General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

DFGrange

I thought Ireland had it's populism moment during the Irish Water protests, a great lesson for all you'd think, and we got off lightly. Now there are signs of a more sinister and familiar populism taking root.



Is the traditionally socialist base in Ireland going to split to the alt-right in the way it has in the US and UK?

markodaly

Irish populism has always been front and center of Irish politics.
Just look at the history of FF to take the most obvious example.
A party that is all things to all people and will spend big come election time when it comes to winning those extra seats.

I would go further and say Irish people in general are quite populist in their outlook.
We all want reform and change, until that reform or change negatively impacts on us. Everything from the Health service, to policing, to planning and housing comes under this.

An obvious example is our insane way we develop rural Ireland with tens of thousands of one off houses. That is a populist policy as no one in their right mind thinks that this is actually better for the country and society as a whole, but it is popular with certain people, so the policy largely remains.

high_king

Populism is spun by all parties and politicians in Ireland every day of the week.

high_king

markodaly wrote: »

An obvious example is our insane way we develop rural Ireland with tens of thousands of one off houses. That is a populist policy as no one in their right mind thinks that this is actually better for the country and society as a whole, but it is popular with certain people, so the policy largely remains.

Actually all that is, is a false populist spin against so called "rural" Ireland.

markodaly

high_king wrote: »

Actually all that is, is a false populist spin against so called "rural" Ireland.

Developing rural Ireland with one-off housing is not a good idea.

If you can find me any international evidenced-based study to prove otherwise, then be my guest.

We know that its detrimental to the development of the country, the social fabric of villages, the environment, the costly provisioning of services, yet we persist with it because it's popular with some.

It is THE definition of a populist policy.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

Developing rural Ireland with one-off housing is not a good idea.

If you can find me any international evidenced-based study to prove otherwise, then be my guest.

We know that its detrimental to the development of the country, the social fabric of villages, the environment, the costly provisioning of services, yet we persist with it because it's popular with some.

It is THE definition of a populist policy.

Dispersed housing is a cultural thing probably due to the fact that Ireland didn't have an industrial revolution where everyone migrated to a city.


I'm from a rural area and the way it worked when all these houses were built was that landowners/farmers would have given the labourers on the farm a plot and the County Council would have then built the houses. Most these sites were of a decent size (to grow some food), but now you will find that their children have built houses on them as well. I look at the local village now (which is surrounded by farmland). If the farmer doesn't want to sell their land for building, there is nothing you can do about it.

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

Dispersed housing is a cultural thing probably due to the fact that Ireland didn't have an industrial revolution.


I'm from a rural area and the way it worked when all these houses were built was that landowners/farmers would have given the labourers on the farm a plot and the County Council would have then built the houses. Most these sites were of a decent size (to grow some food), but now you will find that their children have built houses on them as well. I look at the local village now (which is surrounded by farmland). If the farmer doesn't want to sell their land for building, there is nothing you can do about it.

Yeap, if only we could CPO land for the greater good of community or society.

If only we had that provision. :rolleyes:

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

Yeap, if only we could CPO land for the greater good of community or society.

If only we had that provision. :rolleyes:

Whatever. My point remains, it is a cultural thing, not a populist thing.

CPOs would only work for social housing. It doesn't work for private individuals who end up building their own homes on their parents plots.

CrabRevolution

jm08 wrote: »

Whatever. My point remains, it is a cultural thing, not a populist thing.

CPOs would only work for social housing. It doesn't work for private individuals who end up building their own homes on their parents plots.

It might have started as a cultural thing, but it's been let run out of control as a populist thing. TDs decades ago realised it was a goldmine for votes to be seen to "have a word" and secure Planning Permisssion for a one off house for a constituent.

In recent years planning regulations and development plans have tightened up on TDs' power to do this, so instead it has shifted to TDs campaigning at government level for people's rights to one off housing. That's the populist part, claiming to be fighting for "the traditional rural way of life" against the big bad.

AllForIt

I can't see how building a house on your own land is in itself populist. I can see how preventing ppl from building on their own land is like some kind of twisted socialist-like dictate, and I don't think arguing against such a policy is populist either.

Dytalus

AllForIt wrote: »

I can't see how building a house on your own land is in itself populist. I can see how preventing ppl from building on their own land is like some kind of twisted socialist-like dictate, and I don't think arguing against such a policy is populist either.

On its own, I've nothing against one off housing.

But when large segments of our population are living spread out over large areas of land, it makes it very difficult for the government to provide amenities to those areas - hastening the growth of the gap between the rural and urban areas of the island. It's better value for money to provide bus services to cities and towns with denser populations. It's likewise easier to maintain reliable water and high speed internet to a hundred people in a single town, than to half that number spread over twice the area.

If people want to live far from population centres so they can afford to build their own house, and own their own strip of land then that's their business. But they have to accept that they're giving up access to a great deal of modern comforts (transport, internet, etc) in doing so. They forfeit any legitimacy when they complain about not having broadband or public transport if they choose to live in a single house ten kilometres from the nearest population centre.

jm08

Dytalus wrote: »

On its own, I've nothing against one off housing.

But when large segments of our population are living spread out over large areas of land, it makes it very difficult for the government to provide amenities to those areas - hastening the growth of the gap between the rural and urban areas of the island. It's better value for money to provide bus services to cities and towns with denser populations. It's likewise easier to maintain reliable water and high speed internet to a hundred people in a single town, than to half that number spread over twice the area.

If people want to live far from population centres so they can afford to build their own house, and own their own strip of land then that's their business. But they have to accept that they're giving up access to a great deal of modern comforts (transport, internet, etc) in doing so. They forfeit any legitimacy when they complain about not having broadband or public transport if they choose to live in a single house ten kilometres from the nearest population centre.

So what do you do with farm families? They need internet access, transport etc.

L1011

jm08 wrote: »

Dispersed housing is a cultural thing probably due to the fact that Ireland didn't have an industrial revolution where everyone migrated to a city.


I'm from a rural area and the way it worked when all these houses were built was that landowners/farmers would have given the labourers on the farm a plot and the County Council would have then built the houses. Most these sites were of a decent size (to grow some food), but now you will find that their children have built houses on them as well. I look at the local village now (which is surrounded by farmland). If the farmer doesn't want to sell their land for building, there is nothing you can do about it.

We didn't have dispersed housing to any great extent in the actual past - you had small clusters. Also, people who work, attend education, socialise and so on in towns never lived in dispersed housing until the 60s "Bungalow Bliss" era.

CrabRevolution

jm08 wrote: »

So what do you do with farm families? They need internet access, transport etc.

The vast majority of one off houses aren't farmers. The number of farmers in Ireland is staying static at best and more likely decreasing, yet there's 1000s of one off houses built every year. It's a myth that they're all agricultural workers building their home close to where they're needed; they're commuting to the local towns and cities by car.

lalababa

Dytalus wrote: »

On its own, I've nothing against one off housing.

But when large segments of our population are living spread out over large areas of land, it makes it very difficult for the government to provide amenities to those areas - hastening the growth of the gap between the rural and urban areas of the island. It's better value for money to provide bus services to cities and towns with denser populations. It's likewise easier to maintain reliable water and high speed internet to a hundred people in a single town, than to half that number spread over twice the area.

If people want to live far from population centres so they can afford to build their own house, and own their own strip of land then that's their business. But they have to accept that they're giving up access to a great deal of modern comforts (transport, internet, etc) in doing so. They forfeit any legitimacy when they complain about not having broadband or public transport if they choose to live in a single house ten kilometres from the nearest population centre.

You'll find it's not transport or internet that gets people's backs up. It's things like ambulances and firebrigades and centralized control centers and Garda stations being unmanned after 8 o'clock. I have no problem with limiting one offs esp. if the small towns have some suburb type development. Cpo's of unused buildings, and land around towns & villages and sold back at a reasonable price. I'd imagine a one off (even with maybe a site from a parent) would be more expensive than buying in a 20 or 30 house suburb, but then again I'd probably be wrong.

jm08

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The vast majority of one off houses aren't farmers. The number of farmers in Ireland is staying static at best and more likely decreasing, yet there's 1000s of one off houses built every year. It's a myth that they're all agricultural workers building their home close to where they're needed; they're commuting to the local towns and cities by car.

You have not answered my question. What do you do with the farm families who are dispersed in the countryside?

James Brown

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Well they should get together and boot them out then, form a government themselves.

But they wont. They're all bluff and hot air.

Talk is cheap.

So you think they are all wrong to call FG out? I would have thought that's the oppositions job?
Bluff and hot air perfectly describes FG's intent on seeing these bills pass. Talk is indeed cheap.

I'm pleased that they are taking action on Fine Gael for this as should any member of the public IMO.
Unlike the FF/FG party some ideologies are not compatible, while FF/FG don't have any, makes it easy for them to partner up.

jm08

lalababa wrote: »

You'll find it's not transport or internet that gets people's backs up. It's things like ambulances and firebrigades and centralized control centers and Garda stations being unmanned after 8 o'clock. I have no problem with limiting one offs esp. if the small towns have some suburb type development. Cpo's of unused buildings, and land around towns & villages and sold back at a reasonable price. I'd imagine a one off (even with maybe a site from a parent) would be more expensive than buying in a 20 or 30 house suburb, but then again I'd probably be wrong.

In fairness, its quite difficult to get planning permission for a one-off house now in desirable areas. In Wicklow for example, you would need to have some connection to the area such as being born, grew up there with family there.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

You have not answered my question. What do you do with the farm families who are dispersed in the countryside?

The point is, there are not that many of them, and alternative solutions are available.

For tillage farmers, for example, is there a necessity to live on site?

CrabRevolution

jm08 wrote: »

You have not answered my question. What do you do with the farm families who are dispersed in the countryside?

You leave them there. I didn't suggest relocating anyone.

James Brown

NIMAN wrote: »

Deleted post.

I always find it odd the the so called populists are so well, unpopular. While the so called safe bets continue to drag us from crisis to crisis and lower the bar for accountability. In my book populism looks like creating a manifesto based on what the people want and need and then gouging the tax payer with the same ol' level of incompetence and arrogance.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I always find it odd the the so called populists are so well, unpopular. While the so called safe bets continue to drag us from crisis to crisis and lower the bar for accountability. In my book populism looks like creating a manifesto based on what the people want and need and then gouging the tax payer with the same ol' level of incompetence and arrogance.

I think you're confused with the word "popular"

Populism /ˈpɒpjʊlɪz(ə)m/

noun

a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

The point is, there are not that many of them, and alternative solutions are available.

For tillage farmers, for example, is there a necessity to live on site?

Well, yes. Beef and tillage usually go together. Crops need to be rotated as well. Then there is the issue of security for all those big tractors, machinery, equipment and livestock. In busy periods such as lambing or calving you need to check your stock regularly through the night. Farms are not like shop or factory that you can just pull shutters down.

jm08

CrabRevolution wrote: »

You leave them there. I didn't suggest relocating anyone.

So you have to put the services in then like broadband, power anyway!

FreudianSlippers

jm08 wrote: »

So what do you do with farm families? They need internet access, transport etc.

IIRC a lot of countries bring the utility to the main roads and then it's up to the rural individual in the one-off house to bring that utility from the main road to the house.

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think you're confused with the word "popular"

Populism /ˈpɒpjʊlɪz(ə)m/

noun

a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

No. It seems you didn't understand my comment.
Wouldn't FF/FG fall into that? Did you read Kenny's 2011 manifesto? It was all about the system being corrupt and ignoring the average punter and favours for bankers and the like. FF will be at same claiming FG are the elites. That's why they need each other to survive and their spin merchants try keep it that way, IMO because parties on single digit support are the 'real' threat.
The other are guilty of same but FF/FG are the masters.

serfboard

Dictionary.com wrote:

any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.

Q: "What does Irish populism look like?"

A: The Healy-Raes. Raging agin' them above in Dublin.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So you think they are all wrong to call FG out? I would have thought that's the oppositions job?
Bluff and hot air perfectly describes FG's intent on seeing these bills pass. Talk is indeed cheap.

I'm pleased that they are taking action on Fine Gael for this as should any member of the public IMO.
Unlike the FF/FG party some ideologies are not compatible, while FF/FG don't have any, makes it easy for them to partner up.

If they believe FG are an unsuitable government, kick them out and form one themselves.

They aren't brave enough to do that.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

If they believe FG are an unsuitable government, kick them out and form one themselves.

They aren't brave enough to do that.

What do the opposition do? If you disagree with them, they should stay quiet?
You are not addressing the point and have given no opinion on it.

jm08

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IIRC a lot of countries bring the utility to the main roads and then it's up to the rural individual in the one-off house to bring that utility from the main road to the house.

That happens in Ireland as well. There are 100s of private water schemes in Ireland.