Decentralisation

removefiannafai · 29-05-2005 09:28PM

Guys,
please check out my site www.soldiersofdestiny.org for more info on decentralisation and a host of other related topics.
If you have any criticisms I am open to all voices...I hope you will find it worth visiting...

NewDubliner · 30-05-2005 07:58AM

This from the 'Examiner', note the hand-washing by Tom 'Build it and they will come' Parlon, 'The Minister for Decentralisation'.

Just 2% of Ordnance Survey staff ‘interested in Waterford move’
By Neans McSweeney
THE Government will never manage to encourage enough Ordinance Survey staff to make a proposed move to Dungarvan in Co Waterford viable, a union boss has warned.

According to IMPACT assistant general secretary Matt Staunton, only 2% of the 250 Ordnance Survey staff have shown an interest in the Waterford move and the transfer is just not viable, no matter what the Government intends, he said.

"It's a shameful waste and it's back to the drawing board for the Government as far as we are concerned," he said.

"We are looking for an independent review of the plan. It is unsustainable and not viable.

"We will never get 250 cartographers to move to Dungarvan.

"The Ordinance Survey service is already decentralised all over the country and to centralise it to somewhere that nobody wants to go will mean that the country and infrastructure will suffer. There just won't be any maps," he warned.

Just last week, OPW Minister Tom Parlon confirmed the Government has purchased the old Waterford Foods site in the town and the transfer of the mapping service is imminent.

"This is very good news for Dungarvan with the recent announcement of the closure of Waterford Crystal there. We have a site, Waterford is going to happen and Ordinance Survey will be there," he said.

Responding to queries about how they were going to get people to move, given the poor interest in the site, Mr Parlon said: "It is now an issue for the minister with responsibility for Ordinance Survey and for the chief executive of that area. Every minister and secretary general will be responsible in such instances," he said.

Fianna Fáil county councillor Kieran O'Ryan said the Government wants decentralisation to press ahead as quickly as possible for the region, as some respite for the 485 jobs which are to be lost at Waterford Crystal 390 of which are in Dungarvan.

"The Government wants decentralisation in Dungarvan as much as anyone else.

"But there are people who do not want it, just because they are anti-Fianna Fáil. They would nearly prefer the Government not to bring it and to fail.

"We should all be working in the interest of the people who have lost their jobs. Many of people had big mortgages.

eigrod · 30-05-2005 10:46AM

Joe Humphreys from today's Irish Times, sums it all up quite well I thought :

An Irishman's Diary

If only the bookies took wagers on political disasters. Why, you'd find me standing at the cashier's desk with my life's savings in one hand and a betting slip in the other with one word written upon it: Decentralisation. Joe Humphreys writes.

Now, it so happens that I'm married to one of the 10,500 Dublin-based civil servants who have been earmarked for relocation to country constituencies with a Fianna Fáil/PD presence. But that fact hasn't given me any insider information on why decentralisation is an expensive cock-up in the making.

Any observer can see the warning signs: a grand announcement at a time when the Exchequer was flush with money; a direct linking of the plan to electioneering by the coalition parties; and a gritty determination to plough ahead despite rapidly rising costs, a looming industrial relations crisis, and so on.

There are three very simple questions which the Government has yet to answer: (a) How much will decentralisation cost? (b) How will it be implemented without creating inefficiencies and undermining the work of relocating State agencies and departments? and (c) What will happen to employees who opt to stay in Dublin?

Tom Parlon, "the Minister of State with responsibility for decentralisation", is already buying up buildings, or, as he likes to call them, "property solutions", around the country - this despite the fact that the Government has no idea how many civil servants will agree to move.

The parallels with the electronic voting fiasco are uncanny - only instead of being left with dud technology, the taxpayer is likely to be left with a dodgy property portfolio, funded in part by the sell-off of some of our most prestigious State buildings.

In response to question (a), Parlon last October gave a figure of €815 million for the acquisition of offices alone. Two months later, however, the Office of Public Works said housing a mere 3,500 decentralised civil servants would cost €900 million over the next four years.

This figure, of course, excludes any redundancy payments or relocation money which civil servants will undoubtedly demand, not to mention the possible recruitment of thousands of additional State employees to fill vacant posts.

The Association of Chief Executives of State Agencies claims more than 2,000 public servants may have a case for constructive dismissal. If successful, the employees could cost the State €400 million.

Such estimates may be exaggerated. But what is clear is that the public service unions have the Government over a barrel, and they know it. How else can you explain the demand from members of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants for a voluntary severance package with "a minimum of 10 added years service" for civil servants remaining in Dublin after their jobs have moved elsewhere?

Re question (b), consider the record of politically inspired decentralisations. In October 1998 the then Fianna Fáil minister of state with responsibility for forestry, Hugh Byrne, announced that the Forest Service would move to his Wexford constituency. During the move the service lost 90 per cent of its staff, and new employees with "no experience or knowledge" of the sector moved in to manage day-to-day affairs, according to a Comptroller and Auditor General report.

The result? A multimillion euro computerised mapping project, on which the service had been working, rapidly fell into mismanagement. The eventual collapse of the project - which had cost €9.2 million by the end of 2002 - was a "direct or indirect" result of decentralisation, the report stated.

What safeguards are being put in place to avoid a similar waste of public funds in the relocation of no less than 19 State agencies and eight departments? Neither Parlon nor any Government Minister has provided an answer.

As for (c), the question perhaps of most concern to decentralising employees, the Minister of State has given a reply of sorts. It is a reply of the two-fingered variety.

While he claims decentralisation is "voluntary", Parlon recently slated civil servants who think "they are so special that they can't be moved, or they can't be somewhere else, in this day and age". In an interview with RTÉ he also accused the public service unions of failing to "engage" with the Department of Finance when those same unions have for months been seeking in vain to get details on what would happen to employees who opt to stay in Dublin.

Could Parlon himself explain what would happen to, say, ordnance survey mappers who chose not to move to Dungarvan? "That," he said, "is an issue for the Minster with responsibility for Ordnance Survey and for the chief executive of Ordnance Survey."

Take note of the reply because it will be used again if Parlon is asked to appear before the Dáil Committee on Public Accounts to be questioned on how the OPW spent tens of millions of euros on a vacant building in Co Waterford (as is quite likely) because Ordnance Survey staff decided to stay in Dublin.

In fact, Parlon's passing of the buck is the surest indicator that decentralisation will end in disaster. Despite his title, the Minister of State is not responsible for decentralisation. He is the junior Minister with responsibility for spending Exchequer funds on "property solutions" for an ill-defined plan that has no obvious benefit for the taxpayer.

Just who is responsible for the scheme is unclear. Parlon will be happy to reap any political reward for his work, particularly in his own constituency of Laois-Offaly (where, incidentally, Fás are moving into a building that has doubled in price since it was evaluated).

But when decentralisation unravels into one of the most costly political follies of modern times - as it is shaping up to do - Parlon will blame everyone but himself: Government Ministers, department secretary generals, State agency chief executives and, most of all, those oh-so-special public service employees.

You can bank on it.

ishmael whale · 30-05-2005 11:19AM

I agree - this is exactly where we're headed.

..Could Parlon himself explain what would happen to, say, ordnance survey mappers who chose not to move to Dungarvan? "That," he said, "is an issue for the Minster with responsibility for Ordnance Survey and for the chief executive of Ordnance Survey."

Take note of the reply because it will be used again if Parlon is asked to appear before the Dáil Committee on Public Accounts to be questioned on how the OPW spent tens of millions of euros on a vacant building in Co Waterford (as is quite likely) because Ordnance Survey staff decided to stay in Dublin....

Dinarius · 30-05-2005 01:15PM

The most cogent and articulate piece on decentralisation that I have read.

Don't ya just love it when someone calls the likes of Parlon strictly by his surname? No title whatsoever. The best means of showing contempt.

D.

Zaph0d · 30-05-2005 01:47PM

In response to question (a), Parlon last October gave a figure of €815 million for the acquisition of offices alone. Two months later, however, the Office of Public Works said housing a mere 3,500 decentralised civil servants would cost €900 million over the next four years.

250,000 euro per person.

Parlon delivers (your money into a hole in the bog)

eigrod · 30-05-2005 01:57PM

Zaph0d wrote:

Parlon delivers (your money into a hole in the bog)

Unless of course you happen to be a building contractor or land owner in which case he truly delivers.

NewDubliner · 31-05-2005 06:17PM

This was published in the 'Irish Examiner' last week. It's highly speculative & no attempt is made to distinguish fact from spin. For example, 300 jobs have not been promised to Dungarvan. All that may happen is that 300 people might commute there and buy their 'Examiner' in the local shops at lunchtime.

The Examiner Fri, 27 May 2005
Decentralisation can work if done correctly
by Jim Power

IN the days following Charlie McCreevy's surprising Budget day announcement in December 2003 that, more than 10,300 public servants would be relocated out of Dublin, the towns not chosen to host the de-centralised workers were quite annoyed.
One of the more cynical economic commentators suggested back then that these towns should market themselves as `public servant free' locations.
Whatever the merits of such a marketing campaign, it is understandable that the host towns felt elated and those ignored, upset.
The arrival of 300 or 400 secure, pensionable, and relatively well-paid jobs would represent positive news at any time, but particularly when other jobs are being steadily lost.
For example, given the bad news on the jobs front that Co Waterford has received in recent weeks, the creation of 300 public service jobs in Dungarvan and 200 in Waterford City would be very welcome.
The plan to decentralise public servants has met with opposition, and whether this is just a public sector union ploy to extract generous relocation expenses from government or a real concern, is a moot point.
For many public sector workers, leaving the crime, commute times, house prices, cost of living and poor quality of life behind should prove attractive.
But for families with children in school, relocation might not be enticing, but then again that is a real- ity many workers, such as gardai and bank officials, have had to live with for many years, and they have coped quite well.
On a balance sheet basis, it seems strange the debits would exceed the credits.
Presumably, those for whom that is the case would have opportunities to find other roles in Dublin based public sector areas.
For the overall economy, and particularly the achievement of more balanced regional economic development, central to the National Spatial Strategy, decentralisation would be a step in the right direction, notwithstanding some of the inconsistencies inherent in the two processes.
Many communities in Ireland are losing economic activity and young people due to the displacement of workers from manufacturing and agriculture.
For such local economies, the possibility of receiving hundreds of public sector workers would be manna from heaven. It is time policy-making became a little less 'Dublin-centric', and the, decentralisation of deparments and public sector bodies might just further this objective.
One of the valid concerns all taxpayers should have is that the delivery of public services would suffer and become less efficient due to decentralisation.
However, such an outcome is not necessarily inevitable.
Provided the right conditions are put in place, the process could work effectively.
For example, nobody could possibly argue the Revenue Commissioners have become less efficient as a result of the move to Limerick and Nenagh.
The service provided by the Central Statistics Office is superb and seamless, regardless of whether one is dealing with its operations in Cork or Dublin.
To ensure the quality of public services is not dam- aged, it is also necessary to ensure mobility and promotional opportunities for civil servants.
Any workforce must be motivated to deliver a first- class service, and there is no reason why decentral- isation, if properly constructed, should undermine this.
Decentralisation should be given every chance. Ireland is not a big country and, provided the proper IT infrastructure is in place, the customer should not notice the difference between a service delivered from Dungarvan or Dublin.
However, one wonders if the full plan will ever be implemented and the people of Dungarvan should be putting pressure on politicians, particularly local TDs, to determine the status of the 300 jobs promised for the town.

bonkey · 31-05-2005 06:54PM

NewDubliner wrote:

For example, 300 jobs have not been promised to Dungarvan.

A quick google on the words "dungarvan decentralisation" would seem to suggest somewhat otherwise.

McCreevy said it in his budget speech, to begin with.

However, he later clarified (in the Dail question-time amongst other places) that the figure of 300 was incorrect, as it didn't exclude 95 staff already in regional offices which he had also stated would not be effected, leaving the number at 210.

NewDubliner · 31-05-2005 07:37PM

bonkey wrote:

A quick google on the words "dungarvan decentralisation" would seem to suggest somewhat otherwise.
McCreevy said it in his budget speech, to begin with.

So they've promised jobs to people in Dungarvan which are already being done by other people? At best, if they find volunteers, they'll be people who already have jobs elsewhere in the civil service. They probably live in Waterford already.

This sounds like a three card trick being played on the voters in Dungarvan.

pete · 31-05-2005 10:41PM

NewDubliner wrote:

This, from the PSEU's latest report from its meeting with the DIG:

Members had pointed out that there did not seem to be a facility to withdraw indications of interest under the CAF. This was particularly important as some staff now wished to withdraw applications and to indicate a wish to be accommodated in Dublin.

The Official Side Representatives expressed some surprise and agreed to look into the matter.

http://www.pseu.ie/docs/Decent32.docI'm not certain if the Official Side was surprised by the omission of a withdrawal facility in their system or by the possibility that staff might change their minds.

Looks like nobody told bertie... or else he deliberately misled the Dáil today:

bertie wrote:

In terms of final numbers, the central applications facility list is still open and people in various Departments are moving on and off that list all the time. It would not remain the same. People change their minds.

NewDubliner · 01-06-2005 07:36AM

pete wrote:

Looks like nobody told bertie... or else he deliberately misled the Dáil today:

The mix is composed of six assistant principal officers, nine administrative officers, four higher executive officers, 11 executive officers, three staff officers and nine clerical officers

There must be a serious morale problem there, the number is way above average, not just in proportion to the size of the department but also the number of APs & HEOS who've generally been the least likely to want to move.

They're be plenty of map-makers and IT specialists to move in there.

Dinarius · 02-06-2005 07:22AM

My wife received her letter of offer yesterday.

She's in DCMNR. We had considered moving to Clonakilty.

She returned a pfo.

Needless to say, no indication was given in the letter as to when she might acutally be able to move.

D.

NewDubliner · 02-06-2005 08:42AM

This link may be be helpful to those who cannot wait to refuse their offers: http://www.publicjobs.ie/en/caf/how_to_withdraw_app.htm

NewDubliner · 10-06-2005 07:52PM

This, from Tom Parlon, published in the Irish Times in response to Joe Humphries. He's a bit short on facts and avoids committing himself to say how much the whole scheme will cost, how the benefits will be measured and if they'll be worth the cost. He dodges saying what kind of jobs will be offered to IT specialists who've committed years to their vocation only to see a future where all IT positions will be purged from the Dublin area.

Note, too, the fantastic statements claiming beneficial effects on traffic and housing in Dublin:

Come the next election, he'll have all the credit for putting up buildings in sensitive constituencies, while his Fianna Fail partners will have all the grief of trying to find qualified people to work in them.

Decentralisation will benefit public servants - and none of them will have a case for constructive dismissal, writes Tom Parlon

In a recent Irishman's Diary, Joe Humphreys strongly attacked the Government's policy of decentralisation and asked a number of questions regarding its implementation.

I would like to answer the questions he raised and also to point out some of the many positive aspects of decentralisation.

Mr Humphreys, like many of his fellow commentators in the media, continues to cite negatives while completely ignoring the positive aspects of decentralisation.

This current programme was first mooted as far back as 1999 and has its origins in the very positive experience that Government, staff and customers of the public service had of previous decentralisations. Had Mr Humphreys carried out a little research he may well have been able to answer the questions that he himself has raised.

I will endeavour, yet again, to answer those questions and perhaps put paid to those doubting that this Government decision will be implemented.

(a) How much will decentralisation cost? The Decentralisation Implementation Group's second report in November 2004 outlined the costs associated with the programme. The main costs will arise in the area of providing suitable "property solutions".

A capital envelope of Eur900 million has been provided for the Office of Public Works, over the next number of years, as the gross cost of relocating all of the 10,300 staff. This figure does not take into account the sums that will accrue from the sale of buildings in Dublin or savings on rent currently being paid on other leased buildings; for example, Eur100 million was realised last year with a similar amount expected this year.

In addition, at the end of the process the State will own the buildings at the provincial locations. The true net cost will only emerge over a period of time.

(b) How will it be implemented without creating inefficiencies and undermining the work of relocating State agencies and departments?

We already know that decentralisation has worked very successfully in the past. Both the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners have made it clear that they suffered no loss of efficiency in their service to their customers as a result of previous decentralisations. Indeed, in Revenue's case, it claims that the very fact that the organisation had embarked on a relocation programme provided an opportunity for re-engineering their operations, leading to a value-added outcome.

While the current programme is on a bigger scale, decentralisation undoubtedly provides an opportunity to take another look at how things are done in the public service and to make changes, which both facilitate decentralisation and modernise the way services are provided to customers.

In addition the advent of broadband, the internet and e-mail, instant messaging and other advanced communication technologies now means that for many business functions location is irrelevant.

I firmly believe that decentralisation will be a catalyst for positive change and enhanced performance within the service.

(c) What will happen to employees who opt to stay in Dublin?

This is a voluntary programme. It is also recognised that some staff, for personal reasons, will opt to remain in Dublin. It has been explained that in such cases staff will be offered an alternative public service post in Dublin.

Sensationalist comments such "voluntary severance package" and "public servants may have a case for constructive dismissal" serves only to create uncertainty and hinders the ongoing negotiations between the Department of Finance and the various representative bodies.

Everybody knows that in the discussions with unions and in a number of public statements, it has been made clear that a voluntary severance package does not form part of the Government's implementation strategy. Similarly, the Government is satisfied that in the context of a voluntary relocation programme the issue of constructive dismissal does not arise.

No one argues with the fact that this ambitious decentralisation programme is by far the largest and most wide-ranging in the history of the State. It involves the relocation of more than 10,000 civil and public service jobs to some 53 locations in 25 counties. Rather than highlight the negatives and challenges ahead, perhaps Mr Humphreys could have stated some of the potential benefits of decentralisation, which are immense.

Civil servants seeking to leave Dublin - for example, to return to family and friends back home or to acquire an affordable and comfortable family home within easy reach of their workplace - will have a broad range of options. There will also be a wider range of work and career opportunities for civil servants already working outside Dublin.

Present and future civil servants who aspire to senior management positions will no longer have necessarily to migrate to the capital, although many will continue to do so. The programme will help to ease traffic congestion and housing inflation in Dublin will be lessened.

In addition, the economic impact of in excess of 10,000 well-paid jobs will be significant and positive for many communities throughout the country.

Mary Harney as minister of enterprise, trade and employment directed the IDA to urge multinationals to increase foreign direct investment in the regions, and I am glad to say that in 2004 half of all foreign direct investment in the State went outside Dublin. Now the Government is doing more than urging the private sector to invest in the regions, we are leading by example and locating many of our departments and agencies in the regions.

It is well recognised that the concentration of economic activity in a major city is often key to promoting economic growth. However, at a certain stage the negative impact of economic concentration begins to outweigh the positives, as commuting, congestion and living costs escalate, raising production costs, destroying competitiveness and lowering people's quality of life.

One does not have to be an economist to see that is precisely what is happening to our capital city. Decentralisation is not just a positive for the regions, it is a positive response to the challenges facing the city of Dublin.

There is life outside the Pale and governing this country does not have to be carried out from the Dublin 2 area. I look forward to seeing this programme completed and would ask Joe Humphreys (who said he wished bookmakers took bets on political disasters) to find other safe bets for when he visits his local bookmaker.

Tom Parlon is Minister of State for Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works

CaptainPeacock · 10-06-2005 11:22PM

Has it dawned on anyone that while the present government is trying to divert people's attention with a dummy 'Decentralisation' scheme, they are engaged in massive motorway building towards Dublin, which is Centralisation the likes of which we've never had before?

So you have unfortunate people from Meath, Kildare etc. having to travel to Dublin and back again to work, and have no loyalty or love for Dublin, must carry on, and the civil servants that actually call Dublin their home are being forced to move out? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

ishmael whale · 11-06-2005 12:28AM

Parlon's article is a crock. Despite promising to answer all our questions, he just repeats the usual evasions.

(a) How much will decentralisation cost? Parlon simply repeats the estimated cost of providing new accommodation, with the qualification that “The true net cost will only emerge over a period of time.” He specifically does not put forward any estimate for the cost of retraining, IT, additional transport costs, etc etc. There seems to be no estimate available of these costs, and despite the bluster, Parlon is not providing one now.

(b) How will it be implemented without creating inefficiencies and undermining the work of relocating State agencies and departments? Parlon asserts that the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners state they suffered no loss of efficiency as a result of previous decentralisations. However, he does not deal with the know questions such as the additional ongoing costs involved in the Legal Aid Board decentralisation, the staff left idle in Ballina when housing grants were abolished as it was difficult to reallocate them into other work areas, the problems in finding work from the staff released by the simplified agriculture payments system.

He does not answer the illustrative cases that have been raised in relation to the probation and welfare service needing to close its local centres so that they can all be moved to Navan and the loss of cartographer expertise in the Ordanance survey.

(c) What will happen to employees who opt to stay in Dublin? Rather comically, Parlon says “It is also recognised that some staff, for personal reasons, will opt to remain in Dublin.” I think what they have found is that most staff, rather than ‘some staff’, want to remain in Dublin, a reality so uncomfortable he has to pretend it doesn’t exist.

He repeats that it is a voluntary programme and says people opting to stay in Dublin will be offered an alternative public service post in Dublin. But he does not address the key issue. What alternative job will be on offer for, say, Ordnance Survey cartographers? Is the plan to retrain them as, say, probation officers if they decide to go to Navan? Is that realistic? What will the retraining cost? The questions don’t stop there, but the answers haven’t even started to appear.

Parlon asserts the potential benefits of decentralisation to be “immense.” They seem to be: 1. Better career options for people wanting to pursue a civil service career outside Dublin. I’m sorry, but I really don’t see why this is such a pressing issue compared to, say, promoting an effective health service.

2. The programme will help to ease traffic congestion and housing inflation in Dublin. As we know, the scattergram approach will do nothing to create scale in a regional centre that might divert development from Dublin, so this benefit does not exist.

3. The economic impact of in excess of 10,000 well-paid jobs would be significant in local areas. It simply doesn’t work like that. We tend to consume imports and produce for export, so the consumer expenditure of staff in a regional location actually does very little to boost the Irish economy. Where do you buy your imported car? Which branch of Aldi do you shop in?

No apparent benefits, undisclosed (and possibly unknown) costs. Why is this programme not dead?

sceptre · 11-06-2005 12:42AM

ishmael whale wrote:

Parlon's article...

Not half tempted to send in something like your above post to the Times as a letter? At least the first half?

NewDubliner · 11-06-2005 08:39AM

ishmael whale wrote:

Parlon asserts that the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners state they suffered no loss of efficiency as a result of previous decentralisations.

That's typical Parlon, he doesn't give the whole story. Revenue said that it cost them a lot of money, they lost expertese and they had to hire extra people for many years. Nobody knows exactly how much it cost or if the reorganisation could have been done more cheaply in Dublin. There's now a crisis in their Limerick office as so many staff there, unhappy with working in Limerick, have volunteered to decentralise again. Having already done its bit for the country, Revenue is now being forced to replace most of its IT staff so that jobs can be moved to Kildare town.

sceptre wrote:

Not half tempted to send in something like your above post to the Times as a letter? At least the first half?

Civil Servants are generally gagged from making public statements on matters of public controversy. Since the decentralisation scheme was announced everyone has been forced to sign statements that they've read the rules. So unless your'e married to a journalist (like Joe Humphreys' wife), you cannot publicly criticise or ask awkward questions about government policy.

ishmael whale · 11-06-2005 12:12PM

sceptre wrote:

Not half tempted to send in something like your above post to the Times as a letter? At least the first half?

But then I'd have to give up my quasi-Batman like anonymity (God, this rubber mask and cape sure makes you sweat.) But I might go straight to the horses mouth and send these comments to Parlon's office, and see if anything drops out.

cyclopath2001 · 11-06-2005 02:43PM

CaptainPeacock wrote:

Has it dawned on anyone that while the present government is trying to divert people's attention with a dummy 'Decentralisation' scheme...

You mean like Dublin's 'Strategic Cycle Network' consisting of 300km of mostly invisible cycle tracks? Naw, they wouldn't do that.

CaptainPeacock · 11-06-2005 05:56PM

sceptre wrote:

Not half tempted to send in something like your above post to the Times as a letter? At least the first half?

Advice: If you decide to send that letter, pretend that it comes from Dalkey or Dublin X, where X(mod 2) = 0. That way it stands a much better chance of getting printed.

Dinarius · 11-06-2005 07:07PM

CaptainPeacock wrote:

Advice: If you decide to send that letter, pretend that it comes from Dalkey or Dublin X, where X(mod 2) = 0. That way it stands a much better chance of getting printed.

If they're going to publish it,they will ring you before hand to confirm your details. That's happened to me in the past.

D.

The_Conductor · 11-06-2005 08:14PM

Dinarius wrote:

If they're going to publish it,they will ring you before hand to confirm your details. That's happened to me in the past.

D.

Not necessarily- I have had a number of letters published on a range of different topics (mostly in the Irish Times) and have never been called to confirm my details (which I had nonetheless supplied).

NewDubliner · 11-06-2005 08:46PM

smccarrick wrote:

Not necessarily- I have had a number of letters published on a range of different topics (mostly in the Irish Times) and have never been called to confirm my details (which I had nonetheless supplied).

Hmm, I wonder what the penalty would be for a breach of the code of conduct on public statements? Promotion blocked and transfered to a dead-end job?

ishmael whale · 14-06-2005 03:00PM

Different country, same story.

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=652982005
The Executive must bring this policy to an immediate halt

IF there has been one policy being driven relentlessly forward by our new parliament that has proved more contentious than any other, it is surely the decentralisation of public sector jobs to far flung parts of the country. The idea of spreading the benefits of home rule might at first glance appear worthy and well-intentioned, but even a cursory analysis reveals it to be completely misguided and a total waste of taxpayers' money. ……

It is quite clear few wish to move. Only 40 out of 248 at Scottish National Heritage have opted to transfer to Inverness and unions estimate the cost of moving the quango will work out at almost £1million per job.

But despite political, staff and union opposition, the bandwagon rolls on regardless of the strife and unnecessary anguish this heartless policy is causing. To date, 32 bodies employing almost 4500 staff have been examined for possible relocation. In the last three years 1400 posts have been transferred out of the Capital. ….

It is easy to be parochial and say this is being done out of Edinburgh envy, but there is more than an element of that in this blinkered and misguided move. But for whatever reason this ill-conceived policy is being pursued, the Executive should bring it to an immediate halt. It is wasting vast amounts of money it has been given to make Scotland a better place on what is nothing but playing God with people's lives. There is no evidence whatsoever that blowing millions on these pointless exercises is proving to be of any benefit to the country whatsoever.

NewDubliner · 15-06-2005 09:14PM

Parlon strikes again: The site includes the Revenue Computer Centre. Parlon wants them to go to Kildare, there have been few volunteers.

Green light for 32-storey Dublin building

15 June 2005 19:57

An Board Pleanála has given permission for a development in Dublin that includes plans for the country's tallest building.

The 32-storey building is part of an eight-acre development planned by the office of public works near Heuston Station near Kilmainham.

Full report & video (not including the modern IT centre that will have to be demolished): http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0615/kilmainham.html

CaptainPeacock · 15-06-2005 09:28PM

Sand wrote:

Its a either or equation that the government cant do much about really, beyond Khmer Rouge style intervention regardless of whose in power.

How do you know? Fianna Fáil haven't been out for long enough to even allow us to tell how the opposition might do.

I still like to believe that there is such a thing as government with backbone. It doesn't take the Khmer Rouge to re-open a rail line.

SkepticOne · 15-06-2005 09:36PM

cal29 wrote:

why not move the jobs out to where people are living than have the uneconomical option of having thousands of people forcing there way into Dublin

But there's over a million people already in Dublin. If a company wants a good supply of skilled people, it makes sense for them to locate where a lot of people are living. I believe the IDA tried to bribe Google to locate in Athlone which is a comparitively large inland town. If they can't get companies to locate there, what chance do they have with some God-forsaken dormatory town?

Sand · 16-06-2005 07:19AM

including improving public transport
facilitating industries to set up or move out side of dublin
freeing up developement land around Dublin

Improving public transport is fairly vague, but again, its not something that theres huge division between the parties over. Rainbow got thrown out because they didnt have great ideas back then, and as I recall a fair few motorways were built in that time.

Either way its not a 5 year plan to improve public transport, youre talking 20-30 years of committed consistent development. The scale of the task is such that the Dublin Bus carries only 80,000 people to and from work each day. I think something like 500,000 journey in and out by car. Dublin Bus simply cant handle that sort of demand, and thats not going to change because the Rainbow are in power. And the basic blocks on reform such as the CIE unions arent going to change either.

why should it be a 4 or 5 hour drive and not a 45 / 60 minute train journey for example

No reason why not if you are prepared to move close to a train station and your job is within reach of the station youre getting off at. The basic requirement doesnt change whether its Rainbow in power or not.

why not move the jobs out to where people are living than have the uneconomical option of having thousands of people forcing there way into Dublin

Because its far, far, far more uneconomical to move employers out to where they can easily and quickly satisfy skill requirments from a pool of labour like they can in Dublin, and employees like living in or around Dublin.

And why are we building commuter homes 100 miles from the city when there is vast tracts of suitable land much closer to the city

A)Because the people holding the land dont want to sell it.
B)Because its not a bad idea to keep some greenfield areas in and around the city.
C)Because building more houses in those areas will simply lead to more traffic

How do you know? Fianna Fáil haven't been out for long enough to even allow us to tell how the opposition might do.

The Rainbow havent been out long enough for the rose tinted glasses to have much effect on me yet. I remember them, they were just another useless bunch of gimps. And theyre so inept they can score significant damage on this government despite all the free shots theyre been given.

Im hardly encouraged.

Decentralisation

Comments