Some Say Civil Servants Run the Country?

Going Forward

Will a change of Government really make that much difference?

Considering that many inexperienced and some would say unqualified TDs will (after the election) be granted Ministries possibly way above their ability, they will be guided and advised by senior civil servants on most issues.

Couple this with the not radically dissimilar policies of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael what difference will it all make apart from the optics?

I am being apathetic, but am open to persuasion:)

Tipp Man

Of course they run the bloody country - what other idiot would have seen the public sector explode like it did in the last 10 years. Acutally maybe cown and bertie

The senior civil servants have it all really - they steer the politicians in a certain direction and even if it goes tits up they don't have to worry about getting re-elected. Their obscene salary is guaranteed for life

There is no way the senior civil servant positions should be jobs for life. IMO they should be changed when the government changes - or at least it should be easy for the new government to bring in it own men (and women) to implement its policies

meditraitor

Tipp Man wrote: »

Of course they run the bloody country - what other idiot would have seen the public sector explode like it did in the last 10 years. Acutally maybe cown and bertie

The senior civil servants have it all really - they steer the politicians in a certain direction and even if it goes tits up they don't have to worry about getting re-elected. Their obscene salary is guaranteed for life

There is no way the senior civil servant positions should be jobs for life. IMO they should be changed when the government changes - or at least it should be easy for the new government to bring in it own men (and women) to implement its policies

This is common knowledge, CS and PS accountabiltiy is a serious challange and even the Labour Party (who some claim are inextricably linked the CS and PS unions) recognise this.

See the proposals of reform to include accountabitly frompage 19 onwards

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

70. Labour will amend the law that defines the relationship between Ministers and their
Departments, so as to enshrine three basic propositions.
a) If the Minister takes a decision personally, he or she should say so and account
for it.
b) If the decision is taken by the Department, under a delegated power, then the
relevant, named official should say so and account for it.
c) 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.

73. Where a responsibility is delegated through several grades, each grade will be held
accountable for their element of it.

81. Labour will bring to an end the unacceptable executive practice that there is no record
kept of ministerial engagement with an issue or decisions on that issue. The practice
has been destructive of trust and has hampered accountability to the Oireachtas. Executive
decisions taken by county and city managers are effected by way of written minute.
Consideration will be given to an appropriate amendment to the legislation so as to introduce
this practice at national as well as local level.

and much more......


This needs to be done, lets hope FG dont put and roadblocks in the way of this reform

ILA

They're right in saying that.

The Cs and especially the PS are full of layers of political cronies from the times that Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour were in government. Its like a sample of limestone, you can see all the different layers which have ground into one under immense pressure.

RobbieTheRobber

ILA wrote: »

They're right in saying that.

The Cs and especially the PS are full of layers of political cronies from the times that Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour were in government. Its like a sample of limestone, you can see all the different layers which have ground into one under immense pressure.

What, your accussing the Ps of cronyism then naming the three major parties so what your saying is that the PS is made up mainly by people from the three largest political blocks in the country?

thats a shocking revelation altogether

jimmycrackcorm

Had FG or labour or anyone else been in power in 2008 then the same civil service advisors would have told them to go with the bank bailout.

meditraitor

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Had FG or labour or anyone else been in power in 2008 then the same civil service advisors would have told them to go with the bank bailout.

What civil service advisors would that be? Please do tell, Im sure most of the country would like to know who is really responsible for the decision!


FG may have went for it all the same but Labour....... ye right

Going Forward

Meditraitor,
This certainly needs to be implemented.
Ministerial responsibilities have been so diluted in the last few years no one is responsible for anything anymore.

ressem

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What, your accussing the Ps of cronyism then naming the three major parties so what your saying is that the PS is made up mainly by people from the three largest political blocks in the country?

thats a shocking revelation altogether

I don't think that you're distinguishing between party voters (most of the electorate) and party members (70,000 FF, 30,000 FG [from wikipedia]).
If the latter group can be shown to be receiving promotions at a faster rate, or to be appointed to state boards without any competition or distinguishing attribute (as claimed in the papers last week) then it is something to be worried about.

It's not only the libertarians that think that one of the jobs of the government is to restrain the public service from bloating. If political parties are using the service as a slush fund then it demeans and damages both.

sligopark

meditraitor wrote: »

FG may have went for it all the same but Labour....... ye right

Am I mistaken - didn't labour agree the bankster bail out? the 4 year plan?

Labour are university folk with no real life experience whose idealogy is between FF and SF - another useless bunch.

BroomBurner

I'm just going to add one thing to this debate, before it descends in to chaos.

PS members are held by the Official Secrets Act, regardless of whether this is wrong or right. Politicians are not held by this.

As such, sometimes politicians may come out with something, or have an idea and implement it, and the public would only know of the PS's input or advice (either for or against) if someone leaked the info, if it came out through a PAC investigation, or when old files are released after 30 years.

That's not to say that they don't hold some power - look what the selfish cretins did to get their own paycuts reduced - but it's worth bearing the above in mind. Noone knows what advice is given by PS members.

dan_d

Actually, yes, I believe they do. And if it's not exactly that they run the country, they certainly make it hard for a minister who wants to implement some serious changes by simply - not doing what they want.

I know I heard an interview on Today FM some months ago. Somebody who was appointed to a Junior Minister had written a book (can't remember who...he may have been a retiring politician that was in Gov a few years ago). And he said that he found there were very rigid, vested interests in his office, and in a number of other dept offices. They simply operated on the basis that politicians came and went, but they were the permanent ones, so they'd just keep doing things their way.He found it very hard to change anything at all.

I thought it was pretty disgusting. The focus of the interview was the book, and a large number of other things were discussed, but this was one of the things that was picked up.He didn't go so far as to say that they refused to do things - they simply chose not to, made a half-hearted attempt or explained that this was how they always did things and it wasn't going to change.

The whole situation is disgraceful, to be honest.

Sand

Indeed - it takes a Minister with an extremely strong mind and independant personality to take on the entrenched civil service. McCreevy for example became "famous" for his independance in the Finance portfolio. Interestingly, he was the most successful Minister of Finance of the last three, despite or because of his famed independance from his civil servants "guidance".

The Civil Service is perhaps the worst of all possible outcomes - no oversight, no accountability and no checks to their own power, and no competence or clue. Hopefully each Department will be made accountable to the Dail, not to their Minister. It should end the lack of transparency in policy making if the civil servants have to justify the policy decisions to the Dail rather than the usual buck passing that occurs.

sligopark

meditraitor wrote: »

Start a thread on the subject (it is actually a good idea) and I will engage but I think we have dragged this thread of enough already.

Suggestions for thread title:

Bla bla bla

classic labour deflection, non engagement and non answer - excellent!

ISAW

meditraitor wrote: »

What civil service advisors would that be? Please do tell, Im sure most of the country would like to know who is really responsible for the decision!


FG may have went for it all the same but Labour....... ye right

http://www.finance.gov.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/contact/orgchartfeb2010.htm&CatID=71&m=a

NB all on ministerial salieries and pensions. and that is only one department.

One department - same pay and conditions as the entire cabinet!

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circular2009/circ282009.pdf

Note the above is only pay which goes straight into the arse posket.
Any expenses for living e.g. travel, meals living expenses clothse etc. is in a rake of different allowances.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY
€127,796 €133,605 €139,898 €146,191
DEPUTY SECRETARY
€168,000
SECRETARY GENERAL
€188,640

Finance has 4*secretaries
10 * Assistants ( one is vacant LOL NAMA)
I assume the 3*directors are on at lease assistant sec pay

I think you might work out who was responsible for what portfolio.
By the way did you know the names of any of these people before you looked at this page?

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

Indeed - it takes a Minister with an extremely strong mind and independant personality to take on the entrenched civil service. McCreevy for example became "famous" for his independance in the Finance portfolio. Interestingly, he was the most successful Minister of Finance of the last three, despite or because of his famed independance from his civil servants "guidance". ...

His greatest single success was changing the regulatory system for banking.

Sand

His greatest single success was changing the regulatory system for banking.

Nah, Id have said the establishment of the National Pension Reserve Fund, which was intended to prepare the state for the massive pension bills it was going to face. Instead it was looted by Cowen and Lenihan to prop up the banks...no we're not prepared for the massive pension bills were going to face, but at least we kept Anglo-Irish going.

Going Forward

dan_d wrote: »

Actually, yes, I believe they do. And if it's not exactly that they run the country, they certainly make it hard for a minister who wants to implement some serious changes by simply - not doing what they want.

I know I heard an interview on Today FM some months ago. Somebody who was appointed to a Junior Minister had written a book (can't remember who...he may have been a retiring politician that was in Gov a few years ago). And he said that he found there were very rigid, vested interests in his office, and in a number of other dept offices. They simply operated on the basis that politicians came and went, but they were the permanent ones, so they'd just keep doing things their way.He found it very hard to change anything at all.

I thought it was pretty disgusting. The focus of the interview was the book, and a large number of other things were discussed, but this was one of the things that was picked up.He didn't go so far as to say that they refused to do things - they simply chose not to, made a half-hearted attempt or explained that this was how they always did things and it wasn't going to change.

The whole situation is disgraceful, to be honest.

Regarding the book you mentioned-
If you're of a certain generation you'll remember "Yes Minister" a British sit-com (Google it), based I THINK on a book.

I just wonder is it any different in other democracies?

Manach

It seems to be in the US, given one of the major compliants of the US tea-party activists is the size of their Federal Government. http://www.economist.com/node/15330481

enda1

Secretary General is not a "job for life" as some seem to think. Its a max 7 year term.

Just to clarify things here.

The concept as someone above posted that the senior members of the civil service should change with the changing of the government is laughable! The members are supposed to politically independent, so linking them to the success of the government of the time would be a huge constitutional breach and logical mistake.

gbee

You find it in Councils As well.

New Cllrs. take office thinking they can change things, then they realise the 'office' has it own support group and the Cllr is just figure head, same deal when they elect a Mayor or Lord Mayor, just a figure head to put a face on bureaucracy.

gbee

The real power in this country lies with the non elected City & County Managers:

They have executive decision authority that can override the elected council's official vote.

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

Nah, Id have said the establishment of the National Pension Reserve Fund, which was intended to prepare the state for the massive pension bills it was going to face. Instead it was looted by Cowen and Lenihan to prop up the banks...no we're not prepared for the massive pension bills were going to face, but at least we kept Anglo-Irish going.

So the impact of the banks getting out of control was greater than the impact of the NPRF. From which I infer that McCreevy's freeing-up of the banking sector was more significant than the creation of the reserve.

[I do accept that the creation of the NPRF was a good thing. I don't know if the idea was McCreevy's own, or if he pushed it through against the advice of the Department. I do know that the changes in bank regulation were his idea, and that the Department advised strongly against them.]

Sand

@P. Breathnach

So the impact of the banks getting out of control was greater than the impact of the NPRF. From which I infer that McCreevy's freeing-up of the banking sector was more significant than the creation of the reserve.

I'm unclear as to what youre specifically refering to here by "freeing-up of the banking sector": The FR and CB had the tools to regulate the banks. The civil servants spanning both agencies simply decided not to. Look at how Elderfield handled the Quinn group issue. No new laws or powers were required - just a regulator who took his job seriously.

Quoting from the Regling/Watson report:

By contrast, the scope in this twin-headed regulatory structure to devise and implement a decisive macroprudential strategy that would dampen the property boom was exploited only to a limited degree. Supervisory analysis and implementation fell short in just the area, macroprudential risk,
where the IMF had hoped that the framework might prove valuable. In this sense, design was not the issue, at the end of the day. Implemented in the right spirit, there is no question that this framework could have been made to work sufficiently well to mitigate the impact of the credit/property cycle.

There were also some questions, in this framework, about ultimate responsibility and about lines of command. These were issues that the regulator’s partially interlocking relations with the central
bank seem to have left open to interpretation. Again, however, such questions should not have stood in the way of firm and proactive supervision. The issue was implementation. Another regulatory issue which cast a long shadow in recent years can again be seen in these terms.
The regulatory change in the previous decade that allowed building societies to expand in commercial property (as opposed to residential mortgages) was followed by a significant rise in the riskiness of some balance sheets. However, the main point was not the permissive regulatory change. It was the supervisory approach and implementation that followed. Under all
circumstances, such a regulatory change should have provoked an intensification in the supervision of these institutions to ensure that their management had the skills and judgement to avoid overrapid expansion in new business areas. There was an extended dialogue about some governance
issues; but overall the response was far too weak.

In sum, the common theme cutting across these regulatory framework issues is that they should not distract from the true problems, which were issues of supervisory implementation.

Whilst its convenient for the civil service to use a hated figure like McCreevy as a whipping boy, the objective analysis was that past the hype of "light touch regulation", Ireland actually had no regulation. The civil servants tasked with implementing the regulation of the banks chose not to do so. Implementation was the major problem. Theories about regulatory structures are academic when the laws and powers in place arent implemented in the right spirit by the civil servants charged with doing so.

If the regulators werent using the tools that were given to them, what would be the purpose of giving them more tools that they wouldnt use?