Statism fails again: "Cash-strapped councils may send us back to dark ages"

bmaxi

fontanalis wrote: »

Well the market will touch the free enterprises with it's noodly apendage and everything will be alright because the businesses are out for the little guy.
Funny he mentions about people doing the potholes themselves, I think he advocated this in the threads about the severe frost in the past winter, and what was it donegalfella said about the people straned by hurricane katrina. Instead of privatising everyhting why not go for an efficient public sector?

I'm afraid this would be an utopia too far. While we have gombeen members of parliament appointing overpaid, under qualified lackeys to senior positions, it is unachievable. The problem is exacerbated by a gombeen public, who continue to elect said gombeen politicians, for the price of a pint or a perceived family loyalty and that the gombeen politicians who populate the upper echelons of the political parties will choose the yes men we will be asked to vote for, so prolonging the gombeen lineage.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Scofflaw wrote: »

Interesting that you should run the two of those together - the chances are, of course, that the average rural dweller is not being taxed to a level sufficient to pay for the services he/she receives, however inadequate they may feel those services to be - otherwise, there would presumably be rather less need for the steady flow of subsidy from city to country.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thats part of the problem, its hard to know which way is up. Neighbour A could be a PAYE employee paying 40%, where his taxes go into a central pool yet he has to commute on crappy minor roads whereas hobby farmer B pays no direct tax but again has to use crappy roads and other infrastructure.
The economic signals are confused , so we end up with an economy that probably has more lower quality and inefficient infrastructure then would otherwise be the case.

bmaxi

Scofflaw wrote: »

Interesting that you should run the two of those together - the chances are, of course, that the average rural dweller is not being taxed to a level sufficient to pay for the services he/she receives, however inadequate they may feel those services to be - otherwise, there would presumably be rather less need for the steady flow of subsidy from city to country.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The removal of rates in 1977 was a huge mistake. It left Councils with no control over what, if any, funds were to be spent in their area. Now, it appears, the funds are allocated based on the area's proximity to the constituency of a Government minister.

jimmycrackcorm

All I can say is that my bins are collected now by a private operator who provide the service at 20% less and have on-line billing, dd payments and text me the night before collection to remind me which bin to put out.

if that is an example to compare against the county council service then roll on private road maintenance. The difference a private sector operator would make is that they would recognize that it is more profitable to six the potholes properly so as to reduce the cost of ongoing maintenance.

CoalBucket

Waste disposal is a good example of the private sector work being introduced succesfully.

In Cork the waste disposal service is a cut throat business with a number of operators competing all over the county. However the Councils also compete in this market.

I do not think the Councils should be abolished but they should be made to compete and operate professionally and effectively.

If they cannot operate in the open market they are either too expensive or the are not operating effectively and competitively.

The government are constantly issuing the mantra to shop around, it's about time they done it themselves.

Why should public money be spent on ineffective services.

ejmaztec

CoalBucket wrote: »

Waste disposal is a good example of the private sector work being introduced succesfully.

In Cork the waste disposal service is a cut throat business with a number of operators competing all over the county. However the Councils also compete in this market.

I do not think the Councils should be abolished but they should be made to compete and operate professionally and effectively.

If they cannot operate in the open market they are either too expensive or the are not operating effectively and competitively.

The government are constantly issuing the mantra to shop around, it's about time they done it themselves.

Why should public money be spent on ineffective services.

It probably is a good idea for private contractors in general, to be taken on by the local authorities, on condition of complete transparency, instead of someone getting a contract off the back of a nod and a wink, with a brown envelope thrown in to clinch a deal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

ROI is 27,000 sq miles with 26 (?) counties and councils

SC is 32,000 sq miles with 46 counties and councils


i dont see the problem

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's because on average rural communities like the community you are joining cannot support a level of services equivalent to that in Dublin, but do not feel that they should be left with no services either - and those of us who pay taxes in Dublin are willing to subsidise them so that they have more in the way of services than they can afford (even though, unlike you, we'll never see any benefit from it at all). I'm not sure what your poorer neighbours would do if your model was adopted in Donegal - but we're never realistically likely to find out.

regards,
Scofflaw

Sulmac

Overheal wrote: »

ROI is 27,000 sq miles with 26 (?) counties and councils

SC is 32,000 sq miles with 46 counties and councils


i dont see the problem

34 county and city councils (upper tier), 80 town and borough councils (lower tier).

Cool Mo D

The big problem with councils stems from the imbalance between councils responsibilities and their accountability.

Think of it this way. Councils are not responsible for raising any taxes in this country that affect the average person. They exist entirely on central government money, and rates, which the normal person does not have to pay. Therefore, if they piss away all their money, it is the national government that is going to be on the hook. Everyone knows that 'real' power rests with central government, and if local government turns to muck, it won't be them paying the cost.

What needs to happen is that local government should be responsible for raising and spending money independent central government. Therefore, if you're local government makes a mess of it, you get burned. After a few scandals, I believe that people will start to pay a lot more attention to who exactly gets into power in county hall.

Also, central government jealously holds onto power in this country - local government is seen as a training ground for up-and-comers, along with being a dumping ground for no-hopers with connections to the local political machine. Forcing the electorate to pay attention to them, or else, can only change it for the better.

In the medium term, local government should have control over licensing laws, including opening hours, local transport planning, and many other local issues that should vary from place to place.

But this can never happen until local government is taken seriously, which means standing on it's own two feet, and being moved away from the begging bowl mentality, of spending as much central government money as possible.

thebman

dan_d wrote: »

Some days it feels like the whole bloody show is crumbling down around our ears........I find myself wondering more and more frequently lately why the hell we don't have more qualified people running for government, instead of the endless stream of Lawyers/teachers and randomers. Would it be too much to ask that a few nurses/doctors/engineers/economists/accountants etc try to get into Gov in this god-forsaken hell hole? People who actually solve problems for a living and maybe have some experience of what's going on out there????
(I'm feeling extremely pessimistic today! )

When some public servants have their positions kept for them when in politics, is it really any surprise we end up with them dominating our politics?

Its not democracy when one sector doesn't have to worry about what they will do if they don't make it.

It seems we need complete reform from the top down of our political system ATM. Wh

Overheal

Sulmac wrote: »

34 county and city councils (upper tier), 80 town and borough councils (lower tier).

i dont even know how many councils SC has but I can say theres at least 1 per county if not more per metro area.

edit: http://www.state.sc.us/cogs/

perhaps more streamlined then? idk. There appear to be 46 county councils, 10 regional councils, and im sure a number of city councils not listed here. Just about anything classed as a city should have one. So these should all have a council, and the list of towns would have town councils (for example the Bluffton town council or Columbia city council): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_South_Carolina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_in_South_Carolina

long story short I dont think the problem is the structure, its the implementation.

irishh_bob

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'd be all for taking pot-hole repairs away from the remit of the local authority, especially if they all "repair" potholes like they do in Kerry.

Shovelling a bit of tarmac into a hole, flattening it a bit (sometimes rolling the wheels of a truck over it two or three times:eek:), then having the rain wash it out 10 minutes later, is pure genius.

A complete cretin, given a few quid, could do a proper job.

its called the band - aid methood

Euro_Kraut

Donegalfella, what is your source that 2/3 of the Swedish Road Network is maintained by the private sector?

anymore

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The big problem with councils stems from the imbalance between councils responsibilities and their accountability.

Think of it this way. Councils are not responsible for raising any taxes in this country that affect the average person. They exist entirely on central government money, and rates, which the normal person does not have to pay. Therefore, if they piss away all their money, it is the national government that is going to be on the hook. Everyone knows that 'real' power rests with central government, and if local government turns to muck, it won't be them paying the cost.

What needs to happen is that local government should be responsible for raising and spending money independent central government. Therefore, if you're local government makes a mess of it, you get burned. After a few scandals, I believe that people will start to pay a lot more attention to who exactly gets into power in county hall.

Also, central government jealously holds onto power in this country - local government is seen as a training ground for up-and-comers, along with being a dumping ground for no-hopers with connections to the local political machine. Forcing the electorate to pay attention to them, or else, can only change it for the better.

In the medium term, local government should have control over licensing laws, including opening hours, local transport planning, and many other local issues that should vary from place to place.

But this can never happen until local government is taken seriously, which means standing on it's own two feet, and being moved away from the begging bowl mentality, of spending as much central government money as possible.

Giving Councils more revenue will simply let Councils continue to wastefully squander local tax money - it will do nothing whatsoever to make Councils efficent.

Overheal

anymore wrote: »

Giving Councils more revenue will simply let Councils continue to wastefully squander local tax money - it will do nothing whatsoever to make Councils efficent.

Do county councils not collect an independent county tax?

anymore

Overheal wrote: »

Do county councils not collect an independent county tax?

Motor car tax is paid to the County Authority and they also levy rates on commercial businesses and commercial water taxes also, I believe. Some authorities also collect local parking taxes and all local authorities get a block grant from the government.

Overheal

Well then structure and financing dont sound like the issue. There you have a case of (you guessed it) ineffective, even greedy bearaucrats getting elected in for the leather chair.

As for accountability and re: floods theres clearly a lot of additional work to be done in rounding out which level of government is responsible for what.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Looks good, and the premises are certainly reasonable. We've got less road per head than the Swedes, and a less urbanised population. Admittedly, we don't have a tradition of communal road ownership (which was a feature of Sweden even in the Viking era), but that's hardly a reason not to try it.

There would certainly be other advantages - communal pride and dignity, if nothing else.

cordially,
Scofflaw

AlekSmart

There would certainly be other advantages - communal pride and dignity, if nothing else.

Crikey Scofflaw..you`re not suggesting some form of "Greater Good" principle here are you...?

We`ll have less of that sort of thing now !!!

Scofflaw

AlekSmart wrote: »

Crikey Scofflaw..you`re not suggesting some form of "Greater Good" principle here are you...?

We`ll have less of that sort of thing now !!!

Oh, I'm deeply in favour of both local self-reliance and choice - just not to the extent that I believe that it will work, must work, shall work just because I'm in favour of it...you get older, you realise that there are limits to what you can achieve by any method, that nearly everything takes a hell of a lot more work than you might think, including the market, freedom, and democracy, and that the reason why the "simple and obvious solution" you see so clearly isn't in use is not because of ideological blindness but because it doesn't bloody work, or at least not without so much trouble the people it's supposed to benefit wouldn't really benefit. There's a reason why the clever people aren't usually in charge.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SlabMurphy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You could well be right, but as I said in my previous post " Not taking away the share of the blame of the ineptitude/cronyism of the councils ". But is it not a direct product of the mindset of pure captialism is that you are entitled to maxise your profits by cultivating friends in high places, and in turn your friends in high places are in turn entitled to maximise their personal wealth regardless of moral or civic duty ?

Unregulated capitalism? You do realise that state planners approved all of these estates, roads, and hotels, and that the government gave developers tax breaks to build them?

Yes unregulated capitalism. If Seanie, Fingers and co. were properly regulated from recklessly chucking money right, left and centre in the first palce, the state planners wouldn't have had to give the nod to these ' bright ideas ' which has resulted in the zombie estates, hotels and probably zombie roads also ?

Indeed, if a few years ago the state authorites had expressed reservations about the zombie estates, hotels going up all over the place, you'd have been one of the first on here complaining that once again the hand of the state was blocking development and prosperity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you would also oppose the use of grants and tax breaks for R&D, and for the development of new industry such as renewables? And do you believe that only corporatist governments make use of these things - or are you once again trying to pass off a particular and objectionable piece of quasi-corruption on the part of a particular party as a general feature of a specific style of government?

regards,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ejmaztec

anymore wrote: »

Giving Councils more revenue will simply let Councils continue to wastefully squander local tax money - it will do nothing whatsoever to make Councils efficent.

I wouldn't trust any of them to hold back on the spending, or even attempt to strive for efficiency. The local authorities seem to be local clubs for jolly old pals, with unhindered access to an endless supply of funds.

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As an aside to illustrate the state of hotel industry-

Some of these zombie hotels are adapting. This past good Friday, I visited nightclub in County Waterford that had recently opened in the base of a troubled hotel. They charged 9 euro a night and had advertisements all over the club pointing this out. I didn't quite get the business plan until closing time; dozens of drunken couples queuing up fumbling for change in their pockets:D

Now if that isn't innovation I don't know what is!