Fair enough but that still does does not answer the question in regard to services such as schools, transport, hospitals etc,...There is no guarantee that the services they want will be near the land that they own.
Not anywhere they want to, just anywhere they own land - you couldn't build a house in your neighbours garden for example. The person building will have to factor in the cost of providing services, which would be a lot more efficient than the current mess.
Fair enough but that still does does not answer the question in regard to services such as schools, transport, hospitals etc,...There is no guarantee that the services they want will be near the land that they own.
Stands to reason they shouldn't build there then if they aren't happy with the services in the area. See how the system is self-regulating without any requirement for planning departments?
No, I wouldn't agree with either point. Firstly, I think people will always want to build on their own land as its cheaper and they get exactly what they want in a house.
As for energy conservation - laughable. We still build houses they way they did in the 1930s. If planning was scrapped I imagine we would see a wealth of low cost affordable homes, such as those built by Kingspan.
IMHO the State can best provide services where people lives in clusters the further distant people are to each other the more strain there are on services.
Why can't those "low cost affordable homes" be built now?
I dont see that a) we have any significant lack of services or b) that it would be impossible to provide the remainder of services. This holds true for the majority of country dwellers.
Planning laws in the UK, including "greenfield zones" and the like, were a move to protect the value of land held by wealthy landowners and I don't see our laws as being any different.
I would agree that land is held in banks by developers and given the close relationship between them and political parties (FF tent Galway Races) I don't see this situation changing soon.
So the 40 odd percent of the population that vote FF are gombeens; dishonest and/or stupid, and the smart principled people vote Labour.But will we ever learn in this country and or will the gombeen man always win out? Politicians in this country seriously pander to the lowest common denominator.
Back on topic, while I got the impression that Pat Rabbitt is probably quite a nice man I never liked his brand of 1980's style opposition for oppositions sake politics. I didn't like the holier than thou pontificating that passed for speeches but what I really don't like about the Labour party in general can be summarised by YORB's quote;
So the 40 odd percent of the population that vote FF are gombeens; dishonest and/or stupid, and the smart principled people vote Labour.
If only there were more of those smart principled people so that Labour could run the country. I find that attitude both arrogant and insulting and I’m not in Fianna Fail.
So the 40 odd percent of the population that vote FF are gombeens; dishonest and/or stupid
No, you have extrapolated incorrectly from the comments I made. In nay case, what is arrogant and insulting about my comments? I stick to the comments I made, politicians do pander to the lowest common denominator....look at the increasing number of constituency offices...read all of my posts and you might understand what i am saying..
Beverly Flynn was re-elected to the Dáil despite the Supreme Court finding that she encouraged tax evasion and has no reputation deserving of protection. Bertie Ahern has stated since her re-election that "Beverly Flynn will come back into her natural home which is Fianna Fáil" and "she definitely has a very good future as an office holder". Enough said . . .
Then of course, ignoring the facts, the locals elect him to top the poll. Because it wasn't really Michael's fault, it was that Dublin "medja" and their agenda!
Maybe the locals were fully cognisant of the facts but chose to vote for Lowry anyway on the basis that what he did was "nothing I wouldn't have done meself if I was given the opportunity". Certainly an opinion I've heard expressed on many occasions.
Maybe the locals were fully cognisant of the facts but chose to vote for Lowry anyway on the basis that what he did was "nothing I wouldn't have done meself if I was given the opportunity". Certainly an opinion I've heard expressed on many occasions.
Exactly! So the people who knowingly vote for these chancers are - to answer Purple's question - dishonest, or at least see nothing wrong with dishonesty in their elected representatives. The only crime is getting caught and for many people even getting caught is no big deal.
When you say "lowest common denominator" what do you mean? I would have thought that in a representative democratic system, a politician who doesn't appeal to the wants of the broadest range of the populace (i.e. the majority) is the politician who stays out of power.