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.