Political generation gap

merlante

I was just thinking about the fact that almost everyone on here are against McCann, whereas the pro/anti McCann debate *appears* more evenly balanced in the local media. Now I suspect that this is due to WLRs bias toward McCann, and perhaps the Munster and the News & Star's need to find some news with an 'indie' angle -- as well as the usual coverage of major Waterford developments, etc.

But another thought struck me, is it possible that there is also a generation gap here, where frequent internet users, who are in the main under 30, are sort of pro-cop on, anti-McCann, whereas the older generations have varied beliefs, often relating to certain ideologies or civil war affiliations?

If there is a generation gap, do people feel that the 'internet' (voting) generation, 18-30, is listened to? I wonder if we could form ourselves into a voting block for some purposes?

The 'Waterford Online Party'!

trishw78

Sounds like a good Idea but I'm not in the waterford consituency yet

Trotter

I like it!!

Thinking ahead to the election, Im going for Mary Roche. We need some new blood in the Dáil, and her independence will allow her to speak freely. She wont have any party whip telling her what to say and what not to say etc.

We'll have 3 party TD's minimum either way, as we've had for years. Mary Roche could give us something we've all said we're lacking.. a loud, intelligent voice for Waterford in the Dáil, and someone to make sure our other TDs are doing their job. I get the feeling that our existing 4 TDs have been working without having to be accountable to their constituents.

I suspect they'd sleep far less easy with Mary Roche in the Dáil. I just think we need something different that isnt Sinn Féin or party whipped.

Also, I know its a long shot, but imagine the potential if there was a hung Dáil! Look what Kerry achieved when Jackie Heally Ray and the other independents held the balance of power a few years ago.

Baby4

This post has been deleted.

merlante

Baby4 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Indeed, is it age, or is it the anti-business/socialism that was popular back in their day, or both?

It also amazes me when you hear people on WLR saying that we have enough shops in Waterford, sure shops are closing all the time! While everyone under the age of 30 (35?) are crying out for a HMV, a Waterstones, an M&S, a Debenhams, etc., etc. Such a contrast.

Someone's version of Waterford is not going to come to pass; wonder whose it will be? :rolleyes:

mike65

It may be more to do with older people not liking change. I'm old enough to remember Waterford when it possessed one traffic light junction and L&N built this 'fantastic' new shopping mecca called -A HYPERMARKET!

I was a child at the time but knew Waterfords retail experience was a dismal one and you'd have to go to to Dublin to buy anything of decent quality.

Railway square for years was an dreadful eyesore and a waste of space but many oldsters just get used to the status quo and it never occures to them that things could be different.

Mike.

merlante

mike65 wrote:

It may be more to do with older people not liking change. I'm old enough to remember Waterford when it possessed one traffic light junction and L&N built this 'fantastic' new shopping mecca called -A HYPERMARKET!

I was a child at the time but knew Waterfords retail experience was a dismal one and you'd have to go to to Dublin to buy anything of decent quality.

Railway square for years was an dreadful eyesore and a waste of space but many oldsters just get used to the status quo and it never occures to them that things could be different.

Well said Mike. My memory is terrible, but I remember when the shopping centre in Lisduggan (Quinnsworth/Crazy Prices/Tesco) was the centre of the grocery shopping universe for well over the decade! Was in there at Christmas for the first time in donkey's years, and lets just say I can see why I was impressed by Ilac centre when I went to Dublin on a school tour 1990! Good to see that it too will soon get a facelift.

It's mad that people travelled from all over the city to that place in Lisduggan! George's Court was a huge deal in the city centre too, whereas now it's a nice indoor area, but would barely qualify as a shopping centre. I suppose the older crew would be happier to be back in 'brown' Waterford, which was the colour of everything back in those days. (As opposed to black and white in the preceding decades. )

mike65

Lisduggan started with Londis at one end and Quinnsworth at the other (which idiot thought that was clever?!) and it was opened with hoopla by Mike Murphy I think (anyway whoever it was got a rumoured 10k for his trouble!). Londis was all but dead within 18 months. That place desperatly needs its makeover.

Do you remember that vacent lot on the Mall opposite the Lombard St junction? Derelict for years, its neglect seemed to sum up Old Waterford.

Mike.

merlante

mike65 wrote:

Lisduggan started with Londis at one end and Quinnsworth at the other (which idiot thought that was clever?!) and it was opened with hoopla by Mike Murphy I think (anyway whoever it was got a rumoured 10k for his trouble!). Londis was all but dead within 18 months. That place desperatly needs its makeover.

Do you remember that vacent lot on the Mall opposite the Lombard St junction? Derelict for years, its neglect seemed to sum up Old Waterford.

Like I said, my memory is awful. I'm sure I'd recognise a picture though.

AdMMM

In relation to development in general, I do think that the older generation see things differently. But that isn't neccessarily a bad thing in my opinion. It's the fresh, young blood that will play a huge role in driving Waterford forward but I think the older generation has a equally important role in keeping us in check.

fricatus

mike65 wrote:

Do you remember that vacent lot on the Mall opposite the Lombard St junction? Derelict for years, its neglect seemed to sum up Old Waterford.

I remember it now, though I was very little. At the time there were a few similar gaps along the Quay between Reginald's Tower and the GPO.

I shudder to think of those days, and it makes me sick when people go on about "greedy developers" and "speculators". First of all, they're not speculators. Speculators are the type of people who pay booking deposits on new houses and then sell them on for double the price to desperate young couples.

And "greedy" is not the right word, because it implies people reaching into others' pockets and taking something out. They are driven by a profit motive. So what?

In a few days I am going to visit H&M in Liffey Valley and buy some clothes. I know some of the money I hand over will go into the pockets of the property developer, some will go to the retailer, some will go into the pockets of the sales assistant and probably only a little will go to the manufacturer. But that's the way it is, and I'd prefer if that developer and sales assistant were here in Waterford and spent that bit of my money locally. Some imbeciles around here don't want that to happen though.

I agree that it's mainly a generational thing, but I think it's got a lot to do with social class too, and I'm sorry to say so. Seems to me it's people from the less wealthy parts of town who are more against these developments.

merlante

|.Murderer.| wrote:

In relation to development in general, I do think that the older generation see things differently. But that isn't neccessarily a bad thing in my opinion. It's the fresh, young blood that will play a huge role in driving Waterford forward but I think the older generation has a equally important role in keeping us in check.

That's not to say that the younger generation want to sweep away the past in a tide of progress either though. I also think that young people know more about the history of Waterford (beyond the 20th century) than most of the older generations.

Anyone who has read any of the history of the city would know that 'negative Waterford' is only a 20th century thing. In every other century Waterford was very progressive. It was one of the first cities in the British Isles (a politically neutral term imho) to have gas street lighting.

These days Reginald's Tower and the city walls are a lot more respected and looked after than they were by previous generations. (Although this started with the last generation.)

Personally I want to see the city develop and preserve its history and amenities. Both are easily possible. I doubt 'the youth' would really go overboard on the development angle, but I do think the older crowd would go overboard on the anti-development end if they were given an inch.

merlante

fricatus wrote:

I remember it now, though I was very little. At the time there were a few similar gaps along the Quay between Reginald's Tower and the GPO.

I shudder to think of those days, and it makes me sick when people go on about "greedy developers" and "speculators". First of all, they're not speculators. Speculators are the type of people who pay booking deposits on new houses and then sell them on for double the price to desperate young couples.

And "greedy" is not the right word, because it implies people reaching into others' pockets and taking something out. They are driven by a profit motive. So what?

In a few days I am going to visit H&M in Liffey Valley and buy some clothes. I know some of the money I hand over will go into the pockets of the property developer, some will go to the retailer, some will go into the pockets of the sales assistant and probably only a little will go to the manufacturer. But that's the way it is, and I'd prefer if that developer and sales assistant were here in Waterford and spent that bit of my money locally. Some imbeciles around here don't want that to happen though.

I agree that it's mainly a generational thing, but I think it's got a lot to do with social class too, and I'm sorry to say so. Seems to me it's people from the less wealthy parts of town who are more against these developments.

All good points.

A lot of people try to continually reinforce their working class credentials when it comes to being anti-business/anti-development/socialist imho, even though they may have gone up in the world themselves. A lot of it is attitude. In a way, most people in Ireland are well off, because they have a house and a car and food, etc., and I'm not seeing workers (not blue collar anyway) being forced to work in savage conditions... Sometimes I get the feeling that people just like the so-called class system.

largebottle

I agree with a lot of what has been said here...Change is not only good it is essential..Without change we stagnate and decay I also disagree with the assertion that young people are against McCann and older people are for him...What rubbish.............it's just too simplistic to try and divide it across age lines...his biggest detractors are Purcell and our mayor Cha O'neill (hardly spring chickens)..

Its even to simplisitc to say McCann is right or McCann is wrong.

We live in a democracy and McCann exercises his rights in this democracy to the fullest...the fact that many of his appeals to an bord P have been upheld..surely means that he has been right on occasions.

I get worried when I see vested interested such as auctioneers "whining" about how their ability to make profit is being stymied by others excercising there democratic rights....

Have no fear if there is profit to be made than a few planning objections by Mr McCann will not stop those with an entrepreneurial bent making a few bob in the worlds most open free market economy.

merlante

largebottle wrote:

I agree with a lot of what has been said here...Change is not only good it is essential..Without change we stagnate and decay I also disagree with the assertion that young people are against McCann and older people are for him...What rubbish.............it's just too simplistic to try and divide it across age lines...his biggest detractors are Purcell and our mayor Cha O'neill (hardly spring chickens)..

Okay, I'm not saying it's *that*simple. Even a general trend will have its exceptions. It's just that, aside from some media bias, McCann appears to have a measure of support for his objections from the people who the local media is generally aimed at, i.e. 30+, while having very little on the internet discussion boards which generally accommodate people <30.

(I use the term support here very loosely because hardly anyone has voted for him in the past! Since his policies are unchanged, I would view any upsurge in his popularity as due to his increased ability to secure media airtime and column inches.)

largebottle wrote:

Its even to simplisitc to say McCann is right or McCann is wrong.

It is too simplistic to say that Stalin, or anybody that ever lived, was right or wrong. However, we have to come to some fixed conclusions on people so we can choose whether or not to vote for them or to give them our support. For all intents and purposes, though I don't know the man, I consider McCann "wrong" because he is abusing a liberal law in order to pursue a personal agenda. (Said liberal law won't last long if he keeps it up, and he will ruin it for everyone!)

largebottle wrote:

We live in a democracy and McCann exercises his rights in this democracy to the fullest...the fact that many of his appeals to an bord P have been upheld..surely means that he has been right on occasions.

Your right to object to a development is *not* your democratic right (it's a completely separate right). If anything it is anti-democratic because it places the needs of one man ahead of the needs of the many. That said, I believe that our *current* right to object to developments is a good one, as long as it is not abused. It is currently being abused to an unprecedented degree.

One might also argue that we have a right to build on our land. At the moment Purcell can't seem to build anything on his land. Is what he is trying to build so abhorrent that McCann must step in at every juncture?

I take your point that some of his appeals have been upheld. Some of these, such as the Brewery, were generally criticised for being substandard. McCann's objections means/say nothing to me. The fact that the council objected (our democratically elected council -- that's democracy, not McCann) and many others, was much more significant. Essentially, McCann objects so prolifically that he is bound to make the odd good objection. But also note that occasionally a good development will be wrongly thrown out by Bord Planala, who are notoriously arbitrary in many of their decisions!

largebottle wrote:

I get worried when I see vested interested such as auctioneers "whining" about how their ability to make profit is being stymied by others excercising there democratic rights....

I admire the man actually. Every business man who ran into McCann said nothing because they knew that they would reviled as greed, biased business men with vested interests, and basically laughed at. He spoke out, maybe because he is literally out of money and desperate, or maybe because he saw that somebody had to speak out for those trying to develop in the city centre. It is a fact that McCann is making things *very* difficult for developers at the moment. That really annoys me, and many on here, because it means that Waterford is struggling to keep up with its peer cities. The fact that there is not a single unit (okay maybe opposite city square in the old sorting office) in Waterford city centre that could accommodate an M&S, a HMV, a Waterstones, a Brown Thomas, a Debenhams, a large Pennies, etc., etc., is a chastening thought!

largebottle wrote:

Have no fear if there is profit to be made than a few planning objections by Mr McCann will not stop those with an entrepreneurial bent making a few bob in the worlds most open free market economy.

If these developers really are so cynical, then they will follow the advice of their accountants, and develop elsewhere. If we send them away for no reason, that hurts us (more than it hurts them).

Our man in Havana

mike65 wrote:

Lisduggan started with Londis at one end and Quinnsworth at the other (which idiot thought that was clever?!) and it was opened with hoopla by Mike Murphy I think (anyway whoever it was got a rumoured 10k for his trouble!). Londis was all but dead within 18 months. That place desperatly needs its makeover.


Mike.

A Las Vegas style implosion is needed on that place. It is so third world that palce.

deisemum

I'm 42 and I've some friends in their late 30's to late 40's and not one of us support McCann. Then again most of us are not from Waterford and having lived elsewhere have seen the importance of progress.

One of my friends has just sent a letter to Des Purcell thanking him for speaking out. We go to Cork or Dublin several times a year on shopping trips because there's a very limited choice here. That's lost revenue for Waterford.

merlante

deisemum wrote:

I'm 42 and I've some friends in their late 30's to late 40's and not one of us support McCann. Then again most of us are not from Waterford and having lived elsewhere have seen the importance of progress.

One of my friends has just sent a letter to Des Purcell thanking him for speaking out. We go to Cork or Dublin several times a year on shopping trips because there's a very limited choice here. That's lost revenue for Waterford.

Well said! I admire Purcell (on the surface of it) because he must have known how he'd be labelled for doing what he did. Then again, maybe he's just a desperate man about to be made bankrupt by McCann.