Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Election 2020 - See MOD note in First Post
Options
Comments
-
I have read the document closely several times. I can identify several massive big-ticket items for other cities, and nothing of note for Waterford-SE. This follows the last two PfGs, and the Ireland2040 policies. Indeed a number of projects that had been highlighted in these documents- ominously no longer appear, which suggests they have slipped back or have died.
"Specifically, the Government will prioritise plans for the delivery of Metrolink, Luas and other light rail expansion, DART expansion, and interconnector and Bus Connects in Dublin, Cork, Galway, and Limerick."
This sentence spends somewhere between €3-4bn. Metrolink is currently costed at €3bn, spending on planning work has already cost €250m.
BusConnect is currently budgeted at €750m.
The Cork Metropolitan Area Transport Strategy envisages a Luas in Cork, cross luas cost €370m. The proposal to "commission an economic evaluation of higher-speed rail links between our main cities" is the start of a plan to build a high-speed rail link from Cork-Dublin.
The Greens fought to kill off the M20 Cork-Limerick motorway (currently costed at €820m-950m), they have slowed it down, but development work will still be funded to start digging in 2025.
There is an entire section of commitments to the Border region each will have a funding element to it. The Midlands is the pilot site for the massive retrofit programme (as a quid-pro-quo for the ending of BNM's Peat harvesting).
It is hard to put a cost against many of the things in the PfG, but if a spreadsheet was produced I would guestimate that the SE, being around 8.9% of the population of the country) is inline to receive around 1% of the identifiable expenditure. Waterford is 2.3% of the country by population.
This PfG is a further disaster for Waterford and the SE.0 -
But doesn't the document also mention that draft transport strategies are being developed for Limerick and Waterford, while also committing to prioritise rail projects in Waterford?0
-
But doesn't the document also mention that draft transport strategies are being developed for Limerick and Waterford, while also committing to prioritise rail projects in Waterford?
Do you mean this sentence?
"We will develop and implement the existing strategies for our cities such as the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy, the Galway Transport Strategy, the draft Cork Metropolitan Area Transport Strategy, as well as strategies being developed for Waterford and Limerick, and other projects progressing through planning."
So draft and implement existing strategies ....Dublin/Galway/Cork.
develop strategy for Waterford and Limerick.
Language matters here. The PfG is non-binding contract. Dublin/Galway/Cork are getting infrastructure. Waterford and Limerick are getting consulting reports.
Further on this is confirmed by this line
"Specifically, the Government will prioritise plans for the delivery of Metrolink, Luasand other light rail expansion, DART expansion and interconnector and Bus Connects in Dublin, Cork, Galway and Limerick"
delivery being the operative word that involves expenditure.
There is some hope in the later line....
"In line with the commitment in the National Planning Framework to balanced regional development, prioritise rail projects in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford on existing and unused lines"
but it is not specific that this is a commitment to moving the railway station. Other projects are specifically named, it is unusual that the plan for a new NQ railway/transport hub was not named if they intended to commit to it.0 -
North Quays is mentioned in Project Ireland 2040, and as previously mentioned there is a commitment to develop the cities of Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Galway as viable alternatives to Dublin, and use Project Ireland 2040 to help regional towns prosper.
I can also understand how draft transport strategies for Limerick and Waterford have to be completed before specific projects yet to be identified can be committed to.0 -
North Quays is mentioned in Project Ireland 2040, and as previously mentioned there is a commitment to develop the cities of Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Galway as viable alternatives to Dublin, and use Project Ireland 2040 to help regional towns prosper.
I can also understand how draft transport strategies for Limerick and Waterford have to be completed before specific projects yet to be identified can be committed to.
You have read this document as a barrister would.... the viable of "viable alternative" means capable or feasible. Strictly this is a commitment to make the idea of an alternative to Dublin possible; so in practice this means to plan for alternative. It is expressly not a commitment to deliver or realise an alternative to Dublin. The funding in this PfG, like Ireland2040 is massively over-weighted towards Dublin (so approx 65% of the money; Dublin being 29% of the population). Metrolink is a good example of the weighting in operation.
I revert to my earlier comment. There are very specific identifiable big-ticket expenditure commitments in this PfG for other city-regions, and virtually no spending commitments to Waterford/SE. We got knifed again.0 -
Advertisement
-
You have read this document as a barrister would.... the viable of "viable alternative" means capable or feasible. Strictly this is a commitment to make the idea of an alternative to Dublin possible; so in practice this means to plan for alternative. It is expressly not a commitment to deliver or realise an alternative to Dublin. The funding in this PfG, like Ireland2040 is massively over-weighted towards Dublin (so approx 65% of the money; Dublin being 29% of the population). Metrolink is a good example of the weighting in operation.
I revert to my earlier comment. There are very specific identifiable big-ticket expenditure commitments in this PfG for other city-regions, and virtually no spending commitments to Waterford/SE. We got knifed again.
I think the document in the main commits to very little generally. It has a lot of language is about reviewing and considering things, which is completely understandable given its purpose.
I don't think your point around specific big ticket projects really stands up.
Cork for example is mentioned 5 times in the document. Waterford is mentioned in the same section 3 times, one where it isn't is the Cork Bus Connects, which I don't think Waterford particularly needs, but it might be something which ends up in whatever Transport Strategy Waterford ends up with. The other is about a Night Mayor.
Waterford is mentioned 6 times in the document. 3 of those are when they're referring to all the other cities, the other 3 are the Cath Lab, the Greenway extension and the opening of a new palliative care facility.
The whole funding v population thing isn't really utilised as a means for determining investment. Not saying it's useless, maybe it should be looked at more, but you might be one of the few people who refer to it.0 -
I don't think your point around specific big ticket projects really stands up.
I think I have identified big-ticket items in transport that are committed to in the PfG. I stand by my comment that we got knifed in this PfG.
I hope I am wrong, and that in a few years time the SE Economic Monitor is lauding the economic transformation of the region.
Population is normally used to determine funding in evidence-based policy. The PfG is pure politics, so might is right. In this document, Cork and Dublin are real winners. Galway is back at the table after being out for a while, Limerick is sticking in there (but not like the glory days of Noonan-O'Sullivan-Moran), and Dublin is massively over-represented. Waterford got knifed0 -
I think I have identified big-ticket items in transport that are committed to in the PfG. I stand by my comment that we got knifed in this PfG.
I hope I am wrong, and that in a few years time the SE Economic Monitor is lauding the economic transformation of the region.
Population is normally used to determine funding in evidence-based policy. The PfG is pure politics, so might is right. In this document, Cork and Dublin are real winners. Galway is back at the table after being out for a while, Limerick is sticking in there (but not like the glory days of Noonan-O'Sullivan-Moran), and Dublin is massively over-represented. Waterford got knifed
I think you've identified one area where Waterford has a strategy in development which could result in some tangible projects being identified. However I don't think transport is a priority issue for Waterford, we thankfully don't suffer from the problems they face in Galway or Cork.
Population of a county, as you've described it, is almost never utilised as part of evidence informed policy. I don't think anyone, with the exception of maybe those lads in WIT, are sitting down and totting up how much Roscommon and Carlow are getting. Maybe they should, but more power to the lads in WIT for trying to lobby.
I don't think you can be knifed by something as blunt as this draft PFG - it's a Frankenstein's Monster. I'm cautiously optimistic about the fact that a Waterford TD was part of a negotiating team that seemed to win a lot of concessions.0 -
I have read the document twice and find myself completely on the Invara side of the argument instead of the Hardybuck side. In case of the latter's posts, I always feel that he/she reads whatever emanates from Dublin/government and accepts it as de facto gospel. Things like the cath lab, the continuation of the Greenway, the opening of the Palliative Care unit have been repeated ad nauseam and are supposed to be already funded. Talking about delivery of things already agreed merely underlines the paucity of plans for Waterford. I am happy to see the matter being teased out.0
-
I think the document in the main commits to very little generally. It has a lot of language is about reviewing and considering things, which is completely understandable given its purpose.
I don't think your point around specific big ticket projects really stands up.
Cork for example is mentioned 5 times in the document. Waterford is mentioned in the same section 3 times, one where it isn't is the Cork Bus Connects, which I don't think Waterford particularly needs, but it might be something which ends up in whatever Transport Strategy Waterford ends up with. The other is about a Night Mayor.
Waterford is mentioned 6 times in the document. 3 of those are when they're referring to all the other cities, the other 3 are the Cath Lab, the Greenway extension and the opening of a new palliative care facility.
The whole funding v population thing isn't really utilised as a means for determining investment. Not saying it's useless, maybe it should be looked at more, but you might be one of the few people who refer to it.I think you've identified one area where Waterford has a strategy in development which could result in some tangible projects being identified. However I don't think transport is a priority issue for Waterford, we thankfully don't suffer from the problems they face in Galway or Cork.
Population of a county, as you've described it, is almost never utilised as part of evidence informed policy. I don't think anyone, with the exception of maybe those lads in WIT, are sitting down and totting up how much Roscommon and Carlow are getting. Maybe they should, but more power to the lads in WIT for trying to lobby.
I don't think you can be knifed by something as blunt as this draft PFG - it's a Frankenstein's Monster. I'm cautiously optimistic about the fact that a Waterford TD was part of a negotiating team that seemed to win a lot of concessions.
The best you can do to sell this PFG is highlight the mentioning of three projects that have already started. Two of which are basic healthcare that we bloody well should be getting as that is what we pay tax for not to mention are long overdue. The other is to look at a problem that in your own words "we thankfully don't suffer from". And then you call people who call this out as paranoid.
Upgrading WIT and committing to funding the north quays would be easy wins for any government. Why not include them? Because that would actually be too close to achieving the viable alternative to Dublin and Cork for that matter they just want to pay lip-service to.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have read the document twice and find myself completely on the Invara side of the argument instead of the Hardybuck side. In case of the latter's posts, I always feel that he/she reads whatever emanates from Dublin/government and accepts it as de facto gospel. Things like the cath lab, the continuation of the Greenway, the opening of the Palliative Care unit have been repeated ad nauseam and are supposed to be already funded. Talking about delivery of things already agreed merely underlines the paucity of plans for Waterford. I am happy to see the matter being teased out.
I'm just reading what's there.0 -
The best you can do to sell this PFG is highlight the mentioning of three projects that have already started. Two of which are basic healthcare that we bloody well should be getting as that is what we pay tax for not to mention are long overdue. The other is to look at a problem that in your own words "we thankfully don't suffer from". And then you call people who call this out as paranoid.
Upgrading WIT and committing to funding the north quays would be easy wins for any government. Why not include them? Because that would actually be too close to achieving the viable alternative to Dublin and Cork for that matter they just want to pay lip-service to.
They mightn't be included because the document is very light on detail. They mightn't be included because they're bad projects that will be quietly shelved - time will tell.
If you wanted to believe in a 'Dublin Government' (although you're starting to sound a bit like a Cork person btw) and taxes, Waterford and other similar counties would get less than they're currently getting.
Dublin is the cash cow keeping the country on life support. I think if the lads in WIT analysed it they'd see that Waterford does extremely well in terms of to the Exchequer revenue generated here vs the funding received.0 -
They mightn't be included because the document is very light on detail. They mightn't be included because they're bad projects that will be quietly shelved - time will tell.
If you wanted to believe in a 'Dublin Government' (although you're starting to sound a bit like a Cork person btw) and taxes, Waterford and other similar counties would get less than they're currently getting.
Dublin is the cash cow keeping the country on life support. I think if the lads in WIT analysed it they'd see that Waterford does extremely well in terms of to the Exchequer revenue generated here vs the funding received.
Upgrading WIT (note I wrote upgrading not merger which is a bad project) and the north quays are bad projects now. Why, because they are not in the PFG?
No university, people dying on the side of the road in ambulances because of closed cath labs, dead bodies being left in corridors because of an inadequate morgue, higher unemployment than most of the country and generally a complete failure to support development is doing “extremely well in terms of to the Exchequer revenue generated here vs the funding received” to you. I may well be starting to sound like a Cork person but you are starting to sound like your from another planet.0 -
Upgrading WIT (note I wrote upgrading not merger which is a bad project) and the north quays are bad projects now. Why, because they are not in the PFG?
No university, people dying on the side of the road in ambulances because of closed cath labs, dead bodies being left in corridors because of an inadequate morgue, higher unemployment than most of the country and generally a complete failure to support development is doing “extremely well in terms of to the Exchequer revenue generated here vs the funding received” to you. I may well be starting to sound like a Cork person but you are starting to sound like your from another planet.
You do enjoy a bit of bait for breakfast in fairness to you.
I'm not going to change your mind, and I'm not trying to - you've made it up long ago which is absolutely fine. But I do think this is a good discussion, and it'll probably continue after a new Government eventually gets together to work this stuff through.
There was mention of local journalism on another thread. I'd love to see the document analysed in a balanced fashion - and maybe some of the former TDs could throw in their tuppence worth. I say former because the current folks are too close to it.0 -
Munster Express headline says Waterford let down again pertaining to local TDS . Anybody fill me in what front page says can’t read it on Facebook ? Cheers0
-
Prior to the election I was strongly critical of the influence of individuals from Northern Ireland on SF's Ard Chomhairle on decisions being taken in the Republic. It appears that it's still controlled by the IRA but that's all been discussed.
In the interests of balance I should criticise the Green Party for pretty much the same thing. Members in Northern Ireland, and elected officials from there, are currently voting on whether or not to enter Government.
The Greens seem to be getting a free pass for this at the moment.0 -
The Green party situation is not ideal perhaps. However, there is a difference between one party(the Greens) where policy in the South can be voted on by members is the North. At least it's clear and transparent. It's another thing entirely when you have a party(SF) where policy in the South can be voted upon and probably to a large extent controlled(we don't know exactly how much)by a shadowy "Army" Council/IRA in the North.Prior to the election I was strongly critical of the influence of individuals from Northern Ireland on SF's Ard Chomhairle on decisions being taken in the Republic. It appears that it's still controlled by the IRA but that's all been discussed.
In the interests of balance I should criticise the Green Party for pretty much the same thing. Members in Northern Ireland, and elected officials from there, are currently voting on whether or not to enter Government.
The Greens seem to be getting a free pass for this at the moment.0 -
Munster Express headline says Waterford let down again pertaining to local TDS . Anybody fill me in what front page says can’t read it on Facebook ? Cheers
Substantially about 24/7 cardiac care not been include in PfG- other issues not really mentioned. I would encourage you to buy the paper.0 -
So SEPAG have called to reject the PFG. Don't think that's a good idea.0
-
it doesnt look like theres much of substance in the pfg, particularly for younger generations, major parties such as ffg are seriously dropping the ball here, if they dont start addressing the needs of these generations, these voters will continue to go elsewhere0
-
Advertisement
-
They mightn't be included because the document is very light on detail. They mightn't be included because they're bad projects that will be quietly shelved - time will tell.
If you wanted to believe in a 'Dublin Government' (although you're starting to sound a bit like a Cork person btw) and taxes, Waterford and other similar counties would get less than they're currently getting.
Dublin is the cash cow keeping the country on life support. I think if the lads in WIT analysed it they'd see that Waterford does extremely well in terms of to the Exchequer revenue generated here vs the funding received.
Can you back that up? That Waterford does extremely well in terms of to the Exchequer revenue generated here vs the funding received?0 -
spaceCreated wrote: »Can you back that up? That Waterford does extremely well in terms of to the Exchequer revenue generated here vs the funding received?
In 2018 Revenue receipts of €468m were raised in county Waterford - about 1% of the total amount raised. Another poster indicated that Waterford gets about 1% of the expenditure - so it actually appears that the funding is pretty fair if that's the indicator you based decisions on (it isn't by the way).
This is in contrast to €24,497m in Dublin, which accounts for about 57% of all the tax revenue in Ireland.
Nationally, Waterford is probably middle of the bunch when it comes to revenue raised by county. In the South East, Wexford would be slightly higher, Kilkenny slightly lower.0 -
In 2018 Revenue receipts of €468m were raised in county Waterford - about 1% of the total amount raised. Another poster indicated that Waterford gets about 1% of the expenditure - so it actually appears that the funding is pretty fair if that's the indicator you based decisions on (it isn't by the way).
This is in contrast to €24,497m in Dublin, which accounts for about 57% of all the tax revenue in Ireland.
Nationally, Waterford is probably middle of the bunch when it comes to revenue raised by county. In the South East, Wexford would be slightly higher, Kilkenny slightly lower.
Am just browsing this Hardybuck and it confirms to me again why I disagree with many of your posts. They constantly suggest to me anyway that we should be happy with our lot here? Maybe that is not the intent, but it is an underlying theme.
On a very loose basis, the south east (Waterford, Carlow, Wexford, Kilkenny and south Tipp) has about 10% of national population. Your revenue figures suggest the south east contributes about 4.5 to 5% of revenue. That 10/5 differential indicates the kind of economy we have here and the need for state investment in education and health to help develop the economy to increase general income and subsequent tax levels. Figures I have seen suggest for example, that per capita expenditure in the south east on acute health by HSE is the lowest in the state. Investment in Waterford, which is indicated in Ireland 2040 as the regional city for the south east, needs to grow if the place is to fulfill its regional role and the region is to prosper?
No one doubts the contribution of Dublin to the economy at large by the way.0 -
Am just browsing this Hardybuck and it confirms to me again why I disagree with many of your posts. They constantly suggest to me anyway that we should be happy with our lot here? Maybe that is not the intent, but it is an underlying theme.
On a very loose basis, the south east (Waterford, Carlow, Wexford, Kilkenny and south Tipp) has about 10% of national population. Your revenue figures suggest the south east contributes about 4.5 to 5% of revenue. That 10/5 differential indicates the kind of economy we have here and the need for state investment in education and health to help develop the economy to increase general income and subsequent tax levels. Figures I have seen suggest for example, that per capita expenditure in the south east on acute health by HSE is the lowest in the state. Investment in Waterford, which is indicated in Ireland 2040 as the regional city for the south east, needs to grow if the place is to fulfill its regional role and the region is to prosper?
No one doubts the contribution of Dublin to the economy at large by the way.
We're at very different starting points as I don't think Waterford is getting a raw deal, where this seems to be a very strong opinion you hold. There are things that Waterford certainly needs - but every city has.
I think it's important to reiterate that outside of this discussion, these indicators are irrelevant. I would be disgusted if someone was going around checking to see if every county got it's bit - silly parish pump stuff.
I took a quick look at where tax revenue was coming from, and it appears that Waterford is getting a very fair amount of funding based upon it's contribution to Ireland Inc. You can debate Keynesian Theory and whatever else in another thread presumably.0 -
We're at very different starting points as I don't think Waterford is getting a raw deal, where this seems to be a very strong opinion you hold. There are things that Waterford certainly needs - but every city has.
I think it's important to reiterate that outside of this discussion, these indicators are irrelevant. I would be disgusted if someone was going around checking to see if every county got it's bit - silly parish pump stuff.
I took a quick look at where tax revenue was coming from, and it appears that Waterford is getting a very fair amount of funding based upon it's contribution to Ireland Inc. You can debate Keynesian Theory and whatever else in another thread presumably.
Indeed we are obviously at very different starting points as your post demonstrates. All cities have needs as you say, but there are some things which only government can deliver. Sometimes that delivery requires expenditure above what you suggest is a fair return on tax gathered and that is why this post is on the General Election thread and not elsewhere. It is, as Father Ted might suggest, a political matter.
I doubt it if many will agree with your "disgust at someone checking to see if every county got its bit". Most statistics in this country relate to the county level, which I believe can be too small, almost micro level, unless you are County Cork. In the present context we are talking of investment in Waterford on a regional basis. That is where the raw deal comes into play.
Failure to check and compare investment levels is a recipe for the status quo, which completes the circle.0 -
Indeed we are obviously at very different starting points as your post demonstrates. All cities have needs as you say, but there are some things which only government can deliver. Sometimes that delivery requires expenditure above what you suggest is a fair return on tax gathered and that is why this post is on the General Election thread and not elsewhere. It is, as Father Ted might suggest, a political matter.
I doubt it if many will agree with your "disgust at someone checking to see if every county got its bit". Most statistics in this country relate to the county level, which I believe can be too small, almost micro level, unless you are County Cork. In the present context we are talking of investment in Waterford on a regional basis. That is where the raw deal comes into play.
Failure to check and compare investment levels is a recipe for the status quo, which completes the circle.
And even when it's checked you don't like seeing that tax revenue and expenditure line up square up.
It's now appearing that a greater share is sought than what is raised. The irony is off the charts.0 -
And even when it's checked you don't like seeing that tax revenue and expenditure line up square up.
It's now appearing that a greater share is sought than what is raised. The irony is off the charts.
Why should revenue and expenditure line up at a county level? There should be an effort to help areas which are falling behind or you just end up with growing inequality.0 -
Why should revenue and expenditure line up at a county level? There should be an effort to help areas which are falling behind or you just end up with growing inequality.
This is an economic argument that while not irrelevant, is not relevant to this thread. I think you can probably have this discussion in a number of different threads on this forum.0 -
And even when it's checked you don't like seeing that tax revenue and expenditure line up square up.
It's now appearing that a greater share is sought than what is raised. The irony is off the charts.
The only thing I can say to this, without wanting to be offensive, is that it reads like nonsense. Of course a greater share of revenue than raised within a region may sometimes need to be spent in any region. Government,which is not a basic book keeping exercise of income and expenditure, may need at its most basic to spend more on social welfare in a region than is raised. If a major health or education project requires an expenditure greater than currently raised from tax revenue in a particular region are you suggesting it should not proceed? That would mean that government might never endeavour to invest in any regional facility for development purposes? You surely can't mean that, as it sounds like a recipe for the perpetuation of the status quo. Is that what you mean or want?0 -
Advertisement
-
In 2018 Revenue receipts of €468m were raised in county Waterford - about 1% of the total amount raised. Another poster indicated that Waterford gets about 1% of the expenditure - so it actually appears that the funding is pretty fair if that's the indicator you based decisions on (it isn't by the way).
This is in contrast to €24,497m in Dublin, which accounts for about 57% of all the tax revenue in Ireland.
Nationally, Waterford is probably middle of the bunch when it comes to revenue raised by county. In the South East, Wexford would be slightly higher, Kilkenny slightly lower.
Could you provide any source for this info?
I never once said it should be accounted for that way, just trying to get some information before I make any argument on it that it might be relevant to.0
Advertisement