Decentralisation

K-9

smccarrick wrote:

First of all- there are offices in these poorer areas of the city being closed and moved elsewhere around the country as part of decentralisation- I already pointed out about the offices in Finglas- but you could just as easily point at DSFA headquarters off Gardiner Street in Dublin 1 (which I don't think anyone will argue with me when I suggest its one of the poorest inner city areas in the country)- its due to be hived off to Letterkenny and Dundalk. There are actually some of their employees living in the immediate vicinity- so that is a definite negative.

"some of the employees live in the immediate vicinity" - so the majority don't. How many are employed from the unemployment city centre blackspots?

You also previously pointed out about Tallaght which has at least 1/3 of the unemployment it had 15 years ago. Finglas has also benefitted. Major improvements have been made in reducing employment in these areas. Rural areas are now major parts of unemployment blackspots, they deserve offices being decentralised just as Finglas & Tallaght did before.

smccarrick wrote:

Re: Civil servants and contracts obliging them to move- its only since the current decentralisation scheme was mooted that a clause on agreeing to decentralise was inserted into the contracts of people newly recruited (in a lot of cases specifically recruited for decentralised locations- irrespective of when that might occur). People in the civil service prior to this were recruited for specific regions- I myself was recruited in a "Dublin only" competition many years ago.

As you say, it was many years ago. Unfortunately, employer and Govt. priorities change over time.

smccarrick wrote:

As I previously pointed out- Dublin based civil servants do not have preference over those already decentralised when applying to be moved out of Dublin. I was forced to rescind my decentralisation application- and reinstate it, which lost my place in a queue- now the 12 locations on my list are all over subscribed (mostly by people who are not even working in Dublin in the first place). What sort of a mess is that? And for good measure- my department have refused to release me to job offers that I am qualified to do elsewhere- jobs that I went to a lot of trouble to meet with personnel officers and undergo testing and interviews for- because they can't recruit someone to do my job until such time as it is decentralised (if that is what happens).

I've agreed it should have been definitely better planned. Even if was, the personal circumstances still remain which is the main reason employees have objections. The Govt. offered decentralisation and relocation. Other than offering redundancy I can't see the perfect alternative they could offer and even then, personally, people would be against it.

smccarrick wrote:

Seanies- admit it- you want those jobs in Donegal, and you don't care what the consequences elsewhere or for the taxpayer are. You also don't particularly care whether those jobs are real jobs or not- or whether there will be another 12,000 people at the ends of phones for several years clearing up messes as they occur. I tried to help you- by showing you how to price redundancy for the Dublin staff, there are also calculations from me earlier in this thread showing the costs of continuing to employ them. People want this decentralisation scheme come what may- they just don't give a damn for sitting down and evaluating it in a logical manner. Its an extension of the parochial politics that this country is infamous for.......

I gave you the costs saved and benefits that would happen, but you never came back with any other ideas. Do you want a Govt. that only considers cost/benefit analysis and anything else when coming to decisions. That wouldn't have helped the failed Irish and Dublin economy in the 80's.

Donegal as far I am aware hasn't got one job yet from the scheme and I don't care. Helping disadvantaged areas I do care about. Most of these costs are being brought forward anyway. Staff have to be replaced and trained eventually anyway.

Smccarrick, the personal problems you have with decentralisation will always be there. You don't want decentralisation for your own reasons, that's grand, admit it. If the Govt. come out with fantastic and amazing proposals tomorrow, you'll still not want to move your family and job. Understandable.

schuhart wrote:

I honestly don't know what is the response to that mentality. For some reason, many Irish people seem to define their identity around county. That's what allows this kind of nonsense to float. It may simply be that the only thing that claims an allegience in the minds of many is GAA (and if this seems superficial - then explain it to me some other way).

How do we get the county jersey to be left behind at the match? Because its doing real damage to people's lives.

Eh, what? It's not about county, and I'm not chatting about the GAA , it's that some rural areas are dying.

firetrap wrote:

Would the money being blown on decentralisation not be better spent on something that's actually useful and of benefit to the Irish taxpayer? It baffles me that you think that decentralisation is going to save money.

So its not useful and of no benefit. Well no point arguing with you then! The Luas was a waste of taxpayers money, but there are benefits to it. Should it never have been built, should any extensions not go ahead? This economy and society is starting to sound money obsessed. They'll bring personal reason into it when it suits them.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Just do it

The details of how its is done are important. It's an issue that you constantly evade. Your approach is to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Seanies32 wrote:

- as said before "no employer can guarentee the exact location for 30/40 years. Simple as, they can't, full stop! Public/Semi-State or Private sector. They just can't. "

Why do you keep raising this red herring? It's not an issue. Be aware though, that this cuts two ways. The precedent has now been established that people will be moved from town to town to satisfy the ebb and flow of electoral advantage for the ruling party.

Seanies32 wrote:

The screw Dublin - typical attitude from somebody who refuses to see any benefits in decentralisation.

This is simply not true. Decentralisation has already happened. Most of the public serice is already located outside of Dublin. I favour further moves where there is a valid business case and it can be accomplished in a way that will minimise costs and risk to customer service. Similarly, failed decentralisation instances should be moved back to Dublin where appropriate.

Seanies32 wrote:

Tallaght has been doing well economically and employment wise in the last 15 years, it's not being screwed, or indeed Dublin.

Tell that to the people in Tallaght whose jobs you want to take.

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

The screw Dublin - typical attitude from somebody who refuses to see any benefits in decentralisation.

But, objectively, there are no significant benefits to be obtained from decentralisation. So all we're left with is the possibility that some people get some kind of satisfaction from seeing something being ripped out of Dublin.

Seanies32 wrote:

Eh, what? It's not about county, and I'm not chatting about the GAA , it's that some rural areas are dying.

And the point is relocation of central Government offices does very little for regional development as it doesn't address the identified problem - which is the need to concentrate within the regions, not the need to blindly rip stuff out of Dublin and scatter it about.

The policy fails to address the issue you state to be important. So the only identifiable reason for you to support it is simply blind support for anything that mentions Donegal, regardless of whether it makes sense.

I'd ask again - is there any level of cost at which you would say 'yeah, its not worth doing it at that price'. Can you envisage a situation in which you would say 'I do not favour moving 100 civil servants from Dublin to Letterkenny'. Bear in mind, I would support moving 100 civil servants from Dublin to Letterkenny if it was demonstrated to be a more effective use of resources. But the simple fact it that it isn't.

MG

ninja900 wrote:

Have you ever heard of constructive dismissal and are you aware that it is illegal?

I'd be very surprised in the circumstances if this wa\s applicable. There are sufficient options open to show that due regard was shown for the employees welfare.

ninja900 wrote:

I sincerely doubt that any work practices are going to become more efficient as a result of this, quite the opposite in many cases.

More inefficient!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I still see this as an opportunit to reduce waste and inefficiency by introducing productivity measures such as training and better work practices.

ninja900 wrote:

People who could not win promotion on merit will do so because of their willingness to decentralise, is that going to help or hinder public service efficiency?

Surely no more so than the current system of rewarding willingness to centralise? I mean if someone from say Mayo declared today that they weren't willing to leave Mayo, how far would they get in the Civil service? If it was properly decentralised that merit driven promotions would be possible in the regions too.

ninja900 wrote:

Economics have got nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to embark on this programme. Economically, it's a basket case.

I disagree it's an economic basket case and the decentalisation of power and the apparatus of power would serve the country well economically.

ninja900 wrote:

Not if your contract of employment is tied to a specific location.

Do you mean your current contract or the new one?

If you mean your current one then that is seriously worrying. If you mean the new one, then I don't understand how this is different to the current arrangement (other than Dublin is not the location), nor do I understand why interdepartmental/service transfers are not possible.

Schuhart

MG wrote:

the decentalisation of power and the apparatus of power would serve the country well economically.

But power will still be centralised - its a little disappointing when the logic of real decentralisation is applied to this proposal to relocate office staff.

Real decentralisation would involve moving powers from central government to local authorities, enabling them to raise their own funds and spend them as they wish. If that was what was proposed, I'd support it. But its not. What's proposed is moving office staff about at great cost for no real benefit.

MG

Schuhart wrote:

But power will still be centralised - its a little disappointing when the logic of real decentralisation is applied to this proposal to relocate office staff.

Real decentralisation would involve moving powers from central government to local authorities, enabling them to raise their own funds and spend them as they wish. If that was what was proposed, I'd support it. But its not. What's proposed is moving office staff about at great cost for no real benefit.

Agreed but you can't expect real power to be decentralised until the apparatus of power, i.e. the civil service is decentralised.

Schuhart

MG wrote:

you can't expect real power to be decentralised until the apparatus of power, i.e. the civil service is decentralised.

I’m sorry, but that’s just not a meaningful statement. There is absolutely no reason why we could not empower local authorities if that's what we choose to do, and no dependency on splintering of central Government offices across many locations. The two things just don’t relate – this really is an example of just stringing words together that say nothing, just for the sake of making a response.

I can’t honestly see the need to do this. Why not simply say ‘yes, this current programme is meaningless and does nothing to empower local communities or enable them to make decisions about their own areas’, as that is the case.

That said, there does seem to be reluctance by regional development advocates to call for local empowerment. They seem to prefer having the role of advocate, presumably as this avoids the need to take responsibility for decisions.

MG

Schuhart wrote:

I’m sorry, but that’s just not a meaningful statement. There is absolutely no reason why we could not empower local authorities if that's what we choose to do, and no dependency on splintering of central Government offices across many locations. The two things just don’t relate – this really is an example of just stringing words together that say nothing, just for the sake of making a response.

If you didn't understand the statement, I would have been happy to explain it to you. I'm not simply out for an argument for the sake of arguing. The above comments are disappointing and incorrect.

Schuhart

MG wrote:

If you didn't understand the statement, I would have been happy to explain it to you.

Feel free to explain.

MG

Schuhart wrote:

Feel free to explain.

I don't see how you can decentralise power without decentralising the apparatus to wield power. I think it's naive to think that we can suddenly empower local government by act of legislation without providing a localised civil service to run that local government. Can power really be decentralized if the elected representatives do not have the civil servants to carry out their wishes? This isn't the Congo, if we want local government then the trained civil service have to be there, physically in the locality. The current decentralisation plan does not do this, of course, but it does facilitate the future possibility by having trained civil servants on the ground. Even if these civil servants must go to Dublin to advance in their careers, the notion of living outside Dublin is no longer alien. Moreover, the transfer of the political power of the civil service to the regions will empower the regions. I don’t think enough attention is given to the actual power that these departments have and how much power can be decentralized just by moving some department staff. There is too much paying lip service to decentralisation of power without realising that it actually involves the decentralisation of people too.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

The details of how its is done are important. It's an issue that you constantly evade. Your approach is to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

No, have countinuosly said it should better planned.

NewDubliner wrote:

Why do you keep raising this red herring? It's not an issue. Be aware though, that this cuts two ways.

Off course.

NewDubliner wrote:

This is simply not true. Decentralisation has already happened. Most of the public serice is already located outside of Dublin. I favour further moves where there is a valid business case and it can be accomplished in a way that will minimise costs and risk to customer service. Similarly, failed decentralisation instances should be moved back to Dublin where appropriate.

It shouldn't all be about economic cost and benefits and business cases. The Government has social costs and benefits too consider.

NewDubliner wrote:

Tell that to the people in Tallaght whose jobs you want to take.

They don't own the jobs. Unfortunately, that's the reality. Nobody owns their job. They are being offered redeployment, which is more than some people get!

Clause

You know- I agree with you Seanies32.
These people do not own the jobs, they really need this to be hammered home to them. Just because they're in Dublin they get all the opportunities that we can only dream of. They should know that its the rest of the country that supports those smug people in Dublin- and not moan about moving a few jobs down to help us out. We really need those jobs to breath life into our villages and towns- and make them viable again. For far too long people from outside the Pale have had to migrate to the larger cities in search of work- well, the time to fight back against this has come. We need to make a stand and demand that our local politicians see how serious we are about getting these jobs that were promised to us. We deserve them- we are the life blood of the country- those dubliners have plenty of other things they can do anyway- there will be no trouble at all in finding other work for them. The idea of a cost/benefit analysis is crazy- you cannot put a cost on keeping the regions alive and vibrant. Sure- we pay the salaries of the civil servants anyway- surely we should have a say in where they are employed and make sure that our taxes are spent in our localities. Our unemployment rate in Donegal is almost double the national level- so we deserve these jobs. You know if we marched on the Dail and picketed the constituency offices of our representatives- I bet you something would happen quickly.

eigrod

Clause wrote:

You know- I agree with you Seanies32.
These people do not own the jobs, they really need this to be hammered home to them. Just because they're in Dublin they get all the opportunities that we can only dream of. They should know that its the rest of the country that supports those smug people in Dublin- and not moan about moving a few jobs down to help us out. We really need those jobs to breath life into our villages and towns- and make them viable again. For far too long people from outside the Pale have had to migrate to the larger cities in search of work- well, the time to fight back against this has come. We need to make a stand and demand that our local politicians see how serious we are about getting these jobs that were promised to us. We deserve them- we are the life blood of the country- those dubliners have plenty of other things they can do anyway- there will be no trouble at all in finding other work for them. The idea of a cost/benefit analysis is crazy- you cannot put a cost on keeping the regions alive and vibrant. Sure- we pay the salaries of the civil servants anyway- surely we should have a say in where they are employed and make sure that our taxes are spent in our localities. Our unemployment rate in Donegal is almost double the national level- so we deserve these jobs. You know if we marched on the Dail and picketed the constituency offices of our representatives- I bet you something would happen quickly.

Right, it's probably time to lock this thread now that you've put us all right on this topic. Let's just move Dublin to Donegal next Monday.

Clause wrote:

Just because they're in Dublin they get all the opportunities that we can only dream of.

Come on down and live the dream then !

Schuhart

MG wrote:

The current decentralisation plan does not do this, of course, but it does facilitate the future possibility by having trained civil servants on the ground.

What you’re saying, put simply, is that there is no pool of people of sufficient calibre in the regions to staff local authorities. However, if that’s the case then surely that same problem will be encountered in trying to move Departments out of Dublin – as you would be saying you need the Dublin-based volunteers and they just are not there.

However, this is hardly a real issue in any event. With real decentralisation you would expect, say, all local authorities to become responsible for running schools. How does Donegal County Council benefit in your scenario from civil servants with knowledge of administering education being located in Mullingar?

MG wrote:

Moreover, the transfer of the political power of the civil service to the regions will empower the regions.

I know how Spock felt when he said ‘not logical, captain’. How is Donegal empowered by Education having an office in Mullingar? What actually happens is the public is disempowered, because an area of national policy becomes a local fief.

There really is no obstacle to real decentralisation – if the regions really want to take control of their own destiny. The question is – do they?

Clause wrote:

They should know that its the rest of the country that supports those smug people in Dublin- and not moan about moving a few jobs down to help us out.

An utter reversal of reality. Dublin households make a massive net contribution to state coffers, dwarfing the contribution of any other region. On the other hand, Donegal households are net recipients of State to the tune of about €140 millon. The regions simply could not afford their current standard of living without Dublin.

I’ve made this point before and typically receive silly responses to it. Can I point out that I’m simply pointing out that Clause’s allegation that Dublin is subsidised by the regions is factually wrong – he is the one raising the topic of inter-regional financial transfers.

Will the fact that he’s wrong change anyone’s mind? Of course not, the discussion will go on and no-one will pause for thought.

Clause wrote:

The idea of a cost/benefit analysis is crazy- you cannot put a cost on keeping the regions alive and vibrant.

Money wasted on a pointless office relocation programme is money wasted, no matter how much superficially laudable rhetoric you mount up.

NewDubliner

Clause wrote:

You know if we marched on the Dail

I can assure you that the people of Dublin would prepare a very special welcome for you!

If grabbing other people's jobs and insisting that huge and unlimited sums of money be taken from Dublin's taxpayers to fund the scheme is all you can come up with, I'm not surprised that where you live is lacking in vibrancy. Why not create your own enterprises? Then, your regions would thrive and would not be subject to the whims of politicians.

Hotblack Desiato

Been doing a bit of thinking on this and the complete inability of DC supporters to take on board the idea that spending huge amounts of taxpayers money to achieve eff-all might not be a great idea.

So why don't we cut to the chase. Take a few billion taxpayers' euro and split it up among the lucky inhabitants of the 53 chosen towns. And leave all the jobs where they are. Everyone's a winner. Because buying votes is what it's all about anyway...

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

But, objectively, there are no significant benefits to be obtained from decentralisation. So all we're left with is the possibility that some people get some kind of satisfaction from seeing something being ripped out of Dublin.

If that's is being oblective, I'd love to see your subjective side!

schuart wrote:

And the point is relocation of central Government offices does very little for regional development as it doesn't address the identified problem - which is the need to concentrate within the regions, not the need to blindly rip stuff out of Dublin and scatter it about.

What's being ripped out? I thought there was no redundancies, most wheren't decentralising and being redeployed. At least that's what everybody was giving out about on here.

schuart wrote:

The policy fails to address the issue you state to be important. So the only identifiable reason for you to support it is simply blind support for anything that mentions Donegal, regardless of whether it makes sense.

Don't agree with you there. I can see the benefits for Donegal. You can't.

schuart wrote:

I'd ask again - is there any level of cost at which you would say 'yeah, its not worth doing it at that price'. Can you envisage a situation in which you would say 'I do not favour moving 100 civil servants from Dublin to Letterkenny'. Bear in mind, I would support moving 100 civil servants from Dublin to Letterkenny if it was demonstrated to be a more effective use of resources. But the simple fact it that it isn't.

You fail to recognise the benefits of the current system. I can see the faults of decentralisation, you can't see any advantage of the current system.

schuart wrote:

An utter reversal of reality. Dublin households make a massive net contribution to state coffers, dwarfing the contribution of any other region. On the other hand, Donegal households are net recipients of State to the tune of about €140 millon. The regions simply could not afford their current standard of living without Dublin.

I’ve made this point before and typically receive silly responses to it. Can I point out that I’m simply pointing out that Clause’s allegation that Dublin is subsidised by the regions is factually wrong – he is the one raising the topic of inter-regional financial transfers.

Will the fact that he’s wrong change anyone’s mind? Of course not, the discussion will go on and no-one will pause for thought.

Any figures on Ballymun? Where do you get €140 Million figure?

NewDubliner

seanies32 wrote:

What's being ripped out?.

Money from Dublin taxpayer's wallets.

pirelli wrote:

Athlone might also suit a relocation for some people.

Athlone is doing quite well, it doesn't need any more public service jobs.

pirelli wrote:

The garda ombudsman I wonder why they did not relocate

It's near the courts and the majority of its customers outside of Donegal. Being in a city, it can be accessed more anonymously than if it were in a small town next to the local Garda station.

Abbey Street is hardly 'exclusive', it's an inner-city area in need of jobs.

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

What's being ripped out??

Central government offices are being splintered across 53 locations, regardless of cost.

Seanies32 wrote:

Don't agree with you there. I can see the benefits for Donegal. You can't.

What I've suggested is you don't care what cost is incurred on the rest of the community to deliver really quite marginal benefits for Donegal.

Seanies32 wrote:

You fail to recognise the benefits of the current system. I can see the faults of decentralisation, you can't see any advantage of the current system.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Seanies32 wrote:

Any figures on Ballymun? Where do you get €140 Million figure?

The CSO regional income figures. Page 11. Deduct 'Social Transfers' from 'Taxes' to get the net figures. Donegal households get a net €140 million out of State funds. Dublin households pay a net €1.1 billion.

I know you've probably been used to conversations in an environment where statements like 'Dublin gets everything' and 'we pay tax and its all spent in Dublin' are never challenged. But those statements are simply wrong. I'd suggest to need to reflect on this, as if you've been working on some different assumption this really does change things. Ballymun's renewal is not funded by rackrenting Mayo farmers.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

Money from Dublin taxpayer's wallets.

County V. Country again. Is it only Dublin people that pay taxes, live in Ireland and have a say on the direction of this country?

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

Central government offices are being splintered across 53 locations, regardless of cost.What I've suggested is you don't care what cost is incurred on the rest of the community to deliver really quite marginal benefits for Donegal.

The 53 locations aren't just in Donegal. Not 1 job has been delivered here. I don't think Donegal is responsible for all the decentralisation costs.

schuart wrote:

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Don't think you ever will see the advantages of decentralisation.

schuart wrote:

The CSO regional income figures.

Page 11. Deduct 'Social Transfers' from 'Taxes' to get the net figures. Donegal households get a net €140 million out of State funds. Dublin households pay a net €1.1 billion.

I know you've probably been used to conversations in an environment where statements like 'Dublin gets everything' and 'we pay tax and its all spent in Dublin' are never challenged. But those statements are simply wrong. I'd suggest to need to reflect on this, as if you've been working on some different assumption this really does change things. Ballymun's renewal is not funded by rackrenting Mayo farmers.

You really believe that's the mindset in the country? Money from Dublin should be used to help poorer areas. Akin to how EU Structural funds where used in the 80/90's, or maybe we shouldn't have accepted those funds.

Why bother giving money or jobs to disadvantaged areas like Ballymun. If you want to keep Dublin taxpayers money in Dublin, declare independence;)

The_Conductor

Seanies32 wrote:

County V. Country again. Is it only Dublin people that pay taxes, live in Ireland and have a say on the direction of this country?

Of course its not only Dublin people who pay taxes.
The problem really is that people are very much engaged in parochial politics- what is best for their corner (be it Donegal or Dublin) and not looking at the larger picture- we're only a small country- what is best for Ireland as a whole.

K-9

smccarrick wrote:

Of course its not only Dublin people who pay taxes.
The problem really is that people are very much engaged in parochial politics- what is best for their corner (be it Donegal or Dublin) and not looking at the larger picture- we're only a small country- what is best for Ireland as a whole.

It's not parochial to bring jobs to rural areas. Reviving and sustaining rural areas is best for Ireland as a whole or else we'll all move to Dublin! Dublin has enough problems without adding more! :rolleyes:

I'm for rural regeneration as a whole, not Donegal regeneration. It's a wider concept and not that petty. Tbh, the way it's going, Donegal might see very little of these jobs. Whereas, most of the anti decentralisation is pure anti-country sentiment.

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

Is it only Dublin people that pay taxes, live in Ireland and have a say on the direction of this country?

Clearly not, although as you'll see from the like I've provided, Dublin is the main net contributor to tax revenue. Cut out Dublin and the Mid East region and the rest of the country would be swinging in the breeze. This fact is rarely mentioned, whereas utterly wrong statements like Clause's to the effect that Dublin depends on tax raised elsewhere are commonplace and rarely challenged. If some are labouring under a massive misconception is it not right to point that out?

Part of the rhetoric trotted out about decentralisation is an inaccurate picture of resources being sucked out of the regions by Dublin – with the ripping out and splintering of Government offices then being presented as a sort of crude way of getting the resources back.

The actually situation is, far from sucking resources in, Dublin is a national profit centre that the regions can and do receive considerable support from. Hence, the idea that Donegal is languishing for lack of central government support is simply wrong. If Donegal is languishing, its despite a very high level of State support.

If there’s a solution to regional development its to be found in the National Spatial Strategy. That solution is not relocating offices out of Dublin. Rather, it’s promoting concentration within the regions. The resources are there – it’s a matter of the regions using the resources given in a sensible manner.

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

The 53 locations aren't just in Donegal. Not 1 job has been delivered here. I don't think Donegal is responsible for all the decentralisation costs.

However, the point is the 'benefits' of decentralisation are marginal. The costs are immense.

Seanies32 wrote:

Don't think you ever will see the advantages of decentralisation.

I don't think you'll ever tell us how much of a cost you would be willing to impose on the rest of the community for quite marginal benefits in Donegal.

Seanies32 wrote:

You really believe that's the mindset in the country? Money from Dublin should be used to help poorer areas. Akin to how EU Structural funds where used in the 80/90's, or maybe we shouldn't have accepted those funds.

I support money being spent on things that acheive a result. Decentralisation doesn't achieve a result. Your position seems to be that you don't care how much money is wasted, so long as we waste it in Donegal.

Seanies32 wrote:

Why bother giving money or jobs to disadvantaged areas like Ballymun. If you want to keep Dublin taxpayers money in Dublin, declare independence;)

Can I point out that my point was in response to yours seeking clarification. The conclusion I'm drawing from your reaction is, as Jack Nicholson would say, you can't handle the truth.

The BMW region is a massive recipient of State funding, provided by the rest of the country. What are you doing with those resources that is achieving so little? Why demand decentralisation as window-dressing for problems that are obviously local?

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

County V. Country again. Is it only Dublin people that pay taxes, live in Ireland and have a say on the direction of this country?

There are far more public servants outside of Dublin than in Dublin. Isn't it enough?

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

Clearly not, although as you'll see from the like I've provided, Dublin is the main net contributor to tax revenue. Cut out Dublin and the Mid East region and the rest of the country would be swinging in the breeze. This fact is rarely mentioned, whereas utterly wrong statements like Clause's to the effect that Dublin depends on tax raised elsewhere are commonplace and rarely challenged. If some are labouring under a massive misconception is it not right to point that out?

I take your point and the Government is trying to address this dependence on Dublin. We don't all believe that, you know! That's why we're disadvantaged.:rolleyes: Nothing wrong is seeing that.

The problem with that is that the revenues from Dublin (that of course a lot of country people contribute to) should be used around the country. Something similar to what the Germans, French etc. did with structural funds for Ireland in the 80/90's. If you disagree with that, well Ireland shouldn't have received EU aid and you are agreeing with Maggie Thatchers' view of Europe. Dublin was a disadvantaged area once!

schuart wrote:

The actually situation is, far from sucking resources in, Dublin is a national profit centre that the regions can and do receive considerable support from. Hence, the idea that Donegal is languishing for lack of central government support is simply wrong. If Donegal is languishing, its despite a very high level of State support.

It's roughly €700 per person. Thank God the EU didn't give up on structural funds after very little return in the 70/80 and early 90's.

boardmodstink

The garda ombudsman is still in its exclusive location in dublin as it was for many years before. If you live in limerick You still have to travel all the way to dublin to make a complaint. If they did not de centralise and as they are in their old premises they must have the old staff. Or they kicked them all out and re hired new staff. I cant see that hapening, it might happen on boards.ie but probably not if your work in the service sector for the state. Why did they not de centralise to athlone or was Dublin easier for people to get too .??

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

However, the point is the 'benefits' of decentralisation are marginal. The costs are immense.I don't think you'll ever tell us how much of a cost you would be willing to impose on the rest of the community for quite marginal benefits in Donegal.

What immense costs as against what marginal benefits? You're not objective, so you can't recognise the unquantifiable benefits that rural regeneration brings to a country.

schuart wrote:

I support money being spent on things that acheive a result. Decentralisation doesn't achieve a result. Your position seems to be that you don't care how much money is wasted, so long as we waste it in Donegal.Can I point out that my point was in response to yours seeking clarification. The conclusion I'm drawing from your reaction is, as Jack Nicholson would say, you can't handle the truth.

The Luas was a waste of money. Was it a good idea? Yes. I've pointed out Donegal hasn't received 1 job from decentralisation, yet, you keep referring to Donegal. Donegal actually has a very small percentage of the jobs in question. Doesn't bother me, as it's not about Donegal, it's about rural areas. Your opinion is, it's a waste to spend money on projects that don't produce results. Who's to say it wont provide a result and regenerate rural areas? The EU didn't give up on our "rural" country!

If your results is purely economic and cost based, well thank God for the EU, they didn't take that one track view.
Dublin was a recipient of EU funds in the 70/80/90's. The EU funded a "failed economy" where emigration was a "fact of life" in the 80's. The Germans and French showed more faith in the rest of Ireland than Dublin does, by the looks of it!

schuart wrote:

The BMW region is a massive recipient of State funding, provided by the rest of the country. What are you doing with those resources that is achieving so little? Why demand decentralisation as window-dressing for problems that are obviously local?

The proper infrastructure is only being built now. Broadband etc. that's only starting to be roled out properly now. New technology, which gives rural areas a chance of a level playing field, is only starting to be provided. Or maybe Broadband should be stopped too? What a waste of resources!

Seriously, look at the roads leading to Dublin and compare them to rural areas. We're not looking for M50's, thank God!, but decent roads. It takes time for Rural areas to get the benefit of economic booms.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

There are far more public servants outside of Dublin than in Dublin. Isn't it enough?

The ones that don't want to decentralise aren't being moved, they're being redeployed.

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

The problem with that is that the revenues from Dublin (that of course a lot of country people contribute to) should be used around the country.

Of course quite an amount of the 'country' people as you call them come to Dublin and never want to see the country again. They are quite happy to see the city develop and don't have this 'Dublin's too big' fetish.

Seanies32 wrote:

If you disagree with that, well Ireland shouldn't have received EU aid and you are agreeing with Maggie Thatchers' view of Europe. Dublin was a disadvantaged area once!

You seem to assign some massive significance to EU aid. For what its worth (and bear in mind I'm not the one barrelling on about EU money) we joined the EU to benefit farmers and at the cost of an amount of our indigenous industry. Some of it, like car assembly, we're probably well shut of. But I think you need to recall that Dublin and the other cities didn't really benefit massively from EU support. That, again, was a rural thing.

Which again brings us back to that point. The regions get massive support. The West is paved with airports - Donegal has one of its very own and the State has even given money to Derry airport to give even more air access to the area. There's an Institute of Technology in Letterkenny - again, evidence of how resources are placed in the regions. You've also got areas that get Gaeltacht grants on top of the usual grants to facilitate industry establishing outside Dublin.

Alabama, you've got the rest of the Union to help you along. What's going wrong?

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

What immense costs as against what marginal benefits? You're not objective, so you can't recognise the unquantifiable benefits that rural regeneration brings to a country.

The cost of reaccommodation alone runs to billions, with no sign of a break-even in costs for decades. And that's not to include the uncosted (but considerable) expense of moving people about, training, ongoing transport costs to name but a few.

The benefits are unquantifiable because they are not there.

Seanies32 wrote:

The Luas was a waste of money. Was it a good idea? Yes.

I don't think you're making much sense here. Luas probably cost more than it should, but so little has been invested in Dublin until very recent years (unlike the West coast, with its airports every fifty miles) that the massive demand for the service means that it still makes sense to do it..

Seanies32 wrote:

I've pointed out Donegal hasn't received 1 job from decentralisation, yet, you keep referring to Donegal.

Why do you think that statement is meaningful? Very few staff have yet moved out of Dublin as part of the current decentralisation. But what we are talking about is the planned programme - which as you know includes Donegal.

Seanies32 wrote:

Your opinion is, it's a waste to spend money on projects that don't produce results. Who's to say it wont provide a result and regenerate rural areas?

The considerable research done to inform the National Spatial Strategy, that's who. It identified (yet again, because its hardly a secret) that the problem with regional development is lack of concentration in the regions, not a psychological need to inflict damage on Dublin. Hence, rather than splintering central Government over 53 locations we should be trying to tidy up the damage already done by, for the sake of argument, moving the Garda training colllege from its splendid isolation to Waterford, where it could form useful links to WIT.

Seanies32 wrote:

If your results is purely economic and cost based, well thank God for the EU, they didn't take that one track view.

My view is economic in the sense that all social costs and benefits should be taken into account. Decentralisation as proposed does nothing to address the problem of concentration identified by the National Spatial Strategy. Therefore it will fail to achieve anything apart from wasting a massive amount of public money. Therefore its a bad idea. QED.

Seanies32 wrote:

The Germans and French showed more faith in the rest of Ireland than Dublin does, by the looks of it!

This is awful maudlin stuff. Can you not just accept your position is wrong?

Seanies32 wrote:

Or maybe Broadband should be stopped too? What a waste of resources!

Who said anything about broadband? To the extent that it aids communication, it could actually be useful. Scattering Government offices over 53 locations won't. Why can't you leave this 'I must support everything that brushes off Donegal even if its a frightening waste of money' mindset behind and concentrate on things that actually matter?

Seanies32 wrote:

Seriously, look at the roads leading to Dublin and compare them to rural areas.

Seriously, bear in mind that most people in Dublin are children of people who came from elsewhere so we are typically very well acquainted with other parts of the country. This idea that Dublin gets all the roads is just bunk. Roads around the country have improved over the years, and the well-known problems are being addressed. Problems remain - just as they remain in Dublin. Bear in mind in Dublin you shouldn't be so massively impressed at the sight of a two lane motorway. Have a look at the amount of traffic going down it and you'll find that the city is frequently served worse than Donegal. Something illustrated by this quote from the Western Development Commission's website

75% of people in the West spend 30 minutes or less getting to work
Average commute time is about 20 minutes
1 in 7 people in the Dublin area have to travel for over an hour to get to work each day
In the West it's only 1 in 20

Whatever way you look at it, if Donegal has a problem its not down to lack of resourcing. Hence, the situation you are in is not 'Dublin should give us the money'. Its 'Dublin has already given us plenty of money and we're still not getting anywhere'.

Hotblack Desiato

Seanies32 wrote:

What immense costs as against what marginal benefits?

I would have (perhaps naively, in an Irish political context) expected the proponents of decentralisation to give us the detailed costs and benefits and tell us at great length and in great detail just how it's in our compelling national interest. Can you sell it to us with, you know, facts?

You're not objective, so you can't recognise the unquantifiable benefits that rural regeneration brings to a country.

That's grade-A horse manure. They are most certainly quantifiable, the powers that be have chosen not to quantify them because they know they don't stack up against the immense and ongoing costs. Brendan who lives in Town A (not Dublin) and who now works in Town B, moving job to Town C slightly nearer to home and perhaps buying his lunchtime roll in Town C is hardly the stuff economic miracles are made of.

The Luas was a waste of money.

No, it wasn't. It's a profitable and highly used (too highly used, if anything) resource that provides ongoing benefits to our national economy. Sucks that you don't have one in Donegal but... we'd have to mention cost-benefit analysis again and people on this thread don't like those. Yes it should probably have been built for less money, but then, the decentralised offices certainly aren't being built cheaply...

Your opinion is, it's a waste to spend money on projects that don't produce results.

Absolutely. The results from decentralisation will be less efficient public services, greater car commuting into central Dublin, and a ten-digit-sized hole in our public finances.

If your results is purely economic and cost based, well thank God for the EU, they didn't take that one track view.

In the world populated by rational people, economics and costs are all-important in major projects such as this. Yet we are repeatedly asked to suspend disbelief. "If we build it, they will come 'twill be great lads."

The Germans and French showed more faith in the rest of Ireland than Dublin does, by the looks of it!

You've already been told the extent to which Dublin continuously transfers wealth to the rest of the country. Wouldn't you rather see that transfer spent on useful things rather than p***ed away on vote buying exercises like this one?

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

Of course quite an amount of the 'country' people as you call them come to Dublin and never want to see the country again. They are quite happy to see the city develop and don't have this 'Dublin's too big' fetish.

Off course, just as a lot of Dublin people have no problem, I'm sure, in wanting the country areas to develop! Plenty of country people want to go back too, doesn''t prove anything in particular. This Dublin v. country area thing seems to suit the anti decentralisation lobby better!

schuart wrote:

You seem to assign some massive significance to EU aid. For what its worth (and bear in mind I'm not the one barrelling on about EU money) we joined the EU to benefit farmers and at the cost of an amount of our indigenous industry. Some of it, like car assembly, we're probably well shut of. But I think you need to recall that Dublin and the other cities didn't really benefit massively from EU support. That, again, was a rural thing.

The significance is that richer parts of the EU transferred funds to a poorer part. Something that Dublin people are begrudging in doing to the rest of their own country! No particular significance to what part of Ireland received what, just as Germany and France didn't care!

It could be argued that the 12.5% Corporation benefitted us in the long run. We had a cheaper tax rate than the rest of the EU. Just because we joined the EU for some reasons, doesn't mean we didn't use it for our advantage and indeed Dublins for other reasons. Being part of the EU was used to Dublins and Ireland advantage.

We didn't join the EU to have 12.5% tax rates. It was part of the advantages that later transpired. Obviously Dublin and surrounding areas benefitted from that.

SCHUART wrote:

Which again brings us back to that point. The regions get massive support. The West is paved with airports - Donegal has one of its very own and the State has even given money to Derry airport to give even more air access to the area. There's an Institute of Technology in Letterkenny - again, evidence of how resources are placed in the regions. You've also got areas that get Gaeltacht grants on top of the usual grants to facilitate industry establishing outside Dublin.

Alabama, you've got the rest of the Union to help you along. What's going wrong?

The EU should have said you've an airport and Universities, Dublin, its 1985, away yous go!. You ever see Carrickfin, you call it an airport! Sure why bother with broadband either?

Dublin, you had the rest of Ireland and Europe to help you along in the 70/80's. You's where a wasteland. Everybody emigrated. You had an ISFC with 0% tax and you still failed. Dublin was a "failed economy" then. Yous can't see that now, or forget it, Dublin wants to forget the wasteland that it was. What unemployment rates where in Dublin in the 80's?

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

The cost of reaccommodation alone runs to billions, with no sign of a break-even in costs for decades. And that's not to include the uncosted (but considerable) expense of moving people about, training, ongoing transport costs to name but a few.

As against rents saved, and real economic revenue replaced! How do you measure revenue of civil service workers?

schuart wrote:

The benefits are unquantifiable because they are not there.I don't think you're making much sense here.

They're there. You want to measure everything in purely cost terms! Rural regeneration is there, you don't want to see it!

schuart wrote:

Luas probably cost more than it should, but so little has been invested in Dublin until very recent years (unlike the West coast, with its airports every fifty miles) that the massive demand for the service means that it still makes sense to do it..Why do you think that statement is meaningful?

Open your eyes, look at the M50 and the pointless extra lane. Look at the dual carriageways/motorways.

schuart wrote:

Can you not just accept your position is wrong? Who said anything about broadband? To the extent that it aids communication, it could actually be useful. Scattering Government offices over 53 locations won't. Why can't you leave this 'I must support everything that brushes off Donegal even if its a frightening waste of money' mindset behind and concentrate on things that actually matter?

Read my last few post about jobs in Donegal. Ah, but Broadband will mean the 53 locations will be able to communicate easier and the location wont matter as much! Rural economies matter just as Ireland mattered to the EU in the 80's.

schuart wrote:

Its 'Dublin has already given us plenty of money and we're still not getting anywhere'.

Ah yeah, return the EU Money then!. But off course Dublin never benefited from it. Thank God for the EU and not Dublin!:rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

Seanies32 wrote:

Off course, just as a lot of Dublin people have no problem, I'm sure, in wanting the country areas to develop!

I certainly don't have a problem with that. I hope they can do it in a more sensible and sustainble way than the greater Dublin area has, but given the fetish for one-off housing that's a folorn hope.

Something (wealth transfer) that Dublin people are begrudging in doing to the rest of their own country!

Begrudging or not, it's happening, it's happening in a big way and will keep on happening for the forseeable future. Please don't waste it.

We didn't join the EU to have 12.5% tax rates. It was part of the advantages that later transpired.

That's bollox. The traditional high-tax economies of the EU never wanted us to undercut them and they are objecting to it more and more strongly. If we never joined the EU we could have complete freedom in this area.

Obviously Dublin and surrounding areas benefitted from that.

Only because there were enterprises creating wealth. If all you have is socialised make-work in your area then corporation tax is the very least of your worries.

The EU should have said you've an airport and Universities, Dublin, its 1985, away yous go!. You ever see Carrickfin, you call it an airport! Sure why bother with broadband either?

That is simply incomprehensible. WTF has broadband got to do with Carrickfin airport?

Dublin, you had the rest of Ireland and Europe to help you along in the 70/80's.

Please provide figures showing the net weath transfer from the regions to Dublin in the 1970s and 1980s. I doubt you can, because I'm pretty damn certain that no such thing ever occurred.

K-9

On the M50, so a 3 lane motorway is going to solve it?

On the rest of the post, we're going around in circles!


The point remains!

schuart wrote:

Hence, the situation you are in is not 'Dublin should give us the money'. Its 'Dublin has already given us plenty of money and we're still not getting anywhere'.

Thank God for the EU, or we wouldn't be talking about any money!

K-9

ninja900 wrote:

No, it wasn't. It's a profitable and highly used (too highly used, if anything) resource that provides ongoing benefits to our national economy.

You factor in the Building costs and those economic costs yous are so fond off!

K-9

ninja900 wrote:

I certainly don't have a problem with that. I hope they can do it in a more sensible and sustainble way than the greater Dublin area has, but given the fetish for one-off housing that's a folorn hope.

Obviously one off housing would be a bigger problem for Dublin!

ninja900 wrote:

That's bollox. The traditional high-tax economies of the EU never wanted us to undercut them and they are objecting to it more and more strongly. If we never joined the EU we could have complete freedom in this area.

We had 0% and 10% before the 12.5% and we where still in the EU! We'd have no structural funds without the EU, be more isolated and we'd still be stuck in the 80's.

ninja900 wrote:

Only because there were enterprises creating wealth. If all you have is socialised make-work in your area then corporation tax is the very least of your worries.

Then who cares if you lose those jobs?

ninja900 wrote:

That is simply incomprehensible.

But EU funds for a backward, rural and "failed" Irish economy in the 80's was incomprehensible, including Dublin, was.

ninja900 wrote:

Please provide figures showing the net weath transfer from the regions to Dublin in the 1970s and 1980s. I doubt you can, because I'm pretty damn certain that no such thing ever occurred.

Please provide figures for the net wealth transfer from Ireland back to the EU in 2006. I'm pretty damn certain that no such thing exists!

Hotblack Desiato

Seanies32 wrote:

On the rest of the post, we're going around in circles!

Only because you repeatedly refuse to provide any facts or figures when your arguments are challenged.

I haven't replied to your last post because not a word of it makes any sense I can figure out. If you think one-off housing is prevalent in Dublin you must be on something.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

you can't recognise the unquantifiable benefits that rural regeneration brings to a country.

Er, that would be because they're unquantifiable?

Seanies32 wrote:

The ones that don't want to decentralise aren't being moved, they're being redeployed.

You mean that expensively trained and highly skilled people are being white-walled at considerable expense. Your earlier point that they'd be needing to be replaced after 12 years is questionable as you don't know the actual demographic of those whose jobs are being exported out of Dublin, nor that of the people (mostly 'promotion tourists') who will replace them.

Your claim that rents will be lower is simply optimistic. PPPs have a notorious reputation for cost over-runs & I have no doubt that rents will increase to Dublin levels once the staff are in place. Given the lack of suitable sites in the small towns, there will be no competition in the rental market and the landlords will be able to jack up the rents as the alternative (moving the office to another town) will be blocked by pariochal interests.

I have serious concerns for the impact on traditional lifestyles and the quality of the rural environment if this project goes ahead. For many decades, we city folk have lived in admiration for the non-materialistic, spiritual lifestyle of rural dwellers, now you want to change all that and bring the misery of commuter traffic and consumption to country towns. The destruction of the traditional frugal values of rural Ireland will be one of the outcomes of this plan.

The_Conductor

NewDubliner wrote:

I have serious concerns for the impact on traditional lifestyles and the quality of the rural environment if this project goes ahead. For many decades, we city folk have lived in admiration for the non-materialistic, spiritual lifestyle of rural dwellers, now you want to change all that and bring the misery of commuter traffic and consumption to country towns. The destruction of the traditional frugal values of rural Ireland will be one of the outcomes of this plan.

Try getting into Tubbercurry, Co. Sligo in the morning or out of it in the evening- its a very good example....... Its not quite at the bottle neck on the Dublin quays stage- but its not far off.......

Seanies32- you were singing the virtues of the EU and all the structural aid that came our way. I'll tell you one thing that has been massively negative for Donegal from the EU- its the way our fishing industry was sold up the creek. If we never joined the EU- we would still be in control of 30% of Europe's commercial fishing waters- instead of a pathetic 2.6% of its fishing quota- and we most certainly would not have the ignomy of Spanish fishing trawlers being arrested in the Shannon Estuary.......

Everything has its pros and its cons. The big problem on this thread is a lack of clear hard facts. There is lots of wonderful rhetoric about decentralisation- how the regions depend on it, how they deserve it, how they've been promised it- how Dublin will benefit from it, how Dublin can afford it, how it would be unfair not to go ahead with it, how those ingrates in the civil service are blocking it out of spite etc etc etc- but there is nothing behind these willfull statements to actually backup with hardfacts, the case you are making.

I didn't reply to your post either- because it confused me, I really have no idea what you are trying to say. I gave you an example of how to price the costs associated with proceeding with the plan- which you ignored (I was trying to be helpful)- instead we've meandered off on bitching about the Ballymum urban regeneration programme, the Luas, marching on the Dail etc.

While I love rational debate- thats simply not happening here- its a case of stonewalling anyone who tries to address notions or statements pulled from thin air, with facts.

Personally I don't see that this thread has any further function- once it went down the us-versus-them road, its demise was inevitable I guess. I'm unsubscribing from this thread- as I only get a headache trying to get my head around some of the lunacy here.

S.

NewDubliner

The country vs city exchanges are important features of this thread and cannot be ignored.

I think it's vital that thread is not locked: The waste represented by this project needs to be kept in full view of the public.

It's sad, but the media has mostly fallen for the spin and rarely asks probing questions.

There are more issues and facts here than have ever been seen in the papers.

Schuhart

smccarrick wrote:

its a case of stonewalling anyone who tries to address notions or statements pulled from thin air

I think you're right - we've reached the limit of rational discussion. As we know anyone can stonewall a defence of any daft scheme by claiming 'unquantifiable' benefits. What seems impossible is any reasoned discussion of what might actually do something for regional development.

K-9

ninja900 wrote:

Only because you repeatedly refuse to provide any facts or figures when your arguments are challenged.

The benefits of rural areas being regenerated are often unquantifiable, to both Rural areas, Dublin and Ireland as a whole.

ninja900 wrote:

I haven't replied to your last post because not a word of it makes any sense I can figure out. If you think one-off housing is prevalent in Dublin you must be on something.

:rolleyes: It was meant sarcastically obviously. One off housing is a country problem just as urban sprawl is for Dublin.

The overall mentality here from Dublin posters is that Dublin is being fleeced by rural "failed economies". Declare independence then and we'll get EU Funds from countries that appreciate rural areas :rolleyes:

K-9

smccarrick wrote:

Try getting into Tubbercurry, Co. Sligo in the morning or out of it in the evening- its a very good example....... Its not quite at the bottle neck on the Dublin quays stage- but its not far off.......

I take it that was sarcastic!.

smccarrick wrote:

Seanies32- you were singing the virtues of the EU and all the structural aid that came our way. I'll tell you one thing that has been massively negative for Donegal from the EU- its the way our fishing industry was sold up the creek. If we never joined the EU- we would still be in control of 30% of Europe's commercial fishing waters- instead of a pathetic 2.6% of its fishing quota- and we most certainly would not have the ignomy of Spanish fishing trawlers being arrested in the Shannon Estuary.......

Everything has its pros and its cons.

Agreed. The EU has generally been good for Ireland as a whole. Decentralisation has its pros and cons too!

smccarrick wrote:

The big problem on this thread is a lack of clear hard facts. There is lots of wonderful rhetoric about decentralisation- how the regions depend on it, how they deserve it, how they've been promised it- how Dublin will benefit from it, how Dublin can afford it, how it would be unfair not to go ahead with it, how those ingrates in the civil service are blocking it out of spite etc etc etc- but there is nothing behind these willfull statements to actually backup with hardfacts, the case you are making.
I didn't reply to your post either- because it confused me, I really have no idea what you are trying to say. I gave you an example of how to price the costs associated with proceeding with the plan- which you ignored (I was trying to be helpful)- instead we've meandered off on bitching about the Ballymum urban regeneration programme, the Luas, marching on the Dail etc.

And I replied with cost savings and suggestions that some of those cost are going to arise anyway in the next 10 year, so they are being brought forward. Go back a few pages and read the replies!

smccarrick wrote:

While I love rational debate- thats simply not happening here- its a case of stonewalling anyone who tries to address notions or statements pulled from thin air, with facts.

Personally I don't see that this thread has any further function- once it went down the us-versus-them road, its demise was inevitable I guess. I'm unsubscribing from this thread- as I only get a headache trying to get my head around some of the lunacy here.

S.

I'm wasting too much time trying to reply to 3/4 contributors on here! Decentralisation to rural by its nature will be costly. Is this country and its people so obsessed with money and cost that social benefits are to be ignored.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

The country vs city exchanges are important features of this thread and cannot be ignored.

I think it's vital that thread is not locked: The waste represented by this project needs to be kept in full view of the public.

It's sad, but the media has mostly fallen for the spin and rarely asks probing questions.

There are more issues and facts here than have ever been seen in the papers.

Agree it shouldn't be locked. The EU point may seem off topic but its relevant in that EU Funds where used for poor areas like Ireland before. Funds from Dublin off course are transferred to poorer areas now. Either that or we just give up on rural areas and move to Dublin! Some costs then! :rolleyes:

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

I think you're right - we've reached the limit of rational discussion. As we know anyone can stonewall a defence of any daft scheme by claiming 'unquantifiable' benefits. What seems impossible is any reasoned discussion of what might actually do something for regional development.

How do you measure the loss of rural areas as against rejuvenating them?
The difference it makes to peoples lives, off not having to emigrate or move 200 miles away to get work. The schools that don't have to be closed, the new services that open etc. etc.

Firetrap

Since money is apparently no objective, would it not make more sense for the government to put the money that will be wasted on decentralisation into proper rural development?

I've a friend whose husband has decentralised recently. Thing is, he was living in that town already and just going up and down to Dublin on the train everyday. As were most of his new colleagues who have also "decentralised". Now, it's nice for those people who don't have to get up at 6am every morning but it's not really helping the local town regenerate, is it?

All that's going to happen in Donegal is that people who are working in offices in surrounding counties or other towns will apply to work closer to home. Apart from a few Donegal natives who might want to come back, very few are going to want to up sticks and move there.

Since the scheme is voluntary and there are no redundancies being offered, you've still got that big problem of what to do with all the people who aren't moving. They still have to be paid and presumably new staff taken on in the new locations to fill the posts, thus causing a massive expansion in the number of public servants on the public payroll. That's an awful price to pay for a few thousand jobs, is it not?

More imagination is needed. That money would be better off spent on rural infrastructure, helping local enterprises and encourging businesses to establish in areas outside Dublin. At least those things would be tangible and real.

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

Declare independence then and we'll get EU Funds from countries that appreciate rural areas :rolleyes:

I think you might find that the environment has changed a little since a whole load of new States in Eastern Europe joined. No-one does pointless handouts anymore. Can I also suggest that your mindset that someone, somewhere, is clearly obliged to pour money in Donegal is downright embarrassing in its desperation. I’m not sure I’ll be saying much more here as this discussion is so far away from where it needs to be.

Seanies32 wrote:

How do you measure the loss of rural areas as against rejuvenating them?

I think the Government should fund a Linear Particle Acceleration Laboratory in my back garden.

Of course, they’d have to compulsorily purchase a tract of land two miles long starting from my house before we even get to actually building the laboratory. It would probably cost several billion, but in the light of the unquantifiable benefits of having a major Linear Particle Accelerator in Ireland, and its impact on rejuvenating Irish physics, how could anyone think we even need to establish the cost before proceeding with the project?

Firetrap wrote:

That money would be better off spent on rural infrastructure, helping local enterprises and encourging businesses to establish in areas outside Dublin. At least those things would be tangible and real.

This is what Seanies cannot seem to get into his noggin. No-one's complaining about investing resources in the regions. What people are complaining about is a policy that wastes resources to no end.