Future Civil Servants will be second rate

Tora Bora

Classic :rolleyes::rolleyes:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0806/1224276311101.html

THE CHAIRMAN of the Higher Public Servants Remuneration Committee has voiced concerns that future generations of top civil servants may be “second division” material.
Tony O’Brien said Minister for Communications Eamon Ryan, who last week announced the Government was to open up top public service jobs to private-sector applicants, was going to be disappointed. “The pay differentials are still enormous. You may get the odd one but by and large you won’t.”
Mr O’Brien, who stood down as chairman of CC this week, said the ability and work rate of some secretaries general, such as Dermot McCarthy in the Department of An Taoiseach, was phenomenal. “And they have great minds.”
Speaking to The Irish Times , he said it was the culture 30 years ago that the cream of the country went for public sector jobs. However, he said, the private sector would “attract the cream in the future”.
“I’d worry about the future, about 15 years’ time. They won’t be the cream of the nation. They’ll be the second division, and that will be a challenge for the Government.”
He said his committee at first looked at how pay rates compared with the private sector. Pay rates at the top of the private sector were way ahead of those in the public sector. “Also, private sector pensions at the top are very attractive and the public sector guys know that very well.”
He said the case for higher pay for top civil servants had been weakened by the fact their quality was not an issue. “I think it will be in the future.”
Since the downturn, the committee looked at pay rates in comparable European countries. It found Irish rates compared favourably.
Mr O’Brien said it was his view that people were motivated by the power and influence that came with being a senior public servant but he still believed “Ireland Inc” would suffer in the longer term because the pay differentials were too great.
Asked about the implications of secretaries general getting paid more than their ministers, he said he had discussed this with a number of ministers. “They certainly don’t like it but they might wear it if they had to.” He said senior ministers and taoisigh could earn more money after they left office. “But the poor old secretary generals don’t.”
On balance, he felt the quality of the thinking of a secretary general was vital to the State’s interests and, “we should pay premium rates to get the best talent we can”.
He said the committee’s examination indicated the cuts in private sector pay had been overstated in the media. “The cuts weren’t anything like the folklore would suggest, while in the public service they were very significant.”
Mr O’Brien, who was on the board of Anglo Irish Bank as a non-executive director for five years and chairman for four years up to 2002, also spoke about his time there.
“During my reign it was a winning formula,” he said. The Anglo team were “the envy of the banking world” and seemed invincible. “Directors’ loans, I can tell you, were modest when I was there.” He said that during his period there management knew that a bank needed a diversified loan portfolio. “They didn’t heed that ultimately. They fell for what they said they shouldn’t do.” The bank was “wedded to property”.
Mr O’Brien, who also sat on the board of CRH, said the company, which sold cement to the Irish market, was more cautious about the property boom. “Brian Griffin and his guys would say, ‘something’s got to give here,’ and we’d say, ‘come on, enjoy it.’ But they were issuing warnings to their board, saying forecasts had to be toned back. But the banks weren’t. They were just fuelling it.”
He said the former Anglo chief executive and chairman, Seán FitzPatrick, was a “fairly autocratic” manager. “Success gave him added freedom and licence. And the shareholders loved him. I chaired four agms and he got a standing ovation at each of them. It was a great shame that it went wrong with Anglo. It was a lovely story for so long. My heart would go out to Seán

Funkfield

Why is this classic?

20Cent

Seems like stating the obvious.

ei.sdraob

he said it was the culture 30 years ago that the cream of the country went for public sector jobs

Cream of the country? Cream of the country! :rolleyes: :cool: :pac:

ffs Elephants s***k is creamier

Tora Bora

Tora Bora wrote: »

Classic :rolleyes::rolleyes:

He said the former Anglo chief executive and chairman, Seán FitzPatrick, was a “fairly autocratic” manager. “Success gave him added freedom and licence. And the shareholders loved him. I chaired four agms and he got a standing ovation at each of them. It was a great shame that it went wrong with Anglo. It was a lovely story for so long. My heart would go out to Seán

Classicer and classicer:cool::cool:

The_Honeybadger

I can't believe the neck of this f**ker, cream of the crop?? This is the same cream of the crop which presided over the period where we developed one of the most expensive public services on planet Earth, with very little to show for it in terms of improved services. What does he expect, to be rewarded for failure? The arrogance in his statement is almost unbelieveable.

The_Honeybadger

Tora Bora wrote: »

He said the former Anglo chief executive and chairman, Seán FitzPatrick, was a “fairly autocratic” manager. “Success gave him added freedom and licence. And the shareholders loved him. I chaired four agms and he got a standing ovation at each of them. It was a great shame that it went wrong with Anglo. It was a lovely story for so long. My heart would go out to Seán

Just read this bit at the end, sweet jesus is it April 1st or something?

Tora Bora

Funkfield wrote: »

Why is this classic?

Classic :rolleyes::D

dan_d

God almighty.
Where do we get these people?

Firstly I hardly think that sitting on Anglo's board, or in fact, doing anything that involved you with Anglo's senior management in the last 10-15 years recommends you as an authority on anything except what NOT to do.

Secondly "the poor old secretary generals"??My heart bleeds for them - god knows it's hard enough having to survive on a salary of 100,000eur or more for a good section of your career. Terribly tough.

As for what he says about CRH....I'm a bit disgusted to be honest. CRH are one of the country's most successful businesses, run by people with a bit of cop on. This man has just shown himself up as complete idiot - "come on, enjoy it"???What? Thankfully at least there were some people out there who had the common sense to tell idiots like this fellow where to go...or to ignore them completely.

He should also look up the definition of autocratic. Hardly a compliment on the individual, his form of "ruling" or his methods for success.And success may have given Sean Fitzpatrick added licence and freedom, but if Sean Fitzpatrick had behaved like he did here in any other country, he would either have simply not been allowed to carry out half of what he did due to tighter regulation, or he would now find himself in front of a judge facing a jail term.The combination of the Irish method of governing, and someone who is "Autocratic" and in charge of a bank, led to the disaster that is Anglo.It wasn't a lovely story. It was a complete sham, with crooked dealings going on at every opportunity behind the scenes, and if this man is stupid enough to believe that it was "a lovely story" I would have to seriously question his intelligence. And more worryingly, that there are others around him that truly believe Anglo was great and things were wonderful and it's a "shame" that things went wrong. Has it not occurred to him that Sean Fitzpatrick is the author of all his own problems?

And if it comes to that, why on earth is this guy chairing any committee to do with anything, if this is the kind of rubbish he spouts, and worse, believes??

Funkfield

Classic? Just makes me mad.

Denerick

Top civil servants work very hard and tend to be very bright to get to where they are.

Please carry on with the lynching...

danbohan

Denerick wrote: »

Top civil servants work very hard and tend to be very bright to get to where they are.

Please carry on with the lynching...

hahaha

are you performing a one man show soon ?, you are very very good

dan_d

Denerick wrote: »

Top civil servants work very hard and tend to be very bright to get to where they are.

Please carry on with the lynching...

No doubt they are. My post was all for lynching the idiot who was quoted.

However this attitude of "we have to pay the best to get the brightest" is completely ridiculous. And I apply the same to the consultants in hospitals, I might add. We cannot afford to pay huge sums of money. That man is not taking into account a large number of external factors either - it may well be that top people in private companies find there wage packet a lot less healthy after the country gets through this mess...or looking around at the havoc that's been wreaked in the private sector, decide the public is safer....

Either way, the money is no longer there. What's the point in cutting away through the lower echelons of the public service to save money, then completely wiping it out by paying a select number of individuals a hugely increased wage?

Tora Bora

Tora Bora wrote: »

Classic :rolleyes::rolleyes:


He said the committee’s examination indicated the cuts in private sector pay had been overstated in the media. “The cuts weren’t anything like the folklore would suggest, while in the public service they were very significant.”

But lads, you just have to admit, this guy is good, in fact he is very good.
Give him a one man comdey show at the O2 and he will fill it for a month:P

Tora Bora

Funkfield wrote: »

Classic? Just makes me mad.

Fcukin classic:D:D

RichardAnd

danbohan wrote: »

hahaha

are you performing a one man show soon ?, you are very very good

This is indicative of an absurd attitude that all public workers are idiots. I've no illusions that the civil service is awash with fools from the lowest clerical to the highest department head and believe me, I have plenty of stories to tell about this.

But there ARE plenty of them working hard and doing their job.

Count Dooku

Tora Bora wrote: »

“I’d worry about the future, about 15 years’ time. They won’t be the cream of the nation. They’ll be the second division, and that will be a challenge for the Government.”

How many top civil servants studied MBA instead of Greek language?
How many top civil servants had parents working in civil service?

Sleepy

Can we please just shoot him?

I'm sure it'd save the state money somehow...

Count Dooku

Sleepy wrote: »

Can we please just shoot him?

I'm sure it'd save the state money somehow...

'Take them out and shoot them' (C) Michael O'Leary

JuniorB

Tora Bora wrote: »

. “Directors’ loans, I can tell you, were modest when I was there.”

Sounds like a certain ex-politician from Mayo on the Late Late...

Pete_Cavan

Tora Bora wrote: »

It was a great shame that it went wrong with Anglo. It was a lovely story for so long.

I love the way he makes it sound like the fact that it went wrong was completely out of their control. No actually love is the wrong word, resent is more like it.

Sleepy wrote: »

Can we please just shoot him?

I'm sure it'd save the state money somehow...

Waste of a bullet I reckon. You're overlooking the opportunity cost, that bullet could be used to shoot somebody fast. Just push him off a cliff, that costs nothing.

ei.sdraob

Anyone see Labours Pat Rabbitte licking arse on previous primetime discussing nationalization of semistates?

"Yee at RTE should be paid more than ESB..."


makes me ****ing mad hearing that ****e, people get paid what others are willing and able to pay not what some ****ing leftie says they are worth

and the ****ing cheek of Labour commenting on Eircom nationalisation, it was their involvement in it and campaigning for the union staff to pay no taxes on their shares, that led to Eircom being cannibalised by both their new owners and their employees

The_Honeybadger

Denerick wrote: »

Top civil servants work very hard and tend to be very bright to get to where they are.

Please carry on with the lynching...

Would you call Patrick Neary bright? Not trying to take the p**s but his case is quite staggering, he failed spectacularly and was rewarded with an enormous payoff and terrific pension which most of us can only dream of. There is no accountability for failure. If somebody is massively qualified and has a proven track record at running large organisations wll then fair enough, give them a good salary of course, but there should also be concrete targets which are pay related and real consequences for failing (getting removed from the job without a lottery type payoff maybe?).

P. Breathnach

mickeyk wrote: »

Would you call Patrick Neary bright? Not trying to take the p**s but his case is quite staggering, he failed spectacularly and was rewarded with an enormous payoff and terrific pension which most of us can only dream of....

I never bought into the "light touch" approach to regulation, nor was I ever a believer in self-regulation. That means that I was against the approach that was taken under Neary.

But it is unfair to isolate him and heap all the blame on him. He was simply giving expression to the prevailing attitudes in financial and political circles. The business community, particularly the adventurers among their number, actively sought freedom from "the dead hand of bureaucracy" and many politicians were persuaded to go along with them (McCreevy springs to mind).

One man is being scapegoated, and I go along with the view that he must carry some of the culpability. But we should see the environment in which he operated, and recognise that we have a large herd of goats to scape.

Tora Bora

Cream of the crop, rose to the top of FAS:eek:
In fact they were creaming it by all accounts:p

Cookie_Monster

future civil servants to be second rate?

That's good then, better than the 3rd rate ones we have now



*gets coat

The_Honeybadger

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I never bought into the "light touch" approach to regulation, nor was I ever a believer in self-regulation. That means that I was against the approach that was taken under Neary.

But it is unfair to isolate him and heap all the blame on him. He was simply giving expression to the prevailing attitudes in financial and political circles. The business community, particularly the adventurers among their number, actively sought freedom from "the dead hand of bureaucracy" and many politicians were persuaded to go along with them (McCreevy springs to mind).

One man is being scapegoated, and I go along with the view that he must carry some of the culpability. But we should see the environment in which he operated, and recognise that we have a large herd of goats to scape.

P Breathnach it was the environment in which he operated that I was trying to highlight, I'm sure Mr Neary is a perfect gentleman, and a very intelligent one at that. That does not mean he should be excused for the failure that he presided over, he was not solely to blame nor did I try to say he was. My gripe is that there was no penalty whatsoever for his failure, in fact he was richly rewarded with a golden handshake and bumper pension, much the same as Roddy Molloy, who presided over the most outrageous waste imaginable while at the helm at FAS. If these people want to hold on to their enormous salaries and perks, at least lets have some accountability when they are not up to the job. For the record I'm sure there are many top CS's who are excellent, and would command good money in the Private Sector, but there are also those on obscene salaries that can't be justified, and probably never could be justified. For this man to come out with this nonsense when we are in the grip of the most severe recession in living memory with near 14% unemployment is distasteful at best, and downright arrogant if you ask me.

Sleepy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

future civil servants to be second rate?

That's good then, better than the 3rd rate ones we have now



*gets coat

I was just about to post that...

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong on the details of this, my knowledge of the American political system was nearly entirely gleaned from the West Wing but aren't the top Civil Servants there paid significantly below the salaries they can attract in the private sector?

Surely it can only be of benefit to the country to have it's public servants be those civic minded individuals who are happy to work for a lower salary in order to have an opportunity to change the country for the better? True, they have a financial incentive in terms of their increased value in the private sector after a decade or two spent working for the state but I'd imagine that would be replicated here too.

Head The Wall

You would be wrong there sleepy, we seemingly have to pay them extortionate amounts of money so they won't be dipping their hands in the pot.

Obviously this is not working so we should be paying them more!!!

P. Breathnach

mickeyk wrote: »

P Breathnach it was the environment in which he operated that I was trying to highlight, I'm sure Mr Neary is a perfect gentleman, and a very intelligent one at that. That does not mean he should be excused for the failure that he presided over, he was not solely to blame nor did I try to say he was. My gripe is that there was no penalty whatsoever for his failure....

In half a paragraph you move from recognising that Neary operated in a particular environment to focusing on his failure as if he were solely responsible for the banking crisis.

Head The Wall

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In half a paragraph you move from recognising that Neary operated in a particular environment to focusing on his failure as if he were solely responsible for the banking crisis.

Neary is the driver that should have pressed the brake pedal in the out of control car.

Car is a write off and he got out unscathed with a big payout

The_Honeybadger

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In half a paragraph you move from recognising that Neary operated in a particular environment to focusing on his failure as if he were solely responsible for the banking crisis.

Be pedantic all you like, where did I say he was solely responsible? There were many people who contributed, my point was that in the environment he operated, failure is rewarded and there is no accountability. If you disagree fine, you haven't said whether you do or not, but that post is very disappointing from somebody who usually posts very well thought out responses, as it avoids the topic completely and its sole purpose appears to be to make me look like some ranter.

Orchard Rebel

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In half a paragraph you move from recognising that Neary operated in a particular environment to focusing on his failure as if he were solely responsible for the banking crisis.

He wasn't but ultimately if you are the Financial Regulator, are paid hundreds of thousands of euro to regulate the financial sector and your approach causes the near-collapse of the economy, history's judgement is likely to be harsh.

He may have been a great civil servant but that does not make him a competent regulator.

P. Breathnach

mickeyk wrote: »

Be pedantic all you like, where did I say he was solely responsible? There were many people who contributed, my point was that in the environment he operated, failure is rewarded and there is no accountability. If you disagree fine, you haven't said whether you do or not, but that post is very disappointing from somebody who usually posts very well thought out responses, as it avoids the topic completely and its sole purpose appears to be to make me look like some ranter.

In my first post on this matter I made it clear that I thought the approach taken under Neary was wrong. Surely that is clear enough.

The point I was making was that the fault was not his alone. Your response looked to me like "yes-but" and you focused again on his role. That bothers me because there are other people out there who contributed to the failure in regulation and who are now slipping virtually unnoticed into the shadows.

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

He wasn't but ultimately if you are the Financial Regulator, are paid hundreds of thousands of euro to regulate the financial sector and your approach causes the near-collapse of the economy, history's judgement is likely to be harsh.

He may have been a great civil servant but that does not make him a competent regulator.

I'm not suggesting that Neary was an innocent victim. But you need to consider how things work in public affairs in Ireland. In general, policy and practice are not determined by any individual, but are the result of a set of interactions between key players (politicians, administrative/executive staff, interest groups, commentators, lawyers, etc). The approach to banking regulation came from such a process.

Neary did not "cause the near-collapse of the economy"; he was a part of a complex process. It might even be argued that he did not cause any problem: he failed to prevent it happening, and part of the reason he failed was that there was a general sentiment that financial institutions should not be curtailed.

Head The Wall wrote: »

Neary is the driver that should have pressed the brake pedal in the out of control car.

Part of my point is that he was not the driver. The driving was done by bankers, developers, and speculators; they were encouraged and facilitated by politicians. I'm not even sure that the analogy of pressing the brake pedal is appropriate; perhaps his role should have been seen as a speed governor, set to ensure that things don't run too fast to be brought back under control.

Car is a write off and he got out unscathed with a big payout

At last something with which I can agree! He should not have got any addition to his ordinary pension entitlement.

The_Honeybadger

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In my first post on this matter I made it clear that I thought the approach taken under Neary was wrong. Surely that is clear enough.

The point I was making was that the fault was not his alone. Your response looked to me like "yes-but" and you focused again on his role. That bothers me because there are other people out there who contributed to the failure in regulation and who are now slipping virtually unnoticed into the shadows.

Agreed, the vilification of Neary in the media is unfair in that others should be held to account as well. I was merely using him as an example of what happens to, shall we just call them "underperforming civil servants". I never once in any post tried to say he caused the whole banking collapse, that would be completely untrue. I also believe he was acting under instruction from political influences to stay out of the banks way, but that is another story entirely.

Head The Wall

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Part of my point is that he was not the driver. The driving was done by bankers, developers, and speculators; they were encouraged and facilitated by politicians. I'm not even sure that the analogy of pressing the brake pedal is appropriate; perhaps his role should have been seen as a speed governor, set to ensure that things don't run too fast to be brought back under control.



At last something with which I can agree! He should not have got any addition to his ordinary pension entitlement.

The bankers and politicians were the runaway car, even as a speed limiter he still failed.

I find it hard to understand how these incompetents are allowed to resign when they should be sacked and then collect handouts/pensions when they have so obviously mucked up. I'm sure there's many others that think so to.

Look at Callely, he will still end up collecting a pension after all this.

Orchard Rebel

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I
I'm not suggesting that Neary was an innocent victim. But you need to consider how things work in public affairs in Ireland. In general, policy and practice are not determined by any individual, but are the result of a set of interactions between key players (politicians, administrative/executive staff, interest groups, commentators, lawyers, etc). The approach to banking regulation came from such a process.

Neary did not "cause the near-collapse of the economy"; he was a part of a complex process. It might even be argued that he did not cause any problem: he failed to prevent it happening, and part of the reason he failed was that there was a general sentiment that financial institutions should not be curtailed.

That sounds like an argument from the Mary Harney school of accountability. Everybody is to blame, so nobody carries the can.

Ultimately, he was paid to regulate the financial sector properly and he failed to do so. The fact that he was implementing flawed policy does not excuse him as he had the opportunity to oppose that policy or resign. He did neither and the banking sector almost collapsed while on his watch.

That may be a harsh assessment of a talented civil servant but as a taxpayer picking up the tab for the fiscal incompetence of the present administration, I'm entitled to make it.

smokingman

"Future"??!!
:pac:

Head The Wall

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

That sounds like an argument from the Mary Harney school of accountability. Everybody is to blame, so nobody carries the can.

Ultimately, he was paid to regulate the financial sector properly and he failed to do so. The fact that he was implementing flawed policy does not excuse him as he had the opportunity to oppose that policy or resign. He did neither and the banking sector almost collapsed while on his watch.

That may be a harsh assessment of a talented civil servant but as a taxpayer picking up the tab for the fiscal incompetence of the present administration, I'm entitled to make it.

I'd agree with you except for the talented bit, if he was talented and had any pride he wouldn't have let this happen. If as was said he knew about it and was told to ignore well then he has no morals either as he could have resigned.

It is through his own choices that he will be forever known as a failure, not punishment enough in my eyes. I hope he feels peoples disapproving eyes everywhere he goes

P. Breathnach

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

That sounds like an argument from the Mary Harney school of accountability. Everybody is to blame, so nobody carries the can.

I'm actually trying to suggest the opposite idea: if a number of people are to blame, it should not be left to one person to carry the can.

Ultimately, he was paid to regulate the financial sector properly and he failed to do so. The fact that he was implementing flawed policy does not excuse him as he had the opportunity to oppose that policy or resign. He did neither and the banking sector almost collapsed while on his watch.

That may be a harsh assessment of a talented civil servant but as a taxpayer picking up the tab for the fiscal incompetence of the present administration, I'm entitled to make it.

I have no problem in agreeing that Neary failed to impose standards on the banks that were sufficiently rigorous. Unlike you, however, I do think that implementing a flawed policy does offer him some excuse. When there seems to be a consensus in an area that involves judgement, it is very difficult to stand alone and say "I think you are all wrong, and I intend to back my judgement against that of all of you".

Most people are very angry about what happened, and it is a common enough thing that people like to direct their anger at individuals or small identifiable groups. That's what scapegoating is about. And scapegoating is what I am opposing here. I'm not so much defending Neary as arguing that by focusing too much on him we are in danger of letting others escape our attention.

But consider this: nobody actually set out with the intention of wrecking the economy. A number of people did things that we now know to have been highly risky, but they believed that they could make them work. The greatest wrong that most of them did was either to ignore advice or to accept the wrong advice. [Yes, there were also some corrupt actions but, on the scale of things, they were not big enough to bring the house of cards down.]

Drumpot

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm actually trying to suggest the opposite idea: if a number of people are to blame, it should not be left to one person to carry the can.



I have no problem in agreeing that Neary failed to impose standards on the banks that were sufficiently rigorous. Unlike you, however, I do think that implementing a flawed policy does offer him some excuse. When there seems to be a consensus in an area that involves judgement, it is very difficult to stand alone and say "I think you are all wrong, and I intend to back my judgement against that of all of you".

Most people are very angry about what happened, and it is a common enough thing that people like to direct their anger at individuals or small identifiable groups. That's what scapegoating is about. And scapegoating is what I am opposing here. I'm not so much defending Neary as arguing that by focusing too much on him we are in danger of letting others escape our attention.

But consider this: nobody actually set out with the intention of wrecking the economy. A number of people did things that we now know to have been highly risky, but they believed that they could make them work. The greatest wrong that most of them did was either to ignore advice or to accept the wrong advice. [Yes, there were also some corrupt actions but, on the scale of things, they were not big enough to bring the house of cards down.]

I agree, but the problem is that the likes of Neary and whichever minister (Ahem Bertie) was bending his ear to be lax need to be taken to task . .

I dont agree with the whole argument of "well technically they didnt commit a crime", as in the US they retrospectively changed the laws so obvious perpetrator's were held somewhat accountable . .

In Neary's case, its like a general in the Nazi party saying I was just doing my job . . Not really, his job was to regulate the banks and he didnt do it, even when they were overcharging customers . . If he was competent he would of seen that what was going on was wrong and he should of quit. I have no problem with him resigning (even though there should be a system to sack people who are incompetent, including taking their pensions), what I have a problem with is that he answered to nobody , got a golden handshake and a nice 100k+ pension a year for not doing his job well . . That is wrong in any language, irrespective of whatever iron clad contract he had . . Threaten legal action, dont give him a golden handshake and take his pension away . . We are not talking about a simple overcharging by the banks, we are talking about an entire economy collapsing and a future generation having to foot the tab . . These are extreme times and people SHOULD be held accountable for their mistakes. .

As far as picking on individuals, I have no problem with some of the ringleaders getting the preverbial token sacrifice. Its better then nobody been at fault for anything . . Not intending on ruining a country means little to anybody . . Being in a position to cause the havoc that they caused and getting paid big money to make the right decisions means that they got paid adequatly to be held accountable for incompetency or mistakes they made.

But for society to learn from this mistake we need to change our principles and morals . The way we vote in politicians and what we demand from them . .

There is a comedic acceptance that those in high positions in public service have no accountability and at worst can only ever be retired comfortably irrespective of their actions. . What is the joke ? Something like you nearly have to kill somebody to lose your job high up in the public service . .

The way I see it, there is no reason why another director or politician shouldnt screw us as much as we can . . Sure whats the worst that will happen to them ? Ooooohhh . . Public anger . . But sure my golden handshake and dynamite pension will more then make up for that . . .

dan_d

Neary?? Where did he get mentioned in that article?

He is by no means directly responsible for any of this. As has been repeatedly said....he was simply a cog in the machine of FF, top bankers, top civil servants et al.

So to be quite honest, we need to throw the machine out. Preferably into a crusher somewhere. Minus any top ups on parts/lubricants etc (read pensions and pay offs for that).

Quite simply...we need a new machine. With a whole new set of parts.

And it's just not happening.

Drumpot

dan_d wrote: »

Neary?? Where did he get mentioned in that article?

He is by no means directly responsible for any of this. As has been repeatedly said....he was simply a cog in the machine of FF, top bankers, top civil servants et al.

So to be quite honest, we need to throw the machine out. Preferably into a crusher somewhere. Minus any top ups on parts/lubricants etc (read pensions and pay offs for that).

Quite simply...we need a new machine. With a whole new set of parts.

And it's just not happening.

I was responding to P Breathneachs point on scapegoats . .

I agree that the machine is broken but I completely disagree with your point on neary . . His ONLY job was to regulate the banks which he never did . . Not only that he hid the impending disaster by trying to get the banks to lend money which actually gives a false account of their value (if nothing else its fraud). .

Like the example I used with the Nazi's, Neary cant hide behind what he was being told to do . . On one hand if he was able and competent he would of known that what he was doing (or not doing) was wrong and he should of quit in protest . . If its a case that he wasnt able to do the job , he should of quit . . Either way he showed no moral fibre and assisted in the downfall of our banks by simply giving them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted . . .

Pete_Cavan

Im with Drumpot on this. I understand what P Breathneach is saying about the dangers of looking for an easy target as a scapegoat but trial by media is not enough. Neary should be the scapegoat or scaraficial lamb or whatever farm animal you want. Politicians, bankers, high ranking civil servants, at the end of the day they are all donkeys because they are allowed to be so. Bertie, O'Donoghue, Rody Molloy, Seanie Fitz, now Callely, how many times are people going to let p*ss all over us only to be let off the hook and keep their hands in our pockets by way of golden handshakes and big f*ck off pensions. Enough is enough. We need to make an example of someone to prevent this from happening again. It may be unfair to take it out on Neary but next time sometime happens (and there will be a next time unless something is done to prevent it) the same things will be said about not scapegoating the next guy and nothing will change. We either do something about it now or accept it as part of the way things are done in this country and stop complaining and keep paying out.

Orchard Rebel

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have no problem in agreeing that Neary failed to impose standards on the banks that were sufficiently rigorous. Unlike you, however, I do think that implementing a flawed policy does offer him some excuse. When there seems to be a consensus in an area that involves judgement, it is very difficult to stand alone and say "I think you are all wrong, and I intend to back my judgement against that of all of you".

Most people are very angry about what happened, and it is a common enough thing that people like to direct their anger at individuals or small identifiable groups. That's what scapegoating is about. And scapegoating is what I am opposing here. I'm not so much defending Neary as arguing that by focusing too much on him we are in danger of letting others escape our attention.

But consider this: nobody actually set out with the intention of wrecking the economy. A number of people did things that we now know to have been highly risky, but they believed that they could make them work. The greatest wrong that most of them did was either to ignore advice or to accept the wrong advice. [Yes, there were also some corrupt actions but, on the scale of things, they were not big enough to bring the house of cards down.]

I agree to the extent that I don't for a moment think that there was a conspiracy here. But there does appear to have been sharp practice and the regulator decided to let things go - whether of his own volition or on the advice/orders of others. He made the wrong call and has (to an extent) paid for that. My point was that history may treat him harshly. That's not the same as suggesting that he was corrupt or engaged in criminal activity.

Ultimately culpability lies with the government of the day because it is they who oversee fiscal policy and regulation. The point about Mary Harney is her insistence that anything that goes wrong in the health service is a matter for the HSE. The HSE then says its a matter for the Department of Health and ultimately the waters get muddied and everyone escapes blame.

The government says it has justified its political decisions but its refusal to hold the three by-elections suggest that it is running scared from the electorate. In doing so, it weakens its own justification of its mandate to rule. My own belief is that they are clinging to Harney's oft-stated view that the electorate have short memories and that, by 2012, the coalition can present itself as the saviour of the State. Somehow, I doubt enough of the electorate are stupid enough to buy that. Then again....

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But consider this: nobody actually set out with the intention of wrecking the economy. A number of people did things that we now know to have been highly risky, but they believed that they could make them work. The greatest wrong that most of them did was either to ignore advice or to accept the wrong advice. [Yes, there were also some corrupt actions but, on the scale of things, they were not big enough to bring the house of cards down.]

What you are saying is that they were incompetent. Neary was incompetent. He was not alone, but this does not detract from the fact that he was incompetent. He did not set out to destroy the the economy but then the incompetent never set out to fail.

The problem is, of course, not Neary himself. He (or rather the position he rose to) is merely a symptom. The problem is the culture that promotes incompetence and mediocrity that prevails in this country.

Welease

Neary wasn't a scapegoat.. He was the financial regulator... top of the tree (and his compensation reflected that), and the regulation which should have been in place was absent..

He had to go!

Was he the only one? No, of course he wasn't..

Government - The public will get their chance to vote in 2 years time..

Other Public Servants - dealt with by the government. If you are not happy with their actions, then in 2 years time you will get to officially voice your opinion.

Bank Officials - dealt with by the government.. the garda can deal with any illegality, the government will have to deal with officials and procedures.. If you are not happy with their actions, then in 2 years time you will get to officially voice your opinion.

Head The Wall

Welease wrote: »

Other Public Servants - dealt with by the government. If you are not happy with their actions, then in 2 years time you will get to officially voice your opinion.

Even with a change of government these Higher Civil servants will still have their jobs and remuneration. What can putting FG or some other party in power change about that?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Welease

Head The Wall wrote: »

Even with a change of government these Higher Civil servants will still have their jobs and remuneration. What can putting FG or some other party in power change about that?

We are not (nor should we) be in a position to remove all staff within departments who are connected to the issues.. It wouldn't make sense, and many do a fine job..

So the only option left is to express to the government (incoming or outgoing) that people need to be held responsible, and those in charge should feel the impact of their failings..

It's up to the government to do something about it, and if they don't (as per my point) then the voting populace should use their votes to register their protest. We continue to have a populist government (and TD), if there was enough will to sort this out, then you could guarantee it would be done if merely to win votes..

Sadly enough, I don't think enough people actually care to get this in the agenda (and a considerable portion of the voting populace are employed in the PS and would be less likely to vote in a government who would shine the spotlight in that direction).

Liam Byrne

Tora Bora wrote: »

He said the former Anglo chief executive and chairman, Seán FitzPatrick, was a “fairly autocratic” manager. “Success gave him added freedom and licence. And the shareholders loved him. I chaired four agms and he got a standing ovation at each of them. It was a great shame that it went wrong with Anglo. It was a lovely story for so long. My heart would go out to Seán

Does he reckon that Anglo got the "cream of the crop", I wonder ?

What a f**king idiot!