McGreedy's Budget 2004

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
...and try to summarise the debate as I see it....

And what an interesting way you see it.

Growth will tend to concentrate in the Dublin area.

Never questioned that. WHat I questioned was your immediate assumption that this was a good thing, or that it should be supported simply because it was inevitable.

One could just as easily say that non-environmentally behaviour is inevitable, and - left to their own devices - is the path people would choose to follow. Therefore, by your logic, supporting "green" issues is a flawed strategy - a waste of funds.

The thing is that while it is obvious that my argument is ridiculous, you have offered no reason as to why Dublin should be supported other than an empty insistence that it is a better option. You have consistently refused to discuss the problems of urbanisation, as well as the failry unique infrastructural problems that Dublin faces due to its low population density. Ineed, further down in this post, you summarise the entire quality of life argument as "not really central" to your interest.

Allow me to supply a quote from your first post on this topic to illustrate just how non-central to your argument it is :

Decentralisation lowers our standard of living in so many real ways, reduces our life expectancy, our standard of education and quality of life.

Look familiar? As with so many other aspects of your initial argument, this appears to be something you have discarded along the way in favour of taking a contradictory stance - that quality of life is not important to your argument, despite it being where you started from.

Its even more amusing to see your following sentence :

I have never seen a pro-decentralisation/regionalisation campaign dealing with issues like this honestly.

I mean...come on...you started by saying that those who disagree refuse to deal with it honestly, and now you've shifted from it being the point you started your entire argument from to being "not really central". Good one.

The only serious recent study relevant to these concerns that I am aware of is the supporting work for the Spatial Strategy.

And as I have been trying to say for quite some time - that is not enough research. One study is simply not sufficient to base an entire national strategy on for something of this magnitude, especially when the strategy you are proposing is simply to starve the vasst majority of the nation of resources in order to favour what you see as a more efficient locational use of resources. As I've pointed out before, you agreed with this when I first made the point, then changed you mind and claimed that there was enough information.

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'.

There you go again, insisting that my disagreeing with you must mean that I don't know what I'm talking about.

You seem to expect the position to be either Dublin neglected, therefore poor or Dublin not neglected, therefore rich.

No, I made the point previously that you cannot say that if A has a higher standard of living then B, then it is quite difficult to conclude that A is neglected compared to B. Given that you couldn't supply figures to show that it received less money per capital, you tried then to argue that Dublin suffers in comparison to the rest of the country (using your class sizes as an example), but that despite being worse off than the rest of the country offered a better standard of living - an argument you now are trying to say was never central.

So if you're not talking about quality of life, and you can't show that financially it loses out, what exactly are you talking about Ishmael? In what aspect does Dublin "suffer neglect" if you're not talking fiscally nor in terms of quality???

I can imagine a hoard of Greek philosophers rotating in their tombs over your blunt misuse of their invention.

Yes yes. Its much easier to just insult me than to try and answer the flaws I've pointed out in yoru argument. Why not make some more Pol Pot comments again - they were a great way of showing how capable you were of dealing with the questions being asked.

If memory serves me, you initially only required one example and when this was provided demanded more.

Your memory doesn't serve. I asked "have you anything to back this up" in response to your first post. In my response to your second post, I stated

"I see nothing in your response about shorter life expetancy, and precious little about any of the other points you raise initially....but how and ever......"

So I don't think I ever asked for just one example, but if you'd like to show me that I'm wrong....the content is all there. Just bring up the quote.

Individual examples of Dublin's neglect include disparity in class sizes

Which gives you an incentive to increase non-Dublin class sizes and decrease those in Dublin, which is partially the effect decentralisation will have, but you refuse to discuss that argument.

and the Shannon stopover policy which blocked any hope of Dublin becoming an international hub airport.

First time you've even mentioned it as being something that effected Dublin. Prior to this, it was just a money soak. So...as with the other wild statements you've made...you seem to be shifting your position about - taking new angles as the old ones have been shown to be flawed.

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.

You were already supplied with the link for the campaign to keep the track open. Had you bothered to follow it.....

But I guess its just easier to make more condescending remarks.....

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.

Those reasons being :

1) That you started your argument talking about quality of life?
2) That you continued your argument by arguing we were not considering the human side of things
and
3) Once it became clear that your argument was based on shaky ground you abandoned it as "not really central".

therefore the issue is simply how to mitigate the effects of urban growth.

This would be the queastion that I've been asking you to answer for some time now and only getting Pol Pot witticisms back in return from. So please...if thats the issue then deal with it.

Your contention that there is another way seems based on your description of the country you have emigrated to.....I would suggest these are important points that you might consider, rather than simply chanting "four legs good, two legs bad."

Leaving your pathetically snide remarks about Switzerland aside, I would suggest that you re-read the point I was making when I mentioned Switzerland. I mentioned it in response to your now-abandoned assertions that decentralisation just doesn't work. YOu know - back when I was asking you to make up your mind between the general case and the specific? I used it as an example to show that decentralisation can work because you were so busy insisting it can't. You now seem to have shifted the goalposts and decided that what you really meant was that decentralisation can't work in Ireland, so I would be inclined to say that the entire reason I brought up Switzerland was to answer yet another one of your discarded-as-it-became-untenable stances. I know what the differences are, and now that you've finally dont a bit of research, its nice to see that you do too, rather than just saying "oh well, they're rich, so if they can afford to waste their money"....

Seriously dude...I've no doubt that sooner or later you can and will refine your position down into a number of succinct arguments about why this particular round of decentralisation is badly chosen.....and at that point I'll just quietly point out that I have never once disagreed with that point of view. I started by opposing your ridiculous generalisations. As they drop one by one, your argument does indeed become more strong. Whats priceless is that you still seem to think I know nothing, understand less, and in general am just waffling, whilst at the same time you slowly discard or reshape those very arguments I've been saying are wrong from the start.

jc

ishmael whale

You are confused. Lets take it from the top.

You accept centralised growth is inevitable. Discussions of whether or not this is a good thing are as pointless as debates over whether the law of gravity is fair when it makes heavy things hard to lift. The reason decentralisation lowers our standard of living in so many real ways is because it involves diverting resources away from where they are needed. My argument has not shifted. But you still have not caught the drift that resources devoted to one purpose are, necessarily, resources denied to another purpose.

You clearly have not looked at the Spatial Strategy material. It is not one study, but a set of studies.I’m coming round to the view that your insistence that you can contribute to this debate without much knowledge of the topic is simply because you couldn’t be bothered reading. Your dismissal of material that you haven’t even looked at is par for the course.

My point about Dublin’s neglect is clearly expressed in my last post. Again, you can’t seem to get your head around the idea that, even with an undersupply of infrastructure and services, Dublin ends up with more growth. Its not about how can neglect be shown if living standards are higher. Its about pointing out that despite neglect progress has been achieved. Checking back you did ask to supply one single piece of evidence where funding which should have gone to Dublin was diverted elsewhere in a post dated 11/12/03 time 18.26.

The point about life expectancy I already answered. Again, you do not appreciate that resources devoted to one use are necessarily resources denied to another. If we tie up resources in sub post offices, these are resources not spent on education, health or other needful things.

On class sizes you need to understand that enrolment determines how many teachers a school gets. If enrolments decrease in the larger schools so will the number of teachers – automatically, that’s how the system works. So larger schools will always have higher pupil/teacher ratios. It’s the way the system is structured. I know you take it poorly when I point out a gap in your knowledge, but your statement that the disparity in ratios would be addressed by moving children out of the larger schools does not make sense in the context of how teaching posts are actually allocated.

It is true that only in my last post did I explicitly refer to the impact of the Shannon stopover on Dublin airport’s development. Earlier I did state that the policy had retarded the aviation sector. Anyone aware of that debate would not regard explicit reference to Dublin as a new angle, but I accept that you do not have much familiarity with the subject matter so it may seem so to you. Your statement about taking new angles as the old ones have been shown to be flawed is pure fantasy. You have not provided any justification for the Shannon stopover policy, just as you have provided no justification for any of your points.

You seem a little confused when you say I was ‘supplied with the link for the campaign to keep the track open’. I actually provided the link to the ‘west on track’ site myself. Clearly I have read and I am aware of their case, but I wonder if you have. It does not refute the substantial analysis I have referenced above. I notice that you are not attempting to address the substance of this point. I suppose once bitten, twice shy.

The quality of life issue has been dealt with earlier. As to question of how to mitigate the effects of urban growth, remember the debate is still at the stage of establishing this is what needs to be done. Decentralisation is being presented as an alternative to Dublin’s growth.

What you now seem to be saying is that you introduced the experience of Switzerland, not as an example of what Ireland might achieve, but just to say that it could work elsewhere. In other words you are saying “Decentralisation will never work in Ireland, but it does in Switzerland ‘cause we’ve pots of cash, na na na nana.”The relevance of this point to a debate about proposals in the Irish budget is moot, so I take it this is your latest exit strategy. If the Swiss want to spend their money on decentralisation, that’s fine, and as I’ve already said, no better or worse than if they decided to spend it on defoliation. I notice you winch when the seedier side of Swiss wealth is mentioned. Do they feel a little sensitive too?

I would mention that you never said to me that Switzerland was the case in point. I found it on your profile. Your carp about “ and now that you've finally dont a bit of research” is of course an attempt by you to cleanse yourself of the charge properly laid at your door. Throughout this debate you have shown a simple lack of knowledge of the topic in hand. You have done nothing to address it. You have tried to make up this deficit by reasoning along the lines of “Socrates was a Greek, Socrates was a homosexual, therefore all Greeks are homosexual.”

You’ve been looking for an exit strategy for a few days now, have stormed off in a huff twice, but have then returned. Your comebacks reveal that you know you have a lot left to prove.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ishmael whale
The reason decentralisation lowers our standard of living in so many real ways is because it involves diverting resources away from where they are needed.

"Needed" by whom, precisely? Does Dublin "need" a new tram or toll bridge more than Pollathomas "needs" to have the road replaced that was washed away by a mudslide?

If we tie up resources in sub post offices, these are resources not spent on education, health or other needful things.

If we don't "tie up resources" in sub post offices, where do my elderly parents-in-law go to collect their pension?

Maybe they should move to Dublin.

ishmael whale

Let me first say Dublin needs neither trams nor toll bridges. (Incidently, toll bridges pay for themselves, in Dublin’s case many times over. The plain people of Pollothomas don’t lose out at all.) However, if you are equating the infrastructure needs of a city and hinterland speeding up to two million people with the needs of a few dozen then I have to ask how you can so easily dismiss the needs of so many people.

Ten years ago, when the first attempt was made to bring some rationality to An Post’s branch network, it was estimated that a halving of the number of branches might inconvenience 5,000 social welfare recipients. On the other hand, a few million would have been saved in annual costs. Rather than, say, offering each of the 5,000 a lump sum of a few hundred, the issue was shelved.

In the case of your in-laws, they could have their pension paid directly into their post office or bank account, and withdraw it the next time they do their shopping. No real inconvenience for them. But a considerable saving of resources, which could be used for more crucial services.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ishmael whale
However, if you are equating the infrastructure needs of a city and hinterland speeding up to two million people with the needs of a few dozen then I have to ask how you can so easily dismiss the needs of so many people.

I'm not dismissing anything; I'm asking for a definition of "needs." We, the good people of the West, have a need for (and indeed, a right to) gainful employment. Given that the tendency is for investment to gravitate to Dublin, we expect that the government will do its job and correct the imbalance. The alternative is for a couple of million more people to move to Dublin, which I don't think Dubs would appreciate anymore than we culchies would.

In the case of your in-laws, they could have their pension paid directly into their post office or bank account, and withdraw it the next time they do their shopping. No real inconvenience for them.

I'm curious: where exactly is your ivory tower based? Have you ever lived in a rural area? Are you familiar with the concept of a community, and the intangible (read: non-economic) benefits it provides to those who choose irrationally to live there?

Victor

I think I'll use the "Next Thread" button.

ishmael whale

Not so very long ago, even into the early nineties, maintaining that people in Ireland had a right to gainful empolyment was as realistic as maintaining they had a right to immortality. Try to bear this in mind when you use terms like "ivory tower". I have similar doubts about how detached from reality the western development platform is when it seems to feel the solution to their problems is advocacy rather than action.

We have gone through all of this before. The tendency is for investment to gravitate to Dublin. There is no other centre in Ireland capable of competing with Dublin. Scattering resources to 30, 50 or more locations will mean continued development in Dublin because nowhere else will have the economies of scale to compete. There might be a chance - a chance only - that Cork and/or Limerick could be built up to compete. That's the menu we have to choose from.

As regards sub post offices, if a community has reached the stage that its centre point is an office for encashing old age pension cheques its already gone. Also, if there are non economic benefits to rural communities, why does it take external financial subsidies to maintain them? Why do these benefits not compensate for lower incomes?

gurramok

Not a good start for decentralisation, only 3 from 1 dept are interested in moving !

from Ireland.com (eircon.net)

Victor

Originally posted by gurramok
Not a good start for decentralisation, only 3 from 1 dept are interested in moving ! from Ireland.com (eircon.net)

It's not one department - it's only the headquarters staff of one agency. The Department would appear to have the following agencies and offices.

Agencies:
Garda Siochana
Courts Service
Prisons Service
Probation & Welfare Service
Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland
Commission on Liquor Licensing
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
Censorship of Publications
Data Protection Commissioner
The Equality Authority
Family Mediation Service
Forensic Science Laboratory
Garda Complaints Board
Irish Film Censors Office
The Land Registry
Legal Aid Board
Office of the Directory of Equality Investigations (ODEI)
Probation and Welfare Service
The Registry of Deeds
State Pathologist
The National Disability Authority
National Crime Council

Offices:
Citizenship
Courts (Administration)
Law Reform (Criminal)
Law Reform (Civil)
Equality Matters
EU Matters
Garda (Administration)
Immigration
Minister
Minister of State
Press Office

gurramok

1 agency fair enough

However, i read today in 'Ireland On Sunday' newspaper that the PD's are pressing for a super-prison to be built in Abbotstown, west Dublin whilst closing Mountjoy and the Dundrum mental hospital.
Not a stadium to be built but a 750 cell prison.

My question is why Abbotstown ?
Surely the point of decentralisation is to move most civil service functions outside the capital and not within the capital.?

As i live about 1.5 miles away from the site, i hope there is a rash of objections from the populace in the housing estate situated on the opposite side of the snugborough road to the proposed super-prison!

Another question is why put most prisons and courts on the northside and not somewhere on the southside like Ranelagh where minister McDowell lives, guess that would not be good for house prices in the area !

Victor

Well you could swop the the prison for the incinerator from D4 to D15!

therecklessone

Originally posted by gurramok


Another question is why put most prisons and courts on the northside and not somewhere on the southside like Ranelagh where minister McDowell lives, guess that would not be good for house prices in the area !

Nah, its probably to save the crims families from having to travel too far for the weekly visit.

Victor

Originally posted by therecklessone
Nah, its probably to save the crims families from having to travel too far for the weekly visit.

But it's much easier to get from Tallaght to Ranelagh than to Blanch!

therecklessone

Originally posted by Victor
But it's much easier to get from Tallaght to Ranelagh than to Blanch!

Sure its only a short hop down the M50 from Tallaght to Blanch in a stolen motor...

Victor

I think this is where people were looking for this info:

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/2354077?view=Eircomnet

Dublin ranks as most prosperous region
From:ireland.com
Thursday, 15th January, 2004

The latest batch of statistics derived from the 2002 census show that Dublin is by far the most prosperous region in the country as measured by disposable income while twelve counties mainly in the south east and western regions lag well behind the national average.

The statistics which are based on 2001 figures, give a measure of "regional GDP" and show that Dublin residents had the highest disposable income per person at €18,620 compared to a disposable income of €13,147 for a person living in Co Laois.

On a regional basis Dublin again tops the list with an average disposable income 16.7 per cent higher than the national average while incomes in the border midland and west region are 9.6 per cent behind the average.

The calculations use the methodology used to calculate the national GDP and GNP figures and include incomes, State benefits and assumed values for property holdings. However these figures are somewhat distorted by the influence of multi national companies in some counties which drives a wedge between the level of wealth calculated by incomes and values added by production. Using the value added method, the south west ranks second in prosperity due the influence of the pharmaceutical sector around Cork city.

Only two other counties - Kildare (+5 per cent) and Limerick (2.5 per cent) - have above average incomes while counties Galway, Sligo and Louth are around the average. Twelve counties including Kerry, Mayo, Kilkenny and Wexford are below 90 per cent of the national average.

MDR

Its funny how for all the wealth in the region, we still end up with fewer acute hospital beds per capita (2.44 in Dublin versus 3 in the regions, EU average of 4),are more likely to be illiterate, less likely to go to university etc.

Perhaps some form of local taxation is order, reclaim some of disproportionate disposible wealth for the poor of the region .... :dunno: ...

Victor

Quite simple a lot of the Dublin GDP rest in the hands of a small number of companies and people, creating the stark differences between rich and poor, whereas in more rural counties things are more balanced.