Our next great leader, doesn't believe civil servants

BeeDI

Enda Kenny will be our next great leader, if his own shower of back stabbers don't do for him in the meantime. However, he has already declared he doesn't trust dept of finance officials, to give him proper numbers. Does it mean, he will set up a new quango to tell him what he wants to hear. Staffed of course by blue shirt loyalists:rolleyes:

Kenny calls for external verification of figures

FINE GAEL leader Enda Kenny has demanded independent verification of the Government’s figures on the economy.
Addressing Brian Cowen in the Dáil yesterday, he said: “This cannot go on, Taoiseach. We have lost trust in you, in your Government and in the ability to tell us the truth.” Mr Kenny said “independent competent people must be brought in . . . who can validate and verify the figures given to us by the Department of Finance”.
Mr Kenny said Fine Gael would play its part in responding to the national crisis and produce a response to it. “We will do not do so on the basis of what you tell us, not any more,” he added.
“Every figure produced by the Department of Finance and by the Government has been wrong.” Mr Kenny said to say the figures produced by the Government on Monday were “outrageous” was an understatement.
They were “absolutely appalling” and they showed that from the very beginning of the banking crisis, Mr Cowen knew the situation was far worse than the Irish people were told.
“Not only was the economy being destroyed by the Government, but the fact is that it was wilfully concealing the truth of the extent of that destruction from the Irish people in what amounts to a national catastrophe,” he added.
Mr Kenny said the discussions had to be conducted in the Dáil chamber because the people had to be consulted and know what was happening.
Mr Cowen said the “tone and content” of Mr Kenny’s remarks was “unfortunate”, adding that they took away from the responsible approach everyone had taken to the situation facing the country.
“I am not going to reciprocate in the same way. I am just not going to do so, although I would have good reason to do so,” he added.
Mr Cowen said the consolidation in the public finances had been going on since the summer of 2008 when the issue first arose.
As a result of Government policies, which had not won unanimous favour in the House, there was €7.5 billion less in spending and taxation than would otherwise have been the case, he said.
He said he would welcome a Dáil debate on the issue.
Mr Kenny said Fianna Fáil had never wanted to be in the Dáil to the extent that it should be and answer questions.
Fine Gael, he added, would support what it believed in and oppose what it did not believe in.
He asked why the Government had closed down the Dáil for three months last summer when it could have introduced an emergency budget to stabilise the situation.
There had been a “fundamental breach of trust”, he said, because every figure the Government had provided was wrong.
Mr Cowen said the Fine Gael leader should move from “rhetoric to reality”, adding that it did not add to the debate “one whit”to claim that the Department of Finance had given anything other than a full independent assessment of the situation.
Forecasting, he said, had to involve certain assumptions. The growth forecast for the European and world economies and, by extension, the Irish economy, had to be modified somewhat.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1020/1224281543492.html

senordingdong

Well, you're own criticisms of Kenny and FG aside, do you trust the Dept of Finance figures?

Kenny is calling or an independant assessment.

“This cannot go on, Taoiseach. We have lost trust in you, in your Government and in the ability to tell us the truth.”


Fúck yes Enda!

Amhran Nua

BeeDI wrote: »

However, he has already declared he doesn't trust dept of finance officials, to give him proper numbers.

Seriously? The same department that was in no small part responsible for this mess? He's dead right, and it sounds like the smartest thing I've heard coming out of a politician's mouth in many a long year.

_Kaiser_

Sounds spot on to me to be honest. Soundbite or not, the Department (and Government) HAS shown time and again that they've gotten it completely wrong with their estimates in the last few years.

Don't think there's anything wrong with independent verification tbh - at this stage I'd go so far as to say it's essential!

P. Breathnach

So Kenny does not trust the Department of Finance to know how things are, but nevertheless uses their briefing as a basis for attacking the government. That's a level of inconsistency that might qualify him to participate in discussions here, but does not augur well for his holding any position of more influence.

We have no significant evidence that the Department led us astray. The briefings given to Ministers are privileged, and we cannot know what Ministerial or Government decisions were made on the basis of the Department's recommendations, and what ones went against the tenor of Department advice. Charlie McCreevey, for example, famously enjoyed going against the advice of his officials.

The culture of the civil service is generally one of caution, and that is generally accepted as being particularly true in Finance. It looks to me like a fair guess that the more adventurous policies were developed outside the closed circle of Minister and Departmental advisors.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

we cannot know what Ministerial or Government decisions were made on the basis of the Department's recommendations, and what ones went against the tenor of Department advice. Charlie McCreevey, for example, famously enjoyed going against the advice of his officials.

If we cannot know, how can we know McCreevey famously went against the advice of the civil service? Bit self contradictory there surely.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

If we cannot know, how can we know McCreevey famously went against the advice of the civil service? Bit self contradictory there surely.

It's hardly a secret (that's what I used the adjective "famously"). See, from a random selection from many sources thrown up by Google:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lenihan-orders-a-sweeping-review-of-his-own-department-2230842.html
http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2010/06/interview-joan-burton-labour-deputy-leader-and-finance-spokesperson/
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/04/11/story742532095.asp
http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/ireland/kfcwmhcwgbcw/
http://www.sbpost.ie/newsfeatures/did-finance-sound-any-warnings-before-crisis-50133.html

meditraitor

BeeDI wrote: »

Enda Kenny will be our next great leader,[/URL]

LOL, no he won't be our next great leader.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's hardly a secret (that's what I used the adjective "famously"). See, from a random selection from many sources thrown up by Google:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lenihan-orders-a-sweeping-review-of-his-own-department-2230842.html
http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2010/06/interview-joan-burton-labour-deputy-leader-and-finance-spokesperson/
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/04/11/story742532095.asp
http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/ireland/kfcwmhcwgbcw/
http://www.sbpost.ie/newsfeatures/did-finance-sound-any-warnings-before-crisis-50133.html

Ah, so what you really meant was we can know what Ministerial or Government decisions were made on the basis of the Department's recommendations, and what ones went against the tenor of Department advice.

Saadyst

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So Kenny does not trust the Department of Finance to know how things are, but nevertheless uses their briefing as a basis for attacking the government. That's a level of inconsistency that might qualify him to participate in discussions here, but does not augur well for his holding any position of more influence.

We have no significant evidence that the Department led us astray. The briefings given to Ministers are privileged, and we cannot know what Ministerial or Government decisions were made on the basis of the Department's recommendations, and what ones went against the tenor of Department advice. Charlie McCreevey, for example, famously enjoyed going against the advice of his officials.

The culture of the civil service is generally one of caution, and that is generally accepted as being particularly true in Finance. It looks to me like a fair guess that the more adventurous policies were developed outside the closed circle of Minister and Departmental advisors.

I think it's one thing to say that you disagree with how bad things are; yet knowing that they are actually bad.

How many times have we been told we're turning a corner, or things are looking up... only they're not, are they?

senordingdong

Saadyst wrote: »

How many times have we been told we're turning a corner, ?

As recently as last week I recall.

jmayo

BeeDI wrote: »

Enda Kenny will be our next great leader, if his own shower of back stabbers don't do for him in the meantime. However, he has already declared he doesn't trust dept of finance officials, to give him proper numbers. Does it mean, he will set up a new quango to tell him what he wants to hear. Staffed of course by blue shirt loyalists:rolleyes:

Kenny calls for external verification of figures

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1020/1224281543492.html

Well do you believe the dept of finance ?
They haven't exactly gotten their figures right to date.
Hell have they been accurate over the last 10 years ?
First they got the surplus figures wrong and then they got the deficit figures wrong.

BTW did he say he was setting up a quangoe ?
You need to be in government to set one of those up AFAIK. :rolleyes:

Why not take some of the money, say a million, that will be used by some "independent" advisor to NAMA and get them to go through the figures.

BTW I would not use any of the big firms becuase if one of them couldn't spot the sh** going on in Anglo, etc then I wouldn't trust them to add 2 and 2.
Bring in an honest Scandanavian or some such.

BTW I bet if Kenny said nothing you, or some other poster, would be on here claiming the blueshirts leader was an idiot for believeing the Dept of Finance.

Dammed if he does, dammed if he doesn't. :rolleyes:

Larsist

Unfortunately this is just another example of why FG are no different than FF (or Labour). FG just keep pointing out what is wrong and shy away from offering any solutions. Yes the Dept. of Finance may be incorrect but emphasising that just a allows FG to avoid answering questions around what cuts they would make or what they plan to do.

ei.sdraob

Larsist wrote: »

Unfortunately this is just another example of why FG are no different than FF (or Labour). FG just keep pointing out what is wrong and shy away from offering any solutions. Yes the Dept. of Finance may be incorrect but emphasising that just a allows FG to avoid answering questions around what cuts they would make or what they plan to do.

Erm calling for an independent verification is a solution being offered

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Ah, so what you really meant was we can know what Ministerial or Government decisions were made on the basis of the Department's recommendations, and what ones went against the tenor of Department advice.

No. All I mean is that Charlie McCreevy behaved differently from other Ministers.

jmayo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So Kenny does not trust the Department of Finance to know how things are, but nevertheless uses their briefing as a basis for attacking the government. That's a level of inconsistency that might qualify him to participate in discussions here, but does not augur well for his holding any position of more influence.

We have no significant evidence that the Department led us astray. The briefings given to Ministers are privileged, and we cannot know what Ministerial or Government decisions were made on the basis of the Department's recommendations, and what ones went against the tenor of Department advice. Charlie McCreevey, for example, famously enjoyed going against the advice of his officials.

The culture of the civil service is generally one of caution, and that is generally accepted as being particularly true in Finance. It looks to me like a fair guess that the more adventurous policies were developed outside the closed circle of Minister and Departmental advisors.

Are you ex Dept of Finance by any chance ?

Ah so the more adventurous policies were developed outside of the closed circle ?
Who the hell then developed them and what were the Dept of Finace doing ?

Wasn't ex head of Central Bank not ex Dept of Finance and ex head of IFSRA not Central Bank lifer (apart from year in UCD reading Greek) ?
Would these not be considered cautious orgnaisations like the Dept of Finance ?

It's a good thing they (including Dept of Finance) were cautious as I would hate to see the mess our finanical system would be in if they weren't. :rolleyes:

Amhran Nua

jmayo wrote: »

Why not take some of the money, say a million, that will be used by some "independent" advisor to NAMA and get them to go through the figures.

You need a select team of hard-eyed German or Japanese independent auditors to do a thorough and proper job of it I think, they wouldn't be long spotting any weaknesses. Pick your apples far from the barrel. And plenty more work for them when they're done with that.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No. All I mean is that Charlie McCreevy behaved differently from other Ministers.

But if not then how could we know about his antics? Also, if he behaved differently from other Ministers, can we then infer that most Ministers do act in accordance with civil service recommendations? I don't think the cloak of secrecy is going to hold out much longer, and I'm not talking about this thread...

jmayo

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You need a select team of hard-eyed German or Japanese independent auditors to do a thorough and proper job of it I think, they wouldn't be long spotting any weaknesses. Pick your apples far from the barrel.

I did say Scandanavian as they had their own troubles in the 90s and they are generally straight arrows.
Also on same flight into the country I would have Eva Jolly and her team.

Saadyst

Larsist wrote: »

Unfortunately this is just another example of why FG are no different than FF (or Labour). FG just keep pointing out what is wrong and shy away from offering any solutions. Yes the Dept. of Finance may be incorrect but emphasising that just a allows FG to avoid answering questions around what cuts they would make or what they plan to do.

Unfortunately this is just another example of why Larsist is no different than FF (or Labour). Larsist just keeps pointing out what is wrong and shies away from offering any solutions.




I think even if you have no solutions; pointing out wrongdoing is fine enough if that's all you have. We shouldn't accept wrongdoing just because we have no other "solution". Cooking the books is not a solution.

P. Breathnach

jmayo wrote: »

Are you ex Dept of Finance by any chance ?

You are not supposed to ask such things.

Ah so the more adventurous policies were developed outside of the closed circle ?
Who the hell then developed them and what were the Dept of Finace doing ?

Government makes policy decisions. Usually, but not invariably, the government backs the judgement of the line minister. The Department offers data, analysis, and advice, and I presume that they did this. I imagine that some of the advice was quite strongly-expressed, but the Minister is entitled to disregard it (subject to his decisions being lawful).

While a department has access to its minister, so too do many other interests, including the minister's party, his or her constituents, interest groups who openly lobby, other interest groups who lobby behind closed doors, the commentariat, party donors, and various "insiders". It sometimes even happens that a minister might have his or her own ideas.

Wasn't ex head of Central Bank not ex Dept of Finance and ex head of IFSRA not Central Bank lifer (apart from year in UCD reading Greek) ?
Would these not be considered cautious orgnaisations like the Dept of Finance ?

It's a good thing they (including Dept of Finance) were cautious as I would hate to see the mess our finanical system would be in if they weren't. :rolleyes:

That's another discussion, one that we have held many times on this forum and will, no doubt, hold many times more. It seem to exercise an endless fascination for some people.

But it is a separate question from this discussion.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

But if not then how could we know about his antics? Also, if he behaved differently from other Ministers, can we then infer that most Ministers do act in accordance with civil service recommendations?

No, you can not infer that. It is widely accepted that Charlie McCreevy had an approach that was idiosyncratic. That tells us absolutely nothing about any other minister.

I think that most ministerial decisions are fairly much in line with department recommendations. But most ministerial decisions are fairly run of the mill stuff, and unlikely to cause any controversy. A relatively small number of decisions are of greater importance (or simply catch the attention of the public). It seems clear to me that some of those decisions are not in accordance with department advice. You can often tell by paying attention to the language used by Ministers, because if they use civil service style phrasing it is often because they are adopting something that was placed on their desk. [That phenomenon is particularly striking in some of Mary Coghlan's public utterances: she seems to regurgitate chunks out of briefing papers supplied by her Department.]

I don't think the cloak of secrecy is going to hold out much longer, and I'm not talking about this thread...

We do have the 30-year rule. Patience, and all will be revealed.

Larsist

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Erm calling for an independent verification is a solution being offered

An independent verification is not a solution to anything. It just delays making the necessary decisions on the proposed budgets. The fact that that is what FG highlighted yesterday is the point. Why wont any political party come forward and tell us what they propose and not just play political table tennis. We know FF screwed up there is no need to keep pointing it out, it does not achieving anything.

We need solutions.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We do have the 30-year rule. Patience, and all will be revealed.

Sooner than you might think, methinks.

ei.sdraob

Larsist wrote: »

An independent verification is not a solution to anything. It just delays making the necessary decisions on the proposed budgets. The fact that that is what FG highlighted yesterday is the point. Why wont any political party come forward and tell us what they propose and not just play political table tennis. We know FF screwed up there is no need to keep pointing it out, it does not achieving anything.

We need solutions.

Erm in order to create a solution one needs correct information to base decisions and plans on :rolleyes:

There have been many threads here discussion the lack of transparency and information in the government and the public sector, something that has before led to corruption and waste.

You are trying hard to paint FG in bad light, but in this case they are quite correct.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Sooner than you might think, methinks.

Do you have a basis for holding this opinion?

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do you have a basis for holding this opinion?

See thread title, and the other party coming into power seems to have a similar opinion. I have to say I agree with them, an unsackable group that operates at the highest levels of government in complete secrecy was always going to be a recipe for disaster.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

See thread title, and the other party coming into power seems to have a similar opinion. I have to say I agree with them, an unsackable group that operates at the highest levels of government in complete secrecy was always going to be a recipe for disaster.

A suggestion that the 30-year limit to be reduced to a smaller number of years is not that big a deal.

What would be a big deal would be the opening of the processes of government to public scrutiny without some delay. That's not going to happen. In general, civil servants would have little to fear if it did (other than possibly being exposed to even more meddling in their work by outsiders). The political arm of government would not welcome such a change, and they have the power to block it.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In general, civil servants would have little to fear if it did (other than possibly being exposed to even more meddling in their work by outsiders). The political arm of government would not welcome such a change, and they have the power to block it.

I'm sure reducing it to five years would be acceptable to most people, with the possibility of it being opened earlier in the case of real eyebrow-lifters. I find your reference to "outsiders" interesting however. Is it something of an us and them culture then? Regardless, I've made the case previously for fundamental reform in the structures of the civil service, and I do think that needs to be pursued.

An unaccountable group at the highest echelons of government operating in complete secrecy is a recipe for disaster.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I'm sure reducing it to five years would be acceptable to most people, with the possibility of it being opened earlier in the case of real eyebrow-lifters. I find your reference to "outsiders" interesting however. Is it something of an us and them culture then?

You are trying to make something out of nothing. There are outsiders everywhere. They are people who are not members of a particular group. A civil servant might be asked to draft a SI to guide the application of a piece of legislation. Somebody who thinks his business interests might be affected by that legislation might want to phone the civil servant to make suggestions about how the SI be constructed. That is outsider meddling, and is improper -- but such things happen.

Regardless, I've made the case previously for fundamental reform in the structures of the civil service, and I do think that needs to be pursued.

No, you have not made the case. All you have done, and are continuing to do, is make unsupported claims that the civil service has misbehaved. You seem to be unsure whether it has misbehaved by exercising too much power or too little -- when, for the most part, the power does not reside with them at all: it's the ministers who have the power.

An unaccountable group at the highest echelons of government operating in complete secrecy is a recipe for disaster.

That's soap-box rhetoric. The civil service is accountable -- to government, not directly to you.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's soap-box rhetoric. The civil service is accountable -- to government, not directly to you.

Brilliant, so they are protected from being interfered with politically, and yet they are accountable to the government. Neary certainly sailed off into the sunset on boat made of solid accountability.

How and ever, not being a retired civil servant myself, I have neither the time nor the financial resources to pursue another of these endlessly recursive discussions with you which inevitably boil down to "nuh uh", and don't really matter since the civil service aren't the ones who need to be convinced of the need for reform, and so can close ranks to their hearts' content.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Brilliant, so they are protected from being interfered with politically, and yet they are accountable to the government....

That is a dishonest interpretation of what I said.

ei.sdraob

Last I checked the civil/public services are there to serve the people of this country.

Why cant they be held accountable and be transparent with us the people and any of our representatives? Is that too much to ask for??

Oh wait i forgot their sole purpose nowadays is how to continue to get large paychecks and milk nice pensions :rolleyes: at expense of the private sector.

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Last I checked the civil/public services are there to serve the people of this country.

Yes.

Why cant they be held accountable and be transparent with us the people and any of our representatives? Is that too much to ask for??

They are accountable. In the case of the civil service, they are accountable to their Minister who represents us. The Minister is in turn accountable to the Dáil. That's the line of accountability. Do you really think that you or I should be allowed walk into civil service offices and demand access to all files?

Oh wait i forgot their sole purpose nowadays is how to continue to get large paychecks and milk nice pensions :rolleyes: at expense of the private sector.

Yeah, right.

What makes me think that you dislike public servants?

rumour

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yeah, right.

What makes me think that you dislike public servants?

This is becoming the defence of the civil service. As a defence it is deplorable.

Who is resposnible for getting projections wrong consistently for the last two years?

There is no one left, it is civil servants.

Then they recommend that we should pay more tax to rectify these mistakes.

So I must be worse off to pay for this mess. I think it is quite justifiable to direct my anger at a service I believe I am paying for already that is simply incompetent.

Trampas

what happens to the dept of finance employees if fg take over?

P. Breathnach

rumour wrote: »

This is becoming the defence of the civil service.

You say that as if it is an inherently wrong thing to do.

As a defence it is deplorable.

If you read and considered what I said, you might see that I am actually trying to explain the role of civil servants. I don't see how that can be deplorable.

Who is resposnible for getting projections wrong consistently for the last two years?

I don't know, mainly because I don't know what projections you have in mind.

There is no one left, it is civil servants.

I don't see any sense in that.

Then they recommend that we should pay more tax to rectify these mistakes.

Evidence, please.

So I must be worse off to pay for this mess. I think it is quite justifiable to direct my anger at a service I believe I am paying for already that is simply incompetent.

You may believe it, but you have made no case at all.

P. Breathnach

Trampas wrote: »

what happens to the dept of finance employees if fg take over?

They might have a bad working relationship with the incoming Minister if the Minister shares Enda Kenny's view that they are not to be trusted to tell the truth.

Head The Wall

P. Breathnach wrote: »

They are people who are not members of a particular group. A civil servant might be asked to draft a SI to guide the application of a piece of legislation. Somebody who thinks his business interests might be affected by that legislation might want to phone the civil servant to make suggestions about how the SI be constructed. That is outsider meddling, and is improper -- but such things happen.

It's only meddling if said civil servant takes on board what he says and puts it into the SI. I doubt they had a gun to their head. What the civil servant does would be illegal in my eyes

Trampas wrote: »

what happens to the dept of finance employees if fg take over?

Hopefully new legislation to get PS sacked, there's no point changing the politicians when the same clowns in the civil service are still there

TheRealPONeil

Head The Wall wrote: »

It's only meddling if said civil servant takes on board what he says and puts it into the SI. I doubt they had a gun to their head. What the civil servant does would be illegal in my eyes



Hopefully new legislation to get PS sacked, there's no point changing the politicians when the same clowns in the civil service are still there

The level of political naivity and shallow understanding shown in this forum of how Irish society works is alarming. These posters are expected to vote on who will lead this country next ? Prepare for more of the same - unless most of the population in here is under eighteen, which wouldn't surprise me considering the level of rational discussion.

P. Breathnach

Head The Wall wrote: »

It's only meddling if said civil servant takes on board what he says and puts it into the SI. I doubt they had a gun to their head. What the civil servant does would be illegal in my eyes

You are suggesting that it should be acceptable for a person to induce a civil servant to take an inappropriate action, but wrong for the civil servant to do so. I draw the line at the earlier point: it is also wrong to induce a civil servant to do the wrong thing.

If the civil servant is supposed not to be influenced by an approach from somebody with a vested interest, why allow such an approach to be made at all? At the very least, it uses up working time for no useful purpose. And if the SI ends up being favourable to the interests of the person who made the approach, an inference might be drawn that making the approach had borne fruit -- but the outcome might have been entirely fortuitous, as the SI might have taken that form in any event.

There are proper channels for trying to influence things. That's the territory of elected representatives. Ministers can ask civil servants working in certain areas to meet lobbyists. That is covered by the protocols. If the civil servant believes that a suggestion from a lobbyist can be accommodated, then this is made known to the Minister, who can then decide what to do. No sensible civil servant would incorporate a lobbyist's wishes without a clear signal from the Minister.

gandalf

TBH to get verification of the figures by an Independent source sounds like an extremely prudent direction to take given the complete fiction the figures have been from the Department of Finance in the past.

If we as a country are preparing the most severe budgets most of us have ever seen of course it is prudent to have accurate verified figures to plan that budget out. Up until a week ago we were told the Budget needed to save approx 3 billion this year, now we are being told by different sources that we may need to save around 5 billion this year? To me it seems that the Department of Finance are sticking their fingers in the air and guessing a figure.

rumour

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You say that as if it is an inherently wrong thing to do..

There are figures for growth predicted. They are in black and white and you know just as well as I do where to go and look for them. Who decided to put those figures there. Someone did, an individual, who is this person? Am I to accept that no one is responsible. That I do not accept. It is inherently wrong to defend a situation where no one is responsible.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you read and considered what I said, you might see that I am actually trying to explain the role of civil servants. I don't see how that can be deplorable...

Civil servants are either servants or unaccountable leeches with no responsibilities. If they are servants and they do something wrong, once is forgivable, repeatedly means they are not fit for purpose and must be replaced. If they are unaccountable leeches with no direct responsibility, this is inherently wrong.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't know, mainly because I don't know what projections you have in mind....

The Bertie defense 'don't know, can't rememeber', while that may be acceptable in political circles and the public sector I think it is inherently wrong. Consisently over the last 18 months our budgets have been publically framed on economic predictions that even on this forum were questioned. You now plead ignorance

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't see any sense in that

If the function of the Department of Finance is not to manage the economy and deliver advice and constraints to the minister, what is their function? Please see my first point someone typed predictions onto a report and someone sanctioned that. Who are these people and what are their responsibilities. If it is not a civil servant then why do we have staff at the depertment of finance...

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Evidence, please.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1011/1224280782856.html
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1020766.shtml
A starter, google is full of links. Presumably you will tell me that there is no evidence of civil servant involvement. You are then relying on the traditional defense of 'unaccountability'. A convenient tool in a system of unaccountability that I find inherently wrong.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You may believe it, but you have made no case at all.

You believe there is no case to answer, as the country sinks. Accountability and individual responsibility are by your response not the remit of a civil servant. I find this deplorable and inherently wrong.

This morning a letter appeared in the Irish Times which I think indicates very well what will transpires in the future.

Madam, – Garret FitzGerald often writes about the immorality of tax evasion but never of the immorality of rapacious, confiscatory taxation. He can blame whoever he likes for tax evasion, but he should stand up and shoulder his share of personal responsibility for its growth. He was a senior member of the 1973-77 Fine Gael/Labour coalition that presided over the idiotic, rapacious, confiscatory increase of income tax to a marginal rate of 77 per cent (including 10 per cent surcharge, plus social insurance, levies, etc, and VAT rates up to 35 per cent) with tax-free allowances and tax bands so small that the highest marginal rate affected moderate incomes. It was the cluelessness of that coalition, whose only answer to any problem was to increase taxes, that drove broad segments of Irish society at all income levels to tax evasion and avoidance.
There is no immorality in evading rapacious taxation. For many at the time, tax evasion was essential for survival. Then it became embedded, with all the consequences that ensued when taxation levels were reduced.
But it first proliferated under Fine Gael/Labour and Mr FitzGerald, and it was they who first flinched at effective tax enforcement. The succeeding Fianna Fáil governments upon whom he heaps mountains of blame, and his own Fine Gael/Labour coalitions of the 1980s whom he somehow fails to mention, merely followed his precedent. The culture of tax evasion is the most enduring legacy of the 1973-77 coalition.
For all his praise of civic morality and social cohesion in other countries, all countries with high levels of taxation experience high levels of tax evasion. Look no further than German efforts to pressure Switzerland regarding untaxed German deposits.
Perhaps additional taxes are needed now. But individual taxes should not be looked at in isolation. The cumulative burden of all the different taxes levied on payroll, salary and expenditure needs to be fully considered, especially on marginal income. The combined marginal burden of income tax, PRSI, health and other levies, and then VAT and excise duties on the expenditure of what remains, is in the range 60 per cent to 90 per cent depending on the product purchased.
I think the current cumulative burden on marginal income can be fairly described as confiscatory and there is a challenging burden of proof on those who advocate higher taxes to show both that the revenue they forecast will be realised and that the increased taxes will not be economically counter-productive.
If high taxes truly were the path to prosperity, Ireland in the mid-1970s to late 1980s would have been paradise.
I graduated in 1979. There were plenty of jobs then, but I was determined not to be a tax slave to spendthrift politicians such as Mr FitzGerald. My tax avoidance measure was simple, I emigrated immediately. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL Mac GUINNESS,
PO Box 8956,
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia..

If we persist with a system that defends incompetence and is not seen to take action then individuals will protect themselves against that incompetence. The above letter is an example. There are threads here already where people have openly admitted to moving their money out of Ireland. What is inherently wrong cannot and should not be defended as you are trying to do.

P. Breathnach

rumour wrote: »

There are figures for growth predicted. They are in black and white and you know just as well as I do where to go and look for them. Who decided to put those figures there. Someone did, an individual, who is this person? Am I to accept that no one is responsible. That I do not accept. It is inherently wrong to defend a situation where no one is responsible.

Civil servants are either servants or unaccountable leeches with no responsibilities. If they are servants and they do something wrong, once is forgivable, repeatedly means they are not fit for purpose and must be replaced. If they are unaccountable leeches with no direct responsibility, this is inherently wrong.

The Bertie defense 'don't know, can't rememeber', while that may be acceptable in political circles and the public sector I think it is inherently wrong. Consisently over the last 18 months our budgets have been publically framed on economic predictions that even on this forum were questioned. You now plead ignorance

If the function of the Department of Finance is not to manage the economy and deliver advice and constraints to the minister, what is their function? Please see my first point someone typed predictions onto a report and someone sanctioned that. Who are these people and what are their responsibilities. If it is not a civil servant then why do we have staff at the depertment of finance...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1011/1224280782856.html
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1020766.shtml
A starter, google is full of links. Presumably you will tell me that there is no evidence of civil servant involvement. You are then relying on the traditional defense of 'unaccountability'. A convenient tool in a system of unaccountability that I find inherently wrong.

You believe there is no case to answer, as the country sinks. Accountability and individual responsibility are by your response not the remit of a civil servant. I find this deplorable and inherently wrong.

This morning a letter appeared in the Irish Times which I think indicates very well what will transpires in the future.



If we persist with a system that defends incompetence and is not seen to take action then individuals will protect themselves against that incompetence. The above letter is an example. There are threads here already where people have openly admitted to moving their money out of Ireland. What is inherently wrong cannot and should not be defended as you are trying to do.

Your post is extraordinarily consistent in that not one of the points you make relates to the points to which they are purported to be responses. I think this arises because you do not make any distinction between civil servants and other persons who have functions in the making of policy -- in particular, you seem to regard civil servants as being responsible for politicians' decisions.

rumour

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Your post is extraordinarily consistent in that not one of the points you make relates to the points to which they are purported to be responses. I think this arises because you do not make any distinction between civil servants and other persons who have functions in the making of policy -- in particular, you seem to regard civil servants as being responsible for politicians' decisions.

The wriggling of the worm continues and lack of accountability continues. Who is responsible for putting predictions in front of the minister?

Is it civil servants yes or no?

P. Breathnach

rumour wrote: »

The wriggling of the worm continues and lack of accountability continues. Who is responsible for putting predictions in front of the minister?

Is it civil servants yes or no?

Oh, good. Now you are focusing. I take it that you mean economic forecasts.

Yes, the Department of Finance does produce economic forecasts. So also do the Central Bank, the ESRI, and a number of organisations and individuals outside the public service.

One of the few things on which economists tend to agree is that economic forecasting is not, and probably never can be, reliable. It might give you a general indication of what is to be expected, but nothing better than that. Technically, it is a very complex business, involving a large number of variables (many of which are not readily amenable to measurement) and assumptions about such things as external conditions (particularly important with open economies like Ireland's). One unexpected event can have a great impact.

Look at how volatile markets are, particularly such markets as financial futures, commodities, or stocks & shares. That volatility arises because the future is unknown and unpredictable -- even though the big players deploy massive resources in trying to read a page or two ahead, and they are operating with scenarios that might be a bit more limited than an entire economy.

You cannot blame any employee for failing to do the impossible.

rumour

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Oh, good. Now you are focusing. I take it that you mean economic forecasts.

Yes, the Department of Finance does produce economic forecasts. So also do the Central Bank, the ESRI, and a number of organisations and individuals outside the public service.

One of the few things on which economists tend to agree is that economic forecasting is not, and probably never can be, reliable. It might give you a general indication of what is to be expected, but nothing better than that. Technically, it is a very complex business, involving a large number of variables (many of which are not readily amenable to measurement) and assumptions about such things as external conditions (particularly important with open economies like Ireland's). One unexpected event can have a great impact.

Look at how volatile markets are, particularly such markets as financial futures, commodities, or stocks & shares. That volatility arises because the future is unknown and unpredictable -- even though the big players deploy massive resources in trying to read a page or two ahead, and they are operating with scenarios that might be a bit more limited than an entire economy.

You cannot blame any employee for failing to do the impossible.

And the wriggling continues who is responsible?

Is it civil servants yes or no?

No need to qualify with excuses...(betting on horses in complex also)

P. Breathnach

rumour wrote: »

And the wriggling continues who is responsible?

Is it civil servants yes or no?

No need to qualify with excuses...(betting on horses in complex also)

I have given you a straight answer, and you accuse me of wriggling. I don't believe that you are interested in discussion.

Tipp Man

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have given you a straight answer, and you accuse me of wriggling. I don't believe that you are interested in discussion.

Sorry but you haven't answered his question

Who is responsible??

P. Breathnach

Tipp Man wrote: »

Sorry but you haven't answered his question

Who is responsible??

What did I say here?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

... Yes, the Department of Finance does produce economic forecasts...