Decentralisation

uncivilservant

As a dublin civil servant, i'm sure most people can guess what my attitude is to the current implementation of mass decentralisation. But i'd be interested to hear what others think.

Good thing? Bad thing? Quit your whining and be happy you have a job?

Anyone?

Mods: I had considered posting this to B/E/F rather than Politics, but to be honest i'm not sure which board it suits more. PI probably ha.

gandalf

I support decentralisation when it is properly planned and the Departments being moved are going somewhere that is relevant to what they do. Dept of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources would be right at home somewhere like Cork or Galway but CAVAN is a joke!!!

The current plans that are in place are nothing more that "lets try and make sure we don't get a kicking" at the next general election by FF. SIPTU today said they are opposed to the programme specifically where state agency workers are involved. http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0610/decentralisation.html

Again if properly planned I do see the benefits in decentralisation, especially with Dublin sprawling out of control but not in the haphazard way the current administration are trying to force through this flawed parish pump inspired plan.

arcadegame2004

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

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

The Rooster

I don't understand the opposition to it either.

And in any event isnt it strictly optional? If you're department is sent outside the Pale, you can transfer to one in Dublin?

joolsveer

Originally posted by The Rooster
I don't understand the opposition to it either.

And in any event isnt it strictly optional? If you're department is sent outside the Pale, you can transfer to one in Dublin?

If most of the 10,000 opt for staying in Dublin will the Government still say the move is optional?

I don't think there is anything optional in this exercise and foresee lots of hassle if it goes ahead.

In any event I feel it will take a much longer period to accomplish than the Government have (not before the next election I would imagine).

My house (in Dublin 15) would not go for even half of €700,000 and how do I pay the removal costs, legal fees etc? I see the price of housing in the decentalised locations growing to match what the market will bear. There will be no windfall for anyone outside lawyers, developers, auctioneers and the Government (in stamp duty).

ishmael whale

There’s a number of strands to this, some related just to the proposed decentralisation and some to the idea of decentralisation in general:

The personal situation of staff involved. As the scheme is voluntary this is not really an issue in either direction. People with 700k houses in Dublin may very well want to keep living in them, which is why they are worth 700k and a bungalow in Leitrim isn’t. But no-one is forcing them to go, so there’s no issue.

The impact on the efficiency of Government. We’re a small country and scattering government offices about with no regard to the actual functions they carry out increases costs without any benefit. As has been pointed out, we are exposing ourselves to considerable risks and retraining costs by rotating most, and sometimes nearly all, the staff in the offices being decentralised. There is no return from any of this expenditure. No-one ever got rich by wasting money.

As regards decentralisation in general, the National Spatial Strategy analysis suggests that the issue is promoting a concept of centralisation in the regions, that is creating a few centres that can compete with Dublin, rather than continuing the rhetoric of decentralisation to many locations. Unfortunately this has not been picked up by advocacy bodies like the Western Development Commission who still insist on the failed scattergun approach to regional development.

uncivilservant

Originally posted by ishmael whale
The personal situation of staff involved. As the scheme is voluntary this is not really an issue in either direction. People with 700k houses in Dublin may very well want to keep living in them, which is why they are worth 700k and a bungalow in Leitrim isn’t. But no-one is forcing them to go, so there’s no issue.

In theory this is correct - up to a point. While on paper decentralisation is voluntary, in the real world it's a little different.

• As things stand, it will soon be impossible for a Dublin Civil Servant to be promoted, unless they agree to move to a decentralised location.
  
• There are large numbers of 'professional' grades in the Civil Service - architects, engineers etc. These staff are being asked to "choose" either to move to wherever they're sent or stay in Dublin, dump their profession and become administrative civil servants - presumably to be replaced by newly recruited staff. Not much of a choice, really. (Figures I've heard mentioned indicate somewhere between a 5% and 20% take up rate among these grades.)
  
• I'm not sure where this idea came from that civil servants live in €700,000 houses. I'm sure some of the higher paid grades do, but I think you'll find a far higher number live in ordinary houses worth well under half that figure. Either way, most people I've spoken to have no intention of selling up.
  

* - I prefer the term "technical" grades myself. We're all professionals, after all

uncivilservant

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I don't fully understand the scale of civil-servant opposition to this. Many houses in Dublin are valued at 700,000 euro. If you sell up you can easily afford a house elsewhere in the coutnry and have loads of cash into the bargain.

To further expand this point...

I live in a 3 bedroom semi, with similar properties in the immediate area currently valued at €258,000.

According to myhome.ie, the location my job is earmarked for has 3 (three) semi detached houses available for sale.

One of these is €200k, but is much smaller than my house and wouldn't be an option.

There are two more suitable homes, one at €220,000 and one at €235,000, but both are some distance away from the proposed location & with no public transport available. Notwithstanding this fact, lets do some maths:

I sell my house for 258k. Winner! A possible €38k profit!

Ehh, not quite.

Subtract estate agent fees, legal fees, refinancing fees, stamp duty, moving expenses, possible 2nd car required to get to work, ( plus the extra tax, insurance & petrol)....

Oh and the fact that we don't actually want to bloody move, thank you very much.

Victor

Originally posted by The Rooster
And in any event isnt it strictly optional? If you're department is sent outside the Pale, you can transfer to one in Dublin?

Bertie has said people will have to apply to keep their old jobs in Dublin. Sounds awfully like the American "write your job description" (so we can fire you and hire someone else).

uncivilservant

So... will the Government reconsider the Decentralisation programme in light of their Dublin results in the local elections?

Victor

Originally posted by uncivilservant
So... will the Government reconsider the Decentralisation programme in light of their Dublin results in the local elections?

Martin Cullen is being sent back to Waterford (FF got 1! (!) seat out of 15 on the city council), but without any staff.

Moriarty

In principle I'd agree with a policy of decentralisation, if it was properly thought out with departments going to logical places around the country.

I don't subscribe to the arguement that it's wrong simply because you will have to move - anyone in the private sector has the possibility of having to move somewhere else to get a new job.

The public sector want to have their cake and eat it when they compare and contrast between themselves and the private sector. They want the pay packets that private sector employees recieve, but they don't want to be under the same pressure to perform. They want to have their work compared equally to the private sector when benchmarking rises it's ugly head, but they don't want to be under the same circumstances about job security.

It's all a bit rich really.

pete

Originally posted by Moriarty
In principle I'd agree with a policy of decentralisation, if it was properly thought out with departments going to logical places around the country.

Agreed.

I don't subscribe to the arguement that it's wrong simply because you will have to move - anyone in the private sector has the possibility of having to move somewhere else to get a new job.

Who said anything about moving to get a new job? Jobs are being moved with no regard for the service, skills or wishes of the current jobholder, and with even less regard for the quality of service provided for the service users, or to value for money - if this were to happen in the private sector, would you consider it acceptable? Before a civil servant is appointed, they are required to indicate which regions they are prepared to work in - would you consider the one-sided renegotiation of employment terms for no practical gain that is Decentralisation to be fair in the private sector?

The public sector want to have their cake and eat it when they compare and contrast between themselves and the private sector. They want the pay packets that private sector employees recieve, but they don't want to be under the same pressure to perform.

I can assure you that the performance management systems implemented as a result of benchmarking are at least on par with comparable private sector schemes. And since when is having your career ripped from under you related to "pressure to perform"?

They want to have their work compared equally to the private sector when benchmarking rises it's ugly head, but they don't want to be under the same circumstances about job security.

Benchmarking for civil servants was primarily about bringing historically low paid jobs back into line with their private sector equivalents, and not about boosting already comfortable salaries - that may have been what the politicans did, but not the rest of us.

And do i detect a tinge of envy at the fact that civil servants actually have job security?

It's all a bit rich really.

Not really, no. In fact, I often wonder if there might be grounds for 10,300 constructive dismissal cases.

spongebob

This should have been done 10-15 years ago before the enormous rump of now 40-45 year old civil servants in Dublin started breeding and buying houses.

It strikes me as a tokenist thing now . Move the lot to Athlone I say and declare it the new capital.

M

pete

Originally posted by Muck
the enormous rump of now 40-45 year old civil servants in Dublin started breeding

uuurgghg please - i'm trying to eat lunch here

thegills

Decentralisation is dead and buried along with Mary Harney and the rest of the PD party.

Moriarty

Originally posted by pete
Who said anything about moving to get a new job? Jobs are being moved with no regard for the service, skills or wishes of the current jobholder, and with even less regard for the quality of service provided for the service users, or to value for money - if this were to happen in the private sector, would you consider it acceptable? Before a civil servant is appointed, they are required to indicate which regions they are prepared to work in - would you consider the one-sided renegotiation of employment terms for no practical gain that is Decentralisation to be fair in the private sector?

It's not just for new jobs. It's not unheard of for private sector jobs to move location. If you want to keep your job, you move with it. There is a mindset in the public sector which values the employee more than the work that the employee does. Public sector jobs are not there for the service or wishes of public sector employees, they are there to serve the public. There are also a number of practical gains due to a policy of decentralisation, despite what you say.

Originally posted by pete
And since when is having your career ripped from under you related to "pressure to perform"?

It's not, it's related to that old chestnut - 'job security'.

Originally posted by pete
Benchmarking for civil servants was primarily about bringing historically low paid jobs back into line with their private sector equivalents, and not about boosting already comfortable salaries - that may have been what the politicans did, but not the rest of us.

Perhaps, but I think it had the effect of greatly increasing the public sector employees lot, with little or no return for the public sector as a whole.

Originally posted by pete
And do i detect a tinge of envy at the fact that civil servants actually have job security?

It's not envy, it's annoyance that public sector employees regard a job for life as an inalienable right, but aren't prepaired to pay for that security in their pockets. And yet, when that security may be threatened they aren't prepaired to accept that either. Private sector employees are generally paid more because it's a harder, more risky form of employment. There should always be a premium on private sector jobs, because there's always increased risk in working in the private sector. It's that whole Risk/Reward thing, ja?

Mailman

Dept of Marine in Cavan

Seems like a great idea to me. If I was a civil servant looking to be decentralised Cavan would be a great option. A sizeable proportion of the county is in the rural renewal scheme area so I'd build a new house and maximise my TFAs for the next 10 years. In Cork or Galway you'd get no RRS relief.

pete

Originally posted by Moriarty
stuff

OK I'm not going to do a point by point response because think it's pretty clear from your two posts above that you have some kind of chip on your shoulder about dem lazy sivvil servints.

You've chosen to ignore the points I raised regarding performance management & development system and benchmarking; regarding the negative impact on service delivery; regarding the impact on people's careers, never mind the cost to Dublin (€25,000 per job per annum x 10,300, if Fianna Fail's own electioneering figures are to be believed) & seem to think that just because some people in the private sector get screwed over by their employers that 10,300 civil servants should too.

Fair enough. Each to their own I suppose.

edit: i shouldn't reply to posts when i'm annoyed. i take back the first paragraph, but stand over the second.

pete

Originally posted by Mailman
Dept of Marine in Cavan

Seems like a great idea to me. If I was a civil servant looking to be decentralised Cavan would be a great option. A sizeable proportion of the county is in the rural renewal scheme area so I'd build a new house and maximise my TFAs for the next 10 years. In Cork or Galway you'd get no RRS relief.

Ah yes. The Department of Communications, Marine & Natural Resources. Sent to Cavan.

Marine. In a landlocked county.

Fine Gael Marine Spokesperson Simon Coveney TD today (Friday) expressed disbelief at the Government's decision to relocate the headquarters for the Department of Communications, Marine & Natural Resources to Cavan under its decentralisation programme.

"While I support the policy of decentralisation, announcing the relocation of 10,500 civil service jobs with absolutely no debate, consultation or warning smacks of a policy that is ill-thought out and aimed at blatant political gain.

"In the case of the Department of Communications, Marine & Natural Resources, while I would like to see new jobs locating in Cavan, it is surely inappropriate to locate the headquarters for the Department of the Marine in a landlocked county, particularly at a time when other clear destinations may be suitable.

http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2506

Mailman

Dept of Marine in a landlocked county - yes, fewer customers and tax breaks for civil servants buying new houses - perfect choice.

cyclopath2001

Why assume that civil servants are only interested in money & tax breaks?

It's insulting that government thinks people will move to make a killing out of the Dublin/country house price difference or that they're just holding out for removal expenses or promotions.

uncivilservant

Originally posted by cyclopath2001
Why assume that civil servants are only interested in money & tax breaks?

Don't forget the tea. Don't ever forget the tea.

And the crossword.

seedot

I work in the private sector. I have, in the past, been told my job was relocating. I went to Boston and talked to my boss - in the end I decided not to move, as my daughter was about to start school. Before this my boss thought i was playing hardball and offered me inducements - 6 month rental, move timed to fit school year, cars. I left the job - about 6 months later - but kept in touch. The private sector has choice.

My wife is employed in a state agency - supposed to be decentralised. She is not getting any discussions such as I had. She is told that our property can be sold to cover the costs of the move. She has no option on date of move. She has no transition expenses or allowances. She has studied and worked in the same field for 10 years and anyway is not part of the civil service common pool, so job hunting is going to be tough. I'm sure there are contractual issues.

But the bit that really pisses me off - this right wing, property loving government is so arrogant as to tell me to pay for the move with my property, my house.

This issue is only starting to build.

spongebob

I am surprised that the 30 Mile rule has not been mentioned so far, it probably says a lot about the Union Leaders in the Mainstream Civil Service .

In the 1980's the government cut back pupil teacher ratios and thereby left some schools with surplus teachers. They could be redeployed to schools that were under quota.

The primary and secondary teachers....and the government.......agreed that compulsory redeployment could only be carried out where the maximum distance between the teachers Home and the new place of work was 30 Miles . The 30 mile rule is an accepted custom and practise for certain civil servants, why not for all ?

I do agree with the tactic of ensuring that promotions will take place at the decentralised locations and not in Dublin. That is fair enogh IMO. If you stay put the chances of promotion are lessened, but Dublin is soooooo convenient in sooooooo many other ways

M

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Muck
In the 1980's the government cut back pupil teacher ratios and thereby left some schools with surplus teachers. They could be redeployed to schools that were under quota.

From what you say about the example in teaching (and I know nothing other than what you have said) this involved taking surplus staff and redeploying them where their skills might be of use.

The Government’s proposals are exactly the opposite – create a surplus of skilled staff in Dublin by moving their posts elsewhere for no obvious reason. Their proposals simply make no sense.

When people talk about jobs moving in the private sector similarly there is a reason for such moves. I can’t think of any example of a private sector firm saying ‘lets blow a load of money scattering our staff over fifty locations for the craic’, which is essentially what the Government is intending.

Originally posted by Muck
I do agree with the tactic of ensuring that promotions will take place at the decentralised locations and not in Dublin. That is fair enogh IMO. If you stay put the chances of promotion are lessened, but Dublin is soooooo convenient in sooooooo many other ways

Handing out promotions on any basis other than ability to do the job means the taxpayers gets less value for their money.

Mailman

Government policy is to support rural ireland or at least towns outside the pale.

In the past government did this by building things like peat fired electricity generating stations and we are all now paying for that in higher electricity bills and damage to the environment.
If public services can be provided as efficently down the country then they should be decentralised as they fulfill the government's commitment to support rural Ireland, that is, provided that at the same time other wealth transfer mechanisms from Dublin to the rural areas are ground down.

Some of the locations perhaps shouldn't have been chosen as they don't fit in with our spatial strategy but they are still a lot better than building peat fired electricity stations or keeping people employed in BnM for no good reason.
In the long term the success of decentralisation will depend on good implementation rather than the initial concept.

jd

Originally posted by ishmael whale


When people talk about jobs moving in the private sector similarly there is a reason for such moves. I can’t think of any example of a private sector firm saying ‘lets blow a load of money scattering our staff over fifty locations for the craic’, which is essentially what the Government is intending.

That is the crux of the issue..
Civil servants are to be dispensed like a gifts from the gods..just to garner votes for FF and the likes of Tom Parlon. Decentralisation should be aligned with the NSS to be in any way credible (though I think the NSS spreads itself too thin anyway)

oscarBravo

Originally posted by pete
Ah yes. The Department of Communications, Marine & Natural Resources. Sent to Cavan.

Marine. In a landlocked county.

Maybe it should be relocated to a boat?

Hm, Natural Resources. Better anchor the boat near a gas field.

Communications? Now we're really stuck...

Can someone explain to me exactly why the Department of the Marine needs to be beside the sea? I know it's a wonderful soundbite, but do they actually have boats or something?

ishmael whale

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Can someone explain to me exactly why the Department of the Marine needs to be beside the sea? I know it's a wonderful soundbite, but do they actually have boats or something?

You need to put this in context. One of the reasons advanced for decentralisation was that it moves government closer to the people. How moving a centralised function to a small country town makes it more accessable to people in general is anybody's guess, but having maritime matters dealt with in Cavan is simply the most stark example of how the practical effect of the proposed moves will be to make government more distant from the people it serves.

FWIW, fishermen's representative organisations complained that moving Marine to Cavan made it less accessable to them.

There's no particular need for the Department of Marine to be beside the sea. In fact probably the best place for it to be is where it is.

kahlua

Communications? Now we're really stuck...

Shove a mobile on board and you're sorted.

Anyway, realistically its going to be a nightmare. Departments are going to loose 70% of their staff, nobody is going to know the ins and outs of their new job. Things are going to fall through the crack. If you think the service is bad now wait for the move, service will be crap.

If that were my job i'd quit tomo, no way would i uproot my whole life and my family's life for a job. Get another one.

rs

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

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

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

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

jd

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

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

Moriarty

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

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

ishmael whale

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

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

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

jd

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

refer back to my earlier post..
jd

pete

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

Jeeez who said that?

I take back what i took back.

ishmael whale

Does anyone still actually want this decentralisation programme to proceed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

por

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

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

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

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

Victor

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

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

arcadegame2004

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

lucernarian

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

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

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

read u soon!

pete

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

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

uncivilservant

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

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

Secondly:

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

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

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

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

Thirdly:

Reforms of Estonian public administration in 1990-1997


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

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

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

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

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

Only plain, mechanical and universal solutions have been pursued

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

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

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

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

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

Finally:

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

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

lucernarian

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

pete

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

Charming.

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

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

Help me out here.

arcadegame2004

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

ishmael whale

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

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

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

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

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

uncivilservant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pete

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

On reflection, that paragraph is missing some smileys.

uncivilservant

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

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