Decentralisation

NewDubliner · 28-07-2005 07:50AM

This, from the 'Irish Independent, July 28, 2005.

I wonder who else was interviewed?

Minister's pensioner pal will head Civil Defence

DEFENCE Minister Willie O'Dea is nominating a political associate and constituent to be national chairman of the Civil Defence organisation.

Pensioner Joe Meagher, from Oola, Co Limerick, has been a close associate of the minister for many years. He will oversee a volunteer corps of thousands of young people from the end of next month.

His nomination is likely to re-ignite the controversy aroused by the Taoiseach's nomination of his former partner Celia Larkin to the board of a state consumer agency.

Mr Meagher is a former Fianna Fail councillor who lost his seat in the Castleconnell ward by a little over 50 votes in last year's local elections.

The former community welfare officer ended a five-year stint in the Civil Defence more than 35 years ago. His wife runs the post office in Oola.

Joe Meagher takes over at a troubled time for the Civil Defence, following the sacking of a previous chairman by then Defence Minister Michael Smith. Michael Ryan had resisted the relocation of Civil Defence headquarters from the Phoenix Park in Dublin to Roscrea in Mr Smith's constituency.

Mr Ryan was replaced as chairman by businessman Pat Cooney, who recently indicated to the minister that he would not be able to continue in the post due to work commitments.

Senan Molony
Political Correspondent

NewDubliner · 15-08-2005 07:05PM

From the 'Sunday Tribune', more hidden costs coming to light:

Re-training of rural civil servants set to cost millions
Sunday Tribune

THOUSANDS of rural-based civil servants who have applied to move jobs under the government's decentralisation plan will have to travel up to Dublin for about two months of training before being moved back down the country again.

In the latest bizarre twist to the government's plans to move 10,000 civil servants out of the capital, the Department of Finance has finally conceded it will have to pay a training allowance to these rural based civil servants to cover the additional expense of staying in Dublin during training.

This costly shunting of civil servants up and down to Dublin arises because, of the 9,000 civil servants who so far have said they are willing to move jobs under the government's decentralisation plan, 4,000 are already working outside the capital. Each department due to move out of Dublin has insisted that every new arrival receive on- the-job training before moving down the country. As these departments are still in Dublin, the training will have to be done there, and this will require all rural-based staff to travel to the capital to train for a job back down the country.

But in an effort to cap the cost, Finance has warned the public service unions that it will not pay the full civil service subsistence rate of € 138 per night. Based on four overnights per week and eight weeks of training, the unions' claim could reach almost €20m.

At a meeting last Thursday with the unions, Finance offered to pay an ex-gratia training allowance of €152 per week to every householder moving to Dublin for training and Eur 95 per week for a non-householder. This would cost around Eur 5m. Finance also warned each department that they must "minimise the requirement to come to Dublin and that they must seek approval from the Department of Finance for payment in each case".

A spokesman for the PSEU, which represents middle management grades in the civil service, said irrespective of whether it is necessary for civil servants to go up and down to Dublin for training, his members will incur additional living costs staying in the more expensive capital, and they should be fully reimbursed.

The PSEU rejected Finance's offer and the row is heading for adjudication.

NewDubliner · 15-08-2005 07:10PM

From 'Ireland on Sunday' who seem to have some inside information. It's a bit extreme to refer to some applications as 'false', some people's circumstances might have changed or the cost of moving family may be too high.

Civil service moves back to Dublin!
Ireland on Sunday
THE GOVERNMENT'S Eur900m decentralisation plan has shifted from standstill into reverse.

Civil servants willing to take up roles outside Dublin will first have to train for at least two years - in Dublin.

The original aim was to move 10,300 civil servants to 53 locations around the country. However, thousands of civil servants could be forced to move to Dublin to be trained for work in other departments.

Many of the applications for decentralisation have come from civil servants looking to move between counties that are outside Dublin. This has proven to be the bane of the ambitious decentralisation scheme.

The plan was to have seen four Government departments move from Dublin in their entirety, and six move in part, by the end of 2007. This goal now appears more elusive than ever.

In an equally ominous development, senior officials from several departments have been forced to draw up a `decentralisation commitment' form. When signed, this form would commit a civil servant to moving to a particular place by a specified deadline.

The form is aimed at combating the hundreds of false decentralisation applications received to date, informed sources have said.

In yet another twist, Ireland on Sunday has learned that a number of high-ranking officials have been assured that they will continue to be accommodated in Dublin offices, although this will not be reflected in statistics for decentralisation, while their subordinates relocate.

oscarBravo · 15-08-2005 09:11PM

Um... training costs? What training is required to live outside Dublin?

RicardoSmith · 15-08-2005 09:55PM

oscarBravo wrote:

Um... training costs? What training is required to live outside Dublin?

They have to do a course on answering stupid questions....

Say you move from Finance to IT or vice a versa, then I think you are going to need training. No? Or a clerical worker to a business unit etc. Since they are juggling people around between roles to fit the numbers.

NewDubliner · 17-08-2005 06:20PM

From 'SiliconRepublic http://www.siliconrepublic.com I wonder how long before the next big announcement?

Government IT spend hit by decentralisation

17.08.2005 - The pace of growth of Irish Government spending on IT in 2005 is expected to dip due to confusion caused by decentralisation, it has been claimed. An IDC spokesman said the average spending growth could halve as civil servants curtail spending due to uncertainty caused by the decentralisation strategy.
IDC Ireland sales manager Keith Gaffney told siliconrepublic.com: “We estimate the [Irish] IT market will be €2.2bn in 2005, with about 25pc of that — some €550m — spent by the Government.”

Gaffney explained every year, Irish Government IT spending increases by about 8pc. However, he warned, this is likely to slow this year in the Irish IT market to between 4pc and 5pc due to confusion over decentralisation. Effectively, he explained, Irish civil servants and IT strategists are unsure what technologies or what quantities of hardware to spend their budgets on due to uncertainty.

While the same uncertainty may have gripped IT spending in 2004, Gaffney said this was buoyed up by a surge in Government IT spending in 2004 driven by a hardware refresh made necessary to replace equipment acquired during the last major spending spree on IT equipment during the Y2K crisis in 1999. “IT equipment is required to be replaced every three to four years and it turned out to be four years. There will be less equipment acquired this year.”

Gaffney explained: “We would think the Government has grown slower this year than last year. As a result of decentralisation, nobody knows what it is doing.”

He explained that lack of knowledge as to where specific Government functions will be located is stymieing planning. “Plans for IT require functions and equipment to be in a certain location, but what location would they be required in?”

Gaffney concluded: “We estimate that Government IT spending will grow between 4pc and 5pc this year compared to 8pc last year.” The confusion surrounding future IT investment in government systems is one more headache for the Department of Finance-based Central Management and Organisation Development, which is overseeing the decentralisation strategy. Recent reports suggest as many as 80pc of Government IT workers have yet to agree to move as part of the decentralisation strategy.

By John Kennedy

NewDubliner · 21-08-2005 04:51PM

Form the 'Sunday Independent', Aug 21. Maybe the idea of the life coaching is to encourage staff to leave?

Taxpayer set to foot life-coaching bill for public service workers
JEROME REILLY

CIVIL servants confused about the direction of their lives are being offered their own personal life coaches at the taxpayer's expense, the Sunday Independent can reveal.

The first recipients of the new touchy feely approach in the grey world of the State sector will be the 160 staff at the Valuation Office in Dublin.

Life coaching sessions can cost between €600 and €1,000 per client suggesting the taxpayer could be left with a significant bill - even with a group discount.

It could not be established whether the service is to be expanded throughout the civil service, but if it were to be, it would add hugely to the cost.

Dismissed as a new-age fad by some, life coaching has become a multimillion global industry with so-called gurus offering to reshape the lives of those who have lost focus.

The officials at the Valuation Office are certainly facing their own life-changing move: a 180-mile decentralisation from central Dublin to Youghal in East Cork.

But the attractions of the historic walled seaport town with its fine five kilometre blue-flag beach has failed to move the civil servants.

Only a handful of the 99 targeted for the move has expressed enthusiasm for decentralisation.

The Valuation Office is an independent body but comes under the control of the Department of Finance. Its main function is to assess the rateable valuations of commercial and industrial properties throughout the Republic.

It also advises government departments on property values. According to the official Invitation to Tender Notice published on the Government website last week, the Valuation Office wishes to provide counselling/life coaching services to its approximately 160 employees on a one-to-one confidential basis.

"The service will operate independently of the Valuation Office and must provide face-to-face counselling services by qualified counsellors to meet a broad range of needs."

The Exchequer will pick up the tab for the first four life-coaching sessions each year for any civil servant in the Valuation Office who wants to avail of the service.

Although the scheme will operate for a period of one year initially there is an option to extend the counselling service for a further two years.

The move to provide officials in the Valuation Office with costly professional help on how to organise their professional and personal lives comes as the agency is about to embark on a national re-evaluation on all property in Ireland.

That's caused some trepidation among property owners in the commercial sectors who fear that they will face a huge hike in their rates.

But leading life coach Greg Dalton of Q1etc.com said that the appointment of a life coach was a welcome move by the State and would actually save money.

Mr Dalton admitted that "life coaching" had suffered in the public mind because many people involved in new-age fads and therapies have added "life coaching" to their list of services as purely a money-making exercise.

"What we are talking about at a professional level as endorsed by the Life and Business Coaching Association of Ireland is effectively just a more complete and coherent approach to career guidance," he said. "Coaching gets you from where you are to where you want to get to," he said.

" From both the employee's and employer's perspective, professional life coaching makes sound financial sense."

NewDubliner · 21-09-2005 07:33PM

PSEU has issued another bulletin:http://www.pseu.ie/docs/Decent40.doc

In brief, Agriculture won't let its IT staff escape, it's also trying to find work for surplus non-IT staff. PSEU has rejected as 'derisory' the expense payments being offered to non-Dubliners decentralising from one rural location to another and who must come to Dublin to learn the jobs of the Dubliners whose jobs are being taken.

More reports due in November, no doubt, more fun and games then.

KieranusTyranus · 24-09-2005 06:50PM

Ok I accept the majority of people in Dublin and the surrounding counties are against it. But I seriously believe that it is one of the few good ideas this government has come up with. The only problem with it is that it doesnt go far enough. The rural areas of the country ( in paticular the West Borders and Midlands) get sweet **** all infasructure and development from the government and this has to change.

A Dub in Glasgo · 24-09-2005 07:26PM

I have an interview on Friday for a post that is currently based in Blackrock, Dublin but is due to go to Co. Galway. To be honest, I would much prefer if the job was based in Co. Galway now because the price of a family home in Dublin (or within a reasonable commute of Blackrock) is appalling.

NewDubliner · 24-09-2005 09:37PM

KieranusTyranus wrote:

Ok I accept the majority of people in Dublin and the surrounding counties are against it. But I seriously believe that it is one of the few good ideas this government has come up with. The only problem with it is that it doesnt go far enough. The rural areas of the country ( in paticular the West Borders and Midlands) get sweet **** all infasructure and development from the government and this has to change.

There's already a very extensive thread on this topic and to summarise the position, dececentralisation might be a good idea (like Mom & Apple pie) but is it a good plan?

eigrod · 24-09-2005 10:40PM

KieranusTyranus wrote:

The rural areas of the country ( in paticular the West Borders and Midlands) get sweet **** all infasructure and development from the government and this has to change.

May be more to do with the demise of the Flynn & Reynolds dynasties within FF, so don't expect too much sympathy from the Munster & East Leinster regions.

And, using 50% of the Civil Service as an extremely expensive pawn to right what you perceive to be wrongs isn't the solution either.

oscarBravo · 25-09-2005 05:01PM

KieranusTyranus wrote:

The rural areas of the country ( in paticular the West Borders and Midlands) get sweet **** all infasructure and development from the government and this has to change.

Not many people (I could name some specific exceptions) would disagree. The burning question is: is the planned decentralisation an efficient and effective way to acheive that goal?

Firetrap · 27-09-2005 12:36AM

oscarBravo wrote:

Not many people (I could name some specific exceptions) would disagree. The burning question is: is the planned decentralisation an efficient and effective way to acheive that goal?

The problem with decentralisation is that now that once the Government said they wanted to ship 10,300 civil & public servants out of Dublin, there was no turning back. If they turned around in the morning and admitted it was a rubbish idea (which it is, make no bones about it), it would make them look like incompetent idiots. It would also piss off the deluded souls in towns like Clonakilty & Dungarvan who think that it would be wonderful to have a deluge of well paid Civil Servants (cough!) descend upon their towns and make their lives wonderful and cure their unemployment problems.

I'm not saying that long term, decentralisation wouldn't work but if they rush the thing through in the short space of time they've alotted for this folly, lots of departments are going to lose staff whose expertise will be badly missed in the new locations and could've been invaluable when training in new staff.

fly_agaric · 27-09-2005 10:10PM

KieranusTyranus wrote:

But I seriously believe that it is one of the few good ideas this government has come up with.

Yes, it is a good vote-purchasing idea. It will make plenty of money for FF's builder, big farmer, developer and businessman friends.

KieranusTyranus wrote:

The only problem with it is that it doesnt go far enough.

Yeah. They should have decapitalised Dublin. The dail stinks up the place something terrible.

Even better - they could have copied Pol-Pot and trucked all the jackeens out of Dublin to do subsistence farming and seaweed harvesting on the western seaboard.

ishmael whale · 28-09-2005 10:25AM

KieranusTyranus wrote:

The rural areas of the country ( in paticular the West Borders and Midlands) get sweet **** all infasructure and development from the government and this has to change.

A common misconception. When you consider, for example, that every Western seaboard county, bar Limerick, has its own airport it becomes clear that considerable amounts of public funds are invested in the West. The block to regional development, as per the national spatial strategy analysis, has more to do with the lack of concentration in the regions - i.e. every small town expecting to get some largesse, leading to nothing useful being achieved.

The West gets an amount of admiration from other regions for its ability to get resources out of the public purse. If the West put as much effort into ensuring those resources actually achieved something, the country would be all the richer. But I suppose if you're spending someone else's money its probably hard to see a need to get results.

The Government decentralisation programme is a particulary wasteful scheme. We have an open economy so the idea that moving a civil service payroll into a town brings any significant benefit is simply mistaken. Decentralisation, as proposed, is like lighting your cigarette with a bundle of banknotes. The lack of any benefit from domestic demand expansion is elementary economics, as this extract from an indo leaving cert exam brief illustrates.

http://www.unison.ie/features/education/exambrief/pdfs/leaving/economics_o&h3.pdf
…Aggregate demand increases – however a huge percentage of this extra spending power leaks abroad in the form of higher demand for imports. This is because Ireland has a high marginal propensity to import. …

oscarBravo · 28-09-2005 10:50AM

ishmael whale wrote:

The West gets an amount of admiration from other regions for its ability to get resources out of the public purse. If the West put as much effort into ensuring those resources actually achieved something, the country would be all the richer. But I suppose if you're spending someone else's money its probably hard to see a need to get results.

I've been trying for a long time to figure out why you feel that nothing is being achieved by investment in the regions. I think I've got it: it's not that nothing is being achieved; merely that whatever it is you feel should be achieved hasn't been.

I'm also not entirely sure what it is that you feel should be achieved. I get the impression that your concept of achievement can be measured with spreadsheets on a macroeconomic scale, rather than by any subjective measure of quality of life by the people who actually have to live those lives. In fact, I seem to remember you pouring scorn on me once for using the phrase "real people", as if such pedestrian concepts as individuals' experiences are too trivial to factor into your economic calculations.

ishmael whale wrote:

The Government decentralisation programme is a particulary wasteful scheme.

On that, we agree.

ishmael whale · 28-09-2005 11:33AM

oscarBravo wrote:

I've been trying for a long time to figure out why you feel that nothing is being achieved by investment in the regions. I think I've got it: it's not that nothing is being achieved; merely that whatever it is you feel should be achieved hasn't been.

Just to set the general scene, the person starting this thread seems to share that very common misconception that the West does not get a reasonable share of national resources. I’m taking it, implicitly, that you don’t share this opinion as you seem to be concentrating on measurement of the benefits that expenditure brings. I’m honestly not trying to twist or put words in your mouth, and do correct me if I’m wrong on this.

I totally accept that people can have differing perceptions of what constitutes acceptable returns. It may very well be that your moral/social viewpoint deems the returns that are currently obtained to be sufficient to provide justification for the rest of the nation to continue funding them.

However, many western development campaigners complain that the West is not attracting enough jobs and prosperity. My point is really aimed at those people. If you accept that a natural consequence of living in a rural area or small town is that, even with a considerable transfer of state resources, material standards of living and access to specialised services will be less than living in a large city, then our views are probably not irreconcilable.

But be clear that we’re not simply talking about my perception of the value obtained from the resources invested in the West. It’s the perception of many of your neighbours. They seem to feel that they should be seeing more benefits that would fit onto a spreadsheet, and seem not to recognise the considerable resources already being invested in their region.

oscarBravo · 28-09-2005 02:40PM

ishmael whale wrote:

Just to set the general scene, the person starting this thread seems to share that very common misconception that the West does not get a reasonable share of national resources. I’m taking it, implicitly, that you don’t share this opinion as you seem to be concentrating on measurement of the benefits that expenditure brings. I’m honestly not trying to twist or put words in your mouth, and do correct me if I’m wrong on this.

I accept that the West is the recipient of national resources, yes. Whether it's a "reasonable share" or not is up for discussion. I also accept that the benefit, whether on a personal or national level, of that investment may not be all it could be.

ishmael whale wrote:

I totally accept that people can have differing perceptions of what constitutes acceptable returns. It may very well be that your moral/social viewpoint deems the returns that are currently obtained to be sufficient to provide justification for the rest of the nation to continue funding them.

Once again, it necessarily depends how you measure return on investment. If your yardstick is exclusively fiscal, and exclusively national in scope, investment in the west may seem like a bad deal. If, instead, you measure the local, social consequences of refusing to invest in the regions, you may come to a different conclusion.

I live in the west. More than that, I live in Mayo. Better yet, I live in a rural area outside Ballina. Maybe the country as a whole would get better value if resources were diverted from here to Cork, but that's cold comfort to me and hundreds of thousands like me.

ishmael whale wrote:

However, many western development campaigners complain that the West is not attracting enough jobs and prosperity. My point is really aimed at those people. If you accept that a natural consequence of living in a rural area or small town is that, even with a considerable transfer of state resources, material standards of living and access to specialised services will be less than living in a large city, then our views are probably not irreconcilable.

I accept that rural life is a tradeoff. I don't expect to be able to get a tram to the National Concert Hall, and I don't think city dwellers should expect a half-acre lawn.

I do expect to be able to access emergency medical services as required, for example. I don't believe every village should have an acute hospital, but I don't think a decent air ambulance service should be too much to ask.

I accept that the provision of some services is more expensive in rural areas, but then others are not: treating my sewage isn't costing the state a cent, for example.

ishmael whale wrote:

But be clear that we’re not simply talking about my perception of the value obtained from the resources invested in the West. It’s the perception of many of your neighbours. They seem to feel that they should be seeing more benefits that would fit onto a spreadsheet, and seem not to recognise the considerable resources already being invested in their region.

I don't agree with all of my neighbours. I agree with many of them that the regions could be better served, but I think we need to invest more imagination more so than more money to achieve it.

KieranusTyranus · 28-09-2005 09:00PM

If you think the west is getting so much investment then why arent you rushing across the shannon to live here?

ishmael whale · 28-09-2005 09:48PM

oscarbravo wrote:

Whether it's a "reasonable share" or not is up for discussion.

Indeed, and defining what constitutes a reasonable share could probably exercise us in fruitless discussion for days. We could get lost in terminology, is the West’s share ‘reasonable’, ‘no more than should be expected’, ‘just about adequate, but less than its due’. But I expect we could at least agree that claims the West is utterly neglected are unwarranted.

oscarbravo wrote:

If, instead, you measure the local, social consequences of refusing to invest in the regions, you may come to a different conclusion.

Indeed, but I think you may have a different objective to other regional development advocates. Usually the success/failure of regional policy is judged, for example, on the extent to which regions achieved a rate of employment growth comparable to Dublin. Hence, the National Spatial Strategy focus on things like how employment might be diverted away from Dublin by concentrating on a small number of regional centres to create scale.
You seem to be querying this whole approach, i.e. that quantifiable things is not necessarily at the core of what we are trying to achieve, but rather unquantifiable things relating to quality of life. This is fair enough if that’s where you’re coming from. But does this mean that you are happy enough with Dublin continuing to grow significantly faster than the West and, consequently, that Dublin will then require the necessary material in terms of public transport, schools, whatever to cater for that population?
Raising another context, I don’t doubt that you’re well versed in the debate on one-off housing and concerns that we're ignoring physical limits to this kind of development. This extract from County Galway’s settlement plan puts what I’d want to say better than I can.

http://www.galway.ie/planning/developmentplan/settlement/word/Executive%20Summary.htm
5.0 The strategic threats
1. A continuation of the current trend in which most of the housing growth in the county is in the form of single houses in the countryside is not sustainable. In the short term the costs may not be noticeable but in the long term some of the costs could be catastrophic. These potential costs include damage to major aquifers and a decline in the status of Connemara as a tourist destination. Also there is a danger that, if an increasing proportion of the county’s new housing stock takes the form of isolated housing, it will result in a growing proportion of the county’s households becoming relatively isolated from essential services such as health provision and educational and financial services.

2. The efficiency of the delivery of services and facilities by both the public and private sectors is affected by the character of the settlement structure. To an increasing degree corporate investment is being concentrated on fewer locations. If there is not a more structured pattern of residential development in the county, involving a greater concentration of growth in towns in villages, an irreconcilable gulf will develop between, on the one hand, the desire to provide services and facilities, and, on the other hand, the ability to make provision because of the high costs of servicing an increasingly dispersed population.

My final quibble is simply to say rural living doesn’t have a monopoly on intangible benefits. Dublin, and our other cities, can also claim benefits that don’t appear on a spreadsheet. That’s why, strange as it may seem to KieranusTyranus, living West of Maynooth, never mind West of the Shannon, simply isn’t on my agenda at any price. I’m not alone in feeling a shiver of recognition at the lines

http://homepage.eircom.net/~abardubh/poetry/bearla/poem278.html
“Dublin made me and no little town
With the country closing in on its streets … ”

It’s tied up with a sense of being and a rejection of the received idea that the essence of Irishness was how closely you resembled Peig Sayers.Put another way, Kieran, if you feel so neglected why don’t you head East? Exactly.

oscarbravo wrote:

I agree with many of them that the regions could be better served, but I think we need to invest more imagination more so than more money to achieve it.

With all the above said, I’ve no essential objection to your conclusion, particularly the need to consider what resources are actually spent on.

black_jack · 28-09-2005 10:48PM

KieranusTyranus wrote:

If you think the west is getting so much investment then why arent you rushing across the shannon to live here?

The lack of decent sushi west of the shannon.

It's an overly simplistic argument, the west may be recieving more investment than it deserves per captia, more income flows into the west, in the form of subsidisation from Dublin and EC than they give back.

Combined with the fact that people living in a rural community choose to do so, with the fact that the move to rural community is being forced onto thousands of civil servants.

No one in govt is giving an explanation how decentralisation will work logistical, how departments will interact when they're miles apart, how ministers will work effectively when the constituency is one county, the dail in dublin and their ministry is in another.

oscarBravo · 29-09-2005 12:10AM

ishmael whale wrote:

...I expect we could at least agree that claims the West is utterly neglected are unwarranted.

Utterly neglected, no.

ishmael whale wrote:

Usually the success/failure of regional policy is judged, for example, on the extent to which regions achieved a rate of employment growth comparable to Dublin.

I wouldn't have thought employment growth would be such a pressing issue in a time of full employment.

ishmael whale wrote:

Hence, the National Spatial Strategy focus on things like how employment might be diverted away from Dublin by concentrating on a small number of regional centres to create scale.

I could be wrong, but I suspect the emphasis on diverting growth away from Dublin is motivated more by a concern about Dublin's untrammeled growth than by any desire to enhance the regions.

ishmael whale wrote:

You seem to be querying this whole approach, i.e. that quantifiable things is not necessarily at the core of what we are trying to achieve, but rather unquantifiable things relating to quality of life. This is fair enough if that’s where you’re coming from. But does this mean that you are happy enough with Dublin continuing to grow significantly faster than the West and, consequently, that Dublin will then require the necessary material in terms of public transport, schools, whatever to cater for that population?

My only concern about the growth rate of Dublin is the extent to which the poor management thereof will cost the country resources that could be put to better use.

ishmael whale wrote:

Raising another context, I don’t doubt that you’re well versed in the debate on one-off housing and concerns that we're ignoring physical limits to this kind of development. This extract from County Galway’s settlement plan puts what I’d want to say better than I can.

We're getting OT for this thread, but there's a wide spectrum between unsustainable one-off development and an all-or-nothing concentration on two cities. The concept of a village is quite a different thing in Ireland to what it is in England.

ishmael whale wrote:

I’m not alone in feeling a shiver of recognition at the lines...

By the same token, I was in Dublin last weekend, and out of it I thought I'd never get. I spent a couple of the most traumatic hours in recent memory in that hellhole called Dundrum Shopping and Torture Centre. For the life of me I can't see how that's considered sustainable. I didn't start to relax until Tarmonbarry, and I haven't fully recovered.

Apart from anything else, my exhaust emissions during the time I spent getting in and out of the Centre almost certainly exceeded what I produced on the entire leg of the journey west of the Shannon. It also took about as long.

NewDubliner · 29-09-2005 07:22AM

black_jack wrote:

No one in govt is giving an explanation how decentralisation will work logistical, how departments will interact when they're miles apart, how ministers will work effectively when the constituency is one county, the dail in dublin and their ministry is in another.

Not only that but the government is concealing the full cost of the project and is operating with no budget. The only figures that are admitted are those for the cost of buildings. These are probably conservative. The cost of IT, re-training and losses due to disruption has not been estimated.

The benefits for the unquantified costs are equally unquantified.

black_jack · 29-09-2005 07:37AM

NewDubliner wrote:

Not only that but the government is concealing the full cost of the project and is operating with no budget. The only figures that are admitted are those for the cost of buildings. These are probably conservative. The cost of IT, re-training and losses due to disruption has not been estimated.

The benefits for the unquantified costs are equally unquantified.

Not to mention the brain drain of qualified and intelligent people leaving because they don't fancy living on Conmel, or the dubious nature of the location of certain ministries, is the dept of the marine still going to offaly.

Just saying "that'll be fantastic, thats me sorted for a job for life, cause the ministry of health is just down the road" isn't a good justification.

themurt · 29-09-2005 09:23AM

oscarBravo wrote:

I wouldn't have thought employment growth would be such a pressing issue in a time of full employment.

Employment growth is the wrong concern, employment location is a far more pressing issue for those of us living in the increasingly wider Dublin commuter catchment area (Athlone, Tullamore, Mullingar and beyond in the Midlands region). In a time where child care is on the radar screens as an upcoming election issue and more and more are becoming aware that long commute times are detrimental to family wellbeing and is causing children to spend longer in care facilities, maybe the focus should be on creating jobs (public and private sector) outside Dublin in the first place.

I know that there are some civil servants who are commuting long distances everyday who would welcome the chance to work closer to home, but as to whether they are in significant numbers is another question.

The_Conductor · 29-09-2005 09:53AM

black_jack wrote:

is the dept of the marine still going to offaly.QUOTE]

Cavan actually, I believe, and its still on, yes..... (perfect sense that one, its a landlocked county......)

Regarding the argument about enhancing employment growth by moving jobs out of Dublin- if you check the discussion I had about this with an individual from Wexford who shall remain nameless (!) on the other decentralisation thread- I showed that the areas of highest unemployment in the country, contrary to popular belief, are not in fact the border areas or Wexford, but instead areas of inner Dublin and some of the suburbs.

As it would be all too easy to start re-ploughing the same ground again- I'm going to stop right now.

Shane

The_Conductor · 29-09-2005 09:57AM

I've heard rumours that the entire concept of the Decaf has been abondoned. Anyone know whats happening?

ishmael whale · 29-09-2005 10:19AM

oscarBravo wrote:

I could be wrong, but I suspect the emphasis on diverting growth away from Dublin is motivated more by a concern about Dublin's untrammeled growth than by any desire to enhance the regions.

The push for regional development comes from the regions, and I tend to interpret their main concern as, put simply, to get more jobs in their areas so population stay/grows. Remarks about this being good for Dublin tend to be added as an afterthought, possibly to avoid the question of the Eastern region’s infrastructure deficit.

oscarBravo wrote:

Apart from anything else, my exhaust emissions during the time I spent getting in and out of the Centre almost certainly exceeded what I produced on the entire leg of the journey west of the Shannon. It also took about as long.

At the risk of wandering off point, its possible to envisage a public transport solution for urban centres. But a settlement pattern based on people living in one-off housing, driving thirty miles this way to get to the shops and twenty miles that way to get to work, doesn’t. When you refer to the traditional Irish settlement pattern, presumably traditionally those people just had to walk out the door of their homes to be in their workplace and could meet most of their material needs from their immediate surroundings. But the current move to the countryside is not some back-to-nature, Year Zero kind of thing.
I’ll try to avoid labouring the point, but one-off housing today seems to attempt to merge the disadvantages of a dispersed population with an expectation that all the benefits of modern living will be available. There are knock-on effects on the general community. For example, a person living in one-off rural housing but working in a town is unlikely to use public transport to commute. That creates traffic in the town, and traffic that has no real public transport alternative. That’s where the sustainability argument comes in. We know there are things we can do to make city living more sustainable. But how do you make an urban lifestyle involving career employment, material wealth, specialised health services, whatever, sustainable in a rural setting?

29-09-2005 10:52AM

Civil servants are just being dragged kicking and screaming into the real world of work, where jobs change and businesses move. They'll just have to make like the private sector, the workers they always want to compare themselves with when it comes to wage disputes, and put up.

Decentralisation

Comments