Decentralisation

rs · 16-06-2004 03:20PM

Many companies move location to save money. It happens all the time. It's something people in the private sector have to deal with.

I don't see why the civil service should be any different.

If you don't want to move, then find a new job. That's what the rest of us have to do.

In the private sector a relocation payment is often given. I think it's only fair that people are given relocation expenses in the civil service. However, this should cover the expense of physically moving your stuff, not buying you a new house when you get there.

jd · 16-06-2004 03:41PM

Originally posted by rs
Many companies move location to save money.

IT is **NOT** to save money. It is to buy votes.
jd (who works in the private sector)

Moriarty · 16-06-2004 04:08PM

Originally posted by jd
IT is **NOT** to save money. It is to buy votes.
jd (who works in the private sector)

Perhaps in the current form it could be argued that it is, but to argue that any form of decentralisation policy is purely for vote-buying is akin to saying that improving the health service is electoral fraud.

ishmael whale · 16-06-2004 04:27PM

Originally posted by Moriarty
Perhaps in the current form it could be argued that it is, but to argue that any form of decentralisation policy is purely for vote-buying is akin to saying that improving the health service is electoral fraud.

Simply categorising the word 'decentralisation' as vote buying would be wrong and I don't think that anyone here is doing that. In fact describing what is proposed as decentralisation is equally wrong. Decentralisation should mean moving decision making away from central government. What is actually proposed is splintering central government functions and relocating them to places without any thought regarding the impact of this on efficiency or effectiveness.

If we discovered we could save fifty sqezillion quid by moving government to Athlone we should do it. But that's not the situation. The moves are not intended to save money, or to empower communities. In fact there's no rhyme or reason to the proposed programme at all, as it doesn't even seem to be bringing any electoral benefit.

jd · 16-06-2004 04:40PM

Originally posted by Moriarty
Perhaps in the current form it could be argued that it is, but to argue that any form of decentralisation policy is purely for vote-buying is akin to saying that improving the health service is electoral fraud.

refer back to my earlier post..
jd

pete · 16-06-2004 04:52PM

Originally posted by Moriarty
Perhaps in the current form it could be argued that it is, but to argue that any form of decentralisation policy is purely for vote-buying is akin to saying that improving the health service is electoral fraud.

Jeeez who said that?

I take back what i took back.

ishmael whale · 01-07-2004 04:52PM

Does anyone still actually want this decentralisation programme to proceed?

http://www.online.ie/news/viewer.adp?article=3132410
Parlon rejects calls for decentralisation review
01 July 2004 12:10
Junior Minister Tom Parlon has rejected calls for a review of the Government's decentralisation plans.

The Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants has called for such a move, but Mr Parlon told the Dáil today that there is not enough time for the Oireachtas finance committee to conduct a review…….

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0701/decentralisation.html
Govt agrees to decentralisation debate
01 July 2004 15:39
The Government has agreed to hold a discussion on its decentralisation programme at an Oireachtas Committee.

The announcement followed criticism by the Labour Party, which threatened to call a series of Dáil votes in protest at the rejection by the Government majority on the committee of a proposal to hold hearings into the issue.

Labour had accused Junior Finance Minister Tom Parlon of 'gross misrepresentation' over the reasons the Oireachtas Finance Committee did not hold full hearings into the decentralisation programme.

Mr Parlon had said the committee would not be reviewing the programme due to a lack of time.

Labour's Finance Spokesperson Joan Burton said that time was not an issue, but that Government members of the committee had voted down a proposed review because the Government did not want a serious public examination of the policy…..

por · 01-07-2004 05:16PM

This decentralisation policy is an election trick that did not work.

It was a ploy to get votes in towns\counties where departments would be moved to, without consideration for the spatial strategy or least of all the people who worked in the departments.

When the process was complete in 3 years, bingo you have a general election and more votes for the gov for giving these towns a boost.

Well it backfired and you have a cabinet reshuffle on the way, what will happen next, a decentralisation reshuffle

Victor · 01-07-2004 06:36PM

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Does anyone still actually want this decentralisation programme to proceed?

Not this programme, but a thought out one which was consistent with the National Spatial Strategy. While it should include a substantial number of "generic" civil servants, it should also allow senior grades to move or be moved.

arcadegame2004 · 01-07-2004 07:10PM

I believe that this type of decentralisation has worked very well in Estonia, with teleconferencing playing a role. I suspect then that it should work here eventually. It should help erode the "Dublin mindset", ensuring that the powers that be are brought closer to the people and their problems rather than stuck in their ivory towers and growing more and more out of touch and disinterested in the problems of the ordinary man in the street/rural area outside of Dublin.

lucernarian · 01-07-2004 09:30PM

Id just like to make the point that economic deficiencies in Ireland are too complex to be labelled as an East/West divide. There are parts of the East which are quite disadvantaged.

On the matter of Decentralisation i think it would be better if the depeartments were all relocated at one city. I think the current solution is a somewhat acceptable one. So long as these civil servants are relocated somewhere.

I know its ironic that the Depeartment of Marine will be located in Cavan but
this won't affect the functioning of the depeartment.

read u soon!

pete · 01-07-2004 09:45PM

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
On the matter of Decentralisation i think it would be better if the depeartments were all relocated at one city. I think the current solution is a somewhat acceptable one. So long as these civil servants are relocated somewhere.

Ehh wasn't the "problem" that "all the civil servants" are located in one city?

uncivilservant · 01-07-2004 10:23PM

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I believe that this type of decentralisation has worked very well in Estonia, with teleconferencing playing a role.

Firstly, while i'm no expert on the matter, I believe decentralisation in the Estonian context was driven by a desire for post-communist reform of a heavily centralised, corrupt, inefficient administration and involved actual decentralisation of responsibility and budgets to local authorities.

Secondly:

CER: A quick aside to this, I remember several years ago there was talk of moving the Cultural Ministry to Viljandi...

Laar: Yes. But no, actually, the idea is now, having studied it and looking at the ministries, that they can be in two places - not more. So we can look at some other administrative units that can be moved to other cities possibly but not to divide all the ministries in the country. It would not be very practical, even using the information technology that we will use and even on the scale of Estonia. So, we'll build up the second centre of Estonia, so that Estonia can stand on two feet.

(Laar = Then Estonian Prime Minister Mart Laar, interviewed in March 2000)

Source: http://www.ce-review.org/00/27/interview27_laar.html

Thirdly:

Reforms of Estonian public administration in 1990-1997

Changes to the administrative system have primarily been induced by external factors (financial restrictions, political deliberations)

Internal logic of functioning of public administration has, all in all, become even more inconsistent

The preparatory analytical and legitimisation stage has been inadequate or non-existent

Due to the conceptual weakness of proposed reforms they have only been confined to formal changes (the number of civil servants, ministries and government agencies), political slogans and ambitions

Specific nature of different administrative levels and fields, as well as internal variety of public administration has not been well-considered

Only plain, mechanical and universal solutions have been pursued

Reforms have been implemented from top down, with civil servants seen as objects of the reform, not the subjects

Goals and objectives of the reforms have not been discussed with relevant interest groups (officials, citizens, entrepreneurs)

Estonian traditions, historical and cultural relations have not been taken into account while (mechanically) copying foreign models

Neither modern trends in public administration theory and practice have been considered, nor the experiences of public administration reform in other countries during the last decades have been analysed while choosing foreign models

Source: http://www.riik.ee/riigikantselei/ahb/en/strateeg/georg2.htm

Finally:

I suspect then that it should work here eventually. It should help erode the "Dublin mindset", ensuring that the powers that be are brought closer to the people and their problems rather than stuck in their ivory towers and growing more and more out of touch and disinterested in the problems of the ordinary man in the street/rural area outside of Dublin.

I thought all civil servants in Dublin were economic migrants from beyond the pale, ready to jump at the opportunity to be repatriated "back home"?

lucernarian · 01-07-2004 10:28PM

Pete dont be so foolish. If read the full post you would have realised that, in the context, I was obviously referring to another city like cork limerick or galway.

pete · 01-07-2004 10:35PM

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
Pete dont be so foolish. If read the full post you would have realised that, in the context, I was obviously referring to another city like cork limerick or galway.

Charming.

So your definition of decentralisation is to shift 10,300 Dublin civil service to one other city? And failing that, the "current solution" of a couple of hundred jobs scattered around each of 25 counties is acceptable???

If there was something in the rest of the post of relevance to this point that i missed, then please point it out. Because I'm finding it hard to reconcile both positions as they seem to be polar opposites, to put it mildly.

Help me out here.

arcadegame2004 · 02-07-2004 12:26AM

Okay uncivilservant. However, in Ireland, there has already been a degree (not that much but some) of decentralisation with respect to government departments, e.g. parts of the Department of Transport are now based in Ballina, Co.Mayo, etc. and the world doesn't seem to be falling down. We have to do something. I mean, some on the Left complain about inequality in our society with respect to wealth, while then criticising decentralisation which could help the poorer regions of this country to catch up to a certain extent (though admittedly it wont do this single-handedly). Civil-servants moving to the West and Midlands etc. would spend money in the local shops and restaurants etc. and that would give a boost to the local economy. I think some people need to put the interests of the country before the inconvenience of moving, especially when you consider that many (though not by any means all) civil-servants in Dublin are living in extremely expensive housing and would get 2 or 3 times the price of a house outside of Dublin if they sold-up. Time for a bit of patriotism methinks.

ishmael whale · 02-07-2004 12:28AM

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I think some people need to put the interests of the country before the inconvenience of moving

The proposed programme puts the inconvenience of moving before the interest of the country.

The national spatial strategy has already plotted out a course for regional development, and it has nothing to do with splintering central government functions across 53 locations. What it does have to do with is promoting centralisation of resources within the regions. The West won't be developed on the strength of a few office workers buying a lunchtime sandwich.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
It should help erode the "Dublin mindset", ensuring that the powers that be are brought closer to the people and their problems rather than stuck in their ivory towers and growing more and more out of touch and disinterested in the problems of the ordinary man in the street/rural area outside of Dublin.

How does moving a centralised function to a regional location make it 'closer' to people generally. For example, it is proposed that the headquarters of the prisons service be moved to Longford, which makes it more distant from all bar one prison. How does this put them more in touch with their field of interest?

uncivilservant · 02-07-2004 01:04AM

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Okay uncivilservant. However, in Ireland, there has already been a degree (not that much but some) of decentralisation with respect to government departments, e.g. parts of the Department of Transport are now based in Ballina, Co.Mayo, etc. and the world doesn't seem to be falling down.

And you'd be hard pressed to find a civil servant that opposed the planned, voluntary, and quite successful decentralisation of the early 90's. Nobody is against decentralisation as a concept - the problem lies with the implementation of the current proposed scheme.

We have to do something. I mean, some on the Left complain about inequality in our society with respect to wealth, while then criticising decentralisation which could help the poorer regions of this country to catch up to a certain extent (though admittedly it wont do this single-handedly).

To reiterate: Nobody - on the left or the right - is criticising decentralisation as a concept.

Civil-servants moving to the West and Midlands etc. would spend money in the local shops and restaurants etc. and that would give a boost to the local economy. I think some people need to put the interests of the country before the inconvenience of moving, especially when you consider that many (though not by any means all) civil-servants in Dublin are living in extremely expensive housing and would get 2 or 3 times the price of a house outside of Dublin if they sold-up. Time for a bit of patriotism methinks.

€25,000 was the headage value of civil servants, according to Fianna Fail pre-election material. Was any consideration given to the effects of 10,300 x €25,000 drained from the Dublin economy every year?

I really wish people would get over this obsession with civil servants' house prices. Did you ever stop to consider that the reason people are living in these "extremely expensive houses" is because they want to?

Oh and frankly - I find your suggestion that "the interests of the country" be put first and that it's time "for a bit of patriotism" to be slightly unsettling at best, and borderline fascist at worst. But perhaps i'm picking you up wrong on that one. Or are you actually advocating some kind of forced march to connaught?

pete · 02-07-2004 08:49AM

Originally posted by uncivilservant
Oh and frankly - I find your suggestion that "the interests of the country" be put first and that it's time "for a bit of patriotism" to be slightly unsettling at best, and borderline fascist at worst. But perhaps i'm picking you up wrong on that one. Or are you actually advocating some kind of forced march to connaught?

On reflection, that paragraph is missing some smileys.

uncivilservant · 02-07-2004 11:36AM

Originally posted by pete
On reflection, that paragraph is missing some smileys.

Quite right. I didn't mean it to come across like that at all, i was just trying to point out the slight tinge of "the state before the individual" in the post. Sometimes my attempts at humour get lost in the process.

arcadegame2004 · 02-07-2004 04:59PM

Originally posted by uncivilservant
I really wish people would get over this obsession with civil servants' house prices. Did you ever stop to consider that the reason people are living in these "extremely expensive houses" is because they want to?

Yes. And of course if we got everything we wanted, we wouldn't be paying taxes either. And we'd get everything for free when we go shopping.

But we're not allowed to do that because the interests of the country as a whole are put first in these matters. And it should too here.

There's a lot to be said anyway from a health point of view for moving to a far less crowded, far less polluted, and therefore far less stressful part of the country. Oh and far less expensive too.

jd · 02-07-2004 05:53PM

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

But we're not allowed to do that because the interests of the country as a whole are put first in these matters. And it should too here.

And the interests of the country as a whole are not served by this "plan". So it should be scrapped.

arcadegame2004 · 02-07-2004 07:18PM

And the interests of the country as a whole are not served by this "plan". So it should be scrapped.

I can understand why Dubliners might be sceptical about decentralisation, but they need to realise that there are 26 counties in the independent Irish state, not 1.

jd · 02-07-2004 07:29PM

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I can understand why Dubliners might be sceptical about decentralisation, but they need to realise that there are 26 counties in the independent Irish state, not 1.

All very well, but I'm from Wexford.

lucernarian · 02-07-2004 07:57PM

Why is there a need to have Depeartments in Dublin in the first place? If we are to solve the problem of unequal population distribution we need to take action. I once brought up a suggestion similar to the Buchanan plan some 30 years ago. If we were to create a rival "Dublin" somewhere else in the country this would take the pressure off certain parts of the East and would create more balanced infrastructural growth throughout the country.

Btw my solution is to remove 10300 civil servants to one other city, possibly a completely new, although a new city is more idealistic than practical

lucernarian · 02-07-2004 07:59PM

Sorry folks, TYPO

to one other city, possibly a completely new, although

should be

"to one other city, possibly a completely new city, although"

jd · 02-07-2004 08:31PM

Originally posted by To_be_confirmed
Btw my solution is to remove 10300 civil servants to one other city, possibly a completely new, although a new city is more idealistic than practical

I'd be more inclined to agree with this, rather than the current scattered approach.
We don't neeed to develop a new city- realistically Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford are barely cities in the modern sense, and could do with more development if you want to build a counterweight to Dublin.
Hope you wern't thinking of this lula

jd

lucernarian · 02-07-2004 08:43PM

S**t, that dude's a nutcase! I was thinking along the lines of choosing the best location be it a city or smaller town and developing it to such an extent that it would rival Dublin

Decentralisation needs to happen if we are to check the excessive growth of dublin. Ireland would be a better place to live in, in every way, if we can stop this unbalance in the country

GreenHell · 02-07-2004 08:58PM

I support it, however the one thing I have to say is that outside of Dublin infastructure is playing catch up, trains are a joke, communication is a joke, motorways are far to slow. I think once we have all our infastructure working at a 21st century level, decentralisation will work no problem.

I fear however that some departments will be place with the next general election in mind.

uncivilservant · 02-07-2004 09:25PM

Again, I think it's important to differentiate between decentralisation (which is a very good thing indeed) and the current "civil service relocation programme commonly referred to as decentralisation (but isn't really)".

Civil servants - or rather, about 80% of civil servants currently based in Dublin - have a problem with the latter, not the former.

Decentralisation

Comments