Is the election irrelevant?

Trotter

While having a chat with a good friend the other day about the election, he mentioned something which threw me a bit, and I've been thinking about it a good bit since.

His opinion is that the election is irrelevant, in that if a non radical party is in charge (i.e. we agreed that SF's economic policies are radically flawed and wont work), the country will see no difference because..

.. the senior civil servants run the country.

When I thought about it, I considered that it is the senior civil servants that make almost all of the decisions that influence our lives, and that the ministers really only make final calls on different things once a general department consensus has been made.

Im still a lit bit pensive about the idea, but.. its shockingly close to the truth. Would the country be in relatively the same position had FF, FG, and Labour got into government the last time?

I cant give my opinion on it, because I actually dont have one yet! My first reaction is to say.. rubbish.. the department officials do what they're told.. but really.. do they?

Is it a case that they run the show and put a tie on every month when "the boss" comes to visit.. like so many people do?

Your thoughts?

ballooba

I depends on your own viewpoint. I don't believe we need radical change. I think radical change is dangerous in any context (organisational change for instance). What our politicians refer to as radical change is often far from radical change. Our current systems are really not all that terrible. Be careful what you mean when you use the word radical.

Trotter wrote:

I cant give my opinion on it, because I actually dont have one yet! My first reaction is to say.. rubbish.. the department officials do what they're told.. but really.. do they?

Too often the two will play off each other, endlessly shifting the blame back and forth until it's unclear who really is at fault. There is no accountibility in my opinion. I believe there is terrible waste of money in the public sector. Through wages and spending, government accounts are cushy numbers.

You will also notice that certain departments will not perform well under a certain minister. Be they bad (Dick Roche, John O'Donoghue) or just in the wrong job (Seamus Brennan). This could just be down to the minister rubbing the civil servants up the wrong way. This wouldn't explain how ministers sometimes perform better when given a new role though.

Trotter

ballooba wrote:

I depends on your own viewpoint. I don't believe we need radical change. I think radical change is dangerous in any context (organisational change for instance). What our politicians refer to as radical change is often far from radical change. Our current systems are really not all that terrible. Be careful what you mean when you use the word radical.

Be careful??? Radical = far beyond the norm = Many of SF's policies. Some agree with them, some dont. Thats the beauty of democracy.

I agree that we dont need a radical change, just a lot more consideration of the actuality of peoples lives.. which is not being appreciated by the government. Too much looking at figures.. take the minister for Ed and Science for example. She's certifiably crazy if she thinks that she's doing a decent job on primary class sizes.

My main point though..getting back on track.. is that can the next minister, whoever it is, and whatever department it is, make a huge difference if the department staff are the same?

Múinteoir

No I wouldn't agree that civil servants inevitably call all the shots. They do call all the shots if the minister is an incompetent retard without an original idea in his/her head (as many of the current ministers are), but that's only natural because you have to have some continuity in how the country is run if no new leadership is provided. But they don't have any veto over any new change in policy.

Sometimes for instance you'll have a minister who has absolutely no range of expertise in their given ministry*,so obviously in that situation the minister is likely to bow to the expertise of the civil servants, but that's only because the minister in question is an incompetent idiot, not because the civil servants rule with an iron fist.

All you need is a minister who actually has a clue what they are doing, but sadly such people are almost completely lacking from the current cabinet.

And one last point, if the civil servant really were the ones calling the shots, do you honestly think the ham-fisted decentralisation plan would have even got past the planning stages? I think not. :rolleyes: No one has been more radically against it. Yet it is still in progress.

* Mary Coughlan as agricultural minister for instance is a joke. She has no farming background and she did sociology for her degree. Remember that incident in the 2005 Meath by-election, where a farmer who she was canvassing, tried to show her up on the fact that she didn't know one end of a cow from another?

Glenbhoy

I agree to a large extent - politicians can give general strategical advice, like, let's cut taxes or something, the civil servants tell them if that's feasible or not. Of course it doesn't have to be that way, but the problem is that politicians are too busy looking towards the next election (at all times) and so they'll rarely make decisions that are for the long term good of the country, but that might cause short term pain. The long and the short of it is that for the most part, the quality of politicians is very poor in this country, visionary they are not.

Trotter

I think I agree fully with you Múinteoir.. although, I think the current Minister for Education was a teacher right? How can she think its acceptable to have 35 children in one classroom?

Thats just an example of where a minister with relevant knowledge should be leading from the front, not hiding behind red tape, civil servants, and whatever else she can duck behind.

In general I think senior civil servants have serious power, way too much so. You're right to say that competent ministers would delegate and manage the senior department officials effectively, otherwise they just do their own thing.

Múinteoir

Trotter wrote:

I think I agree fully with you Múinteoir.. although, I think the current Minister for Education was a teacher right?

Yes Mary Hanafin trained as a teacher (like many TDs, like Enda Kenny) but has very little actually practical experience of being a teacher and running a school. She became a TD very early on, so her educational expertise are not exactly the best. Still fifty times more qualified that Mary Coughlan in Agriculture though!!

Múinteoir

As regards Mary Hanafin, it makes me laugh how so many people seem to see her as a potential first woman Taoiseach. She one of the prize imcompetents in the current cabinet and FF's prospects are very dim in future, if she ends up leader.

Glenbhoy

from FF website:

http://www.fiannafail.ie/candidate.phpx?pid=14&bid=426&rel=Candidate&aid=110

Born Donegal Town May 1965. Married to David Charlton, one son and one daughter. Educated Ursuline Convent, Sligo and UCD (B.Soc.Sci). Full time Public Representative and former Social Worker. First elected 1987 and at each subsequent election.

But sure, wouldn't every 22 yo love to get down to Dublin and have all expenses paid - i dunno how anyone could think she's not qualified to be a minister, i'd be more worried about whether she should be a TD!!

ballooba

Trotter wrote:

Be careful??? Radical = far beyond the norm = Many of SF's policies. Some agree with them, some dont. Thats the beauty of democracy.

I'm not too sure if Sinn Fein's ideas are all that radical. I think that they have had to soften their views on a lot of issues to become more appealing to the masses.

Various politicians try and pass off the Greens and Sinn Fein as radical and that the country will spontaneously fall apart as soon as these people are elected. The representatives of these parties are not stupid. They are not going to implement radical changes if they get into power. They would never be elected again. It would be hard to 'radically' improve on the status quo.

Also given that these parties are a fair bit left of centre they do not have the type of following that centre left (FF) and centre right (FG) parties have. As a result they are dependent on a coalition to government to get into power.

That is why a party which is a fair bit right of centre (PD) has not had as much influence in this government as they would have liked. Ideologically I would think that the views that members of the PDs hold in private would be a lot more radical than than those they espouse. They have to tone it down a bit to avoid scaring people off.

My concept of radical change would tend towards that of the establishment in Ireland of:
- A Communist State
- A Monarchy
- A Dictatorship (under Bertie or McD :eek:)
or something similar.

I don't think we have radical parties in Ireland. Except maybe for Joe Higgins et al. but at least he's entertaining.

brianthebard

I think if the senior civil servants are running the country its only because the same government has been in power so long that they know what to expect and how to work with each other. As already said the country doesn't want something radical, they want increased efficency with regards to what they have now-money should be handled better, less silly ideas, tackling health and teaching more effectively-that can be done with any group of civil servants and any government that is competent enough. Obviously the present one isn't.

Múinteoir

Glenbhoy wrote:

from FF website:

http://www.fiannafail.ie/candidate.phpx?pid=14&bid=426&rel=Candidate&aid=110



But sure, wouldn't every 22 yo love to get down to Dublin and have all expenses paid - i dunno how anyone could think she's not qualified to be a minister, i'd be more worried about whether she should be a TD!!

Maybe she (Mary Coughlan) would be a good minister at something else (though probably not), but having her in agriculture is just farcical. Also from 1997-2002, Bertie had a Minister for the Gaeltacht (Síle De Valera) who couldn't speak Irish!

K-9

M&#250 wrote: »

Maybe she (Mary Coughlan) would be a good minister at something else (though probably not), but having her in agriculture is just farcical.

Actually she comes from a rural background, a couple of miles from where I grew up. Her family all had political backgrounds in the constituency before her. She would have plenty of experience from listening to her family and constituents of farming issues. She may have been 22 when she was elected but she has performed quite capably for 20 years.

I'm trying to think if there are any other alternatives in FF for Agriculture other than Joe Walsh who had Agriculture before.

DeVore

The only reason I'd vote is if they had a NONE OF THE ABOVE option.

Otherwise it really is irrelevant. Thats not to say it *should* be, in fact it should be the most relevant decision of the year but in reality we have a choice between a bunch of middle of the road dickheads who care about nothing but their pockets and a bunch of lunatics who would wreck the country but who have 0 support. Realistically we are going to have a bunch of ineffective self-servers and no vote that is cast will change that because there is only a Hobson's Choice.

DeV.

Mick86

brianthebard wrote:

I think if the senior civil servants are running the country its only because the same government has been in power so long that they know what to expect and how to work with each other.

That and the fact that no government minister has the wit, intelligence, initiative or balls to run anything. TDs and Ministers are figureheads. Without their Civil Servants they would not have a clue whats going on. Remember when Micheál Martin got caught out on some issue when he was Minister for Health, he blamed his Civil Servants for not briefing him.

I have always voted. Never missed the opportunity since 1981. Thsi time round I couldn't be bothered. Some combination of FF and continuity FF will get in. It won't make a whit of difference to me.

ballooba

Mick86 wrote:

Remember when Micheál Martin got caught out on some issue when he was Minister for Health, he blamed his Civil Servants for not briefing him.

I believe that is in the video that is linked in my sig. Just click on the word clowns.

Remember, If you don't vote then you lose your democratic right to give out about the government for five years!!!!

Múinteoir

Mick86 wrote:

That and the fact that no government minister has the wit, intelligence, initiative or balls to run anything. TDs and Ministers are figureheads. Without their Civil Servants they would not have a clue whats going on. Remember when Micheál Martin got caught out on some issue when he was Minister for Health, he blamed his Civil Servants for not briefing him.

I have always voted. Never missed the opportunity since 1981. Thsi time round I couldn't be bothered. Some combination of FF and continuity FF will get in. It won't make a whit of difference to me.

And what if they get in on one vote? Will that make you feel better? I think ballooba stated that he didnt vote last time because he presumed FF would get kicked out! Thw whole point of voting is showing who you think should govern, not who you think will. On that basis it just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's like a person who lacks self-confidence assuming that they will always fail in whatever they do. They certainly will with that attitude!
Not a good way to assess the worthiness of whether you vote, people! You have nothing to lose by voting and plenty to lose by not doing so.

Grudaire

Well you do lose around an hour of your life, getting to and from polling.

But how can you expect anything better by not voting?

Múinteoir

Cliste wrote:

Well you do lose around an hour of your life, getting to and from polling.

In all fairness, when most people spend three to four hours rotting their brains in front of the telly of an evening, that's nothing.

OPENROAD

ballooba wrote:

I believe that is in the video that is linked in my sig. Just click on the word clowns.

Remember, If you don't vote then you lose your democratic right to give out about the government for five years!!!!

Well said, the amount of people who I here complaining about issues that have an impact on there daily life, but who don't vote, don't even know who their local TD, and wouldn't be bothered contacting them.

Undergod

To be honest, I reckon the Civil Service does have more control than the actual Dáil in a lot of ways.

But our democracy is a total joke anyway. People have effectively no say in what happens in the country. You can elect one person to join an assembly of many others who between them decide upon policies and laws. We are so far removed from the decision-making process it's not even funny.