The Frontline: Statist Ireland and the Big Chill

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pride Fighter

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'll agree with some of you're observations. There is a lack of responsibility on the part of many in this country. Just before the big snows came I was able to de-thaw my driveway with just a bit of salt. It was very easy. What we needed was a multi faceted approach. Community groups and individuals need to unite with local business and chambers of commerce. All of these groups can aid in the clearing of the streets. It did not happen though. Responsibility was lacking by many the past 3 weeks. The government were poor, councils tried their hardest but none of them have enough staff to clear everything, individuals lacked responsibility, businesses failed to clear their shop fronts. A bitta graft is what we need in this country.

I suppose the government lead by example, useless shower of wasters.

BaZmO*

I thought we were supposed to be a nation of people that never complain? By God has that changed.

There was a guy on the radio the other day complaining that the pavement outside his house hadn't been clear of ice but when he headed into town the pavement outside the local council offices were being cleared. It's your responsibility to clear your own pavement, and if it it wasn't, if it bothers you that much, well then do something about it!

And there was a woman on to Ireland AM this morning complaining that the water was gone and that she was off sick and needed water to nurse herself better. Have you no neighbours? Knock in and ask them to get you a couple of bottles of water in the shops ffs, it costs less than milk.

It really annoys me that the people that constantly complain about this inept government/rip off shops/poor service restaurants keep voting in/buying from/attending all these places. Bleeding do something proactive for a change rather than constantly complaining. :rolleyes:

Macha

Valmont wrote: »

Well at least you now admit that Kantian altruism is indeed your point of view.

Considering I don't even know what Kant's view on altruism is, I don't know how I admitted it!

Valmont wrote: »

Now tell me what in the name of goodness should I have construed from the "Feck this" regarding your resolutions? That you were going to pursue them with more vigour? That you were going to volunteer and stick with you resolutions? I responded reasonably considering the information you provided me.

It was very much implied. Perhaps my assumptions were wrong and you will do everything you set out to do but what was I supposed to think based on your original post? I'm not a psychic.

Valmont, this isn't hard to understand. You interpreted my post incorrectly. I have pointed this out a number of times.You appear unable to accept this. I really don't know what else to say.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Can't you guys just accept that you interpreted my post wrongly? Is it that hard? Seriously this is getting a little farcical. It's pretty clear that interpreting my post the way that you have would have served you both to prove some sort of political point but I'm afraid I simply wasn't making the point you wanted to shoot down.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's exactly what I'm saying and nowhere did I say that I would not do them and at this stage I think I've made it sufficiently clear that I will do those other things in addition to volunteering and can we please give it a rest?

RedPlanet

They are not whinging about snow and ice removal in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and other "Statist" countries therefore you'll have to blame it on something else.
Maybe something closer to home.
Maybe something along the lines of the take-responsibility-for-nothing attitude coming from our betters.

Aidan1

Agree completely with Redplanet - I think the OP is stretching his ideological dislike of any state/communal response* to cover this issue when the evidence suggests that something else is at play (ie other countries with a more highly developed and intrusive state apparatus haven't had this problem). My guess would be that a combination of local cultural factors, and the relatively unique nature of the events themselves are the reasons for this attitude. Many people here have severe difficulty understanding the concept of personal responsibility, or more precisely, where the responsibilities of the individual and those of the State diverge (or meet). This is probably down to a very immature political culture, not helped by a media that seem determined to eternally portray the individual as a victim rather than as having any role in their own wellbeing.

Then again, given that we get much of our impression of events from the media, this could well be a closed cycle, and that a lot of the ire seemly directed at the Govt is as a result of editorial decision making rather than any genuine sense of public anger. Personally, many people I've met were quite sanguine about the whole thing, and retained a sense of proportion about what could be realistically completed by Government, but that might be entirely due to the circles within which I move (and I did move through out the cold snap, thanks to the power of quattro - at least someone was prepared!).

*Which is a perfectly valid position to hold, of course.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

imme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You seem to be going around in circles DF. You started the thread by talking about "Statist Ireland". You never clarified if you thought Ireland (state) or Ireland (people) which one you were referring to. Is there anything left in this thread if you've accepted that Ireland (state) is not statist. Now you're on to talking about a "paternalistic state".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Aidan1

if not psychological dependency fostered by the paternalistic state

I'd argue that it relates more to political culture - an exagerated expectation of what the role of the state is on the part of some people, and propagated by some parties for their own gain - rather than anything the State is or has ever done in the recent past. Given that other States are more 'paternalistic' or intrusive than ours, but retain a political or media culture where it is clear that the individual also has responsibilties, this seems a reasonable position to take. In other words, I don't think it's justifiable to suggest that having a State that provides social welfare or workable local government axiomatically removes the agency of individuals, or automatically fosters a universal culture of psychological dependency (an argument much beloved of the American right/libertarians, and liberally transposed here in this case).

Secondly, I don't think this is a recent thing, but rather the waning legacy of something else (warning - here comes the longue dureé argument). Because of our history, we have a relatively unique experience or expectation of Government - there are not many developed countries that experienced an effective post colonialism* in the 20th century; that process was accompanied by a series of political initiaitives that were themselves relatively unusual in terms of the role of the State (often taking up the mantle of Govt left by constructive Unionism like redistributing land to 'landless farmers' or the work of the CDB). In simple terms, it also led to a situation whereby 'goodies from elsewhere' were assumed to be forthcoming - Gladstones comments about the activities of Irish MPs squabbling over scraps comes to mind. All of this is long in the past, and the modern Irish State takes very similar approaches to policy problems as other EU members, but the legacy, in certain circles, is a very clientelist approach to politics that remains (not helped by multi seat constituencies and PR-STV), and an immature approach to working within our own resources.

And again, the role of the media should not be understated in this. 'Frontline' is designed to be a confrontational show - as such it's not too much of a stretch to suggest that the focus on having a good whinge is merely an attempt at grabbing ratings, and setting the agenda in order to 'manufacture a story' in the Joe Duffy tradition. And then there's the unions who are trying to make out that budget cuts were the real reason for the supposed lack of a response. Out in the real world, most people have long since moved on from this story - yes, there were a few weeks of difficulty, but the LAs kept the main routes open, and apart from that, people did the best they could in the interim. A large amount of people living in this country probably never saw a gritting truck, or a council employee, over the period. But they got on with their lives, used tractors and jeeps to pull each other out of ditches, made sure that people weren't cold or starving, and didn't try to get on RTE for a moan. Where's the thread praising the rugged individualism of these people?

*again, not that I agree completely with the thesis that we were a colony like any other.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Aidan1

I can see your point, but I don't believe your characterisation of expenditure growth is entirely accurate. Leaving aside the unsustainable increases in public sector pay, and the foundation of a series of NCSSBs to lobby for (or 'coordinate') an increasingly arcane series of special interests, it was really only at the very end of the period that the very strange (in Budget 2007 particularly, curiously preceding the General Election) types of current expenditure took place.

And even then, this can be attributed much more a Government that presented itself as being flush with money trying to deal with (a) an electorate with their hands out, and (b) a series of artificially empowered special interest groups (empowered by things like social partnership, itself a reflection of how weak central govt actually is here). The half a billion (€435m) for O'Cuivs Dept to spend on 'rural development' is a case in point - it was a sop to those who argued that 'not enough was being done' for marginal rural areas.

Even then, Govt did not extend into new roles, nor did it assume any very dramatic new responsibilities - most of the time it just tried to actually do what it had always pretended (or tried) to, or upped the rate at which people were being paid (social welfare being a case in point). And then again, much of the expenditure went on capital spend. Again, I sense a shoehorning of libertarian ideology into circumstances which don't strictly justify it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Aidan1

My point is that there were precious few new 'handouts' - most of the additional expenditure was in the form of salaries or increased payments in areas for which they had existing programmes - there was little or no expansion of the State into new areas (apart from new social welfare payments for carers or the disabled for example). This spending had an inflationary effect, and certainly had an impact on the employment market in that it provided a positive disincentive to work, but it certainly did not fundamentally involve a shift in the role of the State, or exagerate the nature or extent of the role of the state.

I'll give you a concrete example - the main areas where spend increased dramatically were health, social welfare and, to a lesser extent, education. But the people doing the moaning on 'Frontline', in so far as I am aware, were primarily urban based middle class people who owned property. How are they likely to have been affected by these increases? How have their expectations of what the State is or does, or can offer them, been affected by this increase in expenditure? The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is not very much. There have been precious few new handouts for these people (unless you count tax cuts - but I'm guessing that you'd rather not!), and so their behaviour or attitudes cannot be said to have been conditioned by this. There could be broader societal factors at work, but if anything the State has been in retreat over this period, so I don't see how the Celtic Tiger period, which by most analyses involved the promotion of the individual over the collective, could have imbued this attitude in a number of people.

Rather, their moaning has been conditioned by a different set of factors to those that you are proposing. I'm not disputing the fact that Govt expenditure increased dramatically (and recklessly), but I am disputing the effect it has had - I'm afraid I can't see a linkage between this and the fact that a small number of people sat in a studio and gave out about 'their' footpaths not being cleared. At a higher level, I'm suggesting that your repeated arguments as to the virtues of libertarianism* are colouring your analysis. When you have a hammer, suddenly all probems start to look like nails.

The poor record of the State with regard to pouring money at certain problems is, again, reflective of a different problem - the fact that political urgency and the ready availability of funds usurped proper policy making. Bit like individual decisions around buying houses, I suppose.

*I'm not taking a swipe at your ideological preferences - I would have come close to sharing them once. Personally, I think anyone who still cleaves to the belief in the operation of unfettered markets and for weak Government after the events of the last 2 years deserves respect, if only for their bravery