Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

Decentralisation

1…4344464849…75

Comments

  • #1352
    eigrod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,123 ✭✭✭eigrod


    gbh wrote:
    So basically the regions are losing money out to the capital, there is a transfer of our wealth to the capital, and the regions are getting poorer as a result.

    I take it you didn't see the "by county" breakdown of Minister O Donoghue's sports grants announced earlier in the week then ?


  • #1353
    gbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭gbh


    ishmael whale wrote:
    Unfortunately, almost every part of this post is wrong.

    Firstly, tax from the regions doesn’t subsidise Dublin. The reverse is the case.

    Secondly, most public servants are located outside Dublin. In fact, most public servants are decentralised of their nature, including the higher paid categories like Garda and teachers.

    So basically the regions are gaining money out to the capital, and the capital is poorer as a result. And when investment is spent in Dublin, the regions get angry. That’s why, for example, Dublin Airport is reduced to pitching a tent on the roof of the car park to accommodate passengers while the West coast is peppered with unneeded and underutilised airports.

    Decentralisation as a good idea. But decentralisation is about moving decision making to regional authorities, not this nutty idea of moving office staff about which just increases costs for no benefit.

    However, I think your post accurately reflects the gross misconceptions that many in the regions have on this topic. I don’t know how this ignorance of the true situation can be overcome, as even when presented with the facts of the matter people seem to feel that they’ve nailed their colours to the mast and would lose face if they admit their error. The massive misconception held by so many in the regions is, of course, the reason that politicians hope to leverage support out of the issue.

    They’re playing you for fools, and you’re swallowing it wholesale.


    If you'd think about what you are saying and writing you'd see how flawed it is. If Dublin is the Capital, with the headquarters of every department, then obviously you are going to have more civil servents in Dublin, and higher paid civil servants.

    Secondly, I work in a private sector company with offices on practically every continent and everything works fine. If managers want a discussion they have a call conferance, etc. There are literally tons of ways to hold meetings without actually being in the same room.

    Thirdly,you display your own crass ignorance by calling others ignorant, in fact bothering on racism I would say, certainly pompous.

    Fourthly the intransigence of you and people like you display an unwillingness to move with the times, to say, ok, time for others to have a share of power, to be close to the corridors of power and to have a say on how this country should be run, not 150 miles away, but from within the local community.

    Fifthly, the fact is that we pay tax into a central exchequer, and most of that money is paid out on infrastructure and wages in the Dublin area. Can you explain any other reason why there are more wealthy people in Dublin than the rest of the country? And don't say it's because they are more intelligent. And remember being politically corrupt is not a mark of intelligence, merely moral failing.

    I suppose I'm talking to a brickwall.


  • #1354
    gbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭gbh


    Dinarius wrote:
    I totally agree with everything you wrote except the above.

    The fundamental flaw in this scheme IS the decentralisation of 'decision making'.

    Moving process and procedure to the regions is fine. There are already offices all over the country doing this. VAT is a perfect example.

    But, casting the policy making executive to the four winds (which is what I presume you mean by the decentralisation of 'decision making') is nuts! e.g. Microsoft are headquartered in Seattle. Ultimately, all decisions are made there. BUT, those decisions are executed all over the planet.

    I know of no organisation, public or private, that this crap is modelled on.

    D.



    To be honest, I don't think you understand how a country is run. Here is a quick run through of the process from the way I understand it.

    All policy decisions emmanate from one place, the Dail and/or the government cabinet table. I would be very concerned if there was a group of civil servants somewhere who got together every week in a room and made decisions on the future of the country. That is akin to what went on in the Soviet Union.

    Each minister then goes away from the cabinet table and instructs his civil servants to carry out and execute the decisions that have been made.

    This is the normal course of events. Occassionally but not mainly, there will be crossover and need for civil servants to confer on certain projects.

    But, understand this, decision making will still be centralised in Dublin at the Dail and cabinet table in the time honoured democratic way, unless you'd rather civil servants ruled us.


  • #1355
    Dinarius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,440 ✭✭✭Dinarius


    gbh wrote:
    To be honest, I don't think you understand how a country is run. Here is a quick run through of the process from the way I understand it.

    All policy decisions emmanate from one place, the Dail and/or the government cabinet table. I would be very concerned if there was a group of civil servants somewhere who got together every week in a room and made decisions on the future of the country. That is akin to what went on in the Soviet Union.

    Each minister then goes away from the cabinet table and instructs his civil servants to carry out and execute the decisions that have been made.

    Do you seriously believe that politicians make policy in isolation and civil servants merely execute that policy?!

    You mentioned above that you work in the private sector. With the greatest respect to you, I can see why you think like you do.

    The average top civil servant can buy and sell their political master/s. So, to believe that ministers could simply dream up policy at the cabinet table in Dublin and then email it for execution to the sticks is the stuff of 'Yes Minister'.

    Dream on!

    D.


  • #1356
    holly_johnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭holly_johnson


    gbh wrote:
    To be honest, I don't think you understand how a country is run. Here is a quick run through of the process from the way I understand it.

    All policy decisions emmanate from one place, the Dail and/or the government cabinet table. I would be very concerned if there was a group of civil servants somewhere who got together every week in a room and made decisions on the future of the country. That is akin to what went on in the Soviet Union.

    Each minister then goes away from the cabinet table and instructs his civil servants to carry out and execute the decisions that have been made.

    This is the normal course of events. Occassionally but not mainly, there will be crossover and need for civil servants to confer on certain projects.

    But, understand this, decision making will still be centralised in Dublin at the Dail and cabinet table in the time honoured democratic way, unless you'd rather civil servants ruled us.


    I think that you are missing a point too gbh. Civil Servants are people first, civil servants second. I can only speak for myself, but I know a lot of others are in the same boat. We applied for, and got a job that was specifically Dublin based. We settled here, married here, have kids here. Most of us have partners not employed in the Civil Service. To be told that our previously guaranteed Dublin job is being moved on a vote grabbing whim, is bad enough, but to hear your "like it or lump it" attitude really doesn't help. We are not looking for sympathy or anything else, we just want what's fair for us andwhat's fair for the taxpayer. Remember we are taxpayers too! No one would object to a reasonable and measured decentralisation plan, but this farce is just poorly organised and executed.


  • Advertisement
  • #1357
    eigrod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,123 ✭✭✭eigrod


    gbh - I have yet to hear anybody say decentralisation is not a good thing. It has worked quite well in the past and can work well in the future - with adequate planning, including a detailed cost-benefit analysis. None of this has happened with the decentralisation as announced by Minister McCreevy in 2003.

    From reading your comments I get the impression that your argument would advocate a scenario whereby a minister from, say Co. Kerry, his department may be in Co. Mayo and the Dail will be in Dublin. Can anybody say this is sensible ? It is hard enough to get them into the Dail or their Dublin ministerial office as it is.

    Private sector companies, like yours I guess, that are dispersed around the world, are structured that way for 1 reason and 1 reason only - it is financially beneficial to the company. Nobody can provide evidence that this decentralisation plan is financially beneficial to the Irish exchequer and I doubt they ever will. Until they do so, people like me & others on here will remain highly sceptical & critical of this plan.


  • #1358
    ishmael whale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,028 ✭✭✭ishmael whale


    gbh wrote:
    If you'd think about what you are saying and writing you'd see how flawed it is. If Dublin is the Capital, with the headquarters of every department, then obviously you are going to have more civil servents in Dublin, and higher paid civil servants.
    Most public servants are not civil servants. The total number of public servants in 2003 was stated to be 276,000, of whom 35,000 (13%) are civil servants, and the remaining 241,000 (87%) are employed in the health boards, education sector, local authorities, the defence forces, the Garda Siochana, and various non-commercial state bodies and agencies.

    To take some examples, 38,000 (40%) of the total of Health Service personnel are employed in the Eastern region. 4,000 (36%) of members of the Garda Siochana are based in the Dublin Metropolitan Area. It has been estimated that Dublin area accounts for 110,000 public servants, equivalent to 40% of the total, which is hardly disproportionate when you consider the population of the Dublin area and the fact it is the capital.

    On pay, if you check the material here
    http://www.cso.ie/statistics/public_sector_earnings.htm
    you will see that Gardai, prison officers and teachers are all paid more that administrative civil servants. These professions are decentralised of their nature, and there are more of them than there are civil servants. There are 50,000 primary and secondary teachers, before you even start counting the others. Also, 40% of central government civil servants are already decentralised.

    So what I am saying is clearly correct. Well paid public service jobs are already distributed about the regions, without a particular concentration in Dublin.
    gbh wrote:
    Thirdly,you display your own crass ignorance by calling others ignorant, in fact bothering on racism I would say, certainly pompous.
    I cannot see how any comment by an Irish person that Irish people in regional locations are ignorant could be described as ‘racism’. I suggest your really need to reflect on your mindset.

    As to the use of the term ‘ignorant’, here’s what the dictionary says: Main Entry: ig•no•rant Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
    Function: adjective1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>

    The second meaning, lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified, is the correct meaning in this situation. You and many others lack basic knowledge relevant to this topic, for example the distribution of public service jobs, and the impact of the proposed decentralisation programme.

    The problem is when someone points out your ignorance, you get defensive and take offence when you should be digesting the information provided.
    gbh wrote:
    Fifthly, the fact is that we pay tax into a central exchequer, and most of that money is paid out on infrastructure and wages in the Dublin area.
    If you check this report – page 13 – you will see that households in the Dublin and Mid East regions are the ones that make the substantial net contribution to national resources (taxes paid less social transfers received). The question of the regions subsidising Dublin simply does not arise.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054942540&page=2
    gbh wrote:
    Fourthly the intransigence of you and people like you display an unwillingness to move with the times, to say, ok, time for others to have a share of power, to be close to the corridors of power and to have a say on how this country should be run, not 150 miles away, but from within the local community.
    That’s exactly wrong. I support real decentralisation – which is not what this programme offers. You simply don’t understand what is proposed. Incidently, putting the Department of Tourism in Killarney will give you a blast of what the Kerry mindset is all about, and you’ll find it won’t have a lot of time for bringing decision making closer to Donegal.
    gbh wrote:
    I suppose I'm talking to a brickwall.
    No, and I’d be happy to help you understand the issue if you are capable of changing your mindset. Because you really are being played for a fool


  • #1359
    gbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭gbh


    I admit that Decentralisation is a 21st century idea. Meaning, that people can work together these days and sometimes better without actually being in the same room as each other. Look at the way stockbrokers work. Do they actually have to be on the floor of the DOW, FTSE, Hang Seng Exchanges? Absolutely not because they have someone there for them. An Irish broker can have up to date information on every exchange without leaving his office whether it is in Dublin, Cork or Galway.

    eigrod wrote:
    From reading your comments I get the impression that your argument would advocate a scenario whereby a minister from, say Co. Kerry, his department may be in Co. Mayo and the Dail will be in Dublin. Can anybody say this is sensible ? It is hard enough to get them into the Dail or their Dublin ministerial office as it is.

    Private sector companies, like yours I guess, that are dispersed around the world, are structured that way for 1 reason and 1 reason only - it is financially beneficial to the company. Nobody can provide evidence that this decentralisation plan is financially beneficial to the Irish exchequer and I doubt they ever will. Until they do so, people like me & others on here will remain highly sceptical & critical of this plan.

    As for a minister from Kerry, his department in Mayo argument, I can't really understand this. Would you think it better if departments moved to the constituency of a minister every time he changes?

    Also, you say our company does it because it is financially beneficial but it wouldn't be for decentralisation. Why should it be for one and not the other?


  • #1360
    gbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭gbh


    Ismaeil White, I don't have time to read your whole monologue so you kind of wasted your time writing it. Maybe you should summarise in future. BAsically I think what you are saying is that you are ignorant, therefore everyone else must be ignorant as well and hence it is better to call everyone ignorant just to make your own ignorance less noticible.


    I really think the last few posts could be summed up this way, the usual reaction to new ideas;

    Decentralisation is a good idea, but,

    And the main 'but' is I am not willing to sacrifice what I have for the good of the country.

    Anyways, I have to do some work now.


  • #1361
    ishmael whale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,028 ✭✭✭ishmael whale


    gbh wrote:
    Ismaeil White, I don't have time to read your whole monologue so you kind of wasted your time writing it. ......Anyways, I have to do some work now.
    In other words, you’ve read my post and recognise I have refuted your case. However, rather than acknowledge that you misunderstood the issue, you would rather insult the other participants and storm off in a huff.

    Sadly, I’m not surprised by your reaction.


  • Advertisement
  • #1362
    eigrod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,123 ✭✭✭eigrod


    gbh : If you re-read what you just posted, you may find that you are making my points for me.
    gbh wrote:

    As for a minister from Kerry, his department in Mayo argument, I can't really understand this. Would you think it better if departments moved to the constituency of a minister every time he changes?

    No, I wouldn't think it better if depts moved to the constituency of a minister every time he (or she !) changes - but neither would I envisage it being good practice for the minister to have to skip between 3 locations several times a week to carry out his duties adequately ! And if anyone thinks each minister is going to move himself/herself & family to the rural location of the department each time there is a new cabinet announced, then I think they are in for a surprise.

    That is just one flaw with this decentralisation programme which is what I was trying to point out.
    gbh wrote:
    Also, you say our company does it because it is financially beneficial but it wouldn't be for decentralisation. Why should it be for one and not the other?

    That is exactly what we want to know ! If the Government can prove to us sceptics that it will be financially beneficial to the exchequer/taxpayer, then I'm sure much of our argument will go away. This is the one thing that they patently have failed to do, simply because they never planned the thing in the first place - something that Bertie Ahern & Mary Harney have all but admitted recently.


  • #1363
    gbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭gbh


    And to make another adn perhaps final observation of this great country of ours and its people, the public whinge from morning until night about how the government never acts to redress regional decline or to solve traffic congestion in Dublin, how to bring about less pressure on A&E and services in Dublin, yet how to protect services from closing down in the regions.

    And then when it comes up with an idea to solve these problems, there is an outcry as well.

    But I suppose there will always be people who oppose progress and the greater good, and who can only pick out the flaws in something because they seem to be good at that and are never willing to focus on the positives.

    But if you did live down the country you'd see that whenever somewants to go on holiday abroad for example they have to head to an overcrowed Dublin airport yet if there was enough demand elsewhere they wouldn't have to.

    But no matter, yee Dubs can queue for everything all yee like. Obviously it has grown on yee.


  • #1364
    ishmael whale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,028 ✭✭✭ishmael whale


    gbh wrote:
    And then when it comes up with an idea to solve these problems, there is an outcry as well.
    Of course the point is it will do nothing to address these problems, and the same money would achieve far more if simply invested in infrastructure, health services and so forth. Moving a few thousand civil servants out of Dublin achieves nothing for any of these agendas.
    gbh wrote:
    But if you did live down the country you'd see that whenever somewants to go on holiday abroad for example they have to head to an overcrowed Dublin airport yet if there was enough demand elsewhere they wouldn't have to.
    You have nearly stumbled into one of the many points that critics of the programme make. There are plenty of other airports in Ireland, but none of them has the necessary scale to do make much of a difference. There is no particular need for decentralisation from Dublin - Dublin is simply not a large city. But there is a crying need to promote concentration in the regions. This idea of every other county in the West having its own airport is, at the end of the day, what kills regional development.

    If you check back over the posts, you'll find that the decentralisation programme simply does not deliver the solution you want to see. You are being played for a fool, there's no other way of putting it.


  • #1365
    eigrod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,123 ✭✭✭eigrod


    gbh wrote:
    ......... the public whinge from morning until night about how the government never acts to redress regional decline or to solve traffic congestion in Dublin, how to bring about less pressure on A&E and services in Dublin, yet how to protect services from closing down in the regions.

    They did when they unveiled the National Spacial Strategy, but then completely ignored it when they announced the decentralisation locations.

    The vast majority of civil/public servants that I know in Dublin use public transport to get to and from work. An option that won't be available in most rural locations.
    gbh wrote:

    But if you did live down the country you'd see that whenever somewants to go on holiday abroad for example they have to head to an overcrowed Dublin airport yet if there was enough demand elsewhere they wouldn't have to.

    So, moving a couple of hundred Civil Servants to Clonakilty, for example (many of whom already live in Co. Cork), will suddenly justify building an airport in West Cork ?


  • #1366
    gbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭gbh


    Well does anyone dispute that the concept of Decentralisation is a progressive move? Or does anyone understand what a progressive move is?

    If you agree that Decentralisation is a progressive move and if you are in favour of progress for this country then you must be in favour of Decentralisation.

    Next, you can't have Decentralisation without moving people out of Dublin, ok, simple as that.

    Now if you agree with progress for this country then you would be in favour of Decentralisation just like the majority are in favour, whether you are a civil servant or not, ok.

    Now if you are a civil servant and interested in progress for this country, the best thing you could do is step aside and stop trying to block Decentralisation. This is why I think civil servants who don't want to Decentralise should be encouraged to find private sector jobs in Dublin in the interests of the country.

    Finally, Decentralisation means spreading around power and sharing it out to the regions. It does not mean moving people in mass from one exact location to another exact location ok.

    So either you are in favour of the concept of spreading power to the regions (Decentralisation) or you are not in which case you are in favour of centralising it in Dublin or somewhere else. So please be specific in saying what exactly you are in favour of rather than being so general.


  • #1367
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    gbh wrote:
    And then when it comes up with an idea to solve these problems, there is an outcry as well.
    The problem is that it's an idea, not a plan. There's no cost-benefit analysis. There's no cost-control.

    It's a nice concept, but the current scheme is a corrupt interpretation of the idea.

    Let's not forget that a consdiderable amount of decentralisation has already taken place & we may be close to the most efficient balance for the economy.

    Do you know how much the scheme will cost?
    But no matter, yee Dubs can queue for everything all yee like. Obviously it has grown on yee.
    What are you talking about?

    I cycled to work (in Dublin) today - 25 minutes.

    Are you aware that the current plan will increase traffic congestion in Dublin?


  • #1368
    Alun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,502 ✭✭✭✭Alun


    gbh wrote:
    So either you are in favour of the concept of spreading power to the regions (Decentralisation) or you are not ...
    But what we're talking about here, i.e. the wholesale move of whole Government departments to regional towns, isn't going to make one jot of difference to the way power is distributed. How is moving the Dept. of Agriculture to Portlaoise, for example, going to suddenly empower the citizens of Portlaoise to have a greater influence on the wealth and development of their own town? I think what you're talking about is Devolution, not Decentralization.


  • #1369
    eigrod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,123 ✭✭✭eigrod


    gbh wrote:

    Finally, Decentralisation means spreading around power and sharing it out to the regions. It does not mean moving people in mass from one exact location to another exact location ok.

    Yet again, you are making our point for us. If the decentralisation plan as announced by Minister McCreevy in 2003 had been based around this statement that you make, then there would not have been a problem. However the central piece of that announcement is that it does "mean moving people in mass from one exact location to another exact".

    I will say it again, nobody that I know is against Decentralisation. However, there are many people (inside and outside public/civil service) who are against this method of introducing it for reasons that have been stated hundreds of times in this thread.


  • #1370
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,983 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    gbh wrote:
    the public whinge from morning until night about how the government never acts to redress regional decline
    If you honestly think decentralisation is going to redress regional decline, you're sadly mistaken. If it was at most 5 locations instead of 53 then it might have a worthwhile impact - but that wouldn't satisfy the political motivation for this scheme.
    or to solve traffic congestion in Dublin
    Do you think that the vacated office buildings in Dublin are going to be blown up and turned into public parks, or something?
    No, they'll be re-occupied by private sector workers, at the same or GREATER density than they are now.
    how to bring about less pressure on A&E and services in Dublin
    One of the major reasons IMHO that Dublin hospitals are under so much pressure is because of the number of patients from outside Dublin they must accept.
    This is entirely the work of the 'save our hospital' crowd who want an ill-equipped county hospital at the end of every boreen but resist strongly any plans to consolidate them into regional centres of excellence which would provide more local treatment to a greater number of people, as well as reducing the numbers of patients referred to Dublin.
    yet how to protect services from closing down in the regions.
    Create a sufficient density of demand for services to prevent them closing down.
    This means planned development in a reasonable number of growth centres, not a watered-down spatial strategy to please everyone, plus impossible to service, car-dependent one-off housing for everyone in the audience. I think it's the rural voters in this country who really need to cop on and see how they're selling their own futures down the river by pandering to gombeen politicians who promise them the sun, moon and stars then blame "Dublin" when their ridiculous demands can't be met.
    But I suppose there will always be people who oppose progress and the greater good
    How does spending >1 billion euro to deliver WORSE quality services than we have now equate to progress?

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #1371
    very miffed dub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭very miffed dub


    gbh wrote:
    If you agree that Decentralisation is a progressive move and if you are in favour of progress for this country then you must be in favour of Decentralisation.

    What a load of tripe!!!

    Progressive!! More like REGRESSIVE

    The amount of money being spent on training our replacements is crazy!!! Experienced knowledgable staff are being replaced by people whose only motivation is to go where the job is going. They show no interest in doing our jobs and the quality of service has diminished in the last few months.

    Ultimately it is the taxpayers who will foot the bill for this charade


  • Advertisement
  • #1372
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    very miffed dub wrote:
    The amount of money being spent on training our replacements is crazy!!!
    I think that GBH's point of view is that people should meekly go wherever their jobs are being relocated, thus saving the taxpayer the cost of retraining.

    For the good of the country, GBH would want people to leave their families behind, divorcing reluctant spouses if required & pay huge amounts in stamp duty and moving costs.

    Naturally, in five years time, should the incumbant minister decide that he'd like a few public-servants to work in his home-town, the staff, like feudal vassals will be required to up-stakes and move again.


  • #1373
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,983 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Why not ND, it's working in Myanmar... maybe we should send Tom Parlon on a one-way fact-finding mission?

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #1374
    very miffed dub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭very miffed dub


    NewDubliner wrote:
    I think that GBH's point of view is that people should meekly go wherever their jobs are being relocated, thus saving the taxpayer the cost of retraining.

    For the good of the country, GBH would want people to leave their families behind, divorcing reluctant spouses if required & pay huge amounts in stamp duty and moving costs.

    Naturally, in five years time, should the incumbant minister decide that he'd like a few public-servants to work in his home-town, the staff, like feudal vassals will be required to up-stakes and move again.

    I should be a good Civil Servant and uproot my entire family (some of whom are in College in Dublin) and do what the Government wants. I and at least 5000 others in Dublin don't think so


  • #1375
    very miffed dub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭very miffed dub


    ninja900 wrote:
    Why not ND, it's working in Myanmar... maybe we should send Tom Parlon on a one-way fact-finding mission?

    Why just send Parlon on his own as he's bound to get lonely. I'd send the entire Government!!


  • #1376
    ishmael whale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,028 ✭✭✭ishmael whale


    gbh wrote:
    Well does anyone dispute that the concept of Decentralisation is a progressive move?
    You are mixing up two points in your head. One is moving around office staff. (Ireland is the only place on Earth where this is referred to as ‘decentralisation’.) The other is what decentralisation really means – which is making local communities responsible for making decisions about their own areas. You’ll find an article here that gives some kind of run through that idea.

    You might bridle (again) at the suggestion that you don’t understand the issue. But, for starters, you simply have to sort out in your own mind the difference between power being devolved to the regions, and a load of pointless and expensive shifting of office staff. For as long as you mix these two things up in your head you won’t be making a lot of sense. Yes, that does mean you have to read the bloody thing and give some evidence that you've digested the concept if you want to be taken as having an opinion worth hearing.

    Try to understand that most of the people here opposed to decentralisation do want to see genuine national development. What pisses us off is the massive waste of resources and lost opportunities that the proposed decentralisation programme represents.


  • #1377
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    gbh wrote:
    Speaking as a 'culchie', I think there's nothing wrong with moving parts of the civil service down the country. After all, culchies who make up something like two thirds of the population pay tax as well and most of that tax pays the wages of civil and public servants. And where are most public servants? Packed into Dublin. And where do they spend our money? In Dublin as well.

    There are slightly over 35,000 civil servants of which fewer than 14,000 are based in the Dublin region.

    As for decentralisation being a 21st century idea- nope. This current proposals are actually the 7th decentralisation scheme since 1977.

    The two main arguments happening on this thread are:

    1) that it does not make sense to throw Departments and bodies willy-nilly around the country (there is a National Spatial Strategy for developing the regions- the current proposals totally ignore those proposals) and

    2) It is not a voluntary move for the civil servants and public sector employees- they are being coerced into moving (and only finding out details of decentralisation in media leaks).

    There are also 996 couples who are being split up by decentralisation (in one extreme case one father of 4 is being ordered to Mitchelstown while his wife is to go to Letterkenny- more often the cases are not as extreme).

    As you do not appear to have read the thread and have indicated no intention of engaging in rational debate, I will not write any further.


  • #1378
    holly_johnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭holly_johnson


    smccarrick wrote:
    As you do not appear to have read the thread and have indicated no intention of engaging in rational debate, I will not write any further.

    hear hear


  • #1379
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,983 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Here's more on the successful decentralisation programme in Myanmar:
    Civil servants live like refugees in Myanmar
    Sunday, December 25, 2005
    RICHARD C. PADDOCK
    Los Angeles Times

    YANGON, Myanmar - The government workers received two days' notice to pack up their offices and be ready to move. The military regime that rules this impoverished country had decided to move its capital to the remote, dusty town of Pyinmana.
    ...
    For more than a month now, many of the country's civil servants have been living like refugees
    No doubt IBEC would say "Good enough for 'em"
    in the concrete shells of unfinished buildings, often without running water or electricity. Offices and residential buildings are still being built, and major roads remain unpaved. Malaria is rampant. Many have asked to quit, but none has been allowed to, said a former civil servant who stays in touch with his old colleagues.
    ...
    "This is a very strange country, a very strange government," said one veteran journalist who could not be identified by name for fear of government reprisal. "Even the most senior civil servants are angered by the move, and they dismiss it as the work of a fanatic. Pyinmana is a small country town. It cannot accommodate a capital."

    Many people in Myanmar, also known as Burma, attribute the hasty move to Than Shwe's faith in astrologers, who recently began predicting that his government would fall if he did not quickly set up a new capital.

    The astrologers have warned that Than Shwe's star is in decline and will reach its nadir in April. The only way the ruling general can save the regime, according to their predictions, is to move the capital from Yangon, also known as Rangoon.

    Myanmar officials have said that Pyinmana provides a more central location as the military government tries to consolidate its hold on northern border areas dominated by ethnic groups. Some suspect that the decision to move the capital from the coastal city of Yangon also was prompted by Than Shwe's desire to isolate the government and protect it from possible threats, such as a popular uprising or a U.S. invasion.
    Seems like Charlie McCreevy's astrologers got their planetary alignments wrong? Or perhaps not forcing government employees out of their beds at gunpoint is too much of a softly-softly approach :D

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #1380
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,607 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    gbh wrote:
    Ismaeil White, I don't have time to read your whole monologue so you kind of wasted your time writing it.
    You're not the only person on the Internet you know. I believe there are at least five of us using it now.

    And if you haven't bothered to read it it's pointless trying to summarise it, even in a way that presumably suits what you'd have liked it to say to suit whatever argument you might be making. I haven't read it but then I'm not going to pretend to summarise it in some straw man way either.



    Meanwhile using Myanmar as an example is rather arguing by extreme extremes (yeah, ninja, I realise you're (hopefully) injecting some humour in here but there's always some gullible type[1] who'll use it later as a serious argument) - moving the capital to a remote village with two days notice at the whim of some general who likes to rule his country with both eyes on astrology is hardly a reasonable comparison in any universe I might care to visit. Even the chocolate-coated with a caramel centre one I run myself.

    [1]Usually a journalist. Heck, write about it but beware my sarcasm in the letters page after you do


  • Advertisement
  • #1381
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,983 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Mmm, chocolate. Dammit you're distracting me.

    Forgive the attempted injection of humour*, it's just that sometimes this "loyalty to the state should overwhelm loyalty to one's family and sanity" crap gets the better of one.

    Carry on.


    *not that it's at all humourous for the Myanmar civil servants

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



Advertisement