Labour proposes major changes

Scofflaw

Labour Dail motion proposes major changes to system of govt and public administration - some pretty practical changes here, and hard to disagree with most of them:

-Legislation on the issue of cabinet confidentiality, to ensure that it cannot be used to cover up necessary investigations.

- The restoration of the Freedom of Information Act to its original form and scope and the extension of its remit to the Garda Síochána and other public bodies.

- The introduction of Whistleblowers legislation.

- Spending limits for local and Presidential elections and the reduction in the ceilings for European and general elections.

- Reform of the system of appointments to state boards to ensure that the process is transparent and that those appointed have the requisite knowledge and skills.

- Legislation to further restrict contributions to political parties and candidates and to require greater disclosure of donations.

- Repeal of the Official Secrets Act, retaining a criminal sanction only for breaches which involve a serious threat to public policy (the international relations of the State, the conduct of a fair trial, national security and the like).

- A statutory register of lobbyists, and rules concerning the practice of lobbying.

- Rules to ensure that senior public servants (including political appointees) cannot work in the private sector, in an area involving a potential conflict of interest with their former public employment, until at least two years have elapsed.

- A 50 per cent increase in Dáil sitting days, with sittings four days a week, a shorter summer recess and significantly reduced breaks at Christmas and Easter.

- A break-up of the Government monopoly on legislation and its stranglehold over the business of the Dáil

- A restriction on the use of guillotine motions and other procedural devices that prevent full debate on Bills and other measures.

- A petition system for the Dáil, similar to that operating in the European Parliament.

- An independent Fiscal Advisory Council, separated from decision-makers in government, to undertake fiscal macroeconomic projections and monitoring, independent of Government and reporting to the Dáil and the public.

- Bring forward the annual Estimates cycle, so that it becomes more timely and relevant, with the Book of Estimates accompanied by a detailed performance report on what the previous year's spending had achieved.

- Oireachtas Committees to be given powers to publish reports on the economy, efficiency and propriety of the Estimates and to give the Dáil an assessment and evaluation of the merits of individual expenditure proposals.

- A role for the Ceann Comhairle in deciding whether a Minister has failed to provide reasonable information in response to a question.

- A repeal of the "gag" clause that applies to the officers of public bodies and prevents them from expressing an opinion on the merits of Government policy

- A requirement that the Attorney General's advice to Government be published if it is publicly relied upon as justifying or requiring the passage, defeat or amendment of a Bill or the development or amendment of a policy or programme, unless the advice is given in the course of litigation or in relation to pending or contemplated litigation.

- The provision of adequate powers for parliamentary inquiries into matters of public interest and importance, if necessary by an amendment to the Constitution..

- A reformulated code of laws, replacing both the Ministers and Secretaries Acts and the Public Service Management Act, which would spell out the functions, powers and duties of Ministers in charge of each Department of State. The law that defines the relationship between Ministers and their Departments to enshrine three basic propositions:

- if the Minister takes a decision personally, he or she should say so and account for it

- if the decision is taken by the Department, under a delegated power, then the relevant, named official should say so and account for it

- the Minister would then have to account for the degree of supervision he or she exercised over the Department in relation to the exercise within it of delegated powers.

- Legislate for a system of delegation of specified Ministerial powers to specified officers who would, to the extent of the authority delegated to them, be accountable both within the Department and also directly to the Oireachtas for the exercise of those powers.

- Ensure that each Minister is responsible for the supervision and oversight of his or her Department to ensure that adequate standards are maintained; outputs are delivered as determined or agreed; and procedures are in place to enable the Minister to respond to problems of administration and to give an account to the Dáil and to the public generally.

- The responsibilities of Secretary Generals to be strengthened by assigning to them authority and accountability for ensuring that the Department and its officers perform their functions in a non-political and impartial manner, in accordance with law and with the highest ethical standards of conduct and integrity and in accordance with any prescribed code of conduct.

- The Secretary General to be required to ensure that risk management and other internal controls are in place so that public funds are safeguarded; functions are performed effectively, efficiently and economically; laws, regulations and approved policies are complied with; and records and reports are adequate, reliable and accurate.

The Secretary General to be given specific responsibility for ensuring that legal advice or opinion is brought to the personal attention of the Minister if it casts substantial doubt on the constitutionality or validity of a statute, statutory instrument or departmental scheme, practice or course of action

Source

Some of them might not work, of course, and some of them are a little bit waffly, but there's some practical and long-needed proposals there. Presumably the Dail motion will fail - will these proposals be part of the Labour manifesto?

cordially,
Scofflaw

southsiderosie

What I find incredible is that most of these proposals are not actually in place today. This certainly explains a lot of what is wrong with Irish politics and government, especially when it comes to evaluations of policy and accountability of ministers.

Rebelheart

No proposals from Labour to change our electoral system, and thus the clientalism which marks national politics and undermines Dáil Éireann as a national legislature. It's incomprehensible that they, like Fine Gael, think our system of government can truly be changed when something as fundamental as our voting system remains unchanged. This is a no-brainer, as the Yanks might say.

southsiderosie

Rebelheart wrote: »

No proposals from Labour to change our electoral system, and thus the clientalism which marks national politics and undermines Dáil Éireann as a national legislature. It's incomprehensible that they, like Fine Gael, think our system of government can truly be changed when something as fundamental as our voting system remains unchanged. This is a no-brainer, as the Yanks might say.

But is that something that can be done in the Dail, or would it require a constitutional referendum? I think that a national list system would also help decouple the Dail from parish pump politics, but is the mechanism for changing that the same? And even if it was, wouldn't it make sense to pursue that as a change in how elections works, versus a change in the structure of the day-to-day operations of the government?

Manach

RE: - Rules to ensure that senior public servants (including political appointees) cannot work in the private sector, in an area involving a potential conflict of interest with their former public employment, until at least two years have elapsed.

AKAIK, that would fall foul to one the unenumnerated consitutional rights about freedom to work?

Wolfe Tone

- A break-up of the Government monopoly on legislation and its stranglehold over the business of the Dáil

What exactly do they mean by that??

Legislate for a system of delegation of specified Ministerial powers to specified officers who would, to the extent of the authority delegated to them, be accountable both within the Department and also directly to the Oireachtas for the exercise of those powers.

So more high paid civil servents? Who are to be given powers intended for ministers?

southsiderosie

Manach wrote: »

RE: - Rules to ensure that senior public servants (including political appointees) cannot work in the private sector, in an area involving a potential conflict of interest with their former public employment, until at least two years have elapsed.

AKAIK, that would fall foul to one the unenumnerated consitutional rights about freedom to work?

Those kinds of clauses are pretty standard, even in the US, which is more of a 'right to work' country than anywhere in Europe. It's more about preventing a conflict of interest.

Also, I see this a something similar to a 'no competition clause' which are pretty common in the private-sector.

CoalBucket

Waiting for somone to post about labour not having any policies.

It drives me insane when I hear that line trotted out by the media, lazy gits, do a bit of research !!!

NewHillel

Scofflaw wrote: »

Labour Dail motion proposes major changes to system of govt and public administration - some pretty practical changes here, and hard to disagree with most of them:

Source

Some of them might not work, of course, and some of them are a little bit waffly, but there's some practical and long-needed proposals there. Presumably the Dail motion will fail - will these proposals be part of the Labour manifesto?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I hope they do form part of the Labour Manifesto. However, they don't address the primary issue we are facing - where the cuts should fall, in the interests of fairness and equity. Given the scale of those cuts, the party with the most equitable proposals in this area gets my vote. (What I consider most equitable should be clear by now...)

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote: »

Labour Dail motion proposes major changes to system of govt and public administration - some pretty practical changes here, and hard to disagree with most of them:

Great some policy from Labour. But we still don't know what they will tax more and what spending they will cut!

Calls for the introduction of a programme of reform that would include at a minimum the following elements:

- Legislation on the issue of cabinet confidentiality, to ensure that it cannot be used to cover up necessary investigations.

What is "necessary"?

- The restoration of the Freedom of Information Act to its original form and scope and the extension of its remit to the Garda Síochána and other public bodies.

Anti authoritarians in Labour are busy. great! but the Civil service may well shoot this down.

- The introduction of Whistleblowers legislation.

Great! ditto!

- Spending limits for local and Presidential elections and the reduction in the ceilings for European and general elections.

Don't see how this will change anything. Parties are being run by "professionals" who get money from central state coffers and it only mitigates against small parties and independents. Will these limits be on Parties or on candidates? You would have to have a strong control on visibility of what was bewing spent. who will do that? How will it be paid for? What levels of spending? It woudl prevent a millionaire from buying an election but why would one bother? Even TDs are fairly innefectual. More efficient to buy a judge, tribunal head or council chairman or department secretary or assistant.

- Reform of the system of appointments to state boards to ensure that the process is transparent and that those appointed have the requisite knowledge and skills.

how do we decide what is requisite? While im not against it This smacks of the "health and safety" mentality who have come in and "regulated" childcare and education and all sorts of jobs. Next we will need a qualification to be a parent. And all the time people "in the know" get around the requisites anyway. But ill go along with the "jobs for pals" way needs fixing. This is a good idea but i doubt Labour would bring it in since when they were in government about ten years ago they started all the "Ministerial advisors" lark. FF the PDs and Greens should have done away with those too.

- Legislation to further restrict contributions to political parties and candidates and to require greater disclosure of donations.

I wouldn't restrict it at all. I would just have full disclosure of ANY contribution more than say 20 euro. and have all candidates have official accounts which will become public
knowledge and any election spending or fundraising will have to come out of it. No personal spending allowed unless it is lodged into this account.

- Repeal of the Official Secrets Act, retaining a criminal sanction only for breaches which involve a serious threat to public policy (the international relations of the State, the conduct of a fair trial, national security and the like).

Non runner without economic and finance data protection. We cant have people discussing the soon to be released budget data or the national accounts. Speculators would fillet the state.

- A statutory register of lobbyists, and rules concerning the practice of lobbying.

I believe the last government already brought this in.
But apparently not!http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0327/1224267157172.html

The current Programme for Government, agreed last October, commits the Fianna Fáil and Green coalition to establishing a register for lobbyists, a promise that was first made by Fianna Fáil a decade ago and may well take another decade to become a reality

- Rules to ensure that senior public servants (including political appointees) cannot work in the private sector, in an area involving a potential conflict of interest with their former public employment, until at least two years have elapsed.

Dont they have this already? I mean charlie Mc Creevy was blocked recently wasn't he?
If it isnt in his own field though why shouldnt he work?

- A 50 per cent increase in Dáil sitting days, with sittings four days a week, a shorter summer recess and significantly reduced breaks at Christmas and Easter.

yeah why not? I dont believe Labour will do this but fair play if they do. Id prefer a total reform of representative eletions though. foir exampole directly elect the Taoiseach and let him appoint his own cabinet from whoever he wants and let the Dail (all parties) be able to call Ministers in when they want. this way the executive does its job and the legislature does theirs.

- A break-up of the Government monopoly on legislation and its strangoive.lehold over the business of the Dáil

see above

- A restriction on the use of guillotine motions and other procedural devices that prevent full debate on Bills and other measures.

I.e. more time for waffle and filibustering.

- A petition system for the Dáil, similar to that operating in the European Parliament.

Requires a referendum. take a look at Hugh Chaves constitution on this one. He has two more "pillars" to add to the conventional three of legislature, executive and judiciary a community one and a recall one.

- An independent Fiscal Advisory Council, separated from decision-makers in government, to undertake fiscal macroeconomic projections and monitoring, independent of Government and reporting to the Dáil and the public.

thought the NTMA and ERSI did that? More spending on bureaucrats.

- Bring forward the annual Estimates cycle, so that it becomes more timely and relevant, with the Book of Estimates accompanied by a detailed performance report on what the previous year's spending had achieved.

Thought that happened since Charlie Mc Creevy.

- Oireachtas Committees to be given powers to publish reports on the economy, efficiency and propriety of the Estimates and to give the Dáil an assessment and evaluation of the merits of individual expenditure proposals.

Why cant they do that now?

- A role for the Ceann Comhairle in deciding whether a Minister has failed to provide reasonable information in response to a question.

does he not have that authority?

- A repeal of the "gag" clause that applies to the officers of public bodies and prevents them from expressing an opinion on the merits of Government policy

So the Gardai and Army should be politicised? I doubt FG would go for that.

Sorry no time to finish

CoalBucket

ISAW wrote: »

Great some policy from Labour.

It didn't take long before some comment was made about the media myth of labours lack of policy. If you are looking for policy follow the link below. It will show over 140 seperate policy documents.

http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing.html

ISAW wrote: »

But we still don't know what they will tax more and what spending they will cut!

The only party that I am aware of to issue a pre-budget submission has been Sinn Fein.

Labour will issue their pre-budget submission over the next three weeks.

ISAW

CoalBucket wrote: »

Waiting for somone to post about labour not having any policies.

It drives me insane when I hear that line trotted out by the media, lazy gits, do a bit of research !!!

The policies being discussed here are about reforn of the constitution and other fringe elements. While welcomne They don't contain anyt costings and I am not aware of policies on mainstream issues such as what they will cut or what they will tax. It is a bit lkike discussing the greens and an electric bike policy.

feel free to correct me.

ei.sdraob

Not bad, some good ideas there from Labour.

southsiderosie

ISAW wrote: »

The policies being discussed here are about reforn of the constitution and other fringe elements. While welcomne They don't contain anyt costings and I am not aware of policies on mainstream issues such as what they will cut or what they will tax. It is a bit lkike discussing the greens and an electric bike policy.

feel free to correct me.

How are these not mainstream issues? What they are proposing is basically making the political system more transparent, making ministers more directly responsible for their policy briefs, and safeguarding against conflicts of interest in policymaking. All three of these issues are related to the fiscal disaster the state faces today. You can't talk about mopping up the mess without discussing how to keep it from happening in the future.

CoalBucket

ISAW wrote: »

The policies being discussed here are about reforn of the constitution and other fringe elements. While welcomne They don't contain anyt costings and I am not aware of policies on mainstream issues such as what they will cut or what they will tax. It is a bit lkike discussing the greens and an electric bike policy.

feel free to correct me.

Again the policies are available to view and I have provided a link in the previous post.

In relation taxes and cuts, again no party with the exception of Sinn Fein has published their budget details. The Labour pre-budget submission will be published in the next three weeks. Then you will know what cuts and taxes Labour propose to make. That is the same for FG. Of course it also applies to FF who apart from flying kites we will only see the details when the budget is announced.

thebman

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Not bad, some good ideas there from Labour.

Between FG and Labour they both have some good ideas in this area.

Labour seriously need to say what they will cut/tax to let people know if they are electable.

If they leave to when we are at election time, it will be worse for their popularity TBH. If they announce it now and get it out of the way, at least it won't be a surprise to the electorate mid election campaign.

CoalBucket

thebman wrote: »

Labour seriously need to say what they will cut/tax to let people know if they are electable.

CoalBucket wrote: »

In relation taxes and cuts, again no party with the exception of Sinn Fein has published their budget details. The Labour pre-budget submission will be published in the next three weeks. Then you will know what cuts and taxes Labour propose to make. That is the same for FG. Of course it also applies to FF who apart from flying kites we will only see the details when the budget is announced.

Every parties budget can be judged in a couple of weeks and their electability can be assessed on detailed submissions.

FreudianSlippers

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What exactly do they mean by that??

Had the exact same question myself. What could it possibly mean?

NewHillel

southsiderosie wrote: »

How are these not mainstream issues? What they are proposing is basically making the political system more transparent, making ministers more directly responsible for their policy briefs, and safeguarding against conflicts of interest in policymaking. All three of these issues are related to the fiscal disaster the state faces today. You can't talk about mopping up the mess without discussing how to keep it from happening in the future.

A family come home to find their couch is on fire. What do they do:

1. Have a cup of tea in the kitchen, and discuss the need for fire-resistant furniture?
2. Put the fire out? (Assuming they have a safe means of doing so.)*
3. Wait for the Fire Brigade. (By which time the house itself is on fire and may be burned down.)

Maybe its time for us to be run by the EU and/or the IMF. Without a clean out there's no hope for us. This is kindergarden stuff. My company is in difficulties of its own. All our efforts are focused on surviving the next 1-2 years. If I concentrated on plans for 3-5 years out, by which time we might be closed, I'd be fired - and rightly so!


* Mustn't forget our Health and Safety. Did you known that H&S instruction is compulsory on most/all? FAS Courses. This applies even for follow-on courses where attendees should have attended the training on an earlier course! Nice (soft and well paid) work, if you can get it! It would appear that they don't even keep records as to who does the training.

NewHillel

CoalBucket wrote: »

Again the policies are available to view and I have provided a link in the previous post.

Could you point me to the document that shows where the excessive pension and pay elements of public sector spending is addressed, please. (If there are are credible proposals in this area, you'll have a new party member. )

ISAW

CoalBucket wrote: »

It didn't take long before some comment was made about the media myth of labours lack of policy. If you are looking for policy follow the link below. It will show over 140 seperate policy documents.

http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing.html

Great. Ill have a look.

I will go throught the first page of them

1. sport 22 main features. No costings. No plan for what they will cut to pay for it or what they will tax or what any of the 22 elements will cost.

2. Motions passed at their national youth conference. so???

3. A submission on oireachtas reform. I happy about these things but see my comments on electric bikes.

4 Tourism indultry. finally a central economic issue.
page 1
Blah blah volcanoes damaging to tourism , blah blah page 3 immediate working group to be set up blah blah page 4 Legislation to allow for the downward review of rents should be introduced to protect the hospitality industry.

I thought that legislation already came in allowing rents to be adjusted down?- and high time it did too! But no actual target figures as to how many jobs or how much to adjust rents.

The only party that I am aware of to issue a pre-budget submission has been Sinn Fein.

It doesn't have to be a budget. just some target figures and some statements as to who they will tax and what spending they will cut.

Labour will issue their pre-budget submission over the next three weeks.

Great. Until then can you direct me to ANY figures as to what they consider as the "right" number to employ in each sector of the economy? What they consider as a reasonable rate of pay in each sector? How much they think a person should be worth before they pay a wealth tax? Whether property should be taxed or incur other charges? Shoiuld large bank deposits be taxed? Should pensioners or others who are multi millionaires get free travel and a 200 a week pension and free fees for their kids in university?

That is the sort of thing people want to know about. How are Labour different ?

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

Great. Ill have a look.

Sorry i didnt get on to the next part of their policies. Policy 4 education had LOADS of figures. This is the tyupoe of thing Im talking about.

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/education_priorities.pdf

oops sorry! They give a great overview about how many teachers and irish literacy etc. But then they give 15 reccomendation. Only ONE has a figure!
Achieve a political consensus to increase
educational spending as a percentage of GDP to
7%, ahead of European norms.

This is the type of thing i want to see! Now if Education is 7 per cent of GDP
1. What is it currently ?
2. On What will the extra be spent?
3. what will they cut from other departments to make up for this increase in education spending?

Ironically on page 3 this policy says:
The school building programme is not working. It is
bureaucratic and slow. It is clouded in secrecy and
designed for political patronage by Fianna Fáil.
Labour will introduce an open and transparent
system for parents, teachers and local communities.

Given the current leaders wife made over 525,000 Euro on a school land deal what does that say about such a comment. see evidence here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68894889&postcount=66

southsiderosie

NewHillel wrote: »

A family come home to find their couch is on fire. What do they do:

1. Have a cup of tea in the kitchen, and discuss the need for fire-resistant furniture?
2. Put the fire out? (Assuming they have a safe means of doing so.)*
3. Wait for the Fire Brigade. (By which time the house itself is on fire and may be burned down.)

Let me rephrase your story a bit.

A couple come home and find that their child - let's call him "Patrick" - and his friends have set the couch on fire. Their neighbor "Fritz" has already called the fire department, and is spraying the living room with his garden hose, but it's too little too late, and the fire is spreading. You can hear the sirens coming in the distance, so you know the fire department will be there soon. You also know that when they use the real fire hose, it will destroy the entire ground floor of your house, and you will have to completely gut it and replace everything. Do you:

1) Tell Patrick that he and his friends have been naughty, but since the fire department is coming and Fritz is keeping things under control as best he can, shrug and look for the fire extinguisher.

2) Send Patrick's friends home, and while looking for the fire extinguisher tell him that he is grounded and that he will never be left home alone again. You also vow to rebuild the house with large picture windows so everyone in the neighborhood can keep an eye on what he is doing. You do this loud enough for Fritz and the neighbors to hear, thus reassuring them that there will not be future incidents.

NewHillel wrote: »

Maybe its time for us to be run by the EU and/or the IMF. Without a clean out there's no hope for us. This is kindergarden stuff. My company is in difficulties of its own. All our efforts are focused on surviving the next 1-2 years. If I concentrated on plans for 3-5 years out, by which time we might be closed, I'd be fired - and rightly so!

The difference between a private company and the government is that while a company may fold in an economic crisis, the government will still be there. The question then is, what should it look like, and how can it be structured to prevent a crisis? Three years later is an eternity in politics.

In addition, it is no accident that the IMF usually forces borrowing countries to make certain policy changes as well, in order to prevent future crises. Since a big part of the problem in Ireland is lack of internal oversight, why not address these issues simultaneously?

Wolfe Tone

OisinT wrote: »

Had the exact same question myself. What could it possibly mean?

I have no idea... Sure by the nature of our democracy the govt have a "stranglehold" over legislation simply because they have the most TDs...


Sounds like a sound-bite so Joe Bloggs will go "yeah that sounds good!" While in fact they will not do anything.

southsiderosie

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I have no idea... Sure by the nature of our democracy the govt have a "stranglehold" over legislation simply because they have the most TDs...


Sounds like a sound-bite so Joe Bloggs will go "yeah that sounds good!" While in fact they will not do anything.

I read this in relation to some of Paul Gogarty's comments during the boards debate where he noted that basically all of the power in the Dail was vested in the 15 government ministers and the rest was rubber-stamping. I think the implication here is that the current system is bad for both the opposition and backbenchers.

CoalBucket

NewHillel wrote: »

Could you point me to the document that shows where the excessive pension and pay elements of public sector spending is addressed, please. (If there are are credible proposals in this area, you'll have a new party member. )

AFAIK all political parties have stated that the croke park agreement will be honoured and a public sector pay will not be affected. However that stipulation is based on the economy not getting any worse than when it was when it was agreed. I am not aware if it is Labour party policy use that stipulation to alter public sector pay.

What I do know is that it is Labour party policy to reduce public sector pay by 1.3bn and non pay by 899m. I also know that it is Labour party policy to cap pay to for those on the highest salaries and leadership positions. In relation to pensions I don't know what the policy is. Whether that has been altered by the Croke park agreement i do not know. If it has, it has not been announced. Link below. Other details on each government department are listed in the document. It is the 2009 document but the 2010 document will be available in the next couple of weeks and I assume the same issues will be contained in that document.

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/budgetpowerpoint.pdf

ISAW

CoalBucket wrote: »

What I do know is that it is Labour party policy to reduce public sector pay by 1.3bn and non pay by 899m.

Great! thats the type of thing I mean. whether i agree with it or not at least you can see that Labour in government will cut public service pay and cut departmental budgets by 2.2 billion. Okay fine? where will the other 13 billion come from over the next foiur to five years?

I also know that it is Labour party policy to cap pay to for those on the highest salaries and leadership positions.

does this mean that higher civil servants wont get the pay cuts they already dodged? Or judges? Or how about the ESB will the CEO be capped at 750,000 per year? I mean people on these forums say TD should get 40 k a year . How about paying CEOs 100,000 a year? or 150,000? and the higher execs in those organisations the same?

In relation to pensions I don't know what the policy is. Whether that has been altered by the Croke park agreement i do not know. If it has, it has not been announced. Link below. Other details on each government department are listed in the document. It is the 2009 document but the 2010 document will be available in the next couple of weeks and I assume the same issues will be contained in that document.

Thanks for that I will look at it.
http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/budgetpowerpoint.pdf[/QUOTE]

CoalBucket

You posted a very detailed and specific list of queries. I have not read every policy document or the costings of each. But I will answer what I can for you. I can do no more than that.

ISAW wrote: »

Great. Until then can you direct me to ANY figures as to what they consider as the "right" number to employ in each sector of the economy?

I am unaware if the labour party has issued a number to employ in each section of the economy. Maybe they have maybe they haven't.

ISAW wrote: »

What they consider as a reasonable rate of pay in each sector? How much they think a person should be worth before they pay a wealth tax?

Again I'm unaware of any figure in relation to the rate of pay. However I refer you to a previous post in relation to the policy to reduce public sector pay. In relation to the wealth tax I assume that this will be included in the Labour party pre-budget submission.

ISAW wrote: »

Whether property should be taxed or incur other charges? Shoiuld large bank deposits be taxed? Should pensioners or others who are multi millionaires get free travel and a 200 a week pension and free fees for their kids in university?

Again I assume these specific details are listed in a budget proposal.


In case you are under any illusions I am not Eamonn Gilmore or any other elected representative of the Labour party. Your queries are so specific I would probably need to be one of them to answer them. I have not read every policy document. Most of the stuff I have read I agree with. Some of it I don't. I directed you towards the policy documents and some of the documents I have read and am aware of. I don't speak on behalf of the labour party and have not claimed to. As a discussion board I, like everybody else, will share an opinion and discuss issues and occasionally provide a link to details and specifics to illustrate a point. If you want to find specific details I suggest you read through the documents and If the details you want are not listed in them I suggest you contact the labour party.

ISAW

southsiderosie wrote: »

I read this in relation to some of Paul Gogarty's comments during the boards debate where he noted that basically all of the power in the Dail was vested in the 15 government ministers and the rest was rubber-stamping. I think the implication here is that the current system is bad for both the opposition and backbenchers.

Which is why such reform mentioned at the outset as part of the Labour policy is important. But sadly the document didn't seem to address these specific issues of power vested in Ministers. Mind you I believe senior ciuvil servants have more power and are more untouchable.

CoalBucket

ISAW wrote: »

Great! thats the type of thing I mean. whether i agree with it or not at least you can see that Labour in government will cut public service pay and cut departmental budgets by 2.2 billion. Okay fine? where will the other 13 billion come from over the next foiur to five years?

I'll try and answer this for you if I can. Not to sound like a broken record but I assume that detail will be contained in the budget document. I think it will be important to outline those details in that document. It is my opinion on a 4 to 5 year plan should be made by the government who will be in power for that period. It will be dificult for FG and Lab (the next government in my opinion) to formulate this plan because it appears FF will make it to form this years budget. Needless to say because FF will form this budget all the subsequent will be effected by it.

ISAW wrote: »

does this mean that higher civil servants wont get the pay cuts they already dodged? Or judges?

It is policy, according to the 09 document to cap the higher civil servants salaries.

ISAW wrote: »

Or how about the ESB will the CEO be capped at 750,000 per year? I mean people on these forums say TD should get 40 k a year . How about paying CEOs 100,000 a year? or 150,000? and the higher execs in those organisations the same?

I don't know what the specific policy will be in relation to those issues. However if I was making the policy I would cap CEOs salaries at 100k.

NewHillel

southsiderosie wrote: »

The difference between a private company and the government is that while a company may fold in an economic crisis, the government will still be there. The question then is, what should it look like, and how can it be structured to prevent a crisis? Three years later is an eternity in politics.

The bigger question is what sector/sectors of society will carry the can! The model is becoming clear:
Protect the Politicians and Public Servants. (Tinker around the edges a bit, to give illusion of change, but don't go near the most critical part - pensions.)
Protect the Bankers, and others at the very top echelons of society.
Protect the Developers.

That means that means that the middle income earner in the private sector is picking up the tab! We are being taken for mugs.

CoalBucket wrote: »

AFAIK all political parties have stated that the croke park agreement will be honoured and a public sector pay will not be affected. However that stipulation is based on the economy not getting any worse than when it was when it was agreed. I am not aware if it is Labour party policy use that stipulation to alter public sector pay.

Pay is only one factor. It is being highlighted to mask the bigger problem which is public sector pensions. Bad and all as this issue is now, it is set to get worse as thousands of public servants, not to mention politicians take early retirement - willingly, or unwillingly. The politic ans, including Labour, are keeping quiet on this issue. In my view it is naked self-interest. They want to hang on to their own entitlements, including retirement lump sums, at all costs - the public good doesn't get a look in. If that means protecting the entire Public Sector pensions they simply don't give a damn.

The rest of society, including the poorest of the poor, can get by on cheese. Our children can emigrate after a fruitless search for non-existent jobs. Need I go on?

Scofflaw

southsiderosie wrote: »

I read this in relation to some of Paul Gogarty's comments during the boards debate where he noted that basically all of the power in the Dail was vested in the 15 government ministers and the rest was rubber-stamping. I think the implication here is that the current system is bad for both the opposition and backbenchers.

I'd agree with that entirely - the government decides X in cabinet, and that's that. The cabinet, by virtue of collective cabinet responsibility, then has to support whatever the agreed position is whether they agree with it or not, and the government parties, by virtue of the whip system, then vote for the government's agreed position whether they agree with it or not. By virtue of cabinet confidentiality we have no idea who opposed or supported the original idea or any amendments to it.

Where's the accountability in such a system? I'm sure the sentiments of back-benchers are taken into consideration, but to what degree?

cordially,
Scofflaw

CoalBucket

NewHillel wrote: »

The bigger question is what sector/sectors of society will carry the can! The model is becoming clear:
Protect the Politicians and Public Servants. (Tinker around the edges a bit, to give illusion of change, but don't go near the most critical part - pensions.)

I couldn't agree more.

NewHillel wrote: »

Protect the Bankers, and others at the very top echelons of society.Protect the Developers.That means that means that the middle income earner in the private sector is picking up the tab! We are being taken for mugs.

That seems to analyse the FF / Green government perfectly.

NewHillel wrote: »

Pay is only one factor. It is being highlighted to mask the bigger problem which is public sector pensions. Bad and all as this issue is now, it is set to get worse as thousands of public servants, not to mention politicians take early retirement - willingly, or unwillingly. The politic ans, including Labour, are keeping quiet on this issue. In my view it is naked self-interest. They want to hang on to their own entitlements, including retirement lump sums, at all costs - the public good doesn't get a look in. If that means protecting the entire Public Sector pensions they simply don't give a damn.

As said above I completely agree that pensions need to be tackled. I hope both the Labour party and FG address this item in their budget proposals.
FF talk a lot about the hard decisions but the most difficult will be to take on the public sector in relation to pension entitlements. They will not attempt to take them on.

edanto

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What exactly do they mean by that??

As per Scofflaw/southsiderosie I'd guess it relates to the problem that Emily O'Reilly pointed out in March where she explained that the Dail and Seanad have effectively been sidelined by the concentration in power at the cabinet and how that runs counter to the intentions of our founders. I tend to agree. Irish Times article on the subject is here

The rest of the Labour proposals sound very good to me. I'm glad I joined the party the other week!

I studied what all the parties were offering before I joined Labour and everything that they've send me since I agree with completely.

ISAW and others have been asking for more details about Labour's economic and budget proposals. There was a lot of details in Gilmore's speech to the Dail the other week. Our local Labour guy sent a summary around, I'll paste it in below for those that are interested.

I'm sure some people won't like the fact that it's so long, at the same time this is the politics forum and people are likely to be interested in the details.

SOME KEY POINTS FROM EAMON GILMORE’S DAIL SPEECH ON THE ECONOMIC SITUATION

Key information has been withheld by the government
There is key economic information which has not been provided by the government to allow for a realistic debate on the budget;
we have not been given the definitive growth forecast for next year,
nor have we been given the detailed macro-economic growth forecast for the next four years.
the macro-economic growth forecast would include forecasts and projections relating to consumption, investment, interest rates, wages, exports, imports and unemployment.
We have also not been given the proposed adjustment for next year,
nor have we been given a template for the four-year plan,
there is no final information on how the cost of the bank bailout is to be treated in the Government accounts
or details on the proposed savings to be made on foot of the Croke Park agreement.
Balance of adjustment between revenue raising and lower spending
We should aim for an even split between additional revenue raising and lower spending – roughly 50:50. Given the scale of the deficit, we need to spread the burden of adjustment for it to be economically or socially credible.
Lower capital spending to the Eurozone average
In respect of capital spending, it is clear that the Government will have to go back to the drawing board once again. Our present level of capital spending is still high by European standards, and unfortunately that will now have to be reviewed.
A reduction of approximately €2.5 billion over three years would leave us with a capital spend of just under 3% of GNP – or approximately the same as the Eurozone average (NOTE; this will be balanced by investment through Labour’s Strategic Investment Bank)
Suspend borrowing for payments into the Pension Reserve Fund
It no longer makes sense to make payments into the Pension Reserve Fund. We are now borrowing money on the international markets at interest rates of 6% to invest back into the international market place through the purchase of shares by our own Pension Reserve Fund. Borrowing at these rates for this purpose is the wrong way to use our depleted resources and should be suspended until we return to some form of normality.
Proposal for a Comprehensive Expenditure Review
In the area of current spending, we must stop lurching from Budget to Budget, with crude cut after crude cut. What we now require is a proper Comprehensive Expenditure Review with a three-year time horizon, such as has been carried out by the new Government in the UK, but using the Canadian model.
Efficiencies in the Public Sector can yield €2.8bn over 3 years
The revised estimates for 2010 show that total current spending, excluding social welfare and public sector pensions, was budgeted to be some €31.6 billion. A programme to reduce both pay and non-pay costs by only 3% per annum would yield savings of €2.8 billion over three years, including payroll reductions of €1.4 billion.

Proposal for a voluntary redundancy scheme in the public service
At this stage, however, it is unlikely that the necessary payroll reductions will be achieved through natural wastage and redeployment. . A voluntary redundancy scheme in the public service will, I believe, be necessary. The scheme should be strictly confined to areas of identifiable over-staffing, and should be tailored to ensure that critical front line public services do not have their essential staffing levels eroded.
Significant savings can be made in the Health Budget
There are a number of areas that have long cried out for reform, particularly including the cost of drugs in the health service, which the IMO estimate could be cut by €300m through use of generics. Professional fees are also a serious issue – the Bord Snip report estimated that GMS fees could be brought down by €370m over time
Social Welfare reduced by anti-fraud measures and rent supplement
The social welfare budget must also be curtailed. It is possible to achieve considerable savings in Social Welfare by reforming the way in which the system works. Labour’s Spokesperson on Social Protection, Deputy Roisin Shortall has recently produced a report for the Oireachtas Committee showing that major savings can be saved by more robust and modern enforcement of anti-fraud measures. Savings of at least €100m can be made in this area. A second area for potential savings is Rent Supplement. The state is now spending half a billion euro a year supplementing the cost of private rented accommodation at a time when there is an overhang of residential property. A saving of at least 10% of this amount, or €50m should be achieved in this area.
Cutting tax relief on pensions can save €500m
Some €3 billion is being spent in the area of tax relief on private pensions, which should be curtailed by at least 500m, particularly by limiting the total amount of relief that can be claimed by any individual, so as to make the system fairer.
Big money to be saved on property based tax reliefs
The reliefs for property-based investment which are now costing €380m should simply be scrapped, and interest relief on rental income from investment property must be significantly curtailed by at least €430m. …… The relief on patent royalties which is an avenue for avoidance and that costs €50m should be abolished.
Minimum effective tax rates important to ensure fairness in the tax system
We have proposed a 48% tax-rate for the highest earners (Note; which would yield €410m). We also need a system whereby a minimum effective tax rate is applied to high earners to limit the total relief that any one person can obtain from all tax breaks combined………….There needs to be more equality of treatment of earned and unearned income, so that income from capital gains is subject to PRSI and levies in the same way as earned income.
Other revenue raising measures
There is room to increase the tax on second homes. It should also be possible to phase in water charges on a metered basis as part of a broader reform of how we manage and deliver this vital environmental resource. And, we should plan to bring in a new bank levy, once the capital levels in the banks are adequate.

Pay freeze needed for the next three years
Wages may fall on average next year, but underneath that average we are likely to see wage pressures re-emerging in more sheltered sectors. As of right now, the Government effectively has no pay policy, outside the public service. I favour a return to social dialogue, in a new format with a far more limited agenda than before. I would like to see a negotiated pay freeze for three years.
Temporary Fees Commission necessary for sheltered sectors of the economy
In this economic emergency, emergency measures are needed, including the state exercising its right to control fees in areas such as law and medicine, though a temporary Fees Commission. …… The medical consultant who charges 150 euro for a ten minute appointment has to be reined in.
Support needed for small business
Ireland needs to do more to keep the companies that we do develop and grow, rather than getting a start-up to a certain size and then selling the company to a multi-national. We need to look at providing more support to firms that are over the size limit to avail of support form country enterprise boards, but who are not now getting back-up from enterprise Ireland. (Note; A central issue is credit for business which Labour’s Strategic Investment Bank would alleviate)
Helping people who can’t find work
What we need, as outlined in Labour’s policy document ‘Just the Job’, is a range of schemes, meeting a range of needs. This does cost money, but relatively small amounts. Our proposals would cost approximately €230m in the short term but would save money because people will get off the dole queues quickly.


FOR GREATER DETAIL ON ALL OF THESE POINTS SEE THE FULL TEXT OF THE SPEECH AVAILABLE AT THE FOLLOWING LINK:

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/128817722264268035.html

Dannyboy83

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?:rolleyes:
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.

CoalBucket

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

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?:rolleyes:
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.

The 2.5bn is just one of the proposals that the labour party are suggesting and until you see the pre budget submission you have no idea what taxes or cuts labour are proposing. If you bothered to read the other posts on the thread you would have seen the 2009 labour prebudget proposed a 5.7bn reduction in last years budget. Hardly half measures. I would also like to borrow the crystal ball that you have that shows the political parties budget proposals that have not been published yet.

In order to get a balanced view I have had a look at some of your other posts and the quality of them seems to be the same. Lots of anti-labour comment but a sever lack of substance. The best post you did put up though was that FG had your vote for the faircare proposal alone.

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.

I have some bad news for you, I hope you are sitting down.
The FG faircare policy is a rehash of the Labour universal healthcare policy of 2001.

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/health_policy_01_09_01.pdf

So despite your dislike of Labour policy it turns out that you are voting on the strenght of one of Labours policies. Don't you just love irony.

Dannyboy83

CoalBucket wrote: »

The 2.5bn is just one of the proposals that the labour party are suggesting and until you see the pre budget submission you have no idea what taxes or cuts labour are proposing.

Bingo.
Neither you do!:D

If you bothered to read the other posts on the thread you would have seen the 2009 labour prebudget proposed a 5.7bn reduction in last years budget. Hardly half measures. I would also like to borrow the crystal ball that you have that shows the political parties budget proposals that have not been published yet.

Any party who are ideologically opposed to implementing the impending cuts necessary will merely cannibalize themselves.
No crystal balls necessary.

It works for the Greens too.
Green Party will generate 5 billion through dumping nuclear toxic waste in County Mayo. Nope, can't see it.

Sinn Fein advocate reunion with the UK. Shoddy crystal ball.

As for half measures, I can't fathom why Fianna Fail wouldn't be doing the above if it were a viable possibility?
Conclusion: It's not a viable possibility.

I have some bad news for you, I hope you are sitting down.
The FG faircare policy is a rehash of the Labour universal healthcare policy of 2001.

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/health_policy_01_09_01.pdf

So despite your dislike of Labour policy it turns out that you are voting on the strenght of one of Labours policies. Don't you just love irony.

[/quote]

Yawn.
..........which is a rehash of Fianna Fail's proposal of x,y,z , which in actual fact is a rehash of Sinn Fein's proposal of a,b,c.
Despite the fact that it's admitted to be a rehash of the Dutch Healthcare system, as is clearly stated from Step 1:rolleyes:

This is totally irrelevant.
I am not voting on grounds of party loyalty.
I am voting on grounds of policy.

I don't mind if Josef Stalin himself came up with the idea, Fine Gael are going to implement the policy, Fine Gael get the vote.

CoalBucket

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Bingo.
Neither you do!:D

I have the Labour 2009 document as a template.You on the other hand are dismissing it without any reference or information whatsoever. You are opposed to the Labour party on political ideology grounds and attempting to illustrate it through figures that are not in place. Why do you think FG will implement cuts when they have not released their figures. Lets see some links or actual figures for your diatribe.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Any party who are ideologically opposed to implementing the impending cuts necessary will merely cannibalize themselves.
No crystal balls necessary.

No references neccessary either ? No links neccesary either ? Just some ill informed or more probable uninformed opinion.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

It works for the Greens too.
Green Party will generate 5 billion through dumping nuclear toxic waste in County Mayo. Nope, can't see it.Sinn Fein advocate reunion with the UK. Shoddy crystal ball.

Those examples have as much basis as your theories on Labour party policies. You clearly have not read the policy papers

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

As for half measures, I can't fathom why Fianna Fail wouldn't be doing the above if it were a viable possibility?
Conclusion: It's not a viable possibility.

No FF will not be carrying out half measures. Neither will the Labour party be proposing half measures or any other party for that measure. Every party with the exception of SF have agreed on the ammount to be cut from the budget over the next 4 years. It is a matter of how the cuts are made and how the books are balanced. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Yawn.
..........which is a rehash of Fianna Fail's proposal of x,y,z , which in actual fact is a rehash of Sinn Fein's proposal of a,b,c.
Despite the fact that it's admitted to be a rehash of the Dutch Healthcare system, as is clearly stated from Step 1:rolleyes:

This is totally irrelevant.
I am not voting on grounds of party loyalty.
I am voting on grounds of policy.

I don't mind if Josef Stalin himself came up with the idea, Fine Gael are going to implement the policy, Fine Gael get the vote.

I am glad you claim you are voting on policy grounds when it is clearly a labour party policy And in that case it is not totally irrelevant.

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/the-big-f-deal-and-progressive-healthcare-proposals-in-ireland/

As for the system being a copy of the dutch system. No it is clearly not the dutch system. The main basis of any policy is how it is funded. Under the Dutch model of UHI, the Government is neither the provider nor the chief funder of healthcare. However, it remains the ultimate guarantor of the system. It will be the Department of Health’s job to ensure that safety and quality were maintained at the highest level throughout the system. In addition, it will be up to the Government to ensure that the system remained truly competitive. More generally, the State will still be responsible for the funding of long term care, mental health, services to improve and protect public health, disease prevention, health research, education and training, etc.

Try reading past the bullet points of the so called FG policy for which you have stated you have committed your vote.

Voting on policy grounds of a policy you know little about. :rolleyes:

Dannyboy83

CoalBucket wrote: »

No FF will not be carrying out half measures. Neither will the Labour party be proposing half measures or any other party for that measure. Every party with the exception of SF have agreed on the ammount to be cut from the budget over the next 4 years. It is a matter of how the cuts are made and how the books are balanced. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Here, let me answer you by quoting you

Coalbucket wrote:

until you see the pre budget submission you have no idea what taxes or cuts labour are proposing.

:rolleyes:
Sorry, but you are not doing anything to boost my confidence in Labour.

As for the system being a copy of the dutch system. No it is clearly not the dutch system.
Try reading past the bullet points of the so called FG policy for which you have stated you have committed your vote.
Voting on policy grounds of a policy you know little about.:rolleyes:

Here is a screenshot of the first page of the FairCare document I made for you:


I rest my case.

Sorry but I've more important things to do now.
Good luck with your labour policies:D

CoalBucket

Again you present nothing to validate your points. Surprise surprise, the reason being is that you have nothing to back up your claims that Labour would implement half measures.

I refererred you to the previous labour pre budget document and the agreement of all the parties to reduce the defecit but you choose to ignore it.

You presented the front page of a policy document, didn't bother looking at the detail ? It's a pity that your vote is based on bullit points of a policy which you know very little about.

How about you address the points that were made instead of making another ill informed sweeping statement.

ArtSmart

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So more high paid civil servents? Who are to be given powers intended for ministers?

well, a bit of both needed. too much authority in a minister's hand imo.

yeah, interesting list overall

edit - hey - i just noticed your handle...LOL

ressem

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What exactly do they mean by that??

"quote:
Legislate for a system of delegation of specified Ministerial powers to specified officers who would, to the extent of the authority delegated to them, be accountable both within the Department and also directly to the Oireachtas for the exercise of those powers.
"

So more high paid civil servents? Who are to be given powers intended for ministers?

Agree. It's probably intended to appoint external qualified outsiders to act as a CEO above the civil service. As with USA's presidential + senate approved chief officers.

My uninformed reading of the constitution as it stands suggests that even the Taoiseach can already be an external appointee, with the approval of the Dail. And he can make up the 7 to 15 members of the government as he wishes, until he loses the support of the Dail.

It's just 'tradition' that these members are taken from the Dail membership. So effectively this is a way to get around the 7-15 members of the government restriction, just like the "junior minister" slush fund.