Cowens Economic Recovery Plan No Motorways

DWCommuter

Having just made a short film about suicide, the reasons and locations are varied. Its actually too sensitive a subject to be dragged into a debate about transport, rural Ireland and planning. If it helps, it tends to be a very emotionally driven event spurred by circumstances involving money/relationship problems. This can happen anywhere. Sometimes having these problems in a built up, developed and fast paced environment can exasperate the feeling. Loneliness can happen anywhere.

BluntGuy

strassenwolf wrote:

So...what's this latest initiative being called?

Economy21?

Love that...

murphaph

Anyway, I think it's safe to say we have at least destroyed much of what we had going for us as a beautiful tourist destination by building houses all over it. Well done to all concerned. It's amazing that one can travel about in England, one of the most densely populated nations on earth, and still find much more open countryside than you can in Ireland with its far lower population density. Tight planning controls in Britain are the difference. We've done a terrible thing to our country and we will someday realise it.

Schuhart

Furet wrote: »

You have a very strange view of the countryside.

Time to wheel out that story about how one off housing killed my cat.

Our cats paid the ultimate price but we ourselves suffered in little ways every day as a consequence of living in a one-off house. Services were inferior. Our electricity gave out a light that was a pale imitation of that of our friends in town. Our water supply had weak pressure. Our septic tank left our back garden looking like a marsh. Later when the internet arrived it came at a crawl. Our telephone line was so far from the telephone exchange that we would have been quicker driving two miles to the nearest shop and buying the newspaper rather than wait for it to download.

And everything was so far away. Hours of our life were squandered travelling to and from school, to the sports clubs, swimming pool, and the houses of friends and, later on, to and from discos and pubs. Like most of our neighbours we were a single car household and huge demands were placed on the car. Cycling was an option only if you were willing to take your chances on the Russian roulette of the road.

And the road itself was like a knife cutting through the heart of the community. It was so dangerous that you were taking your life into your own hands if you dared to visit your neighbour. So we didn't. We retreated into our castles, and to our televisions, barely connected to the world by our cars -the very things that were imprisoning us in our homes.

What's strange is how little of the reality of our lives penetrates public debate. Its like the way that we allow estates to be depicted as soulless places, when our personal experience that they are not is actually confirmed by social researchers to be a general experience.

Amtmann

Indeed. Very little of that rings true for me or for anyone else I know.

ardmacha

Our telephone line was so far from the telephone exchange that we would have been quicker driving two miles to the nearest shop and buying the newspaper rather than wait for it to download.

A bit odd that someone "on the outskirts of Castlebar" should be so far from a telephone exchange.

Tight planning controls in Britain are the difference.

Planning in Ireland has not been good in the countryside or the urban areas. There is no doubt that it must be improved in both. This should not mean Ceauşescu style policies.

Houses with space for windmills, solar panels, heat pumps and the storage of biomass may come to be seen as sustainable in ways that cities that require water piped from the other side of the country may not. It is not a simple issue amenable to soundbites.

Schuhart

Furet wrote: »

Indeed. Very little of that rings true for me or for anyone else I know.

He is writing about the West, rather than the South, so there may be differences. Yet I can't help noticing that your location is stated as "Cork City; South Tipperary", which hints that the 'very little' might actually be the key point of his article. But, clearly, I don't know what your bilocation represents.

Schuhart

ardmacha wrote: »

Houses with space for windmills, solar panels, heat pumps and the storage of biomass may come to be seen as sustainable in ways that cities that require water piped from the other side of the country may not. It is not a simple issue amenable to soundbites.

They would, until someone wondered where the windmills, solar panels and heat pumps would be manufactured.

And, indeed, I think the penny is dropping about water supplies. To be honest, I could only react with alarm to the idea of pumping water from the West. If they think nothing of polluting their own drinking water, imagine the care and attention they'd lavish on water going elsewhere.

Amtmann

Schuhart wrote: »

He is writing about the West, rather than the South, so there may be differences. Yet I can't help noticing that your location is stated as "Cork City; South Tipperary", which hints that the 'very little' might actually be the key point of his article. But, clearly, I don't know what your bilocation represents.

Suffice it to say, my 'bilocation' does not legitimise his point.

Schuhart

Furet wrote: »

Suffice it to say, my 'bilocation' does not legitimise his point.

Indeed, clearly your individual experience is your own. However, Mark Waters article and sentiments in it like

They leave because to stay means to pay more for poorer services and to suffer boredom, loneliness and a denial of their potential to contribute to and enjoy a fully functioning community.

does reflect the experience of a great many people, which for some reason is rarely articulated. There seems a reluctance to admit that our aspirations cannot be satisfied in the kind of society that isolated one-off housing creates, just as there can be a reluctance to acknowledge that much recent one-off housing builds has little to do with a search for 'community', and more to do with escaping community in search of a large house.

I'm not suggesting this reflects your experience. It may be that your bilocation has nothing to do with a search for education and/or employment possibilities unavailable locally. Your use of two locations simply made me mindful of the many folk for which that is a reality.

ardmacha

just as there can be a reluctance to acknowledge that much recent one-off housing builds has little to do with a search for 'community', and more to do with escaping community in search of a large house.

This is the crux of the issue, a dysfunctional housing market, thankfully now unwinding, meant that people could not make reasonable choices in the matter. Decisions were driven by distorted economics rather than a a choice between the greater economic opportunities and social stratification of big urban areas or the sense of community found in smaller places.

orbital83

Some good arguments here for why we should be developing our infrastructure to improve workforce mobility.
If you lose your job in Town A, there's a chance you might get a job in Town B or C or D. It doesn't help if you have to drive along some death trap road barely wide enough for 2 lorries to pass.

Workforce mobility has been severely restricted by the "buy a house no matter where" mentality and the fact that many of these unfortunate people are now in negative equity. A mid-20th century transport system doesn't help their case.

Of course some of us may view it as more desirable if the person remains unemployed in Town A - no carbon emissions en route to their job.

Lennoxschips

That's an odd argument.

Surely what scant money we have at this time should be ploughed into job creation?

graduate

Jobs created building infrastucture are more useful than ones created which contribute nothing of lasting value. If you are going to borrow money for future generations to repay then at least leave them something useful which they can use and which won't have to built then.

strassenwolf

murphaph wrote: »

Anyway, I think it's safe to say we have at least destroyed much of what we had going for us as a beautiful tourist destination by building houses all over it. Well done to all concerned. It's amazing that one can travel about in England, one of the most densely populated nations on earth, and still find much more open countryside than you can in Ireland with its far lower population density. Tight planning controls in Britain are the difference. We've done a terrible thing to our country and we will someday realise it.

An excellent post, and one which highlights what a mess has been made in/of Ireland, with current land use policies,

England is indeed a "green and pleasant land", where it is possible to find wide open spaces.

A tough task in Ireland

Germany, also, makes good use of land. I don't have any figures to hand, but (from my experience) I would be surprised if Germany does not have more land - per head of population - devoted to agriculture, National Parks and other recreational areas, than Ireland does.

Again, unfortunately without any figures which can readily be brought to this board, I'm almost certain that Germany - a very densely populated country -has a higher percentage of its land area devoted to agriculture than Ireland does.

Does anyone have the figures in a format which can be posted on the board?

Irish and Proud

strassenwolf wrote: »

An excellent post, and one which highlights what a mess has been made in/of Ireland, with current land use policies,

England is indeed a "green and pleasant land", where it is possible to find wide open spaces.

A tough task in Ireland

Germany, also, makes good use of land. I don't have any figures to hand, but (from my experience) I would be surprised if Germany does not have more land - per head of population - devoted to agriculture, National Parks and other recreational areas, than Ireland does.

Again, unfortunately without any figures which can readily be brought to this board, I'm almost certain that Germany - a very densely populated country -has a higher percentage of its land area devoted to agriculture than Ireland does.

Does anyone have the figures in a format which can be posted on the board?

Well you see, Ireland is really is Southern European country that happens to be in the West. If you look at Spain (Costa Blanca) and Ireland, there are remarkable similarities - over development, acres of countryside being devoured, poor quality apartment developments etc. Mind you, the Costa Blanca is a hell of a lot worse when it comes to uncontrolled development, but alas, it is along the very same lines as Ireland - it's only a matter of extremity. I don't think it's any different in countries like Greece or Italy either. Also, what do Ireland, Spain, Italy and Greece seem to have in common - yeah you guessed it: Corruption and backhanders! What is amazing is that all these countries are in the EU (the newest member being Spain (1986) - that's 22 years). Where is the EU commission - don't those guys love making regulations?

Regards!

Lennoxschips

That's one thing I noticed when I was in Scotland. Vast areas of emptiness. Valleys left completely wild, with not a single house, fence or telephone pole to be seen.

Amtmann

Murphaph: - There's also the fact that Britain (and England in particular) experienced an industrial revolution in the nineteenth century, and an attendant urban population explosion, whereas Ireland did not. Ireland remained a rural country until very recently, with only one major city that had/has chronic infrastructural deficits. To compare us to Britain is unfair and, I would say, a little bogus.

Then there's the question of land ownership. Culturally, it's significant for many Irish people that they own their land (which their forebears would have rented until the 1920s), and that they give a slice of it to their kids for them to live on too. In Britain, the aristocracy continues to own much of the land.

These are two factors that seem to have been overlooked by certain posters.

All that said, I actually agree with the spirit of much of what Schuhart, Murphaph et al have to say; I just don't think people will want to hear you unless you use more sensitive, empathetic, and diplomatic language.

Amtmann

Rural land ownership in Britain - very different from here: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/britains-land-is-still-owned-by-an-aristocratic-elite--but-it-doesnt-have-to-be-this-way-483131.html

By Johann Hari
Wednesday, 2 February 2005

Who owns Britain? Most of us would instinctively reply: we do. The British people own the British Isles. This is a democracy, isn't it? But the facts tell a different story. When you look at a map of the British Isles, you are looking not at your home but at a land mass overwhelmingly owned by a tiny aristocratic elite. Extraordinary though it might seem, in the 21st century, 0.6 per cent of the British people own 69 per cent of the land on which we live - and they are mostly the same families who owned it in the 19th century.

When it comes to land ownership, Britain today is a more unequal country than Brazil - where there are regular land riots. We are beaten in the European league tables only by Spain, a country which largely retains the land patterns imposed by General Franco's fascist regime. It's time we realised: this land is not your land, from Land's End to the Scottish Highlands. It is theirs.

This makes a mockery of the principles our society is supposed to be built on. Very few people defended the idea of hereditary peers - so why should most of the country's land be owned according to hereditary principles? For a system of private property to thrive - and I believe it must, because it is the best way to generate wealth - it has to be legitimate. There must be a relationship between work and reward: if you work hard, you should be rewarded. But most of these landowners have put in no work, and they are given a vast reward: the land on which we live. And - even where wealth has been earned, as in a few cases - nobody has earned this obscene amount of space on a crowded island. There has to be some sense of proportion, or the idea of human equality becomes a bad joke.

But far from redistributing land, successive British governments have reinforced this inequality by subsidising the richest landowners in the country. For example, a recent New Statesman investigation found that the multi-billionaire Duke of Westminster - who has done nothing to earn his wealth - is entitled to £9.2m in subsidies each year from you, the taxpayer. Kevin Cahill, the author of an award-winning book on land ownership in Britain, explains: "Money is being taken out of your pocket to enhance the assets of the rich, who, in their role as landowners, pay no tax. This is a massive scandal." Yesterday, Tony Blair was talking about weaning poor people in Britain off disability benefit. How about taking the land-owning aristocracy off welfare before we start turning on poor people desperate for their extra £50 a week?

Only one part of Britain has woken up to this national scandal so far - Scotland. This week, the Highland community of Lochinver is voting on whether they want to buy 40,000 acres of land that currently belongs to the Vestey family, a bunch of staggeringly rich corned beef tycoons. This right was granted to the local community by the Scottish Parliament when it introduced a Land Reform Act in 2003. The legislation abolished the feudal system where tenants were referred to as "vassals" and landowners as "superiors". And in addition to getting rid of the formal trappings of feudalism, the Act made it possible to erode the grip of these predominantly feudal families on Scottish land.

The new laws are simple. They ensure that whenever a large slice of rural land is placed on the market, the local community has the democratic right to claim it for themselves. If more than 50 per cent of locals vote to take the land, and if they can raise 50 per cent of the price themselves with business plans, the Highland Council (or the relevant local authority) will provide the remaining funds. If the community votes to buy over the next few days, the Vesteys will be legally forbidden to flog the land to the highest bidder. In other words, a transfer of the land from elite to elite will not be allowed.

In this instance, the Vesteys want to sell, but even if they didn't there is some provision in the legislation for communities to force a "hostile buy-out" if they can demonstrate it is in the public interest. Crofters, for example, can vote to buy and run the land they live and work on even if the landlord refuses to sell.

This package of land redistribution is even more desperately needed in Scotland than in the rest of Britain: just 103 people own 30 per cent of the entire country. The new laws will very slowly erode this vast inequality over the next century, as more and more communities claim the land for themselves to be run as community trusts or shared property.

Of course, there has been howling from the Scottish Tories about this "Mugabe-style land grab" and "attack on property rights". True, land redistribution has a bad reputation and a bad history. In the name of stripping land away from a tiny landed elite and giving it to the people, 30 million people died in China. Today, thousands are dying in its name in Zimbabwe, and the issue is threatening to destabilise many parts of South America and even Africa's most successful democracy, South Africa.

But far from being an argument against the Scottish laws, we should be glad that a peaceful mechanism of redistribution is being pioneered here. Land redistribution is an urgent cause across the world, particularly for the poor - and in Scotland, they are showing how it can be done in a democratic way, without violence. The problem with Robert Mugabe's policy is not - as the right usually implies - with the very idea of redistributing land. When Zimbabwe was established in 1979, just 1 per cent of the population (the white men) owned 60 per cent of the land, including all the most fertile and profitable acres. Most of it had been violently seized just a generation or two before. Does anybody think that was a just or sustainable situation?

But the problems with Mugabe's model of psycho-redistribution are clear. He is not giving land to ordinary Zimbabweans; he is claiming much of it for himself (under the name of "nationalisation") and giving the rest to a fetid elite of Zanu-PF cronies. His policy has been enforced by armed thugs who have butchered their way across the Zimbabwean countryside.

But now, peasants and poor people across the world need not look to Mugabe or Mao or other tyrants for a way to take land back from the rich. Instead, they can look to this new kilt-wearing redistribution through the ballot box.

It could hardly come at a better time. In most countries in the world, land is not being democratised and spread across the population. In fact, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have been imposing policies on poor countries that actually increase the concentration of land ownership and make more people into landless peasants. In Colombia, for example, the 0.4 per cent who make up the Colombian elite now owns 61 per cent of the country - an increase of 30 per cent in the past decade. On the IMF's instructions, South Africa still has apartheid-level inequality in land ownership, with just 4 per cent of farmland being redistributed from white to black.

Has the Scottish model ever been needed more? It is time to take the high road to a more equal Britain - and a more equal world.

Carawaystick

Lennoxschips wrote: »

That's one thing I noticed when I was in Scotland. Vast areas of emptiness. Valleys left completely wild, with not a single house, fence or telephone pole to be seen.

google highland clearances. As Furet's article states land ownership is very unequal in Scotland. I remember seeing a claim that there were about 1000 people who owned all of Scotland. probably before the land law reforms in the article came in.

L1011

Carawaystick wrote: »

google highland clearances. As Furet's article states land ownership is very unequal in Scotland. I remember seeing a claim that there were about 1000 people who owned all of Scotland. probably before the land law reforms in the article came in.

And the same was done to create one of our few serious wildernesses, Glenveagh.

Amtmann

This really just goes to show that looking abroad for answers to our problems isn't always the best policy. Britain is geographically closest to us and, outwardly, would appear to be very similar. But it isn't; in fact, its historical experience is almost a polar opposite to our own.

It is often thought fashionable to ridicule the whole notion of "an Irish solution to an Irish problem", but actually, there is merit - in some circumstances - to the proposition.

If progressive urban sophisticates wish to retain an Eden beyond their city limits, then they should advocate a conservative position and huddle the hoi polloi together in close proximity, the better to govern and regulate them - all for their own good, of course.

Schuhart

Furet wrote: »

Culturally, it's significant for many Irish people that they own their land (which their forebears would have rented until the 1920s), and that they give a slice of it to their kids for them to live on too.

Is it fair to say that the process of State-sponsored Irish land reform you refer to dates to a bit earlier than the 1920s. Just to take a little vignette, the process is mentioned in George Bernard Shaw’s ‘John Bull’s Other Island’ (published in 1904) in the exchange

AUNT JUDY. Sure never mind him, Mr Broadbent. It doesn't matter, anyhow, because there's harly any landlords left; and ther'll soon be none at all.

LARRY. On the contrary, ther'll soon be nothing else; and the Lord help Ireland then!

Part of the legacy of British rule in Ireland is, indeed, lots of independently owned small farms.

Furet wrote: »

All that said, I actually agree with the spirit of much of what Schuhart, Murphaph et al have to say; I just don't think people will want to hear you unless you use more sensitive, empathetic, and diplomatic language.

I’m unsure about this as, donning my tinfoil hat, I sometimes think that public debate is almost structured in such a way as to prevent this kind of issue being discussed at all. I mean, if we essentially agree that (to pick a concrete matter) farmers should be prevented from selling house sites (frequently in the guise of building a house for a family member, but which quickly gets sold on), how would you express that diplomatically?

I’ve a suspicion (wbich might be wrong) that we’re actually at a fairly primitive stage of general public debate, and what we have to do is be provocative. I don't see the scope for diplomacy - but a concrete example of what that means might, of course, change my mind.

Furet wrote: »

It is often thought fashionable to ridicule the whole notion of "an Irish solution to an Irish problem", but actually, there is merit - in some circumstances - to the proposition.

Indeed, but I'm not sure there's even agreement yet on what the problem is.

Furet wrote: »

If progressive urban sophisticates wish to retain an Eden beyond their city limits, then they should advocate a conservative position and huddle the hoi polloi together in close proximity, the better to govern and regulate them - all for their own good, of course.

I've read this statement a couple of times. I'm afraid I've absolutely no idea what it means.

murphaph

Irish and Proud wrote: »

what do Ireland, Spain, Italy and Greece seem to have in common?

The Roman Catholic Church? The restrained and structured nordic countries are predominantly protestant. The lacksidasical southern European nations (and us) are predominantly Catholic. Maybe no link whatsoever as Austria and Bavaria buck the trend somewhat but strange nonetheless. Even in the Americas, south of the Rio Grande=sh!thole catholic countries and north of the Rio Grande=relatively prosperous US and Canada. Who knows.

Amtmann

I'm not one for debating, line by line ad nauseum, what others have written over the internet, so this will be brief - and also, one-off. I do agree, pretty much, with your position that one-off housing is a bad thing.

Schuhart wrote: »

I’m unsure about this as...I sometimes think that public debate is almost structured in such a way as to prevent this kind of issue being discussed at all. I mean, if we essentially agree that (to pick a concrete matter) farmers should be prevented from selling house sites (frequently in the guise of building a house for a family member, but which quickly gets sold on), how would you express that diplomatically?

One would begin by not calling the owners of one-off houses "selfish". Several posters advocating our position have done this, especially on politics.ie. The issue is a fiercely emotive one, and one which exposes the urban-rural culture clash in all its ugliness. It would be best not to diss someone's lifestyle by referring to it as "backward", "gombeen", and "primitive" and somehow imply that the only civilisation worth having is to be found in cities. All of these tags might well be true (though they often aren't), but to say them aloud is to alienate and to turn people off even listening to you.

I’ve a suspicion (wbich might be wrong) that we’re actually at a fairly primitive stage of general public debate, and what we have to do is be provocative.

Fine. Just be aware that a lot of people don't take well to provocation, especially when it comes to telling them where they can and can't live.

I don't see the scope for diplomacy - but a concrete example of what that means might, of course, change my mind.

I'm glad your mind is open to change, but sadly I can't give you a concrete example beyond the generally sound advice that if you want people to sit down and listen to you, you shouldn't imperiously dismiss their lifestyle as backward, or them as "selfish". It's just not conducive to progress. All it breeds is recalcitrance and acrimony.

Indeed, but I'm not sure there's even agreement yet on what the problem is.

I agree that nationally, one-off housing isn't seen as particularly problematic, and I think that that in itself is a big problem. But we do ourselves no favours by looking to Britain for guidance. The context there is totally different.

However, there are a few things that I think we can do.

* Identify areas that have generally been spared from one-off housing and designate them a "house-free zone". Suitability could be determined cliometrically, by looking at population density per square kilometre, for example. If an area's population density happened to be below a certain threshold, then no new houses could be built.
* In areas with a higher density (such as rural South Tipperary) where isolation isn't really a problem (or at least, not nearly as big a problem as it seems to be in parts of the west), there are still stretches of L road that are house free (south west of Golden, south west of the Galtees close to Burncourt, around Dundrum, etc.). These should be placed under a house-free order.
* Community woodlands should be developed and encouraged, under state control, to provide an additional amenity for people.
* I would make it more attractive for people to live in groups (read "built up areas), rather than in one-off housing through tax incentives, etc.

Schuhart

Furet wrote: »

if you want people to sit down and listen to you, you shouldn't imperiously dismiss their lifestyle as backward, or them as "selfish". It's just not conducive to progress. All it breeds is recalcitrance and acrimony.

Indeed, but I think the problem is people don't want to listen at all, possibly because they can anticipate that nothing will be said that they want to hear. And the basic dialogue, cut to its bone, is 'what's it to you where I build?' to which the answer is 'costs to the rest of society, which I can specify if necessary'. And, bear in mind, there is a high level of denial about those costs, and the extent to which rural areas are dependent financially on the rest of the community. I'm not suggesting rural areas need to carry a veil and bells around because of this. I'm just stating what I see as a plain fact that there is much denial of reality in this agenda.

I don't see how an acrimonious argument can be avoided there. And, as you probably know, the issue is really about displaced urban housing where lifestyle issues aren't really at issue - its about what was (I think) memorably defined as Singular Rural Commuting Residences.

Furet wrote: »

I agree that nationally, one-off housing isn't seen as particularly problematic, and I think that that in itself is a big problem. But we do ourselves no favours by looking to Britain for guidance. The context there is totally different.

Indeed, and there's no particular need to go abroad to define the issues involved. On that, I was particularly struck in the recent programme on RTE about pollution of water supplies where the woman in Ennis with a number of small children, reliant on bottled water for all cooking needs, looked perplexed and said 'you know, nobody cares'.

I'm afraid I'm a rather sad person, unlike yourself, and I can bang on about this stuff for ages. I'll just end with what I think is a helpful little anecdote illustrating, as you say, the way that the problems of one-off housing are not particularly embedded in people

I will never forget a late evening conversation in a bar with a planner I met by chance who was practising in the west; the individual described the constant requirement to explain to people that if the applicant built on a karst site that they would end up drinking their own effluent; the answer was often ah sure it doesn't matter we'll sell up anyway.

I'd love to find a convincing way of engaging with people on this, because I am more interested in securing progress than winning an argument. I just don't see how progress is possible, so all I see as feasible is denying people the comfort of pretending things are other than what they are.

murphaph

I wonder what reduction in one-off dwellings we'd see if the true cost of providing services to the dwelling was passed directly to the occupants?

Leave the decision to live in the single dwelling with the potential occupant. If people saw the true cost of subsidising their way of life, they might be horrified. Even low density urban sprawl is more efficient than single one-off housing, and still people can have their front and back garden if they really must have it.

The problem with apartment living in Ireland is that the social infrastructure in cities is non-existant. Not enough parkland, poor public transport, no youth clubs, cities that give preference to motorised commuter traffic and so on. I don't pretend that 'city living' is the way it is in european cities. It isn't, but it needs to be. We need to be building/converting apartments to 2 and 3 bedroom units to allow people to trade up as their families grow.

What we certainly should not be doing is carving up the countryside (which belongs to all citizens, even those of us from urban areas) as we have been doing and building (usually) ugly unimaginative monoliths on it.

Remember how in past times of economic woe, houses and cottages across the land were abandoned and left to ruin? I can see that happening again.

mysterious

Depressions and economic downturns are all superficial realities created by the powers of be who control the media.


Media announce to the sheeple, downturn of - 4.5 percent in 2009. Dumb sheep create the reality.


Guy's get the **** over this economic BUlll shat. The government get your finger out and FINISH the job you were asked to do. Otherwise OUT of office. It's 2008 and people haven't learn from this artifical reality spun by the powers of be. 1930s anyone. Yes it's all fear and propganda to control the masses. Noone question's why we are going into a downturn. The media says so so you all panick, stop spending, stop investing, lose confidence and believe in negavetism by your government's

Of course there is a downturn, we are ultimately responsible for not been in control of our reality. This is probably the most shocking post you will ever read. I dedicate it to this thread. The fat Brian cown rambling about what he can and will not do in the transport departement. Fuk him, he's in posiiton of leading the country. He should be able to get it right. If he get out. Simple demography. Replace the problem with a solution.


People wake the **** up. Jeesh.

Amtmann

You do make me laugh.

nordydan

mysterious wrote: »

Depressions and economic downturns are all superficial realities created by the powers of be who control the media.


Media announce to the sheeple, downturn of - 4.5 percent in 2009. Dumb sheep create the reality.


Guy's get the **** over this economic BUlll shat. The government get your finger out and FINISH the job you were asked to do. Otherwise OUT of office. It's 2008 and people haven't learn from this artifical reality spun by the powers of be. 1930s anyone. Yes it's all fear and propganda to control the masses. Noone question's why we are going into a downturn. The media says so so you all panick, stop spending, stop investing, lose confidence and believe in negavetism by your government's

Of course there is a downturn, we are ultimately responsible for not been in control of our reality. This is probably the most shocking post you will ever read. I dedicate it to this thread. The fat Brian cown rambling about what he can and will not do in the transport departement. Fuk him, he's in posiiton of leading the country. He should be able to get it right. If he get out. Simple demography. Replace the problem with a solution.


People wake the **** up. Jeesh.

Jeesh indeed. What's your opinion on 9/11?? Was it the Bilderberg group, or the lizard people???