Decentralisation

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

you can't recognise the unquantifiable benefits that rural regeneration brings to a country.

Er, that would be because they're unquantifiable?

Seanies32 wrote:

The ones that don't want to decentralise aren't being moved, they're being redeployed.

You mean that expensively trained and highly skilled people are being white-walled at considerable expense. Your earlier point that they'd be needing to be replaced after 12 years is questionable as you don't know the actual demographic of those whose jobs are being exported out of Dublin, nor that of the people (mostly 'promotion tourists') who will replace them.

Your claim that rents will be lower is simply optimistic. PPPs have a notorious reputation for cost over-runs & I have no doubt that rents will increase to Dublin levels once the staff are in place. Given the lack of suitable sites in the small towns, there will be no competition in the rental market and the landlords will be able to jack up the rents as the alternative (moving the office to another town) will be blocked by pariochal interests.

I have serious concerns for the impact on traditional lifestyles and the quality of the rural environment if this project goes ahead. For many decades, we city folk have lived in admiration for the non-materialistic, spiritual lifestyle of rural dwellers, now you want to change all that and bring the misery of commuter traffic and consumption to country towns. The destruction of the traditional frugal values of rural Ireland will be one of the outcomes of this plan.

The_Conductor

NewDubliner wrote:

I have serious concerns for the impact on traditional lifestyles and the quality of the rural environment if this project goes ahead. For many decades, we city folk have lived in admiration for the non-materialistic, spiritual lifestyle of rural dwellers, now you want to change all that and bring the misery of commuter traffic and consumption to country towns. The destruction of the traditional frugal values of rural Ireland will be one of the outcomes of this plan.

Try getting into Tubbercurry, Co. Sligo in the morning or out of it in the evening- its a very good example....... Its not quite at the bottle neck on the Dublin quays stage- but its not far off.......

Seanies32- you were singing the virtues of the EU and all the structural aid that came our way. I'll tell you one thing that has been massively negative for Donegal from the EU- its the way our fishing industry was sold up the creek. If we never joined the EU- we would still be in control of 30% of Europe's commercial fishing waters- instead of a pathetic 2.6% of its fishing quota- and we most certainly would not have the ignomy of Spanish fishing trawlers being arrested in the Shannon Estuary.......

Everything has its pros and its cons. The big problem on this thread is a lack of clear hard facts. There is lots of wonderful rhetoric about decentralisation- how the regions depend on it, how they deserve it, how they've been promised it- how Dublin will benefit from it, how Dublin can afford it, how it would be unfair not to go ahead with it, how those ingrates in the civil service are blocking it out of spite etc etc etc- but there is nothing behind these willfull statements to actually backup with hardfacts, the case you are making.

I didn't reply to your post either- because it confused me, I really have no idea what you are trying to say. I gave you an example of how to price the costs associated with proceeding with the plan- which you ignored (I was trying to be helpful)- instead we've meandered off on bitching about the Ballymum urban regeneration programme, the Luas, marching on the Dail etc.

While I love rational debate- thats simply not happening here- its a case of stonewalling anyone who tries to address notions or statements pulled from thin air, with facts.

Personally I don't see that this thread has any further function- once it went down the us-versus-them road, its demise was inevitable I guess. I'm unsubscribing from this thread- as I only get a headache trying to get my head around some of the lunacy here.

S.

NewDubliner

The country vs city exchanges are important features of this thread and cannot be ignored.

I think it's vital that thread is not locked: The waste represented by this project needs to be kept in full view of the public.

It's sad, but the media has mostly fallen for the spin and rarely asks probing questions.

There are more issues and facts here than have ever been seen in the papers.

Schuhart

smccarrick wrote:

its a case of stonewalling anyone who tries to address notions or statements pulled from thin air

I think you're right - we've reached the limit of rational discussion. As we know anyone can stonewall a defence of any daft scheme by claiming 'unquantifiable' benefits. What seems impossible is any reasoned discussion of what might actually do something for regional development.

K-9

ninja900 wrote:

Only because you repeatedly refuse to provide any facts or figures when your arguments are challenged.

The benefits of rural areas being regenerated are often unquantifiable, to both Rural areas, Dublin and Ireland as a whole.

ninja900 wrote:

I haven't replied to your last post because not a word of it makes any sense I can figure out. If you think one-off housing is prevalent in Dublin you must be on something.

:rolleyes: It was meant sarcastically obviously. One off housing is a country problem just as urban sprawl is for Dublin.

The overall mentality here from Dublin posters is that Dublin is being fleeced by rural "failed economies". Declare independence then and we'll get EU Funds from countries that appreciate rural areas :rolleyes:

K-9

smccarrick wrote:

Try getting into Tubbercurry, Co. Sligo in the morning or out of it in the evening- its a very good example....... Its not quite at the bottle neck on the Dublin quays stage- but its not far off.......

I take it that was sarcastic!.

smccarrick wrote:

Seanies32- you were singing the virtues of the EU and all the structural aid that came our way. I'll tell you one thing that has been massively negative for Donegal from the EU- its the way our fishing industry was sold up the creek. If we never joined the EU- we would still be in control of 30% of Europe's commercial fishing waters- instead of a pathetic 2.6% of its fishing quota- and we most certainly would not have the ignomy of Spanish fishing trawlers being arrested in the Shannon Estuary.......

Everything has its pros and its cons.

Agreed. The EU has generally been good for Ireland as a whole. Decentralisation has its pros and cons too!

smccarrick wrote:

The big problem on this thread is a lack of clear hard facts. There is lots of wonderful rhetoric about decentralisation- how the regions depend on it, how they deserve it, how they've been promised it- how Dublin will benefit from it, how Dublin can afford it, how it would be unfair not to go ahead with it, how those ingrates in the civil service are blocking it out of spite etc etc etc- but there is nothing behind these willfull statements to actually backup with hardfacts, the case you are making.
I didn't reply to your post either- because it confused me, I really have no idea what you are trying to say. I gave you an example of how to price the costs associated with proceeding with the plan- which you ignored (I was trying to be helpful)- instead we've meandered off on bitching about the Ballymum urban regeneration programme, the Luas, marching on the Dail etc.

And I replied with cost savings and suggestions that some of those cost are going to arise anyway in the next 10 year, so they are being brought forward. Go back a few pages and read the replies!

smccarrick wrote:

While I love rational debate- thats simply not happening here- its a case of stonewalling anyone who tries to address notions or statements pulled from thin air, with facts.

Personally I don't see that this thread has any further function- once it went down the us-versus-them road, its demise was inevitable I guess. I'm unsubscribing from this thread- as I only get a headache trying to get my head around some of the lunacy here.

S.

I'm wasting too much time trying to reply to 3/4 contributors on here! Decentralisation to rural by its nature will be costly. Is this country and its people so obsessed with money and cost that social benefits are to be ignored.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

The country vs city exchanges are important features of this thread and cannot be ignored.

I think it's vital that thread is not locked: The waste represented by this project needs to be kept in full view of the public.

It's sad, but the media has mostly fallen for the spin and rarely asks probing questions.

There are more issues and facts here than have ever been seen in the papers.

Agree it shouldn't be locked. The EU point may seem off topic but its relevant in that EU Funds where used for poor areas like Ireland before. Funds from Dublin off course are transferred to poorer areas now. Either that or we just give up on rural areas and move to Dublin! Some costs then! :rolleyes:

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

I think you're right - we've reached the limit of rational discussion. As we know anyone can stonewall a defence of any daft scheme by claiming 'unquantifiable' benefits. What seems impossible is any reasoned discussion of what might actually do something for regional development.

How do you measure the loss of rural areas as against rejuvenating them?
The difference it makes to peoples lives, off not having to emigrate or move 200 miles away to get work. The schools that don't have to be closed, the new services that open etc. etc.

Firetrap

Since money is apparently no objective, would it not make more sense for the government to put the money that will be wasted on decentralisation into proper rural development?

I've a friend whose husband has decentralised recently. Thing is, he was living in that town already and just going up and down to Dublin on the train everyday. As were most of his new colleagues who have also "decentralised". Now, it's nice for those people who don't have to get up at 6am every morning but it's not really helping the local town regenerate, is it?

All that's going to happen in Donegal is that people who are working in offices in surrounding counties or other towns will apply to work closer to home. Apart from a few Donegal natives who might want to come back, very few are going to want to up sticks and move there.

Since the scheme is voluntary and there are no redundancies being offered, you've still got that big problem of what to do with all the people who aren't moving. They still have to be paid and presumably new staff taken on in the new locations to fill the posts, thus causing a massive expansion in the number of public servants on the public payroll. That's an awful price to pay for a few thousand jobs, is it not?

More imagination is needed. That money would be better off spent on rural infrastructure, helping local enterprises and encourging businesses to establish in areas outside Dublin. At least those things would be tangible and real.

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

Declare independence then and we'll get EU Funds from countries that appreciate rural areas :rolleyes:

I think you might find that the environment has changed a little since a whole load of new States in Eastern Europe joined. No-one does pointless handouts anymore. Can I also suggest that your mindset that someone, somewhere, is clearly obliged to pour money in Donegal is downright embarrassing in its desperation. I’m not sure I’ll be saying much more here as this discussion is so far away from where it needs to be.

Seanies32 wrote:

How do you measure the loss of rural areas as against rejuvenating them?

I think the Government should fund a Linear Particle Acceleration Laboratory in my back garden.

Of course, they’d have to compulsorily purchase a tract of land two miles long starting from my house before we even get to actually building the laboratory. It would probably cost several billion, but in the light of the unquantifiable benefits of having a major Linear Particle Accelerator in Ireland, and its impact on rejuvenating Irish physics, how could anyone think we even need to establish the cost before proceeding with the project?

Firetrap wrote:

That money would be better off spent on rural infrastructure, helping local enterprises and encourging businesses to establish in areas outside Dublin. At least those things would be tangible and real.

This is what Seanies cannot seem to get into his noggin. No-one's complaining about investing resources in the regions. What people are complaining about is a policy that wastes resources to no end.

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

I think you might find that the environment has changed a little since a whole load of new States in Eastern Europe joined. No-one does pointless handouts anymore. Can I also suggest that your mindset that someone, somewhere, is clearly obliged to pour money in Donegal is downright embarrassing in its desperation. I’m not sure I’ll be saying much more here as this discussion is so far away from where it needs to be.

Well it worked for Ireland including Dublin in the 70/80's!:rolleyes: What's with the Donegal thing again? There's a good chance Donegal will see little of these jobs. Disadvantaged areas like Donegal and indeed Sheriff Street etc. have a right to funding. A caring Society is obliged to help them.

schuart wrote:

This is what Seanies cannot seem to get into his noggin. No-one's complaining about investing resources in the regions. What people are complaining about is a policy that wastes resources to no end.

Fair enough, your opinion. I don't think it's a major waste of resources as decentralising adds services, people and employment to areas which increases the likelihood of other companies basing there. Something like the ripple effect multi-nationals had here in the 90's.

At lease the anti-decentralisation lobby have moved on from the "I can't move for personal reasons" argument. Employers do not have to consider everybodies personal circumstances.

oscarBravo

This thread is being dragged off-topic. No more discussion on urban/rural divides, please. All future contributions are to be on the merits or otherwise of the proposed decentralisation scheme.

Ideally, I'd also like to see contributions confined to factual discussion. I realise this may be a big ask.

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

Well it worked for Ireland including Dublin in the 70/80's!:rolleyes:

I’m not sure you’re following the points that have been made. We got a load of EU money, but there’s actually precious little to show for it as you should be able to work out from the amount of infrastructural investment going on at present – if that EU money had actually addressed some deficit that investment would not be necessary. EU money was seen as free money, with no requirement for it to be spent sensibly. That’s where its similar to decentralisation.

Seanies32 wrote:

Fair enough, your opinion. I don't think it's a major waste of resources as decentralising adds services, people and employment to areas which increases the likelihood of other companies basing there. Something like the ripple effect multi-nationals had here in the 90's.

I don’t know how often the same point has to be made for you to notice it. The pointlessness of decentralisation is not my ‘opinion’. It’s the conclusion that comes out of the substantial research undertaken to inform the national spatial strategy. It found that the ‘mile wide and inch thick’ approach to regional development was utterly pointless – explaining how we could have spent so much to so little effect. To get the ‘ripple’ effect you are speaking of you need to promote concentration in the regions. Proposing, as the decentralisation programme does, to put 120 people in Buncrana, 230 in Donegal and 30 in Gweedore and similar little clusters in 50 other locations has no real impact. It simply repeats the policy that has been tried and failed for decades of pretending every town can be a development centre.

This programme is pointless. It achieves nothing. No area, no matter how disadvantaged (and leaving aside how much of this picture of disadvantage and abandonment by the State is inaccurate) has a right to expect large amounts of money to be combusted to no effect.

Seanies32 wrote:

At lease the anti-decentralisation lobby have moved on from the "I can't move for personal reasons" argument. Employers do not have to consider everybodies personal circumstances.

IIRC, this turn of the discussion was actually started by a suggestion that the arguments about the senselessness of this policy were just window-dressing to cover the unwillingness of people to move, so I think (not for the first time) your comment is hard to fathom.

NewDubliner

oscarBravo wrote:

This thread is being dragged off-topic. No more discussion on urban/rural divides, please. All future contributions are to be on the merits or otherwise of the proposed decentralisation scheme.

Just as the idea that 'decentralisation' would ease Dublin congestion was found to be bogus, the idea that this scheme will somehow add to the quality of life of unhappy people living outside of Dublin needs to be tackled.

The 'pro' lobby is desperately trying to pretend that this is the ONLY way to energise failing towns and that anyone who opposes this scheme is 'anti-country'.

This of course is, to coin a phrase of seanies32 is 'off course'.

oscarBravo

NewDubliner wrote:

Just as the idea that 'decentralisation' would ease Dublin congestion was found to be bogus, the idea that this scheme will somehow add to the quality of life of unhappy people living outside of Dublin needs to be tackled.

Kept in the context of decentralisation, I don't disagree.

NewDubliner wrote:

The 'pro' lobby is desperately trying to pretend that this is the ONLY way to energise failing towns and that anyone who opposes this scheme is 'anti-country'.

I've no problem with such arguments being refuted - I just don't want it drifting into a wider debate.

K-9

Firetrap wrote:

I've a friend whose husband has decentralised recently. Thing is, he was living in that town already and just going up and down to Dublin on the train everyday. As were most of his new colleagues who have also "decentralised". Now, it's nice for those people who don't have to get up at 6am every morning but it's not really helping the local town regenerate, is it?

Yes decentralising is helping in those cases. Instead of being away from the town for maybe 12 hours of the day, they are now their full time. It also solves the personal circumstance of having to sell or move home. Large commuter towns that are basically ghost towns during the week will benefit. The GAA, Soccer clubs will benefit, shops and other local businesses as well.

firetrap wrote:

All that's going to happen in Donegal is that people who are working in offices in surrounding counties or other towns will apply to work closer to home. Apart from a few Donegal natives who might want to come back, very few are going to want to up sticks and move there.

Thus keeping people in rural towns for the future. Unless you want to exclude local people from applying.

FIRETRAP wrote:

Since the scheme is voluntary and there are no redundancies being offered, you've still got that big problem of what to do with all the people who aren't moving. They still have to be paid and presumably new staff taken on in the new locations to fill the posts, thus causing a massive expansion in the number of public servants on the public payroll. That's an awful price to pay for a few thousand jobs, is it not?

It's a major mistake that redundancy wasn't offered. The Government was between a rock and a hard place on this though. Imagine if it was offered, there'd be even more uproar from the Unions and anti lobby. There'd be shouts of "we'll be made redundant if we don't move or don't like our new jobs! Or what would happen, if as you suggest they only offered decentralisation or Redundancy?

FIRETRAP wrote:

More imagination is needed. That money would be better off spent on rural infrastructure, helping local enterprises and encourging businesses to establish in areas outside Dublin. At least those things would be tangible and real.

The Government is slowly starting to do it. We also get detractors when decent roads are being built to rural areas, "what a waste of money etc."

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

To get the ‘ripple’ effect you are speaking of you need to promote concentration in the regions. Proposing, as the decentralisation programme does, to put 120 people in Buncrana, 230 in Donegal and 30 in Gweedore and similar little clusters in 50 other locations has no real impact. It simply repeats the policy that has been tried and failed for decades of pretending every town can be a development centre.

The above are feeder towns to Letterkenny/Derry. Akin to Kildare, Meath etc. for Dublin. It's important to give these areas jobs and develop them as well. There's a specific reasons these towns where picked. Fruit of the Loom, Magees etc.

schuart wrote:

IIRC, this turn of the discussion was actually started by a suggestion that the arguments about the senselessness of this policy were just window-dressing to cover the unwillingness of people to move, so I think (not for the first time) your comment is hard to fathom.

Yes, it's the main reason for not wanting decentralisation for most people and perfectly understandable. Employers, as in my own job, do not have to consider everybodies personal circumstances.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

Just as the idea that 'decentralisation' would ease Dublin congestion was found to be bogus, the idea that this scheme will somehow add to the quality of life of unhappy people living outside of Dublin needs to be tackled.

Freeing those offices up for higher revenue jobs and activities. Off course that is, good economics. That's a bit of a generalisation off course, nobody is saying it's a majic pill, it's part of the solution.

newdubliner wrote:

The 'pro' lobby is desperately trying to pretend that this is the ONLY way to energise failing towns and that anyone who opposes this scheme is 'anti-country'.

Off course it's only part of the solution. Decentralisation will help.

newdubliner wrote:

This of course is, to coin a phrase of seanies32 is 'off course'.

Off course, off topic, I would have thought! :rolleyes: "Failed economies" is a turn of phrase of yours!:rolleyes:

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

The above are feeder towns to Letterkenny/Derry. Akin to Kildare, Meath etc. for Dublin. It's important to give these areas jobs and develop them as well. There's a specific reasons these towns where picked.

I'm sorry, but you are simply illustrating the kind of approach that has been tried and failed. Letterkenny simply does not have the scale of Dublin. That's the problem - there is no town in the North West of sufficient scale to 'feed' other towns. That's where you need to start, and that's what the National Spatial Strategy was trying to achieve. Decentralisation fatally holed the Spatial Strategy, thus killing off any chance of meaningful regional development.

If you goal truly is regional development, you should be an even more vocal opponent of decentralisation than the public service unions who's only interest is to protect the personal positions of their members. You have a substantial reason to oppose the programme, if only you realised it.

Seanies32 wrote:

Yes, it's the main reason for not wanting decentralisation for most people and perfectly understandable. Employers, as in my own job, do not have to consider everybodies personal circumstances.

I've that feeling of talking at cross purposes again. I think we've established, as various posters have stated quite coherently several times in recent posts, what we are pointing out is that decentralisation is an ineffectual way of promoting regional development. Hence, if your interest is regional development this is simply not the way to do it.

There's actually no reason for us to have to disagree. The only problem is you insisting that decentralisation should be carried out at any cost because of 'unquantifiable' benefits. I'm not clear why your argument does not equally apply to my proposal for the Government to fund a Linear Particle Acceleration Laboratory in my back garden, which will have equally unquantifiable benefits.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

That's a bit of a generalisation off course, nobody is saying it's a majic pill, it's part of the solution.... Decentralisation will help

So could drinking "Sunny 'D'".

You need a scientific test case. How about a giving us a case study based on an an existing 'decentralised' location, for example, Cahirciveen? You could tell us how much it cost and what the benefits have been to the town. Also what happened to the people who originally did those jobs? Also, pick a 'control' town, one that didn't get the gift of a some civil serfs, and compare how it did.

Schuhart

NewDubliner wrote:

So could drinking "Sunny 'D'".

How about a giving us a case study based on an an existing 'decentralised' location, for example, Cahirciveen? You could tell us how much it cost and what the benefits have been to the town. Also what happened to the people who originally did those jobs?

Not to forget the practical impact on the operation of the Legal Aid Board which, I think I'm right in saying, has had to duplicate staff in both Dublin and Cahirciveen as it simply was not feasible to decentralise its work, despite all the political pressure. I doubt if anyone is asking too closely what the staff in Cahirciveen are actually doing to fill the day.

At the end of the day the reason we fund a Legal Aid Board is to provide legal aid to people who need it, not to make-work for people in Kerry.

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

I'm sorry, but you are simply illustrating the kind of approach that has been tried and failed. Letterkenny simply does not have the scale of Dublin. That's the problem - there is no town in the North West of sufficient scale to 'feed' other towns. That's where you need to start, and that's what the National Spatial Strategy was trying to achieve. Decentralisation fatally holed the Spatial Strategy, thus killing off any chance of meaningful regional development.

Those areas lost jobs because of uncompetitiveness, just like Intel. No other reason. Unfortunately, as your not from the area, you wouldn't realise that they are feeder towns, though obviously not to the same extent as towns in Kildare, Meath etc. Buncrana is a feeder town for Derry, part of the spatial strategy.

schuart wrote:

If you goal truly is regional development, you should be an even more vocal opponent of decentralisation than the public service unions who's only interest is to protect the personal positions of their members. You have a substantial reason to oppose the programme, if only you realised it.

I see your point on the Unions, who will criticise decentralisation no matter what, in the interest of its members. I can see the knock on benefits from decentralisation, you don't realise that!

schuart wrote:

There's actually no reason for us to have to disagree. The only problem is you insisting that decentralisation should be carried out at any cost because of 'unquantifiable' benefits. I'm not clear why your argument does not equally apply to my proposal for the Government to fund a Linear Particle Acceleration Laboratory in my back garden, which will have equally unquantifiable benefits.

I don't disagree in the main part, especially that it should have been better planned in ways. Then again, the Government would have met opposition from the Unions no matter if it was a perfect proposal, because as you say they will still protect the personal position of their members. On your linear thingy! just because they are difficult to quantify and measure economically, doesn't mean its necessarily wrong.

If we want to treat things purely on economic terms, think of the new enterprises, revenues and employment that will be brought to Dublin by freeing up these locations by decentralisation.

Firetrap

Seanies32 wrote:

Yes decentralising is helping in those cases. Instead of being away from the town for maybe 12 hours of the day, they are now their full time. It also solves the personal circumstance of having to sell or move home. Large commuter towns that are basically ghost towns during the week will benefit. The GAA, Soccer clubs will benefit, shops and other local businesses as well.

You're taking my point of context. Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. My point is that although it's nice for the commuters who don't have to commute anymore, it's not going to bring this massive bonanza that local chambers of commerce thought it would. Or the property developers who were hoping to flog over-priced houses.

I also hope that these people who are getting a nice lie-in in the mornings are as capable of doing their new jobs properly as the people they've replaced. That is far more important than anything else.

Seanies32 wrote:

Thus keeping people in rural towns for the future. Unless you want to exclude local people from applying.

Don't hold your breath on this. Not all departments are recruiting staff and when they do, it's in small numbers.

Seanies32 wrote:

It's a major mistake that redundancy wasn't offered. The Government was between a rock and a hard place on this though. Imagine if it was offered, there'd be even more uproar from the Unions and anti lobby. There'd be shouts of "we'll be made redundant if we don't move or don't like our new jobs! Or what would happen, if as you suggest they only offered decentralisation or Redundancy?

It's not on the table so that's the end of that.

Seanies32 wrote:

The Government is slowly starting to do it. We also get detractors when decent roads are being built to rural areas, "what a waste of money etc."

Who says this? I don't think any fair-minded person would object to the roads around the country being improved. Rural infrastructure and decentralisation are NOT the same thing.

K-9

Firetrap wrote:

You're taking my point of context. Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. My point is that although it's nice for the commuters who don't have to commute anymore, it's not going to bring this massive bonanza that local chambers of commerce thought it would. Or the property developers who were hoping to flog over-priced houses.

I was looking at it from a different perspective than you. It's bringing economic and more importantly, extra social benefits for those towns.

FIRETRAP wrote:

Don't hold your breath on this. Not all departments are recruiting staff and when they do, it's in small numbers.

FIRETRAP wrote:

All that's going to happen in Donegal is that people who are working in offices in surrounding counties or other towns will apply to work closer to home. Apart from a few Donegal natives who might want to come back, very few are going to want to up sticks and move there.

Don't the numbers still have to be filled? Surely the ones who aren't recruiting will have enough numbers decentralising voluntarily in the first place, hence, they're not recruiting!

firetrap wrote:

It's not on the table so that's the end of that.

Unfortunately for everybody it wasn't an option. I think the anticipated Union reaction was a big reason why it wasn't.

firetrap wrote:

Who says this? I don't think any fair-minded person would object to the roads around the country being improved. Rural infrastructure and decentralisation are NOT the same thing.

You'd be surprised at the amount of people who begrudge any effort to fund our "failed" rural economies and try and help them. Some people don't see the point of providing broadband there! Decentralisation is part of an overall plan including rural infrastructure.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Don't the numbers still have to be filled? Surely the ones who aren't recruiting will have enough numbers decentralising voluntarily in the first place, hence, they're not recruiting!

Not if the 'new' jobs are going to people who are already decentralised. (These are the majority of applicants).The biggest number of applicants for Killarney came from staff located in Cahirciveen and who already live in Killarney. Net benefit to Killarney?

The nub of your argument is that the benefits of 'decentralisation' for your favoured towns cannot be measured and that if there is the slightest possibility of any benefit at all (e.g. 10 extra sandwiches a week being sold) that this justifies huge amounts of taxpayer's money (that might otherwise be spent on sick children or ailing elderly people) should be lavished on these towns.

With economic logic like that, it's not hard to see why those towns have failed to flourish and are reduced to pillaging the paypackets of hard working taxpayers throughout Ireland.

Capt'n Midnight

smccarrick wrote:

I'll tell you one thing that has been massively negative for Donegal from the EU- its the way our fishing industry was sold up the creek. If we never joined the EU- we would still be in control of 30% of Europe's commercial fishing waters- instead of a pathetic 2.6% of its fishing quota- and we most certainly would not have the ignomy of Spanish fishing trawlers being arrested in the Shannon Estuary......

If we had invested more in the naval service / air corps that would be less of a problem. But we had aconfiscated trawlers acting as fishing patrol vessel. It was making a profit, the fines were paying it's cost. But it was discontinued probably as a cost saving measure ?

Seanies32 wrote:

The overall mentality here from Dublin posters is that Dublin is being fleeced by rural "failed economies". Declare independence then and we'll get EU Funds from countries that appreciate rural areas :rolleyes:

Sadly the Government torpedoed that option, by extending the definition of disadvantaged areas for short term political gains. This meant that a more counties benefited from EU funding for a while, but the better ones raised the average so that the poorer one can no longer benefit.

I can't remember which counties are involved but I think it's just the western searboard of the BMW region - and IIRC cork / galway / kerry should have been dropped or something
http://www.bmwassembly.ie/region/region.htm

The_Conductor

Seanies32 wrote:

I see your point on the Unions, who will criticise decentralisation no matter what, in the interest of its members. I can see the knock on benefits from decentralisation, you don't realise that!

Seanies- the current scheme was the result of a joint proposal put forward on behalf of the CPSU and the PSEU- the two largest unions by far in the civil service, when the last programme for government was being discussed in 2002. The unions were massively in favour in the programme- as the civil service is a decentralised entity with only slightly over 20% of its staff in the Dublin region- the current civil servants down the country would benefit massively from the scheme through both the abilities to move elsewhere, and possibly through better promotional opportunities. In many cases the Dublin civil servants were ineligible for these decentralised posts, or their departments simply refused to release them. Can we put a nail in the coffin for once and for all- the scheme is a relocation scheme on a grand scale, rather than a decentralisation scheme- and the unions are not against it (with the possible exception of the AHCPS, who did sit down and carefully look at the proposals before deciding whether to support them)- they actually proposed it.

I know that you want your jobs in Donegal- you have several of them there already from the previous scheme (think of the Division of DSFA in Letterkenny)- the big problem is the manner in which these jobs were splashed around the place- like handing out a bag of candy- people wanted to make sure that no-one was left out......

If you accept that its a political answer to a problem that simply was never evaluated- then maybe the answer to the perceived problem is to plough on regardless.

The simple statement that is being conveniently being overlooked by the lets-plough-on-ahead brigade is the National Spatial Strategy. A lot of time and effort was spent on drawing up a plan that would ensure coherent viable development of the different regions- tangible plans were drawn up- it actually made sense. At a stroke McCreevy decided to toss it to one side and ignore it, for purely political reasons.......

That is what a lot of us are saying- the current proposals make no sense, have not been costed and the benefits, as they exist, would be frittered away to the stage that they were marginal in the extreme. We have decent proposals (the NSS)- that make a lot of sense- whats going on? Anyone who mentions the NSS is suddenly a pariah- and people in places such as Longford, Sligo, Roscommon, Galway etc- who would see their greater regions develop have bought the nonsense the politicians sold them and moved on.

Our national finances are in trouble again (we look ontrack to borrow 4 billion before year end), proceeds from the sale of properties are much lower than anticipated (as the are almost uniformly in terrible states and need massive remedial work on them), and those buildings that its intended to reassign to other purposes (such as the Department of Agriculture on Kildare Street- going to the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Department of Finance) have hundreds of staff still there that no-one seems to have thought of....... its a mess.......

Schuhart

Seanies, in post 2065 you’ve two quotes attributed to me that actually come from Firetrap (although I don’t have any substantial problem with what Firetrap has said). Incidently, others have made useful posts that you really should reflect on. I don’t know how to get across to you (as the points have been made repeatedly at this stage) that if regional development is your goal, this just isn’t the way to do it.

Seanies32 wrote:

Those areas lost jobs because of uncompetitiveness, just like Intel. No other reason.

You are simply ignoring the strategic weakness identified by the National Spatial Strategy. For as long as that weakness is ignored, policies will fail.

Seanies32 wrote:

I can see the knock on benefits from decentralisation, you don't realise that!

You don’t realise that you don’t ‘see’ benefits, you are simply asserting they exist. Anyone can make such an assertion. I can make an equal and opposite assertion that there are more valuable, but unquantifiable, benefits in keeping central government in one location. When you consider how the Legal Aid Board now seem to have two people doing jobs that were previously done by one, I’d even have some illustrative evidence that my judgement is right whereas you have nothing whatsoever to substantiate your position.

If you can’t substantiate your case, it really is time to change your view. There’s no dishonour in admitting that a view was formed on an incomplete understanding of the situation. There is dishonour in, at all costs, adhering to an obviously wrong view just out a fear of losing face.

Seanies32 wrote:

On your linear thingy! just because they are difficult to quantify and measure economically, doesn't mean its necessarily wrong.

I don’t think you’ve addressed the key question here. How is your assertion of decentralisation-related unquantifiable benefits different to my assertion of unquantifiable benefits from having a significant Particle Acceleration Laboratory? And is there any level of cost at which you would accept your ‘unquantifiable’ benefits are not worth having?

Seanies32 wrote:

If we want to treat things purely on economic terms, think of the new enterprises, revenues and employment that will be brought to Dublin by freeing up these locations by decentralisation.

Firstly, going off point, I have a feeling you may be using the term ‘economic’ to mean ‘financial’ or ‘profitability’. If something is ‘economic’ it may not be profitable – but it will yield identifiable benefits that justify the costs.

There is no identifiable benefit for Dublin in this programme and precious little benefit for anyone else. You have failed to identify any benefit that would justify this level of cost. Remember, you are trying to convince us that this is a useful thing to invest our collective tax money in. You are trying to convince us that this is a better way of stimulating regional development than the National Spatial Strategy. The Spatial Strategy has a considerable amount of research backing it up.

Where is your research that backs up your contention that splintering central government offices over 53 sites at enormous cost is worth doing?

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

Not if the 'new' jobs are going to people who are already decentralised. (These are the majority of applicants).The biggest number of applicants for Killarney came from staff located in Cahirciveen and who already live in Killarney. Net benefit to Killarney?

I have already agreed with you that other towns and cities could well lose jobs because of this. Moving them down the road to suit a politican is madness.

newdubliner wrote:

The nub of your argument is that the benefits of 'decentralisation' for your favoured towns cannot be measured and that if there is the slightest possibility of any benefit at all (e.g. 10 extra sandwiches a week being sold) that this justifies huge amounts of taxpayer's money (that might otherwise be spent on sick children or ailing elderly people) should be lavished on these towns.

Even if it's only 10 sandwiches being sold:rolleyes: there are huge benefits to the local community. Will somebody think of the children! :rolleyes:

There will be an increase in population, increase in trade for local supermarkets, pubs etc. Also even in towns that the employees commuted to and from Dublin before, but now work there, they will now be an integral part of the community rather than using it for B&B. They can use their extra time in the local GAA/Soccer clubs etc, charities, voluntary work, youth clubs etc. Their kids can go to school there and play local sports etc. There is a serious problem in commuter towns of people not being invloved in the local community basically because they commute and have no time available.

newdubliner wrote:

With economic logic like that, it's not hard to see why those towns have failed to flourish and are reduced to pillaging the paypackets of hard working taxpayers throughout Ireland.

Those taxpayers include residents of those towns!
Those "failed economies" you speak off.

K-9

smccarrick wrote:

Seanies- the current scheme was the result of a joint proposal put forward on behalf of the CPSU and the PSEU- the two largest unions by far in the civil service, when the last programme for government was being discussed in 2002. The unions were massively in favour in the programme- as the civil service is a decentralised entity with only slightly over 20% of its staff in the Dublin region- the current civil servants down the country would benefit massively from the scheme through both the abilities to move elsewhere, and possibly through better promotional opportunities.

So relocation was part of the concept. Wasn't aware of that.

smccarrick wrote:

I know that you want your jobs in Donegal- you have several of them there already from the previous scheme (think of the Division of DSFA in Letterkenny)- the big problem is the manner in which these jobs were splashed around the place- like handing out a bag of candy- people wanted to make sure that no-one was left out......

Well I'd expect Donegal to get some of the jobs especially with Letterkenny being part of the National Spatial Strategy.

smccarrick wrote:

If you accept that its a political answer to a problem that simply was never evaluated- then maybe the answer to the perceived problem is to plough on regardless.

Politics played a big part and the Unions as you have pointed out. It's going to be very difficult to get them go back on it now.

smccarrick wrote:

The simple statement that is being conveniently being overlooked by the lets-plough-on-ahead brigade is the National Spatial Strategy. A lot of time and effort was spent on drawing up a plan that would ensure coherent viable development of the different regions- tangible plans were drawn up- it actually made sense. At a stroke McCreevy decided to toss it to one side and ignore it, for purely political reasons.......

I think there would be massive opposition from Dublin civil servants regardless. They would not want to move for personal reasons anyway. Understandable.

smccarrick wrote:

Our national finances are in trouble again (we look ontrack to borrow 4 billion before year end), proceeds from the sale of properties are much lower than anticipated (as the are almost uniformly in terrible states and need massive remedial work on them), and those buildings that its intended to reassign to other purposes (such as the Department of Agriculture on Kildare Street- going to the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Department of Finance) have hundreds of staff still there that no-one seems to have thought of....... its a mess.......

I have always agreed it has been badly planned.