Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Trouble on Tory Island...
Comments
-
According to the video you have to cross some of the roughest seas in the world to get to this place (Tristan de Cunha).donegaLroad wrote: »
I wonder if the crossing would be as bad as some of the posters on here suggest the crossing to Tory is?0 -
Beautiful place and everything but why don't they pay for their own ferry service?
Does nobody work on this Island? It's not the State's responsibility to purchase them a new vessell and run a daily service.0 -
Theres another angle to this whole story.Atlantic Dawn wrote: »If I was a betting man I would say a decision will be made to reverse the tender around Paddys weekend.
A small family business applied for a public tender which they fairly won. (although i have read a few baseless, mud slinging slurs on this site to suggest the otherwise) On the back of that they purchased a boat, and have fitted it out as per requirements of a marine survey. The boat has been called everything under the sun from unsafe to rust bucket. They have an asset which has been unfairly torn apart online by people with no actual knowledge of the boat or the process of applying to get the tender, which I assume would affect its future value. The new skipper on the boat was torn apart a few pages back as not having the knowledge of making the trip from the mainland to the island, which in my opinion is a disgusting accusation.
The story is being sold as "the big bullying government won't look after the little guy". But theres another little guy who fairly won a contract and on the bases of that invested a lot of money and provided employment. Are the government now supposed to screw them?0 -
Theres another angle to this whole story.
A small family business applied for a public tender which they fairly won. (although i have read a few baseless, mud slinging slurs on this site to suggest the otherwise) On the back of that they purchased a boat, and have fitted it out as per requirements of a marine survey. The boat has been called everything under the sun from unsafe to rust bucket. They have an asset which has been unfairly torn apart online by people with no actual knowledge of the boat or the process of applying to get the tender, which I assume would affect its future value. The new skipper on the boat was torn apart a few pages back as not having the knowledge of making the trip from the mainland to the island, which in my opinion is a disgusting accusation.
The story is being sold as "the big bullying government won't look after the little guy". But theres another little guy who fairly won a contract and on the bases of that invested a lot of money and provided employment. Are the government now supposed to screw them?
Has he employed anyone from the island? That would certainly help his case. Is his boat to be based on the island do you know?0 -
and the ones who defended the boat and the survey offices' ability to say if it was fit for the job or not are the one accused of having all sorts of issuesTheres another angle to this whole story.
A small family business applied for a public tender which they fairly won. (although i have read a few baseless, mud slinging slurs on this site to suggest the otherwise) On the back of that they purchased a boat, and have fitted it out as per requirements of a marine survey. The boat has been called everything under the sun from unsafe to rust bucket. They have an asset which has been unfairly torn apart online by people with no actual knowledge of the boat or the process of applying to get the tender, which I assume would affect its future value. The new skipper on the boat was torn apart a few pages back as not having the knowledge of making the trip from the mainland to the island, which in my opinion is a disgusting accusation.
The story is being sold as "the big bullying government won't look after the little guy". But theres another little guy who fairly won a contract and on the bases of that invested a lot of money and provided employment. Are the government now supposed to screw them?0 -
Agree strongly with you pocketse with your comment.
I do not think it's possible to leave a vessel on Tory Island as I've been made aware that there are no qualified skippers on Tory therefore, the vessel would be stuck on Tory and no way of leaving it.
Not once during this whole nonsense have I seen this new operator gone on social media, radio or newspapers slating the begrudgers...total respect for this man.0 -
daisychain123 wrote: »Has he employed anyone from the island? That would certainly help his case. Is his boat to be based on the island do you know?
I don’t know the answer to either of those questions. I also am not aware of that was a prerequisite of winning the contract.
Do you know is it possible for the Tory islanders to set up a cooperative in the interest of Tory island, to apply for the tender and source a boat and employ locals and keep the boat on the island? Why did they not do this is this is what the actual issue seems to be?
Should only carrickfin based airlines with local pilots be allowed to fly in and out of carrickfin airport?
The company who won the tender are based on another offshore Donegal island. It’s not like the big outsider city slickers coming in here robbing our jobs.
For the record, I have family in the area but I have no affiliation with the company the won the tender process.0 -
I would love to visit and spend a few days on Tory. Its relative remoteness is part of its appeal. There is something about our offshore islands that I find very appealing. I’ve stayed on Clear, Sherkin, the Aran islands and Inishbofin and I loved them all.
That said, a short break in the calm summer might seem nice but being marooned there during a stormy winter might be different altogether. If you look at the physical landscape of Tory, it seems like a huge slab of rock sloping downwards into the sea from North (where the cliffs are) to south.
I know it doesn’t appeal to the supposed efficiencies of neoliberal economics, but I think our offshore islands need to be supported via subsidies as it would be a complete shame to see them deserted.0 -
Theres another angle to this whole story.
A small family business applied for a public tender which they fairly won. (although i have read a few baseless, mud slinging slurs on this site to suggest the otherwise) On the back of that they purchased a boat, and have fitted it out as per requirements of a marine survey. The boat has been called everything under the sun from unsafe to rust bucket. They have an asset which has been unfairly torn apart online by people with no actual knowledge of the boat or the process of applying to get the tender, which I assume would affect its future value. The new skipper on the boat was torn apart a few pages back as not having the knowledge of making the trip from the mainland to the island, which in my opinion is a disgusting accusation.
The story is being sold as "the big bullying government won't look after the little guy". But theres another little guy who fairly won a contract and on the bases of that invested a lot of money and provided employment. Are the government now supposed to screw them?
Can I ask, have you seen the boat?0 -
daisychain123 wrote: »Has he employed anyone from the island? That would certainly help his case. Is his boat to be based on the island do you know?
If, as been suggested regularly (without backup) on this site the boat is "unsafe", how would employing people from the island "help his case"?
Are you now suggesting that the problem is that the new operator will not employ people from the island?
How would basing the boat on the island make it safe?
Was it a requirement of the tender to base the boat on the island? The website of the current operator indicates that his boat is based on the mainland?0 -
Advertisement
-
Can I ask, have you seen the boat?
Nope, and even if I had I wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what I was looking at. That’s what the marine survey office is there for. To carry out an assessment of the vessel and say if it’s fit for purpose. I have worked on cruise ships (casual work, nothing important) before and am aware that they every day at port there is a crew out painting different sections. It never stops. They operate in salt water so when I see a picture of the boat online with a few rust stains down the side I’m aware that every metal hulled boat looks like that if it’s missed a painting.0 -
Theres another angle to this whole story.
A small family business applied for a public tender which they fairly won. (although i have read a few baseless, mud slinging slurs on this site to suggest the otherwise) On the back of that they purchased a boat, and have fitted it out as per requirements of a marine survey. The boat has been called everything under the sun from unsafe to rust bucket. They have an asset which has been unfairly torn apart online by people with no actual knowledge of the boat or the process of applying to get the tender, which I assume would affect its future value. The new skipper on the boat was torn apart a few pages back as not having the knowledge of making the trip from the mainland to the island, which in my opinion is a disgusting accusation.
The story is being sold as "the big bullying government won't look after the little guy". But theres another little guy who fairly won a contract and on the bases of that invested a lot of money and provided employment. Are the government now supposed to screw them?
Has he invested any money? How has he provided employment? Certainly has not provided any employment to The people of Tory. The boat was TOwed by a tug from Galway to kellybegs on Tuesday! And is sitting in dry dock.
Now to say fairly? Do you have any proof that the tendering process was fair?0 -
Now to say fairly? Do you have any proof that the tendering process was fair?
I think, with respect, that unless there is evidence to show that the tender process was unfair it is reasonable to assume that it was fair. In most public tenders the people who lost the tender are given a period of time (around 2 weeks, I think) to object to the decision. Are you aware if the losing tenderers lodged an objection? They must have thought that the tendering process was fair if they didn't object.
Do you have any proof that it was unfair?0 -
Has he invested any money? How has he provided employment? Certainly has not provided any employment to The people of Tory. The boat was TOwed by a tug from Galway to kellybegs on Tuesday! And is sitting in dry dock.
Now to say fairly? Do you have any proof that the tendering process was fair?
If you're claiming the tendering process was unfair or a brown envelope job the onus is on you to provide some sort of evidence to support this.
As much as people like to claim Ireland is the most corrupt country in the world, the reality is quite the opposite, we rank very high in terms of democratic freedom and transparency.
Nothing that has been offered as grounds for this operator or vessel being unsuitable hold any water whatsoever, it's all speculative mud slinging, ill-informed opinion masquerading as fact.
The islanders have a right to raise concerns. They don't have to right to go around inventing mistruths and presuming to be experts on everything from the operation of Government tenders to captaining or maintaining a ship simply because they live on an island.0 -
Has he invested any money? How has he provided employment? Certainly has not provided any employment to The people of Tory. The boat was TOwed by a tug from Galway to kellybegs on Tuesday! And is sitting in dry dock.
Now to say fairly? Do you have any proof that the tendering process was fair?
Has he invested any money? - No idea. I do know the company now have a boat which they didn’t previously have. I do know it’s now in killybegs getting work done to it. I assume all of these things cost money. Do you know if all of this is being done for free?
How has he provided employment? - To run a boat to Tory will require a crew. I assume anyone can apply for a job. The will be local Donegal based jobs.
The boat was TOwed by a tug from Galway to kellybegs on Tuesday! And is sitting in dry dock. - So what, the contract begins on the first of April. The boat is now in the process of getting fitted out for that purpos. No one is denying any of this.
Now to say fairly? Do you have any proof that the tendering process was fair? - it was run by a government department and the boat was surveyed by the MSO. Until someone can give me even the remotest piece of evidence that it was rigged then I have to assume the process is fair. All you seem to be doing asking questions like this is trying to murky the waters. Do you have any proof it wasn’t fair.? Let us all know.0 -
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »Beautiful place and everything but why don't they pay for their own ferry service?
Does nobody work on this Island? It's not the State's responsibility to purchase them a new vessell and run a daily service.
it's the state's job to run socially necessary but non-financially and non-commercially viable services. the tory islanders do not have the means to pay for this vital service alone. they are going to continue to get their service as they are entitled to it.I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.
0 -
Has he invested any money? - No idea. I do know the company now have a boat which they didn’t previously have. I do know it’s now in killybegs getting work done to it. I assume all of these things cost money. Do you know if all of this is being done for free?
How has he provided employment? - To run a boat to Tory will require a crew. I assume anyone can apply for a job. The will be local Donegal based jobs.
The boat was TOwed by a tug from Galway to kellybegs on Tuesday! And is sitting in dry dock. - So what, the contract begins on the first of April. The boat is now in the process of getting fitted out for that purpos. No one is denying any of this.
Now to say fairly? Do you have any proof that the tendering process was fair? - it was run by a government department and the boat was surveyed by the MSO. Until someone can give me even the remotest piece of evidence that it was rigged then I have to assume the process is fair. All you seem to be doing asking questions like this is trying to murky the waters. Do you have any proof it wasn’t fair.? Let us all know.
I only asked you a simple question. If I find any proof of wether it was fair or unfair il certainly let Yous know. No doubt about that0 -
I only asked you a simple question. If I find any proof of wether it was fair or unfair il certainly let Yous know. No doubt about that
To my knowledge I answered them as best as I could but you didn’t ask a simple question. It was a loaded question which implied that you knew something different had happened. All I’m asking for is proof. If you have it I’ll certinly stand with you then in condemning the whole process.0 -
To my knowledge I answered them as best as I could but you didn’t ask a simple question. It was a loaded question which implied that you knew something different had happened. All I’m asking for is proof. If you have it I’ll certinly stand with you then in condemning the whole process.
Sorry, Which questions?
I said if I find any proof I will share it, no doubt!0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry, Which questions?
I said if I find any proof I will share it, no doubt!
These two in particular,
Has he invested any money?
Now to say fairly? Do you have any proof that the tendering process was fair?
They are loaded questions. They imply that you know something that we all don’t know.0 -
These two in particular,
Has he invested any money?
Now to say fairly? Do you have any proof that the tendering process was fair?
They are loaded questions. They imply that you know something that we all don’t know.
I don’t know any more than anyone on this thread. I was simply asking if you knew. Seeing as you wer the one that stated that he had invested money and won the tender fairly! That’s all.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I have been looking through this thread from time to time.
Would I be correct in saying
We have an island that people mainly retire on. It has a king elected but pays tax to and is part of the Republic of Ireland.
It has a ferry service that runs tourists in and locals over and back. It also has faster lifeboats and stuff for emergencies. The ferry service doesn’t operate at a profit so needs government help.
The islanders don’t like the age of the ferry and don’t think it’s fit for purpose but there is no reason for this other than age. The boat has been passed seaworthy.
Some other islands have better boats and some other islands have worse boats.
The main economy of the island seems to revolve around tourists coming over and buying paintings from the locals. There’s a small pub and shop and bnb but no other initiative from the locals to milk these tourists.
It’s a lovely island.
Correct me if I’m wrong.0 -
I have been looking through this thread from time to time.
Would I be correct in saying
We have an island that people mainly retire on. It has a king elected but pays tax to and is part of the Republic of Ireland.
It has a ferry service that runs tourists in and locals over and back. It also has faster lifeboats and stuff for emergencies. The ferry service doesn’t operate at a profit so needs government help.
The islanders don’t like the age of the ferry and don’t think it’s fit for purpose but there is no reason for this other than age. The boat has been passed seaworthy.
Some other islands have better boats and some other islands have worse boats.
The main economy of the island seems to revolve around tourists coming over and buying paintings from the locals. There’s a small pub and shop and bnb but no other initiative from the locals to milk these tourists.
It’s a lovely island.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
You could look at it that cynical way or you could look at it that an island population has survived on Tory for centuries. In the 70s the fishing industry was given to the eu in exchange for farm subsidies which decimated the coastal communities of Ireland particularly the islands where fishing was the natural industry. There’s lots of things you could say!!
I firmly believe that islands should be supported. I hope Tory gets a new boat at some stage if it’s needed. I welcome any investment in Tory. But for now, a public tender was put out. Someone won it and a service will be provided. If you want a different service, lobby your TDS and the next time the tender process comes up be ready for it. It’s not fair to vilify the guys who done nothing wrong and won the contract.0 -
When you have to resort to hurling insults about others being "cowardly" and building strawmen about the corrupt Irish banking sector, you've lost the argument tbh.Bob_Marley wrote: »But , I bet you're the pennywise-poundfoolish cowardly type that loves to hate on ordinary people, but never breathes a word of complaint about the 30 billion given to Anglo Bank by the taxpayers of Ireland, or the 13 billion we're desperate to give back to Apple ?
Ordinary people pay their way in life and contribute to the exchequer. Those that choose not to aren't ordinary people: they're parasites.
I'm taking it that you can't actually defend the wasting of so much taxpayers money on the Tory Islands?
I disagree, it's highly relevant to the issue at hand. The people of Tory are asking for their lifestyle choices to be subsidised by the taxpayer (and subsequently bitching that the level of subsidy isn't extravagant enough). The opportunity costs of acceding to that request should be considered by government.end of the road wrote: »again, all this is irrelevant.
it doesn't matter what the money could be spent on, as it won't be spent on the things you mention as there are already budgets for those and the amount that will be spent on those services has already been budgeted for.
this money is going to be spent on the islanders. no amount of complaining about it is going to change it.
Budgets can change, money can be shifted from one department to another at the whim of a cabinet meeting.
I agree that my posts here aren't going to divert the government from their current course of pissing taxpayers money into the Atlantic to appease a small island community. They might, however, connect with someone reading who might otherwise fall prey to the "money grows on trees" hard left nonsense being spouted by yourself and Bob_Marley.
We are a country of limited means. We can't afford to subsidise lifestyle choices0 -
I'm taking it that you can't actually defend the wasting of so much taxpayers money on the Tory Islands?
it's not waste so yes we can easily defend money being spent on our offshore communities.
it's not relevant. the government have decided that the offshore communities need support to insure their survival for historical and cultural reasons and to insure they can go about their business as much as is practical, recognising that those communities are deprived and are part of the country. budgets can't and don't change once set to insure the money cannot be moved from one service to another while the budget is in motion. only at budget change can and will the budget change. there is no tax payers money being pissed into the atlantic, tax payer's money is going to help our offshore communities. we are a country of limited means, we don't subsidize lifestyle choices but necessary services, and there is no hard left anything being spouted in this thread.I disagree, it's highly relevant to the issue at hand. The people of Tory are asking for their lifestyle choices to be subsidised by the taxpayer (and subsequently bitching that the level of subsidy isn't extravagant enough). The opportunity costs of acceding to that request should be considered by government.
Budgets can change, money can be shifted from one department to another at the whim of a cabinet meeting.
I agree that my posts here aren't going to divert the government from their current course of pissing taxpayers money into the Atlantic to appease a small island community. They might, however, connect with someone reading who might otherwise fall prey to the "money grows on trees" hard left nonsense being spouted by yourself and Bob_Marley.
We are a country of limited means. We can't afford to subsidise lifestyle choicesI'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.
0 -
Advertisement
-
We clearly have different ideas of waste. To me, spending vast amounts of money on small groups of individuals is waste. It's a misallocation of public resources which the government are duty-bound to attempt to maximise the utility of.end of the road wrote: »it's not waste so yes we can easily defend money being spent on our offshore communities.
Budgets can fail to be spent and the surplus can be rolled into another department at the next Finance Bill.it's not relevant. the government have decided that the offshore communities need support to insure their survival for historical and cultural reasons and to insure they can go about their business as much as is practical, recognising that those communities are deprived and are part of the country. budgets can't and don't change once set to insure the money cannot be moved from one service to another while the budget is in motion. only at budget change can and will the budget change. there is no tax payers money being pissed into the atlantic, tax payer's money is going to help our offshore communities. we are a country of limited means, we don't subsidize lifestyle choices but necessary services, and there is no hard left anything being spouted in this thread.
Anyone living on Tory is having their lifestyle choice subsidised. There's no denying that when (a) they live there by their own free will and (b) the tax revenue generated by those on the island is a small fraction of the public expenditure for that island.0 -
If Leo wanted to spend 5M p.a. to reside in an airship 3000m above Leinster house, should we pay it?
Its a lifestyle choice, they want they should pay for it.0 -
-
If Leo wanted to spend 5M p.a. to reside in an airship 3000m above Leinster house, should we pay it?
Its a lifestyle choice, they want they should pay for it.
it's not financially viable for them to pay it. no different to the rest of us who don't actually pay the full cost for the services we get. our offshore communities contribute toards their services via tax and get help from the state in terms of service provision, just like the rest of us are provided with services from the state via the taxes we pay.I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.
0 -
And that is the crux of the problem: keeping Tory island habitated is not financially viable.end of the road wrote: »it's not financially viable for them to pay it. no different to the rest of us who don't actually pay the full cost for the services we get. our offshore communities contribute toards their services via tax and get help from the state in terms of service provision, just like the rest of us are provided with services from the state via the taxes we pay.
Do you think money grows on trees? Or who specifically do you think should pay to indulge these communities that don't want to pay their own way.
Helping those who have had a bad hand dealt to them (the disabled, the unemployed or under-employed) is a great thing for our society to do. That's not what we're being asked to do here though: there is no chance of the community on Tory Island ever being able to support themselves while they choose to live on the Island. We're not helping them to get on in life or giving their children the chance to do so, we're indulging them while they make poor personal choices.0 -
EOTR has never once been convinced to see the sense in an opposing view so I wouldnt bother.0
-
And that is the crux of the problem: keeping Tory island habitated is not financially viable.
Do you think money grows on trees? Or who specifically do you think should pay to indulge these communities that don't want to pay their own way.
Helping those who have had a bad hand dealt to them (the disabled, the unemployed or under-employed) is a great thing for our society to do. That's not what we're being asked to do here though: there is no chance of the community on Tory Island ever being able to support themselves while they choose to live on the Island. We're not helping them to get on in life or giving their children the chance to do so, we're indulging them while they make poor personal choices.
So let's say that society decides that it is no longer worthwhile to support this island (and all the other island communities in the same position). What would be the next move? Forcible eviction from their homes? Where would they be housed? who is going to pay for all that?
They are unique societies and should be preserved. It's not about the cost, but even for economic reasons alone it would still be cheaper to sustain these communities.0 -
And that is the crux of the problem: keeping Tory island habitated is not financially viable.
Do you think money grows on trees? Or who specifically do you think should pay to indulge these communities that don't want to pay their own way.
Helping those who have had a bad hand dealt to them (the disabled, the unemployed or under-employed) is a great thing for our society to do. That's not what we're being asked to do here though: there is no chance of the community on Tory Island ever being able to support themselves while they choose to live on the Island. We're not helping them to get on in life or giving their children the chance to do so, we're indulging them while they make poor personal choices.
it's not the crux of the problem as there is no problem. keeping tory island habbitable is very much financially viable. if it wasn't it would have been evacuated a century ago along with all the other islands.
no community in ireland "pays it's way" . we are all subsidized to an extent. we're not indulging them while they don't make poor personal choices as they aren't making poor personal choices, but living on their homeland as they are entitled to do. their children have the same chances as we do, being able to go and live on the mainland or if they stay on the island, go to work on the mainland.I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.
0 -
We simply stop subsidising them. If they can make a go of it, fair play, if they can't they can move somewhere they can sustain themselves. No need for forcible evictions: we simply close the schools, cut the subsidy to the ferry and let the make their own decisions about what to do with their lives.So let's say that society decides that it is no longer worthwhile to support this island (and all the other island communities in the same position). What would be the next move? Forcible eviction from their homes? Where would they be housed? who is going to pay for all that?
They are unique societies and should be preserved. It's not about the cost, but even for economic reasons alone it would still be cheaper to sustain these communities.
If Tory Island was financially viable it wouldn't need ongoing subsidisation.end of the road wrote: »it's not the crux of the problem as there is no problem. keeping tory island habbitable is very much financially viable. if it wasn't it would have been evacuated a century ago along with all the other islands.
no community in ireland "pays it's way" . we are all subsidized to an extent. we're not indulging them while they don't make poor personal choices as they aren't making poor personal choices, but living on their homeland as they are entitled to do. their children have the same chances as we do, being able to go and live on the mainland or if they stay on the island, go to work on the mainland.
If no community in Ireland pays it's way, where does the shortfall come from? Public Services in any area cost X. Tax revenue from that area is Y. If X is greater than Y there's a shortfall which must be bridged. We cannot all be "subsidised to an extent" it's not mathematically possible unless that shortfall is bridged by the Government borrowing for current expenditure.
If your choice is to be a leech on the state, you're making poor personal choices imho. Your opinion of that choice may differ, but your failure to grasp the simplest of arithmetic suggests the reason for that difference of opinion.0 -
We simply stop subsidising them. If they can make a go of it, fair play, if they can't they can move somewhere they can sustain themselves. No need for forcible evictions: we simply close the schools, cut the subsidy to the ferry and let the make their own decisions about what to do with their lives.
If Tory Island was financially viable it wouldn't need ongoing subsidisation.
If no community in Ireland pays it's way, where does the shortfall come from? Public Services in any area cost X. Tax revenue from that area is Y. If X is greater than Y there's a shortfall which must be bridged. We cannot all be "subsidised to an extent" it's not mathematically possible unless that shortfall is bridged by the Government borrowing for current expenditure.
If your choice is to be a leech on the state, you're making poor personal choices imho. Your opinion of that choice may differ, but your failure to grasp the simplest of arithmetic suggests the reason for that difference of opinion.
If you write even one post like the one above that cribbing about it then the value of that time spent writing it* already exceeds the average taxpayers contribution to the islands per year. Which is a couple of quid at the most.
Also it's not like that money vanishes into a black hole never to be seen again, it changes hands within Ireland, keeps some people off the dole and keeps them away from other less useful (but potentially more profitable) businesses such as importing cheap Chinese plastic sh1te and bouncy castles for holy communions
*Unless you have some experimental direct Brain-to-PC interface that the rest of us don't0 -
Advertisement
-
We simply stop subsidising them. If they can make a go of it, fair play, if they can't they can move somewhere they can sustain themselves. No need for forcible evictions: we simply close the schools, cut the subsidy to the ferry and let the make their own decisions about what to do with their lives.
can't be done as it would be the same as forced evictions. we would be bullying them off their homeland. + we would have to stop subsidizing everywhere else if we are to go down the route of removing subsidy from one set of people just because a few don't like others getting anything because "reasons" seeing as we are all subsidized in some form.If Tory Island was financially viable it wouldn't need ongoing subsidisation.
quite a lot of ireland, probably the vast majority of it, isn't "financially viable"
in any country only parts of it will ever be "financially viable" that's just life.If no community in Ireland pays it's way, where does the shortfall come from? Public Services in any area cost X. Tax revenue from that area is Y. If X is greater than Y there's a shortfall which must be bridged.
it's subsidized by the small couple of areas which generate a surplus.We cannot all be "subsidised to an extent" it's not mathematically possible unless that shortfall is bridged by the Government borrowing for current expenditure.
government will do a mix of borrowing and using surpluses generated to run the country. all governments will do it to an extent.If your choice is to be a leech on the state, you're making poor personal choices imho.
the islanders aren't a leach so therefore they aren't making poor personal choices.I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.
0 -
There's not a coherant argument in that entire post.Ubbquittious wrote: »If you write even one post like the one above that cribbing about it then the value of that time spent writing it* already exceeds the average taxpayers contribution to the islands per year. Which is a couple of quid at the most.
Also it's not like that money vanishes into a black hole never to be seen again, it changes hands within Ireland, keeps some people off the dole and keeps them away from other less useful (but potentially more profitable) businesses such as importing cheap Chinese plastic sh1te and bouncy castles for holy communions
*Unless you have some experimental direct Brain-to-PC interface that the rest of us don't
The net cost to each individual taxpayer is negligible? If we apply that logic to every proposed use of government money we'd be bankrupt in minutes. That the net cost to the taxpayer of the government giving me one million euro a year for life only amounts to "a couple of quid at the most" for each taxpayer is not an argument for such folly.
Give people tax-payers money so they won't engage in profitable enterprise that Ubbquittious doesn't deem useful? Come off it.
Want to try again? Actually, don't bother, I'm tiring of playing at school teacher.
It most certainly can be done, there'd be an outcry from the economically illiterate, yes, but I can't see it being emotive enough to bring down a government that actually wanted to practice prudent financial managementend of the road wrote: »can't be done as it would be the same as forced evictions. we would be bullying them off their homeland. + we would have to stop subsidizing everywhere else if we are to go down the route of removing subsidy from one set of people just because a few don't like others getting anything because "reasons" seeing as we are all subsidized in some form.
I agree, terrible planning laws over the lifetime of our republic has lead to a huge amount of our rural dwellers living lifestyles that aren't financially viable. This shouldn't simply be accepted as "just life", we should be pursuing public policies that attempt to correct past mistakes.quite a lot of ireland, probably the vast majority of it, isn't "financially viable"
in any country only parts of it will ever be "financially viable" that's just life.
Borrowing to fund current expenditure is literally stealing from our children. It's the definition of stupid government.it's subsidized by the small couple of areas which generate a surplus.
government will o a mix of borrowing and using surpluses generated to run the country. all governments will do it to an extent.
If we only expect a small number of areas to fund the rest of the country, we're setting ourselves up to fail, and fail hard. While, of course, there will always be some areas where the contribution to the exchequer is lower than the services they receive, they should be the exception, rather than the rule. Beyond the age of 18, where one lives is one's own personal choice. Only a tiny percentage of us can afford to live in the exact home in the exact location we desire, the rest of us find a compromise between the type of dwelling or the location we live in based on what we can afford.
If the only way you can afford to live somewhere is based on relying on government to fund it, there has to be a public good that makes it worth the rest of society's funding the services that allow you to live there e.g. a farmer's importance to the security of our food supply, a rural vet's services being a necessity for that farmer, an unemployed single parent's raising of his/her children to be adults capable of contributing to society rather than detracting from it etc.
Even where such a public good exists, the state should be seeking to minimise the cost of that public good per head of population in order maximise the return from public expenditure. This requires either centralising populations or the simple refusal to provide services to communities that can't support the cost of those services or demonstrate a public good by which they repay the rest of the population for the provision of those services.
They take more than they give: that's the very definition of a leech.the islanders aren't a leach so therefore they aren't making poor personal choices.0 -
There's not a coherant argument in that entire post.
The net cost to each individual taxpayer is negligible? If we apply that logic to every proposed use of government money we'd be bankrupt in minutes. That the net cost to the taxpayer of the government giving me one million euro a year for life only amounts to "a couple of quid at the most" for each taxpayer is not an argument for such folly.
Give people tax-payers money so they won't engage in profitable enterprise that Ubbquittious doesn't deem useful? Come off it.
Want to try again? Actually, don't bother, I'm tiring of playing at school teacher.
It most certainly can be done, there'd be an outcry from the economically illiterate, yes, but I can't see it being emotive enough to bring down a government that actually wanted to practice prudent financial management
I agree, terrible planning laws over the lifetime of our republic has lead to a huge amount of our rural dwellers living lifestyles that aren't financially viable. This shouldn't simply be accepted as "just life", we should be pursuing public policies that attempt to correct past mistakes.
Borrowing to fund current expenditure is literally stealing from our children. It's the definition of stupid government.
If we only expect a small number of areas to fund the rest of the country, we're setting ourselves up to fail, and fail hard. While, of course, there will always be some areas where the contribution to the exchequer is lower than the services they receive, they should be the exception, rather than the rule. Beyond the age of 18, where one lives is one's own personal choice. Only a tiny percentage of us can afford to live in the exact home in the exact location we desire, the rest of us find a compromise between the type of dwelling or the location we live in based on what we can afford.
If the only way you can afford to live somewhere is based on relying on government to fund it, there has to be a public good that makes it worth the rest of society's funding the services that allow you to live there e.g. a farmer's importance to the security of our food supply, a rural vet's services being a necessity for that farmer, an unemployed single parent's raising of his/her children to be adults capable of contributing to society rather than detracting from it etc.
Even where such a public good exists, the state should be seeking to minimise the cost of that public good per head of population in order maximise the return from public expenditure. This requires either centralising populations or the simple refusal to provide services to communities that can't support the cost of those services or demonstrate a public good by which they repay the rest of the population for the provision of those services.
They take more than they give: that's the very definition of a leech.It most certainly can be done, there'd be an outcry from the economically illiterate, yes, but I can't see it being emotive enough to bring down a government that actually wanted to practice prudent financial management
I agree, terrible planning laws over the lifetime of our republic has lead to a huge amount of our rural dwellers living lifestyles that aren't financially viable. This shouldn't simply be accepted as "just life", we should be pursuing public policies that attempt to correct past mistakes.
Borrowing to fund current expenditure is literally stealing from our children. It's the definition of stupid government.
If we only expect a small number of areas to fund the rest of the country, we're setting ourselves up to fail, and fail hard. While, of course, there will always be some areas where the contribution to the exchequer is lower than the services they receive, they should be the exception, rather than the rule. Beyond the age of 18, where one lives is one's own personal choice. Only a tiny percentage of us can afford to live in the exact home in the exact location we desire, the rest of us find a compromise between the type of dwelling or the location we live in based on what we can afford.
If the only way you can afford to live somewhere is based on relying on government to fund it, there has to be a public good that makes it worth the rest of society's funding the services that allow you to live there e.g. a farmer's importance to the security of our food supply, a rural vet's services being a necessity for that farmer, an unemployed single parent's raising of his/her children to be adults capable of contributing to society rather than detracting from it etc.
Even where such a public good exists, the state should be seeking to minimise the cost of that public good per head of population in order maximise the return from public expenditure. This requires either centralising populations or the simple refusal to provide services to communities that can't support the cost of those services or demonstrate a public good by which they repay the rest of the population for the provision of those services.
They take more than they give: that's the very definition of a leech.
it most certainly can't be done, there are no grounds and it would likely break international law. there would be an outcry all over the world from people of many walks of life both economically literate and illiterate.
borrowing is a fact of life for governments, ireland couldn't avoid it. we are lucky in that we are able to pay down our debt. nothing is being stolen from our children via the funding of a couple of islands. the islanders live in homes they can afford in the exact location they can afford. the islanders will get the services that they are entitled to as well as the rest of us, no amount of crying about it will change the reality of that, and that they aren't leaches. if the islanders are leaches, then so are most of us, because in some ways we will get a bit more then we give over our lifetime. whether it be health care, school, etc.I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »the islanders live in homes they can afford in the exact location they can afford.
Grand. That is their choice. But they also have to live with the consequences of their choice. If that means a boat service that is not to their liking then tough - provided it is licensed by the relevant government agency for use on the route of course.0 -
Grand. That is their choice. But they also have to live with the consequences of their choice. If that means a boat service that is not to their liking then tough - provided it is licensed by the relevant government agency for use on the route of course.
it's not tough at all, they are entitled to protest and try to get a boat service that is to their liking. if they don't succeed then so be it.I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »it's not tough at all, they are entitled to protest and try to get a boat service that is to their liking. if they don't succeed then so be it.
Of course they are allowed to protest and if they get their way then so be it and fair play to them. However one would expect logical arguments as to why the proposed new service isn’t suitable. And if they don’t get their way they should accept that too.
Do you agree that the islanders have a right to stop the proposed ferry from berthing at the island pier as stated by the manager of the island coop recently? If you do agree what would give Islanders that right?0 -
-
2017, the new Spirit of Rathlin FerryThe new custom-built car ferry Spirit of Rathlin has finally entered service with a first scheduled sailing today on the Rathlin Island link with Ballycastle on the Antrim mainland, writes Jehan Ashmore.
Spirit of Rathlin built by Arklow Marine Services at cost of £2.8m entered the route which caters for 6 vehicles and 140 passengers. The 28m long newbuild directly replaced the ageing Canna which performed a final crossing last night concluding two decades of loyal service.
The introduction of Spirit of Rathlin is based on a 10 year contract to Rathlin Ferry Co. This was awared to the ferry company following a tender process from Northern Ireland’s Department for Infrastructure (dfi) that funded the ferry.
Spirit of Rathlin is a boost to islanders and tourists alike as the new ferry offers better accommodation in the form of a saloon lounge area (seating 42) on the main deck. On the above decks 1 and 2, there is additional seating outside to take in the scenic views across Rathlin Sound.
In terms of freight he ‘Spirit’ will have the ability to convey an articulated truck and the newcomer will not be alone as the is also the passenger-only fastcraft Rathlin Express.
Prior to today’s opening, as previously reported on Afloat the new ferry had undergone further works at Mooney Boats, Killybegs. The work involved the use of the Donegal yard's syncro-lift.
Rathlin has a population of approx 150.0 -
donegaLroad wrote: »
Is that the reason for the protests? If so it is like a wife complaining that the neighbours have a new car and why don't we. Everyone s situation is different and when you start saying that an island in a different country with a similar population has a better ferry there are probably plenty of islands with bigger populations in other countries without a state sponsored ferry.0 -
Advertisement
-
donegaLroad wrote: »
Hasn’t a brand new boat been promised to the Tory islander by the government I the past few months?
If a new boat is what the islanders want why keep protesting when it has been promised. You can’t have a new boat overnight.
The bottom line here, as I see it, is that the representatives of Tory island took their eye off the ball by not checking the tender requirements when they were published at tender stage. They have been offered to have a new boat built for their island which seems to be a very fair response by the Governent.
Why keep protesting? What exactly do the islanders want?0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rq_AwWwyR0
Advertisement