Decentralisation

uncivilservant · 04-07-2004 4:30am

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
I think the Government should inform Civil Servants about the locations they may be moving to. Then civil servants would have more justified reasons not to move there... or to move there.

Are you familiar with the decentralisation program at all?

De Rebel · 04-07-2004 11:27am

Originally posted by Muck
Send them all to Cork I say..........

Ta very much Muck, but Connemara's need is so much greater than Cork's.

spongebob · 04-07-2004 12:38pm

Most of them will live in Galway City which is what I am concerned with .

They can not get planning permission in Connemara anyway and cannot afford what comes on the open market there .....even if they are selling a house in Dublin.

M

Cork · 04-07-2004 2:29pm

Why should the regions pay second fiddle to Dublin?

Dublin cannot cope with its traffic, housing needs or even the refuse it generates.

We live in a small country. We live in an era of video conferencing. There are no obstacles to decentralisation from a longistics point of view.

Companys and shops change location change location often in the public sector and employees just evaluate the move.

Sand · 04-07-2004 2:43pm

Theres no rhyme or reason to decentralisation. Its not even decentralisation - the decision making is all still centralised. They could decentralise to Australia for all the difference it will make.

It imposes hardship on the civil servants who are overwhelmingly against being forced to uproot and move, or be reassigned/fired leading to a fall in competence in the affected departments and overstaffing in others.

It will bring no benefit to society in terms of quality of service. It will inflate house and rent prices in affected areas, making it harder for locals to buy houses for themselves in their own areas, and probably erroding any advantage that is claimed from selling up in Dublin and buying up in the country.

The regions will always lag behind dublin, theres 1.5 million people in Dublin ffs, I dont think theres even 30,000 in all of Leitrim. Dropping an office here and there with no overall strategy will not change that.

Its all massive exspense and hardship just so FF TDs can go around to country voters and say "shure didnt we bring you the Department of the Marine to good ol cavan - shure, I couldnt tell you why we needed to bring it here but shure isnt it only mighty".

Its just bad, bad, bad policy with only electoral benefit for FF in mind. Hopefully it will backfire on them.

Cork · 04-07-2004 2:50pm

Originally posted by Sand

Its just bad, bad, bad policy with only electoral benefit for FF in mind. Hopefully it will backfire on them.

Companys move location everyday - but do public servants think they deserve the certainty of remaining in the same location?

This is not a certainty in the private sector.

therecklessone · 04-07-2004 2:52pm

Originally posted by Cork
Why should the regions pay second fiddle to Dublin?

Who says they are Cork? Can you point to any government which has been anti-regions? Sure aren't there enough non-Dublin ministers in the current shower to balance the thing out?

Originally posted by Cork
Dublin cannot cope with its traffic, housing needs or even the refuse it generates.

And 10000 less civil servants won't make a blind bit of difference, especially if the government sells their current office space and it is utilised by new buisness as you claimed will happen a while ago. Furthermore, the government shouldn't be relying on vote-grabbing stunts to address those serious concerns.

Originally posted by Cork
We live in a small country. We live in an era of video conferencing. There are no obstacles to decentralisation from a longistics point of view.

Couldn't the same have been said about the recent EU accession on Mayday, and EU/US summit? Maybe Dubya could have stayed in the White House and talked to Bertie via videolink, saved us the cost of the police state in Clare and Dubya the embarrassment of Vestgate?

Originally posted by Cork
Companys and shops change location change location often in the public sector and employees just evaluate the move.

And private industry does so based on proper planning, with a sound financial basis. No private company moves shop to placate the ****kickers and shore up the FF vote in 2007...

Cork · 04-07-2004 3:07pm

Originally posted by therecklessone

And private industry does so based on proper planning, with a sound financial basis. No private company moves shop to placate the ****kickers and shore up the FF vote in 2007...

So when a government decides to do something for the regions - it is said to be political.

Why? There needs to be proper regionalisation in this country.

Opposisition Partys have consistantly failed to bring this about.

Why should people from the country have to relocate to Dublin if they want to work for the civil service?

The government should also giive the go ahead for the Limerick / Sligo Rail Route.

Elections in this country were fought over the idea of a airport in Knock. Many years later - the airport in booming.

At the time it was also said to be political - but it was needed.

People travel for hours in cars getting to work in Dublin - It is only common sence to decentralise.

therecklessone · 04-07-2004 3:32pm

Originally posted by Cork

So when a government decides to do something for the regions - it is said to be political.

Why? There needs to be proper regionalisation in this country.

Agree on the second point. Thats why I'd be opposed to the government's proposals. Do it rationally, based on need and economics, with a proper regional policy in place, and leave the parish-pump where it belongs...in the past.

Originally posted by Cork

Why should people from the country have to relocate to Dublin if they want to work for the civil service?

Why should people from Dublin have to relocate to the regions if they want to continue to work for the civil service?

You'll have to do better than that Cork.

Cork · 04-07-2004 4:41pm

Originally posted by therecklessone

Why should people from Dublin have to relocate to the regions if they want to continue to work for the civil service?

You'll have to do better than that Cork.

But they don't. Noboby is being forced to relocate - they have the option to remain in Dublin.

Public service workers have accepted large amounts of public money under the bench marking deal for changes in work practices and flexability.

If they want to relocate they can. If they don't - they don't have to.

Boston · 04-07-2004 4:49pm

Originally posted by Cork
But they don't. Noboby is being forced to relocate - they have the option to remain in Dublin.

You don't know this for a fact. It's almost certain people will be forced to move. if they shut down the building you work in you move. You make be given the option of staying in dublin or going to the country, you probably won't be given the option of where in dublin you go, since you normally arn't.

You can't say that they have options since you don't know the fine details of how it will work yet. Also benchmarking had nothing to do with relocation.

uncivilservant · 04-07-2004 4:58pm

Notwithstanding my previous comment, i feel it necessary to address these misconceptions.

(Don't worry Cork - I don't expect you to respond to any of the questions i may ask. I just want to clear up a few things.)

Originally posted by Cork
But they don't. Noboby is being forced to relocate - they have the option to remain in Dublin.

True, for civil servants the option is there to stay in Dublin. The problem being that not all public servants are civil servants, and many staff employed in State agencies are being told to take it or leave it.

You're also ignoring the fact that while the individual can stay in Dublin, the job is leaving town, minus the individual's experience, knowledge and expertise. Hardly a great use of resources.

Public service workers have accepted large amounts of public money under the bench marking deal for changes in work practices and flexability.

Unless I'm mistaken, at no point was benchmarking contingent on decentralisation. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

Extract from an article by Peter Nolan - National Secretary of IMPACT:

The changes required of civil servants under benchmarking are more exacting than in other parts of the public sector. The chairs of the Performance Verification Groups (PVGs), set up under the deal to judge whether sufficient progress is being made to justify Sustaining Progress pay increases, have said they expect modernisation progress reports for the first half of 2004 to be completed by the end of April. And these are likely to be at least as exacting as those drawn up for the last half of 2003. The independent chairperson of the civil service PVG has already written individually to secretary generals, specifying areas where he expects further improvements in advance of the next Sustaining Progress payments, which are due to public servants in July 2004.

This is a massive undertaking, even if it may not be obvious from some of the media coverage of benchmarking. The PVG process has certainly swallowed up huge amounts of my time. And I know the same is true of other union leaders, not to mention senior departmental officials. If decentralisation is not handled carefully and realistically, the unintended side effect could be to divert energy from the modernisation programme and undo the benefits that taxpayers and service users expect in exchange for benchmarking payments.

http://www.impact.ie/decentral/paireland.htm

If they want to relocate they can. If they don't - they don't have to.

While ultimately true for civil servants, this statement is a gross oversimplification of the situation.

Cork · 04-07-2004 5:09pm

You're also ignoring the fact that while the individual can stay in Dublin, the job is leaving town, minus the individual's experience, knowledge and expertise. Hardly a great use of resources.

Point taken. But I had to move with my job about a year ago.

It is pretty common in the private sector.

I was once working in Kerry & a guy was told his job was moving to Dublin. He was told "take it or leave it".

Companys move and change location. But people who work for the public service may not be used of this.

The Public Service has largely been Dublin based since it was under the control of the British.

joolsveer · 04-07-2004 5:38pm

Public servants are expected to move wherever they are sent - I spent two stints in Cork and it was not optional. But at least if you are coerced you must be paid removal expenses. This is not on offer in the proposed plan. I know of a number of offices which closed down and some of the employees were passed from billy to jack until they used the courts to get their just desserts.
If public servants are forced to hell or to Connacht this time I can predict that the courts will be busy.
If modern technology is so great and widely available how come I can't get BB from eircon in Dublin 15? I don't believe that the infrastructure to support e-government exists outside Cork, Dublin and Limerick.

arcadegame2004 · 04-07-2004 7:05pm

A lot of what I am reading here shows why we need decentralisation. I see here very clearly the "Dublin mindset" that wants Dublin to continue getting all the goodies regarding investment and jobs. I am sorry. But the majority of the public live outside of Dublin and we are entitled to a fair share too. I agree that the Government should compensate civil-servants though. I am surprised they are not doing this.

therecklessone · 04-07-2004 10:34pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
A lot of what I am reading here shows why we need decentralisation. I see here very clearly the "Dublin mindset" that wants Dublin to continue getting all the goodies regarding investment and jobs.

Thats a misrepresentation of whats been said so far. And you know it.

I am not personally opposed to decentralisation, I am opposed to it being done to win votes for the current government, with no thought having gone into the effect and the practicalities. Do it based on sound principles and you will find a lot less hostility.

Has anyone estimated the impact large scale arrivals in country towns will have on the local housing market?

What about the provision of public services? The impact on local schools for example? Recreational facilities? Transport infrastructure?

FFS, there's towns in this country can't cope with a couple of asylum seekers, how are they going to manage with a couple of hundred families moving in?

Quite apart from all of that, there will be a huge impact on the efficiency of government departments in the changeover as pointed out by uncivilservant. Experienced staff are hard to replace.

therecklessone · 04-07-2004 10:37pm

Originally posted by Cork

Companys move and change location. But people who work for the public service may not be used of this.

Or maybe they'd be more receptive if they thought this was a well-planned policy to regenerate the regions, instead of seeing it for what it is, a cynical attempt at parish-pump politiking.

You know Cork, I's starting to see the attraction of repeating the same point ad nauseam...

lucernarian · 04-07-2004 10:46pm

Are you familiar with the decentralisation program at all?

Why do you ask such a question? I am fairly familiar with the decentralisation programme but whatever you do, make sure you dont take the original point on board.

I think ArcadeGame has a fair point when most posters here look at places outside Dublin, e.g. Cavan and Letrim and treat the places and the people in them as uncivilised. Many of these comments are based on stereotypes.

I dont think this kind of Decentralisation can succeed if moving with the Depeartment is an option.

My point about the lack of knowledge among some people about the new locations of the various institutions has been further proven since my last post

uncivilservant · 04-07-2004 11:11pm

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
Why do you ask such a question? I am fairly familiar with the decentralisation programme but whatever you do, make sure you dont take the original point on board.

Strange as it may seem, I asked the question in an attempt to ascertain if you were actually familiar with the Decentralisation program.

All Decentralising departments have given their staff information on the proposed locations & have placed the information on their Departmental websites. www.publicjobscaf.ie contains the same information. Furthermore, many civil servants are capable of using their initiative and can find this information out all by themselves.

I think ArcadeGame has a fair point when most posters here look at places outside Dublin, e.g. Cavan and Letrim and treat the places and the people in them as uncivilised. Many of these comments are based on stereotypes.

I think you need to look past your preconceptions about the attitudes of civil servants. There's more to it than some (perceived) anti-rural bias.

I dont think this kind of Decentralisation can succeed if moving with the Depeartment is an option.

Pardon?

My point about the lack of knowledge among some people about the new locations of the various institutions has been further proven since my last post

See above.

ishmael whale · 05-07-2004 11:35am

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
A lot of what I am reading here shows why we need decentralisation. I see here very clearly the "Dublin mindset" that wants Dublin to continue getting all the goodies regarding investment and jobs.

The proposed decentralisation will not make any significant contribution to development in the regions. The National Spatial Strategy analysis points out that the problem is no alternative location, not even Limerick or Cork, can offer the same benefits of scale as Dublin. They suggest (similar to the ignored Buchanon report) that what is needed is to create a few centres in the regions that might compete.

The proposed decentralisation scatters too widely. It will not create necessary economies of scale in any of the locations. It will therefore merely contributes to the continued dominance of Dublin, only at the expense of coherent and effective government.

While Dublin traffic has been used as an argument in favour, ironically, the proposed decentralisation contributes to the development of a car dependent culture in the regions. In Dublin population is concentrated enough to envisage proper public transport whereas scattered population means that proposals such as the Western Rail Corridor make no sense.

For example, Knock airport has tapped into a market for sun holiday charter flights and services aimed at serving people with relatives in the UK. However, this it has failed to become a centre for regional growth which is what it was intended to be. It actual effect is simply to deny the possibility of any other Western airport developing the economies of scale needed to be a real success.

There is a need for centralisation within the regions, not splintering of government offices without rhyme or reason.

lucernarian · 05-07-2004 6:52pm

I agree with parts of what Ishmael Whale said although I think that if the Western Rail Corridor is fesable then it should go ahead. Certainly, if the Departments are moved, then they must be all moved to the same location.

I think you need to look past your preconceptions about the attitudes of civil servants. There's more to it than some (perceived) anti-rural bias.

I stand by what I say and until you prove my "preconceptions" wrong then I will continue to do so.
Surely, our esteemed Civil servants are capable of researching about the places on their own initiative but I wonder if some of them have actually done so when I read quotes like this:

parish-pump politiking

I dont think theres even 30,000 in all of Leitrim

Its all massive exspense and hardship just so FF TDs can go around to country voters and say "shure didnt we bring you the Department of the Marine to good ol cavan - shure, I couldnt tell you why we needed to bring it here but shure isnt it only mighty".

and the worst kind of parish pump politics dictated a rushed plan and a gun to the head of every civil servant in dublin

to some godforsaken backwater location chosen with one eye on the parish pump and the other on the election

tell a whole bunch of people to uproot their lives and move to the middle of nowhere

It can be clearly seen that many people think that rural communities are uneducated and unable to make up their own mind on issues. Since when did these Dublin-based civil servants become experts on the society of Rural Ireland?

Victor · 05-07-2004 7:08pm

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
I agree with parts of what Ishmael Whale said although I think that if the Western Rail Corridor is fesable then it should go ahead. Certainly, if the Departments are moved, then they must be all moved to the same location.

Whoot! Hello boom-bust city.

therecklessone · 05-07-2004 7:15pm

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed

Surely, our esteemed Civil servants are capable of researching about the places on their own initiative but I wonder if some of them have actually done so when I read quotes like this:

Seeing as your first quote was from one of my posts (you do know how to include the Originally posted by bit, don't you?) I'll just clarify that I am not one of "our esteemed Civil Servants".

Nor do I see country towns as backwaters. I'm gald you're starting to see the logic, and lack therof within the proposed decentralisation, of a genuine well planned spatial strategy.

lucernarian · 05-07-2004 7:54pm

Indeed, I don't know how how to include the Originally Posted By bit:rolleyes: I would be delighted if i was told how:)

Please don't go so far as to say the NSS is "well planned". The NSS has virtually ignored the problem that is the expansion of Dublin and even more so the "Greater Dublin Area". I always have been an advocate of something like the Buchanan Report. I just don't agree with things remaining as they are.

Regards:)

PS I assume you were referring to the National Spatial Strategy. Correct me if I'm wrong

lucernarian · 05-07-2004 7:55pm

I'd also like if Victor explained his comment:

Whoot! Hello boom-bust city

therecklessone · 05-07-2004 8:03pm

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed

PS I assume you were referring to the National Spatial Strategy. Correct me if I'm wrong

Consider yourself corrected. I'd have included the word national if I was, wouldn't I?

The quote thing is easy. After the

tags place a set of Italic tags with Originally posted by *username* between the two tags. Then you can use tags if you want to have the quote in bold.

For a graphic depiction use the quote option for this post (bottom right-hand corner bseide edit) and look at the layout.

lucernarian · 05-07-2004 8:15pm

Thanx 4 the info:p
I dont hav permision 2 edit ur post but i know how 2 do it now neway

Originally Posted By therecklessone[I/]

The quote thing is easy. After the

tags place a set of Italic tags with Originally posted by *username* between the two tags. Then you can use tags if you want to have the quote in bold.

lucernarian · 05-07-2004 8:16pm

Damn italics

uncivilservant · 05-07-2004 9:47pm

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
Surely, our esteemed Civil servants are capable of researching about the places on their own initiative but I wonder if some of them have actually done so when I read quotes like this:

The other people quoted out of context can answer for themselves - I'll deal with the ones i posted, shall i?

and the worst kind of parish pump politics dictated a rushed plan and a gun to the head of every civil servant in dublin

What does this have to do with attitudes towards any decentralisation location? It is quite obviously a reference to the motives behind the "plan", and has nothing to do with one's opinion of the location of aforementioned water dispensing device.

to some godforsaken backwater location chosen with one eye on the parish pump and the other on the election

Some of the locations are (not all - some), and most of them were.

It can be clearly seen that many people think that rural communities are uneducated and unable to make up their own mind on issues. Since when did these Dublin-based civil servants become experts on the society of Rural Ireland?

Quite.

Oh, incidentally - according to the preliminary data from the 2002 census the population of Leitrim is 25,815

lucernarian · 05-07-2004 10:09pm

Some of the locations are (not all - some), and most of them were

How can you so ignorantly think that of people? This is a disgrace. Am I supposed to agree with you because only SOME of these locations are godforsaken backwaters???

spongebob · 05-07-2004 10:17pm

Originally posted by ishmael whale
The proposed decentralisation will not make any significant contribution to development in the regions. The National Spatial Strategy analysis points out that the problem is no alternative location, not even Limerick or Cork, can offer the same benefits of scale as Dublin. They suggest (similar to the ignored Buchanon report) that what is needed is to create a few centres in the regions that might compete.

The poorest region in Ireland is the Midlands , cluster them there . To think of the implications of having a "critical mass" of civil servants around Tullamore . :ninja:

M

uncivilservant · 05-07-2004 10:38pm

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
How can you so ignorantly think that of people? This is a disgrace. Am I supposed to agree with you because only SOME of these locations are godforsaken backwaters???

What the hell are you talking about?

Since when does describing one's opinion of a place suddenly become a slur on people?

ishmael whale · 05-07-2004 10:45pm

Originally posted by Muck
think of the implications of having a "critical mass" of civil servants around Tullamore

You mean a bunch of crumpled people in shiny arsed suits standing outside a church muttering 'Why the **** did we move here'. (Sorry, I couldn't resist it.)

To the extent of concentrating resources in one location, I'd say yes. But I'd be more inclined to pick a location that showed already showed promising signs rather than the location that seemed to have the highest hurdle to jump. One of the usual suspects - Cork, Galway, Limerick. And I don't see the need to move civil servants about. The benefits should come from the policies they are implementing - i.e. the regions have more to gain from a properly managed health service than by some town getting to host the headquarters of the new health services agency. Proposing that civil service payrolls are needed as a stimulous smells too much of despiration.

Its more a case of finding a role or roles that the city can fulfil - like Cork being a centre for the chemical industry - and accepting that this is where non-Dublin development will be centred. It involves putting in place excellent transportation links and other infrastructure, and not wasting infrastructural resources by spreading them too thinly around the country.

spongebob · 05-07-2004 11:07pm

Tullamore already has the primary school building section of the Department of Education.

Anybody in Lucan (for example) could tell you that there has never been a more dedicated and focused bunch of profesionals assembled for such a noble purpose anywhere....ever .

We want more of same.

M

thejollyrodger · 06-07-2004 8:43am

Im in favour of this decentralisation idea. Were the most centralised government in the E.U. Thats efficient and all but the likes of Germany have departments all over the place, so our country being small and all, there should be a major problem. (if its efficient enough for the Germans it will be good enough for me)

The only problem I have is that the government has basically pissed on the National Spatial Strategy. So much for the gates and hubs!!

My town (on the NSS) didnt get any department FFS:mad: :mad:

ishmael whale · 06-07-2004 10:33am

Originally posted by Muck
Tullamore already has the primary school building section of the Department of Education. ...... there has never been a more dedicated and focused bunch of profesionals assembled for such a noble purpose anywhere....ever .

I don’t doubt people have had good individual experiences and bad individual experiences with staff located outside Dublin and with staff located in Dublin. But there is nothing intrinsic about a location West of Maynooth that leads to service improvement, and the high risk of service disimprovement from splintering offices has been well chewed over. If we have to we can go over it all again, but I thought this argument had been settled.

I thought all that was left was the possibility that, while doing nothing for civil service efficiency, locating payrolls in regional towns might stimulate local development, although nowhere would the proposed moves create any critical mass. Additionally, location of payrolls is unlikely to stimulate development as consumer expenditure does little to stimulate the Irish economy. We produce for export and consume imports.

If the service improvement angle is gone and the regional development angle is gone, then the reasoning for splintering offices seems to be gone.

An example where anyone carrying out a similar move successfully is still waited. The German partial move from Bonn to Berlin cost the earth, was done for reason of prestige on reunification not for efficiency. While they have only split between two locations they are finding they need to bring all the policy making functions together in one place. This is where we are starting out from.

Why waste money repeating the mistakes of others when there are issues of substance to be addressed? The focus should be on the policies and services provided, not the location of the office blocks from which they are provided.

oscarBravo · 06-07-2004 12:00pm

Originally posted by ishmael whale
The National Spatial Strategy analysis points out that the problem is no alternative location, not even Limerick or Cork, can offer the same benefits of scale as Dublin.

It's self-evident that no city can offer the same benefits of scale as Dublin, unless it were to grow to the size of Dublin. A more interesting question is, can an alternative location (or several) provide greater benefits of scale than at present?

They suggest (similar to the ignored Buchanon report) that what is needed is to create a few centres in the regions that might compete.

Competition doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.

For example, Knock airport has tapped into a market for sun holiday charter flights and services aimed at serving people with relatives in the UK. However, this it has failed to become a centre for regional growth which is what it was intended to be. It actual effect is simply to deny the possibility of any other Western airport developing the economies of scale needed to be a real success.

Do you advocate the closure of Knock Airport? If so, what do you envisage taking its place?

ishmael whale · 06-07-2004 12:19pm

Originally posted by oscarBravo
It's self-evident that no city can offer the same benefits of scale as Dublin, unless it were to grow to the size of Dublin. A more interesting question is, can an alternative location (or several) provide greater benefits of scale than at present?

If the object is to attract development away from Dublin, the National Spatial Strategy analysis suggests that the only way of doing this is to concentrate in a few alternative locations to provide greater benefits of scale than at present. I'm not aware of the NSS suggesting we should banjax the machinery of government while attempting to achieve this result.

I’m not clear what you mean by ‘Competition doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.’

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Do you advocate the closure of Knock Airport? If so, what do you envisage taking its place?

I advocate the removal of public subsidies from Knock Airport as it makes no meaningful contribution to regional development. Whether it can operate without a subsidy is its own affair, but Western development advocates might ask themselves how best they might concentrate resources within their region to improve their economies of scale.

oscarBravo · 06-07-2004 12:50pm

Originally posted by ishmael whale
If the object is to attract development away from Dublin, the National Spatial Strategy analysis suggests that the only way of doing this is to concentrate in a few alternative locations to provide greater benefits of scale than at present.

Thing is, that's simply not true. Developments have been attracted away from Dublin, without such concentration being in place. Towns like Letterkenny have grown at a brisk pace over the last several years. Galway is growing at a frantic pace, with nothing remotely like the benefits of scale of Dublin.

You've always proposed that any effort to promote growth outside of Dublin is doomed to failure, unless such growth is channeled into a city with the potential to rival Dublin in scale. Given that regional towns are developing anyway, why should it be necessary to create another super-metropolis in order to ease the pressure on the one we have? Is there some trigger level around the million-population mark that suddenly makes a city viable?

In short, is there no middle course we can steer?

I'm not aware of the NSS suggesting we should banjax the machinery of government while attempting to achieve this result.

Nor am I.

I'm not clear what you mean by "Competition doesn't have to be all-or-nothing."

Pretty much what I've said above: just because a regional town can't compete directly with Dublin for economies of scale doesn't mean it can't become an attractive location for investment. There aren't that many regions that want something on the scale of Ballycoolin - but a 3Com or two might be nice.

I advocate the removal of public subsidies from Knock Airport as it makes no meaningful contribution to regional development.

With respect, that's not what you said. You said "It [sic] actual effect is simply to deny the possibility of any other Western airport developing the economies of scale needed to be a real success" - implying that it's the existence of the airport, rather than its subsidisation, that has the chilling effect. If that's not what you meant, fair enough.

Whether it can operate without a subsidy is its own affair, but Western development advocates might ask themselves how best they might concentrate resources within their region to improve their economies of scale.

Yes, they might. However, I asked you what you think.

ishmael whale · 06-07-2004 1:20pm

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Thing is, that's simply not true. Developments have been attracted away from Dublin, without such concentration being in place. Towns like Letterkenny have grown at a brisk pace over the last several years. Galway is growing at a frantic pace, with nothing remotely like the benefits of scale of Dublin.

Fine. Obviously then there's no problem, and no need for Government to do anything at all. Now lets move on to how to get some benefit from all that money we're spending on health services.

As regards Knock Airport, I do think the existence of so many airports in the West deprives any one the opportunity of achieving economies of scale. I don't see any public good arising that justifies a subsidy.

If I was a Western development advocate I would advocate rationalising the number of airports. But I'm not. The Western Development Commission have said that future development should concentrate on only two - Knock and Shannon. Looking at the numbers and the likely ending of the Shannon stopover (will we ever see the day) would suggest to me one.

But if there's no public money at stake then its really up to Western development advocates to decide if they want to forego the benefits that might come from rationalisation - so long as they are willing to live with the results of their action.

oscarBravo · 06-07-2004 2:18pm

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Fine. Obviously then there's no problem, and no need for Government to do anything at all.

Ah, sarcasm. That's helpful.

You see, there obviously is a problem - Dublin is growing at a rate it can't handle, and the rest of the country is missing out on an opportunity to share in that growth. Balance is required.

As regards Knock Airport, I do think the existence of so many airports in the West deprives any one the opportunity of achieving economies of scale. I don't see any public good arising that justifies a subsidy.

We're not talking about subsidies here. I thought we'd cleared that up.

If I was a Western development advocate I would advocate rationalising the number of airports. But I'm not. The Western Development Commission have said that future development should concentrate on only two - Knock and Shannon. Looking at the numbers and the likely ending of the Shannon stopover (will we ever see the day) would suggest to me one.

Which one? Why?

But if there's no public money at stake then its really up to Western development advocates to decide if they want to forego the benefits that might come from rationalisation - so long as they are willing to live with the results of their action.

What, precisely, are the benefits of rationalisation? What is the benefit to Mayo to have another Dublin where Limerick used to be?

ishmael whale · 06-07-2004 3:50pm

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Ah, sarcasm. That's helpful.

No, not sarcasm. Simply a reasonable conclusion from the statement you have made to the effect that scale is not an issue in attracting development.

Originally posted by oscarBravo You see, there obviously is a problem - Dublin is growing at a rate it can't handle, and the rest of the country is missing out on an opportunity to share in that growth. Balance is required.

This seems to conflict with your earlier statement. Are you saying that the regions have no problem attracting development (which is what you seemed to be saying in your previous post) or that they do have a problem, which brings us back to what has already been said about the National Spatial Strategy.

Originally posted by oscarBravo We're not talking about subsidies here. I thought we'd cleared that up..

As regards Knock Airport, you seemed to want me to give a complete account of my feelings about Knock Airport so I was merely clarifying that I don't see any public good arising that justifies a subsidy. I went on to address your substantive point.

Originally posted by oscarBravo Which one? Why? .

Again, its really up to Western development advocates to decide what they want, but seeing as how you’ve asked me I would be inclined to feel that Knock and Shannon are both in unpromising locations and your best bet might have been to take the opportunity of moving Galway airport to a location suitable for further development when the opportunity arose. That said, there’s a heavy sunk cost in Shannon so despite a less than ideal location its probably the one I’d run with. Its not ideal, but that’s the product of decades of advocacy from regional interests.

Originally posted by oscarBravo What, precisely, are the benefits of rationalisation? What is the benefit to Mayo to have another Dublin where Limerick used to be?

What’s the benefits of rationalisation airports for Mayo? That’s a bit like people in Castlebar saying what do we get out of an airport in Ballina. At some stage you have to take a wider view than your own backyard. I’m not even expecting you to take a national view on this question, just a Western seaboard view. Rationalisation delivers an airport further from Mayo than Knock but (hopefully) with a wider array of services that sun holiday charters and flights to the UK.

ressem · 06-07-2004 5:51pm

+1 Vote for the: All we're doing to the civil service is scattering departments.
Haven't heard any mention of trusting local and county authorities with any more responsibility or authority. So we can go somewhere other than the nearest minister to extract an intelligible response from the civil service.

Reading town meeting notes, you see that the local reps have as little success communicating with the civil servants as the rest of us.

Even if it's just getting procedures in writing

e.g.Procedure to move a school to a new premises, that a community can discuss and drive.

Extract from
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/OfficeNewYork.html
that has resonances.

...
William Whyte's rule: virtually all corporate relocations involve a move to a location which is closer to the CEO's home than the old location. Whyte discovered this principle after an extensive study of Fortune 500 companies that left New York City for the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s. They always had big, complicated Relocation Committees which carefully studied all the options and chose, coincidentally I'm sure, to move to within half a mile of the CEO's home in Danbury, Connecticut. Whyte also showed that these companies all tanked after the relocation. With, I believe, but one exception, companies that left New York City to be closer to the CEO's house in Connecticut or Westchester had dismal stock performance compared to companies that stayed in Manhattan.

The dismal stock performance probably came from the fact that when you relocate more than a couple of miles, some employees' lives would be too disrupted to make the move, so you lose a lot of employees, and all the institutional knowledge, skill, and experience that comes with those employees. While I was working at Viacom one of their companies, Blockbuster, decided to move from Florida to Texas after they hired a new CEO who lived in — Texas! What a coincidence! Only a small portion of the employees made the move. For years and years the business press watched agog as Blockbuster made mistake after inexcusable mistake, re-trying all kinds of ideas that had failed only two years earlier.

...

Ireland is a lot smaller than the US but our poor transport network exaggerates distance.

Sounds like a waste of energy that should be used instead for CRM and accountability. Unless the plan is to remove any civil servants with the confidence to get a job elsewhere. (chip on my begrudging shoulder? never)

Sleepy · 06-07-2004 6:21pm

I work in the private sector. About 90% of our customers are public concerns and I have to say, the laziest bunch of cnuts I've ever seen. I can guarantee that everyone I deal with from our client sites are earning more than I do, getting more holidays than I do and doing less work than I do. I have none of the job security or perks, and I HAD to relocate to Dublin to get this job.

Civil servants seem to arrive in work at half ten, take a tea break at 11, lunch at 1 and home by half four. Anyone familiar with the Wizard of Oz might remember this line as sung by the munchkins:

We get up at 12 and start for work by one, take an hour for lunch and then by two we're done. Ah ha ha!

Sound familiar?

I would worry about the balls that the government will no doubt make of this, scattering offices around the country as if by random (but in reality in a manner that will no doubt map quite well onto FF ministers constituencies), no doubt the civil servants will all squeeze raises/generous relocation expenses etc out of the public coffers, the contractors who donate to FF will get the job of building new offices at above market rate etc. etc. etc. so maybe it's not a good idea but tbh the whinging of the public sector is the least of my worries on this front. Welcome to the 21st century, we work for our money here.

Sleepy · 06-07-2004 6:24pm

Originally posted by ressem
The dismal stock performance probably came from the fact that when you relocate more than a couple of miles, some employees' lives would be too disrupted to make the move, so you lose a lot of employees

And where's the problem here? The civil service are overstaffed in the first place!

oscarBravo · 06-07-2004 6:24pm

Originally posted by ishmael whale
No, not sarcasm. Simply a reasonable conclusion from the statement you have made to the effect that scale is not an issue in attracting development.

and

This seems to conflict with your earlier statement. Are you saying that the regions have no problem attracting development (which is what you seemed to be saying in your previous post) or that they do have a problem, which brings us back to what has already been said about the National Spatial Strategy.

It's all black or white with you, isn't it? You have said that regional development can't happen unless it's on the scale of another Dublin. I've pointed out that that's not necessarily true. I didn't say that the current level of regional development is satisfactory. You seem determined to insist that it can't become any better than it is unless another million-population city is developed. I fail to see why there can't be a sliding scale of regional development.

Again, its really up to Western development advocates to decide what they want, but seeing as how you've asked me I would be inclined to feel that Knock and Shannon are both in unpromising locations and your best bet might have been to take the opportunity of moving Galway airport to a location suitable for further development when the opportunity arose. That said, there's a heavy sunk cost in Shannon so despite a less than ideal location its probably the one I'd run with. Its not ideal, but that's the product of decades of advocacy from regional interests.

You can't exactly move an airport, only build a new one.

You've suggested in the past that your problem with the regional airports (specifically Knock) is that they don't contribute to regional development. It's almost certainly the case that an airport can't single-handedly create growth, but it's hard to see how balanced regional growth can happen in the absence of transport links.

What's the benefits of rationalisation airports for Mayo? That's a bit like people in Castlebar saying what do we get out of an airport in Ballina.

No, it's not a bit like that. You talked above about consolidating to one airport in Shannon: that's no closer to me than Dublin. Where's the benefit?

At some stage you have to take a wider view than your own backyard.

It's possible to take more than one view at once. Remember, my backyard may not be important to you - but I live here.

I'm not even expecting you to take a national view on this question, just a Western seaboard view. Rationalisation delivers an airport further from Mayo than Knock but (hopefully) with a wider array of services that sun holiday charters and flights to the UK.

What good is a western seaboard view to me? I'm not talking specifically about airports here, but about western development as a whole: developing Limerick into a second Dublin delivers precisely the same benefit to me as allowing Dublin itself to sprawl halfway across the country - none. It's very important to me that Cork should be allowed to develop to its full potential, in the same way it's important to me that Latvia should be facilitated in any way possible. The bottom line is, a policy that benefits other regions at the expense of mine is one I don't feel inclined to support. Western development, to be meaningful, has to mean jobs, services and facilities for Letterkenny, Ballina, Tuam and Ennis. If the purpose of western development isn't to improve the quality of life for all the people who live in the west, what is its purpose?

uncivilservant · 06-07-2004 7:40pm

Originally posted by Sleepy
I work in the private sector. About 90% of our customers are public concerns and I have to say, the laziest bunch of cnuts I've ever seen.

Thank you for your well rounded contribution to the debate.

Here's the link to the Department of Finance website, where you should be able to find circulars containing civil service pay scales, details of annual leave entitlements and information on how the flexitime system works.

http://www.finance.gov.ie

lucernarian · 06-07-2004 8:17pm

Firstly, to answer the question put to me- Would you call this a slur of a place or a slur of people or both?

Originally Posted By uncivilservant:
quote:
It can be clearly seen that many people think that rural communities are uneducated and unable to make up their own mind on issues. Since when did these Dublin-based civil servants become experts on the society of Rural Ireland?

Quite.

I do not see the rapid growth of Galway or Letterkenny having any influence on the sprawl on Dublin. We need do do something in the West that benefits the entire nation.

Originally Posted By OscarBravo:
You have said that regional development can't happen unless it's on the scale of another Dublin. I've pointed out that that's not necessarily true. I didn't say that the current level of regional development is satisfactory. You seem determined to insist that it can't become any better than it is unless another million-population city is developed

Both people have made valid points although I can't see a small-scale solution working on a large-scale problem, i.e. the sprawl of Dublin. I cant see the civil service running as effectively? If they are moved to a place they do not want to go to.

Knock certainly doesn't hinder economic growth in the West.

Originally Posted By OscarBravo:
Western development, to be meaningful, has to mean jobs, services and facilities for Letterkenny, Ballina, Tuam and Ennis. If the purpose of western development isn't to improve the quality of life for all the people who live in the west, what is its purpose?

IMO Its purpose is to improve the quality of life for all the people of Ireland .

oscarBravo · 06-07-2004 8:38pm

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
IMO Its purpose is to improve the quality of life for all the people of Ireland .

...which begs the question: in what way will funneling all regional development into another oversized city serve that purpose?

lucernarian · 06-07-2004 10:07pm

What is an "oversized" city? Big (planned)cities arent bad, sprawling ones are. What in your opinion, is the size of a properly sized city?
I one posted a thread that dealt with these topics but there was little interest. Now there seems to be more which is a good sign that more people are interested about Decentralisation and the issues behind it.

In that post I supported the creation of a city(cities) to rival Dublin. It would take off the pressure on Meath, Kildare, Wicklow, Louth and to a lesser extent the counties bordering these. Another larger city or cities would encourage growth in the regions they are in. If people think that the presence of Dublin makes the entire East coast a region of prosperity then surely the same must apply if there was a rival Dublin in the West.

Decentralisation

Comments