Reply To: an taisce-and rumours of them going bust
James: There are probably two threads in this thread which we’ve been discussing.
1 The methodology and language used to sort out the one-off issue. The fact that An T seems to have been singled out as the sole promoter of some sort of ‘alien’ idea, whereas it is or is meant to be that of the planning authorities indicates, indicates a failure to get an effective message across. The fact that An T’s position is correctly and conscientiously held is beside this point. (Good idea, ineffective presentation). In this argument it’s first impressions – the first soundbite that matters. E.g if you say ‘we’re against one off housing but we’re in favour of exceptions in certain cases’, to the (politically-usable) potential ‘victim’ of such position, it reeks of city folks interfering in the parish. Instead say (wait for it) we’re in favour of one-off housing except for holiday homes + outsiders to the areas, it might just influence thinking. Say ‘we agree up to a point’ rather than saying ‘you’re wrong’. Fundamental Dale Carnegie.
2 An apparent predisposition towards the preservation of the old, for old’s sake, rather than of the good. This is allied to a suspicion reflected in this forum that it is a minority view that is adopted by An T.
Maybe the only thing to do is join …..