Red C Poll

oscarBravo

CramCycle wrote: »

Seems like a job for the council, report a pothole, get them to fill it. Apply for a medical card, get it or if it gets refused, apply to see are your exceptional circumstances, that you think are applicable, valid and either get refused again or have it accepted.

Not sure how it's even possible for a TD to get involved (although I have no doubt it has been done).

This is a point I've made before about TDs getting people medical cards, or planning permission, or whatever:

If you're entitled to something, but you can't get it without intercession from a member of parliament, then the system is broken and needs to be fixed so that you can get what you're entitled to.

If you're not entitled to something, but get it as a result of intercession from a member of parliament, then the system is broken and needs to be fixed so that you can't get what you're not entitled to.

Either way, if a TD is "getting" you something - other than getting broken systems fixed - then the system remains broken.

Quin_Dub

CramCycle wrote: »

Seems like a job for the council, report a pothole, get them to fill it. Apply for a medical card, get it or if it gets refused, apply to see are your exceptional circumstances, that you think are applicable, valid and either get refused again or have it accepted.

Not sure how it's even possible for a TD to get involved (although I have no doubt it has been done).

If there were less TDs, they would not be able to focus on rubbish like this.

Totally agree on us having too many TDs

Should be 1 TD for every ~100k of population - Something in the 50 to 60 seat range , with possibly some allowances being made for geography bringing it a little higher.

166 or 158 is just too many.. With that number the majority are back-benchers with nothing to do at national level.

If you had more like 60 or so , all of them would by default have to be fully focused on National/Strategic issues and you could push the local stuff back down to the council level where it belongs.

With a Dail of ~60 the question of direct election vs. a list system becomes a valid discussion (which it isn't at current numbers)

****

Back to the Original topic - I think that the current Opinion poll results are less a vote against "the system" and more a vote against the current players..

I'm pretty confident that if you asked all those that said that they planned to vote Independent who specifically they planned to vote for the answer from quite a large number would be "I don't know" or "Someone like *Insert name of high profile Indy that isn't in their constituency*".

Which all in all just means that we have a very large number of floating/undecided voters that will go whatever way the wind is blowing in 12-15 months time..

For Reals

Quin_Dub wrote: »

....

Which all in all just means that we have a very large number of floating/undecided voters that will go whatever way the wind is blowing in 12-15 months time..

They're generally undecided because the main parties are not in the business of improving the system that feeds them and theirs so well.
Often I've found myself having to pick the lesser of several incompetent evils. It's not which way the wind is blowing more a lack of a decent alternative. So sometimes picking random indies rather than nepotistic greasy politicos is the only option.
As long as there are people who will support a political party like a football team, (because my Da did/win, lose or draw) the country will be cursed with the FF/FG cancer. Why would FF/FG change anything? They'll get 'X' amount of votes even if they ate babies. We should all be floating voters.

alaimacerc

For Reals wrote: »

Often I've found myself having to pick the lesser of several incompetent evils.

Welcome to your friendly neighbourhood political system!

So sometimes picking random indies rather than nepotistic greasy politicos is the only option.

Isn't that more like voting for the lesser-known evil, as opposed the actual lesser evil?

alaimacerc

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We need a true bi-cameral government - the Dail can focus on national issues and the Seanad can sort out local matters;

How do you do that? Separate powers for each? Different modes of election? The above is also the reverse of the present situation, so you're not merely reforming or strengthening the distinction, you're flipping it.

cut the councils down and abolish the local authorities.

Not following what you mean here, or the distinction you're making. Do you want larger, merged council areas? Councils with (further!) reduced powers and functions? Areas run directly by central government?

alaimacerc

CramCycle wrote: »

It's a fundamental flaw of having too many TDs for the size of our population. They have to pander to get reelected.

That doesn't follow at all. If you keep MMC-STV, unmodified except that the constituencies are thrice the size, how does that prevent or even disincentivise "pandering"? They'd get tired out trying, or something?

FreudianSlippers

alaimacerc wrote: »

How do you do that? Separate powers for each? Different modes of election? The above is also the reverse of the present situation, so you're not merely reforming or strengthening the distinction, you're flipping it.

The Dail effectively stays the same, but TDs are only really involved in national politics (electorally, they would be from a bigger pool - I don't think some idiot should get elected because s/he is the best of a bad bunch in your area).

The Seanad becomes the Bundesrat effectively, where the elected officials from the Local Authorities meet to deal with local-focused policy.

Not following what you mean here, or the distinction you're making. Do you want larger, merged council areas? Councils with (further!) reduced powers and functions? Areas run directly by central government?

I wasn't too clear and in fairness, the Local Government Reform Act 2014 went a long way to trimming the fat.

Effectively, where there is any of what the refer to as "two-tier structure", the lower tier is cut off (i.e. the abolition of town councils) and the local authorities or councils or whatever you want to call them are culled and really only deal with local issues - things like national provision of water are dealt with on a national scale.

For Reals

alaimacerc wrote: »

Welcome to your friendly neighbourhood political system!

True.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Isn't that more like voting for the lesser-known evil, as opposed the actual lesser evil?

Depends on the person. Generally you'd have some insight to their background and record....so far.

alaimacerc

For Reals wrote: »

Depends on the person. Generally you'd have some insight to their background and record....so far.

I've found a tremendous number of indies on my ballot papers that not only have I not heard anything about in the media, they're opaque to googling. Maybe I just don't get out enough. Absent any evidence otherwise, I tend to assume they're either far-right conservatives or "local strokes for local folks" types, and avoid at all costs.

Godge

alaimacerc wrote: »

I've found a tremendous number of indies on my ballot papers that not only have I not heard anything about in the media, they're opaque to googling. Maybe I just don't get out enough. Absent any evidence otherwise, I tend to assume they're either far-right conservatives or "local strokes for local folks" types, and avoid at all costs.

There have been some rather scary ones as well.

Quin_Dub

For Reals wrote: »

Often I've found myself having to pick the lesser of several incompetent evils. It's not which way the wind is blowing more a lack of a decent alternative. So sometimes picking random indies rather than nepotistic greasy politicos is the only option.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Welcome to your friendly neighbourhood political system!


Isn't that more like voting for the lesser-known evil, as opposed the actual lesser evil?

I think it's a bit of both - Before they went into Government the Greens used to be the "Anyone but" transfer option when looking down the list of the usual suspects.. but their stint in Gov' lost them that status..

That spot now being filled by "Independents" - I think what happens is people vote for what they see as the least offensive of the main party candidates and then start looking for a random Indy to give a transfer to.... You still have to weed out the nutters from the Independent list , but under PR, non-extremist Independents will always do ok.

They are doing better than OK in opinion polls right now as people are struggling to pick their "least offensive" option (partly because they don't have to just yet)..

I still think however, that when people are standing in the polling booth they are less likely to give a number 1 to Independents than the current polls suggest - they'll still give a transfer to them though , but that might not stop those guys getting eliminated in later counts.

alaimacerc

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Dail effectively stays the same, but TDs are only really involved in national politics (electorally, they would be from a bigger pool - I don't think some idiot should get elected because s/he is the best of a bad bunch in your area).

The Seanad becomes the Bundesrat effectively, where the elected officials from the Local Authorities meet to deal with local-focused policy.

I'm not at all clear how this avoids TDs remaining embedded in shameless localism. If anything it might worsen it, as they now have to "compete" with their local senator doing so, who might be itching to replace them, if the dynamic is anything like the present senate.

Effectively, where there is any of what the refer to as "two-tier structure", the lower tier is cut off (i.e. the abolition of town councils) and the local authorities or councils or whatever you want to call them are culled and really only deal with local issues - things like national provision of water are dealt with on a national scale.

That does indeed sound not unlike where we are at present. Have to see how it "beds down".

Personally, I suspect that many county councils are "undersized" in a way that acts against meaningful local devolution. That means either merging still more councils (cue howls of outrage regarding "our traditional counties"), or beefing up the regional authorities to have a meaningful coordinating role (outrage regarding excess "tiers" again). Or most likely, no real extra powers for local councils at all.

alaimacerc

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I still think however, that when people are standing in the polling booth they are less likely to give a number 1 to Independents than the current polls suggest - they'll still give a transfer to them though , but that might not stop those guys getting eliminated in later counts.

If transfers were fishes, we'd all ride! As I think Benjamin J. Grimm once said. Certainly I certainly started looking for any possible low-preference transfer, to indies or otherwise, when Leo Varadkar (I wonder what happened to him?) announced "we're going for an overall majority".

It's near-impossible to divine what's in the minds of people currently saying they'll give their #1 to an independent. As impossible for the "pro-independent" posters as it is for anyone else. If you want to vote for a left-wing independent (because Labour are traitors, SF are nasty nationalists, and let's not be losing the run and voting for a Trot), and your local independents are actually Rossite free-marketeers, assorted social conservatives, and some local randomer with no policies whatsoever, is that really going to happen? Mutatis mutandis with any permutation of the above. Or if that 29% goes five different ways, if by some miracles all exist, and everyone saying they will now actually does vote for them.

FreudianSlippers

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not at all clear how this avoids TDs remaining embedded in shameless localism. If anything it might worsen it, as they now have to "compete" with their local senator doing so, who might be itching to replace them, if the dynamic is anything like the present senate.


That does indeed sound not unlike where we are at present. Have to see how it "beds down".

Personally, I suspect that many county councils are "undersized" in a way that acts against meaningful local devolution. That means either merging still more councils (cue howls of outrage regarding "our traditional counties"), or beefing up the regional authorities to have a meaningful coordinating role (outrage regarding excess "tiers" again). Or most likely, no real extra powers for local councils at all.

Our country is too small for meaningful devolution IMHO. My point was simply to purpose the Seanad with dealing with local issues and let the Dail carry on worrying about national legislation. It's effectively making use of what we already have as opposed to having massive layers of bureaucracy

Quin_Dub

alaimacerc wrote: »

If transfers were fishes, we'd all ride! As I think Benjamin J. Grimm once said. Certainly I certainly started looking for any possible low-preference transfer, to indies or otherwise, when Leo Varadkar (I wonder what happened to him?) announced "we're going for an overall majority".

It's near-impossible to divine what's in the minds of people currently saying they'll give their #1 to an independent. As impossible for the "pro-independent" posters as it is for anyone else. If you want to vote for a left-wing independent (because Labour are traitors, SF are nasty nationalists, and let's not be losing the run and voting for a Trot), and your local independents are actually Rossite free-marketeers, assorted social conservatives, and some local randomer with no policies whatsoever, is that really going to happen? Mutatis mutandis with any permutation of the above. Or if that 29% goes five different ways, if by some miracles all exist, and everyone saying they will now actually does vote for them.

Don't disagree at all - Not sure how a lot of people can truly say that they'll vote Number 1 for Independents 15 months out from an election , because other than the already elected ones who the hell knows who or what will be on my voting card come the GE in terms of "Non-aligned" Candidates...

alaimacerc

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Our country is too small for meaningful devolution IMHO.

People approvingly cite Switzerland, a country only about twice the population of Ireland. Often in the context of "let's have more referenda so we can say 'no' to still more of everything", but it's an interesting comparison in regards to devolution, too. It has meaningful devolution to two lower levels: canton and commune. Can't Ireland manage one?

My point was simply to purpose the Seanad with dealing with local issues and let the Dail carry on worrying about national legislation.

There's what the Dáil does (or is supposed to do), and there's the antics of individual TDs. Not clear how this would advance the latter.

Godge

alaimacerc wrote: »

If transfers were fishes, we'd all ride! As I think Benjamin J. Grimm once said. Certainly I certainly started looking for any possible low-preference transfer, to indies or otherwise, when Leo Varadkar (I wonder what happened to him?) announced "we're going for an overall majority".

It's near-impossible to divine what's in the minds of people currently saying they'll give their #1 to an independent. As impossible for the "pro-independent" posters as it is for anyone else. If you want to vote for a left-wing independent (because Labour are traitors, SF are nasty nationalists, and let's not be losing the run and voting for a Trot), and your local independents are actually Rossite free-marketeers, assorted social conservatives, and some local randomer with no policies whatsoever, is that really going to happen? Mutatis mutandis with any permutation of the above. Or if that 29% goes five different ways, if by some miracles all exist, and everyone saying they will now actually does vote for them.

Amazingly, there are people on here who will just vote independent for the sake of it without any reference to policies.

alaimacerc

Godge wrote: »

Amazingly, there are people on here who will just vote independent for the sake of it without any reference to policies.

That does seem to be the implication of the argument being advanced by some. I doubt it's a large element of the 29% in the opinion poll, though.

conorh91

CramCycle wrote: »

Not sure how it's even possible for a TD to get involved (although I have no doubt it has been done).

Brian Lenihan Senior used to say that 90% of people in his clinics had problems which were emendable simply by filling out the correct forms or coughing up the correct fee. The other 10% were impossible.

I suspect those proportions have changed only slightly.

TDs are likely to be pissed off about spending their time dwelling on medical cards or welfare payments to which constituents are entitled via the correct channels. I think a significant problem is that favour-seeking has become a bad habit of voters. Some members of the public no longer have the willingness to go through the motions themselves, and see the local TD as a first resort. It's a sort of civic laziness. I think it depresses politicians as much as anyone.

The complaint about civic lethargy is not intended to downplay the responsibility of the weak political architecture and the political-party dominance that emasculates individual TDs. All of these factors are to blame, and they're all wound up in each other.

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

Brian Lenihan Senior used to say that 90% of people in his clinics had problems which were emendable simply by filling out the correct forms or coughing up the correct fee. The other 10% were impossible.

I suspect those proportions have changed only slightly.

TDs are likely to be pissed off about spending their time dwelling on medical cards or welfare payments to which constituents are entitled via the correct channels. I think a significant problem is that favour-seeking has become a bad habit of voters. Some members of the public no longer have the willingness to go through the motions themselves, and see the local TD as a first resort. It's a sort of civic laziness. I think it depresses politicians as much as anyone.

The complaint about civic lethargy is not intended to downplay the responsibility of the weak political architecture and the political-party dominance that emasculates individual TDs. All of these factors are to blame, and they're all wound up in each other.

I would posit the reverse- politicians are only too glad to help constituents get their entitlements. The problem is they never tell those people that but behave as if they had to move mountain to get the job done .

CramCycle

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not at all clear how this avoids TDs remaining embedded in shameless localism. If anything it might worsen it, as they now have to "compete" with their local senator doing so, who might be itching to replace them, if the dynamic is anything like the present senate.

How do they compete with someone going for something different to what they are going for?

I would like to see a group like an election commision who slap the wrists of anyone caught on record saying they will do something that is not in their remit. eg a person running for TD says they will get a road fixed, hand slapped, fine and repeated breaches means they are removed from the ballot. If a local councillor says they will draw the local authoritys attention to the state of said road, that's fine.

Personally, I suspect that many county councils are "undersized" in a way that acts against meaningful local devolution. That means either merging still more councils (cue howls of outrage regarding "our traditional counties"), or beefing up the regional authorities to have a meaningful coordinating role (outrage regarding excess "tiers" again). Or most likely, no real extra powers for local councils at all.

Undersized? Possibly in the major cities (I have no idea, just guessing) but the likes of Longford council are far from undersized (I do know). There are more than enough staff to handle meaningful devolution, all they need is an accountable manager.

alaimacerc

marienbad wrote: »

I would posit the reverse- politicians are only too glad to help constituents get their entitlements. The problem is they never tell those people that but behave as if they had to move mountain to get the job done .

Friend of mine has an anecdote about a certain politician who allegedly used to go around his constituency telling people unsolicitedly that he'd got them a phone! (Back when there was a backlog or waiting list for landlines.) ... having just got hold of the list of phone connections due to be made, entirely independently of himself.

alaimacerc

CramCycle wrote: »

How do they compete with someone going for something different to what they are going for?

You spend your term as a senator stumping on an unashamedly localist basis, and then run as a TD saying "look at my great local record". Much as they do at present, but this proposal would exacerbate the problem by giving them a "legitimate" role and set of powers to do the localist grandstanding on the basis of.

I would like to see a group like an election commision who slap the wrists of anyone caught on record saying they will do something that is not in their remit.

It's always problematic to leave this sort of thing in the hands of officials. At one extreme, it's just the price of doing business. Pay the fine, move into your generously-salaried post. At the other, it's extrademocratic meddling. Think of your favourite example from the Middle East (Israel included!) and banning of candidates from running.

Undersized? Possibly in the major cities (I have no idea, just guessing) but the likes of Longford council are far from undersized (I do know). There are more than enough staff to handle meaningful devolution, all they need is an accountable manager.

Longford is an excellent case in point. "Devolution" to 39,000 people is a little bit of a joke, no? With the same set of powers being devolved to large counties and major cities? A regional authority would make a lot more sense in that... well, region.

marienbad

alaimacerc wrote: »

Friend of mine has an anecdote about a certain politician who allegedly used to go around his constituency telling people unsolicitedly that he'd got them a phone! (Back when there was a backlog or waiting list for landlines.) ... having just got hold of the list of phone connections due to be made, entirely independently of himself.

I knew of a guy who was approached by a load of different people about a gardeners job with the council , he charged each and everyone of the money and promised he would do what even he could but could not guarantee it.

The job went to the guy it was earmarked for from day I and then he went back to all those supplicants and spun a yarn about how hard he had worked but to no avail. They all taught he was a hero.

They all laughed about it in the pub afterwards just Like Lenihan (I think it was)on the Late Late Show throwing request in the bin unread.

CramCycle

alaimacerc wrote: »

You spend your term as a senator stumping on an unashamedly localist basis, and then run as a TD saying "look at my great local record". Much as they do at present, but this proposal would exacerbate the problem by giving them a "legitimate" role and set of powers to do the localist grandstanding on the basis of.

I never suggested that the Seanad get involved with local issues, I think that was another poster, that's not their job. A bit of reform such as the removing of those elected by the Taoiseach, and in general, set criteria for the election of a person to certain panels, be that educational or proven work experience. I am not sure how elections to these positions would be made which maybe where my plan falls down, but I think it could be done.

The local record you refer to, as mentioned in a previous post, is a matter for a mix from the council and local councillors not TDs and not for senators.

It's always problematic to leave this sort of thing in the hands of officials. At one extreme, it's just the price of doing business. Pay the fine, move into your generously-salaried post. At the other, it's extrademocratic meddling. Think of your favourite example from the Middle East (Israel included!) and banning of candidates from running.

But its not, if the rules are there you will find that bar parties ganging up on each other if oversight is provided by an independent panel and all complaints are reviewed, it should work. I am not referring to banning people with specific opinons or leanings, but discplining those who knowingly and openly mislead the electorate. As examples above go, alot of people in Ireland still think that some elected officials can do alot more than they can or than they should.

Longford is an excellent case in point. "Devolution" to 39,000 people is a little bit of a joke, no? With the same set of powers being devolved to large counties and major cities? A regional authority would make a lot more sense in that... well, region.

To a degree you are right, but geographically it makes sense as their is infrastructure and a base in place. What it does need is proper management, one that can make local government more efficient, rather than the bulbous waste that it is in Longford. Taking the list from their website:

Arts Office - local and regional
Civil Defence - moved to a more regional (midlands) authority with a small response unit in the centre
Corporate Affairs - local and regional
Community & Enterprise - local
Cultural and Heritage - local
Customer Services - regional, one small group could handle 99% of customer service issues with a phone book, as well as deal with complaints procedures without being swayed by local feeling
Elections & Voting - Nationally controlled
Environment - mixture of regional and national
Finance - local and regional
Fire Service - regional, with the exception of the fire brigade itself, all other services provided could be done on a regional level.
Housing - local and regional, to be able to co-ordinate plans on a more useful basis
Human Resources - local and regional
Information Technology - regional
Longford Sports Partnership - local
Motoring - national, why the hell do the local council have anything to do with this, pay by post or online but should have nothing to do with the council
Planning - Should be covered by the planning authority with council and people of interest only allowed to make submissions, never to overthrow the decisions of the planning authority.
Roads - National
Water Services - National (site updated to reflect this).

Just my opinion though, more research would be needed, obviously.

conorh91

marienbad wrote: »

I would posit the reverse- politicians are only too glad to help constituents get their entitlements.

With respect I think this view is either naive or else too truncated. Politicians are only "glad' of this work insofar as most of them have no other work to be doing. If they weren't working on pre-existing entitlements, they'd be twiddling their thumbs in pressing green/red buttons and attending funerals, and they're not crazy about the latter either.

I think all TDs and Senators would prefer to be involved in policymaking and legislating. I think a great many TDs are pissed off about the work they do, even if they find themselves with no other option but to embrace it, in the hope that they will one day be promoted to a genuinely political role.

How many FG and Labour backbenchers are there; around 60 I suppose? Government might as well replace them with junior civil servants, because a vast bulk of the work they are doing is the work of junior civil servants. Anyone who thinks these TDs are happy with such a role is kidding themselves.

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

With respect I think this view is either naive or else too truncated. Politicians are only "glad' of this work insofar as most of them have no other work to be doing. If they weren't working on pre-existing entitlements, they'd be twiddling their thumbs in pressing green/red buttons and attending funerals, and they're not crazy about the latter either.

I think all TDs and Senators would prefer to be involved in policymaking and legislating. I think a great many TDs are pissed off about the work they do, even if they find themselves with no other option but to embrace it, in the hope that they will one day be promoted to a genuinely political role.

How many FG and Labour backbenchers are there; around 60 I suppose? Government might as well replace them with junior civil servants, because a vast bulk of the work they are doing is the work of junior civil servants. Anyone who thinks these TDs are happy with such a role is kidding themselves.

We have no way of really knowing whether they like it or don't , most of them are doing since before they were ever elected and are very good at playing the 'system' .

Those are the type of politicians we elect . A classic example would be Des O'Malley and willy O'Dea . While Des was never in any danger of losing his seat from Day I Willie outperformed him at the polls and why ? Because O'Malley focused almost exclusively on national issues and arguably did 'the state some service' and Willy was and is relentless in the local gripes .

O'Malley couldn't even make it to Europe

conorh91

marienbad wrote: »

A classic example would be Des O'Malley and willy O'Dea . While Des was never in any danger of losing his seat from Day I Willie outperformed him at the polls and why ? Because O'Malley focused almost exclusively on national issues and arguably did 'the state some service' and Willy was and is relentless in the local gripes .

This is not inconsistent with what I'm saying. I don't deny that backbenchers undertake civil-service tasks for their constituents, and I already said it does go down well in the clinics and at the ballot box.

Having said that, your examples are more blurry because both men were Ministers at different times and O'Malley was unpopular for all sorts of reasons, especially in the Fianna Fáil strongholds of Munster, which explains his inability to secure a European seat.

But to return to the point: if given the choice, politicians would prefer to be doing legislative work. I doubt anybody seriously likes babysitting medical card applications. Not even the people whose job it is, I suspect.

Quin_Dub

conorh91 wrote: »

This is not inconsistent with what I'm saying. I don't deny that backbenchers undertake civil-service tasks for their constituents, and I already said it does go down well in the clinics and at the ballot box.

Having said that, your examples are more blurry because both men were Ministers at different times and O'Malley was unpopular for all sorts of reasons, especially in the Fianna Fáil strongholds of Munster, which explains his inability to secure a European seat.

But to return to the point: if given the choice, politicians would prefer to be doing legislative work. I doubt anybody seriously likes babysitting medical card applications. Not even the people whose job it is, I suspect.

Exactly - Having the better part of two thirds of elected TD's doing nothing substantive in terms of legislative/policy work is utterly stupid.

At a rough guess there about 35-40 TD' on the government side actively involved (Minister, Jr Minister , Sitting on a some committees). In opposition you have less than that if you total up the "Shadow ministers" and committee members - So 60-70 out of 166 actually doing National work in our National parliament.

As I said earlier - 1 TD per 100k of population with a bit of tweaking for geographical coverage and you have a Dail of 60 or so - Which based on the above estimates is all you really need to fill all of the national roles that are needed/available.

alaimacerc

CramCycle wrote: »

I never suggested that the Seanad get involved with local issues, I think that was another poster, that's not their job.

Yeah, another poster, but that's what you appeared to be commenting on. Their suggestion was that you "solve" Dáil localism by giving the Seanad a local role, to in some way "ringfence" TDs from having one. I suggested that would worsen the problem, because you now have an even more virulently localist party (or other) rival to potentially compete with.

But its not, if the rules are there you will find that bar parties ganging up on each other if oversight is provided by an independent panel and all complaints are reviewed, it should work. I am not referring to banning people with specific opinons or leanings, but discplining those who knowingly and openly mislead the electorate.

And that's inevitably going to be a subjective judgement, and inevitably going to be open to abuse as soon as you empower someone to make such judgements.

To a degree you are right, but geographically it makes sense as their is infrastructure and a base in place. What it does need is proper management, one that can make local government more efficient, rather than the bulbous waste that it is in Longford.

I don't think there's anything magical about county boundaries, and infrastructure isn't forever. The real question is, which services are better under local (or regional) democratic control, and at what level or critical mass?

Service "delivery" is I think a secondary consideration: if it's purely simply a matter of local offices or decentralisation that can be done with or without formal devolution, according to whichever is the handiest. There is, as you point out, no relationship between local democracy and where you might want to pop into to get your motor tax disk.