporting documentation at http://www.irishspatialstrategy.com/. They were afraid to draw the obvious conclusion, but I don’t see fear as a stable cornerstone for future strategy.

I wasn’t going to mention it, but I will. Leave your psyche out of it. We’re discussing a matter of public policy, not drafting a script for Coronation Street.

ishmael whale

I missed Bonkey's post while drafting my last one, but there's nothing in it that needs comment other that noting that better decentralisation means focusing on a small number of centres for growth.

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
other that noting that better decentralisation means focusing on a small number of centres for growth.

I would disagree.

I would say that it means focussing on applying the decentralisation logically. If that results in fewer centres, then so be it, but it would most categorically be a bad idea to decentralise something to a poor location just because it was on the list while the right location wasn't.

The essential conclusion is that rail is not suited to Irish conditions, even for the Dublin/Cork route.

Is that the conclusion of the report, or the conclusion you are drawing from the quote you supplied?

The reason that I'm asking is because the comparative standards of roads and rail in Ireland and France/Germany (or other developed nations) are simply light-years apart. Deciding what is best for us based on their patterns of usage of a network of a completely different nature is a highly dubious way of proving anything.

jc

jc

Victor

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Firstly on rail, the Review of Transport Infrastructure Investment Needs, done by DKM consultants in 1999 and cited by the Oireachtas Committee on Transport, is directly relevant here. I quote:

"The strongest markets for inter-urban passenger rail are city-pairs at distances which compete with the private car, at the shorter end, and with air travel, at the longer end. Rail is not competitive for shorter inter-urban trips, because total journey time, allowing for mode changes, will be shorter by car. Over longer distances, air travel will be quicker. The optimal market for inter-urban rail would be a city-pair with big cities at both ends, and distance at least 300 kms, but less than about 600 or 700 kms, where rail begins to lose out to air. Paris-Lyons, or Frankfurt-Munich, would be examples of inter-urban markets where the rail mode is an advantage.

I haven't read the review, but you are being simplistic in your assessment. While it can take say 3 hours to get from Cork to Dublin by car, it can take 2.5-3.5 hours by train. However, when you get to Dublin you either have to park your car or pay for public transport. So for different people different solutions apply. This of course depends on whether every individual can afford the capital and running costs of a car. Your (or the report's) simplistic formula also ignores that there are branch lines and intermediate towns.

Regarding flights, many senior business people from Cork will fly to Dublin, simply because access to the airport from Cork City is easy and the M50 makes Dublin Airport convenient to certain parts of the city. Now if the Business man was based in Mallow or Fermoy (similar distances from Cork), the formula is completely changed, as they would need to backtrack to Cork and cross the city to the airport, meaning rail is a more likely option for someone from Mallow and road for someone in Fermoy. and while Cork isn't a big city at 125,000 (180,000 including immediate built-up area), the population it serves is large, with the country having approximately 450,000 and people from Kerry, Limerick, Tipperary and Waterford using it for some higher order functions.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ishmael whale
I wasn’t going to mention it, but I will. Leave your psyche out of it. We’re discussing a matter of public policy, not drafting a script for Coronation Street.

It's obvious that it doesn't factor into your equations, but five hours' driving on top of every eight-hour working day is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. Public policy is ivory-tower meaninglessness unless it considers the effect it has on real people.

ishmael whale

There is no sense of any kind of vision of what the country needs in the last three posts. At least a repeat of Bonkey's Khmer Rouge Year Zero vision might give us some comic relief.

But there is an unwillingness to accept the issues raised by our low population density, and to deal with the consequences. There is also a confusion of problems and causes. Five hour commutes are a consequence of a failure to accept that growth will centre on the Eastern region.

In some ways I shouldn't worry. The strategy you favour will win the day. That means resources will be too thinly spread in the regions, and Dublin will continue to grow. Its just a shame that so many resources will be needlessly squandered that could be put to good use.

Just to take a case in point, what's the problem with accepting that rail is just a bad option? Why is it so necessary cling on to it? Even the Oireachtas Committee concluded that bus services were more appropriate, and politicians are hardly noted for taking unpopular stands needlessly. How do you gain by paying too much for your transportation needs?

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
There is no sense of any kind of vision of what the country needs in the last three posts.

Well, my post was pointing out that we really don't have enough information to be able trust any vision.....but if you see that as less important as having a vision, then it would explain where our root differences come from.

At least a repeat of Bonkey's Khmer Rouge Year Zero vision might give us some comic relief.

If I just could figure out which post that was......

Just to take a case in point, what's the problem with accepting that rail is just a bad option? Why is it so necessary cling on to it? Even the Oireachtas Committee concluded that bus services were more appropriate, and politicians are hardly noted for taking unpopular stands needlessly. How do you gain by paying too much for your transportation needs?

Well, rail services are not just about carrying people. A strategic, limited rail system could form the backbone of heavy-transport for a large portion of the country. which would be a massively preferable option to the road-upgrades which would be required to support the growth of those industries.

Also, given the fact that most Irish Rail public travel is done during rush hour, there are additional obvious logisitical reasons why keeping buses off the roads is a good idea....at least up until the roads have been brought up to late 20th century levels.

jc

ishmael whale

First, the Bonkey/Pol Pot manifesto is from ‘The obivous solution to this problem would be to radically shift the nature of domiciles - to abandon the pervasive Irish belief that you must own your own house, and rather have a majority of people living in flats’ to ‘ the biggest obstacle is that Dublin as we know it would have to be torn down. Dublin as it was when Ireland gained its independance would have to be significantly altered. In short, its not a quick-win simply to pump more money in.’

The Spatial Strategy is one substantial source of material on regionalisation (I’ve already provided the URL). Its not really credible to dodge issues by suggesting we don’t have enough information. We might not have enough information for a watertight proof that Dublin taxpayers get an unfair deal. We do have enough to discuss the core issue of what needs to be done to secure the nation’s future.

The essential point in the Spatial Strategy analysis is that, left to its own devices, growth will tend to concentrate in the Greater Dublin Area. This is because no other area has the necessary critical mass. In their analysis it would be a challenge to develop even Cork or Limerick up to a level where they could become a competing pole for development, let alone any smaller towns.

I take it you are essentially admitting that you have no idea what to do about this. This doesn’t surprise me. No-one has any real ideas for developing the regions, not even the people living there. The only platform that really seemed to mobilise people in the West was the campaign to preserve their right to pirate UK television signals.

Unneeded rail network, purposeless regional airports, lots of sub post offices, and access to the BBC. There’s a recipe for economic success.

While I’m not carrying a torch for DKM, I have referenced a study by a competent economic consultancy that suggests that rail is not the way to go so far as passengers are concerned. On what basis do you suggest that this is compensated for by freight, particularly as Iarnrod Eireann seem to want to exit this market on commercial grounds?

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
First, the Bonkey/Pol Pot manifesto is from ‘The obivous solution to this problem would be to radically shift the nature of domiciles - to abandon the pervasive Irish belief that you must own your own house, and rather have a majority of people living in flats’ to ‘ the biggest obstacle is that Dublin as we know it would have to be torn down. Dublin as it was when Ireland gained its independance would have to be significantly altered. In short, its not a quick-win simply to pump more money in.’

Right...so what you're saying is that Dublin's almost-unique footprint doesn't actually cause any of the problems that I'm alleging it does?

<sarcasm>
I'm glad to see that you can actually discuss the point and show why its not a problem, rather than just dismissing it with a glib remark so you don't have to actually address the issue.
</sarcasm>

Its not really credible to dodge issues by suggesting we don’t have enough information.

Thats funny....here was me making the point in response to you saying....

I’ve had a quick look and I can’t find any comprehensive regional breakdown of resource allocation, which shows the lack of any serious evaluation that has gone into decentralisation policy.

Whats that you were saying about credibility and dodging issues? Your "Pol Pot" comments are obviously a credible way of dodging issues, though, yes?

We might not have enough information for a watertight proof that Dublin taxpayers get an unfair deal. We do have enough to discuss the core issue of what needs to be done to secure the nation’s future.

See your previous quote I've included above on the lack of serious evaluation you're now saying doesn't exist.

I started my whole argument by saying your arguments were self-contradictory. Now your posts are the same. You're switching between saying we don't know enough to do it right, to saying we don't need to know more to be able to do it right!!!!

The essential point in the Spatial Strategy analysis is that, left to its own devices, growth will tend to concentrate in the Greater Dublin Area.

Correct. However, it does not necessarily follow that this is a good thing.

I take it you are essentially admitting that you have no idea what to do about this.

No, I'm saying that no-one has enough information to be able to form a policy that they can have any degree of confidence in that isn't based on pure faith or ideological wants.

No-one has any real ideas for developing the regions, not even the people living there.

Nor has anyone any real ideas for managing the problems Dublin faces through growth.

I genuinely don't understand why you just diss one side and refuse to admit that the problems of "how to do it right" exist with both concepts - centralisation and decentralisation. All it does is show that your arguments are based on an ideological want, rather than on any solid basis.

The only platform that really seemed to mobilise people in the West was the campaign to preserve their right to pirate UK television signals.

Right....and thats why Shannon airport and the Sligo line are still open and receiving funding. Its because no-one mobilised about it, nor did anything about it.

Oh - hang on - that would be you contradicting yourself again....given that you were complaining about how they campaign for these things earlier.
And look...here you do it again...

Unneeded rail network, purposeless regional airports, lots of sub post offices, and access to the BBC. There’s a recipe for economic success.

So what are they doing about these if not mobilising?

On what basis do you suggest that this is compensated for by freight, particularly as Iarnrod Eireann seem to want to exit this market on commercial grounds?

I never recall saying that it was competitive for IE. I said that it is necessary for decentralisation to work to have transport to the regions. We have two choices - we can build better roads, or we can build a better railway. In this regard, DKM's findings are correct, and we should focus on improving our roads.

What we most categorically should not do is further reduce the existant transport capacity before these new roads are built. That would risk making the building of the roads obsolete - there's no point having them after you've strangled whatever business was already there, or thinking of going there.

But I guess that shutting the rail without bothering to improve the roads before or after would be your ideal solution anyway, as it would suit your argument better, seeing as you would see any negative impact on areas outside Dublin as a good thing in this regard.

jc

ishmael whale

I'd always take the Khmer Rouge seriously.

To clear up your evident puzzlement, there is no comprehensive breakdown in resource allocation, which means you will not find in one place that the inhabitants of county x get a total of this amount out of the public purse having paid that amount in. If you can find a serious evaluation of the decentralisation programme let me see it. I'm genuinely interested.

There has been a recent evaluation relevant to regionalisation. That's the Spatial Strategy. You have always seemed most anxious to have points backed up, so I'm happy to introduce this material. However, as with the previous times that I've introduced facts at your request such as primary school class sizes, your response is to run away and attempt to drag discussion off the point in the hope that volume of words will hide the collapse of your argument.

You seem to have got as far as recognising that growth will tend to concentrate in the Greater Dublin Area left to its own devices. Now you have to push a little further and think what can be done about it, remembering that the same analysis notes that developing even Limerick and Cork as alternative poles would be a challenge.

The consequence of scattering development widely is, ironically, more growth for Dublin. A middle option, if you want to try it, would be to attempt to establish one or two alterntive poles.

This is not, to use your favourite smokescreen, supposition. This is the analysis carried out to inform the making of the Spatial Strategy. If you want to refute it produce a similar body of knowledge. And remember there is a difference between
you not knowing something and something not being known. As I have said earlier I don't think you have enough awareness of this topic to usefully contribute.

Dublin is still a small city. Even if it grows to two million, it will not be enormous. Talking about Dublin's development problems as if was Mega City One is unnecessary.

You are probably right to try to draw a veil over the election of (was it one or two) TV deflector candidate(s) to the Dail. But you are right, this was just the issue that moved them most. Local campaigns have managed to keep resources locked up in unnecessary infrastructure. Presumably because they can think of no useful purpose to put them to.

I note that you are attempting to drag the discussion off into whether or not certain campaigns have been successful. Is it too much to hope that you finally agree the rail network is unneeded, regional airports are purposeless, and lots of sub post offices and access to the BBC do little to aid local development. Can you futher agree that this means we are wasting money on these things that could be made available for something useful?

Regarding rail freight, you seem to be squirming on the hook. To repeat my previous point, I have cited a specific professional study that suggests that rail is not suited for passenger traffic in Ireland. If you want to argue this point I would like to see some equivalent backup from you. My understanding is that rail doesn't carry any significant amount of freight or passenger traffic, and if it closed the effect on road traffic would be negligible. Can you produce any equivalent source to the one I have cited to support your point? If not, how can I take you seriously if you do not concede the point?

For all your talk about supposition, I actually cannot recall you introducing a single fact to this debate. You have, however, introduced several factual inaccuracies (and, above, you seem to think that Shannon is a regional airport. I wonder what SIGNAL would make of that. As a matter of interest have you heard of SIGNAL?)

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
I'd always take the Khmer Rouge seriously.
...
To clear up your evident puzzlement, ...
...
in the hope that volume of words will hide the collapse of your argument.
...This is not, to use your favourite smokescreen, supposition.
...As I have said earlier I don't think you have enough awareness of this topic to usefully contribute.
......I note that you are attempting to drag the discussion off
...For all your talk about supposition, I actually cannot recall you introducing a single fact to this debate.

Ishmael - when you're ready to actually discuss the shortcomings of your argument that I have pointed out, rather than trying to just glibly reassure everyone that I haven't a clue of what I'm talking about, I'll be interested in continuing this discussion.

I've spent the last 5 or 6 posts asking you repeatedly to acknowledge that urbanisation suffers its own problems, and asking how you propose that these be dealt with in your vision of a better tomorrow. All I get back is mocking comments about Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

I've pointed out that many of your arguments were based on faulty logic, even to the point where you vacillate between two entirely contradictory points...Dublin is better off than the rest of the country, but is unfairly suffering because of the rest fo hte country according to you. There is enough information to make a good plan, except that there hasn't been enough research done to be able to do so...or so you have said.

Your response to this being pointed out is to repeatedly assert that I don't know enough about teh issue to be able to comment, or that I'm confused....despite the fact that logical analysis has nothing to do with my knowledge on the subject, but rather with pointing out how flawed your stance is.

You say I haven't brought in a single fact...but I have. Its a fact that much of what you said is logically inconsistent. Its a fact that you have said there is enough information to make a good plan, and there is not enough information to make a good plan. It is a fact thet urban areas suffer problems unique to urbanisation that you constantly refuse to acknowledge.

Apparently though, because they are facts that don't sit well with your point of view (i.e. your apparent belief in your own absolute correctness) they don't count and should be ridiculed instead.

I've come to the conclusion that you have no interest in discussing this topic. You have a willingness to tell everyone else how right you are, but thats about it. When challenged, you can't even address the issues raised seriously without resorting to the tactics I've pointed out above.

My stance has never changed - you have made illogical assertions, backed by a serious lack of information, but justified by a narrow amount of fact which you are willing to apply far more broadly than is practical or even relevant. You contradict yourself, and refuse to discuss anything that suggests your vision of urbanisation is not perfection.

I don't need to know the first thing about decentralisation in general, nor this particular round of decentralisation to either spot or point out these flaws in your stance - they are enturely based on logical analysis of what you have posted here. And logic is most certainly something I am qualified and knowledgeable in.

So...seeing as you are clearly not interested in discussing the topic, but rather are more interested in insisting how right you are....I'll stop standing in your way. Post away...insist how right you are....I'll stop contradicting you because quite frankly - its not worth the effort. You do a good enough job of that on your own.

jc

ishmael whale

Your frustrated tirade, caused by the ground evaporating under your feet, is understandable, following my request that you substantiate the views you have expressed, as I have done with mine.

Cheer up. You’ve convinced me how wrong I am to draw attention to the substantial body of material that points to the inevitability of growth concentrating in the Dublin area and the pointlessness of attempting to counter this with a strategy based on spreading development over many locations. I should just ignore this, and join you in your dreamworld where provision of supporting material for arguments can be requested, but need never be supplied.

Let's start by decentralising Croke Park. This idea of one big stadium evidence of a Dublin mindset. We should a five thousand seater stadium in every county. Use of modern technology means there is no need for the crowd to actually be in the stadium where the game is played. In fact, only a blinkered Dublin mindset would deem it necessary to have all the players on the same field. A player in one stadium can kick a ball toward goal. The goalkeeper, viewing this remotely, can mime saving it and computerised imaging techniques can calculate whether or not he was successful.

Treora

Few politicians think things through to any degree of accuracy or completion. Rather they listen to ideas and when a useful one comes along they adapt it and present it at such a time to give them the most/easiest votes. If it gives them enough votes to return to office then the idea is a successful one for the politician and his/her voters .

McGreed might think troubling times are ahead and wants to be man who decentralised, just as Charlie gave OAPs the bus pass and JFK put a man on the moon.

Their view is that someone in the system has the drive (desire to step up a rung) to get the job done and that that person can find people able to do it.

If the idea is a vote winner then antogonists will reach crush depth just before anyone mentions the next election.

While a stupid man may think up a foolish idea, it is the clever one who can turn it into a great reality.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Let's start by decentralising Croke Park. This idea of one big stadium evidence of a Dublin mindset. We should a five thousand seater stadium in every county.

A football pitch in every county? Are you mad?!? That's an inefficient use of resources! It's entirely obvious that the country only needs one football pitch - then if anyone wants to play football, all they need to do is move to Dublin.

Bloody arrogant culchies, thinking they have a right to recreation. :rolleyes:

ishmael whale

That's what I like to see, 100% recycled irony. Notice how the stadium analogy is just as fresh on its second outing.

Cork

We live in a small country.

Our economy is reliant on US direct investment. *lets face it - French, German or Asian direct investment is not too common).

Much of this goes to the Greater Dublin region.

Outside Dublin - many towns rely on agriculture, farming, tourism & small industry.

But Charlie McCreevys iniatative addresses regional imbalance.

Many Civil Servants are from outside Dublin - they will jump at the chance to leave Dublin.

This will lessen the gridlock in Dublin and improve the regional economys.

gurramok

Cork(no pun intended:) ) city as well as other cities like Galway and Limerick have had alot of direct investment as well, its not one way traffic into Dublin all the time

Many Civil Servants are from outside Dublin - they will jump at the chance to leave Dublin

Any civil servants on boards that can verify this ?

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
following my request that you substantiate the views you have expressed, as I have done with mine.

I don't know what posts you've been reading, but from the very start my view has simply been that your argument is wrong. I have pointed out hte lo9gical fallacies in it. I have pointed out the self-contradictions. I have pointed out the areas you consistently refuse to discuss.

My view - that your argument is full of holes - is as substantiated as it can be. If I were actually trying to argue in favour of decentralisation in Ireland, then I would hardly be saying that there is insufficient information to make that decision well - which I have done and which you have alternately agreed with and disagreed with.

You refuse to discuss the points I have raised....further substantiating my argument that you have nothing but an ideological want which you are backing with insufficient information and an illogical argument. That has been my position form the start, and still is my position, and has been what I have been arguing from the outset.

You wish to misconstrue that as the ground falling out from beneath my feet? Well go right ahead Ishmael, because misconstruing and misinterpreting information has been exactly what I've been saying you've been doing from the start, so thats just fine.

jc

ishmael whale

Bonkey,

I'll leave aside the what I see as your attempt to avoid substantiating your position by bombast, and the pure strangeness of your view that, while I have to produce evidence you can rely on what you see as logic, and try to summarise the debate as I see it.

Growth will tend to concentrate in the Dublin area. There are two possible responses to this. One is to attempt to divert this growth into other areas, by whatever means. The other is to develop infrastructure in the area where the growth will be concentrated, on the basis that this is where it is needed.

The only serious recent study relevant to these concerns that I am aware of is the supporting work for the Spatial Strategy. Its analysis is that no other centre in Ireland can act as a pole to attract development away from Dublin. A strategy of building even Cork or Limerick up from where they are now to a position to compete would not be guarenteed success. Somewhat inconsistently with their analysis, the Strategy itself suggests of the order of twenty to thirty development centres. Possibly the reason for this inconsistency is awareness of the shelving of the Buchanon report in the late sixties. The Buchanon report said much the same thing, but was shelved because the message that resources needed to be concentrated in a few centres was politically unpalatable. The result has been rapid, unplanned growth centred on Dublin.

The recently announced Government decentralisation (the starting point of this discussion) ignores the Spatial Strategy, as most of its proposed locations are not identified as development centres in that Strategy. The irony is that spreading resources to so many centres will mean that no place will emerge to challenge Dublin's position, and growth will continue to be concentrated there. This is substantiated by the Spatial Strategy analysis and the post Buchanon report experience. Therefore the popular view, echoed above by Cork, that the Government's decentralisation will spread wealth around is known to be false.

There are a number of subsidiary arguments around this theme. There is no good reason from an organisational point of view to breaking up Departments and scattering them around several locations. (You will recall that initially you assumed that each Department was going to a single location. As I have explained, this is not the case.) It can only reduce the ability of Government to function coherently. Notwithstanding vague assurances that ICTs make distance irrelevant, the Comptroller and Auditor General has commented that it will complicate and increase the cost of financial management. Clearly there must be other impacts.

There is another subsidiary argument over the fairness of the level of resources allocated to Dublin. You have had difficulty digesting this point, and appeal to what you term 'logic'. My contention is that Dublin performs strongly despite neglect, but would perform better if not neglected - not that Dublin is performing weakly because of neglect. You seem to expect the position to be either Dublin neglected, therefore poor or Dublin not neglected, therefore rich. I can imagine a hoard of Greek philosophers rotating in their tombs over your blunt misuse of their invention.

My evidence of Dublin's neglect is limited to a number of examples. If memory serves me, you initially only required one example and when this was provided demanded more. Individual examples of Dublin's neglect include disparity in class sizes (where I have produced figures because you initially denied such a disparity existed) and the Shannon stopover policy which blocked any hope of Dublin becoming an international hub airport. (This is not to say that Dublin would have become a hub - only that with the stopover policy we just weren't at the races.) Ultimately you demanded a comprehensive breakdown of Government expenditure by area. I am not aware of any such breakdown. However this does not impact on the Spatial Strategy's analysis regarding where growth will occur, and the difficulty in diverting it elsewhere.

On the point on diverting it elsewhere, I have pointed out that regional development advocates have supported the allocation of resources to inappropriate infrastructure, namely rail and regional airports. I have suggested this is because they have no real ideas for how their localities might be developed, and are therefore reduced to simply clinging on to whatever services they have, e.g. sub post offices, even if ties up resources that might be better used elsewhere. (I haven't drawn attention to the comment that the decision to move the central units of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to Knock Airport means that Mayo will now have a breeding pair of white elephants.)

I drew attention to a substantial analysis of the Irish rail network suggesting that it was not suitable for passenger traffic. You, apparently on the basis of pure fancy, have suggested that freight traffic compensates for this. If you cannot substantiate this I deem it to be a useless response.

A final subsidiary argument, not really central to my interest, is the question of urban quality of life vs rural/smaller urban quality of life. I deem this debate to be irrelevant for a number of reasons. It is inevitable that growth will occur in Dublin, or failing that another major urban centre therefore the issue is simply how to mitigate the effects of urban growth. Secondly, Dublin is far from becoming a behavioural sink.

Your contention that there is another way seems based on your description of the country you have emigrated to. You have not told me what country that is, but I notice your profile says Switzerland. Assuming this to be the case might I point out that Switzerland has roughly twice Ireland's population and half its land area so its population density is much higher. Also it is slap bang in the middle of the European landmass, where we are on an island at the periphery. (I'm not getting into a debate about banking secrecy and Nazi gold, but you as you go about your business among those cultured, decent polite folk you might recall that their twee little towns do not generate their wealth from being twee. Like Dorian Grey, they have a portrait in the attic.) I would suggest these are important points that you might consider, rather than simply chanting "four legs good, two legs bad."