Is it time to end Dublin`s stranglehold on the rest of the country?

Hawkeye123

Could Federalism work in an Irish context?

James Madison - a great nineteenth century American statesman was quoted as saying:

“By dividing power between the states and the national government, one level can serve as a check on the other. This should provide double security to the rights of the people. Each of these interests would constitute a faction that would seek its own advantage, and one faction might come to dominate government or a part of government in one place, and a different faction might come to power in another. The tugging and pulling of these factions would prevent any single region of the United states from dominating all of government. The division of powers among several governments would give to virtually every faction an opportunity to gain some-but not full-power.”

Federalist systems tend to inhibit the formation of single-interest majorities. Federalism promotes unity without uniformity and promotes experimentation in public policy. For example, in the United States, individual states often serve as testing grounds for policies that later translate to the national level.

Here in Ireland, if the Dublin government refuses to relinquish its stranglehold on power, should the regions take their independence by way of local referendums? Why should the regions pay debt assumed by the Dublin government. Why should the Shannon region give up its water to support the Dublin parasite? By the same token, why should the southern and western seaboards sacrifice their precious resources of oil and gas to the glutton that is the Pale? Why should the Dublin government not compensate the rest of the country having squandered such a disproportionate amount of EU funding within its own area – for the sole purpose of boosting the value of property for Dublin based politicians.

I would advocate a breakup of the Republic into many highly autonomous regions. Arguments for and against please.

Blowfish

You seem to have a rather oddly adversarial view of the country. There is no concerted attempt of 'us' vs 'them' or 'the pale' vs 'the culchies'.

The resources of Shannon etc get transferred to Dublin simply because that's where the population and economic activity is. In return, Dublin and the surrounding counties subsidise the social spend per capita of the rest of the country.

It seems to me a littLe strange that in other threads you have expressed right wing economic views, yet here you essentially want the county's to engage in what amounts to protectionism of the local resources.

As for the federalism aspect, there may be some argument for decentralisation in some areas. My biggest fear of this however is the fact that we already suffer from parish pump gombeenism politics. Decentralising more could possibly just lead to the local representatives simply becoming even more insular to solely their particular area and ignore the interests of the country as a whole completely.

Scofflaw

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Could Federalism work in an Irish context?

James Madison - a great nineteenth century American statesman was quoted as saying:

“By dividing power between the states and the national government, one level can serve as a check on the other. This should provide double security to the rights of the people. Each of these interests would constitute a faction that would seek its own advantage, and one faction might come to dominate government or a part of government in one place, and a different faction might come to power in another. The tugging and pulling of these factions would prevent any single region of the United states from dominating all of government. The division of powers among several governments would give to virtually every faction an opportunity to gain some-but not full-power.”

Federalist systems tend to inhibit the formation of single-interest majorities. Federalism promotes unity without uniformity and promotes experimentation in public policy. For example, in the United States, individual states often serve as testing grounds for policies that later translate to the national level.

Here in Ireland, if the Dublin government refuses to relinquish its stranglehold on power, should the regions take their independence by way of local referendums? Why should the regions pay debt assumed by the Dublin government. Why should the Shannon region give up its water to support the Dublin parasite? By the same token, why should the southern and western seaboards sacrifice their precious resources of oil and gas to the glutton that is the Pale? Why should the Dublin government not compensate the rest of the country having squandered such a disproportionate amount of EU funding within its own area – for the sole purpose of boosting the value of property for Dublin based politicians.

I would advocate a breakup of the Republic into many highly autonomous regions. Arguments for and against please.

Perhaps the only necessary argument is that your figures are very wrong. The rest of the country not only doesn't subsidise Dublin, but on the contrary is subsidised by Dublin. Figures I have now posted several times in response to such claims:

Scofflaw wrote:

Firblog wrote: »

Cheers

Could you post a link to where these figures came from please? These figures without some background info are not very informative imo

CSO Regional income figures 2007: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/economy/2007/regincome_2007.pdf

These are the comparable 2009 figures (CSO), with CAP from here, GNI contribution based on household income without taxes or transfers:

County|Pop|Transfers(m)|Taxes(m)|Transfers pp|Taxes pp|CAP(m)|CAP pp|GNI pp|Final Net pp
Carlow|54255|368|191|6782.79|3520.41|37.78|696.35|206.77|3751.96
Cavan|68585.68|397|250|5788.38|3645.08|67.06|977.77|212.75|2908.33
Clare|114922.3|652|488|5673.4|4246.35|84.62|736.32|232.88|1930.49
Cork|502128.26|2984|2337|5942.7|4654.19|237.63|473.24|251.33|1510.43
Donegal|157838.27|1056|444|6690.39|2813.01|96.3|610.09|170.67|4316.81
Dublin|1211506.83|7175|7965|5922.38|6574.46|23.74|19.6|323.44|-955.92
Galway|241232.03|1493|1032|6189.06|4278.04|151.08|626.29|240.34|2296.98
Kerry|145875.68|861|511|5902.29|3502.98|109.82|752.84|203.01|2949.13
Kildare|205969.74|1017|1158|4937.62|5622.19|41.51|201.53|289|-772.04
Kilkenny|94325.11|513|377|5438.64|3996.81|74.61|790.96|226.34|2006.45
Laois|72128.96|397|283|5504.03|3923.53|51.02|707.28|223.77|2064.01
Leitrim|31038.66|200|107|6443.58|3447.31|39.21|1263.22|207.8|4051.69
Limerick|190673.58|1309|824|6865.14|4321.52|77.98|408.96|235.93|2716.65
Longford|36954.84|257|131|6954.43|3544.87|33.32|901.66|200.34|4110.88
Louth|119233.16|777|462|6516.64|3874.76|26.88|225.44|227.13|2640.2
Mayo|128974.54|818|454|6342.34|3520.07|119.11|923.53|207.75|3538.05
Meath|180031.48|799|963|4438.11|5349.06|64.92|360.58|279.09|-829.46
Monaghan|60018.88|352|194|5864.82|3232.32|54.12|901.72|190.84|3343.39
North-Tipperary|68376.48|424|277|6200.96|4051.1|72.23|1056.35|231.4|2974.82
Offaly|76204.29|442|267|5800.2|3503.74|49.97|655.73|203.32|2748.87
Roscommon|61178.29|347|224|5671.95|3661.43|66.38|1085.05|216.22|2879.35
Sligo|65289.94|407|265|6233.73|4058.82|44.54|682.21|231.19|2625.94
South-Tipperary|89663.76|555|354|6189.79|3948.08|72.23|805.56|223.35|2823.92
Waterford|116320.65|774|454|6654.02|3903|55.09|473.62|218.27|3006.36
Westmeath|85325.95|533|334|6246.63|3914.4|54.06|633.55|219.92|2745.86
Wexford|141932.52|921|497|6489|3501.66|84.12|592.68|206.48|3373.53
Wicklow|139510.07|716|724|5132.25|5189.59|38.28|274.41|265.19|-48.12

So, Donegal people are net recipients from the whole system to the tune of €4,316.81 per capita annually. I should perhaps point out that I don't begrudge this transfer, but I do object very strongly to people at the other end pretending it doesn't happen.

It's unrealistic to expect somewhere like Donegal to be able to pay its own way in a modern economy - the costs of providing infrastructure and services per person are very much higher than they are in an urban area like Dublin, while for standard geographical reasons it's not going to attract the same mass of businesses as Dublin.

How about if the counties paid their own way? The following table shows income/capita with taxes and transfers, without, and each in turn as a proportion of Dublin income:

County|A. Income pp|B. Income w/o tax/transfer|A/Dublin|B/Dublin
Carlow|23426.41|20164.04|0.76|0.64
Cavan|22891.08|20747.77|0.74|0.66
Clare|24138.05|22711|0.78|0.72
Cork|25798.19|24509.67|0.84|0.78
Donegal|20521.01|16643.62|0.66|0.53
Dublin|30890.46|31542.54|1|1
Galway|25349.04|23438.02|0.82|0.74
Kerry|22196.98|19797.68|0.72|0.63
Kildare|27499.19|28183.75|0.89|0.89
Kilkenny|23514.42|22072.59|0.76|0.7
Laois|23402.53|21822.03|0.76|0.69
Leitrim|23261.31|20265.05|0.75|0.64
Limerick|25551.52|23007.91|0.83|0.73
Longford|22946.93|19537.36|0.74|0.62
Louth|24791.76|22149.88|0.8|0.7
Mayo|23082.07|20259.81|0.75|0.64
Meath|26306.51|27217.46|0.85|0.86
Monaghan|21243.32|18610.81|0.69|0.59
North-Tipperary|24716.1|22566.24|0.8|0.72
Offaly|22124.74|19828.28|0.72|0.63
Roscommon|23096.43|21085.91|0.75|0.67
Sligo|24720.5|22545.59|0.8|0.71
South-Tipperary|24023.08|21781.38|0.78|0.69
Waterford|24037|21285.99|0.78|0.67
Westmeath|23779.4|21447.17|0.77|0.68
Wexford|23123.66|20136.33|0.75|0.64
Wicklow|25804.59|25861.93|0.84|0.82

Dublin is not a "parasite" - it is the only real economic engine the country has, and the rest of the country is subsidised by the wealth generated in Dublin.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hawkeye123

The Dublin government love to spin statistical data. A pig called Squealer played a similar role the the Orwellian classic Animal Farm. Truth and spin are two very different things, even if the spin appears to be supported by statistical data. Very often statistics are commissioned and selected for the very purpose of supporting a particular spin doctrine.

It is however true that the Dublin government would love the rest of the country to think that Dublin in some way contributes more than it takes. However, even the Dubs do not believe that, if they did they would demand their own independent republic. That way everything the Dubs generate they keep and everything the rest of the country generates - it would keep. The reason the Dubs will never seek their own autonomy is because they would run out of resources within 24 hours.

The Shannon region have every right to capitalize on their resources. If the Dubs want water from the Shannon let them pay for it. If the Dubs want oil and gas from the Western and Southern seaboards, let them pay the regions in the west and south - and let them do so through taxing their own people not the people of the west and south.

One final point, mass privatization across the entire public sector/civil service would save the 25 counties which are beyond the pale from having to pay billions to those within it.

oscarBravo

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

The Dublin government love to spin statistical data.

I see the war on reasoned debate continues apace.

If you believe the statistics to be untrue, counter them with statistics of your own, and explain why you believe your statistics to be more reliable.

Scofflaw

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

The Dublin government love to spin statistical data. A pig called Squealer played a similar role the the Orwellian classic Animal Farm. Truth and spin are two very different things, even if the spin appears to be supported by statistical data. Very often statistics are commissioned and selected for the very purpose of supporting a particular spin doctrine.

It is however true that the Dublin government would love the rest of the country to think that Dublin in some way contributes more than it takes. However, even the Dubs do not believe that, if they did they would demand their own independent republic. That way everything the Dubs generate they keep and everything the rest of the country generates - it would keep. The reason the Dubs will never seek their own autonomy is because they would run out of resources within 24 hours.

The Shannon region have every right to capitalize on their resources. If the Dubs want water from the Shannon let them pay for it. If the Dubs want oil and gas from the Western and Southern seaboards, let them pay the regions in the west and south - and let them do so through taxing their own people not the people of the west and south.

One final point, mass privatization across the entire public sector/civil service would save the 25 counties which are beyond the pale from having to pay billions to those within it.

Save the conspiracy theory stuff for the CT forum, please. As oB says, a refusal to accept facts doesn't constitute argument.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Hawkeye123

oscarBravo wrote: »

I see the war on reasoned debate continues apace.

If you believe the statistics to be untrue, counter them with statistics of your own, and explain why you believe your statistics to be more reliable.

Lets assume for the sake of illustration that Scofflaws statistics are correct.

It is well known that private investment follows public infrastructural investment which in turn leads to greater revenue returns from those areas which receive the greatest amount of infrastructural investment. Therefore, Scofflaws statistics prove that the Dublin government was wrong to over invest so grotesquely in the infrastructure of the greater Dublin area. Just think of the revenue that could be generated from the rest of the country if the Dublin government had bothered to invest there instead of one tiny bit of the east.

wexie

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Lets assume for the sake of illustration that Scofflaws statistics are correct.

It is well known that private investment follows public infrastructural investment which in turn leads to greater revenue returns from those areas which receive the greatest amount of infrastructural investment. Therefore, Scofflaws statistics prove that the Dublin government was wrong to over invest so grotesquely in the infrastructure of the greater Dublin area. Just think of the revenue that could be generated from the rest of the country if the Dublin government had bothered to invest there instead of one tiny bit of the east.

right.....so what you're saying essentially is 'if you build it they will come'?

So with the right investment we could see the likes of Intel, HP, Pfizer, Facebook, Google etc. etc. etc. setting up shop in Killybegs right?

That's not actually your argument is it?

I think you'll find that private investment follows public investment because public investment gets made in places where it's likely to deliver a return.

And as much as you might not like it, in a country the size of Ireland having more than a few centres of any kind of commerce simply isn't economically viable without ludicrous investments in infrastructure which will never show any decent ROI.

sarkozy

I think it's a real shame - and disillusioning barometer of the quality of our civil society - that we can't discuss these important issues sensibly.

Our country has a democratic deficit. Our national-to-local governance structures and how they are resourced are dysfunctional. Our collective political mindset is to moan but to do nothing. We are - and have for at least a century - been a very reactionary and conservative people.

In a previous job I spent the guts of a year researching our local government system and proposing ways to reform it. I would say, between then and now, our governments have made the situation worse.

I'm from Dublin. I recognise there is an urban-rural cleavage in this country. I also recognise that our national politicians act as local councillors. Most TDs are from rural areas. National-level policy - which is the constitutional responsibility of the Oireachtas - is treated as local-level policy. Local Authorities (a currently dysfunctional tier of governance) do not have the functions or powers to do what they have theoretically been set up to do. In fact, because they do not have the power to raise their own resources, they must grovel to central Government each year to do what central Government has tasked them with doing. But the Government and Dáil, significantly represented by people from rural areas, decide to let this failure of a system continue.

Why?

To centralise power. It seems to me that it is, in fact, the two major parties with significant rural representations are the ones driving this centralisation agenda, depriving regional and local communities proper autonomy that, if designed and delivered well, could lead to a more democratic republic with more effective and accountable public services and closely-knit communities.

I said we have an urban-rural social cleavage. This is true: the metropolis - Dublin - is also a significant, and distinct, geographical area, which now spreads out into surrounding counties. The Dublin 'functional area' is now incorporating sub-urban, peri-urban and rural zones, and this is complicating the picture.

We need a sane national governance structure. Dublin takes care of national-level policy, strategic and legal frameworks leaving space for regional and/or local governments to implement those plans because they know those areas best. If local people pay local income taxes, they will want to be sure their councillors are spending their money well, and that would build a social contract between local communities and those representing them at local level. Central government, drawn from politicians across Ireland, would ensure the big picture stuff is the right environment for us at local level to lead our own lives and drive our own regional economic development.

If rural people do not trust government, and they want more local autonomy, the problem is not Dublin, but with the political parties who represent rural people.

We need real local government, with truly accountable local politicians who we look to first to fix things.

Scofflaw

sarkozy wrote:

If rural people do not trust government, and they want more local autonomy, the problem is not Dublin, but with the political parties who represent rural people.

We need real local government, with truly accountable local politicians who we look to first to fix things.

Absolutely - Irish government is highly centralised, and has become noticeably more so even over the last 30 years. The central government gutted the local authorities' funding in 1977 with the abolition of domestic rates, something which primarily affected the rural areas by decoupling local authority funding from the local population, and which disempowered the local authorities by making them reliant on central government for nearly half their funding. Successive central governments have continued to roll back the powers of local government to a point where council elections are next to meaningless.

The only major decision-making power left in the hands of local councils is local planning, and the only reason that's been left there is that it provides a local channel for graft and favours.

And, as you say, all of this has happened under the aegis of political parties with strong rural representation. The grip of "Dublin" has been increased not to benefit Dublin - which winds up paying for it, but it's not as if we Dubliners have any kind of extra say in what happens - but to benefit rural political parties, who thereby ensure that their own rural power bases are fed through a pipe they sit on, and which is largely piping Dublin money out around the country.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hawkeye123

wexie wrote: »

right.....so what you're saying essentially is 'if you build it they will come'?

So with the right investment we could see the likes of Intel, HP, Pfizer, Facebook, Google etc. etc. etc. setting up shop in Killybegs right?

That's not actually your argument is it?

Yes it is. This has been demonstrated time and again since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

Dr Galen

Thread is not of sufficient standard to remain in Political Theory. Moved to main forum

Cheers

DrG

Shea O'Meara

It's a question of one capital or many hubs.
A country as small as ours doesn't warrant it. And as shown with the decentralisation fiasco, not a runner.

Please be careful not to give fuel to the misnomer that everything in and about Dublin is orchestrated and led solely by people born and raised in Dublin.

RichardAnd

The old Irish game of "us" vs "them" has reached a new level. OP, if Dublin was somehow removed from the country in whatever way you seem to think that is possible, you won't have anyone to begrudge. Methinks, you are the class of person to whom such a position might be quite unwelcome .

View

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

It's a question of one capital or many hubs.
A country as small as ours doesn't warrant it. And as shown with the decentralisation fiasco, not a runner.

Moving highly centralized government departments from one place to another is NOT "decentralization" - it is "relocation". The government departments lose none of their powers in the process.

"Decentralisation" involves taking power away from the central government and giving it to local government.

Given that our highly centralized governmental system currently has the international equivalent of "the examiners" in - i.e. the IMF - presumably the word "fiasco" should be more appropriately applied to our centralized governmental system...

onedmc

Although my thinking is contrary to hawkeye we do have a local/regional government deficit in Ireland.

We should consider scrapping current county councils in favour of 6 or 7 regional centres with tax collection powers. Also allowing them to pass civil laws.

Additionally a directly elected mayor for each town or large village with tax setting and revenue allocation powers would allow people to really feel like its 'their' money that's is being spent or minded.

We could then have a very relevant 3 tier system with 1/10 of current number of politicians and 1/2 of the staff doing more of what the people want.

AltAccount

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

The Dublin government love to spin statistical data. A pig called Squealer played a similar role the the Orwellian classic Animal Farm. Truth and spin are two very different things, even if the spin appears to be supported by statistical data. Very often statistics are commissioned and selected for the very purpose of supporting a particular spin doctrine.

It is however true that the Dublin government would love the rest of the country to think that Dublin in some way contributes more than it takes. However, even the Dubs do not believe that, if they did they would demand their own independent republic. That way everything the Dubs generate they keep and everything the rest of the country generates - it would keep. The reason the Dubs will never seek their own autonomy is because they would run out of resources within 24 hours.

The Shannon region have every right to capitalize on their resources. If the Dubs want water from the Shannon let them pay for it. If the Dubs want oil and gas from the Western and Southern seaboards, let them pay the regions in the west and south - and let them do so through taxing their own people not the people of the west and south.

One final point, mass privatization across the entire public sector/civil service would save the 25 counties which are beyond the pale from having to pay billions to those within it.

In what manner are you distinguishing between Dubliners and people from other areas of the country who work in Dublin, but have family and roots outside of Dublin?
Why would this significant number of people choose to deprive their friends and relations of resources?
In terms of the people who make the decisions as to where the resources and funds are directed, ostensibly the politicians, how many of them are Dubliners and how many represent other areas of the country?

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps the only necessary argument is that your figures are very wrong. The rest of the country not only doesn't subsidise Dublin, but on the contrary is subsidised by Dublin. Figures I have now posted several times in response to such claims:



Dublin is not a "parasite" - it is the only real economic engine the country has, and the rest of the country is subsidised by the wealth generated in Dublin.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The statistics you provide are no doubt accurate but in large part reflect the position of Dublin as the seat of our centralized government with the vast bulk of our civil servants operating in or near Leinster House. This in turn attracts businesses who want to be close to the seat of power.

As such the statistics are distorted - it is simply wrong to claim that "Dublin" is making all the contribution shown when a large chunk of that includes the "State" pumping money into the "Dublin" economy.

Were the "State" to relocate to Sligo in the morning, no one would think that "Sligo" was subsidizing the rest of the economy when the "State's" contribution - and those of the industries and bodies that would follow it - started to show up in the "Sligo" section of the statistics.

PS In addition, the statistics fail to break out the other cities from the surrounding counties, so it is impossible to tell if this is an "urban" V's "rural" issue or not. Also, it aggregates all the Dublin region which could mean cross-subsidizing is going on between one or more of the 3 counties and city that make it up but this gets hidden by the aggregated data.

sarkozy

onedmc wrote: »

Although my thinking is contrary to hawkeye we do have a local/regional government deficit in Ireland.

We should consider scrapping current county councils in favour of 6 or 7 regional centres with tax collection powers. Also allowing them to pass civil laws.

Additionally a directly elected mayor for each town or large village with tax setting and revenue allocation powers would allow people to really feel like its 'their' money that's is being spent or minded.

We could then have a very relevant 3 tier system with 1/10 of current number of politicians and 1/2 of the staff doing more of what the people want.

Not massively unlike what I was working on in a previous job.

There's lots of good sense in this thread.

View

Just for comparison purposes, the UK based "Unlock Democracy" org did an international comparison of how autonomous local government in various countries are.

Most scored in the 7 -10 range on a 12 point scale; ours scored zero.

The comparison is here.

Hawkeye123

AltAccount wrote: »

In what manner are you distinguishing between Dubliners and people from other areas of the country who work in Dublin, but have family and roots outside of Dublin?
Why would this significant number of people choose to deprive their friends and relations of resources?
In terms of the people who make the decisions as to where the resources and funds are directed, ostensibly the politicians, how many of them are Dubliners and how many represent other areas of the country?

People who work in the public sector often have no choice but to move to Dublin to gain promotion.

While politicians may come from all over the country, the senior civil servants are far more likely to come from Dublin. If you have ever watched the comedy series Yes Minister you will understand how that group can wield undue influence over the government.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

The statistics you provide are no doubt accurate but in large part reflect the position of Dublin as the seat of our centralized government with the vast bulk of our civil servants operating in or near Leinster House. This in turn attracts businesses who want to be close to the seat of power.

As such the statistics are distorted - it is simply wrong to claim that "Dublin" is making all the contribution shown when a large chunk of that includes the "State" pumping money into the "Dublin" economy.

Were the "State" to relocate to Sligo in the morning, no one would think that "Sligo" was subsidizing the rest of the economy when the "State's" contribution - and those of the industries and bodies that would follow it - started to show up in the "Sligo" section of the statistics.

Those are both fair criticisms - the first is the "capital effect", or "court effect" as it used to be.

However, I'm not sure the capital effect in terms of the public sector is quite as large as one might think. First, the "public sector" as a whole is not necessarily that concentrated in Dublin - the following groups form the public sector (371,200 employed in 2009) overall:

• Civil Service (39,000);
• Defence forces (11,000);
• Garda Síochána (14,400);
• Local authorities (37,000);
• Education (excluding private institutions) (104,000);
• Health (111,000);
• Semi-State bodies (excluding their subsidiary companies) (52,000)

Of those, the ones that we can expect to be concentrated in Dublin are the Civil Service and the Semi-States and Agencies - the rest are, as far as I can see, distributed roughly in proportion to population. The Civil Service comprises about 39,000 employees, of which somewhere around a third remain in Dublin after the decentralisation programme, which isn't that out of line with per capita expectations (source: http://www.decentralisation.gov.ie/Documents/DIG_Reports.html), given Dublin has a population a quarter that of the State, while Dublin plus its immediate hinterland comprises roughly 40% of the population of the State.

Of the semi-states, the majority (41-43,000 depending on definition) are in the commercial semi-state sector, and that in turn breaks down as:

An Post|10970
ESB Group|7870
Irish Rail|4906
Dublin Bus|3825
Dublin Airport Authority|3200
Bus Éireann|2837
RTE Group|2351
Bord na Mona|2064
Coillte|1250
VHI|913
Bord Gáis|911
Irish Aviation Authority|666
Shannon Free Airport Development Company|335
Eirgrid|225
Dublin Port Company|166
Port of Cork Company|126
National Lottery|92
TG4 (formerly TnaG)|86
Irish National Stud|78
Port of Waterford|52
Shannon Foynes Port|48
Dun Laoighaire Port|42
Galway Port|18
Drogheda Port|16
Dundalk Port|16
New Ross Port Company|10
Wicklow Port|3


Again, some of those very clearly Dublin-based or Dublin-weighted, but by no means all. And Ireland has a relatively small public sector overall, so while I agree that's a fair criticism of the statistics, on balance I think Dublin may not actually have all that many extra public sector jobs per capita.

PS In addition, the statistics fail to break out the other cities from the surrounding counties, so it is impossible to tell if this is an "urban" V's "rural" issue or not. Also, it aggregates all the Dublin region which could mean cross-subsidizing is going on between one or more of the 3 counties and city that make it up but this gets hidden by the aggregated data.

There's obviously very large cross-subsidies within Dublin, and those will also be present within the other counties. However, that's not really relevant here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dannyboy83

View wrote: »

The statistics you provide are no doubt accurate but in large part reflect the position of Dublin as the seat of our centralized government with the vast bulk of our civil servants operating in or near Leinster House. This in turn attracts businesses who want to be close to the seat of power.

As such the statistics are distorted - it is simply wrong to claim that "Dublin" is making all the contribution shown when a large chunk of that includes the "State" pumping money into the "Dublin" economy.

Were the "State" to relocate to Sligo in the morning, no one would think that "Sligo" was subsidizing the rest of the economy when the "State's" contribution - and those of the industries and bodies that would follow it - started to show up in the "Sligo" section of the statistics.

PS In addition, the statistics fail to break out the other cities from the surrounding counties, so it is impossible to tell if this is an "urban" V's "rural" issue or not. Also, it aggregates all the Dublin region which could mean cross-subsidizing is going on between one or more of the 3 counties and city that make it up but this gets hidden by the aggregated data.

Is there any particular reason why the government is located in Dublin?

I always thought it was very strange when it would have cured such a vast array of problems to just buy up a huge chunk of land in Meath, move the whole lot there to state of the art, custom built offices and decongest Dublin/facilitate new growth.

Scofflaw

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Is there any particular reason why the government is located in Dublin?

I always thought it was very strange when it would have cured such a vast array of problems to just buy up a huge chunk of land in Meath, move the whole lot there to state of the art, custom built offices and decongest Dublin/facilitate new growth.

Which is the logic that gave us the decentralisation programme, terminated prematurely and ignominiously last year.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nuac

Interesting thread.

There is undue concentration of resources and services in Dublin.

The Buchanan Plan proposals of nearly 50 years ago proposed development of other centres - Galway, Limerick etc as far as I remember.

Strongly opposed by many at the time, including myself, and officially abandoned.

However IDA seem t ohave followed it - building up industiral employment in some provincial centres.

I agree generally with Scofflaw's remarks.

Will get back to this again - gotta do some work

JustinDee

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

The Dublin government love to spin statistical data

I think you'll find there is no "Dublin government". There is a Dublin Corporation but that concerns itself with Dublin-related administrative matters only.
There is, however, the Dail, which as you hopefully realise, is made up of representatives from every county in the country.

I'm not even going to entertain a comment on your simplistic and simply, incorrect mathematics.
Your generalism about senior civil servants is equally as trite and baseless.

Hawkeye123

JustinDee wrote: »

There is a Dublin Corporation ... that concerns itself with Dublin-related administrative matters only.

So does the Dublin government. The rest of the country is left with nothing.

JustinDee

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

So does the Dublin government . . .

There is no such thing.

southsiderosie

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

People who work in the public sector often have no choice but to move to Dublin to gain promotion.

While politicians may come from all over the country, the senior civil servants are far more likely to come from Dublin. If you have ever watched the comedy series Yes Minister you will understand how that group can wield undue influence over the government.

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

So does the Dublin government. The rest of the country is left with nothing.

MOD NOTE:

The question of centralization could actually make for an interesting discussion, but you seem oddly intent on derailing your own thread.

There has already been one moderator warning, and at this point, it is getting hard to see your posts as anything but trolling. Either come up with some actual figures on what the "Dublin Government" does or does not do and the structure of the public sector so folks can have a proper debate about it, or stop posting these kinds of wild statements; this forum is neither Liveline nor a personal blog.

goose2005

nuac wrote: »

Interesting thread.

There is undue concentration of resources and services in Dublin.

The Buchanan Plan proposals of nearly 50 years ago proposed development of other centres - Galway, Limerick etc as far as I remember.

Strongly opposed by many at the time, including myself, and officially abandoned.

However IDA seem t ohave followed it - building up industiral employment in some provincial centres.

I agree generally with Scofflaw's remarks.

Will get back to this again - gotta do some work

The problem is that those outside Dublin won't agree to just develop Cork, Limerick and Galway into major cities. They want money to be spent on the tiny town 10 miles from their house, with the result that spending is spread too thinly to make any real difference and Dublin continues to dominate.

Tombo2001

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Here in Ireland, if the Dublin government refuses to relinquish its stranglehold on power, should the regions take their independence by way of local referendums? Why should the regions pay debt assumed by the Dublin government. Why should the Shannon region give up its water to support the Dublin parasite? By the same token, why should the southern and western seaboards sacrifice their precious resources of oil and gas to the glutton that is the Pale? Why should the Dublin government not compensate the rest of the country having squandered such a disproportionate amount of EU funding within its own area – for the sole purpose of boosting the value of property for Dublin based politicians.

I would advocate a breakup of the Republic into many highly autonomous regions. Arguments for and against please.

Jasus, all of a sudden its a Dublin government and not an Irish government.

You would swear the current Taoiseach wasnt from Mayo and the previous wasnt from Offaly.

Yep, I agree with you completely.

I would be quite happy to let country people pay their own way so that Dublin people dont have to subsidise them. All for federalism.

To be honest, reading this you are not being serious at all......why are we answering.....doh!

Lemming

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which is the logic that gave us the decentralisation programme, terminated prematurely long after it should have been, and ignominiously last year.

FYP Scofflaw.

The decentralisation program was the "brainchild" of the then Minister for Finance. Not his brief; perhaps if we'd had closer scrutiny of accounting figures by both himself & successive ministers instead of ego-trip white elephant projects like the above, the mess the country finds itself in today could have at least been mitigated if not outright averted if caught early enough on.

The whole proposal was a farce. Its means & methods were a farce that were never really designed to deliver efficiency or cost effective savings. The whole thing was a play to the electorate sitting outside major urban areas.

Scofflaw

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Jasus, all of a sudden its a Dublin government and not an Irish government.

You would swear the current Taoiseach wasnt from Mayo and the previous wasnt from Offaly.

Yep, I agree with you completely.

I would be quite happy to let country people pay their own way so that Dublin people dont have to subsidise them. All for federalism.

To be honest, reading this you are not being serious at all......why are we answering.....doh!

Well, it's an interesting discussion in itself, if one ignores the occasional red herring from the OP.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Lemming wrote: »

FYP Scofflaw.

The decentralisation program was the "brainchild" of the then Minister for Finance. Not his brief; perhaps if we'd had closer scrutiny of accounting figures by both himself & successive ministers instead of ego-trip white elephant projects like the above, the mess the country finds itself in today could have at least been mitigated if not outright averted if caught early enough on.

The whole proposal was a farce. Its means & methods were a farce that were never really designed to deliver efficiency or cost effective savings. The whole thing was a play to the electorate sitting outside major urban areas.

Sure - and very much in line with goose2005's comment:

goose2005 wrote:

The problem is that those outside Dublin won't agree to just develop Cork, Limerick and Galway into major cities. They want money to be spent on the tiny town 10 miles from their house, with the result that spending is spread too thinly to make any real difference and Dublin continues to dominate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

mike65

goose2005 wrote: »

The problem is that those outside Dublin won't agree to just develop Cork, Limerick and Galway into major cities. They want money to be spent on the tiny town 10 miles from their house, with the result that spending is spread too thinly to make any real difference and Dublin continues to dominate.

BOOM! The Brown Thomas view of Ireland continues apace.

Shea O'Meara

View wrote: »

Moving highly centralized government departments from one place to another is NOT "decentralization" - it is "relocation". The government departments lose none of their powers in the process.

"Decentralisation" involves taking power away from the central government and giving it to local government.

Well when they were moving or planning to move various departments around the country they called it 'Decentralisation', which is the time/place/object I am referring to, we can call it 'water melon' if you like but its commonly referred to and known as 'decentralisation'.
I shall not be hitching a ride on the semantics highway with you this evening.

View wrote: »

Given that our highly centralized governmental system currently has the international equivalent of "the examiners" in - i.e. the IMF - presumably the word "fiasco" should be more appropriately applied to our centralized governmental system...

Don't local authorities hold equal amounts of power and decision making to that of say of the Dail on at least a local level already?
Where do all of these Dublin decision makers come from I wonder? :rolleyes:
Has the main problem not always been the local politician putting a few potholes or a new road and his own ass before the overall good of the country?

sarkozy

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Don't local authorities hold equal amounts of power and decision making to that of say of the Dail on at least a local level already?

No. Simply.

BluntGuy

goose2005 wrote: »

The problem is that those outside Dublin won't agree to just develop Cork, Limerick and Galway into major cities. They want money to be spent on the tiny town 10 miles from their house, with the result that spending is spread too thinly to make any real difference and Dublin continues to dominate.

The complete joke that became of the national spacial strategy provides an excellent testament to this. Given that nearly every single town is designated some kind of hub or regional development centre or whatever waffle term, any scheme could be justified in the name of "balanced regional development". Indeed even some of the most ludicrous schemes like the Western Rail Corridor have had the NSS used as justification for their funding and construction.

If we are to get any "balanced regional development", it'll have to start, as you say, with people realising that their local town/village/hamlet isn't quite as important as they think, and should be entitled only to services compatible with their population size and density.

Shea O'Meara

sarkozy wrote: »

No. Simply.

I thought they had full administrative power, obviously not national policy.

oscarBravo

BluntGuy wrote: »

The complete joke that became of the national spacial strategy provides an excellent testament to this. Given that nearly every single town is designated some kind of hub or regional development centre or whatever waffle term...

Really? The NSS defines gateways and hubs. In Mayo, Ballina and Castlebar are hubs. Westport, Claremorris, Ballinrobe, Swinford, Charlestown, Ballyhaunis, Crossmolina, Belmullet are not designated at all.

The NSS isn't the problem; it's the fact that it's pretty much completely ignored that's the problem - as stupid and misguided as the whole decentralisation fiasco was, it didn't even bear any relationship to the NSS.

Once again, it would be nice to have a reasoned discussion on this topic, informed by actual facts.

Hawkeye123

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Jasus, all of a sudden its a Dublin government and not an Irish government.

You would swear the current Taoiseach wasnt from Mayo and the previous wasnt from Offaly.

Yep, I agree with you completely.

I would be quite happy to let country people pay their own way so that Dublin people dont have to subsidise them. All for federalism.

To be honest, reading this you are not being serious at all......why are we answering.....doh!

I am serious and I am glad you agree with me Tombo.

[MOD]Since Tombo clearly isn't serious, it's hard to see this as other than sub-trolling silliness.[/MOD]

BluntGuy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Really? The NSS defines gateways and hubs. In Mayo, Ballina and Castlebar are hubs. Westport, Claremorris, Ballinrobe, Swinford, Charlestown, Ballyhaunis, Crossmolina, Belmullet are not designated at all.

My apologies for the hyperbole. I'll make my critique of the NSS more clearly:

The NSS isn't the problem; it's the fact that it's pretty much completely ignored that's the problem -

I used to feel the same, and indeed have made posts to this effect before, as on the surface the strategy makes sense. At the very beginning it states that Cork, Limerick, Dublin etc. are to be the main players. It talks about building critical mass to provide sustainable services, it makes reference to avoiding urban sprawl. It talks about bringing people closer to their employment. I don't disagree with any of these things. Indeed, I actively campaign for them. It makes reference throughout to strengthening rural areas by having development concentrated in villages rather than scattered and unco-ordinated. Again you'll hear no argument from me.

Unfortunately I came to feel that the NSS itself contributes to defeating its very purpose by assigning so many of the hubs, gateways, urban development areas and being quite vague and open about what these areas are actually meant to be, despite being a 100 page document. Even taking just the hubs and gateways and leaving out "local capitals", "urban centres", "primary development centres", I feel it is far too thin a spread for a country of this size and make-up. If it was serious about a counter-balance to Dublin, it would be talking about developing a Cork-Limerick-Galway economic corridor, with particular emphasis on Cork, rather than say, a passing reference to what became the atlantic road corridor project. At times it feels like it's more concerned with trying to give every region a bit of everything and loses sight of the national picture.

With that said, my criticism of the NSS isn't perhaps so much what it aspires to, because many of the principles it espouses in its opening, and to be fair in many parts are not ones I disagree with. I find the actual ways they suggest these principles be applied somewhat lacking. Unfortunately this means, that barring the more egregious examples such as ugly one off housing in no-where, it is quite often all too easy to be at least nominally consistent with the NSS. And indeed through reading so many EIS document and planning applications, many unsuitable projects, an example of which I gave above, do indeed make reference to it without contradicting it. It feels like a joke. And not a funny one.

...as stupid and misguided as the whole decentralisation fiasco was, it didn't even bear any relationship to the NSS.

I didn't say it does.

Once again, it would be nice to have a reasoned discussion on this topic, informed by actual facts.

I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong and have retracted my exaggerated statement. I'll be happy to retract any statements in the above that are demonstrably false.

oscarBravo

BluntGuy wrote: »

I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong and have retracted my exaggerated statement. I'll be happy to retract any statements in the above that are demonstrably false.

There's nothing demonstrably false in it; it's into the realm of opinion, which means we can have a discussion on it.

I don't agree, for the record. I think if you concentrate all your spatial planning energy on three cities to the complete neglect of every other urban centre in the country, you simply end up with a slightly decentralised version of our existing Dublin-centric mess. I also accept that you can't have a motorway to every village in the country. I think the NSS is a decent compromise: one joint hub in the entire county of Mayo isn't exactly parochialism; it's a blueprint for sustainable regional development. Similarly the gateways of Sligo and Galway - it's all very well to say that all resources should be thrown at Dublin, Limerick and Cork - but those places are a very, very, very long way from Sligo (let alone Buncrana).

As I say, I believe we have a blueprint for sustainable regional development. Now all we have to do is pay more than bloody lip-service to the damn thing.

_Kaiser_

I think this entire question was answered earlier on by Scofflaw:

Scofflaw wrote: »

The grip of "Dublin" has been increased not to benefit Dublin - which winds up paying for it, but it's not as if we Dubliners have any kind of extra say in what happens - but to benefit rural political parties, who thereby ensure that their own rural power bases are fed through a pipe they sit on, and which is largely piping Dublin money out around the country.

In other words, the whole purpose of this arrangement is not to benefit Dublin unfairly, but to ensure the culture of "Galway tents", "brown envelopes", and so on can continue in a more efficient manner for those currently sitting at the controls.

If Dublin were to break off and form its own state (as the OP seems to be promoting), the rest of the country would come to a grinding halt overnight with little to no infrastructure, no self-sufficient local economies, not to mention the lack of ability to make any decisions themselves.

What's needed is not a devolution of the "Dublin" government (I'm not sure where this came from when, as has been pointed out, most of the participants are from rural areas), but an end to the above mentioned culture of corruption, parish pump politics dictating national policy, and the mindset that the function of government is not to serve your constituents (all of them equally) and country, but rather to make sure you get your fill from the trough with enough overspill to ensure TD junior will never have to face the realities of life they will be claiming to represent when their time comes to sit at the banquet table.

laoch na mona

if they followed through on decentralisation that would do enough
maybe bring in a law to make companies set up in other areas like italy did years ago

Lemming

laoch na mona wrote: »

if they followed through on decentralisation that would do enough

No. It wouldn't. Not even remotely. Not even in the most remote sense of any sort of lip service would it do enough. Quite the opposite in fact. The "Decentralisation" program was never designed to devolve anything, deliver efficiency or cost savings.

maybe bring in a law to make companies set up in other areas like italy did years ago

And in this day & age, what do you think the next Google et. al are going to say or do? "Ok, we'll set up in area 'x' that does not meet our needs behind bare minimum requirements, or we can relocate to Glasgow city centre because the Scottish* government are not throwing up barriers".


* Or any other developed urban area in any other EU country.

Dannyboy83

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't agree, for the record. I think if you concentrate all your spatial planning energy on three cities to the complete neglect of every other urban centre in the country, you simply end up with a slightly decentralised version of our existing Dublin-centric mess.
I also accept that you can't have a motorway to every village in the country.

I think the NSS is a decent compromise: one joint hub in the entire county of Mayo isn't exactly parochialism; it's a blueprint for sustainable regional development. Similarly the gateways of Sligo and Galway - it's all very well to say that all resources should be thrown at Dublin, Limerick and Cork - but those places are a very, very, very long way from Sligo (let alone Buncrana).

As I say, I believe we have a blueprint for sustainable regional development. Now all we have to do is pay more than bloody lip-service to the damn thing.

I agree with BluntGuy.
You can't have hubs everywhere and you can't simply have one either as the congestion/property situation in Dublin has shown.

The idea he proposed would make the most sense to me, with heaviest concentration between Dublin and Cork.
.
.
.
.
The point which I took the OP to be making is slightly different to this tho;

It's true as you said, that you can't have a motorway to every little village, but the entire region of West Cork doesn't even have a dual carriageway which is kind of hard to believe in 2012!
It doesn't have a railway (can't sustain one in fairness) and the internet backbone bypasses several of the large towns (retarded local councils I believe).

East Cork has come on leaps and bounds and Cork City in general is starting to catch up after it seemed to be completely ignored during the Celtic Pyramid .

It doesn't matter if (insert West Cork Village) offer cheap rent, cheap rates and tax reliefs - they have no infrastructure at all, and consequently never will. They're trapped.
They will never be able compete and are doomed to never grow.
They offer 1912 services in 2012.


I don't know the reasons for the lack of infrastructure in West Cork tho...
Is it because of local council decisions?
Is it because of a Dublin-centric government?

The infrastructural gap between Dublin and everywhere else is large, but that's almost expected given population density and it's just the way things have always been.
Nobody in their right mind would ever expect West Cork to have the same level of road infrastructure as Naas.
But equally it seems to have been completely forgotten about... (maybe that is on purpose for tourism too tho?)

_Kaiser_

laoch na mona wrote: »

maybe bring in a law to make companies set up in other areas like italy did years ago

Pointless unless the infrastructure (roads, broadband, housing/local amenities for staff etc) is in place too.

Given that a good portion of this country can't even get broadband, never mind decent broadband, I can't see likes of Google, Microsoft, IBM etc who do almost all of their business online being too impressed!

Supermensch

laoch na mona wrote: »

if they followed through on decentralisation that would do enough
maybe bring in a law to make companies set up in other areas like italy did years ago

Instead of some restrictive law pressuring companies to located in certain areas, I would rather see tax benefits go to companies that decide to establish themselves in non-central areas. Which is were the benefit of federal government comes in; if there was a localised government presiding over the Munster area (not that government would necessarily be divided by province, but for example), it could offer a lower corporate tax rate at the expense of public transport, a service which most areas in Munster don't benefit to the same extent as areas in Leinster, like Dublin, do.

laoch na mona

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Pointless unless the infrastructure (roads, broadband, housing/local amenities for staff etc) is in place too.

Given that a good portion of this country can't even get broadband, never mind decent broadband, I can't see likes of Google, Microsoft, IBM etc who do almost all of their business online being too impressed!

bit of an over focus on foreign investment

Dannyboy83

laoch na mona wrote: »

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Pointless unless the infrastructure (roads, broadband, housing/local amenities for staff etc) is in place too.

Given that a good portion of this country can't even get broadband, never mind decent broadband, I can't see likes of Google, Microsoft, IBM etc who do almost all of their business online being too impressed!

bit of an over focus on foreign investment

But it's true of indigenous business also.
I work for an indigenous company which started in a rural town, but had to relocate to the hub, due to the limitations oulined by Kaiser.

Local tax incentives can't work when there is a critical infrastructural limitation such as broadband.