Cowens Economic Recovery Plan No Motorways

Sponge Bob

The Atlantic Road Corridor gets two mentions but CYCLING gets 7 mentions thanks to Eamon Ryan

http://193.178.1.117/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Building%20Ireland%E2%80%99s%20Smart%20Economy.pdf

The government does not commit itself to COMPLETING the Atlantic Road Corridor or indeed to build or improve any other road anywhere. Page 91

"Building a smart economy" surely involves clearing out bottlenecks like Claregalway and Longford !

Continue investment under Transport 21 concentrating in particular on the following priorities:
(i) completion by 2010 of the five major inter-urban motorways;
(ii) continuing development of the Atlantic Road Corridor;

Transport 21 is dead !

BrianD

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The Atlantic Road Corridor gets two mentions but CYCLING gets 7 mentions thanks to Eamon Ryan

http://193.178.1.117/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Building%20Ireland%E2%80%99s%20Smart%20Economy.pdf

The government does not commit itself to COMPLETING the Atlantic Road Corridor or indeed to build or improve any other road anywhere. Page 91

"Building a smart economy" surely involves clearing out bottlenecks like Claregalway and Longford !



Transport 21 is dead !

Is Longford not bypassed?

Victor

BrianD wrote: »

Is Longford not bypassed?

Only on the N4, not on the N5.

L1011

Victor wrote: »

Only on the N4, not on the N5.

And with a low capacity, roundabout laden single carriageway. Its better than passing through the town, however.

The N5 single carriageway bypass link to the N4 is notable in how little it was going to cost for a project thats been canned.

Cool Mo D

The infrastructure section in the recovery plan is exactly the same as the budget. It says nothing at all about any project not already started.

Lennoxschips

The Irish economy is predicted to contract by 4.6% in 2009, with increased unemployment and a return of emigration.

The Atlantic Corridor is about as high priority as an Irish space programme at the moment. And rightly so.

On yer bike.

HonalD

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The Atlantic Road Corridor gets two mentions but CYCLING gets 7 mentions thanks to Eamon Ryan

Sponge Bob, thanks for the link - but why the sad face about cycling?

strassenwolf

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Transport 21 is dead !

While sad, that is not really a surprise.

And the removal is when, and to where?

The National Archive?

Sponge Bob

Cloud Cuckoo Land I would think

The fetid stench of Eamon Ryan infests this document . It is not a blueprint for a smart economy but rather an opportunity for that man to peddle his fundamentalist dystopianism in duplicate

DWCommuter

strassenwolf wrote: »

While sad, that is not really a surprise.

And the removal is when, and to where?

The National Archive?

Its unforgiveable. The FF lead Government pissed around with projects for years as money poured in and then was bled out via wastage of the highest order. It was only at the end of 2005 that they officially committed to anything. 20 months later, the writing was on the wall. As this recession takes hold, I think its a wonderful opportunity to re-evaluate public transport requirements as T21 was flawed anyway. The only transport leagacy from the boom years are the inter urban motorways.

BluntGuy

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The Irish economy is predicted to contract by 4.6% in 2009, with increased unemployment and a return of emigration.

Ah, the return of an old friend. How I've missed you. Except this time we'll have the Eastern Europeans joining us in our efforts to flee.

As for the "Economic Recovery Plan"... it was more like the brochure for a real economic recovery plan.

I wouldn't waste my time reading it again. It's all lame aspirational waffle with very few concrete commitments or strategies outlined, just a broad re-hash of things we've heard before and things that should've been done when we had some damn cash.

By the way, Page 97 is the page you'll find the transport infrastructure outlined on.

Brian Cowen wrote:

We aim to develop a smart economy and become known as the innovation island.

I had to laugh. This is the epitome of the entire plan. Aspirational drivel.

I did however agree with this particular line:

Brian Cowen wrote:

We must focus spending on areas of greatest priority and reduce sharply those activities which are not essential.

Such as the health service, Brian? :mad:

Anyway, this a transport thread not a politics one so I won't drag this off-topic any further. All I can say is that there has been no change to the situation in transport. Whether private car-based or public...

orbital83

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The Irish economy is predicted to contract by 4.6% in 2009, with increased unemployment and a return of emigration.

The Atlantic Corridor is about as high priority as an Irish space programme at the moment. And rightly so.

On yer bike.

The next time I need to send a lorry load from Cork to Galway or a same day courier delivery from Sligo to Limerick, I'll remember that.

Presumably, all the companies will remember it too as they relocate abroad, because our basic infrastructure has been starved by pinko lefty tree hugging loonies with a strange smoky smell off them.

4.6% contraction in the economy? Sure that must be 4.6% less carbon emissions - Ryan must be delighted!

Lennoxschips

smart economy... innovation island...

they're over a decade too late

Lennoxschips

John J wrote: »

The next time I need to send a lorry load from Cork to Galway or a same day courier delivery from Sligo to Limerick, I'll remember that.

Presumably, all the companies will remember it too as they relocate abroad, because our basic infrastructure has been starved by pinko lefty tree hugging loonies with a strange smoky smell off them.

What are you talking about, it's nothing to do with treehuggers, there's no money to pay for the Atlantic corridor. They're cutting back on health, education, pensioners... and motorways too. We're in the middle of a burst property bubble and global financial crisis, both at the same time.

Schuhart

BluntGuy wrote: »

By the way, Page 97 is the page you'll find the transport infrastructure outlined on.

Page 97 is also where you'll see a howler (that also appears on page 22). It says that €2 billion will be invested in Dublin Airport. Whoever cut and pasted this yoke together apparently didn't know that the DAA announced yesterday that they are scaling back their investment programme.

I'd feel this probably reflects the depth of thought that's gone into this thing.

AlekSmart

Well since we already know,thanks to the Dàil Committee on Transport,that entire sections of the Dept of Transport DO NOT communicate with EACH OTHER then I suppose their divirce from the reality of the DAA plans can be more readily understood.

Crikey the performance of the Cabinet was particularly lame at the Press Conference....but worse still was the fact that the entire bunch just LOOKED deadbeat.........I felt that E Ryan appeared particularly lost...blinded by the glare of the headlight of an approaching Locomotive....:eek:

jank

Lennoxschips wrote: »

What are you talking about, it's nothing to do with treehuggers, there's no money to pay for the Atlantic corridor. They're cutting back on health, education, pensioners... and motorways too. We're in the middle of a burst property bubble and global financial crisis, both at the same time.

Exactly. Blaming the lack of movement on road building on the greens is an illusion. There is no money for anything new really! Greens or no greens.

The greens as far as i can see are having very little voice in government anyway except for some media catching vrt changes. FF are the cancer of the last 10 years that has runied this country. Blame them for the mess we are in. Believe me this will take a good 5-8 years to get us out of this mess. 2009 is a write off. Dont hold your breath for 2010 either. After that all bets are off!!

heard somewhere that the country could become insolvent in 6 months. Welcome back IMF!! If that happens at least they could fire most of the management of the Civil Service. Every cloud..

What we need now is all parties to come together with industry leaders like o'leary and co. to form an emergency economic commision and tell us how to get ireland inc back to some growth again (no developers!). The public have lost their faith in this government.

Anyway what is wrong with cylce lanes. We are way overly dependant on over seas energy and any attempy to fix that should be welcomed. I dont expect anything to actually happen on the ground though as this crowd will fumble over how to impliment this plan.

Irish and Proud

MYOB wrote: »

And with a low capacity, roundabout laden single carriageway. Its better than passing through the town, however.

The N5 single carriageway bypass link to the N4 is notable in how little it was going to cost for a project thats been canned.

Imagine not being able to commit to a 2km S2 link - Pathetic! :mad:

markpb

John J wrote: »

Presumably, all the companies will remember it too as they relocate abroad, because our basic infrastructure has been starved by pinko lefty tree hugging loonies with a strange smoky smell off them.

It's good to see people are still falling for the usual mudstick used by FF - cancel and important project, hint that it's their partners in government fault and they get off scott free. First it was the PDs, now it's the Greens.

Do you honestly think removing a few piss-poor cycle lanes from the budget would leave enough money to pay for the ARC?

Irish and Proud

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The Atlantic Road Corridor gets two mentions but CYCLING gets 7 mentions thanks to Eamon Ryan

http://193.178.1.117/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Building%20Ireland%E2%80%99s%20Smart%20Economy.pdf

The government does not commit itself to COMPLETING the Atlantic Road Corridor or indeed to build or improve any other road anywhere. Page 91

Maybe the M18 and M20 motorways, but no M11 or DOOR or congestion busting projects like the N5 in Longford or N22 in Macroom.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

"Building a smart economy" surely involves clearing out bottlenecks like Claregalway and Longford !

Well surely it would!!!

The government should adapt a realistic road strategy now and work off a list of traffic blackspots (congestion or safety issues), and take 5 or so a year. So, maybe 2010 should include N5 Longford Link, N22 Macroom bypass, N11 2+1 retrofit (defer M11 scheme and upgrade to WD2 between Arklow and Rathnew to allow for additional lanes like the M4), N11 Tap to 1+1 (11.5m) standard, and N17 Claregalway Ring.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Transport 21 is dead !

Well, I wouldn't go that far - but it's certainly being hard-pruned!

Regards!

HonalD

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Imagine not being able to commit to a 2km S2 link - Pathetic! :mad:

Think Cost Benefit for one - I'm not arguing against the N5 link BUT not sure it stacks up now.........

SeanW

HonalD wrote: »

Think Cost Benefit for one - I'm not arguing against the N5 link BUT not sure it stacks up now.........

Methinks HonalD has never had to deal with traffic in Longford town ...

HonalD

SeanW wrote: »

Methinks HonalD has never had to deal with traffic in Longford town ...

Unfortunately, I reckon I 've expereinced a lot more about traffic in Longford than the people of Longford - But I haven't been there for 18 months.

There is a by-pass for the N5 along a back lane at present for those who are interested. But thanks for the vote of confidence SeanW - my original comment still stands!

murphaph

SeanW wrote: »

Methinks HonalD has never had to deal with traffic in Longford town ...

Don't worry. The recession will take a lot of that traffic off the roads. Serious.

ardmacha

Don't worry. The recession will take a lot of that traffic off the roads. Serious

Back to the 80's, not much traffic , but I'll only have a rusty Datsun :mad:

murphaph

There's going to be a serious drop in the standard of living of all those <cough> people who built/bought McMansions in the middle of nowhere. Best of luck heating it and getting to and from it in your SUV to civilisation (whilst on the dole). Our european cousins who live in apartments in cities, can at least still get around when they lose their jobs!

Unsustainable Ireland comes home to roost.

strassenwolf

I have only yet seen an outline of this latest plan.

I haven't yet seen all the press releases which usually accompany these big events in Dublin Castle.

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

Economy21?

DWCommuter

murphaph wrote: »

There's going to be a serious drop in the standard of living of all those <cough> people who built/bought McMansions in the middle of nowhere. Best of luck heating it and getting to and from it in your SUV to civilisation (whilst on the dole). Our european cousins who live in apartments in cities, can at least still get around when they lose their jobs!

Unsustainable Ireland comes home to roost.

Now you're talking my language.:D Thats why its important that we establish all this now. The country desperately needs an independent transport voice urgently to remind the Government and opposition of the mistakes made and consequences. Beating them with this stick will ensure it never happens again. We must draw something positive from the negativity we've been plunged into. Just think back to the 70s when CIE drew up a rail plan for Dublin. Phase one eventually got built, despite the negative commentary of some like Sean Barrett. Furthermore the Government then went and redirected EU(EEC) funds and forced CIE to borrow for the project. (putting a poor company in an even poorer position.) There was no organised lobby back then. No alternative opinion that represented the ordinary tax payer. This time a coherent timeline of events must be documented and made available to all, especially the media. The dithering and the wastage must be held up as a gross dis-service to the nation.

ardmacha

There's going to be a serious drop in the standard of living of all those <cough> people who built/bought McMansions in the middle of nowhere. Best of luck heating it and getting to and from it in your SUV to civilisation (whilst on the dole). Our european cousins who live in apartments in cities, can at least still get around when they lose their jobs!

Many of these people will be enjoying the amenities of their native area even if they are not rolling in money. We all know about the wonderful quality of life in apartment blocks where everyone has lost their job. :rolleyes:

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

Many of these people will be enjoying the amenities of their native area even if they are not rolling in money. We all know about the wonderful quality of life in apartment blocks where everyone has lost their job. :rolleyes:

Aye, that's why suicide in rural Ireland is so low, not. Children who can't play with other children because they all live so far away from each other. Adults who can't go for a sociable drink together. Idyllic stuff. In any case, they won't be able to repay their mortgages with no job alternatives in their one horse towns with one (closed) factory-all hail decentralistaion. The NSS, what happened to that?

Living in cities brings economies of scale. If you lose your job in factory A, there is at least a chance of finding alternative employment in factory B-Z. If you live in a town that is entirely dependent on one or two factories for employment, you are less likely to find alternative employment.

Amtmann

murphaph wrote: »

Children who can't play with other children because they all live so far away from each other. Adults who can't go for a sociable drink together. Idyllic stuff.

You have a very strange view of the countryside.

As for suicide, according to books like this rates are highest in towns like Midleton (which is a town, by the way. "Countryside" is a word too often bandied around by ignorant Dubliners as some sort of blanket term for everything outside the Pale), rather than in the countryside proper.

I'd be far more worried about the prospect of urban decay, crime, alcoholism and feral youth culture if I were you, though your concern is touching.

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.