Fine Gael - Reinventing Government

whatawaster

It's 89 pages long, so it's a big read:

http://www.finegael.ie/upload/ReinventingGovernment.pdf

Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but these are some of the main points:

The abolishing of over 145 state bodies and companies including the dismantling of the HSE and FAS and their replacement with better, more cost effective alternatives;
· Saving over €5billion, or 1 euro in 10 spent by public bodies, by confronting waste, duplication and inefficiency;
· Externally recruiting new high level specialists in banking, taxation and macro economic forecasting to improve the Dept. of Finance’s capacity to deliver on key tasks;
· At least 1/3rd of all appointments at a senior level in the Public Service (above PO level) will be made from outside the current system for a period of 5 years;
· All lobbyists will have to be registered with the Standard’s in Public Office Commission and recent restrictions to the Freedom of Information Act will be reversed.
· We will establish an Independent Fiscal Council to advise Parliament on issues such as borrowing levels, debt reduction and taxation planning. The Fiscal Council will be accountable to the Oireachtas Finance Committee.




The abolishing of the HSE, FAS and 143 other state bodies can only be a good thing imo

Laminations

Kenny will be on RTE Radio 1 at 1 o clock to discuss this. Seems like it contains some good ideas for long needed reform. Hopefully Kenny is asked about the allegations that Cowen knew more about Anglo than he told the Dail and the people - hopefully Kenny lays into him for not responding to these allegations and for being a traitor if they are true

vaasa08

A bit aspirational but in fairness some good ideas regarding Finance Council and at least one third of senior appointments to be from the private sector. I think that the €200k limit on top salaries is about right too.

Now we need is more ideas from Government parties and labour.

Let the debate begin!:cool:

NewHillel

Enda was pressed hard on the issue of pensions for retired Public Servants. The troops will be happy - he stonewalled the issue.

Contrast his position with what is being done in the BBC
Better still, look at what has been achieved in eircom - this disproves the myth that existing pension arrangements are sacrosanct. It represents a substantial reduction in benefits for retired staff, who had Civil Service Status.

Where there's a will, there most certainly is a way. The issue is the conflict of interest, involved. If politicians tackle this issue, they are cutting their own benefits. (It would appear that Enda is not immune from that well-established Public Servant mindset. No surrender, what we have we hold! F*&% the rest of you.) In my view, Politicians, serving or retired,who continue to claim excessive benefits, during a time of national crisis are nothing short of traitorous.

Do you really believe that Brian Cowan has earned a pension worth more than €7m? Do you really believe that Minister Mary Harney has earned a pension valued at more than €4.5m?

Enda has no faith in FF, and I have no faith in Enda! (His report merits a D, at best, with a comment "needs to do much better".) I will never vote for FG, while he is its Leader. He has neither the leadership skills nor bottle that it will take for Ireland to retain its sovereignty. His ongoing refusal to tackle issues such as these, and the self-serving failure of the other mainstream parties also, represent a serious threat to our democracy. It risk's radicalizing the mainstream electorate and driving them into the arms of smaller parties - some not known for their commitment to the organs of state. These are unlikly to see us through without outside intervention. Even worse, we cannot be far from a tipping point in terms of social cohesion, as families under pressure see what is happening in the upper echelons of society.

Laminations

He wasn't great on some specifics and his lack of desire to cut current undeserved pensions is disappointing. But he did say nobody is guaranteed a job and he recognises major cuts need to be made. Also I think he is damn right to let the government collapse on the budget, their stating in power is damaging us hugely

Rebelheart

Just heard Kenny on about this. I didn't hear a word about changing our voting system, and thus ending the clientalism which undermines Dáil Éireann as a national legislative assembly.

I searched for "PR-STV" and "electoral" in the 'Reinventing Government' paper linked above. Nothing appeared. Surely one of the most fundamental changes required to reinvent government is to change the current electoral system?

His proposal to abolish the Seanad makes huge sense, but I can't see the turkeys voting for Christmas. Ever.

The Blueshirts also seem to be more honest than Labour are about the extent of the cuts required. I'll probably vote Labour at the next election but they are trying far too hard to avoid alienating potential voters: they need to start being honest about the extent of the cuts required. It's getting increasingly offensive and spineless.

Then again, neither Fine Gael nor Labour want to be in government at the moment no matter what Kenny (or Gilmore) says to the contrary. It would be madness for them to take the flak for this budget.

Laminations

Rebelheart wrote: »

It would be madness for them to take the flak for this budget.

It would be madness for the public to give them flak for this budget. You don't blame the repairman who hands you the bill for the damage that was done by the sleeven theif who wrecked the place. People need to constantly be reminded that the appropriate target of flak is FF.

syklops

I searched for "PR-STV" and "electoral" in the 'Reinventing Government' paper linked above. Nothing appeared. Surely one of the most fundamental changes required to reinvent government is to change the current electoral system?

How much money, quickly, will changing the electoral system save? None. Instead it will probably get the state bogged down for decades in legal challenges, paying massive sums to lawyers.

Disbanding FAS, could save money over night. I'm all for long term changes, but right now we need to plug some of the holes that the money is pouring out of.

He wasn't great on some specifics and his lack of desire to cut current undeserved pensions is disappointing.

It always annoys me when people say "He wasn't great on specifics". If you're trying to get into government, and you are going to have some tough decisions when you get in, including cutting pensions of senior public servants, its probably best none of them find out your going to cut their pension, before the election.

You know the reason why turkeys don't vote for Christmas? It's because they know when Christmas is and what it entails.

Dannyboy83

A lot of sensible proposals by Fine Gael.

On the issue of disbanding of the HSE, introduction of FairCare, they'd have my vote alone.

FG get a majority and the crisis is over, bond rates will plummet.
FF stay in or Labour get in, and it's bailout time.

On the bright side, huge changes are coming to Ireland, regardless of what happens now.
The game is up!

NewHillel

vaasa08 wrote: »

A bit aspirational but in fairness some good ideas ...:cool:

It's entirely aspirational - pressed on rte, he had no idea as to how he'd make it happen.

syklops

NewHillel wrote: »

It's entirely aspirational - pressed on rte, he had no idea as to how he'd make it happen.

How he'd make what happen?

smiles302

Liking the training vouchers instead of FAS. Wonder how they will work...

FreudianSlippers

Well, that seals the deal for me. Not a huge fan of FG's social policies, but because of this they will have my vote next time around.

Rebelheart

Laminations wrote: »

It would be madness for the public to give them flak for this budget. You don't blame the repairman who hands you the bill for the damage that was done by the sleeven theif who wrecked the place. People need to constantly be reminded that the appropriate target of flak is FF.

I agree with you. Fianna Fáil couldn't be tortured enough as far as I'm concerned; the only major disappointment about FF getting all this shít is that Patrick Bartholomew Ahern is off in the sunset living it up on God knows how many pensions, and in at least one house which was given to him as a present by a property developer, leaving his underlings to take all the flak.

Nevertheless, my point was, and remains, that in the This Week interview Kenny, when asked about Fine Gael's willingness to go into government before the end of this year, said they are keen to put "the people" above party politics and enter into government as soon as possible. This is nonsense.

Rebelheart

syklops wrote: »

How much money, quickly, will changing the electoral system save? None. Instead it will probably get the state bogged down for decades in legal challenges, paying massive sums to lawyers.

'None' is not correct. Changing the electoral system will save money by making nationally-elected political representatives much more efficient, with their traditional clientalism being handled by local councillors.

Changing from PR-STV should be part of the same package as the abolition of Seanad Éireann, the radical reduction in the number of TDs (a number in part justified precisely because TDs, unlike most members of parliament across Europe, have much more local issues to work on, something which is due entirely to the multiseat PR-STV system).

Why do you think it would get the state bogged down in legal challenges? PR-STV is not enshrined in Bunreacht na hÉireann, as far as I know, and in fact was insisted upon by the British in 1920/21. There is a sufficient number of people in Ireland who can see its flaws and how it undermines good politics and civic life here. The very fact that idiots such as Healy-Rea can hold the state to ransom should be enough to get this issue widely debated. This sort of stunt just shows how unrepresentative PR-STV has actually become.

JonathanAnon

I think a lot of this is aspirational, though I do agree with the sentiments.. The unions wont stand for getting rid of the HSE i.e. and the staff employed.. similar with the quangos... Kenny better be ready to lay down the law to the ZZ Top lads if he is gonna implement any of his plan..

Biggins

I haven't read the PDF yet but I will.
In the meantime, I suspect its more of the same old tactic of politicians promises and wishful dreams being shoved upon the public again - and just in time for an nearing election/bye-election too by chance!

I will be reading it soon to see that they say they are going to do about TD's abusing expenses and state office alone (and the corresponding punishments that if they have any honesty, should be incorporated too).

smiles302

Biggins wrote: »

I haven't read the PDF yet but I will.
In the meantime, I suspect its more of the same old tactic of politicians promises and wishful dreams being shoved upon the public again - and just in time for an nearing election/bye-election too by chance!

I will be reading it soon to see that they say they are going to do about TD's abusing expenses and state office alone (and the corresponding punishments that if they have any honesty, should be incorporated too).

I'm nearly half way through, there will be a 200k cap on wages with a 35% reduction in the numbers in the Dail, and a lot more transparency. I didn't notice anything directly related to expenses, but I may have just missed it.

gandalf

I see no mention of the list system or partial list system any more. Have they dropped this as one of their reforms going forward. If so I will be extremely disappointed in them as this was one of the main reasons I was considering voting for them.

dan_d

I will read the pdf tomorrow, however have been listening to the radio during the day and hearing about it.

The sound bites sound excellent, but unfortunately, until they put their money where their mouth is, I'll remain skeptical. As for convincing me to vote for them...I want to hear what the individuals who turn up on my door step prior to election time have to say before I decide.

Dannyboy83

dan_d wrote: »

As for convincing me to vote for them...I want to hear what the individuals who turn up on my door step prior to election time have to say before I decide.

Why?

As far as I'm concerned, it's as simple as this:

If Labour get in, Ireland is doomed.
They'll piss and moan about public expenditure, they'll heavily increase tax and stifle any possible recovery, and there will be little real reform.

If Fianna Fail stay in, you are rewarding bad behaviour and incompetence.
They probably won't even take the hard choices anymore, as they'll have a new mandate, although it likely would be preferable to Labour.

The worst possible outcome would be a FF/Labour coaliton.

If Fine Gael get in, the eyes of Europe will be on them, waiting to deliver.
Their policies are exactly what this country needs at this moment in time.
Fiscal correction, Fiscal responsibility, Reform of the public service.
If they deliver on only HALF of their promises, we are doing 55 billion times better than we would under FF or Labour.


Fine Gael are obviously going to face heavy opposition from the public services - who are going to vote Labour, but anyone outside the public service should be voting for Fine Gael.

NewHillel

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Why?

If Labour get in, Ireland is doomed.
They'll piss and moan about public expenditure, they'll heavily increase tax and stifle any possible recovery, and there will be little real reform.

...

If Fine Gael get in, the eyes of Europe will be on them, waiting to deliver.

Will "the eyes of Europe" not be on Labour, too?

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Their policies are exactly what this country needs at this moment in time.
Fiscal correction, Fiscal responsibility, Reform of the public service.
If they deliver on only HALF of their promises, we are doing 55 billion times better than we would under FF or Labour.

All the policies mentioned will do SFA for our current problems. Where will the axe fall, and how? That's what we need to know. Enda on RTE today, stonewalled any questions on how redundancies might be achieved, the cost, or any question of reducing public sector pensions.

Maybe it really is time they brought in the IMF. In Hungrary they wanted a cap on severance pay to all public-sector workers. It would be great to have this in place before the current lot are kicked out! At least they would be having no big payouts!

Scarab80

NewHillel wrote: »

All the policies mentioned will do SFA for our current problems. Where will the axe fall, and how? That's what we need to know. Enda on RTE today, stonewalled any questions on how redundancies might be achieved, the cost, or any question of reducing public sector pensions.

In my opinion what is good in this document is that it doesn't attempt to impose simple ideas onto a system as complex as the public sector but instead devolves power to the people at the coalface to make those decisions and puts pressure on top public servants to set goals, achieve them, and compete for resources.

How is it that road building started to come in under budget and within time when PPP and fixed cost projects started, there is no one thing that was done differently in the planning and construction stages, but instead the system was put in place which incentivised efficiencies.

I'm very encouraged by this document and if fully implemented could be one the most positive signifcant changes to how the state operates in decades.

bijapos

smiles302 wrote: »

I'm nearly half way through, there will be a 200k cap on wages with a 35% reduction in the numbers in the Dail, and a lot more transparency. I didn't notice anything directly related to expenses, but I may have just missed it.

Its actually the Oireachtas they mean here. 226 Senators and TDs at present. Seanad to be abolished, and 20 TDs to go leaves 146, ie 35%.

Its on p. 15 of the document.

I've only started it, some very interesting and good ideas, some old ones rehashed, some is a bit unclear, and some I disagree with. Kenny was on the News at One, he got a bit muddled on some points so I'm not too sure how the whole document will pan out. The big question is do they really intend to implement this when they get in and how many will they actually implement.

cobwebs

The implementation of the policies contained in the docuement will take the courage of Collins and the doginess of Cosgrave. The policies are reasonably detailed but there needs to be quick and rapid decisions made once the Government changes. Some will take long drawn out constitutional legislation, such as the reduction of 20 TD's and the abolition of the Senate, but the reform of the Public Service must be exact and decisive.

Scarab80 wrote: »

In my opinion what is good in this document is that it doesn't attempt to impose simple ideas onto a system as complex as the public sector but instead devolves power to the people at the coalface to make those decisions and puts pressure on top public servants to set goals, achieve them, and compete for resources.

How is it that road building started to come in under budget and within time when PPP and fixed cost projects started, there is no one thing that was done differently in the planning and construction stages, but instead the system was put in place which incentivised efficiencies.

I'm very encouraged by this document and if fully implemented could be one the most positive signifcant changes to how the state operates in decades.

NewHillel

Scarab80 wrote: »

I'm very encouraged by this document and if fully implemented could be one the most positive signifcant changes to how the state operates in decades.

I don't dispute that, if implemented, the changes would be good for the country. However, none of the urgent, immediate, issues are lookedat. It is these issues that will determine our future, and our childrens future, for the next 5-10 years.

Neither do I believe that Enda is capable of making change on this scale happen. Leo Varaker might be able to, but not Enda. He should step down in the interest of the country.

cobwebs

Yeah, I'm not sure about Kenny. However he did show a bit of spunk when Bruton challenged, was not phased when Lee walked and there is that possibility that he might just have the hard nosed approach to implementing the policies. What other choices do we have? The real issue for me is, how do we get the current Government to step aside?

Dannyboy83

NewHillel wrote: »

Will "the eyes of Europe" not be on Labour, too?

No.

We know what Labour's intentions are - As little cuts as possible, increase tax to close the gap - Europe knows this too.

Therefore, if Labour get in, nobody will be watching, and especially not the bond markets because the game will already be up.

There is only one way out of this mess we are in and that is to cut.
I'd rather it were surgery (FG) than butchery (FF), but at least they are both capable of doing what needs to be done - as opposed to Labour - who are ideologically opposed to it.

All the policies mentioned will do SFA for our current problems. Where will the axe fall, and how? That's what we need to know. Enda on RTE today, stonewalled any questions on how redundancies might be achieved, the cost, or any question of reducing public sector pensions.

At least 30k cuts in the public sector, shutting down the HSE & implementing FairCare, shutting down FAS and trying to stimulate the economy.

Plenty of symbolic gestures such as aboloshing the Seanad, cutting TDs by 1/3, cutting ministerial cars etc. etc.

That doesn't sound like SFA to me, on the contrary, it's rather dramatic.

There are plenty of proposals in this document:
http://www.finegael.ie/upload/NewERA2010.pdf
And this is the most exciting one for me - an Irish health system modelled on the Dutch, widely regarded in the top 3 in Europe:
http://www.faircare.ie/FairCare.pdf

Not only do they have ideas about cleaning up the mess, but they have ideas of what to replace it with.

Maybe it really is time they brought in the IMF.

If Labour get in, then the IMF will be coming regardless, or we'll be going crawling to the ESF at least.
There would probably be civil war in the Labour camp - the party who ideologically opposed to any types of cuts having to make the most dramatic cuts in the history of the state - I can't see how it would work tbh.

The only way out of this mess is a FG majority.
If we don't get that, then those of us who can need to seriously think about packing our bags and leaving.

If you are in favour of huge taxes and no quality of life for the next decade at least, then don't vote for Fine Gael.

Scarab80

NewHillel wrote: »

I don't dispute that, if implemented, the changes would be good for the country. However, none of the urgent, immediate, issues are lookedat. It is these issues that will determine our future, and our childrens future, for the next 5-10 years.

The document outlines much needed reforms to the way services are provided in the state, this is what will affect us for the next 5 - 10 years.

The immediate cuts to try to balance the books will be announced pre-budget I assume. I assume this is what you mean by the urgent issues.

NewHillel wrote: »

Neither do I believe that Enda is capable of making change on this scale happen. Leo Varaker might be able to, but not Enda. He should step down in the interest of the country.

I don't have too much faith in him as a leader either, Fine Gael missed a great chance of putting forward a young and exciting team in the defeat of Richard Bruton. This said Enda Kenny is just one part of a team, it's not like the entire responsibility of implementation rests on his shoulders. I think the importance placed on who is leader is overplayed.

syklops

The sound bites sound excellent, but unfortunately, until they put their money where their mouth is, I'll remain skeptica

And how, pray, is an opposition party meant to put their money where their mouth is?
What will make you happy?

When they win the election?

Neither do I believe that Enda is capable of making change on this scale happen. Leo Varaker might be able to, but not Enda. He should step down in the interest of the country.

Ah Jaysus.

RedDawn

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

If Labour get in, then the IMF will be coming regardless, or we'll be going crawling to the ESF at least.
There would probably be civil war in the Labour camp - the party who ideologically opposed to any types of cuts having to make the most dramatic cuts in the history of the state - I can't see how it would work tbh.

The only way out of this mess is a FG majority.
If we don't get that, then those of us who can need to seriously think about packing our bags and leaving.

If you are in favour of huge taxes and no quality of life for the next decade at least, then don't vote for Fine Gael.

You won't get a Fine Gael majority and you're bloody dreaming if you think you will.

Labour proposes putting up taxes to continental European levels (yeah, like those Dutch people you mentioned earlier), not taxing the place to oblivion AND has agreed that some cuts are needed.

I don't know what your deal is, but clearly you haven't a donkey's backside of an idea about what FG's probable coalition partner is actually advocating...

ArtSmart

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

A lot of sensible proposals by Fine Gael.

On the issue of disbanding of the HSE, introduction of FairCare, they'd have my vote alone.

FG get a majority and the crisis is over, bond rates will plummet.
FF stay in or Labour get in, and it's bailout time.

On the bright side, huge changes are coming to Ireland, regardless of what happens now.
The game is up!

say wha?

ArtSmart

whatawaster wrote: »

The abolishing of the HSE, FAS and 143 other state bodies can only be a good thing imo

by abolish do they mean re-name?

(in that, administration / public service is needed across all areas, or will things just work out themselves?)

the 30,000 will be through 'natural wastage' and 'voluntary redundancies'
according to Kenny's statement on TV - em, isnt that simply describing the expected inevitable future - iow - aren't they really saying 'we'll put a moratorium on public service recruitment? (now ,where did i hear that before...)

Yes, get FF out the ****, but pleaseeee - this sounds like a lot of huff n puff.
I do agree Labour are being very quite - in the details for sure, but nothing in the OP extract gives me much hope.

ArtSmart

Rebelheart wrote: »

Just heard Kenny on about this. I didn't hear a word about changing our voting system, and thus ending the clientalism which undermines Dáil Éireann as a national legislative assembly.

I agree. apparently Noel Dempsey was pushing for it, but his colleagues werent too pushed. strangely enough...

gandalf

ArtSmart wrote: »

I agree. apparently Noel Dempsey was pushing for it, but his colleagues werent too pushed. strangely enough...

I bet they weren't too pushed it is how FF does business.

Dannyboy83

RedDawn wrote: »

You won't get a Fine Gael majority and you're bloody dreaming if you think you will.

Labour proposes putting up taxes to continental European levels (yeah, like those Dutch people you mentioned earlier), not taxing the place to oblivion AND has agreed that some cuts are needed.

I don't know what your deal is, but clearly you haven't a donkey's backside of an idea about what FG's probable coalition partner is actually advocating...

Some cuts?
Pray tell, how do you not tax the place to oblivion, while not heavily cutting expenditure? :rolleyes:
I mean, if we are growing money on trees, why are we concerned about the bond markets at all?

"Some cuts" isn't going to convince anyone, least of all foreign investors.

Dannyboy83

ArtSmart wrote: »

say wha?

LOL, not sure what your question is.

If it's in reference to bailout time, assuming Labour get elected, then have a read off this, and tell me - with a straight face - that you can envisage Labour making 20bln of cuts: (and turkeys voting for xmas)
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/budget-figures-are-all-wrong-says-economist-2410747.html

And assuming they can't make 20bln of cuts, then the only other way to keep the country going is tax.

Now, in Narnia, 20bln of cuts mightn't be taxing the place to oblivion, but given that this is Ireland and our entire income tax take in 2009 was 11bln..................well, you do the maths.

mgmt

Rebelheart wrote: »

Changing from PR-STV should be part of the same package as the abolition of Seanad Éireann, the radical reduction in the number of TDs (a number in part justified precisely because TDs, unlike most members of parliament across Europe, have much more local issues to work on, something which is due entirely to the multiseat PR-STV system).

Why do you think it would get the state bogged down in legal challenges? PR-STV is not enshrined in Bunreacht na hÉireann, as far as I know, and in fact was insisted upon by the British in 1920/21. There is a sufficient number of people in Ireland who can see its flaws and how it undermines good politics and civic life here. The very fact that idiots such as Healy-Rea can hold the state to ransom should be enough to get this issue widely debated. This sort of stunt just shows how unrepresentative PR-STV has actually become.

Article 16:2

5° The members shall be elected on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.

RedDawn

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Some cuts?
Pray tell, how do you not tax the place to oblivion, while not heavily cutting expenditure? :rolleyes:
I mean, if we are growing money on trees, why are we concerned about the bond markets at all?

"Some cuts" isn't going to convince anyone, least of all foreign investors.

1. Labour's position on cuts is fairly clear if you read the speeches and their material, though they don't talk about it a lot: It supports necessary cuts and reshaping the welfare system so that the vulnerable are by far the least hit. It also supports bringing most of Ireland's tax system in line with European standards, which does NOT affect multinationals as the corporate tax isn't part of that from what I've read.

2. A good proportion of people still have money to invest, the conditions are so bad that they are sitting on what they can instead. Problem is that the cuts won't get people working in retail and construction, where we had a lot of employment previously, working again. That means there won't be any point in self-investing in Ireland after the cuts and you're just continuing the pain.

3. The bond markets are not going to punish Ireland for bringing tax conditions here up to European standards instead of cutting key public services. In fact, if/when it solves the deficit problem, they'll be happy.
Ireland pays among the least amount of taxes in the European Union.

ArtSmart

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

LOL, not sure what your question is.

If it's in reference to bailout time, assuming Labour get elected, then have a read off this, and tell me - with a straight face - that you can envisage Labour making 20bln of cuts: (and turkeys voting for xmas)
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/budget-figures-are-all-wrong-says-economist-2410747.html

And assuming they can't make 20bln of cuts, then the only other way to keep the country going is tax.

Now, in Narnia, 20bln of cuts mightn't be taxing the place to oblivion, but given that this is Ireland and our entire income tax take in 2009 was 11bln..................well, you do the maths.

much confused - were you referring to the bank bailout when you mentioned bailout?

Dannyboy83

ArtSmart wrote: »

much confused - were you referring to the bank bailout when you mentioned bailout?

Referring to ESF/IMF.

The bank bailout is another pair of concrete arm bands and could well sink us yet down the road, but the critical issue now is our national balance sheet.

ArtSmart

oh. right.

edit: I dont think Labour are proposing anything outside of the European model / range of responses to similar crises. Unless, you know something I don't?

as for the tax / cuts balance of 50/50 - nothing radical there, just another approach.
the mkts concern is ability to repay, Labour is simply another route to same. no one can tell for sure the best route, but Labour is suggesting theirs is fairer.

Dannyboy83

RedDawn wrote: »

1. Labour's position on cuts is fairly clear if you read the speeches and their material, though they don't talk about it a lot: It supports necessary cuts and reshaping the welfare system so that the vulnerable are by far the least hit. It also supports bringing most of Ireland's tax system in line with European standards, which does NOT affect multinationals as the corporate tax isn't part of that from what I've read.

I'm acquainted with their material - I have no party loyalty - only the right party at the right time.

I agree that we need tax reform and some tax increases.

But there is only 1 tautology here:
In order to satisfy investors, the ECB, our national balance sheet, we need either:
I) Heavy cuts
or
II) Heavy tax increases
or
III) a combination of the two.

Given what Labour have proposed, there is no room for heavy cuts, only moderate cuts delivered over a number of years through efficiencies.
That means it has to be heavy tax increases.

Heavy tax increases = no recovery = a smaller pot year on year to tax/compound reductions in the tax base

2. A good proportion of people still have money to invest, the conditions are so bad that they are sitting on what they can instead. Problem is that the cuts won't get people working in retail and construction, where we had a lot of employment previously, working again. That means there won't be any point in self-investing in Ireland after the cuts and you're just continuing the pain.

I disagree, but it's irrelevant right now.
What matters is that the bond market investors, who have money to invest, are not willing to invest in Ireland.
Russia have said No, Chile have said No.
Unless we can change that, it's game over before any of these potential ideas can even be considered.

3. The bond markets are not going to punish Ireland for bringing tax conditions here up to European standards instead of cutting key public services. In fact, if/when it solves the deficit problem, they'll be happy.
Ireland pays among the least amount of taxes in the European Union.

I agree bond markets will not punish if we show we can balance our books.

The problem is that, if you balance your books through heavy taxation, you are setting yourself up for catastrophe, as the tax base recedes year on year and the black economy swells.

I don't see a problem with taxation being brought in line with European norms - provided services are delivered (we have one of the most well funded public sectors in the world and they have failed to deliver thus far).

I do have a problem with taxation being brought in line with European norms - BEFORE we have begun to recover. We need to stimulate recovery, not stifle it.

I mean, we must be going into a triple dip recession at this stage already, and thats before tax increases.

ArtSmart

where has 'heavy' taxation being mentioned by Labour?
aren't you making assumptions?
my understanding is a fairer taxation system is being proposed.

RedDawn

I'm acquainted with their material - I have no party loyalty - only the right party at the right time.

I find that extremely hard to believe, to be frank.
Even if you aren't acquainted with the material, Labour are a moderate party, they can't avoid making cuts because the European Union rules would destroy them otherwise.

Bear in mind that the EU's influence in these matters makes cuts a certainty if moderates get elected, what the election will decide is where the cuts will be made and what balance with taxation will be struck.

Given what Labour have proposed, there is no room for heavy cuts, only moderate cuts delivered over a number of years through efficiencies. That means it has to be heavy tax increases.

This is thoroughly untrue. If I had to estimate as to Labour's proportion of cuts:taxes, I would say 50:50.

Those are still some pretty deep cuts. The point about Labour is that it will avoid hitting the vulnerable sections of society with massive cuts like the plague.

What some might claim is Labour's taxation agenda couldn't be fulfilled in a year during normal economic conditions, never mind a recession year. If you want to complain about massive tax increases, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Dannyboy83

ArtSmart wrote: »

oh. right.

edit: I dont think Labour are proposing anything outside of the European model / range of responses to similar crises. Unless, you know something I don't?

Well, for a start, this isn't your standard crisis.
Ireland has suffered the biggest decline of any Western nation since the Great Depression.
The appropriate word here would be: radical, unprecedented, catastrophe

I mean - we are mere months, if not weeks, away from governmental collapse and ESF/IMF intervention.

as for the tax / cuts balance of 50/50 - nothing radical there, just another approach.
the mkts concern is ability to repay, Labour is simply another route to same. no one can tell for sure the best route, but Labour is suggesting theirs is fairer.

Of course Labour are suggesting theirs is fairer, it would be idiotic to say it wasn't.
Just as Fianna Fail asserted that benchmarking was fair (vote buying exercise), when the vast majority knew it wasn't.

As for the ratio of cuts, I'll copy/paste from here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68907231&postcount=35
Unsurprisingly, most of their "big hitters" revolve around new taxes such as property tax or water charges, or else removal of tax breaks, which is really just a tax increase anyway.

I agree that some tax increases are needed, and removal of some tax breaks, such as the pensions suggestions.
But

Their cuts are all, 2.5bln over 3 years type and all down to "efficiencies in the public sector"............now where have I heard that before?
Sheer waffle.
At best, 2.5bln is going to yield 1 billion at year 1, so we need a minimum of 7 of these airy fairy proposals, aswell as the tax increases, just to survive year 1.

Then, they need to deliver at least 4 similar such "efficiencies" per year for the subsequent 4 years. This is pure fantasy land stuff, even JK Rowling would be embarassed.

Does anyone really believe that Fianna Fail would be passing the worst budget in Irish History if we were still able to get away with HALF MEASURES as are suggested here by Labour?

If people actually go out and vote for this tripe, then we deserve the IMF.

ArtSmart

meh. aren't those figures you mentioned before the 15 billion was revealed?

anyway, the mkt concern is a policy which is credible and one that will last 4 years. the details are up to us. (hence the necessity of an election)

as for deflation, it can come from any removal of monies from the system, be it from the lower or higher earners. it still has to end up around the 15B, which I haven't head Labour dispute. they've disputed the method, not the amount - far as i'm aware.

Dannyboy83

RedDawn wrote: »

I find that extremely hard to believe, to be frank.

Your entitled to believe that Frank, I'll just have to try to convince you otherwise.

they can't avoid making cuts because the European Union rules would destroy them otherwise.

Evidence please.

Bear in mind that the EU's influence in these matters makes cuts a certainty if moderates get elected, what the election will decide is where the cuts will be made and what balance with taxation will be struck.

The EU's influence didn't impact when insane social welfare increases were delivered, when insane public service increases were delivered, when the bank guarantee was implemented, and by & large does not interfere with the domestic matters regarding this state.

The notion that the EU will force Labour to cut x,y,z is folly.

The primary and immediate concern of the EU/ECB is that that we do not spread the contagion to other member states and bring down the Euro.

The only scenario where the ECB will overrule our decisions is where we have already entered the ESF, at which stage, it's too late anyway.

This is thoroughly untrue. If I had to estimate as to Labour's proportion of cuts:taxes, I would say 50:50.

OK, so working off that assumption.
A) The entire tax take for 2009 was 10 billion, and apprx 10 billion more would be needed from tax alone in a 50:50 scenario, which would mean a doubling of current income tax take. Giving that many other tax avenues are already near capacity (Vat) or over capacity (excise), do you really maintain this is feasible?

If this scenario is feasible, why would Fianna Fail not already have implemented it?
Even Fianna Fail are operating at a ratio of 3:1 on their 6 billion budget due in December, which has overoptimistic growth rates built in.

Those are still some pretty deep cuts. The point about Labour is that it will avoid hitting the vulnerable sections of society with massive cuts like the plague.

The 50:50 scenario assumes cuts in the range of 7.5 to 10 Billion.
Delivered over 3 years.
The numbers simply don't stack up.

As for hitting the most vulnerable section of society, there is no way to circumvent the incoming pain.
Everyone who remains in this country over the next decade is going to suffer, regardless of your employment status or whatever other criteria we use.

As an example, a co-habiting couple are entitled to virtually 0 social welfare unless both are unemployed.
So one salary must provide for 2 people.
This couple will not suffer through social welfare cuts, since they are not entitled to any anyway.
But they will suffer through taxation.
What incentive do we give them to remain here?

A self employed person will suffer through taxation, go out of business and then is not entitled to social welfare.
What incentive do we give them to remain here?

The current level of social welfare entitlements are so high as to deter people from returning to work. They should be incentivised into returning to work, lowering the rate of social welfare would discourage benefits tourism etc.

Then there is the pay apartheid which needs to be addressed between Public and private, but this is branching off into a whole separate discussion.

We will all be taking pain in 1 form or another.
Those who contribute to society should be given the maximum incentive to remain here and initiate the recovery, and those who cannot contribute either need retraining or to emigrate.

It would be nice if we could provide for everyone, but as is, we cannot even sustain the day to day running of the state.

What some might claim is Labour's taxation agenda couldn't be fulfilled in a year during normal economic conditions, never mind a recession year. If you want to complain about massive tax increases, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Bingo
Even in a hypothetical scenario where they take office and attempt to implement massive tax increases, these increases are not capable of delivering by itself.

There really is no alternative to heavy cuts in Ireland 2010.
We simply have to get our spending under control.

Electing Labour to implement the most radical cutting program in the history of the Irish state, is not unlike electing the Ku Klux Klan to promote interracial marriage.
The party would simply tear themselves asunder as they are fundamentally and ideologically opposed to the notion, and we would be left staring into the abyss and another GE.

There is no way to delay the inevitable.
Vote for FG, reform this country.

Einhard

I've been very impressed with a number of FG's policy proposals over the past year or so. Even if I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of everything they set out, the breadth and the scope of the reforms they claim to want to make are impressive, and certainly far from anything that FF would ever propose. FG have also shown themselves as the only party willing to take unpopular but necessary positions on issues such as benchmarking. They opposed that programme from the start, and did so at considerable cost to their electoral chances. While I think Enda Kenny is probably a liability for them at the moment, it's obvious that he has done great work in building the party up from the disaster of 2002, and his main problems are optical. Given that Bertie was both a skilled public performer and a disaster as taoiseach, I'm prepared to forgive Kenny that one flaw, and I think it's deeply unfair to dismiss FG purely on the basis of its leader's wooden performances.

Having said all that however, I do have problems with one proposal that is common to all the parties, and that's the cutting of all civil service salaries to €200k. It's in keeping with public opinion of course, and most state employees aren't worth any higher, but it's essential for some positions in the civil service that we get the highest calibre candidates possible. And we just won't be able to attract them if we set caps on salaries that are significantly lower than that on offer in the private sector.

Matthew Elderfield, for example, has poven to be a highly capable financial regulator, and has won plaudits across the board, both here and abroad. The Brits are supposedly keeping an eye on him with respect to filling a role in their regulatory mechanism. Similarly, Patrick Honohan, is highly regarded, and has worked in the World Bank and the IMF, lectued in Australian and American universities, and been employed by leading financial firms. He's also, as far as I can tell, an excellent head of the Central Bank.

These are exactly the calibre of people we need to be attracting to such important positions, especially after the fiasco overseen by their predecessors. My worry though, is that we won't be able to attract this type of candidates if we don't offer them renumeration commensurate with the private sector, or that on offer in other jurisidctions. And so we'll end up cutting off our nose to spite our face, saving a little in salaries, whilst missing out on the best candidates who would serve us more, and save us more in the long run.

Dannyboy83

Excellent point Einhard, I believe the guy who ran the NTMA until recently was on 1 million, and worth every penny by all accounts.

JonathanAnon

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Excellent point Einhard, I believe the guy who ran the NTMA until recently was on 1 million, and worth every penny by all accounts.

Well I think the main reason that people are giving Michael Somers plaudits is because of his decision not to invest hugely in Anglo.. (he DID invest some money, 40 million I think... because pressure was put on him to do so ) The question I would be asking would be why everybody else in the Dept Of Finance (and their subcontractors PWC and Ernst & Young) DIDNT know about Anglo, and why none of them have been held accountable... I mean these people are paid a lot of money because they are supposedly good at their jobs?

it's essential for some positions in the civil service that we get the highest calibre candidates possible.

I dont think the current problem is that the people at the top are hugely overpaid, I think the problem is that there are too many people that are "at the top".... Too many chiefs etc etc etc... I would certainly agree that if a guy is "worth it", then certainly bring him on board.. I just think that there are a lot of public service lifers (in management positions) who are on HUGE wages because of time served rather than talent or hard work, and these people are not "worth it"..

Matthew Elderfield, for example, has poven to be a highly capable financial regulator, and has won plaudits across the board, both here and abroad.

Elderfield certainly seems to be a competent and forthright individual... But he's asked for a LOT of extra staff that are going to be added to current expenditure... that would be fine if it had been 2003, but now .... i) we cant afford it, ii) The horse has bolted, regulation wasnt there when it WAS required... the banks arent lending any more..... and iii) the banks are effectively approaching full state ownership at this stage...