McGreedy's Budget 2004

Villain

Well Charlie has been dishing out the Budget this evening latest news can be got here http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/1203/budget.html

Petrol and diesel are going up 5 cent a litre:mad:

Fags are going up 25 cent per 20, not near enough.

Social welfare and the children allowance is going up slightly.

Theres a slight rise in the tax credits.


It will be interesting to see it in its entireity

mike65

Fair to say it was the Budget That Never Happened.

The only big point was something that could have been announced anytime - namely de-centralisation of several
gov departments.

Mike.

vinnyfitz

Here

In fairness to them they published all the details promptly in (by civil servant standards) very clear formats.

The full list of who is being decentralised to where, for example, is set out at the bottom of this page

Cork

It is a good think that budgets have lessened in importance. Governments should plan strategically and not from year to year. Messing around with tax rates for short term political gain is bad planning.

Pushing decentralisation outside Dublin is great for many towns.

But as a news prospective the budget really was not very newsworthy.

Sand

Messing around with tax rates for short term political gain is bad planning.

I think this is the first time in a long time that McCreevy hasnt been messing about with the tax rates? Not that Im complaining, in that he was usually lowering them but all the same....:)

Victor

Originally posted by vinnyfitz
In fairness to them they published all the details promptly in (by civil servant standards) very clear formats.

This is usual - they make it available to the public at the end of the speech, although I understand a bunch of locked up (so they can't leak anything) journalists get to see it at the start of the speech.

Originally posted by Cork
It is a good think that budgets have lessened in importance. Governments should plan strategically and not from year to year.

Indeed, Quinn did this witht eh dreation of (a) three year plans (b) a contingency fund (for things like Foot & Mouth - you know something is going to go wrong every year).

Originally posted by Cork
Pushing decentralisation outside Dublin is great for many towns.

It is, but I question the moving of certain specialist units (e.g. railway inspectors) with only 10 staff. While it will create business for stationery producers, I'm not sure if things like that actually help. I do agree with moving groups of several hundred clerical and administrative staff as these can generally work in any department and get relocated to somewhere they want to go as opposed to somewhere they are forced to go. I think it's silly to put Garda HQ in Thurles when it would have been better to put it with the Garda College in nearby Templemore. Conversely, Defense has been put in Newbridge / the Curragh and will reduce travel / communication difficulties within the department.

I note quite a bit is going to Donegal - while I understand it is a jobs backspot, it doesn't make communication any easier.

Odd that nothing is going to Dundalk, it being a designated growth centre.

I wonder what the relationship between minister and decentralisation is - Parlon is certainly getting his OPW office moved to his home constituency.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
I think it's silly to put Garda HQ in Thurles when it would have been better to put it with the Garda College in nearby Templemore. Conversely, Defense has been put in Newbridge / the Curragh and will reduce travel / communication difficulties within the department.

Perhaps the Garda HQ was felt to be better served by being near but seperate? Just a guess....I can see advantages of not being too close.

Somewhat relevantly, I remember my dad saying for years (as an ESB bod) that he always felt many functions from Head Office would be far better served being outside Dublin.

I agree about the minimal-sized offices (like railway inspectors), but again it would depend on where they were moved to. I'm not necessarily commenting about this case, but there can be good reasons.

jc

gurramok

I'm not necessarily commenting about this case, but there can be good reasons.

10,000 less cars streaming into dublin every day, believe me a vast majority of these civil servants drive rather than use public transport. Its a good thing then

Wonder why the horse race industry (bloodstock) got away with it again with hardly paying any taxes, guess its that Kildare McGreedy thing again

Cork

Originally posted by gurramok


Wonder why the horse race industry (bloodstock) got away with it again with hardly paying any taxes, guess its that Kildare McGreedy thing again

I would have taxed them together with our artiests and our film industry.

I think capital allowances on car parks etc should also have bit the dust.

sceptre

Dept of Finance has finally discovered pdf as a format so at least that's something (probably like a few others I whinged during the year)

Sparks

Originally posted by irish1
Social welfare and the children allowance is going up slightly.
]

It isn't actually - as that interview with two single mothers in cork on RTE1 pointed out, they're going from getting 370 a week to 383 - a difference of 3.5%, which is effectively the inflation rate, isn't it?

Villain

Originally posted by Sparks
It isn't actually - as that interview with two single mothers in cork on RTE1 pointed out, they're going from getting 370 a week to 383 - a difference of 3.5%, which is effectively the inflation rate, isn't it?

well its still going up might only be in line with inflation but it is rising

SCULLY

Originally posted by gurramok
10,000 less cars streaming into dublin every day, believe me a vast majority of these civil servants drive rather than use public transport.

Interesting...can you post a link to back this up please

Victor

Originally posted by SCULLY
Interesting...can you post a link to back this up please

He is overstating it, but quite a few of the cars in the city are civil servants who have free parking (take a look outside Pearse Street Garda Station) as opposed to in the private sector where parking is allocated on merit and rank.

SCULLY

Originally posted by Victor
He is overstating it, but quite a few of the cars in the city are civil servants who have free parking (take a look outside Pearse Street Garda Station) as opposed to in the private sector where parking is allocated on merit and rank.

In fairness, just because the cops abandon their cars in Pearse Street, this doesn't backup up the original statement about the majority of the 10000 cars are civil servants who drive rather than use public transport. Regardless about who is being decentralised, I think these cops will still park there.

gazzer

dont think there will be 10,000 less cars on the streets when the departments move.. i work in a government department and dont have a car, neither do a lot of my workmates. even if you do have a car you are only allowed three months of parking a year. the rest of the time you have to pay or use public transport.

gurramok

I might have overstated it, but it certainly is in the thousands.

Just have a peek at the various govt buildings within the city centre.
Watch the amount of cars that are parked in their employee only car parks, underground and overground.

The tax offices, various departments, council offices\depots, even the universities\colleges.
My former college (Kevin St) is a place where vast majority of staff drive to work than use any other means.
There are alot of car parks provided by the govt which should be restricted to the hard pressed cases. ie..the employees who have no alternative

Anyway benchmarking\pay rises would compensate those that would have to move outside the capital.

Borzoi

It took me a while to realise why decentralisation is in the budget, afterall it's not a financial matter is it? Not really untill you look at the extra revenue it brings in in the form of stamp duty on property.

Assumptions, that 10,000 civil servants move from Dublin, 80% of whom own their house of average value €275K. Then the same number buy similarly valued pproperty down the country.

So from stamp duty paid by other buying the ex-civil servant houses

8000 x €275K x 5% = €110,000,000

The civil servants buying houses will pay a similar amount. So total for the government coffers is twice this:

€220,000,000

It's a simplistic example I know, and it leaves out new houses, VAT etc, but hey, it's a chunk of dough AND he gets to look like the good guy:D

Victor

Originally posted by Borzoi
€220,000,000

I think you are grossly oversating that figure - I imagine a lot of the civil servants that opt for decentralisation will be those that have no fixed reason to stay in Dublin and don't own property. And in any case they will have a bigger home with a €200,000 property in Ballinasloe than a €300,000 property in Dublin. Win, win.

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
I would have taxed them together with our artiests and our film industry.

And promptly been ousted from the party for taking away a tax break from Bertie's sprog...

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
And promptly been ousted from the party for taking away a tax break from Bertie's sprog...

Sprogs, one the writer, the other the film maker.

SCULLY

Originally posted by gurramok

Anyway benchmarking\pay rises would compensate those that would have to move outside the capital.

Bearing in mind that benchmarking is an existing agreement and has nothing to do with decentralization, explain please, how exactly it can now be used as a compensation to those who have to move outside the capital.

Originally posted by Victor

I think you are grossly oversating that figure - I imagine a lot of the civil servants that opt for decentralisation will be those that have no fixed reason to stay in Dublin and don't own property. And in any case they will have a bigger home with a €200,000 property in Ballinasloe than a €300,000 property in Dublin. Win, win.

I take your point, and agree that for a lot of people decentralization will be extreemly benefitial (especially for those who originally had to move to Dublin for employment reasons as opposed to choice). However, as the workforce has increased in Dublin over the last 10 years or so, demand for houses in Wicklow, Meath,Kildare etc has increased and has sent the house prices up. If there was a mass movement of workforce to areas in or around Ballinasloe, your €200,000 house would quickly shoot up in price. The only people who are in a win win situtuation in this case are the government.

Victor

Originally posted by SCULLY
Bearing in mind that benchmarking is an existing agreement and has nothing to do with decentralization

Not quite benchmarking payemnts are dependant on cooperation.

gurramok

Bearing in mind that benchmarking is an existing agreement and has nothing to do with decentralization, explain please, how exactly it can now be used as a compensation to those who have to move outside the capital

One word - money.
While i disagree with benchmarking as it costs the taxpayer way too much, the extra that civil servants are due would help them in relocation expenses.

Though i suspect they would be entitled to relocation expenses anyway.

If they cooperate voluntarily, they would be in for a handsome windfall with house prices alot cheaper in the likes of Cavan than in Dublin (assume they own property in dublin already).

ishmael whale

Looking through the detailed list I notice that Enterprise Ireland is earmarked for Shannon. I associate Shannon with the stunting of the country's aviation sector for parochial benefit. I have a problem with the same mindset infecting other sectors. For all the talk of Dublin-centric policies, efforts and resources have been allocated to attempting to coax industries off the East coast, most recently with the jobs in Paypal nearly being lost for the country by trying to wrestle them West. The reason Dublin continues to develop and other areas don't is not because of policies favouring the capital. The situation is quite the reverse - Dublin grows despite considerable efforts to divert jobs elsewhere.

On Friday the papers covered how cancer services here are backward because we attempt to provide them through our local jack-of-all-trades hospitals, which do not have enough of a throughput to enable staff to acquire or maintain expertise. Centralisation is required simply to enable a professional service to be available. This kind of substantive problem with regionalisation is rarely given the attention it deserves.

Decentralisation lowers our standard of living in so many real ways, reduces our life expectancy, our standard of education and quality of life. I have never seen a pro-decentralisation/regionalisation campaign dealing with issues like this honestly. For example, on health care they mostly side-step by talking about journey times. The point is not about how long it takes to get to a hospital or health centre. Its about the effectiveness of the service that can be provided when you get there. Getting people quickly to a mediocre service that may well need to transfer them elsewhere is pointless.

The inevitable conclusion is that we need to centralise, not decentralise.

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Decentralisation lowers our standard of living in so many real ways, reduces our life expectancy, our standard of education and quality of life.

Other than your thinly-veiled implication that "down the country" is just plain inferior to "the big smoke", have you anything to back this up with?

Having attended schools in my day in : Dublin, Cork, Kerry, and Ennis, I would consider (from my experience) that the quality of school I encountered was inversely proportional to the town size.

I would also question the points on life expetancy (I always believed cities had lower LE than towns or the countryside), and the one on quality of life.

So seriously.....I'd be really interested in seeing where you get this from...or are you just offering a city-dweller's opinion on how superior your life is over the rest of the country's?

jc

Villain

Originally posted by ishmael whale

Decentralisation lowers our standard of living in so many real ways, reduces our life expectancy, our standard of education and quality of life.

Please back this ill informed statement up with some facts.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

SCULLY

Originally posted by Victor
Not quite benchmarking payemnts are dependant on cooperation.

Benchmark payments which have been agreed upon are dependant mainly on increased productivity and working practices. Decentralization is not, nor ever has been , asscoiated with benchmarking.

Originally posted by gurramok
Though i suspect they would be entitled to relocation expenses anyway.

You suspect wrong - If you bothered to look into it properly, you would learn that there are no relocation expenses paid.

ishmael whale

Fair enough, some examples of why decentralisation is bad in principle for the general welfare of the nation:

An Post buggered with the cost of a branch network they don't need,

Scattered small schools than we can't physically maintain

Low pupil teacher ratios in those small schools is paid for by ridiculously high ratios in urban schools

As mentioned above, tatty health services provided by hospitals that are jack-of-all-trades and master of none – and do not have the throughput that would allow staff to gain and keep expertise.

Constraints like these will now be built into the civil service. Also deployment of staff will no longer depend on where they are needed. Factors like 'that means thirty jobs gone in Kilrush' will come into play. So it will cost more to provide the same services.

I take it I don't need to justify in detail that it costs more to operate from a large number of small locations rather than a small number of large concentrations. If anyone is alleging this is not the case can I suggest they also propose an amendment to the law of gravity.

After decentralisation I think we can expect the most bizarre and least co-ordinated civil service in history. Remember, this is not about moving power to local communities. That would be fine, so long as responsibility for raising revenue went with it. What this is about is scattering centralised services all over the place. At the end of the process decisionmaking will be more distant from the people effected.

I see incurring a cost for no benefit as simply crazy. But the real cost will be the creation of an (even more) unwieldy beast of a civil service. That’s what will undermine our future.

To counter this we are offered the fig leaf that ICTs make distance unimportant. In other words, you don’t need to copulate in person you can just toss yourself in front of a video.

Now, any chance of some concrete examples of how decentralisation raises general welfare (as distinct from giving a temporary boost to some locality that’s dying anyway).

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Fair enough, some examples of why decentralisation is bad in principle for the general welfare of the nation:

I see nothing in your response about shorter life expetancy, and precious little about any of the other points you raise initially....but how and ever......

Scattered small schools than we can't physically maintain

Low pupil teacher ratios in those small schools is paid for by ridiculously high ratios in urban schools

And your better solution would be to tell some kids....what??? That they have to travel 50+ miles to a school and back and its their own fault for living somewhere remote????

Whats next? Turn the entire countryside into a barren wasteland and the major cities into arcologies, so that we have the best positioning of people and services?

Regardless, decentralisation does not suggest moving facilities to the countryside...it suggests moving to towns other than Dublin. Unless you're suggesting that we have entire towns which should have their schools shut down, then this is irrelevant to your argument.

Not only that, but adding more people to these towns from Dublin would decrease the pupil-teacher ratio in Dublin (ie fewer pupils per teacher) and increase it in these towns, which would have exactly the effect that you are saying is needed, so it is hard to understand what your argument is. Indeed, the more people you encourage to move out of Dublin, the more the situation moves away from what you are complaining about. Moving them into Dublin doesn't solve anything.

I take it I don't need to justify in detail that it costs more to operate from a large number of small locations rather than a small number of large concentrations. If anyone is alleging this is not the case can I suggest they also propose an amendment to the law of gravity.

And I would point out that people are talking about moving individual departments en masse to a new location, thus not splitting them at all, which makes that entire point irrelevant.

Two deparements in two buildings (one each) in Dublin costs more than two departments in two buildings in two seperate towns (one dept. per building per town). Dublin is - quite simply - the most expensive location in Ireland.

I see incurring a cost for no benefit as simply crazy. But the real cost will be the creation of an (even more) unwieldy beast of a civil service. That’s what will undermine our future.

Rubbish. Several civil service departments were highly successfully decentralised previously (e.g. there are some in Ennis if you go search). Not only that, but you have failed to show that there is a cost. You have alleged that there would be, but the situations you describe are not the reality which we face and you are misinterpreting much of what woul dhappen (as I've already pointed out in at least one case - schools - above).

Now, any chance of some concrete examples of how decentralisation raises general welfare (as distinct from giving a temporary boost to some locality that’s dying anyway).

1) Dublin is the most expensive location in the country to base any organisation. Therefore, from a cost perspective, and organisation which does not have a pressing need to be in Dublin should not be there.

2) Dublin is massively overstressed in all senses with population at the moment...moving some of it out relieves the pressure (if only slightly).

3) It brings much-needed revenue to other parts of the country - which is part of the government's job. You allege its temporary, but I fail to see how putting 20 or 30 (or more) jobs into a local that were not there previously is temporary. The only way its temporary is if you remove the jobs again.....

Tnere is a temporary boost in terms of startup-expenditure, but there is also a long-term boost in terms of employment, consequent increased expenditure in the area, etc. etc. etc.

4) It adds additional incentive to improve facilities in non-Dublin locations, which adds additional possibilities in the future that new businesses etc. will have alternate choices for location other than "where in Dublin do we go".

5) As already pointed out, some of the departments being moved have no justification being in Dublin at the moment and are being moved because it is clearly more efficient to have them elsewhere.

jc

ishmael whale

To make it clearer, shorter life expectancy is a consequence of poor health services, poorer standard of living because our cost base is higher than it has to be – we get less than we otherwise could – poor education directly related to the schools issues, poorer quality of life the final result of that.

I feel you don’t understand the point regarding pupil teacher ratios. The number of teachers granted to a school depends on its enrolment, but naturally there are economies of scale here – if you have a school at all it needs at least one teacher. This means that urban schools, in practice, have higher pupil teacher ratios. There is nothing controversial about this, it is well established fact.

Jobs are being moved to towns, but people will move to surrounding areas. Again, there is nothing controversial in what I am saying. So we move population to the rural areas, keep open the smaller schools that are sapping our resources, and the problem continues. The situation benefits no-one. Urban children have to suffer from large classes, rural children from poor physical conditions and lack of specialist support services.

You are simply wrong to say that departments are being moved en masse to a new location. Staff of about fifteen Departments are being split into 53 locations. This is on top of the decentralisation that has already occurred.

High property prices in Dublin reflect the fact that it is a more efficient location to do business. Put it another way, shops don’t pay enormous rents to locate on Grafton Street for the hell of it. It makes sense. Plus, if the Government sells its Dublin assets to built in regional locations it will have swapped a valuable liquid asset for a cheap illiquid asset. State money is not monopoly money. We should expect it to be spent prudently.

Several civil service departments were decentralised previously, but success is a contestable concept. Clearly those locations have higher communications costs, and staff redeployment is less flexible. Travel costs are higher. Its one thing to say an office can function at a particular location. Its quite another to say that it is efficient or effective.

As to your alleged benefits:
1) As I have already said, Dublin office space is higher priced, but better value

2) Dublin’s infrastructure deficit has been neglected in favour of the regions. This short sighted policy is only now being addressed. Dublin is a small city, it can be made to function efficiently. It is a tribute to its natural advantages that, in the face of neglect, it has performed so strongly.

3) The reason the boost is temporary is because the structure of the regional economy is changing. Moving a few civil service jobs in does nothing to address the fundamental reason why, for example, Kilrush is just not an attractive location to do business. Also, I think you are confusing generating economic growth with increasing the cost base. They can look similar at a distance because everyone looks so terribly busy.

4) This is simply increasing the cost base again.

5) I’m not aware of any justification being made for this decentralisation package, and certainly no-one has made a case on efficiency grounds.

Victor

"Ismellwell" - I smell troll, certainly in the earlier post. While your last post is better thought out, you fail to address the point that a town can reach critical mass at 10,000 - 20,000 without having the profound urban problems that Dublin has.

The problem with Ireland is you have one metropolitan area, four urban areas, a selection of large towns and then a vast number of smaller towns and isolated villages and rural dwellers. What is needed is for the larger towns to reach a critical mass where people can have a choice of employment, schools, shopping, entertainment and so on.

Sending the National Safety Council to is it Ballinasloe of Loughrea is utterly meaningless, it simply doesn't have critical mass and neither will moving 10 people and their families (aside from the argument of specialisation). However moving a functional back office unit of say the Dept. of Social Welfare to a town is meaningful - it means that people, instead of leaving their rural parents to work in Dublin, can leave their parents and live and work in a more local town. For example most of the CSO was moved to Cork, the Death Benefit section of the Dept. of Social Welfare was moved to Letterkenny (?). Neither needs to be in any specific location other that to have communications and transport links. All their business is backroom - queries are dealt with by post and telephone (and Internet these days). It means cheaper rents for government and staff, generally cheaper supply services and better quality of life.

It doesn't take a specialist to process Death Benefit, just someone who can process a form and be slightly compassionate to their (bereaved) customers. So instead of spending 2-3 hours commuting in Dublin, the staff of the unit can do so in minutes living in Letterkenny. And it means that Donegal people can have jobs in the Dept. of Social Welfare rather than being customers of it.

PHB

The problem with the decentralisation is not that it won't help out the areas that they are moved to, its that the government identified the high-need areas and then decided to play the new offices in other areas.

ishmael whale

Victor,

Yourself and Bonkey are not up to speed on what the proposed decentralisation is about. Your account of 'backroom' operations being moved to the regions is more applicable to past decentralisations. What is now proposed is to take most of what is left of Government in Dublin and scatter it around the country.

Can I suggest that you study and reflect on the topic, and then see if you feel the same way?

Victor

Originally posted by ishmael whale
What is now proposed is to take most of what is left of Government in Dublin and scatter it around the country.

Call me a cynic, but it won't happen.

smiles

Originally posted by Sparks
It isn't actually - as that interview with two single mothers in cork on RTE1 pointed out, they're going from getting 370 a week to 383 - a difference of 3.5%, which is effectively the inflation rate, isn't it?

[edit: I knew posting on politics when half asleep was a bad idea, editted to remove my crass mistakes.]

[Figures: http://www.cso.ie/publications/prices/cpi.pdf
Explanation of how inflation is measured: http://www.oasis.gov.ie/consumer_affairs/consumer_price_index.html]

<< Fio >>

sceptre

Originally posted by smiles
than the 2.3% living costs more than it did in 1998.

I'm afraid you're wrong on the substantive point there Fio. The mention of 1998 is there only as an example on that page. The monthly figures produced by the CSO are the monthly rate and annual rate. The monthly rate compares current prices to the prices in the previous month and computes the increase in the previous month from that. The yearly rate compares current prices to the prices at the equivalent date (ie from the same month) (using the figures gathered in that month) in the previous year (ie 12 months previously) and computes the increase in the precious year from that.

In other words, if the yearly rate of inflation for October 2003 is 2.3%, that's the amount that prices have risen since October 2002, not any time in 1998 (which as I said is there in your link purely as an example of how the CPI can be worked out - it's unfortunately a rather misleading example as it's confused at least one person). They don't call it the "annual rate of inflation" for no reason.

From your own link:

Each month, the CSO publishes the monthly and annual rate of inflation - this is given in terms of the percentage changes in prices since the preceding month and since the same month in the previous year. These rates of inflation are the monthly and annual headline inflation figures quoted by economic commentators and the media.

This is what actually happens. Prices have risen far more than 2.3% since 1998 (as you can see rather easily from page 2 of the pdf file you linked to).

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Yourself and Bonkey are not up to speed on what the proposed decentralisation is about.

I can't speak for Victor, but I took exception to your assertion that decentralisation was bad in principle - not that this particular example of decentralisation was bad in practice.

Your account of 'backroom' operations being moved to the regions is more applicable to past decentralisations.

Which would prove my point in disagreeing with your assertions that decentralisation is fundamentally wrong.

Can I suggest that you study and reflect on the topic, and then see if you feel the same way?

Can I suggest you go back, review what you have posted, and reframe your arguments to be applicable to the current situation, rather than being inaccurate generalisations.

Clearly, I made the mistake of actually basing my responses on what you actually wrote, rather than on what you intended everyone to interpret from what you wrote.....

jc

ishmael whale

Bonkey,

While I am sure it is possible to discuss the theory of decentralisation without reference to practice, it seems a little pointless. It hardly presents the same rich conceptual landscape as differential calculus.

I was asked for concrete facts showing why decentralisation is a bad thing. I supplied them. You seemed unaware that the decentralisation involved spliting individual departments. Victor seemed unaware that it was proposed to move more than 'backroom' operations. Hence my worry that you are not up to speed on this topic. I doubt that you can make up the deficit overnight.

Do I take it from your last reply that you are trying to erect a smokescreen to cover your retreat?

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Do I take it from your last reply that you are trying to erect a smokescreen to cover your retreat?

I am retreating from nothing. I was responding to generalised comments, not comments which were aimed at a specific instance of decentralisation - which you have now decided to back your arguments on

Shifting the focus of your argument in this way - from the general to the specific - completely changes the arguments that you have made, and therefore the applicability of the responses I started with.

Your allegations about school-sizes, even when applied to the locations of the smaller towns you quote are still farcical and misdirected. Even were your "move to the rural area near a small town and prop up the local small school" theories correct, you are still saying that the solution is to effectively people to move out of the countryside and force them all to live in closer proximity to each other.

Not only that, but you go on to complain how the rest of the country has unfairly directed much-needed structural funds away from Dublin. Not only would I challenge the validity of the statement, I would say that this implies that you feel large towns and other cities outside Dublin are also the wrong place to be putting people.

So we're back to the Arcology theory again, really - the best solution is to get everyone and everything into Dublin. Sure you'd be mad to want to be anywhere else on the Island...right? I mean, you more or less said exactly that.

You then go on to argue that selling of expensive buildings, in the middle (if not the end) of a price-boom is poor sense, because cashing in is a waste of the investment. What would you have the government do? Cut back on expenditure (and surely not effecting Dublin...no, no...hit outside the Pale) some more rather than realising some assets to cover the shortfall? Even if your miracle solution is "reform the corruption and inefficiency", the bad news is that this too takes time...and what should we do in the meantime? Continue slipping back into the quagmire of Poor-Old-Ireland?

While I do Accept that some/many of the distributions may appear to be questionable in terms of their location, I do not accept the vast majority of the criticisms you have levelled - either in the general case, or in this specific case - are in any way valid.

jc

ishmael whale

We seem to be getting lost in a loop. You say I make generalisations. I support them with examples. Then you say I’m generalising from the specific. This could go on longer than it has to.

Part of the problem we’re having in connecting on this is a fundemental difference in where we are each coming from. I regard it as axiomatic that scattered population is a bad thing. Among many disadvantages, it makes services more costly to deliver. People have a choice to make in their own lives. Live in a remote location and have less material wealth or go to an urban location in expectation of a higher standard of living. Since the middle ages people have been voting with their feet in favour of urbanisation.

On school sizes I honestly think (I know you’ll take this badly, but I can’t alter the nature of reality to protect your amour propre) you just don’t understand the issue. I am not making an allegation. It is simply a fact that urban schools have higher pupil teacher ratios than rural schools because of the latter’s poor economies of scale. This is a cost of rural living paid for by urban schoolchildren. The situation is farcical, but not in the sense that you mean.

Again, it is simply a fact that structural funds have been diverted away from Dublin. I cannot change the nature of reality because of the uncomfortable truth that Dublin grows despite neglect and other areas decline despite investment of significant resources. This is why the West is dotted with underutilised airports while Dublin’s was, until recently, at the end of a traffic choke point. Rather than seeing strategic possibilities to developing Dublin as an international hub, it was strangled by the ludicrous Shannon stopover.

I have no problem with the designation of some regional centres for growth. But there’s only a few million of us – so every rock in the road cannot be a centre. If it was me I would designate Dublin, Cork and Limerick and leave it at that. The Spatial Strategy just dodged the issue.

Your last paragraph is a little confused, but I would ask you to consider something. If a particular operation has 100 jobs located in a provincial town in a fanfare of publicity, what incentive is there to find ways of running that operation with fewer staff? Say they automate another part of the process and no longer need 10 of their staff. Do they make them redundant? Do they ring around the 53 other locations to see if they can borrow some work? Bureaucracy is never regarded as flexible, but this decentralisation will fossilise it.

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
We seem to be getting lost in a loop. You say I make generalisations. I support them with examples. Then you say I’m generalising from the specific.

This could go on longer than it has to.

Yes, it could...until you stop prevaricating and make it clear whether your objection is to this particular instance of decentralisation or to decentralisation in general.

You're quick to bring up generalities about how bad decentralisation is, and yet when previous successes were mentioned you dismissed them on the grounds that your objection wasn't to the general ideas, but rather the specifics of the proposed new round of decentralisation

Now you're back to arguing general points again....

I regard it as axiomatic that scattered population is a bad thing.

And thats exactly where I'm coming from. You are basically taking the stance that urbanised centres (taken to the logical extreme - arcologies) are the only way to go. I, on the other hand, disagree.

First of all, you completely ignore the fact that urbanisation - historically and contemporarily - has introduced many unique problems and costs which simply do not exist in rural areas...most notably in terms of crime and poverty.

People have a choice to make in their own lives. Live in a remote location and have less material wealth or go to an urban location in expectation of a higher standard of living.

That would be the fortunate people. In developed nations, the greatest centres of poverty are all urban. That would seem to fly in the face of your entire theory. Exactly what better standard of living do you think the inner city slums give compared to - say - a mid-sized town (like Ennis), or a small-sized town (like Kilrush).

Since the middle ages people have been voting with their feet in favour of urbanisation.

Since the middle ages people have been voting with their litter against being ecologically friendly. Does that mean that making a mess axiomatically good and right as well???

On school sizes I honestly think (I know you’ll take this badly, but I can’t alter the nature of reality to protect your amour propre) you just don’t understand the issue.

Thats funny, because I was going to point out that you persumably haven't actually been educated in schools from around the country. I - on the other hand - went through primary schools in two cities and two mid-sized towns, as well as having an exposure through my sisters to another "small rural school" - exactly of the type you are moaning about.

Not only that, but your argument would seem to be that city-dwellers are getting a poorer education than those in the rural areas. This would fly in the face of your argument that they are better off staying in the cities. Alternately, if they are getting a better education than in the cities than the rural areas (ignoring the towns as you continue to do), then your argument still does not hold, as they are already better off and therefore cannot be unduly suffering because of investment in rural areas.

I am not making an allegation. It is simply a fact that urban schools have higher pupil teacher ratios than rural schools because of the latter’s poor economies of scale.

You started your rant against schools by referring to all of those single-teacher schools which should be shut down. Now - if your arguments are based on fact as you claim - I would expect that you will have no problem producing a list of these one-teacher schools which are the problem, relevant to the centres of decentralisation in the current budget? Yes?

As well, you might also show that these rural schools will become less efficient by taking in more students...which would seem to be completely counter-intuitive.

This is a cost of rural living paid for by urban schoolchildren.

You claim to have a better standard of living in the city, but are also suffering?

Again - unless your argument is "move everyone into cities and depopulate the towns and rural areas" your argument is self-contradictary..

Again, it is simply a fact that structural funds have been diverted away from Dublin.

Prove it. Supply one single piece of evidence where funding which should have gone to Dublin was diverted elsewhere. Show that Dublin is getting a disproportionately low amoung of infrastructural investment. Really...if its a simple fact, then produce the simple facts rather than this handwaving insistence that you're right just because you say so.

I have no problem with the designation of some regional centres for growth.

But thats not what you're talking about. YOu complain about rural schools...implying that the rural people should do without and move elwsewhere. YOu complain about infrastructure - implying the small towns and rural areas should do without and mvoe elsewhere.

Ultimately, you are simply advocating super-towns and cities, with nothing in between. You're not against decentralisation....your against anything that isn't urbanisation.

jc

ishmael whale

I going to try to keep this short, because you are consistently missing the points being made. For example, you asked for one single piece of evidence where funding which should have gone to Dublin was diverted elsewhere. You say this despite the fact that I drew attention to our underutilised Western airports. I could also point out the subsidy of the Sligo rail line, which is soaking resources that could be used to build a Metro in Dublin instead of some half assed tramlines.

You have shown a startling lack of appreciation of the issues involved. Its still clear that you have no idea what I am talking about on the schools issue. Adding to this the fact that you are not concentrating on what is being said makes your contributions frankly wierd. Do you really think this discussion hinges on where your sister went to school?

To avoid confusion, it might be best to simply take one point at a time. Lets start with the point that Dublin grows despite official neglect. I have drawn attention to more than the single piece of evidence you required. Have you anything to say?

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
You say this despite the fact that I drew attention to our underutilised Western airports.

But you haven't shown that this is funding that was supposed to go to Dublin. You haven't shown that this was money earmarked for Dublin.

I now take it you mean "if we didn't have to fund the rural areas, we would have more money to spend on our cities", which is a completely different argument. You're basically now arguing that decentralisation is wrong "because we should all live in cities". Full stop, end of story. No explanation or proof of why cities are better other than "its better value for money". Lets not bother about anything else.

And lets not even mention that you have railed against the "parochial" Shannon airport, whilst at the same time suggesting that Limerick should be one of our nations only three "growth" centres. So - its to be one of our three main cities, but shouldn't have a nearby airport, because its only "parochial"???? So not even your chosen important and built-up cities outside Dublin are actually worth investment???

I could also point out the subsidy of the Sligo rail line, which is soaking resources that could be used to build a Metro in Dublin instead of some half assed tramlines.

Well then, produce the figures and show that the subsidisation of the Sligo line would indeed cover the extra cost of the metro you want. Show that the money would be allocated to Dublin instead of where it is gone, and not (for example) into improving other neglected areas of our nations infrastructure (like building a proper thoroughfare between Limerick and Galway - which is one of the nation's busier non-Dublin, non-Cork routes).

Show also that removing this line would not result in more collapsed industry, more unemployment, etc in Sligo....or would your solution for the people there to just up and move to Dublin once their line shuts down if thats what it takes to get a job....

You see - you haven't shown any of this. You've just alleged that the money could be better spent in Dublin....whilst also saying that Dublinites already have a better standard of living than those in the rest of the country which is clearly whey the Dublinites need more money allocated to them....

Its still clear that you have no idea what I am talking about on the schools issue.

Yes. I do. You are talking about mythical masses of one-teacher rural schools that - despite a request from me to do so - you haven't provided a single set of figures for. You are talking about how much of a soak they are on you prrecious city-school resources, without addressing the existence of any of the mid-sized towns and their schools, which form a far larger proportion of schools and resource-usage outside the cities, and which would possibly take a far larger percentage of the decentralised kids. You are basically saying how much resources we could spare for our city schools if we could just stop encouraging people to go to these one-teacher rural schools (that you hven't provided any costs figures, numbers of schools, or anything for) we'd have more money for the city schools, and all it would require is that we inconvenience some other people's education or - once again - force them to move to a city for their own good.

None of these arguments are relevant to decentralisation. There are already people in those rural areas, and they already have a right to those services - unless you feel that education, health care etc. isn't a right? These resources are already in place, and will need to remain in place whether decentralisation occurs or not, uness - as I've asked several times, and which you consistently refuse to answer - you are proposing that we just move everyone out of the countryside rather than simply oppose decentralisation.

That is what you are talking about, and I understand your argument just fine. I just believe you are wrong....which is what you seem to have a problem getting to grips with. Simply insisting I don't understand because I disagree with you is hardly indicative of a strong argument.

You begrudge spending the money outside the cities, but the fact is that it will always be spent thus, decentralisation or no, unless you are advocating rural depopulation or the abrogation of rural people's right to education etc.

So the question is how do we want to handle that expenditure? By getting as many people out of the countryside as possible, so that the services we supply to those remaining are as under-utilised and cost-ineffective as possible? Or we could actually try and build up centres and regions of critical-mass population which would make the existant localised services more used, and therefore mose cost-effective. By proposing the latter, you take it that I am the one who doesn't understand the issues?

Do you really think this discussion hinges on where your sister went to school?

I was illustrating that I have direct first-hand experience with city- and town-based schools, and direct second-hand experience with the standards in one of these "pathetic" rural schools that you complain about and tell me I clearly don't understand the issues about.

I understand the problems and benefits that each has. I understand that the highest pupil-teacher ratio I had was not in a city - as you constantly insist is the case - but rather in a mid-sized town. I understand that the differing standards of education which come from these schools also points towards the mid-sized-town model being the best. I understand this from first- and second- hand experience, as well as from discussions with teachers etc.

So, no - the discussion doesn't hinge on where my sister went to school. I'm simply establishing that I do, in fact, know something about what you're ranting on about despite your insistence that I don't. I wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't told me several times that I just don't understand the issues.

I suppose that pointing out that I've lived both in the countryside and in the city is also irrelevant? That I am actually relatively qualified from first-hand experience to comment on the respective qualities of life, standards of living, and all of the rest of the things that you insist are better in the city? Have you lived in both environments for significant portions of your life? Do you have any experience with what you're talking about? Surely you must, because you haven't supplied any verifiable facts to back up your claims, so it must at least be based on experience?

No?

Lets start with the point that Dublin grows despite official neglect.

Lets start there indeed. Show me its been neglected. I'm not talking about you making statements that contain the phrase "its a simple fact", I'm talking about showing facts and figures. Show me that Dublin gets less money allocated per capita than the rest of the country...because you haven't done this. You've said the rural areas shouldn't get the money they do, but you haven't shown that its disproportionately allocated.

So show me the "official neglect", because I think you're just making it up.

You could also show me that encouraging people to move out of the city is not an effective short-, medium- or long-term strategy (because you have no idea which it might be) for easing existant pressure.

Explain how previous decentralisations - such as the moving of the VRT (I believe) office to Ennis was a bad thing - how it made life worse for people instead of better, how it caused Dublin to lose out unfairly. Show how it didn't just make better use of available resources in the town, as well as give it a boost to reach that "critical mass" that Victor referred to.

Seriously....you want to make a case that these things are bad, then do so, but so far your case has consisted of your inistence that you are right. No figures. No directly relevant facts. No considering the impacts of not spending money where it is currently allocated, just a consideration of how better it would make life for you if it was spent on you.

So go ahead....knock yourself out. Show me the neglect fo Dublin, how it is tied to decentralisation, and how relieving some pressure on the city would not be to the city's benefit. Anyone can state that something "is a simple fact" or "axiomatically true". Anyone can say "you don't understand me" when they mean "you're disagreeing with me". Make an actual case.....

jc

ishmael whale

Bonkey, you are a man in search of an exit strategy.

You have not responded to the example of investment funds wasted on airport development that might have been put to more productive use. You, again, attempt a smokescreen drawing some artificial distinction requiring money ‘earmarked’ for Dublin being reallocated – this is plain nonsense. The issue is that allocation of funds has traditionally favoured the regions.

I cannot make good your failure to keep abreast of current events. If, a matter of months after Government published a strategic review of rail services with extensive media coverage, you are painfully uniformed on the topic there is little I can do.

You have an information gap. I cannot make that good here. But because this is a recurrent difficulty in your posts here are some stats that I (vainly) hope will alert you to the schools issue:

There are 760 schools in Ireland with an enrollment of less than 50 pupils. Their pupil teacher ratio is 15.1, and average class size is 15.7.

Average class size and p/t ration increases with school size. At the top end there are 64 schools with enrolments of 500 & over. Their pupil teacher ratio is 24.5, and average class size is 29.3. The combined enrolment of these larger schools is 40,000 – twice the number served by the smallest schools.

The same amount of teachers – about 1,600 – are employed in each group of schools. Therefore the unit staff cost of the smaller schools is around double that of the larger.

There are only a few million of us, as I have already said and you have danced away from. We do not have the population to support many centres of growth. Your failure to take this into account, combined with your lack of knowledge of basic facts about the country you live in, does indeed confirm that you don’t understand the issues. Give it up, and learn from the experience.

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Bonkey, you are a man in search of an exit strategy.

No - I was in search of a valid argument in your posts, rather than self-contradictory stances.

You have not responded to the example of investment funds wasted on airport development that might have been put to more productive use.

I have never even discussed that. I have asked whether or not they would have been put to more productive use in Dublin if they had not been allocated to Shannon, given that you complained about regional spending as taking funds from Dublin. Now, apparently, it doesn't matter whether or not the funds would go to Dublin or some other rural area....all that matters is that it was a waste of money in your eyes.

The issue is that allocation of funds has traditionally favoured the regions.

And I've asked for figures for this which you have yet to provide. Instead, you still rely on the "I am saying it so it is therefore true" style of posting. By asking you to follow the rules and present fact with references and opinion clearly marked as such, though, I am in search of an exit strategy because I clearly don't understand the issues.

If, a matter of months after Government published a strategic review of rail services with extensive media coverage, you are painfully uniformed on the topic there is little I can do.

And all I've asked for - is some indication of how "not spent on the Sligo line" means "spent on Dublin".....because thats what your argument was...that teh expenditure on teh Sligo line was an example of rural areas diverting funds from infrastructure in Dublin.

Now, if its been painfully discussed in such detail like you say, I'm sure such a simple little point as this should be easy to find, but I can't find a reference to it anywhere. But no...asking to prove that your chosen case is in any way relevant to the argument you used it to back up is no understanding the issue, dodging the issue, or just plain stupidity on my part.

There are 760 schools in Ireland with an enrollment of less than 50 pupils. Their pupil teacher ratio is 15.1, and average class size is 15.7.

And were decentralisation to occur, there would be potentially fewer schools below 50 students, and more schools with more students, given that you argued these would be the schools that would get the children of decentralised families (despite again failing to show a single reference to back your "simple fact").

The pupil-teacher ratio therefore would widen, and the average class size would increase as more people were put into the classes.....shortening the disparity between the schools in question and those in the more populated areas.

If we do not decentralize, however, you will remain with 760 schools with the figures you provide.....or

So it would seem that decentralisation is a valid way of actually bringing the two categories you mention closer to each other. Without decentralisation, the disparity will remain, and potentially grow as the cities grow increasingly overburdened.

Their pupil teacher ratio is 24.5, and average class size is 29.3. The combined enrolment of these larger schools is 40,000 – twice the number served by the smallest schools.

The same amount of teachers – about 1,600 – are employed in each group of schools. Therefore the unit staff cost of the smaller schools is around double that of the larger.

Correct. And there are two logical ways of balancing the inequity. One is to close the smaller schools in favour of larger ones. Current population distribution prohibits this. The other is to redistribute the population to take better advantage of the smaller schools - by removing people from the cities and putting them in smaller towns where class sizes can grow to accomodate the extra children, without any additional resources being allocated.

In other words, the entire "cities are overcrowded" argument points towards decentralisation, not away from it.....unless - as I have mentioned - you seek to actively depopulate rural areas by deliberately ensuring that those who live there are disadvantaged in terms of infrastructure in order to "push" them towards the cities.

There are only a few million of us, as I have already said and you have danced away from. We do not have the population to support many centres of growth.

Complete supposition on your part. You have neither qualified the minimum population for a centre of growth, nor have you explained why that minimum population would lead Ireland to have only the three centres you mentioned.

You produce a number for the large schools....but fail to address the issue that they are not all located within your chosen centres for growth. This would appear to be contradictory....you assert we don't have the population to have enough centres, and yet use information partially from these non-centres to back your case.....

You ignore the fact that the most rapidly growing towns in Ireland in recent years are not amongst your listed centres for growth....and yet you choose the largest population centres and base your argument off the need for population.

Your failure to take this into account, combined with your lack of knowledge of basic facts about the country you live in, does indeed confirm that you don’t understand the issues.

I never claimed to live in Ireland. In fact, on this board, I frequently reference the fact that I am an emigrant. I live in a country which has a highly functional, decentralised model, despite the large number of towns and villages which would fall into your "not enough people to make it work" definition. A country which - despite having twice the population of Ireland - does not have a single "supercity" for economies of scale, but rather a well-balanced population distribution. Indeed, it would seem to fall nicely into the model you insist doesn't work.

Oh - and it has one of the highest standards of living in the world...which shows just how correct your model would appear to be. I live in a working example of what you insist doesn't work.......

Give it up, and learn from the experience.

Oh - I'm giving up alright.....

jc

ishmael whale

Maybe I should just let you go, but the way you bend previous discussion demands a response.

It is a fact that you misunderstood the nature of the decentralisation. It is a fact that you asked for only one example of misallocation of funds. It is a fact that when challenged you have just danced off as if volume of words could overcome the exposure of the weaknesses of your position.

I noted the Shannon stopover policy as ludicrous. You took this as criticism of Shannon Airport. Do you know what the stopover is?

As a general point, you seem to have no appreciation that if money is spent on one thing, this means that other things are foregone. Of maybe you do, but realise you have painted yourself into a corner where this is best ignored.

I take it that at least you are no longer attempting to deny that small schools cost more to run. (You were in denial about this not so long ago – saying something to the effect that I was making it up.) The point is clearly made that small schools present structural problems for the allocation of resources. The best way of ensuring that more children benefit from available resources is through centralised schools. Fewer small schools would release resources to enable this to happen. Instead of the disparity below, children could be in schools with an overall pupil teacher ratio of 18.75. Children from the smaller schools would not be much worse off. Children from the larger schools would be considerably better off.

It’s not necessary to prove that a city of one million is a going concern. It is necessary to prove that small towns with no natural advantages have a future. I can’t be certain because you provide no details (despite demanding them at every turn) but I have a suspicion that the fast growing towns you are referring to are places like Dunboyne that are growing because of their proximity to Dublin. At this stage the Greater Dublin Area extends out beyond places like Enfield. Despite the Spatial Strategy ignoring this completely.

From what you now say you are living abroad (although despite your comment this does not seem to have featured in your earlier posts.) Having seen you getting in over your head already I would hesitate before bringing international comparisons into play. But I might point out (sorry, what can I do, you don’t seem to know this stuff) that we have one of the lowest population densities in Europe, I would be careful before saying that I had found a working model that we can emulate.

oscarBravo

Ishmael,

Apart from the logical arguments (where I'm with bonkey, but then I'm probably biased), there's a whole aspect of this debate that you seem content to blithely ignore: the human element.

You argue like an economist who crunches the numbers, decides that investment in rural areas will generate less return than investment in urban, and therefore recommends that investment go to Dublin at the expense of other areas.

Here's my problem with your argument, in simple terms: (1) It's simply not possible for everyone to live in Dublin, no matter how much investment is made in the capital. Someone simply has to live somewhere else. (2) One goal of government must be to strive for an equal standard of living for everyone, irrespective of where they live. Therefore, (3) investment is necessary outside of Dublin, even if that investment doesn't produce the same return as it allegedly might in the capital.

Some specific points:

It is necessary to prove that small towns with no natural advantages have a future.

Au contraire, it is necessary to ensure that such towns have a future.

...our underutilised Western airports

...would be less underutilised with a more even population and industry distribution.

I could also point out the subsidy of the Sligo rail line, which is soaking resources that could be used to build a Metro in Dublin instead of some half assed tramlines.

Dublin doesn't need a Metro: www.platform11.org. Sligo needs a train service - unless, of course, you believe Ireland doesn't need a Sligo, on which point we're not going to agree.

structural funds have been diverted away from Dublin ... Dublin grows despite neglect

You seem to misunderstand the idea of structural funds. If Dublin is growing anyway, then it doesn't need structural funds - their purpose is to help low-growth areas to keep pace with the rest of Europe.

If it was me I would designate Dublin, Cork and Limerick and leave it at that.

With what in between - thousands of square miles of empty space? What should be done with the land? Do you expect farmers to commute from your megacities to work on megaranches? Or are a few hardy individuals expected to eke out a solitary existence in the wilderness, bereft of the most basic services?

ishmael whale

Ultimately, like most people, and probably like yourself, I like the idea that this becomes a good country for everyone to live in. Mindful that we don’t have buckets of money, I take it as read that we cannot do everything we need to do and that choices need to be made.

Clearly you right to say that a level of investment is required outside Dublin. The question is the what that level should be, and what it should be spent on. Efforts have been made to development areas outside Dublin. This covers almost all the expenditure of the Dept of Agriculture, considerable parts of expenditure of other Departments. Government has tried many things, such as peat burning power stations, airport developments, building advance factories, direct financial incentives and simple persuasion to divert development away from the East coast. These efforts have not been particularly effect and the inevitable question is why throw good money after bad?

So when you say it is necessary to ensure that small towns have a future, its against a background of failed attempts to do just that. Consider that the reason airports were built in the West was because they were deemed to be a key to development for that region. As you note, European funding was used extensively to assist projects in less advantaged areas. It didn’t work. (In talking with Bonkey my language was a little loose for obvious reasons. Sometimes I have used the term structural funds, not to refer to European structural funds but rather funding of infrastructure)

I don’t want to get sidetracked on the www.platform11.org agenda, but the line under the Phoenix Park takes a roundabout route from Heuston to Connolly. It’s not a shortcut to an integrated rail solution. My own view is we should either have a Metro or simply apply available funds to buying more buses. I’m not saying more buses are an ideal solution, just that Luas is messing about with the problem.

What is the future of the areas outside the major zones of development ? Firstly, bear in mind that population decline in rural areas is inevitable. We still have something of the order of 100,000 farmers. My understanding is this is expected to shrink to maybe 30,000. The structure of Agriculture will inevitably change from world trade pressures. We can’t expect to get a first world income from selling a primary product to North Africa.

There will be a population drift from rural to urban and, within urban, from small town to large town. That is inevitable. The issue is how we manage it. If we invest in the locations that people will go to, instead of the areas some want them to stay in, it will have a happier outcome.

ishmael whale

Garret Fitzgerald has a useful article in Saturday's Irish Times. He says the mistakes of the past are being repeated by this decentralisation. In the late sixties the Buchanon report recommended that growth be concentrated in a small number of locations outside Dublin, so that the critical mass would be created to balance Dublin as a centre. The report was shelved because it was unpalatable to the areas not earmarked for development, and Dublin continued to grow. In the same way the present decentralisation ignores the Spatial Strategy - most of the locations are towns not earmarked as centres - and repeats the same mistake.

He also points out that the movement of headquarters offices outside of Dublin will have a significant impact on the ability of Government to formulate policy, by reducing and misallocating the expertise available. It will also complicate the appointment of Ministers, as Departments will now be associated with particular counties.

Cork

How can the State expect to attract industry to the regions when they themselves fail to decentralise?

In the late sixties the Buchanon report recommended that growth be concentrated in a small number of locations outside Dublin, so that the critical mass would be created to balance Dublin as a centre. The report was shelved because it was unpalatable to the areas not earmarked for development, and Dublin continued to grow. In the same way the present decentralisation ignores the Spatial Strategy - most of the locations are towns not earmarked as centres - and repeats the same mistake

We did not have broadband and video conferencing facilities in the 60's. (Much of the country is still not covered with broadband - but the technology exists).

He also points out that the movement of headquarters offices outside of Dublin will have a significant impact on the ability of Government to formulate policy, by reducing and misallocating the expertise available. It will also complicate the appointment of Ministers, as Departments will now be associated with particular counties.

As a country that relies on foriegn direct investment - we have many companies in this country with HQs outside of Ireland.

Yet - Why have these companies not trouble in formulating policy?

Decentralisation is a very good idea. It will put €s into many regions around the country. Successive governments ought to have followed regionalisation policys years ago.

People stuck in traffic jams in our capital has got to be put down to a lack of regional planning.