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

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.

murphaph

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

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.

I agree entirely, as a dub, that Dublin (and the other self sufficient areas like Cork and most of Leinster) should pay for resources they use (they already pay for Kinsale gas and electricity generated outside "the Pale", btw, it's really just water that's currently "free").

The "regions" would then be free to pay their own social welfare, education, health and infrastructure bills as they saw fit, with Dublin having to "make do" as best it could

The "Dublin government" that you talk about is of course mostly made up of non-Dublin TD's

opti0nal

Supermensch wrote: »

, I would rather see tax benefits go to companies that decide to establish themselves in non-central areas. .

That's just another way of saying you want Dublin taxed people more heavily than Cork people.

The reason companies are attracted to Dublin is because it has a large pool of qualified people and it is easy for them to move from job to job as needed because they don't have to move house as well.

That's the benefit of centralisation. It's simply more efficient.

Supermensch

opti0nal wrote: »

That's just another way of saying you want Dublin taxed people more heavily than Cork people.

The reason companies are attracted to Dublin is because it has a large pool of qualified people and it is easy for them to move from job to job as needed because they don't have to move house as well.

That's the benefit of centralisation. It's simply more efficient.

If people living in Dublin are benefiting from better amenities, then a higher tax for them is justifiable. It's not necessarily what I want, rather that if people want services in their area they should pay for them. The same way people living out in remote parts of Ireland, having there children taught in 15 student primary schools should pay for that luxury too.

Another benefit of taxation in a federal system is better allocation of funds. To go back to my first example, cork could keep their corporate tax at the same level, but use the revenue to directly improve infrastructure, such as roads, instead of it being distributed over services which cork people do and do not use. The household charge is a good example of this. While it makes sense to have a levee on the upkeep of public water supplies in cities and big towns, it makes less sense out in rural areas, where water supplies are more commonly private.

As for the pool of prospective employees in Dublin, do you think Dublin is somehow intrinsically different for the rest of the country that it spawns better job applicants? In regards jobs in Dublin it's a catch 22; the companies initially based themselves in Dublin for the infrastructure, then people moved to Dublin for the companies based there, and now companies base there for the qualified people who move to Dublin for employment. Dublin is no different from the rest of Ireland, only for it's commercial interest.

(but to be honest I'm not that interested in the Dublin vs rest of Ireland argument )

Dubhlinner

With reference to "the dublin government" and a federal Ireland I was expecting a continuity sinn fein thread.

Meh despite being very suspiscious of a wind up here I do like the idea of strong local government and some federalist principles. I'd like if certain regions could introduce their own laws and ethos - then we could move to the regions we like the most.

MonkstownHoop

maybe other counties should keep up with the modern world and stop trying to keep the country in the dark ages ie cavan, put criminals in jail don't rally in support of them

Dannyboy83

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Done a little bit of background reading on this (interesting topic imo), but I cannot find any clearcut explanation on how spending and development is actually decided and implemented, from top to bottom...

Anyone able to shed some light?

oscarBravo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Done a little bit of background reading on this (interesting topic imo), but I cannot find any clearcut explanation on how spending and development is actually decided and implemented, from top to bottom...

Anyone able to shed some light?

It's a strategy document, not a detailed spending blueprint. It's supposed to inform spending and development decisions, rather than make them - a bit like an organisation's mission statement doesn't include budgets.

And, like a mission statement, it seems to be largely ignored on a day-to-day basis.

Dannyboy83

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a strategy document, not a detailed spending blueprint. It's supposed to inform spending and development decisions, rather than make them - a bit like an organisation's mission statement doesn't include budgets.

And, like a mission statement, it seems to be largely ignored on a day-to-day basis.

But who is ignoring it?
Who is actually making the decisions on what gets built where and so on?

I had a look at the NSS, but it generally seems to time out around the same time as the Cork Area Strategic Plan, 2011ish.

BluntGuy

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.

Well I'm certainly not suggesting that we let every other town go to ruin or something. I accept you can't expect to shove everybody in 2 or 3 cities or conurbations. I suppose my opinion is that it would be better to develop two or three more substantial critical masses in addition to Dublin, rather than spread our limited resources trying develop many more less substantial ones in the same manner, if its dominance is to be seriously challenged. Neither entails the abandonment of other towns across the country however.

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.

Fair enough.

Dannyboy83 wrote:

I had a look at the NSS, but it generally seems to time out around the same time as the Cork Area Strategic Plan, 2011ish.

I think CASP runs to 2020. Interestingly it, and its subsequent implementation are one of the better examples of planning in the country. It's one of the reasons for example, that the Midleton commuter rail has been a success. The docklands proposal was also quite sensible, though sadly unlikely to happen. But even in Cork we can see the depopulating of the city proper, evidenced in the CASP update, the link for which I can't find right now, but it said the population had dropped slightly, despite an overall increase in the greater Cork area. I suppose it's evidence that part of the change toward sustainable development will have to come from people. It's probably a bit off-topic for this thread though, there's plenty other threads arguing the merit of apartment living versus Semi-D's in the 'burbs for all.

Dannyboy83

BluntGuy wrote: »

I think CASP runs to 2020. Interestingly it, and its subsequent implementation are one of the better examples of planning in the country. It's one of the reasons for example, that the Midleton commuter rail has been a success. The docklands proposal was also quite sensible, though sadly unlikely to happen.

Agree, it seems to be well thought out, but looking at the NRA website, there are a huge amount of cancellations for Cork:

M20 Cork to Limerick Northern Section Suspended Cork Limerick Limerick County Council
M20 Cork to Limerick (Southern Section) Suspended Cork Cork Cork County Council
N22 Cork Northern Ring Road Suspended Cork Cork Cork County Council
N22 Macroom to Ballincollig Suspended Cork Cork Cork County Council
N25 Carrigtwohill Midleton Suspended Cork Cork Cork County Council
N25 Midleton to Youghal Suspended Cork Cork Cork County Council
N28 Ringaskiddy to Cork Suspended Cork Cork Cork County Council
N71 Bandon to Inishannon Suspended Cork Cork Cork County Council

Some of that infrastructure is not only vital, but long overdue.
So it seems it doesn't really matter how good the CASP plan is, when they are subordinate to whatever organisation is above them, who don't seem to plan well.
For example, they've built bridges in Dongeal where even the locals have complained they're not used, yet the N22 Cork Northern Ring Road has been suspended once again.
That's atrocious planning.

Who is responsible for these planning decisions?

It's not CASP, and it's not the Irish government, they obviously delegate it to some other body.
Who is the body taking these decisions?


Not to belittle the Midleton rail success, but it seems to be more the exception than the rule.
Cork is the 2nd hub in the country and despite that it seems to be private organisations like Tesco driving most of the development down here for the last decade as far as I can see.......... actually, I accept I'm not well informed enough to make a judgement such as that, but that is certainly how it appears to me.

But even in Cork we can see the depopulating of the city proper, evidenced in the CASP update, the link for which I can't find right now, but it said the population had dropped slightly, despite an overall increase in the greater Cork area.
I suppose it's evidence that part of the change toward sustainable development will have to come from people. It's probably a bit off-topic for this thread though, there's plenty other threads arguing the merit of apartment living versus Semi-D's in the 'burbs for all.

The property mess has been the driving force behind the migration.
Young families were pushed out to commuter towns during the Celtic Pyramid years, e.g. Midleton, Carrigaline, Watergrasshill.
Affordable housing didn't really seem to happen in Cork. I don't fully understand the reasons why. Social housing seems to have been a disaster here, so it may have been for the best.

When I was viewing property in Cork City, I was surprised by the high level of executor sales (who won't budge due to unrealistic expectations). There are a huge amount of empty properties in Cork city.
Based on what I could gather, Cork is starting to resemble a slightly oddly shaped doughnut.