Decentralisation

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

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.

Well it worked for Ireland including Dublin in the 70/80's!:rolleyes: What's with the Donegal thing again? There's a good chance Donegal will see little of these jobs. Disadvantaged areas like Donegal and indeed Sheriff Street etc. have a right to funding. A caring Society is obliged to help them.

schuart wrote:

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.

Fair enough, your opinion. I don't think it's a major waste of resources as decentralising adds services, people and employment to areas which increases the likelihood of other companies basing there. Something like the ripple effect multi-nationals had here in the 90's.

At lease the anti-decentralisation lobby have moved on from the "I can't move for personal reasons" argument. Employers do not have to consider everybodies personal circumstances.

oscarBravo

This thread is being dragged off-topic. No more discussion on urban/rural divides, please. All future contributions are to be on the merits or otherwise of the proposed decentralisation scheme.

Ideally, I'd also like to see contributions confined to factual discussion. I realise this may be a big ask.

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

Well it worked for Ireland including Dublin in the 70/80's!:rolleyes:

I’m not sure you’re following the points that have been made. We got a load of EU money, but there’s actually precious little to show for it as you should be able to work out from the amount of infrastructural investment going on at present – if that EU money had actually addressed some deficit that investment would not be necessary. EU money was seen as free money, with no requirement for it to be spent sensibly. That’s where its similar to decentralisation.

Seanies32 wrote:

Fair enough, your opinion. I don't think it's a major waste of resources as decentralising adds services, people and employment to areas which increases the likelihood of other companies basing there. Something like the ripple effect multi-nationals had here in the 90's.

I don’t know how often the same point has to be made for you to notice it. The pointlessness of decentralisation is not my ‘opinion’. It’s the conclusion that comes out of the substantial research undertaken to inform the national spatial strategy. It found that the ‘mile wide and inch thick’ approach to regional development was utterly pointless – explaining how we could have spent so much to so little effect. To get the ‘ripple’ effect you are speaking of you need to promote concentration in the regions. Proposing, as the decentralisation programme does, to put 120 people in Buncrana, 230 in Donegal and 30 in Gweedore and similar little clusters in 50 other locations has no real impact. It simply repeats the policy that has been tried and failed for decades of pretending every town can be a development centre.

This programme is pointless. It achieves nothing. No area, no matter how disadvantaged (and leaving aside how much of this picture of disadvantage and abandonment by the State is inaccurate) has a right to expect large amounts of money to be combusted to no effect.

Seanies32 wrote:

At lease the anti-decentralisation lobby have moved on from the "I can't move for personal reasons" argument. Employers do not have to consider everybodies personal circumstances.

IIRC, this turn of the discussion was actually started by a suggestion that the arguments about the senselessness of this policy were just window-dressing to cover the unwillingness of people to move, so I think (not for the first time) your comment is hard to fathom.

NewDubliner

oscarBravo wrote:

This thread is being dragged off-topic. No more discussion on urban/rural divides, please. All future contributions are to be on the merits or otherwise of the proposed decentralisation scheme.

Just as the idea that 'decentralisation' would ease Dublin congestion was found to be bogus, the idea that this scheme will somehow add to the quality of life of unhappy people living outside of Dublin needs to be tackled.

The 'pro' lobby is desperately trying to pretend that this is the ONLY way to energise failing towns and that anyone who opposes this scheme is 'anti-country'.

This of course is, to coin a phrase of seanies32 is 'off course'.

oscarBravo

NewDubliner wrote:

Just as the idea that 'decentralisation' would ease Dublin congestion was found to be bogus, the idea that this scheme will somehow add to the quality of life of unhappy people living outside of Dublin needs to be tackled.

Kept in the context of decentralisation, I don't disagree.

NewDubliner wrote:

The 'pro' lobby is desperately trying to pretend that this is the ONLY way to energise failing towns and that anyone who opposes this scheme is 'anti-country'.

I've no problem with such arguments being refuted - I just don't want it drifting into a wider debate.

K-9

Firetrap wrote:

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?

Yes decentralising is helping in those cases. Instead of being away from the town for maybe 12 hours of the day, they are now their full time. It also solves the personal circumstance of having to sell or move home. Large commuter towns that are basically ghost towns during the week will benefit. The GAA, Soccer clubs will benefit, shops and other local businesses as well.

firetrap wrote:

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.

Thus keeping people in rural towns for the future. Unless you want to exclude local people from applying.

FIRETRAP wrote:

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?

It's a major mistake that redundancy wasn't offered. The Government was between a rock and a hard place on this though. Imagine if it was offered, there'd be even more uproar from the Unions and anti lobby. There'd be shouts of "we'll be made redundant if we don't move or don't like our new jobs! Or what would happen, if as you suggest they only offered decentralisation or Redundancy?

FIRETRAP wrote:

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.

The Government is slowly starting to do it. We also get detractors when decent roads are being built to rural areas, "what a waste of money etc."

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

To get the ‘ripple’ effect you are speaking of you need to promote concentration in the regions. Proposing, as the decentralisation programme does, to put 120 people in Buncrana, 230 in Donegal and 30 in Gweedore and similar little clusters in 50 other locations has no real impact. It simply repeats the policy that has been tried and failed for decades of pretending every town can be a development centre.

The above are feeder towns to Letterkenny/Derry. Akin to Kildare, Meath etc. for Dublin. It's important to give these areas jobs and develop them as well. There's a specific reasons these towns where picked. Fruit of the Loom, Magees etc.

schuart wrote:

IIRC, this turn of the discussion was actually started by a suggestion that the arguments about the senselessness of this policy were just window-dressing to cover the unwillingness of people to move, so I think (not for the first time) your comment is hard to fathom.

Yes, it's the main reason for not wanting decentralisation for most people and perfectly understandable. Employers, as in my own job, do not have to consider everybodies personal circumstances.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

Just as the idea that 'decentralisation' would ease Dublin congestion was found to be bogus, the idea that this scheme will somehow add to the quality of life of unhappy people living outside of Dublin needs to be tackled.

Freeing those offices up for higher revenue jobs and activities. Off course that is, good economics. That's a bit of a generalisation off course, nobody is saying it's a majic pill, it's part of the solution.

newdubliner wrote:

The 'pro' lobby is desperately trying to pretend that this is the ONLY way to energise failing towns and that anyone who opposes this scheme is 'anti-country'.

Off course it's only part of the solution. Decentralisation will help.

newdubliner wrote:

This of course is, to coin a phrase of seanies32 is 'off course'.

Off course, off topic, I would have thought! :rolleyes: "Failed economies" is a turn of phrase of yours!:rolleyes:

Schuhart

Seanies32 wrote:

The above are feeder towns to Letterkenny/Derry. Akin to Kildare, Meath etc. for Dublin. It's important to give these areas jobs and develop them as well. There's a specific reasons these towns where picked.

I'm sorry, but you are simply illustrating the kind of approach that has been tried and failed. Letterkenny simply does not have the scale of Dublin. That's the problem - there is no town in the North West of sufficient scale to 'feed' other towns. That's where you need to start, and that's what the National Spatial Strategy was trying to achieve. Decentralisation fatally holed the Spatial Strategy, thus killing off any chance of meaningful regional development.

If you goal truly is regional development, you should be an even more vocal opponent of decentralisation than the public service unions who's only interest is to protect the personal positions of their members. You have a substantial reason to oppose the programme, if only you realised it.

Seanies32 wrote:

Yes, it's the main reason for not wanting decentralisation for most people and perfectly understandable. Employers, as in my own job, do not have to consider everybodies personal circumstances.

I've that feeling of talking at cross purposes again. I think we've established, as various posters have stated quite coherently several times in recent posts, what we are pointing out is that decentralisation is an ineffectual way of promoting regional development. Hence, if your interest is regional development this is simply not the way to do it.

There's actually no reason for us to have to disagree. The only problem is you insisting that decentralisation should be carried out at any cost because of 'unquantifiable' benefits. I'm not clear why your argument does not equally apply to my proposal for the Government to fund a Linear Particle Acceleration Laboratory in my back garden, which will have equally unquantifiable benefits.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

That's a bit of a generalisation off course, nobody is saying it's a majic pill, it's part of the solution.... Decentralisation will help

So could drinking "Sunny 'D'".

You need a scientific test case. How about a giving us a case study based on an an existing 'decentralised' location, for example, Cahirciveen? You could tell us how much it cost and what the benefits have been to the town. Also what happened to the people who originally did those jobs? Also, pick a 'control' town, one that didn't get the gift of a some civil serfs, and compare how it did.

Schuhart

NewDubliner wrote:

So could drinking "Sunny 'D'".

How about a giving us a case study based on an an existing 'decentralised' location, for example, Cahirciveen? You could tell us how much it cost and what the benefits have been to the town. Also what happened to the people who originally did those jobs?

Not to forget the practical impact on the operation of the Legal Aid Board which, I think I'm right in saying, has had to duplicate staff in both Dublin and Cahirciveen as it simply was not feasible to decentralise its work, despite all the political pressure. I doubt if anyone is asking too closely what the staff in Cahirciveen are actually doing to fill the day.

At the end of the day the reason we fund a Legal Aid Board is to provide legal aid to people who need it, not to make-work for people in Kerry.

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

I'm sorry, but you are simply illustrating the kind of approach that has been tried and failed. Letterkenny simply does not have the scale of Dublin. That's the problem - there is no town in the North West of sufficient scale to 'feed' other towns. That's where you need to start, and that's what the National Spatial Strategy was trying to achieve. Decentralisation fatally holed the Spatial Strategy, thus killing off any chance of meaningful regional development.

Those areas lost jobs because of uncompetitiveness, just like Intel. No other reason. Unfortunately, as your not from the area, you wouldn't realise that they are feeder towns, though obviously not to the same extent as towns in Kildare, Meath etc. Buncrana is a feeder town for Derry, part of the spatial strategy.

schuart wrote:

If you goal truly is regional development, you should be an even more vocal opponent of decentralisation than the public service unions who's only interest is to protect the personal positions of their members. You have a substantial reason to oppose the programme, if only you realised it.

I see your point on the Unions, who will criticise decentralisation no matter what, in the interest of its members. I can see the knock on benefits from decentralisation, you don't realise that!

schuart wrote:

There's actually no reason for us to have to disagree. The only problem is you insisting that decentralisation should be carried out at any cost because of 'unquantifiable' benefits. I'm not clear why your argument does not equally apply to my proposal for the Government to fund a Linear Particle Acceleration Laboratory in my back garden, which will have equally unquantifiable benefits.

I don't disagree in the main part, especially that it should have been better planned in ways. Then again, the Government would have met opposition from the Unions no matter if it was a perfect proposal, because as you say they will still protect the personal position of their members. On your linear thingy! just because they are difficult to quantify and measure economically, doesn't mean its necessarily wrong.

If we want to treat things purely on economic terms, think of the new enterprises, revenues and employment that will be brought to Dublin by freeing up these locations by decentralisation.

Firetrap

Seanies32 wrote:

Yes decentralising is helping in those cases. Instead of being away from the town for maybe 12 hours of the day, they are now their full time. It also solves the personal circumstance of having to sell or move home. Large commuter towns that are basically ghost towns during the week will benefit. The GAA, Soccer clubs will benefit, shops and other local businesses as well.

You're taking my point of context. Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. My point is that although it's nice for the commuters who don't have to commute anymore, it's not going to bring this massive bonanza that local chambers of commerce thought it would. Or the property developers who were hoping to flog over-priced houses.

I also hope that these people who are getting a nice lie-in in the mornings are as capable of doing their new jobs properly as the people they've replaced. That is far more important than anything else.

Seanies32 wrote:

Thus keeping people in rural towns for the future. Unless you want to exclude local people from applying.

Don't hold your breath on this. Not all departments are recruiting staff and when they do, it's in small numbers.

Seanies32 wrote:

It's a major mistake that redundancy wasn't offered. The Government was between a rock and a hard place on this though. Imagine if it was offered, there'd be even more uproar from the Unions and anti lobby. There'd be shouts of "we'll be made redundant if we don't move or don't like our new jobs! Or what would happen, if as you suggest they only offered decentralisation or Redundancy?

It's not on the table so that's the end of that.

Seanies32 wrote:

The Government is slowly starting to do it. We also get detractors when decent roads are being built to rural areas, "what a waste of money etc."

Who says this? I don't think any fair-minded person would object to the roads around the country being improved. Rural infrastructure and decentralisation are NOT the same thing.

K-9

Firetrap wrote:

You're taking my point of context. Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. My point is that although it's nice for the commuters who don't have to commute anymore, it's not going to bring this massive bonanza that local chambers of commerce thought it would. Or the property developers who were hoping to flog over-priced houses.

I was looking at it from a different perspective than you. It's bringing economic and more importantly, extra social benefits for those towns.

FIRETRAP wrote:

Don't hold your breath on this. Not all departments are recruiting staff and when they do, it's in small numbers.

FIRETRAP wrote:

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.

Don't the numbers still have to be filled? Surely the ones who aren't recruiting will have enough numbers decentralising voluntarily in the first place, hence, they're not recruiting!

firetrap wrote:

It's not on the table so that's the end of that.

Unfortunately for everybody it wasn't an option. I think the anticipated Union reaction was a big reason why it wasn't.

firetrap wrote:

Who says this? I don't think any fair-minded person would object to the roads around the country being improved. Rural infrastructure and decentralisation are NOT the same thing.

You'd be surprised at the amount of people who begrudge any effort to fund our "failed" rural economies and try and help them. Some people don't see the point of providing broadband there! Decentralisation is part of an overall plan including rural infrastructure.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Don't the numbers still have to be filled? Surely the ones who aren't recruiting will have enough numbers decentralising voluntarily in the first place, hence, they're not recruiting!

Not if the 'new' jobs are going to people who are already decentralised. (These are the majority of applicants).The biggest number of applicants for Killarney came from staff located in Cahirciveen and who already live in Killarney. Net benefit to Killarney?

The nub of your argument is that the benefits of 'decentralisation' for your favoured towns cannot be measured and that if there is the slightest possibility of any benefit at all (e.g. 10 extra sandwiches a week being sold) that this justifies huge amounts of taxpayer's money (that might otherwise be spent on sick children or ailing elderly people) should be lavished on these towns.

With economic logic like that, it's not hard to see why those towns have failed to flourish and are reduced to pillaging the paypackets of hard working taxpayers throughout Ireland.

Capt'n Midnight

smccarrick wrote:

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......

If we had invested more in the naval service / air corps that would be less of a problem. But we had aconfiscated trawlers acting as fishing patrol vessel. It was making a profit, the fines were paying it's cost. But it was discontinued probably as a cost saving measure ?

Seanies32 wrote:

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:

Sadly the Government torpedoed that option, by extending the definition of disadvantaged areas for short term political gains. This meant that a more counties benefited from EU funding for a while, but the better ones raised the average so that the poorer one can no longer benefit.

I can't remember which counties are involved but I think it's just the western searboard of the BMW region - and IIRC cork / galway / kerry should have been dropped or something
http://www.bmwassembly.ie/region/region.htm

The_Conductor

Seanies32 wrote:

I see your point on the Unions, who will criticise decentralisation no matter what, in the interest of its members. I can see the knock on benefits from decentralisation, you don't realise that!

Seanies- the current scheme was the result of a joint proposal put forward on behalf of the CPSU and the PSEU- the two largest unions by far in the civil service, when the last programme for government was being discussed in 2002. The unions were massively in favour in the programme- as the civil service is a decentralised entity with only slightly over 20% of its staff in the Dublin region- the current civil servants down the country would benefit massively from the scheme through both the abilities to move elsewhere, and possibly through better promotional opportunities. In many cases the Dublin civil servants were ineligible for these decentralised posts, or their departments simply refused to release them. Can we put a nail in the coffin for once and for all- the scheme is a relocation scheme on a grand scale, rather than a decentralisation scheme- and the unions are not against it (with the possible exception of the AHCPS, who did sit down and carefully look at the proposals before deciding whether to support them)- they actually proposed it.

I know that you want your jobs in Donegal- you have several of them there already from the previous scheme (think of the Division of DSFA in Letterkenny)- the big problem is the manner in which these jobs were splashed around the place- like handing out a bag of candy- people wanted to make sure that no-one was left out......

If you accept that its a political answer to a problem that simply was never evaluated- then maybe the answer to the perceived problem is to plough on regardless.

The simple statement that is being conveniently being overlooked by the lets-plough-on-ahead brigade is the National Spatial Strategy. A lot of time and effort was spent on drawing up a plan that would ensure coherent viable development of the different regions- tangible plans were drawn up- it actually made sense. At a stroke McCreevy decided to toss it to one side and ignore it, for purely political reasons.......

That is what a lot of us are saying- the current proposals make no sense, have not been costed and the benefits, as they exist, would be frittered away to the stage that they were marginal in the extreme. We have decent proposals (the NSS)- that make a lot of sense- whats going on? Anyone who mentions the NSS is suddenly a pariah- and people in places such as Longford, Sligo, Roscommon, Galway etc- who would see their greater regions develop have bought the nonsense the politicians sold them and moved on.

Our national finances are in trouble again (we look ontrack to borrow 4 billion before year end), proceeds from the sale of properties are much lower than anticipated (as the are almost uniformly in terrible states and need massive remedial work on them), and those buildings that its intended to reassign to other purposes (such as the Department of Agriculture on Kildare Street- going to the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Department of Finance) have hundreds of staff still there that no-one seems to have thought of....... its a mess.......

Schuhart

Seanies, in post 2065 you’ve two quotes attributed to me that actually come from Firetrap (although I don’t have any substantial problem with what Firetrap has said). Incidently, others have made useful posts that you really should reflect on. I don’t know how to get across to you (as the points have been made repeatedly at this stage) that if regional development is your goal, this just isn’t the way to do it.

Seanies32 wrote:

Those areas lost jobs because of uncompetitiveness, just like Intel. No other reason.

You are simply ignoring the strategic weakness identified by the National Spatial Strategy. For as long as that weakness is ignored, policies will fail.

Seanies32 wrote:

I can see the knock on benefits from decentralisation, you don't realise that!

You don’t realise that you don’t ‘see’ benefits, you are simply asserting they exist. Anyone can make such an assertion. I can make an equal and opposite assertion that there are more valuable, but unquantifiable, benefits in keeping central government in one location. When you consider how the Legal Aid Board now seem to have two people doing jobs that were previously done by one, I’d even have some illustrative evidence that my judgement is right whereas you have nothing whatsoever to substantiate your position.

If you can’t substantiate your case, it really is time to change your view. There’s no dishonour in admitting that a view was formed on an incomplete understanding of the situation. There is dishonour in, at all costs, adhering to an obviously wrong view just out a fear of losing face.

Seanies32 wrote:

On your linear thingy! just because they are difficult to quantify and measure economically, doesn't mean its necessarily wrong.

I don’t think you’ve addressed the key question here. How is your assertion of decentralisation-related unquantifiable benefits different to my assertion of unquantifiable benefits from having a significant Particle Acceleration Laboratory? And is there any level of cost at which you would accept your ‘unquantifiable’ benefits are not worth having?

Seanies32 wrote:

If we want to treat things purely on economic terms, think of the new enterprises, revenues and employment that will be brought to Dublin by freeing up these locations by decentralisation.

Firstly, going off point, I have a feeling you may be using the term ‘economic’ to mean ‘financial’ or ‘profitability’. If something is ‘economic’ it may not be profitable – but it will yield identifiable benefits that justify the costs.

There is no identifiable benefit for Dublin in this programme and precious little benefit for anyone else. You have failed to identify any benefit that would justify this level of cost. Remember, you are trying to convince us that this is a useful thing to invest our collective tax money in. You are trying to convince us that this is a better way of stimulating regional development than the National Spatial Strategy. The Spatial Strategy has a considerable amount of research backing it up.

Where is your research that backs up your contention that splintering central government offices over 53 sites at enormous cost is worth doing?

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

Not if the 'new' jobs are going to people who are already decentralised. (These are the majority of applicants).The biggest number of applicants for Killarney came from staff located in Cahirciveen and who already live in Killarney. Net benefit to Killarney?

I have already agreed with you that other towns and cities could well lose jobs because of this. Moving them down the road to suit a politican is madness.

newdubliner wrote:

The nub of your argument is that the benefits of 'decentralisation' for your favoured towns cannot be measured and that if there is the slightest possibility of any benefit at all (e.g. 10 extra sandwiches a week being sold) that this justifies huge amounts of taxpayer's money (that might otherwise be spent on sick children or ailing elderly people) should be lavished on these towns.

Even if it's only 10 sandwiches being sold:rolleyes: there are huge benefits to the local community. Will somebody think of the children! :rolleyes:

There will be an increase in population, increase in trade for local supermarkets, pubs etc. Also even in towns that the employees commuted to and from Dublin before, but now work there, they will now be an integral part of the community rather than using it for B&B. They can use their extra time in the local GAA/Soccer clubs etc, charities, voluntary work, youth clubs etc. Their kids can go to school there and play local sports etc. There is a serious problem in commuter towns of people not being invloved in the local community basically because they commute and have no time available.

newdubliner wrote:

With economic logic like that, it's not hard to see why those towns have failed to flourish and are reduced to pillaging the paypackets of hard working taxpayers throughout Ireland.

Those taxpayers include residents of those towns!
Those "failed economies" you speak off.

K-9

smccarrick wrote:

Seanies- the current scheme was the result of a joint proposal put forward on behalf of the CPSU and the PSEU- the two largest unions by far in the civil service, when the last programme for government was being discussed in 2002. The unions were massively in favour in the programme- as the civil service is a decentralised entity with only slightly over 20% of its staff in the Dublin region- the current civil servants down the country would benefit massively from the scheme through both the abilities to move elsewhere, and possibly through better promotional opportunities.

So relocation was part of the concept. Wasn't aware of that.

smccarrick wrote:

I know that you want your jobs in Donegal- you have several of them there already from the previous scheme (think of the Division of DSFA in Letterkenny)- the big problem is the manner in which these jobs were splashed around the place- like handing out a bag of candy- people wanted to make sure that no-one was left out......

Well I'd expect Donegal to get some of the jobs especially with Letterkenny being part of the National Spatial Strategy.

smccarrick wrote:

If you accept that its a political answer to a problem that simply was never evaluated- then maybe the answer to the perceived problem is to plough on regardless.

Politics played a big part and the Unions as you have pointed out. It's going to be very difficult to get them go back on it now.

smccarrick wrote:

The simple statement that is being conveniently being overlooked by the lets-plough-on-ahead brigade is the National Spatial Strategy. A lot of time and effort was spent on drawing up a plan that would ensure coherent viable development of the different regions- tangible plans were drawn up- it actually made sense. At a stroke McCreevy decided to toss it to one side and ignore it, for purely political reasons.......

I think there would be massive opposition from Dublin civil servants regardless. They would not want to move for personal reasons anyway. Understandable.

smccarrick wrote:

Our national finances are in trouble again (we look ontrack to borrow 4 billion before year end), proceeds from the sale of properties are much lower than anticipated (as the are almost uniformly in terrible states and need massive remedial work on them), and those buildings that its intended to reassign to other purposes (such as the Department of Agriculture on Kildare Street- going to the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Department of Finance) have hundreds of staff still there that no-one seems to have thought of....... its a mess.......

I have always agreed it has been badly planned.

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Even if it's only 10 sandwiches being sold:rolleyes: there are huge benefits to the local community. Will somebody think of the children! ...There will be an increase in population, increase in trade for local supermarkets, pubs etc. Also even in towns that the employees commuted to and from Dublin before, but now work there, they will now be an integral part of the community rather than using it for B&B. They can use their extra time in the local GAA/Soccer clubs etc, charities, voluntary work, youth clubs etc. Their kids can go to school there and play local sports etc. There is a serious problem in commuter towns of people not being invloved in the local community basically because they commute and have no time available....

Again, you've no evidence or figures to convert your fantasy into fact. Again, you're ignoring cost. Again, you're ignoring the negative impact of population growth on the traditional life of your favoured towns. You're also assuming that the jobs will go to locals, rather than those very polite and efficient Poles. Indigenous culture in your pet towns will be ruined by the twin forces of consumerism and multiculturism, have you thought of that?

You're assuming that the people who will work in those offices will decide to live in those towns. You're also assuming that staff who already live in those wretched, pitiable towns, that you favour, will use the time as you fantasise, instead of, perhaps, studying for promotion which will inevitably be in some other town across the country because the jobs have been spread out so thinly.

Those taxpayers include residents of those towns! Those "failed economies" you speak off.

How many people exactly? How could these people pay tax if they are poor and don't have jobs? There is a strong suspicion here in Dublin, that demands of your towns are based on greed, not need.

How much money will we all have to pay to fund your fantasy?

K-9

Schuhart wrote:

Seanies, in post 2065 you’ve two quotes attributed to me that actually come from Firetrap (although I don’t have any substantial problem with what Firetrap has said). Incidently, others have made useful posts that you really should reflect on. I don’t know how to get across to you (as the points have been made repeatedly at this stage) that if regional development is your goal, this just isn’t the way to do it.You are simply ignoring the strategic weakness identified by the National Spatial Strategy. For as long as that weakness is ignored, policies will fail.

Edited, hard to keep track of everybody!;)
I take your point and I have taken on board some points. However, IMO it's part of a policy for regional development. The danger with taking the NSS as gospel is that rural areas will be completely ignored. The likes of Fruit of the Loom, Unifi etc. and indeed Intel move because of uncompetitiveness. The NSS can only do so much.

Schuart wrote:

You don’t realise that you don’t ‘see’ benefits, you are simply asserting they exist. Anyone can make such an assertion.

So there are no benefits then, they don't exist!:rolleyes:

Schuart wrote:

If you can’t substantiate your case, it really is time to change your view. There’s no dishonour in admitting that a view was formed on an incomplete understanding of the situation. There is dishonour in, at all costs, adhering to an obviously wrong view just out a fear of losing face.

Benefits to communities like in my second last post are hard to quantify financially, as often there's very little financial gain to the economy. They still are very real and important social benefits though. I have learned a lot on this thread, that's why I read it. Decentralisation has been organised badly, I accept that.

Schuart wrote:

I don’t think you’ve addressed the key question here. How is your assertion of decentralisation-related unquantifiable benefits different to my assertion of unquantifiable benefits from having a significant Particle Acceleration Laboratory? And is there any level of cost at which you would accept your ‘unquantifiable’ benefits are not worth having?Firstly, going off point, I have a feeling you may be using the term ‘economic’ to mean ‘financial’ or ‘profitability’. If something is ‘economic’ it may not be profitable – but it will yield identifiable benefits that justify the costs.

IMO, there are socioeconomic benefits here that are being ignored. By there nature they are difficult to measure. Some people would see no benefit from rural regeneration, others would see huge benefits.

smccarrick wrote:

There is no identifiable benefit for Dublin in this programme and precious little benefit for anyone else. You have failed to identify any benefit that would justify this level of cost. Remember, you are trying to convince us that this is a useful thing to invest our collective tax money in. You are trying to convince us that this is a better way of stimulating regional development than the National Spatial Strategy. The Spatial Strategy has a considerable amount of research backing it up.

Where is your research that backs up your contention that splintering central government offices over 53 sites at enormous cost is worth doing?

The NSS is not the complete answer. There was a lot of criticism of the locations picked for it to. There is a danger of making it the end all and be all and ignoring other areas completely.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

Again, you've no evidence or figures to convert your fantasy into fact. Again, you're ignoring cost.

You agree there will be social benefits for the towns or not?

newDubliner wrote:

Again, you're ignoring the negative impact of population growth on the traditional life of your favoured towns. You're also assuming that the jobs will go to locals, rather than those very polite and efficient Poles. Indigenous culture in your pet towns will be ruined by the twin forces of consumerism and multiculturism, have you thought of that?

Right then, call a halt to everything then!:rolleyes:

newDubliner wrote:

You're assuming that the people who will work in those offices will decide to live in those towns. You're also assuming that staff who already live in those wretched, pitiable towns, that you favour, will use the time as you fantasise, instead of, perhaps, studying for promotion which will inevitably be in some other town across the country because the jobs have been spread out so thinly.

Not assuming anything. Fair play to them if they get promoted.I presume the job will be filled again , though maybe we should exclude the Poles!:rolleyes: Some of these residents of those pitiable towns, pity people who live in Dublin and they have there reasons. I know it may be hard to see that people don't want to live in Dublin or have to go there for a job, but those people do exist! I've no facts they exist though, just peoples opinions!:rolleyes:

newDubliner wrote:

How many people exactly? How could these people pay tax if they are poor and don't have jobs? There is a strong suspicion here in Dublin, that demands of your towns are based on greed, not need.

How much money will we all have to pay to fund your fantasy?

Suspicions or prejudices?

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

You agree there will be social benefits for the towns or not?

At a guess, both benefits and drawbacks. I'd guess, on the balance, they probably cancel each other out.

Seanies32 wrote:

Right then, call a halt to everything then!:rolleyes:

No, just this totally defective scheme.

Seanies32 wrote:

I presume the job will be filled again

Net benefit to the town is nil. The point is that any shorter commute will not necessarily add to social activity. It will however, result in lower petrol sales in your town assuming that's where the fuel was being purchased.

Seanies32 wrote:

I've no facts they exist though,

You either have facts and can quote references or you're bluffing. I'm calling your bluff.

Seanies32 wrote:

Suspicions or prejudices?

Both, seeing as the scheme's proponents can't be bothered to present a credible case and insist on demanding blind faith in facts they do not have, but know exist. That's the stuff alien abduction cults are made of.

I've nothing against places outside of Dublin, I'd like them to achieve their aspirations in a dignified & honest way rather than by holding out the begging bowl and spinning incredible tales about deprivation and poverty.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

At a guess, both benefits and drawbacks. I'd guess, on the balance, they probably cancel each other out.

For the towns and surrounding rural areas, the benefits are huge.

newDubliner wrote:

Net benefit to the town is nil. The point is that any shorter commute will not necessarily add to social activity. It will however, result in lower petrol sales in your town assuming that's where the fuel was being purchased.

There is a far greater chance there will be extra social activity if the people actually properly live there, not just use the house for B&B. Petrol prices may have been cheaper in the other town, so the town may benefit!:rolleyes:Of course that may not necessarily happen but far more likely that it will.

newDubliner wrote:

You either have facts and can quote references or you're bluffing. I'm calling your bluff.

You seriously need facts that not everybody wants to live and work in Dublin, doesn't want 3/4 hour commutes, high house prices, enormous mortgages, high childcare costs, gridlock etc.

newDubliner wrote:

Both, seeing as the scheme's proponents can't be bothered to present a credible case and insist on demanding blind faith in facts they do not have, but know exist. That's the stuff alien abduction cults are made of.

I've outlined social benefits that can't be measured in financial terms as the point is they aren't financial benefits. They aren't less beneficial because of that. The socioeconomic benefits are clear. You either recognise the benefits or don't, which is fair enough.

newDubliner wrote:

I've nothing against places outside of Dublin, I'd like them to achieve their aspirations in a dignified & honest way rather than by holding out the begging bowl and spinning incredible tales about deprivation and poverty.

I posted the details from the INOU before.CSO statistics have been posted here too.You either reognise the facts or you don't.It's up to you, fair enough!Not going to force you!

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

For the towns and surrounding rural areas, the benefits are huge.

This is an empty claim. You've no evidence, you're ignoring the failure of past decentralisations, you're ignoring the major negative impacts.The money that will be wasted on these 'huge' benefits for your area could be better spent on healthcare and relieving traffic congestion in Dublin.

Seanies32 wrote:

of course that may not necessarily happen but far more likely that it will.

Or maybe not.

Seanies32 wrote:

You seriously need facts that not everybody wants to live and work in Dublin, doesn't want 3/4 hour commutes, high house prices, enormous mortgages, high childcare costs, gridlock etc.

Few people have a 3/4 hour commute. Those who are affected have already volunteered. More will have long commutes as a result of your plan.

Seanies32 wrote:

I've outlined social benefits that can't be measured in financial terms as the point is they aren't financial benefits.

The question must be: How much do we pay for these immeasurable, 'huge' benefits?

Is there a limit?

K-9

NewDubliner wrote:

This is an empty claim. You've no evidence, you're ignoring the failure of past decentralisations, you're ignoring the major negative impacts.The money that will be wasted on these 'huge' benefits for your area could be better spent on healthcare and relieving traffic congestion in Dublin.

Letterkenny has benefitted from previous programmes. It would be better spent in your opinion.

newDubliner wrote:

Or maybe not.

More likely it will!:rolleyes:

newDubliner wrote:

Few people have a 3/4 hour commute. Those who are affected have already volunteered.

It seems to be a bigger issue than a few people.The majority aren't decentralising so commutes wont be a problem for them.

newDubliner wrote:

The question must be: How much do we pay for these immeasurable, 'huge' benefits?
Is there a limit?

In your opinion they're not that important, that's fine.Building new/upgrading roads and rail links and rolling out broadband are expensive.If we stop decentralisation maybe we should stop them too?

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Letterkenny has benefitted from previous programmes. It would be better spent in your opinion.

Please provide details. How much did it cost? How many jobs (for locals) were created indirectly? Have administration costs been reduced as a result?

Seanies32 wrote:

Building new/upgrading roads and rail links and rolling out broadband are expensive.If we stop decentralisation maybe we should stop them too?

What makes you think building roads and running out broadband are comparable to an expensive unbudgeted project with no economic benefit? Improving infrastructure is common sense. The project known as 'decentralisation' is based on political whim, not reason.

We're still waiting for you to say how much money is too much money to be spent on the project. The silence is deafening.

MG

Schuhart wrote:

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?

No. If I were to put it for your sake simply, I would say that the majority of trained civil servants are in Dublin. If we want to de centralize power then we either need to decentralize people or sack all the people in Dublin and give their jobs to untrained people in the regions. I’m proposing the former.

Schuhart wrote:

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.

Again, how does Donegal County Council benefit from Civil Servants with knowledge of administering education being located in Dublin? From your logic, Spock, this area of national policy is a local fief of Dublin.

Schuhart wrote:

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?

No real obstacle except the refusal of civil & public servants to decentralise.

Schuhart wrote:

With real decentralisation you would expect, say, all local authorities to become responsible for running schools.

Fine, though at the moment the local authorities don’t have the expertise or manpower, the centralized system does. Now, let’s put this in the context of the real reasons that we have discovered for the opposition to decentralization. It’s not to do with Waste or inefficiency, it’s nothing to do with cost. As we have seen from other posters it’s everything to do with motives, like not moving the kids, staying closer to home etc. Their good honest considerations for the individual, but are not good policy drivers. For others in Dublin, it’s the thought perhaps of losing power or recession proof consumers. They simply don’t want people to move out of town, especially those with well paid jobs for life The message has gone out loud and clear, we don’t want to move because we’re comfortable here. And the regions have heard the message too. Put up a flawless case for decentralization with local authorities responsible for local taxation and spending and still it will be opposed because there is a powerful lobby in Dublin who oppose this for their own ends. There’ll be plenty of lip service about opposing this plan because it a bad plan but the truth is the thin veil of concern about efficiency and cost is a mere façade to blur the real reasons. The response of the regions has been logical and correct, the plan on the table may not be perfect but it’s the only deal in town and if you ever want any decentralization, this is the battleground to fight for it.

Victor

MG wrote:

...... or sack all the people in Dublin and give their jobs to untrained people in the regions.

Good on you, at least you have the decency to call a spade a spade (I hope I read that right ).

Fine, though at the moment the local authorities don’t have the expertise or manpower, the centralized system does.

It more complicated than that. The system, or rather, the Department of Education doesn't know how to run schools, because all but something like 3 schools in the country are run by external patrons. The other three are run by hospitals.

I would be loathe to see the local government system as-is running schools.

Schuhart

MG wrote:

If we want to de centralize power then we either need to decentralize people or sack all the people in Dublin and give their jobs to untrained people in the regions. I’m proposing the former.

But should we not be decentralising them into the regional structures that you envisage? Rather than moving a chunk of Education staff to Mullingar, say, and then on some subsequent date splintering them across every county. (In fairness, I should explain I think your argument is manufactured. I don't actually believe for a minute this fantasy you've created out of the ether bears any relationship to the decentralisation programme envisaged.)

MG wrote:

Again, how does Donegal County Council benefit from Civil Servants with knowledge of administering education being located in Dublin? From your logic, Spock, this area of national policy is a local fief of Dublin.

Donegal, and other counties, benefit as there's a clear national centre for policymaking. Hence, nothing is a local fief of Dublin. However, hand tourism policy over to Kerry and watch it vanish into self-absorbtion.

MG wrote:

No real obstacle except the refusal of civil & public servants to decentralise.

However, you presumably appreciate, there is no real demand from the regions for empowerment.

MG wrote:

It’s not to do with Waste or inefficiency, it’s nothing to do with cost. As we have seen from other posters it’s everything to do with motives, like not moving the kids, staying closer to home etc.

What we've actually seen is the substantive case against decentralisation, based on the fact that it costs a bundle and achieves damn all, can be substatiated by (for example) the substantial research that supports the spatial strategy. On the other hand, no substantial case can be made in support of decentralisation. Hence, you simply cannot steam beyond this reality just because you'd rather it was otherwise.

MG wrote:

Put up a flawless case for decentralization with local authorities responsible for local taxation and spending and still it will be opposed because there is a powerful lobby in Dublin who oppose this for their own ends.

I'm not sure if you actually believe this, or whether you are just saying it as window-dressing given that there is no substantial point to be made in support of your argument. In case you misjudge the mood, Dublin and the Eastern region would absolutely leap at the chance to switch to a system of empowered local government.

Hotblack Desiato

MG wrote:

No. If I were to put it for your sake simply, I would say that the majority of trained civil servants are in Dublin.

You would be wrong however, as has already been pointed out on this thread a couple of pages ago.

If we want to de centralize power then we either need to decentralize people or sack all the people in Dublin and give their jobs to untrained people in the regions. I’m proposing the former.

This is a nonsense argument as we all know it will never ever happen.
The political parties want power to remain centralised as it suits them.
The people don't want local authorities to have any real powers either, as every effort to raise local taxation is strongly opposed.
We're a small country and have enough crazy stuff going on at present, without every local authority in the country doing their own thing, re-inventing the wheel left right and centre and generally making a complete ar*e of things which are better done on a national basis. We abolished the health boards because one national structure is enough, but it will still take years to undo the pig's ar*e the health boards made of it.

MG

Victor wrote:

Good on you, at least you have the decency to call a spade a spade (I hope I read that right ).
QUOTE]

I was just pointing out that it is disingenuous to argue for the empowerment of regions without accepting the consequences of the decentralization of civil servants too.

MG

Schuhart wrote:

But should we not be decentralising them into the regional structures that you envisage? Rather than moving a chunk of Education staff to Mullingar, say, and then on some subsequent date splintering them across every county. (In fairness, I should explain I think your argument is manufactured. I don't actually believe for a minute this fantasy you've created out of the ether bears any relationship to the decentralisation programme envisaged.)Donegal, and other counties, benefit as there's a clear national centre for policymaking. Hence, nothing is a local fief of Dublin. However, hand tourism policy over to Kerry and watch it vanish into self-absorbtion.However, you presumably appreciate, there is no real demand from the regions for empowerment.What we've actually seen is the substantive case against decentralisation, based on the fact that it costs a bundle and achieves damn all, can be substatiated by (for example) the substantial research that supports the spatial strategy. On the other hand, no substantial case can be made in support of decentralisation. Hence, you simply cannot steam beyond this reality just because you'd rather it was otherwise.I'm not sure if you actually believe this, or whether you are just saying it as window-dressing given that there is no substantial point to be made in support of your argument.

I think these underline nicely the central issue that I have pointed out – that paying disingenuous lip service to decentralization is merely a façade for not wanting to move people or power from the comfortable centralized location in Dublin. Nothing substantive has been shown against it. Ironically, most of the arguments put forward against it can be turned on their head to argue for it. I’ve read arguments that putting tourism in Kerry would be a disaster yet having the department is Dublin is great. Because Kerry people are selfishly self absorbed while Dubliners are altruistically minded? I don’t know, it’s hard to wade through this fuzzy logic. Apparently there is no demand for empowerment from the regions, though there clearly is a demand for decentralization. I think this is, ironically, best answered by the quote from Ninja900.

ninja900 wrote:

This is a nonsense argument as we all know it will never ever happen.

Quite, it will never happen if even this limited decentralization can’t happen. Or perhaps we can change this quote:

Schuhart wrote:

hand tourism policy over to Kerry and watch it vanish into self-absorbtion

To read:

“hand national policy over to Dublin and watch it vanish into self-absorbtion”

The regions know that “empowerment” is best achieved at this point by decentralization. The alternative is to be run by people who know better than they do and have no regard for local authorities:

ninja900 wrote:

The people don't want local authorities to have any real powers either, as every effort to raise local taxation is strongly opposed.
We're a small country and have enough crazy stuff going on at present, without every local authority in the country doing their own thing, re-inventing the wheel left right and centre and generally making a complete ar*e of things which are better done on a national basis.

So is the argument that we could decentralize power easily to local authorities if they wanted it or is it that we can’t because the local authorities are useless? Apparently the majority of trained civil servants outside the Capital must be useless too.

This kind of contradictory reasoning leads me relentlessly to the same conclusion. That you are against decentralization in any circumstance and will put up any argument to stop it.

Humour me Ninja900 and Schuhart by reading the following quote:
,

Schuhart wrote:

In case you misjudge the mood, Dublin and the Eastern region would absolutely leap at the chance to switch to a system of empowered local government.

And then answering these questions:

Are you for decentralization of power?
And do you accept that a real decentralization of power involves the transfer of people from Dublin?

Schuhart

MG wrote:

I think these underline nicely the central issue that I have pointed out – that paying disingenuous lip service to decentralization is merely a façade for not wanting to move people or power from the comfortable centralized location in Dublin. Nothing substantive has been shown against it.

Hardly, as substantial points have been made that you are skipping past. What's not contested is that the reason many individual public servants don't want to move is because they don't want to change location.

MG wrote:

Ironically, most of the arguments put forward against it can be turned on their head to argue for it.

How can you 'turn' the point that the problem in regional development is a lack of concentration in the regions and scattering central offices over 53 locations does not address that problem in any way?

MG wrote:

I’ve read arguments that putting tourism in Kerry would be a disaster yet having the department is Dublin is great.

The reality you are trying to duck is that Dublin is the capital, where you find a government and parliament selected by the people with a job of public scrutiny of what the civil service does. But an isolated office in Kerry is just an isolated office in Kerry - a local fief. Tbh, the psychological satisfaction that many seem to get from the sight of stuff being ripped out of Dublin is distracting them from a quite negative consequence of splintering central government in this manner.

MG wrote:

Apparently there is no demand for empowerment from the regions, though there clearly is a demand for decentralization.

But this is the situation. There's a blind demand to have a public sector payroll, and no interest in anything beyond that.

MG wrote:

Are you for decentralization of power?

I'm in favour of local authorities having powers relating to their areas. I'm not in favour of making power more inaccessible by moving central government functions out of the capital and splintering them in to 53 locations. Hence, I've no problem with the idea of local authorities taking on responsibility for schools. I do have a problem with bits of the administration of education being scattered around Athlone, Mullingar, Edenderry etc for no obvious reason.

MG wrote:

And do you accept that a real decentralization of power involves the transfer of people from Dublin?

If local authorities take on additional functions, it presumably means they will recruit extra staff and staff in central government will become redundant. Whether any of the redundant staff end up working for local authorities is neither here nor there.

NewDubliner

MG wrote:

The regions know that “empowerment” is best achieved at this point by decentralization. The alternative is to be run by people who know better than they do and have no regard for local authorities:

The current plan, the one under discussion is not about decentralisation of power. At best, moving the Tourism HQ from Dublin to Kerry means that the centralised power moves from one central location to another. I'd doubt it makes any difference to Donegal if it's ruled from Dublin or Kerry.

I think you have a different decentralisation scheme in mind, one quite different to that of the current government?

MG

NewDubliner wrote:

I think you have a different decentralisation scheme in mind, one quite different to that of the current government?

Ultimately, I would like to see real decentralization of power. The current arrangement does not go far enough but it is a step in the right direction. The ultimate power will still lie in Dublin but at least more of the civil servants feeding into the central power structure will be regionally based and this indirectly decentralizes power, albeit in a limited way. Strategically, however, real decentralization will never happen without this first step. If Dublin based civil servants are not willing to move now, they never will. It’s not about the plan, it’s about the move for them. This is a real test of whether the civil service exists to serve the people or to serve itself. You can see in this thread the disingenuous argument being that people are for decentralization but against the current plan. For me most people who say this are simply making a PC argument when their underlying feeling is that they simply don’t want the power or secure jobs to move from Dublin. I’d rather they were honest about it rather than make this insidious argument. I’m sick of people claiming they are for the real decentralization of power, then when their bluff is called, conceding that this means they are willing to decentralize the running of local schools to local authorities.

Schuhart

MG wrote:

This is a real test of whether the civil service exists to serve the people or to serve itself.

It more of a question of what serves the public interest.

MG wrote:

I’m sick of people claiming they are for the real decentralization of power, then when their bluff is called, conceding that this means they are willing to decentralize the running of local schools to local authorities.

You need a major reality check. Decentralisation means empowering people to take decisions that impact their communities, not splintering Government offices over 53 lcoations so that it becomes inpenetrable and incoherent.

The real bluff to be called is the extent to which some simply don't care what cost is imposed on the rest of the community so long as a public sector payroll lands in some town.

NewDubliner

MG wrote:

but it is a step in the right direction.

I suppose if the regions are in favour of wasteful spending, this would be true.

Do you know the proportion of Civil Servants in Dublin compared to the rest of the country?

Victor

MG wrote:

Ultimately, I would like to see real decentralization of power. The current arrangement does not go far enough but it is a step in the right direction.

All the current arrangement will do is ensure specific localities will have high(er) quality specific services. Somewhere else will get a different high quality specific services.

There will be no high quality services throughout the country.

MG

NewDubliner wrote:

I suppose if the regions are in favour of wasteful spending, this would be true.

Do you know the proportion of Civil Servants in Dublin compared to the rest of the country?

Wasteful? The actual move is not costly from a property point of view and offers an opportunity for efficiencies in work practices. It’s a great opportunity for the civil & public service to reduce waste, pity that special interest groups are intent on destroying it. I don’t know the proportion of civil & public servants based in Dublin compared to the rest of the country but I’d be glad if you could let me know as well as they grades.

Schuhart wrote:

It more of a question of what serves the public interest.

If I may quote you “this really is an example of just stringing words together that say nothing, just for the sake of making a response” as it effectively agrees with my sentiment.

Schuhart wrote:

You need a major reality check. Decentralisation means empowering people to take decisions that impact their communities, not splintering Government offices over 53 lcoations so that it becomes inpenetrable and incoherent.

Your definition of decentralisation of power seems to mean being able to run your own schools while the jobs and power to fund these schools remain in Dublin. A reality check certainly is needed alright.

Schuhart wrote:

The real bluff to be called is the extent to which some simply don't care what cost is imposed on the rest of the community so long as a public sector payroll lands in some town.

The real bluff to be called is the extent to which some simply don't care what cost is imposed on the rest of the community so long as a public sector payroll remains in Dublin. And the real lesson is that beneath the bluster about “decentralisation of power” and “billions of cost”, the real reason for the campaign against it is the loss of jobs, money and power from Dublin and the human inconvenience of moving.

Victor wrote:

All the current arrangement will do is ensure specific localities will have high(er) quality specific services. Somewhere else will get a different high quality specific services.

There will be no high quality services throughout the country.

The frightening implication here, and another poster has said something similar, is that you don’t trust regional offices with power. You assume that they will only service their own region well. Yet this assumption does not apply to Dublin. The implication is that only Dublin can be trusted to administer power. It is in this context that you have to dismiss the “I’m for real decentralisation but not this plan” argument as disingenuous if you don’t trust the regions with even a minimal amount of power.

NewDubliner

MG wrote:

Wasteful? The actual move is not costly from a property point of view and offers an opportunity for efficiencies in work practices.

Last figure I heard of, just for property, was over 800 million euro. No figures available for IT costs, furnishing or replacement of expensively trained staff, including most of the IT cadre. No figures available for productivity losses during the handover. Work practices will become less efficient as they'll be implemented by inexperienced, unqualified people scattered over a greater area.

The project is being funded by selling off empty sites with high development value, not from rent savings.

Once the towns have their very own piece of the civil service, they'll never give it up, no matter what the organisational need.

There is no evidence of any attempt to create efficiencies during the relocation scheme, quite the opposite. The demands of the towns and not efficiency are being given the highest priority.

MG wrote:

It’s a great opportunity for the civil & public service to reduce waste,

It's a plan that depends on increasing waste as this is to the benefit of the lucky towns. Not just administrative waste but increased amount of motor traffic too. Traffic congestion in Dublin and the towns will increase.

MG wrote:

I don’t know the proportion of civil & public servants based in Dublin compared to the rest of the country

You need this statistic to prove your point that Dublin has more that its share of civil service jobs. Let us know when you find it.

MG wrote:

Your definition of decentralisation of power seems to mean being able to run your own schools while the jobs and power to fund these schools remain in Dublin.

This is project will increase rural dependence on central government largesse and undermine their independence.

MG wrote:

The real bluff to be called is the extent to which some simply don't care what cost is imposed on the rest of the community so long as a public sector payroll remains in Dublin.

Or, some simply don't care what cost is imposed on the rest of the community so long as a public sector payroll is taken out of Dublin.

MG wrote:

And the real lesson is that beneath the bluster about “decentralisation of power” and “billions of cost”, the real reason for the campaign against it is the loss of jobs, money and power from Dublin and the human inconvenience of moving.

These are legitimate concerns and should have equal status with the demands of the anti-Dublin lobby.

Let's be clear, this is non-Dublin vs Dublin. It's about fighting over resources.

Schuhart

MG wrote:

If I may quote you “this really is an example of just stringing words together that say nothing, just for the sake of making a response” as it effectively agrees with my sentiment.

No, it simply raises the reality that it depends on what you determine the public interest to be. If you see no public interest that is more compelling that the arrival of a public sector payroll in a particular town, clearly you will support the current office relocation programme. (I think we should stop using the term ‘decentralisation’ for this purpose of the discussion as its clouding the reality that, despite the label applied to it by Government, this is not a decentralisation programme at all.)

MG wrote:

Your definition of decentralisation of power seems to mean being able to run your own schools while the jobs and power to fund these schools remain in Dublin. A reality check certainly is needed alright.

Not only a reality check, but it would also help if you were actually addressing the points made instead of the points you wish were made. Clearly any meaningful local authority must have its own powers to raise revenue, while central government will no longer need to raise revenue for the services decentralised. I’ve already said that I’d envisage this would mean redundancies in central government and, most likely, local authorities taking on additional staff. The difference is I am advocating real decentralisation – empowering local communities so they can make decision that impact their lives – whereas you are simply advocating the creation of a public sector payroll in a local town for no reason whatsoever.

MG wrote:

The real bluff to be called is the extent to which some simply don't care what cost is imposed on the rest of the community so long as a public sector payroll remains in Dublin.

Sorry, that’s just one of your unsuccessful attempts to borrow my language because you cannot refute the point. The cost imposed on society by this office relocation is that public services will cost more to run and be less coherent and accessable than at present. That cost doesn’t apply in reverse. If cost minimisation is our goal, offices should stay where they are..

MG wrote:

And the real lesson is that beneath the bluster about “decentralisation of power” and “billions of cost”, the real reason for the campaign against it is the loss of jobs, money and power from Dublin and the human inconvenience of moving.

What has been established is that the costs are real, and advocates of the office relocation can only put their heads in the sand in response. The objective is simply to rip public sector payrolls out of Dublin regardless of any wider impact.

MG wrote:

The frightening implication here, and another poster has said something similar, is that you don’t trust regional offices with power.

Just being anecdotal, this it reminds me of a comment a friend said about her birthplace when the office relocation programme was first announced “If people think there’s a Dublin mindset, wait until they get a belt of the Clare mindset.” You might be rubbing your hands at the prospect of a public sector payroll hitting town, but they’ll be the most expensive jobs ever delivered. But who cares – I’m sure someone else is paying.

As we’ve seen, no coherent argument can be made for this office relocation programme. The ‘shifting power’ argument is nonsense, as there is no shift in power from central government. The ‘promote regional development’ argument is nonsense as the programme just scatters offices about and does nothing to address the need to promote concentration in the regions.

NewDubliner

From the "Irish Times".

Plan abandoned to transfer Revenue computer staff

The Government has abandoned plans to move hundreds of Revenue Commissioners computer staff out of Dublin after the State's top tax collector warned it would cause chaos in the organisation, writes Mark Hennessy , Political Correspondent.

Under the Government's original decentralisation plans, Revenue's information, communications and technology (ICT) staff should have moved to Kildare by the end of 2007. This was subsequently revised to the end of 2009.

However, it has been learned that Revenue chairman Frank Daly opposed the decision, and strongly voiced his objections to Minister for Finance Brian Cowen.

In an unpublished letter to Mr Cowen, Mr Daly is understood to have stated that the ICT staff would not move to Kildare and could not be replaced in sufficient numbers.

In a bid to keep decentralisation numbers on target, Mr Cowen has instead asked for 380 other Revenue staff who can be moved to the Kildare offices to be identified.

Besides meeting staff opposition, decentralisation was also opposed by Revenue management who want to ensure that the central computer and its back-up systems are kept within 28km of each other.

"The plan is that the Revenue central computers would be located in new national data centres, with one acting as the primary site and the second primarily for business continuity. We replicate changes to our data in near real time from the primary to business continuity site," a Revenue spokeswoman said last night.

However, Revenue insisted that it was "fully committed" to decentralisation, pointing out that it had had "a very successful experience" since it moved the Collector General's Office to Limerick 10 years ago.

Meanwhile, the Decentralisation Implementation Group progress report published yesterday reveals that so far 1,500 civil servants have moved to decentralised posts, although often they have moved from offices in the provinces rather than moving from Dublin.

More than 2,000 jobs will have been filled by the end of the year.

Just half of the applications to fill the 10,600 posts to be moved out of Dublin under the plan first announced by then minister for finance Charlie McCreevy have come from Dublin-based civil and public servants.

In a progress report submitted to Mr Cowen in July, the implementation group said: "It may be necessary to phase the move over a longer period than previously indicated. This would ensure that business continuity and staffing issues arising are addressed, including the allowance of adequate time to place staff who wish to remain in Dublin in appropriate

holly_johnson

I've read that report this morning and there's no mention of Revenue finding other staff to go to Kildare in it.

NewDubliner

holly_johnson wrote:

I've read that report this morning and there's no mention of Revenue finding other staff to go to Kildare in it.

It was in the covernote from the DiG to the unions:

The DIG notes that the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners has now written to the Tánaiste setting out his views in this regard. The Group understands that the Tánaiste has indicated that he would be prepared to consider proposals for an alternative mix of posts for the Kildare location and has asked the Revenue Commissioners to bring forward proposals for the sourcing of alternative posts to ensure that the Government’s commitment to relocate circa 380 posts to the Kildare location is delivered.

Cowen is not giving Revenue any credit for moving 100 posts to Navan, something which was not part of the original government plan but which Revenue decided to do (shock/horror) for reasons of customer service. Last time I checked, Navan was not in Brian's consituency.

There's some discrepencies in the stories carried by the national papers:
Times: "Meanwhile, the Decentralisation Implementation Group progress report published yesterday reveals that so far 1,500 civil servants have moved to decentralised posts, although often they have moved from offices in the provinces rather than moving from Dublin.

Examiner:According to yesterday’s report, there are decentralised organisations in 29 locations with about 1,500 posts moved. By the end of this year, services will be delivered from 33 new locations with more than 2,000 posts moved.

Independent:A NEW report has claimed that decentralisation is progressing 'satisfactorily' - despite the fact that just 1,500 out of a planned 10,000 civil servants have moved out of the capital......Tanaiste Brian Cowen last night hailed the programme as a success, explaining that former Dublin-based civil servants were now working in 29 new locations around the country.

holly_johnson

I didn't see the cover note, that explains that thanks.

It's interesting that he's not giving credit for the 100 Navan jobs, I wonder if that's an opening gambit in discussions?

NewDubliner

This direct criticism of the government in today's Irish Times contrasts with the gullible coverage of the Independent and the biased coverage of the Examiner:

Decentralisation review necessary
Irish Times Wed, 10 Oct 2007

If all had gone according to plan last December, some 10,300 public servants would have relocated with their jobs to eight departments in 53 locations in 25 counties outside Dublin. It did not happen. Most likely, it will never happen.

This week, the latest progress report by the Decentralisation Implementation Group showed that a mere 15 per cent of that number have moved. And of those who did, many have relocated not from Dublin which was the original intention but from other parts of the country. That has defeated one of the main points of an exercise which was designed to relieve population congestion in Dublin by achieving more balanced regional development.

From the outset, the decentralisation plan was ill-conceived. It has since proved unworkable. Nearly everyone, save the Government which was the architect of this spectacular debacle, now accepts this. Ministers have persisted in their folly. They were not for turning on decentralisation, it seemed, unless under the duress of some irresistible pressure. They have, however, succumbed now to such a force and turned.

As reported in yesterday's editions, the Revenue Commissioners advised the Minister for Finance that the plan to relocate computer staff to Kildare was simply unworkable. Decentralisation is a voluntary choice and as his staff were unwilling to leave Dublin, Revenue chairman Frank Daly warned that the resulting job vacancies in Kildare could not be filled by those with similar professional skills. Because this had adverse implications for the State's tax collection capacity, the Government relented and has dropped that part of its grand decentralisation design.

The decentralisation blueprint was drawn up by three members of government - Bertie Ahem, Mary Harney, and Charlie McCreevy - in conditions of great secrecy and outlined in the 2003 budget. The plan surprised cabinet colleagues who had been told the details just hours before the public were informed.

The plan was drafted without a proper analysis of the financial cost, without any assessment of the likely public benefit, and without any prior consultation with the public servants who were being asked to relocate on a voluntary basis. In selecting the areas for the relocated departments, the Government ignored also its own National Spatial Strategy which is meant to achieve greater regional balance. Most of the planned job relocations were in areas outside the growth centres outlined in that national planning framework.

The Government, in implementing its decentralisation plan, has now missed all the deadlines and targets originally set. What from day one was meant to be a self financing exercise has instead become a hugely expensive and wasteful folly. Decentralisation needs to be reviewed and revised, amended and greatly scaled down. The Government should undertake the task this time in consultation with those whose voluntary co-operation is essential to the success of such a programme, the public service workers.

NewDubliner

From the Sunday Business Post:

Government must act on spending
15 June 2008
While the government has work to do dealing with the aftermath of the Lisbon vote, its attention must also now turn to the economy.

Some quick decisions are needed. Governing is about setting priorities and seeing them through and, given the rapid deterioration in the public finances, some clear decisions need to be made.....

....Taoiseach Brian Cowen and finance minister Brian Lenihan need to set down some early markers. First up must be a complete revisiting of the ill-thought-out decentralisation programme. This is damaging efficiency in the public sector and costing us money we can’t afford.

I wonder how likely Cowen is to back down on Decentralisation? Recently a friend showed me the proposals for staffing the Dept of Agriculture IT office in Portlaoise. None of the expert staff want to move and the plan involves many new posts and promotions so that the existing staff can be churned.

The_Conductor

NewDubliner wrote: »

I wonder how likely Cowen is to back down on Decentralisation? Recently a friend showed me the proposals for staffing the Dept of Agriculture IT office in Portlaoise. None of the expert staff want to move and the plan involves many new posts and promotions so that the existing staff can be churned.

In all fairness there was a decision made by PAS that the EO JSA posts for agriculture would be strictly IT graduates- they trawled the AO competition lists and offered an EO interview to those who passed the AO examinations but did not get the interview. You have a bewildering array of terrificly qualified staff ready to go there- one new girl has a doctorate in electronic engineering, two more have grad dips and considerable private sector experience, etc. The only people without IT qualifications going to the posts are the internal promotion panel, and even they have been promised whatever training is necessary to ensure they are competent. The final IT move is not envisaged until the building opens on the Mountrath road- which is now scheduled for 2013-2014, which should be tonnes of time.

The ongoing union problem is the current staff want to keep their allowances, they want them commuted to "personal to holder" instead of being attached to the job as they currently are. They will in many cases be taking quite massive pay cuts when they go to purely admin roles, mostly in other government departments- though a sizeable number will probably end up in Backweston.

I have no idea what its costing- but if the current incumbents are being used to fill positions elsewhere as they arise, instead of new people being brought in, then at least a large chunk of the salary aspect is offset.

Anyone here do the most recent AO-ICT/3rd Sec competition? Results are due out in about 5 weeks time.