Decentralisation

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Hotblack Desiato

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

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

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!!

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

gbh

Well you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.

Its going to happen, thankfully, like it or not and in the best interests of the country. And in ten years people will be saying, 'remember all that fuss and all those opponents to decentralisation', and there'll be a good laugh about it.

I'm going to absolve myself from the debate now. As I have been representing the usually silent majority on this issue, I don't think I will convert the usually vocal minority.

So debate away among yerselves.

TempestSabre

Just like toll bridges are great for the country.

ishmael whale

gbh wrote:

Well you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.

That's pretty much what we're saying.

gbh wrote:

As I have been representing the usually silent majority on this issue, I don't think I will convert the usually vocal minority.

You are following the well trod path decentralisation advocates go through. First, they present an array of misunderstandings of the topic. These are refuted. Then they retreat in confusion, making assertions that their view is unchanged despite being unable to justify it.

Rael

Seems to me that maybe, GBH could be Tom Parlon in disguise from all his stonewalling and non sensical arguments

gbh

Seems to me you need to grow a brain...

fly_agaric

gbh wrote:

in the interests of the country.

LOL. How very high minded and civic and noble of you! If only there were more of your ilk in Ireland.

Why then do you support a "decentralisation scheme" that has been pretty clearly exposed as an act of typical "Oirish" cute-hoorism?

Wouldn't have anything to do with enjoying seeing Dublin and Civil servants getting a good kick in the crown jewels from govt. would it?

Why not free your mind and admit that?

gbh

fly_agaric wrote:

LOL. How very high minded and civic and noble of you! If only there were more of your ilk in Ireland.

Why then do you support a "decentralisation scheme" that has been pretty clearly exposed as an act of typical "Oirish" cute-hoorism?

Wouldn't have anything to do with enjoying seeing Dublin and Civil servants getting a good kick in the crown jewels from govt. would it?

Why not free your mind and admit that?

I wouldn't lower myself to answering this...

All I will say is I'm right and you're wrong...ok

NewDubliner

gbh wrote:

All I will say is I'm right and you're wrong...ok

If you want to convince people that this is the case, you'll need to put forward rational arguments backed by facts. Otherwise your opinion is worthless. Maybe things work differently in the private sector?

Let's start with one fact, shall we, agree it and and then let's progress from there.

1: How much will the project cost?

fly_agaric

gbh wrote:

I wouldn't lower myself to answering this...

All I will say is I'm right and you're wrong...ok

okey dokey. I expected as much.
Are you getting an officeful of political prawns, er pawns, no, er, civil servants in your area as part of decentralisation?

Earlier you asked why oppose decentralisation if you think it is a progressive move. I'd ask again why support it if the govt's scheme for it is actually a bad idea? Either you or where you live are getting something out of it, or you are enjoying some schadenfreude at the civil services'/servant's or Dublin's expense.

Actually, those were kind of rhetorical questions so I don't care if you can't be bothered to "lower" yourself to answer them.

gbh

fly_agaric wrote:

okey dokey. I expected as much.
Are you getting an officeful of political prawns, er pawns, no, er, civil servants in your area as part of decentralisation?

Earlier you asked why oppose decentralisation if you think it is a progressive move. I'd ask again why support it if the govt's scheme for it is actually a bad idea? Either you or where you live are getting something out of it, or you are enjoying some schadenfreude at the civil services'/servant's or Dublin's expense.

Actually, those were kind of rhetorical questions so I don't care if you can't be bothered to "lower" yourself to answer them.

Have you ever studied economics? In a formal educational setting? Or did you derive your economic theory from talking with your mates after ten pints? Cause that's what it sounds like.

Here is your answer, and I don't care if you agree with it or not. In fact I'm hoping you disagree cause then I'll know I'm doing something right.

Actually here is your first lesson in economics.

You ever here of the multiplier effect? BAsically it means that every euro that is brought into a community, usually ends up giving value to four or five people more. The civil servant spends their euro in the butcher's shop. The butcher spends that euro in the groccer's shop. The grocer spends it in the carpenters. Thus the community benefit several times over from the spending power of the newly arrived civil servant. So that addresses the financial benefit to the local community.

Lesson Two. International economic competiveness, inflation etc.

Corporate HQ in US are wondering where should they build their new manufacturing facility in Europe. option (a) Dublin or hinterland as there is no real place elsewhere in the country to build it, but the cost of land, housing, as well as traffic congestion are prohibitive. option (b) eastern europe where land is cheaper. 9/10 they will choose EAstern Europe.

So if you reduce the upward pressure on house prices in Dublin then you have some hope of attracting new industry to Ireland.

I suppose I'm wasting my time with economic arguements on you. And frankly I'm amazed at the how you people set out to demonise anyone who is in favour of decentralisation. Do I demonise yee? NO. Because its an ignorant way to conduct a debate.

NewDubliner

gbh wrote:

Have you ever studied economics?

Have you ever studied project management?

1: How much will the project cost?

2: How many people will move house?

3: By how much will the project reduce the upward pressure on house prices in Dublin?

pete

gbh wrote:

You ever here of the multiplier effect? BAsically it means that every euro that is brought into a community, usually ends up giving value to four or five people more. The civil servant spends their euro in the butcher's shop. The butcher spends that euro in the groccer's shop. The grocer spends it in the carpenters. Thus the community benefit several times over from the spending power of the newly arrived civil servant. So that addresses the financial benefit to the local community.

Ah - a lesson in what I suggest might henceforth be termed "Breakfast Roll Economics" (BRE).

Consider this: of the original 53 locations, the ones actually attracting applications from Dublin staff (of which there have been ~4000?) are those within "reverse commuting" distance of Dublin - your Kildares, Meaths & Droghedas etc.

Many Civil Servants "decentralising" to these locations will already be living there, so there's little or no net benefit to the local economy from new entrants on that front.

The rest will either be driving or getting the train to work where, upon arrival each day, they will buy their morning paper & the essential breakfast roll, perhaps venture back out to pick up a hang sangwidge for lunch, and then go home again.

Hardly a decentralisation-fuelled consumer spending bonanza.

The rest of the locations just involve culchies moving around so don't count, (Since there's no net increase in spending, not because they're culchies. Mostly.)

The_Conductor

gbh wrote:

You ever here of the multiplier effect? BAsically it means that every euro that is brought into a community, usually ends up giving value to four or five people more. The civil servant spends their euro in the butcher's shop. The butcher spends that euro in the groccer's shop. The grocer spends it in the carpenters. Thus the community benefit several times over from the spending power of the newly arrived civil servant. So that addresses the financial benefit to the local community.

As Pete has pointed out the vast majority of the Dublin based civil servants who have volunteered for decentralisation have no intention whatsoever of moving house. If you check you will see that its all the jobs that are within a 40 mile radius of Dublin that are massively oversubscribed (even by people who are already located outside of Dublin and want to relocate closer).

gbh wrote:

Lesson Two. International economic competiveness, inflation etc.

Corporate HQ in US are wondering where should they build their new manufacturing facility in Europe. option (a) Dublin or hinterland as there is no real place elsewhere in the country to build it, but the cost of land, housing, as well as traffic congestion are prohibitive. option (b) eastern europe where land is cheaper. 9/10 they will choose EAstern Europe.

Try telling that to Intel / HP / Symantec / Dell / Clientlogic etc. etc. etc.

Factor no. 1 in their choice of location is not to do with the cost of land/ housing / traffic congestion etc- its to do with tax. Further the sole reason we have been successful in enticing these multinationals to our shores is our pittance of Corporation tax- which has gotten us into trouble with our European partners. The main reason that they are now going to Eastern Europe instead of here- is, yes, you got it- Corporation tax again. The new member states learnt from our little experiment and several of them have rates even lower than our 12% (including flat rate taxes).

gbh wrote:

So if you reduce the upward pressure on house prices in Dublin then you have some hope of attracting new industry to Ireland.

It takes a hell of a lot more than houseprices to attract industry to a country. Reducing the upward pressure on houseprices in Dublin would not be a factor in attracting new industry to Ireland. It would more probably be a factor in wage negotiations as justification for paying lower salaries. Salaries are however only a small part of the costs associated with industry.

gbh wrote:

I suppose I'm wasting my time with economic arguements on you. And frankly I'm amazed at the how you people set out to demonise anyone who is in favour of decentralisation. Do I demonise yee? NO. Because its an ignorant way to conduct a debate.

Unfortunately you quite simply have not presented any economic arguments, valid or otherwise, to support your viewpoint. We (collective) are not out to demonise anyone, be they in favour of decentralisation or otherwise. We are attempting to debate facts in the open and keep ourselves informed of any developments (mostly from the media). As many people have tried to point out to you- they are not against decentralisation per se, they are however against this illthought out plan that ignores the National Spatial Strategy and tries to legitimise parochial politics on a grandscale with the wholesale destruction of the civil service to the detriment of the taxpayer.

A debate was conducted earlier in this thread based on the economic aspects of decentralisation.

While I cannot speak for others regarding their ignorant way to conduct a debate- I personally would not hop into a discussion of any nature without first reading what had happened on the thread. I would also try to understand other people's point of view before I accused them of deriving their opinion from meetings in the pub after having imbibed 10 pints.

gbh wrote:

Have you ever studied economics? In a formal educational setting?

I have. Have you?

ishmael whale

gbh wrote:

Actually here is your first lesson in economics.

You ever here of the multiplier effect? BAsically it means that every euro that is brought into a community, usually ends up giving value to four or five people more. The civil servant spends their euro in the butcher's shop. The butcher spends that euro in the groccer's shop. The grocer spends it in the carpenters. Thus the community benefit several times over from the spending power of the newly arrived civil servant. So that addresses the financial benefit to the local community.

Here is your basic introduction to Irish economics, taken for the Irish Independent Leaving Cert exam brief.

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.

Put simply, the increase in spending actually has very little impact on the local economy. Whether you buy your groceries in Lidl in Blanchardstown or Lidl in Edenderry there is no noticeable multiplier effect rippling out. Your figure of a multiplier of 4 to 5 is pure fantasy – although in fairness to you I think that gobber O’Cuiv was reported spouting similar nonsense recently.

When are you just going to accept you have no real appreciation of the issues at stake? It’s painful to watch you humiliate yourself by stumbling from one wild assertion to another.

TempestSabre

Look at the numbers of immigrants.
http://www.ireland.com/timeseye/whoweare/p3top.htm

How can you look at that and say moving 4,000 people (at best) out of dublin is going to have an effect on Dublins congestion, house prices or anything. Its a drop in the ocean.

NewDubliner

From the Examiner, June 9th:

AFTER a long period of apparent deadlock, there have been signs of cracking in government resolve in the long running argument around decentralisation - or rather the version of decentralisation being foisted on the public service by the government.

The move to establish, under the aegis of the Labour Relations Commission, a forum for discussions on the relocation of the FAS head office to Birr, Co Offaly, is being seen by the unions as a breakthrough, in that the infamous Birr clause (under which staff must sign up for a move to the Midlands as a condition for accepting promotion) has been lifted for the duration of the talks.

It remains to be seen whether this was anything other than a tactical response on the part of the Department of Finance aimed at removing an obstacle to the conclusion of a national pay agreement.

The intervention of the SIPTU General President, Jack O'Connor, certainly appeared to send shock waves through the system. Mr O'Connor suggested that his members would find it difficult to sign up to a new pay deal while those members employed in semi-state bodies faced the prospect of being relocated out of the capital against their will.

It has been suggested that Mr O'Connor subsequently stepped back from this position under pressure from senior colleagues in the union movement, concerned at a further jolting of the precarious social partnership apple cart. Whatever the case, the SIPTU boss's remarks appear to have had the intended effect.

The unions have been left to fight this battle largely alone. Throughout this long and tedious debate on the McCreevy decentralisation plan, busi- ness organisations have remained largely silent about the consequences of a potentially botched dispersal strategy for users of public services.

The trade unions have been doing a good-job of representing their members' interests and feelings. The Civil & Public Services Union, representing mainly young officials happy to get the chance to work in locations where housing is still affordable, has been broadly supportive.

Unions such as IMPACT and the Association of Higher Civil & Public Servants have provided trenchant opposition, once again reflecting the interests of more senior and highly qualified employees.

Much less has been written or spoken about the likely impact of decentralisation on users of public services. Employers' bodies have remained largely silent - IBEC's lack of any stance, aside from tepid support, stands out.

The employers' body may start speaking out when the quality of public services deteriorates - but by then it will be too late.

It is widely conceded that the transfer process will involve massive employee turnover, or churning. Inevitably, organisations will have to turn inward for a period as they absorb and train in new people. Huge numbers of experienced people will be lost to these organisations.

Take Enterprise Ireland. If the planned relocation of its HQ goes ahead, what impact will the loss of experienced business advisors have on its business client base? Will the quality of the advice provided not be degraded, for a period at least, while replacement people are being trained up?

People working in the private sector are expected to be adaptable, a point that supporters of the current project also make. Public servants, too, must be prepared to be adaptable. But, in a tight labour market, employers now take great care to devise proper strategies for the retention of key staff, being only too well aware of the costs of replacing staff.

Can anyone measure the costs of re-placing an individual with say, 20 years' knowledge and accumulated expertise? The casual approach to personnel management that lies at the heart of the current proposal is one that does no credit to those responsible for devising and now implementing the strategy.

The dishonest references to the plan as `voluntary', the failure to outline just how the talents of the surplus staff set to remain behind in Dublin will be best utilised - these are just two examples of how trust in government on the part of those at its very heart is corroded.

The pity of it is that the process of dispersing parts of government has worked well in the past, when con-ducted in a measured way. Dublin is spilling over its natural boundaries and many of its inhabitants are beginning to suffer real damage in terms of quality of life.

It surely is time to revisit the whole debate concerning the devolution of decision making to regions and local areas.

Why not pump more resources into the Western Development Commission, for example? Or build up the regional tourist and local enterprise boards? Some local bodies have worked well, others less so. The health boards fell prey to localism and politi- cal favouritism continues to dog our planning system at local level.

Local bodies such as Udaris na Gaeltachta appear to have outlived their usefulness. A real effort needs to be made to trust people and institutions with responsibility at local level.

Denmark and Finland are examples of places where devolution of power has worked well. Closer to home, the performance of some local bodies such as Dublin has improved greatly on the back of decent management and greater resources.

Department of Finance officials are pushing the current decentralisation a project with some vigour. This is ironic as no department has a greater vested interest in the centralisation of power - a centralisation set to be reinforced by the dispersal of rival departments to all corners of the land.

fly_agaric

gbh wrote:

Have you ever studied economics? In a formal educational setting? Or did you derive your economic theory from talking with your mates after ten pints? Cause that's what it sounds like.

LOL.
I'm quite surprised it sounds like that seeing as I have made no economic arguments good, bad, or just plain stupid for or against the govt.'s decentralisation scheme.
I'm not qualified to and I have no problems or hangups at all admitting that.
It seems you are yet another one of these tiresome and pedantic internet "experts" who wants people to fax them their f-ing PhD scroll before they are allowed to have even a non-crazy and reasonably evidence-based opinion on anything - or maybe even worse, someone who thinks economics is a religion/science that provides the answers to everything.

Read my earlier post where I made some quite simple common-sense, as I see it, objections to this decentralisation scheme.
In fact I was even somewhat supportive of a very much more radical and extremely expensive project (decapitalising Dublin) to develop another city or region of the country such as Galway or Cork/Limerick to act as a Dublin-Leinster counterweight but I have the humility to leave the pure economic arguments for or against that project to those with the knowledge of such things. "Experts" such as yourself say.:)
Becuase I'm from Dublin I wouldn't be enthusiastic about it but it would seem more rational to me than this scheme.

gbh wrote:

Actually here is your first lesson in economics.

You ever here of the multiplier effect? BAsically it means that every euro that is brought into a community, usually ends up giving value to four or five people more. The civil servant spends their euro in the butcher's shop. The butcher spends that euro in the groccer's shop. The grocer spends it in the carpenters. Thus the community benefit several times over from the spending power of the newly arrived civil servant. So that addresses the financial benefit to the local community.

Lesson Two. International economic competiveness, inflation etc.

Corporate HQ in US are wondering where should they build their new manufacturing facility in Europe. option (a) Dublin or hinterland as there is no real place elsewhere in the country to build it, but the cost of land, housing, as well as traffic congestion are prohibitive. option (b) eastern europe where land is cheaper. 9/10 they will choose EAstern Europe.

So if you reduce the upward pressure on house prices in Dublin then you have some hope of attracting new industry to Ireland.

Thank you Mawster. Your humble Padawan is grateful for the drops of economist's wisdom that fall as beads of precious dew from your sweaty.....:)

Actually, even as an economic ignoramus, most of that benefit to the local business community stuff makes sense to me. Provided of course its your community they move to, which was kind of the point I was making there earlier, wasn't it?
The bit about how moving these few thousand civil servants out of Dublin will stop Dublin's property boom in its tracks and thus make Dublin more attractive to companies to locate in - hmmm?. Talk about butterflies and hurricanes! Could you run that by me again Mawster?

gbh wrote:

And frankly I'm amazed at the how you people set out to demonise anyone who is in favour of decentralisation. Do I demonise yee? NO. Because its an ignorant way to conduct a debate.

Fair enough.
It's just very hard not be irritated sometimes.
If you read through this thread the weight of evidence seems to me to be very much on the side of those who say that this scheme is bad.

The people who support it always eventually retreat to the fact that with this scheme the govt. is at least doing something, anything to develop areas outside Dublin. Those who would oppose it are opposing developing the regions and are going against the national interest - not because the scheme is bad --> they are nasty begrudgers/stick-in-the-muds or self-interested civil servants! Hows that for demonisation?

Diaspora

fly_agaric wrote:

If you read through this thread the weight of evidence seems to me to be very much on the side of those who say that this scheme is bad.

Totally agree the evidence is that this plan was nothing more than a political stroke prior to the local elections; decentralisation is a good idea but this plan has the potential to undermine the 80 years it has taken to develop the public service.

Many countires have decentralised including the US and UK but critically these two countries have retained the main departments in the Capital and transferred only activities that are not location sensitive in synergy terms.

Critically this plan was the Death of the National Spatial Strategy which was sold as the next 'development blueprint' for this country only 12 months before decentralisation was foisted upon the Civil Service.

It is time for this goverment to walk away from the current plan and develop a realistic plan that involves reform of the division of services in the civil service and to select locations where civil servants actually wish to go.

If I were told that a had to move to Charlestown or Newcastle West or be passed over for a promotion I would stay till the next election have my say and promptly emmigrate or sell my services to the private sector.

NewDubliner

Diaspora wrote:

If I were told that a had to move to Charlestown or Newcastle West

Rumour has it that there was no problem getting people to move to Newcastle West, most of the applicants already live there and work in Limerick. These are the people who were expensively trained to take up their positions in Limerick. Now, they'll have to be trained again & new volunteers found & trained for the vacancies in Limerick.

Not sure what the economic benefit to the local economy of Newcastle West will be. There might be a drop in petrol sales. 'GBH' with his great expertese in things economic will be able to answer that.

The cost of the relocation scheme is till unknown.

gbh

smccarrick wrote:

Unfortunately you quite simply have not presented any economic arguments, valid or otherwise, to support your viewpoint. We (collective) are not out to demonise anyone, be they in favour of decentralisation or otherwise. We are attempting to debate facts in the open and keep ourselves informed of any developments (mostly from the media). As many people have tried to point out to you- they are not against decentralisation per se, they are however against this illthought out plan that ignores the National Spatial Strategy and tries to legitimise parochial politics on a grandscale with the wholesale destruction of the civil service to the detriment of the taxpayer.

A debate was conducted earlier in this thread based on the economic aspects of decentralisation.

While I cannot speak for others regarding their ignorant way to conduct a debate- I personally would not hop into a discussion of any nature without first reading what had happened on the thread. I would also try to understand other people's point of view before I accused them of deriving their opinion from meetings in the pub after having imbibed 10 pints.


I have. Have you?

The economic benefits to the country/taxpayer may in fact be immeasureable. ie, the saving to the environment from people stuck all day in traffic jams. Can you put an actual cost on that?

Secondly, there are higher civil servants opposed to this. What if on average they own houses that are worth 500,000 in Dublin city and they sold those houses and bought an equivalent or even bigger house down the country for perhaps 350,000 which is about normal for a large house in the regions. The civil servant can then take the 150,000 profit and put it in his or hers pension fund. The same goes whether the person is married and has a family. It is well known that the cost of living is much cheaper down the country than in Dublin, for creches, nursing homes etc.

Thirdly, I think the question should be asked in a sort of cost/benefit analysis way, would dispersing the civil service really damage their viability and ability to do a good, effective job on behalf of the state and the taxpayer. Well here is one possible answer. Anytime someone down the country wants to meet an official from the department of justice, agriculture, environment, they must head to Dublin. Now you might argue, not so, there are sub offices all around. And indeed there are and there seems to be no dimunition of service just because a citizen goes to a sub office and not the head office.
My principal argument in favour of decentralisation is not so much that people would be closer down the country to the head office although that is one advantage, but more the benefit economically to regions that traditionally have suffered from economic disadvantage and low take up of local services such as post offices and bank branches, forcing these outlets to close and causing suffering to local people as a result. And it is a very common occurance, while in Dublin people are queing out the door at banks, post offices, hospitals, airports, train stations, bus stations, need I go on?

smccarrick wrote:

As many people have tried to point out to you- they are not against decentralisation per se, they are however against this illthought out plan that ignores the National Spatial Strategy and tries to legitimise parochial politics on a grandscale with the wholesale destruction of the civil service to the detriment of the taxpayer.

I am a taxpayer as well. And I think it would be of great benefit in a number of ways to have for example just one bank in my local town where I and the rest of the population could do our business. There isnt one sadly, and the nearest one is six miles away. But its not just banks, its things like the High Court and Supreme court. Its things like an international airport that provides a link to most countries in the world, therefore making the area attractive for investment. Or a good hospital that can cope with car crash victims without having to transport them to Dublin.

Little things like which are taken for granted in dublin. And the fact is where ever populations centralise, so to do banks and the like. So would be better to disperse populations evenly.