Decentralisation

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I can understand why persons in Dublin would oppose decentralisation e.g. fears of job-opportunities in the civil-service going to other parts of the country. However, unemployment in Dublin is only 2% and places like Co.Donegal (unemployment 10-20%) are more than due a fairer regional policy that recognises the existence of other areas of the country other than Dublin.

As has been exhaustively pointed out, the planned decentralisation will make no meaningful contribution to regional development. It will simply add to the cost of providing public services for no benefit, and quite likely negative benefit (also known as loss).

There’s lots of good stuff in the research done for the spatial strategy which reflects this. I supply a quote below which had a particular resonance with me. It essentially points out that, even when firms are located in regional locations, they still tend to source their need for downstream services from Dublin as local towns are too small to offer the wherewithal they need. Equally, consumer demand does little to boost the Irish domestic economy. This is Leaving Cert stuff, as the extract below from the Indo’s economics exam brief shows.

The proposed decentralisation does nothing to address these realities. Therefore we can already predict it will fail to make a meaningful contribution to regional development, based on our practical experience to date. What might make a difference is building up sizeable regional centres, such as Limerick and Cork. Doing useful things like developing a couple of regional hospitals that can offer alternative services to Dublin’s national facilities and, say, continuing the development of UCC and UL does more to promote regional development that moving around office staff.

This is really only common sense. For example, according to the 2002 Census there are 45,250 persons employed in Wexford. The decentralisation proposes to increase this (eventually) by 375. I think its intuitively clear that Wexford with a workforce of 45,250 will be in much the same situation as Wexford with a workforce of 45,625. Equally, Dublin will not be much impacted if its workforce of 508,030 is reduced by 10,000 - it would nearly gets lost in the rounding.

The decentralisation achieves nothing and simply soaks resources needed for other things.

http://www.irishspatialstrategy.ie/docs/report8.pdf
p.30

“ …the difference between Dublin and other places is much greater than a comparison of population size would suggest. …... The study shows that even the large urban centres outside Dublin offer relatively poor environments either for new service firms or for other firms wishing to interface with a range of good quality services. The comparative advantage of Dublin is evident in regard to all aspects of service activity but it is perhaps best exemplified in respect to the leakage to Dublin for the purchase of producer services i.e. business consultancy, PR, marketing and advertising. …… There is a high level of leakage from provincial towns towards the capital in terms of both financial flows and employment. The reasons for not using local firms related principally to the poor quality of the local supply and to protect confidentiality.”

http://www.unison.ie/features/education/exambrief/pdfs/leaving/economics_o&h3.pdf

“Ireland is also a very open economy. Last year visible exports were over 90 billion Euro and visible imports over 55B Euro. These are huge figures when compared with a G.N.P. of 112B Euro. So if the govt. decides to cut taxes (this is an example of an expansionary fiscal policy) and also cuts interest rates (which is an expansionary monetary policy) the combined effect is to give people extra spending power. Aggregate demand increases – however a huge % of this extra spending power leaks abroad in the form of higher demand for imports.”

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/decentralisation/decencafsept04.pdf
Gives figures on proposed decentralisations.

http://www.cso.ie/census/pdfs/vol5_t1-18.pdf
Includes stats on workforce by county.

I'll part answer the "at what cost".
First of all- the human cost is unquantifiable- but suffice to say it will be far higher than the financial cost.
The financial cost (at the moment) is estimated to be 900 million between now and 2008- and positive cashflow (from building ownership etc) is not expected to happen until 2026. These are best case scenarios from the Department of Finance- and totally ignore anything other than accomodation and infrastructural costs associated with the buildings themselves (i.e. telecoms upgrades for areas are NOT included in these figures).

The "mandate" for decentralisation- is a single sentence in a 36 page document. It clearly links decentralisation to the spatial strategy- the decentralisation proposals as they stand tear that self-same strategy into tatters. Are the politicians really cynical in the extreme in their thinking they can buy votes with their hair brained plans? Personally I don't believe they have the intelligence to put such cynicism into action- hopefully events will prove me right.....

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The Government has every right to decentralise the civil-service. It was a campaign promise in the last General Election and so they have a mandate to implement this reform. The movement of entire departments to the regions outside Dublin will mean more job opportunities for persons in those regions in future as they will already be living in the area.

At what cost?

The proponents of the relocation scheme have still not told the electorate how much the scheme will cost. So far, the only figures available have been estimates (which will surely over-run) for the buildings and furniture. The cost in terms of re-training, huge loss of intellectual capital and increased operational costs has not been quantified.

The human cost, in terms of family break-ups and distress to those on which it is being imposed is also being ignored. It is as if Dublin people are government chattels.

Were the electorate told that about the cost? I suspect the mandate that the government got was based on people voting for 'mom & apple pie'. The public did not vote for this particular plan and the way it is being implemented, they voted for something that looked like a nice idea and that would not cost anything & hurt nobody.

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well first of all, this country is more than just Laois-Offaly.

Funny you should mention that. As was pointed out a couple of pages back, a massive 945 of the first few thousand posts targetted as first / early movers are going to that very constituency:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2117605&postcount=522

ps the answer to the question posed in that post is "Cowen & Parlon"

I'm not even going to dignify the rest of your nonsense with a response. Did you think people had forgotten your made up "statistics" on unemployment and civil servant's house values already?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well first of all, this country is more than just Laois-Offaly. Also, "averages" can often be misleading, because they can mask wide statistical divergences between portions of the sample. Also, don't forget people living with parents and living in homes they have inherited from their parents.

I can understand why persons in Dublin would oppose decentralisation e.g. fears of job-opportunities in the civil-service going to other parts of the country. However, unemployment in Dublin is only 2% and places like Co.Donegal (unemployment 10-20%) are more than due a fairer regional policy that recognises the existence of other areas of the country other than Dublin.

Averages can indeed be misleading- however, they statistically portray an accurate overall picture. That is- certainly there may be one civil servant somewhere who has inherited a castle- but the far greater liklihood is that for each of he/she, there are thousands of others in 2 bedroom flats/bedsits.

What is your point about people living with their parents? Are you advocating they continue to do so? Where are you going with the point- I don't understand your point.

Ditto- people who have inherited houses from their parents- do you have any statistics to show that you are actually making a valid point? We were not a society of 1 child families historically- so in most cases a single child would not inherit the family home. Its an argument you are trying to use to murky the water- and justify your remark that Dublin based civil servants must be living in 700,000 Euro houses, when the average price of houses in Wexford is only 289,000- so we're all going to make a tidy killing on Dublin houses....... The whole idea is contemptous.

Btw- unemployment in Dublin (city and county) is actually 4.2% and not 2%. Where are you getting your extremely low statistics from? Also, on the same point- the current unemployment rate in Co. Donegal, is 5.7%- certainly its higher than in Dublin- but its nowhere near your 10-20% pie in the sky figures. There are, however, areas of Dublin, with unemployment rates in excess of 12%- which are the highest in the country at the moment.

I'd love to know where you are getting your statistics from- you cannot just pull stats out of thin air (well, you can, but they are totally meaningless). Then again- I had this exact argument with you a few months back, not that it got me anywhere then either......

Heres a site you might be interested in having a little look at- and then you may like to adjust your figures: (The Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed) They even have a nice little map of the country with the unemployment rates on it.....

http://www.inou.ie/

S.

arcadegame2004

smccarrick wrote:

I'm not even sure why I'm responding to the ritriole but anyway:

If you are genuinely interested in reading about the mandate for government and what it is acknowledged to contain- please read the following:

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/upload/publications/1480.pdf

You will note much mention of spatial strategy- and a statement that "we will move forward decentralisation of government offices and agencies taking into account the National Spatial Strategy"- that is the sole mention of decentralisation in the entire 36 page document.

As you will note- this, the fifth wave of decentralisation, totally ignores the national spatial strategy- so unfortunately I have to conclude that your entire point about it being mandated is moot.

Public sector unions are not challenging decentralisation- if you cared or even bothered to read some of the literature from the unions you would note that the CPSU and the PSEU were among those who had agreed decentralisation added (against the wishes of politicians) to the government agenda.

The government has the right to decentralise the civil-service- agreed- but in consultation with those affected, as per agreed in the last partnership document "Sustaining Progress"- which by the way the civil service also gave up the right to strike in (we already gave up the right to arbitration that is available to the private sector- including the labour court). So- the civil servants are not threatening to strike- we are stating however, that the current decentralisation proposals, as drip fed to the media, are in breach of the spirit of the agreement (if not the factual content).

As per previously you are insinuating that civil servants are on a gravy train, that we all have nice houses in Dublin and can sell up and make a killing down the country...... the only people making killings on houses are the builders and those hoarding land. The average civil servant qualifies for assistance on the affordable housing scheme- because we cannot afford to purchase accomodation at all (though quite a lot of people end up buying a little apartment with assistance from relatives and deposits from credit unions- and then renting out rooms to students and fellow employees to try to pay their bills).

The vast bulk of civil servants are in clerical grades- and earn (after 16 years) a maximum of Euro 605.83 per week before tax (31,612 per annum before tax)- i.e. we cannot afford to buy houses in your beloved Wexford- whether we want to or not.

Source:
http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=2713&CatID=28&StartDate=1+January+2004&m=c

As for the will of the people- you are very very good at making grandiose statements without anything behind them. If you genuinely think the will of the people of Ireland is massively in favour of decentralisation- perhaps you can explain how the PDs ran 16 candidates in Laois-Offally, Tom Parlon's home territory- and he the architect of decentralisation- delivering among other things, the Department of Agriculture and Food to Portlaoise- and guess how many of their candidates were elected? Zero....

Source:

http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=1932&page=2

The only part of your gift horse that bears any semblence to reality is protruding from it's posterior.

Well first of all, this country is more than just Laois-Offaly. Also, "averages" can often be misleading, because they can mask wide statistical divergences between portions of the sample. Also, don't forget people living with parents and living in homes they have inherited from their parents.

I can understand why persons in Dublin would oppose decentralisation e.g. fears of job-opportunities in the civil-service going to other parts of the country. However, unemployment in Dublin is only 2% and places like Co.Donegal (unemployment 10-20%) are more than due a fairer regional policy that recognises the existence of other areas of the country other than Dublin.

I'm not even sure why I'm responding to the ritriole but anyway:

If you are genuinely interested in reading about the mandate for government and what it is acknowledged to contain- please read the following:

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/upload/publications/1480.pdf

You will note much mention of spatial strategy- and a statement that "we will move forward decentralisation of government offices and agencies taking into account the National Spatial Strategy"- that is the sole mention of decentralisation in the entire 36 page document.

As you will note- this, the fifth wave of decentralisation, totally ignores the national spatial strategy- so unfortunately I have to conclude that your entire point about it being mandated is moot.

Public sector unions are not challenging decentralisation- if you cared or even bothered to read some of the literature from the unions you would note that the CPSU and the PSEU were among those who had agreed decentralisation added (against the wishes of politicians) to the government agenda.

The government has the right to decentralise the civil-service- agreed- but in consultation with those affected, as per agreed in the last partnership document "Sustaining Progress"- which by the way the civil service also gave up the right to strike in (we already gave up the right to arbitration that is available to the private sector- including the labour court). So- the civil servants are not threatening to strike- we are stating however, that the current decentralisation proposals, as drip fed to the media, are in breach of the spirit of the agreement (if not the factual content).

As per previously you are insinuating that civil servants are on a gravy train, that we all have nice houses in Dublin and can sell up and make a killing down the country...... the only people making killings on houses are the builders and those hoarding land. The average civil servant qualifies for assistance on the affordable housing scheme- because we cannot afford to purchase accomodation at all (though quite a lot of people end up buying a little apartment with assistance from relatives and deposits from credit unions- and then renting out rooms to students and fellow employees to try to pay their bills).

The vast bulk of civil servants are in clerical grades- and earn (after 16 years) a maximum of Euro 605.83 per week before tax (31,612 per annum before tax)- i.e. we cannot afford to buy houses in your beloved Wexford- whether we want to or not.

Source:
http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=2713&CatID=28&StartDate=1+January+2004&m=c

As for the will of the people- you are very very good at making grandiose statements without anything behind them. If you genuinely think the will of the people of Ireland is massively in favour of decentralisation- perhaps you can explain how the PDs ran 16 candidates in Laois-Offally, Tom Parlon's home territory- and he the architect of decentralisation- delivering among other things, the Department of Agriculture and Food to Portlaoise- and guess how many of their candidates were elected? Zero....

Source:

http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=1932&page=2

The only part of your gift horse that bears any semblence to reality is protruding from it's posterior.

arcadegame2004

uncivilservant wrote:

Unions representing civil servants have reacted angrily to suggestions by the Department of Finance that promotion prospects might be limited to staff who sign up for decentralisation.

The department said such discussions were still at an early stage, but that policy on promotions had to take account of the reality of decentralisation.

It is less than a month since the Government announced its first phase of decentralisation, the relocation of 3,500 civil servants to 20 locations outside Dublin by 2008.

The Government intends decentralising around 7,000 more jobs in the Civil Service and State agencies.

The Civil Public and Services Union said the protection of Dublin-based staff was a condition of its continued support for decentralisation.

The Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants and the Public Service Executive Union have also expressed their total opposition to any attempts to limit promotion prospects to staff who sign up for decentralisation.

As sure as night follows day, the public-sector unions will always exploit each and every structural change their company/profession goes through as an excuse for industrial-action. The same thing is happening in An Post and with the obstruction of the Health-Service reforms intended to reduce bureaucracy to free up resources for patients.

The Government has every right to decentralise the civil-service. It was a campaign promise in the last General Election and so they have a mandate to implement this reform. The movement of entire departments to the regions outside Dublin will mean more job opportunities for persons in those regions in future as they will already be living in the area.

We are a democracy and we have already given the Government a democratic mandate to do this. I am sorry but the will of the people must be enforced. I agree with favouring civil servants who accept decentralisation for promotion, provided they have the abilities required. Carrot and stick is the right way to achieve decentralisation. The public-sector unions are only making themselves even more unpopular with the long suffering (from strikes) Irish public.

As I've said in the past on this issue, some people are not being very patriotic and need to put the national interest first. If you have a house worth many hundreds of thousands of euros, then you don't have any sympathy from me if you're refusing to sell up to relocate in an area where house prices are 2/3rds lower, leaving you with a bonanza of cash left over! :rolleyes: Looking gift horses in the mouth springs to mind! :rolleyes:

RicardoSmith

I'm only adding my 2 cents. (All I can afford ATM)

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1218/decentralisation

I think we can forget about arcadegames ridiculous comments..... We logically debated them previously. Just how many civil servants have 700,000 Euro houses do you think?

RicardoSmith

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I support the Government's proposals as a way of partially redressing the East-West economic imbalance.

I don't fully understand the scale of civil-servant opposition to this. Many houses in Dublin are valued at 700,000 euro. If you sell up you can easily afford a house elsewhere in the coutnry and have loads of cash into the bargain.

What if all you family friend and relatives all live in Dublin, your partner works in Dublin, all your interests are in Dublin. You've lived in Dublin all your life.

Sure you can just change jobs. But that can be very difficult. If you've always found it easy, then maybe you've been very lucky!

uncivilservant

Unions representing civil servants have reacted angrily to suggestions by the Department of Finance that promotion prospects might be limited to staff who sign up for decentralisation.

The department said such discussions were still at an early stage, but that policy on promotions had to take account of the reality of decentralisation.

It is less than a month since the Government announced its first phase of decentralisation, the relocation of 3,500 civil servants to 20 locations outside Dublin by 2008.

The Government intends decentralising around 7,000 more jobs in the Civil Service and State agencies.

The Civil Public and Services Union said the protection of Dublin-based staff was a condition of its continued support for decentralisation.

The Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants and the Public Service Executive Union have also expressed their total opposition to any attempts to limit promotion prospects to staff who sign up for decentralisation.

From the 'Anglo-Celt':

(Note the references to <local?> people having bought land n anticpation of the relocation.)

Decentralisation a ‘ball of smoke" – Cllr. O’Reilly

By Sean McMahon

WHILE Councillors at Cavan Town Council got involved in a heated verbal exchange over whether it was better to be negative or positive in relation to the prospects of decentralization becoming a reality in Cavan, it has emerged that the race is on to close a deal on a suitable site for the new offices. However, it is understood that locating the ideal site is proving more difficult that had been first envisaged.

It was also stated by the Town Clerk Shane Donnelly, at last Monday’s meeting of Cavan Town Council, that Minister for Finance Brian Cowan has said that the Decentralisation Implementation Group would be reporting again in the Spring and would give a more detailed update on the progress in relation to Cavan.

Councillor Andrew Boylan told members present that he wished to get clarification on the up to date position in relation to Cavan decentralization issue. He said there had been three announcements made, including the first phase which was being fast tracked, the second phase and the third phase which runs up to 2008.

Councillor Paddy O’Reilly also sought clarification. He said it had come as an absolute bombshell to the people of Cavan that the town was not on the first list announced. "It was a further let down in the wake of the Teradyne fiasco", he said.

He also pointed out that people had bought land and developed it around Cavan Town on the assumption, that the Dept of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was coming to the town.

An irate Councillor O’Reilly said statements like those from Government Ministers were "just a ball of smoke". He said one year had gone by and nothing had happened and nothing was likely to happen in the coming year.

Des Cullen said it would be very disappointing if Cavan missed out again, on something "that we thought would come to fruition in the county".

Councillor Veronica Sharkey said Councillor O’Reilly was always sceptical and he was also sceptical about the College of Further Studies 18 months ago. “I hate this negativity coming in here at Council level – I don’t care what Government is in power, we should still be positive about our town".

Councillor Terry Argue agreed that they should go forward together. It was his impression that someone was telling untruths, and he wanted the matter clarified. "It would be nice to know if it was going to happen this side of 2008, which would really mean 2011".

Councillor Patricia Walsh said "we have to send out a positive image from this Council. I have no doubt that decentralisation is going to come to Cavan in the near future and not 2008".

Councillor O’Reilly said "Let’s be honest about it, we have got bugger all over the past 27 years".

Brandishing a copy of the front page of The Anglo Celt, 425 jobs were promised last year. It is quite clear that when that was announced during last year’s Budget, there had been no negotiations with Staff or Unions about moving to Cavan.

Councillor Boylan proposed that they meet the Minister for Finance Brian Cowan and hear his account first hand.

Councillor Brian McKeown said they had been given a commitment that the Department was coming to Cavan and this was now being reneged on.

Town Clerk Shane Donnelly read a letter from the Minister for Finance Brian Cowan, TD on the matter to Minister Brendan Smith, TD. It included references to the fact Minister Smith had concerns about the 378 posts coming to Cavan. That the Group tasked with selecting locations for the first phase of moves focussed on the organisations that were best placed to move in the general time frame.

"In drawing up this list the Group state that they paid particular attention to the figures which emerged from the Central Applications facility". They also took into account progress in relation to site acquisition, business issues and geographical distribution. The letter also pointed out that the group has also clearly stated that they will report again in Spring 2005, to deal with the locations and organisations not covered in November, 2004.

Mr Nealy told Councillor Boylan that in relation to site acquisition, he was convinced that this matter can be concluded very quickly, if everything else was in place.

It was agreed with to seek a meeting with Minister Cowan and link up with the County Council for this purpose.

BolBill

smccarrick wrote:

Not a million miles from the truth- rumours abound that the entire Information Systems Division in one of the Departments down for the first wave have been told they are all going to be reassigned to "administrative" positions. Currently some administrative staff already down the country have lodged objections to this- on the grounds that the erstwhile IT staff will hog some of their more interesting work. Swings and roundabouts.....

They aint rumours, I work in IT and my jobs gonna be out sourced because hardly anybody is decentralising from the IT area. Looks like I'll be going back to general service to a job that won't exist, then I WILL be sitting on my arse doing feck all.

You gotta love Bertie and his wonderful election ideas - Asshole

BCB wrote:

Bloke i know is a civil servant and he does literally fcuk all and get paid mega bucks for it...lucky bastard.......... :rolleyes:

Perhaps....
I'm a civil servant- I worked a 14 hour day today, along with 2 of my colleagues because an item of urgent work suddenly appeared.

Comments like yours, totally aside from the fact that they are off-topic, are a cynical attempt to paint an entire group of people with the same brush. I am not denying that there are some lazy people in the civil service- but to even suggest its a common trait to us all is offensive. Having worked in the private sector for 6 years prior to joining the civil service- I am happy to inform you, the grass is not greener on the other side.

Just because your friend does shag all, does not mean that there are not large numbers of dedicated people who take pride in their work.

S.

BCB

Bloke i know is a civil servant and he does literally fcuk all and get paid mega bucks for it...lucky bastard.......... :rolleyes:

The official side demands are so blunt, you'd wonder if they're inviting the unions to dig in so that the government will be spared the embarrassment of implementing a plan which, even with 100% cooperation would cost the nation dearly?

NewDubliner wrote:

This probably means that Java programmers will be offered jobs in the Leinster House coffee shop.

Not a million miles from the truth- rumours abound that the entire Information Systems Division in one of the Departments down for the first wave have been told they are all going to be reassigned to "administrative" positions. Currently some administrative staff already down the country have lodged objections to this- on the grounds that the erstwhile IT staff will hog some of their more interesting work. Swings and roundabouts.....

the redeployment of surplus staff in Dublin would be done by Departments gathering details of their own surplus staff and then forwarding these details to the central ‘clearing’ mechanism

This probably means that Java programmers will be offered jobs in the Leinster House coffee shop.

uncivilservant

From the PSEU report of the latest Decentralisation meeting:

Before inviting a Staff Side response the Official Side Representatives explained that the proposals for General Service grades included agreed equivalent grades. They also clarified that the redeployment of surplus staff in Dublin would be done by Departments gathering details of their own surplus staff and then forwarding these details to the central ‘clearing’ mechanism where they would be prioritised for redeployment in accordance with criteria that the Official Side was open to discuss with the Unions before proceeding.

The Staff Side Representatives were unanimous in response. Each of the Unions made it clear that the Official Side proposals were absolutely unacceptable in their entirety and that if the Official Side was proposing seriously that these arrangements would apply then the Unions would withdraw from these discussions and would consult their members about the adoption of a policy of non co-operation with the entire process. The PSEU Representative pointed out that the Union had stated two absolutes from the beginning i.e. that nobody would be forced to re-locate and also that career opportunities would remain for staff who chose to stay living and working in Dublin. It was pointed out that the effect of the Official Side document would be to eliminate all promotion opportunities in Dublin and this would never be regarded as acceptable.

Not exactly NO SURRENDER, but a good start nonetheless.

Taking the crucial point

“.. The position adopted officially is that all future vacancies in all departments and offices, whether arising from promotion or recruitment, must be used in support of the decentralisation programme. ….. all future general service promotions will be subject to agreement to decentralise. …..”

So, effectively, this suggests that the only criterion that will be used in filling positions will be willingness to work in one of the decentralised locations. This will take precedence over any other factor relating to fitness to serve in the position.

All I can say is grunt and ugh.

Latest AHCPS circular on the last meeting on Decentralisation with the official side.

S.

Dinarius

For those who believe that Dublin's population might stabelize and be helped in this aim by moving 10,000 civil servants to the regions; Dublin's population is currently increasing at a rate of 20,000 per annum.

Moving 10,000 (now 3,000+) to, in Bertie speak, slow down the expansion of Dublin (I'm paraphrasing) is utter tosh.

As currently envisaged, about two months population increase are being moved over four years.

How Irish is that?

D.

Tuars wrote:

I think I've aleady answered the first part. Firstly, through a stable, secure workforce that is large enough that it significantly impacts the local economy and gives it critical mass to attract further investment.

Without all those civil servants, Dublin would have a large workforce and all the other wherewithal that goes with a large concentration of population. That's really the key feature that makes Dublin attractive. I'll say again, we can lose 10,000 salaries. That's not what the issue is about.

Tuars wrote:

and secondly through implementing state policy that maintains and promotes this situation.

This I really don't see, and I really do think Shannon is the case to explain in this context. Even the case of Knock isn't so blatent a case - its just a poorly located airport, without any particular impact one way or the other on Dublin other than taking up money that could be used for something else.

Tuars

Sorry, cross posted.

ishmael whale wrote:

Proposal to shorten discussion. Explain through what mechanism government centralisation in Dublin causes Dublin to be a net contributor and the regions net receivers. Particular reference to the case of Shannon airport would be most useful in this context.

I was just going to propose to leave Shannon out of this as it's slightly OT

.

I think I've already answered the first part. Firstly, through a stable, secure workforce that is large enough that it significantly impacts the local economy and gives it critical mass to attract further investment and secondly through implementing state policy that maintains and promotes this situation.

Tuars

ishmael whale wrote:

No, but an economy based on selling each other Chinese takeaways is not feasible.

That's not the point and you know it. (We're trying to outdo each other in faciteousness here).

ishmael whale wrote:

I have no problem with a policy based on encouraging Dublin as the only centre of development..

Then you can't really complain about subsidising the regions to offset the imbalances that this causes.

ishmael whale wrote:

Incidently, I don’t see how going to Mayo will make me realise that ‘decentralising part of a department isn't going to turn the whole county into a roaring tiger economy’. In fairness, I think on reflection you will admit that this is an empty statement – what’s it supposed to mean?

Centralised thinking in action

. I'm just saying that there's more to solving the economic problems of Mayo then decentralising a few civil servants. It might be helpful to actually have some experience of the place to get a sense of this.

ishmael whale wrote:

I honestly can’t make sense of this comment. The policy actively followed by successive governments has been to prioritise the needs of the regions ahead of Dublin. How this can be described as forcing people to migrate to Dublin is beyond me.

I don't think prioritising the needs of the regions correctly describes it. Government policy has not favoured the regions in any meaningful way. They have paid lip-service to the needs of the regions throwing them a few crumbs from the table while letting Dublin grow to an unmanageable size. Despite all the rhetoric the trend throughout the life of the state has been to more centralised government and state structures.

ishmael whale wrote:

We’re talking about two separate things. You are talking about the collapse of Dublin in the sense of too much development making the place grind to a halt. I’m not talking about collapse in that sense – I don’t actually think I’ve used the term ‘collapse’ at all.

Maybe I misunderstood but you seem to imply that if we diverted resources to the regions then Dublin's global standing would suffer.

ishmael whale wrote:

If its documented, give us some links.

Sorry, I've no links offhand. My sources are from books (a little old fashioned, I know). Off the top of my head I remember Joe Lee writing a bit about it in his Ireland 1912-1985 book.

ishmael whale wrote:

It said that the only alternative to growth centred on Dublin was to pick a small number of regional centres and grow them as alternatives. This died in the usual controversy over whether Kilkenny people have longer mickeys than folk from Waterford and Dublin continued to grow by default.

Exactly my point. The rhetoric versus the reality.

Tuars wrote:

I'm addressing ishmael's specific point about Dublin being a net contributor and the regions being net receivers and trying to show that government centralisation is to blame for much of it.

Proposal to shorten discussion. Explain through what mechanism government centralisation in Dublin causes Dublin to be a net contributor and the regions net receivers. Particular reference to the case of Shannon airport would be most useful in this context.

Tuars wrote:

BTW, I think it's a distraction from the main issue. This should not be a Dublin vs The Country debate. A proper decentralisation strategy would relieve the pressure on Dublin and bring economic growth to the regions.

I totally agree, but to be honest its regional activists that put it in this context. I'm open to the idea of national solidarity but this cuts both ways. I don't mind too much making the best of Dublin's public transport system, so long as the West understands I and other Dubliners are and have put up with a lot to enable the country to afford to provide their rail service. That's not the case at present. And you really do have to wonder at the Western Development Commission on the one hand saying move to the West for a twenty minute commute and on the other saying they despirately need a Western Rail Corridor at a time when you could fill any reasonable amount of carriages on the line from Dublin to Drogheda.

Decentralisation is fine too - so long as we mean real decentralisation and not moving office staff about.

Tuars

smccarrick wrote:

Tuars- what you are essentially advocating is devolving decision making and policy planning on a regional basis to the different regions?

Not all decision making should be devolved but certainly there is room for a lot more. As I alrady said the dependency culture in the regions is largely due to the powerlessness of having to go cap-in-hand to central government to fund every little scheme, many of which could be dealt with quite comfortably by a local administration without impacting the national position.

smccarrick wrote:

..these factors do not exist elsewhere in the coutry (6 other possible sites were rejected for these reasons) and are incapable of being replicated. The presence of Intel alone provided an impetus to other multinationals in the IT sector in particular to locate in the area.

I don't agree that these factors don't exist elsewhere or are incapable of being replicated. They have been replicated to varying degrees throughout the country. Your example of Intel providing an impetus to other multinationals is an argument in principle for the merits of decentralisation.

smccarrick wrote:

Perhaps I am being a little harsh, but I do detect a note of begrudgery in your comments, Dublin has XYZ- we should have them (instead).......

No, not begrudging. I'm trying to explain the reason why Dublin has this advantage (if you can call it that). I'm addressing ishmael's specific point about Dublin being a net contributor and the regions being net receivers and trying to show that government centralisation is to blame for much of it. BTW, I think it's a distraction from the main issue. This should not be a Dublin vs The Country debate. A proper decentralisation strategy would relieve the pressure on Dublin and bring economic growth to the regions. It could be a win-win (it won't be if this implementaiton is followed).

smccarrick wrote:

Will you at very least admit that the scheme, as it stands, is nothing but an ill-hidden attempt at purchasing votes by the incumbent government?

Already have... read my posts again.

I think smcarrick has put the case in a very sober and reflective way. I don't really need to add to that, but sure I had it all typed up and everything.

tuars wrote:

So you're ordering your Chinese takeaway directly from Bejing then?

No, but an economy based on selling each other Chinese takeaways is not feasible.

tuars wrote:

So Great, why don't we all move to Dublin so.

I have no problem with a policy based on encouraging Dublin as the only centre of development, so long as we decide that’s what we want to do. There’s five million people in the State of Victoria. 3 million of them live contentedly in Melbourne. If that’s our model fine.

But if we want to encourage regional development lets do it in a way that makes sense. The NSS strategy, and Buchanon before it, suggests that the only hope is to create a small number of concentrations in the regions that might be able to compete with Dublin. Moving office staff about the place, and manufacturing a requirement for people to travel and use communications technology where none exists, makes no contribution to this process. However, to take a particular example, implementing the Hanly report would make a contribution, as significant hospital services could be delivered within regions and national dependency on Dublin hospitals would be reduced.

tuars wrote:

Well, for better or worse I've lived in these towns and I've seen the benefits. By the sounds of it you've never been to Mayo or you would realise that decentralising part of a department isn't going to turn the whole county into a roaring tiger economy. It certainly made a difference though.

Quantify the benefit. Its not showing up on the radar. I have no expectation that the fact that significant numbers of office staff have been moved to Castlebar and Ballina would make any discernable difference to the county’s fortune. But I’m arguing against such moves. If you want to argue that decentralisation makes a difference that justifies investing a whole pile of money and ongoing increased administration costs then you’d want to be showing some kind of payback.

Incidently, I don’t see how going to Mayo will make me realise that ‘decentralising part of a department isn't going to turn the whole county into a roaring tiger economy’. In fairness, I think on reflection you will admit that this is an empty statement – what’s it supposed to mean?

tuars wrote:

With respect, no it's not. The kind of thinking that has left us all ending up living here but without the infrastructure that we need is the one that forces people to migrate to the city at a rate that it cannot support because they have no alternative employment in the regions.

I honestly can’t make sense of this comment. The policy actively followed by successive governments has been to prioritise the needs of the regions ahead of Dublin. How this can be described as forcing people to migrate to Dublin is beyond me.

tuars wrote:

But if the infrastructure is under strain because of over-population then Dublin's ability will be restricted. I see you're also buying into the 'collapse of Dublin' theory that you so eloquently dismissed a few moments ago. The NSS addresses in depth the issue of Dublin in the global context. Having a vibrant Dublin does not have to be at the cost of having run-down regions.

We’re talking about two separate things. You are talking about the collapse of Dublin in the sense of too much development making the place grind to a halt. I’m not talking about collapse in that sense – I don’t actually think I’ve used the term ‘collapse’ at all.

I’m simply pointing out that if we don’t invest to ensure that, for example, are third level colleges can operate to a global standard that all this prosperity will just leave. Investing money moving office staff around for no reason diverts resources from things like this that we actually need. If we go on spending our money on this kind of nonsense then congestion won’t be a problem because we’ll be back to the prospect of inviting the last person to leave the country to turn off the lights.

tuars wrote:

No it's not. It's a well documented phenomenon in the history of the state and it is responsible to a large degree for the dependency culture in the regions that you bemoan

If its documented, give us some links. My picture of the history of the state is somewhat different. My understanding is that, concerned that Dublin accounted for one third of the population in the sixties despite projects like rural electrification and Dev’s idea of the ‘ruralisation of industry’, the Government commissioned the Buchanon report which told them more or less what the National Spatial Strategy told them. It said that the only alternative to growth centred on Dublin was to pick a small number of regional centres and grow them as alternatives. This died in the usual controversy over whether Kilkenny people have longer mickeys than folk from Waterford and Dublin continued to grow by default.

tuars wrote:

The airports situation that you cite is an example of this. The lack of local power in the administration process leads to the farcical situation of everything being routed through central office and round the back door, resulting in everyone getting the short end of the stick.

With respect, I don’t think this does the situation justice. Shannon airport is the prime indisputable example of Dublin getting rightly shafted for the intended benefit of the regions, and at a loss to the country as a whole. I think the attempt by the Minister of State to rewrite history, as I have described above, requires a little more acknowledgement than ‘everyone getting the short end of the stick’. Dublin very clearly got the wrong end of the stick, and in fact is still carrying the wrong end of the stick through the continuation of the stopover requirement and through taking over Shannon Airport’s debts. For most of this period Shannon was quite happy with its end of the stick.

I know this has all the elements of a bun fight, but the objective reality is that Dublin was shafted. Trying to equate the position of the shafter with the shaftee just won’t wash.

tuars wrote:

That is not disputed. As I said already, it is the reason why this is the case that is important.

I’m glad that you are not disputing that government revenue is chiefly raised in Dublin and the Mid East region, and the West does well out of intra-regional transfers and provision of state services. Many people do dispute this, or at least behave as if this was not the case.