Does Connaught have a future?

[Defeated Romanticist]

Instad of balanced regional development, which suggests spreading economic development over one region equally, the regions should be treated as separate parts of a whole like we do for Tourism(even though that is a totally naff strategy for tourism)
Connacht must focus its economy onto where it can derive a comparitve advantage. Galway, Knock, Athlone and Sligo should be the areas focused on as the economic dynamos of the region.
Connacht is not the only disadvantaged area in Ireland. My own county of Wexford was the 6th poorest county in Ireland the last time I checked, despite many natural advantages

[alonso]

Instad of balanced regional development, which suggests spreading economic development over one region equally, the regions should be treated as separate parts of a whole like we do for Tourism(even though that is a totally naff strategy for tourism)
Connacht must focus its economy onto where it can derive a comparitve advantage. Galway, Knock, Athlone and Sligo should be the areas focused on as the economic dynamos of the region.
Connacht is not the only disadvantaged area in Ireland. My own county of Wexford was the 6th poorest county in Ireland the last time I checked, despite many natural advantages

I wouldn't define "balanced Regional Development" as spreading development over one region. I would define it more in terms of development proportionate to the assets of the region, which include traditional place in the hierarchy. In other words, if a region / county / townland / town has nothing to offer, then nothing should be pumped into it, over and above public services, just for the sake of it.

And yes, you're spot on about Connacht focussing it's economy, but as Schuhart said, it will never ever happen. Why in the name of God is there an Airport in Knock (did I just answer my own question?) instead of Sligo/Ballina etc? Why are they building a rail corridor to carry no-one while the cities choke? It's all nonsense, but after May 07, I have no sympathy for anyone on this island who complains about investment, healthcare, education and traffic. Ireland made it's bed, and Ireland can lie in it. The West therefore has no future.

[mollox]

And yes, you're spot on about Connacht focussing it's economy, but as Schuhart said, it will never ever happen. Why in the name of God is there an Airport in Knock (did I just answer my own question?) instead of Sligo/Ballina etc? Why are they building a rail corridor to carry no-one while the cities choke? It's all nonsense, but after May 07, I have no sympathy for anyone on this island who complains about investment, healthcare, education and traffic. Ireland made it's bed, and Ireland can lie in it. The West therefore has no future.

Any objective reading of Schuhart’s posts on the Knock thread , complemented by his contributions on other western-related threads on topics such as Shannon-Heathrow and the Western Rail Corridor, would confirm the inevitably (in a planner’s mind) of the outcome suggested in my earlier “National Park” hypothetical scenario for most of Connaught - even if it was arrived at by a different process and called something else. This view is reinforced by Schuhart’s views, again on the Knock thread, that worldwide depletion of fossil fuels will, within a relatively short period (10-20 years?) render Knock Airport obsolete and make unsustainable daily rural commutes of 20-30 miles.

The knock-on effects of these projected outcomes is to create a situation where there is no sustainable (as in unsubsidised) future for most of Connaught. But when I posted my hypothetical scenario, derived from the contributions of Schuhart and, to a lesser extent, Alonso, it was rubbished by Alonso. However, in his latest post he now tells us that “the West therefore has no future”.

And whose fault does Alonso think it is? Why the electorate in the West, of course.
Why do planners expect the great unwashed to provide leadership to the political leadership of the country? Do planners expect the people of the West to vote for their own extinction?
What party was offering something coherent and credible regarding regional development which might have provided some hope to the West?

And when it comes to Gombeenism, don’t look any further than Government Buildings where the 2003 Decentralisation Plan signed off by the current Taoiseach and his cabinet colleagues, including 2 PD ministers. Why would the ordinary people, or local politicians, pay the slightest attention to a National Spatial Strategy which was so shamelessly ignored by the Cabinet?

As I’ve already said on the Knock thread, there would be no airport anywhere in Mayo without Monsignor Horan, and because of him it would be nowhere else. He was primarily building an access point for pilgrims to his Marian Shrine, which might also benefit one of the most depopulated counties of the country.

Just for information, here’s a small table showing the relative populations of Mayo, Connaught & Co Dublin at a number of points in our history. It’s clear that balanced regional development hasn't been on the agenda until now, but it’s even clearer who is struggling for survival. Why the surprise that the inhabitants try every tactic to ensure they and their children live and work in the place they were reared in.

Isn’t it a pity that they can’t be as coldly clinical as a planner and just accept the inevitability of their fate? It would be so much less hassle.

Selected Irish Census Data ('000)
Year Mayo Conn. Dublin
1841 389 1419 373
1871 246 846 405
1971 110 391 852
2006 124 504 1187

[Schuhart]

Isn’t it a pity that they can’t be as coldly clinical as a planner and just accept the inevitability of their fate? It would be so much less hassle.

Can I firstly suggest that you consider the conditions that people in Connaught were living in 1841 before using that in a context where it might be mistakenly read. Its not the case that we're looking back on some wonderfully regionally balanced Ireland that somehow got lost along the way. When you consider the title of the 'Congested' Districts Board, I think its pretty clear that the West was traditionally overpopulated.

When you use the phrase 'inevitability of their fate' I really wonder what we're supposed to take out of that. Its not as if the alternative to living in Mayo is to be sold as a galley slave. Are we supposed to sit quietly and let the future of the country slip away again because apparently its 'coldly clinical' to object to good money being thrown after bad?

The question is whether we would rather have Irish people find they can make a life in Ireland, with our own Government and what goes with that, or whether we just want to give up on this national project and let people find their lives in London and New York instead. I'm honestly not convinced that many in the West have any commitment to the national concept - if it can't be Mayo, it might as well be London. I see that as them being 'coldly clinical'.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Irish nation? I think it would be a great idea. But if we've no appetite to be a nation, why not stop pretending because we're only confusing each other.

[mollox]

Can I firstly suggest that you consider the conditions that people in Connaught were living in 1841 before using that in a context where it might be mistakenly read. Its not the case that we're looking back on some wonderfully regionally balanced Ireland that somehow got lost along the way. When you consider the title of the 'Congested' Districts Board, I think its pretty clear that the West was traditionally overpopulated.

I agree, the 1841 base figure shouldn’t be misrepresented as an indicator of the height of prosperity in the West, but it does provide an, albeit extreme, pre-famine marker as to the relative distribution of population and the size of Dublin City & County relative to the rest of the country. It, together with the subsequent population figures, provides a good indicator as to the scale of population imbalance achieved in the intervening period.

When you use the phrase 'inevitability of their fate' I really wonder what we're supposed to take out of that. Its not as if the alternative to living in Mayo is to be sold as a galley slave. Are we supposed to sit quietly and let the future of the country slip away again because apparently its 'coldly clinical' to object to good money being thrown after bad?
The question is whether we would rather have Irish people find they can make a life in Ireland, with our own Government and what goes with that, or whether we just want to give up on this national project and let people find their lives in London and New York instead. I'm honestly not convinced that many in the West have any commitment to the national concept - if it can't be Mayo, it might as well be London. I see that as them being 'coldly clinical'.

Do you consider it unnatural that people in the West desire to live and work there and see opportunities for their children to do likewise? Unlike many millions before them who were forced to migrate, internally or externally, in past decades? There’s a great quote from Dev each week at the start of RTEs The Week in Politics - “ No longer will our children, like our cattle, be brought up for export”. That actually means something in the West. In your own post-fossil fuel scenario, it might as well be London as Dublin.
There is a significant social context to all of this and your “good money after bad” could easily be perceived to smack of “knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing“.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Irish nation? I think it would be a great idea. But if we've no appetite to be a nation, why not stop pretending because we're only confusing each other.

What exactly do you think is meant by “Irish Nation”? Do you think it means “survival of the fittest?” or “Every man for himself”?

Finally, on the Knock thread, you accused me of agreeing with your arguments but being unwilling to accept the inevitable conclusions. My “National Park” hypothesis for most of Connaught takes your view to its logical conclusion.

And here’s my question to you, Schuhart: Would you regard that outcome as (a) desirable or (b) acceptable or (c) just inevitable?

If the answer to any of these is in the affirmative, how would you classify the quality of the planning which has brought this about and who, other than the victims, would you blame?

[alonso]

Mollox, you are either blind or unwilling to read my posts. It's getting tiresome. On many threads now, I have put forward a rational solution to regional development and you've ignored them ad focussed on certain hyperbolic sentences I've written to highlight the problems. I'll respond in more detail later

[nawbut]

I just cant see Connaught surviving, going forward, as a viable province. (Hey, then we will have only three Cúigí!).

[mollox]

Mollox, you are either blind or unwilling to read my posts. It's getting tiresome. On many threads now, I have put forward a rational solution to regional development and you've ignored them ad focussed on certain hyperbolic sentences I've written to highlight the problems. I'll respond in more detail later

Alonso, to be fair to you, I readily accept that you’re normally balanced in your commentary. However, you occasionally lose patience and throw in the odd hyperbolic sentence.

My real bete noir is Schuhart who seems to take a much more doctrinaire approach. He seems willing to accept the large scale denuding of large tracts of the country as a natural outcome. To me that seems like a failure of planning rather than an outcome of planning - if you know what I mean.

But what both of you share, in your frustration, is a propensity to blame the public for the way they vote, holding them responsible for their own misfortune. And “the people” are blamed for attempting to attract development to their own areas, in the absence of any perceptible implementation of a coherent spatial strategy.

The reality is that blame must be laid at the door of the Taoiseach and his cabinet, who displayed their own contempt for the NSS in 2003 with the decentralisation stroke.

My last contribution on the Knock thread suggested some steps that seemed to me to be required to establish political responsibility for implementing the NSS. Until those, or other more appropriate steps, are taken this will continue to meander on with lip service paid to the NSS but little leadership or control on day to day developments. Political advantage/risk will continue to be a major determinant in making decisions.

All politics are local and our system is heavily based on clientilism. This NSS issue is a fine example of what is wrong with that system and how it can create major problems at national policy level (never mind the health service). If you always do what you always did, then you’ll always get what you always got.

[Schuhart]

I agree, the 1841 base figure shouldn’t be misrepresented as an indicator of the height of prosperity in the West, but it does provide an, albeit extreme, pre-famine marker as to the relative distribution of population and the size of Dublin City & County relative to the rest of the country. It, together with the subsequent population figures, provides a good indicator as to the scale of population imbalance achieved in the intervening period.

You seem to be ignoring the general international trend to urbanise. Plus, alternatively, could we not say that the massive population imbalance was in 1841 which was why we experienced all that famine and emigration. In fact, has ‘balance’ any meaning in the current climate? What we’ve seen is urbanisation, with a fair amount of that happening in Dublin because of ultimately self-defeating actions taken to frustrate that new ‘balance’ emerging

Do you consider it unnatural that people in the West desire to live and work there and see opportunities for their children to do likewise?

I’ve no comment one way or the other on what people in the West desire. But I certainly do feel that quite a lot of Western advocacy supports policies that frustrate the prospect of their children staying in the region. However, the real problem is when they work to frustrate the prospect that Ireland generally might have a sustainable future.

You’ll know that story about there being no need to put a lid on a pot of Irish lobsters, because if one looks like escaping the rest will hold it down.

There’s a great quote from Dev each week at the start of RTEs The Week in Politics - “ No longer will our children, like our cattle, be brought up for export”. That actually means something in the West. In your own post-fossil fuel scenario, it might as well be London as Dublin.

You’ll hopefully understand that introducing the concept of ‘export’ within one country suggests a mindset. Can I also point out that if the national idea is gone – if truly there is no distinction between Dublin and London – where is the basis for an allegiance that would cause the East to resource the West without end?

There is a significant social context to all of this and your “good money after bad” could easily be perceived to smack of “knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing“.

I think this comment needs to have the air let out of it. Insisting that public resources should actually achieve something cannot be dismissed as of “knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing“. Picture yourself on a lifeboat after a shipwreck. There’s people in the water weakening. You notice some of the people sitting in the Western side of the lifeboat are using extra lifejackets as cushions. You suggest that those lifejackets would be better employed supporting the people in the water. Would those people on the Western side of the lifeboat be justified in saying you know the price of everything but the value of nothing?

Its very easy to dismiss price when someone else is facing the cost.

What exactly do you think is meant by “Irish Nation”? Do you think it means “survival of the fittest?” or “Every man for himself”?

No, that sort of why I query the view that simply doesn’t care about the consequences on the rest of the community of demands for resources. If the rest of the country is impoverished to obtain a small benefit for the West, so what? That looks to be what you are saying.

My “National Park” hypothesis for most of Connaught takes your view to its logical conclusion.

And here’s my question to you, Schuhart: Would you regard that outcome as (a) desirable or (b) acceptable or (c) just inevitable?

I doubt if Mayo will turn into a national park anytime soon. But what is inevitable, in a situation of ‘more of the same’, is that the relative population share of the East will continue to increase. That’s not necessarily a problem so long as we accept this reality and deal with it.

If the answer to any of these is in the affirmative, how would you classify the quality of the planning which has brought this about and who, other than the victims, would you blame?

The label ‘victim’ in this context is something the West desires, as who can expect anything of a victim. In truth, the real victims are the people who lose out because resources are wasted pointlessly. To take a recent thread that comes to mind about planning difficulties for a special school in Waterford, children with disabilities and their families become victims because they find our political system is so tied up with dealing with imaginary concerns (like the need to protect Mayo people from being sold as galley slaves) that there is no space left for real concerns.

We vote for our representatives. We choose them. If people in the West choose politicians because they want to be able to build a house wherever, then they are responsible for that action. The NSS concept makes sense. Government engagement will follow if that’s what people want, just as it delivered the self-defeating policies wanted thus far. But if you let people duck responsibilities for their own actions, nothing will change.

My real bete noir is Schuhart

I'm delighted at this honour. I hope I can live up to it.

[mollox]

Insisting that public resources should actually achieve something cannot be dismissed as of “knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing“. Picture yourself on a lifeboat after a shipwreck. There’s people in the water weakening. You notice some of the people sitting in the Western side of the lifeboat are using extra lifejackets as cushions. You suggest that those lifejackets would be better employed supporting the people in the water. Would those people on the Western side of the lifeboat be justified in saying you know the price of everything but the value of nothing?

Its very easy to dismiss price when someone else is facing the cost.

Those bastards sitting on the Western side, using lifejackets as cushions. What a very useful and appropriate analogy! Make them walk the plank.
You'd swear that there was a proposal to pay a "Western Dole", like the old farmer's dole.

We vote for our representatives. We choose them. If people in the West choose politicians because they want to be able to build a house wherever, then they are responsible for that action. The NSS concept makes sense. Government engagement will follow if that’s what people want, just as it delivered the self-defeating policies wanted thus far. But if you let people duck responsibilities for their own actions, nothing will change.

Where do you get your concept of leadership from? The government will follow the people when the people themselves change their direction/behaviour? Is that how it works? No wonder I’ve been confused. And if that's how you see implementation of the NSS actually happening, you can kiss it goodbye.