Desmond proposes radical changes to government

liammur

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0212/breaking1.html

Pity he didn't think of this before his buddy Haughey was in power.

And most of what is being touted already.
What do you think is the single most important thing in the political system that needs change?

bijapos

Short term: End all corporate donations, individual donations to be limited to €500 per person per year.


Long term: Voting on a national list sytem to end parish pump politics.

liammur

bijapos wrote: »

Short term: End all corporate donations, individual donations to be limited to €500 per person per year.


Long term: Voting on a national list sytem to end parish pump politics.

But if parish pump politics was ended, would it be the end of rural Ireland, for instance, who would ensure money was put into say south kerry?

And we must remember, it wasn't parish pump politics that ruined the country.

P. Breathnach

I note that he does not propose anything to limit the access of wealthy individuals to the political process.

Sulmac

liammur wrote: »

But if parish pump politics was ended, would it be the end of rural Ireland, for instance, who would ensure money was put into say south kerry?

And we must remember, it wasn't parish pump politics that ruined the country.

A proper system of local/regional government would do this, and would do wonders for the country.

liammur

P Breathnach: There's a reason why Desmond made his money! But yes, that is probably the 1 key thing that should be changed

Perhaps, but are we capable of implementing a 'proper' system.
As far as I can remember, there was nothing wrong with Ireland back in mid to late 1990's.
The Galway tent culture, the 13 pay rises to bertie ahern etc did the damage.

hinault

liammur wrote: »

P Breathnach: There's a reason why Desmond made his money! But yes, that is probably the 1 key thing that should be changed

Perhaps, but are we capable of implementing a 'proper' system.
As far as I can remember, there was nothing wrong with Ireland back in mid to late 1990's.
The Galway tent culture, the 13 pay rises to bertie ahern etc did the damage.

In terms of fiscal/budget deficit Ireland was fine, and we had good economic growth which was sustainable and managable.

P. Breathnach

liammur wrote: »

...
As far as I can remember, there was nothing wrong with Ireland back in mid to late 1990's....

hinault wrote: »

In terms of fiscal/budget deficit Ireland was fine, and we had good economic growth which was sustainable and managable.

I am of the opinion that we sowed the seeds of our destruction then. We started to believe that we were invincible.

liammur

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am of the opinion that we sowed the seeds of our destruction then. We started to believe that we were invincible.

I disagree.

2002, we changed the focus to the construction industry. It was then we thought we were invincible.

sollar

Is mr desmond one of our rich tax avoiders. If so he can stick his advice where the sun don't shine imo.

The Raven.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I note that he does not propose anything to limit the access of wealthy individuals to the political process.

People from outside the Dáil should be appointed as ministers.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0212/breaking1.html

It is worse than that. He is actually proposing to give them access - or am I missing something here?

Arnold Layne

liammur wrote: »

But if parish pump politics was ended, would it be the end of rural Ireland, for instance, who would ensure money was put into say south kerry?

And we must remember, it wasn't parish pump politics that ruined the country.

Jackie Healy Rae voting for FF for the benefit of his family's election prospects in his constituency is not parish pump politics?

liammur

Arnold Layne wrote: »

Jackie Healy Rae voting for FF for the benefit of his family's election prospects in his constituency is not parish pump politics?

Political dynasty Irish style.

flutered

was not desmond the brains behind the financial services centre, as it was known that irish banking laws were lax compared to european laws, so foregin banks could come in and do buisness in ireland which could and would not be tolerated in their own countrys, he probably sees himself as minister for finannce in some future goverment.

InReality

if desmond was serious about any of this a word in charlies ear would have done it 2 decades ago.

in any event , the first and simplest fix would be a secret vote for the ceann comhairle.

PeterIanStaker

How much tax does Dermo pay in this country?

He can either put his shoulder to the wheel, or he can stick his platitudes up his @r$€;. Besides, they are just other people's ideas rehashed to score him brownie points with bar stool - orbiting ignorami: "ah shur Desmond's grand, isn't he Pat? One of us, like"

I've no time for fat cat hypocrisy and smugness, it got us into this mess.

later12

Funny that as soon as a man who has proven himself to be a high achiever with an outstanding commercial background and has also shown form in generating a policy which has brought Ireland tremendous success in financial services is so ridiculed because he is, as one poster put it a "fat cat".

It seems we only accept platitudes from those who are poor and miserable and therefore always 100% correct, especially when they Talk To Joe.

Unless Ireland starts to wake up and realise it needs to adapt a game plan that engages with business and - Heaven forfend - fat cats, then it will be locked into its own private little Albania on the fringe of Europe, terrifically miserable and looking inward and downward for ever.

yosemite_sam

later10 wrote: »

Funny that as soon as a man who has proven himself to be a high achiever with an outstanding commercial background and has also shown form in generating a policy which has brought Ireland tremendous success in financial services is so ridiculed because he is, as one poster put it a "fat cat".

It seems we only accept platitudes from those who are poor and miserable and therefore always 100% correct, especially when they Talk To Joe.

Unless Ireland starts to wake up and realise it needs to adapt a game plan that engages with business and - Heaven forfend - fat cats, then it will be locked into its own private little Albania on the fringe of Europe, terrifically miserable and looking inward and downward for ever.

If he pays tax here he is relevant, if not he should not be entertained

10belowzero

It was the like's of Mr Desmond and his ilk ,that has brought this country to it's knee's , with their fast buck mentality and the wall st mantra that greed is good.
You only have to look at what happened to Eircom in the hand's of these so called '' investor's'' .A company which when state owned was valued at being worth between 18/20 billion punt's , was then sold by fianna fail (upon the advice of ''investment advisor's'') on the stock market for 8 billion punt's , and when within week's of the floatation , the share price collapsed , and the Irish public were robbed stupid by the very same ''investment advisor's'',who then stepped in and bought up the share's for a few cent's each,(it later transpired that none of the company's director's had shares in the company - Dick Spring could not afford to buy any - remember) they gained control of the company and proceeded to asset strip it.
And asset strip it they did , and then sold it on ( after disappearing with billion's in to the corporate sunset ) to more ''investor's'' ,who then proceeded to pick it's bone's clean and when that was done , mortgaged the company to the tune of 4.5 billion euro's , before they bailed out , selling the company for the nominal sum of 30 million euro's.
It was these same investor's (the k club click) and the access and cronies they had within the government , the bank's and financial service's ,that led directly to the crash ,we are know witnessing.
Please don't get me wrong , we need investor's ,they are the life blood of commerce and industry ,ordinary people who invest their saving's/pension's etc , in return for a fair dividend ,from the company's and director's they entrust.It is when this trust is ,manipulated and criminally and fraudulently abused , that we see the collapse in investor confidence ,we are now seeing.
How could any investor ,at home or abroad have any confidence in investing in Ireland or it's company's after seeing the shareholder's rage and anger at the e.g.m of Eircom in 2000 and 10 year's later in 2010 with A.I.B , B.O.I etc and nothing had changed.
It will take a new government to enact the strictest ,most stringent corporate ,company ,financial/investment law and governance in the world , before legitimate investor's will have the confidence to invest in Ireland Inc again.
My best advice to Mr Desmond is to crawl off in to corporate oblivion with his buddie's ,Soros , O'Reilly ,O'Brien and their ilk and shove his advice.

liammur

later10 wrote: »

Funny that as soon as a man who has proven himself to be a high achiever with an outstanding commercial background and has also shown form in generating a policy which has brought Ireland tremendous success in financial services is so ridiculed because he is, as one poster put it a "fat cat".

It seems we only accept platitudes from those who are poor and miserable and therefore always 100% correct, especially when they Talk To Joe.

Unless Ireland starts to wake up and realise it needs to adapt a game plan that engages with business and - Heaven forfend - fat cats, then it will be locked into its own private little Albania on the fringe of Europe, terrifically miserable and looking inward and downward for ever.

It's rather easy for the likes of Desmond and Denis O Brien and some of these millionaires to be termed high acheivers. 'Here's a telephone license denis, throw me a few quid'. 'You can be sure I will'
'We'll give you the IFSC Dermot, with a load of tax incentives', 'thanks charlie'

Sand

I read Dermot Desmonds proposals and found most of it sensible and agreeable. Whether any of it will actually be implemented is another story altogether - there are many vested interests in Ireland and most of them are quite happy with things the way they are (excessive wages, cosy terms and conditions, protected pensions, low accountability, minimal performance requirements), thanks very much. Plus theres an intense need amongst some to play the man, not the ball in the old Irish fashion of begrudgery.

@P.Breathnach

I note that he does not propose anything to limit the access of wealthy individuals to the political process.

Actually it does - repeal of the Official Secrets act for one. Open up the policy making process and make people accountable for their decisions and youll minimise the power of insider access. Insider access and influence is only powerful where policy making is secretive and policymakers are unaccountable.

@Liammur

Perhaps, but are we capable of implementing a 'proper' system.
As far as I can remember, there was nothing wrong with Ireland back in mid to late 1990's.
The Galway tent culture, the 13 pay rises to bertie ahern etc did the damage.

There was plenty wrong with Ireland back in the 1990s and further back again. Ireland has a poor system of governance, which has for almost the entire history of the state led to economic failure and emigration.

It is damning that between 1921 and 1959 the population of Ireland actually declined...despite a Catholic, agrarian birth rate: people were fleeing the country in droves. A brief improvement through the 1960s before more reckless misgovernment in the 1970s led to the grim 1980s where the country was on its knees. Then a brief improvement in the 90s, before back to form or reckless misgovernment in the last decade, leading us up to now where the Irish people are dependant almost totally on the kindness of strangers and the country is effectively at the mercy of an unsympathetic ECB and the populist play acting of our EU partners.

That inter-generational failure is not some freak occurence. We have a horrificly bad system of government and the rational response is to identify the flaws in the system and fix them. Our system of government needs to be able to limit the damage of centralised powers, weak oversight and accountability and small nation cosy circles - hoping the Galway Tent culture goes away by itself hasnt worked yet.

Desmond has presented some sensible proposals to start or at least contribute to a debate on what needs to be done. Theres nothing stopping us from ammending the constitution and our system of government to get better results in future.

@Raven

It is worse than that. He is actually proposing to give them access - or am I missing something here?

Itd be a significant improvement to appoint real experts (Irish or otherwise) to oversee policy making in various departments rather than some Mary Coughlan type whose only qualification for office is her dad was a TD and so was her uncle: the Galway Races tent culture in all its grimy glory long before there was a tent.

Mary is a fantastically successful Irish TD by the way: In the Dail since the age of 21 (So has never worked in the real world), and has held Ministerial portfolios (and implemented policy) in:

Social and Family Affairs,
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
Enterprise, Trade and Employment
Health and Children

Her qualifications to craft national policy in these areas?

Well she worked a few months as a social worker, sort of. Shes from outside of Dublin so thats all you need for Agriculture, right? Employment? Well - I dont think shes ever started or run a business or employed a single person. As for Health and Children...well, she has kids so shes seen the inside of a hospital a few times I guess.

Her political philosophy with regard to her responsibilities in national office is perhaps best expressed by her reaction to her appointment as Tanaiste: "I'll be doing my best for the people of the north-west, particularly my own county".

Yeah, Id take my chances with actual experienced and qualfied individuals being appointed to oversee policymaking whilst remaining accountable to the Dail.

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

...
Actually it does [limit the access of wealthy individuals to the political process] - repeal of the Official Secrets act for one. Open up the policy making process and make people accountable for their decisions and youll minimise the power of insider access. Insider access and influence is only powerful where policy making is secretive and policymakers are unaccountable.
...

That's not a realistic reflection of how things are done. When an individual meets a Minister to discuss an idea that that individual wants to advance, it can happen away from the Minister's office, or it can happen in the Minister's office as a private meeting with no officials present and no written record of the discussion. Abolition of the Official Secrets Act or the beefing-up of the Freedom of Information Act would not lead to any significant disclosure of the exercise of influence.

Sand

That's not a realistic reflection of how things are done. When an individual meets a Minister to discuss an idea that that individual wants to advance, it can happen away from the Minister's office, or it can happen in the Minister's office as a private meeting with no officials present and no written record of the discussion. Abolition of the Official Secrets Act or the beefing-up of the Freedom of Information Act would not lead to any significant disclosure of the exercise of influence.

And if the policy must be made openly, explained to the Dail and evidence cited to support conclusions by the civil servants and Minister (who would be appointed from outside the political system)...would an empowered Dail accept a policy which resulted from a single persons own interests in contradiction of evidence? Would the electorate?

In an enviroment where neither the Minister nor the civil service is neither responsible or accountable for policymaking, and policymaking is secretive and unjustified, where policies presented merely to be rubberstamped by a whipped and deliberately uninformed Dail its not a realistic solution to attempt to ban private contacts between politicians and individuals: Look at Cowens golf outing with an old friend, who just so happened to be a member of the Anglo-Irish set, who just so happened to have Seanie around too. Are we going to ban politicians from having friends?

Or do we instead demand that policies are made, explained and justified openly? We still do not know the reasons for the disastrously secretive and rushed banking guarantee - we can only wonder at Cowens golf outing and what was discussed there, if Seanie went several hours without discussing his tribulations. We still do not know why Anglo-Irish was considered systematic.

With the benefit of hindsight, isnt it clear that if the banking policy had been less secretive and more open to criticism as part of the policymaking process then Ireland would not be on the road for sovereign default as it currently is?

later12

liammur wrote: »

It's rather easy for the likes of Desmond and Denis O Brien and some of these millionaires to be termed high acheivers.

Really, so why are there not more of them?

recedite

"People from outside the Dáil should be appointed as ministers"
Micheal Martin has been spouting this sh1te recently, so its interesting to find out who the puppetmaster is.

Presumably Dermot Desmond would be that unelected person "appointed" as a minister.
Actually, why bother with democracy at all. The Golden Circle could just install themselves as the government, and save the expense of elections.

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

And if the policy must be made openly, explained to the Dail and evidence cited to support conclusions by the civil servants and Minister (who would be appointed from outside the political system)...would an empowered Dail accept a policy which resulted from a single persons own interests in contradiction of evidence?

First, I don't see that new approach in Desmond's proposals -- especially the idea that Ministers be from outside the political system.

Would the electorate?

In an enviroment where neither the Minister nor the civil service is neither responsible or accountable for policymaking, and policymaking is secretive and unjustified, where policies presented merely to be rubberstamped by a whipped and deliberately uninformed Dail its not a realistic solution to attempt to ban private contacts between politicians and individuals

Ministers decide on policy matters, either on their own or collectively in cabinet. Civil servants give relevant information and assistance, and generally also give advice on how objectives might be achieved. It is clear that the responsibility lies with ministers. There is a long-established convention that discussions between a Minister and civil servants are regarded as confidential. I am sure that some people can make a good broad case for keeping it that way, but I will focus on just one thing: it is generally in the Minister's political interest that things be kept that way. It allows them to deflect blame when things go wrong or decisions are unpopular.

Look at Cowens golf outing with an old friend, who just so happened to be a member of the Anglo-Irish set, who just so happened to have Seanie around too. Are we going to ban politicians from having friends?

Well, some of our politicians seem to have become friendless in the past couple of years! What we need is a culture change, with a heightened focus on the idea of conflict of interest. Cowen should have recognised that spending several hours in the company of Fitzpatrick, either before or after the fall of Anglo-Irish, could have been interpreted unfavourably. He should have let the fact of having met him, even socially, be known. True, it's a bit difficult to draw lines: how much time together amounts to a meeting; what about a larger group, such as an event attended by twenty people?

Or do we instead demand that policies are made, explained and justified openly?

Certainly far more openly than the current model, although there might be situations where the policy-making might need to be confidential (e.g. drawing up the budget).

We still do not know the reasons for the disastrously secretive and rushed banking guarantee - we can only wonder at Cowens golf outing and what was discussed there, if Seanie went several hours without discussing his tribulations. We still do not know why Anglo-Irish was considered systematic.

I am inclined to agree with your concerns there.

With the benefit of hindsight, isnt it clear that if the banking policy had been less secretive and more open to criticism as part of the policymaking process then Ireland would not be on the road for sovereign default as it currently is?

Yes.

But I have a concern about why our regulation policy and practice was so weak. I am not convinced that people are right to heap all the blame on Neary. I suspect that the approach was shaped so as to facilitate operations in the IFSC. It might be the case that Dermot Desmond's brainchild contributed to our downfall.

Sand

@P.Breatnach

First, I don't see that new approach in Desmond's proposals -- especially the idea that Ministers be from outside the political system.

Not sure if the article clearly states it, but the proposal does

In order to reduce the dominance of the executive the following is proposed:
• Non parliamentarians can become ministers
• TDs who are appointed as ministers must resign their seats

Theres a subtle logic here (none of the proposals should be considered merely on their own merits, but rather in altering the incentives that lead to failure):

These proposals will make it less likely that TDs will see achieving ministerial office as their ultimate goal and so could lead to a less deferential relationship between the government and the Dáil.

Ministers decide on policy matters, either on their own or collectively in cabinet. Civil servants give relevant information and assistance, and generally also give advice on how objectives might be achieved. It is clear that the responsibility lies with ministers. There is a long-established convention that discussions between a Minister and civil servants are regarded as confidential. I am sure that some people can make a good broad case for keeping it that way, but I will focus on just one thing: it is generally in the Minister's political interest that things be kept that way. It allows them to deflect blame when things go wrong or decisions are unpopular.

Thats the critical issue: when policymaking is investigated (and the banking policy is no different), the civil servants say the Minister is responsible. Meanwhile the Minister says he mades his decisions based on the advice of the civil servants. Everything is cloaked in secrecy so the end result is ... no one is accountable. Which suits both the Minister and his civil servants.

It doesnt suit the Irish people of course, but who cares about them?

The loyalties of the civil service have become confused - they have a personal political loyalty to whatever Minister has been appointed, rather than any higher loyalty to the Republic and its citizens. This compromises their value as a non-political panel of experts that limit the damage of populist, electorally driven policies. The link between the Minister and the civil service needs to be broken, both in the interests of the Irish people and the civil service itself.

Its important to note, Im not looking for a witchhunt where some unlucky civil servant is crucified outside the Dail as a political sacrifice to a baying mob complete with burning torches. But decision making improves drastically when its understood that those decisions might have to withstand the test of external criticism. I operate in that sort of enviroment - its not so bad once you get used to it. Indeed, its a great assistance to making the right decision.

Well, some of our politicians seem to have become friendless in the past couple of years! What we need is a culture change, with a heightened focus on the idea of conflict of interest. Cowen should have recognised that spending several hours in the company of Fitzpatrick, either before or after the fall of Anglo-Irish, could have been interpreted unfavourably. He should have let the fact of having met him, even socially, be known. True, it's a bit difficult to draw lines: how much time together amounts to a meeting; what about a larger group, such as an event attended by twenty people?

The thing is that culturally, we arent going to change. We are Irish, a small nation that frowns on formality or the suspicion that anyone is getting too big to have a pint with the common man. A big part of Cowens alleged charm was his inability to recognise he was leader of the country - is there any chance Cowen or any Irish politician would tell an old friend "Sorry, Im leader of the country now, I cant associate with the likes of you"? Theres no law you can pass that will prevent a vested interest from reaching the ear or pocket of a Minister.

Neither is it a specifically Irish problem. The Germans and the French arent any more honest or stoic than us (The French in particular protest at the drop of a hat whilst the Irish have been reserved to grumbling and sulking despite immense provocation from their leadership). They simply have a better system of government which recognises that vested interests will always attempt to influence policy making.

Certainly far more openly than the current model, although there might be situations where the policy-making might need to be confidential (e.g. drawing up the budget).

I can see the need for some areas of policymaking to not be as open as others - defence, counter terrorism for example. But the budget is the most important piece of legislation a Dail will pass each year. If anything, it requires the most tranparency so all the representitives of the people are informed when making their decision, and the electorate can be informed when petitioning their representitives and making their decisions. Information is only power when only a select few hold it.

You and I have previously clashed over the role of the DoF in the fiscal crisis. From the internal review carried out, it appears that there were voices in the DoF that protested the political, electoral focused spend spend spend course being pursued. The Dail didnt hear them, and neither did the electorate. The decision making process of both was compromised as a result. Both might have made better decisions if concerns over the countries fiscal condition were made public.

Yes.

But I have a concern about why our regulation policy and practice was so weak. I am not convinced that people are right to heap all the blame on Neary. I suspect that the approach was shaped so as to facilitate operations in the IFSC. It might be the case that Dermot Desmond's brainchild contributed to our downfall.

I dont blame Neary as such - he was obviously a weak pawn, in that Elderfield was able to take on Sean Quinn and enforce the laws without any particular exceptional new powers. Neary was put in as regulator because he was a weak pawn. Neary presumed that he wasnt simply there to enforce the rules, but also to ensure a win for the home team. Again, when considering proposals for reform remember the subtle logic of altering the incentives for everyone involved.

As for Desmond, he wasnt financial regulator. We need to stop confusing the players on the pitch with the referee, and vice versa.

recedite

Sand wrote: »

As for Desmond, he wasnt financial regulator. We need to stop confusing the players on the pitch with the referee, and vice versa.

Don't underestimate the man: political leaders may come and go, but he is always there pulling the strings.

P. Breathnach

[The exchange between Sand and myself is getting too multifaceted for the effective use of multi-quoting.]

I think most of us agree that we have a problem with how policy-making is done in Ireland. But we tend to diverge when we discuss how things might be improved.

I do not think the role of Civil Servants needs to be changed greatly. Were they, as individuals or operating collectively as the department's Policy Section, to debate things publicly with the Minister or the Government, then we could have a very difficult problem: a Department publicly opposing its Minister.

The present approach is that, apart from political advisors on temporary contracts, the Department is professionally rather than personally loyal to the Minister, and transfers its loyalty whenever there is a change of Minister. I have had "policy wonks" say privately to me that they had a low opinion of Minister X, and a high regard for Minister Y. That private opinion did not have any great effect on their commitment to their work.

It is technically right that the Minister decides on matters, and the Minister is not obliged to accept the advice of the Department.

I do not say this simply to defend the status quo. Like most people, I am dissatisfied with how things are done at present. My point is that the real problem lies elsewhere, in the failure to make Ministers accountable in any meaningful way. Had the Dáil committee system been better constructed, we might have had a suitable mechanism for the examination of policy-making (and I would see no problem with a Dáil committee being entitled to call for Department files as part of that arrangement). But, as we know, the committees generally have little impact -- pretty well as designed. Our politicians, partly by design but also partly by neglect, have arranged affairs so that our parliament's role in scrutinising the actions of government is largely ineffective.

There might be merit in the idea that ministers not be members of the Dáil: it might motivate the Dáil to take onto itself the scrutineering role. But let's not fool ourselves: it would not follow that we get a government of technocrats or a team of the great and good in society; we would still get politicians.

Sand

@recedite

Don't underestimate the man: political leaders may come and go, but he is always there pulling the strings.

And powerplayers come and go too - look at the old Celtic Tiger untouchables like Seanie Fitzpatrick.

We know there are powerful, undeclared influences within the policymaking system - thats why its important to improve the system. Rather than rely upon strong, civic minded individuals to somehow achieve results despite the systems flaws we ought to have a system that achieves results despite the flaws of individuals.

@P.Breathnach

I do not think the role of Civil Servants needs to be changed greatly. Were they, as individuals or operating collectively as the department's Policy Section, to debate things publicly with the Minister or the Government, then we could have a very difficult problem: a Department publicly opposing its Minister.

Why would that be such an issue? Im honestly confused. If a Minister is engaged upon a disastrous policy against the advice of his civil servants, then the Dail ought to be informed so they can make a decision based on all the facts. Is it acceptable to have a situation where a Minister (a single, politically motivated individual) ignores all advice and engages on a policy that his Department (his non-political panel of policy experts) is wholly against and the Dail, the representitives of the people are not informed?

The Minister is just a single, appointed individual - democratic legitmacy for policymaking is bestowed by the Dail, and if the Dail is not fully informed of misgivings over the policy then they are making decisions on a false basis. We ought to be aiming for policymaking decisions to be broader than the decision of a single Minister, delivered to a whipped powerless Dail for a rubberstamp.

The present approach is that, apart from political advisors on temporary contracts, the Department is professionally rather than personally loyal to the Minister, and transfers its loyalty whenever there is a change of Minister. I have had "policy wonks" say privately to me that they had a low opinion of Minister X, and a high regard for Minister Y. That private opinion did not have any great effect on their commitment to their work.

When I talked about personal loyalty, I meant that the civil service didnt see their responsibilities extending beyond their minister. A higher loyalty to the state and its citizens would rightly not consider a disagreement with the Minister to be some horrifically embarrassing event but rather non-political civil servants highlighting bad, politically driven policymaking to the Dail.

I do not say this simply to defend the status quo. Like most people, I am dissatisfied with how things are done at present. My point is that the real problem lies elsewhere, in the failure to make Ministers accountable in any meaningful way. Had the Dáil committee system been better constructed, we might have had a suitable mechanism for the examination of policy-making (and I would see no problem with a Dáil committee being entitled to call for Department files as part of that arrangement). But, as we know, the committees generally have little impact -- pretty well as designed. Our politicians, partly by design but also partly by neglect, have arranged affairs so that our parliament's role in scrutinising the actions of government is largely ineffective.

There might be merit in the idea that ministers not be members of the Dáil: it might motivate the Dáil to take onto itself the scrutineering role. But let's not fool ourselves: it would not follow that we get a government of technocrats or a team of the great and good in society; we would still get politicians.

It depends on how transparent the system would be for government appointments in general - as it is now, the Government essentially has total and unchecked power and the opposition and their voters are disenfranchised. The cabinet cabal (and their whipped acolytes) appoints who they want, when they want, how they want and the no one has any right to query or question them. Hence Senator Eoghan Harris.

Were public appointments, including Ministerial positions, open to a strong process of public evaluation then Ministers would have to be able to pass a grilling on the areas they propose to make policy on - can you see Mary Coughlan (a fantastically successful Minister under the current system) surviving contact with a detailed examination of her plans for the health service? If she made a fool of herself publically, what would be the political damage for her backers of being associated with her? Especially if rival parties were nominating actual qualified individuals with experience of managing health systems.

I think it would only take a debacles before even the worst political troglodytes realised they needed to start associating themselves with qualified, experienced and confident Ministerial picks rather than some eejit whose skills were more in the line of pulling pints in his dads bar, so we'd end up with a better class of policymakers.

ISAW

InReality wrote: »

if desmond was serious about any of this a word in charlies ear would have done it 2 decades ago.

in any event , the first and simplest fix would be a secret vote for the ceann comhairle.

1. He does not pay his taxes in Ireand
2. A lot of so called FF an FG £reform" is cut and pasted from desmond
3. See this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056184112 on how L Crighton views such "policy formation"
4. Why oh why if we elect politicians should we not know how they vote? why should a politician have to vote in secret? Why should we not know each and every vote a TD makes?
Why is having a "secret" Chairman of the Dail such a big deal?

ISAW

10belowzero wrote: »

You only have to look at what happened to Eircom in the hand's of these so called '' investor's'' .A company which when state owned was valued at being worth between 18/20 billion punt's , was then sold by fianna fail (upon the advice of ''investment advisor's'') on the stock market for 8 billion punt's , a..., mortgaged the company to the tune of 4.5 billion euro's , before they bailed out , selling the company for the nominal sum of 30 million euro's.

In spite of the additional "asset stripping story2 you could ok on this as the State getting 8 billion for something that was worth 4.5 billion. if it was worth 20 billion they would have got 20 billion. You cant have it both ways. and the state didnt lose out. Shareholders that took a punt lost out. Pity bond holders can't be treated the same way eh?

My best advice to Mr Desmond is to crawl off in to corporate oblivion with his buddie's ,Soros , O'Reilly ,O'Brien and their ilk and shove his advice.

I don't think that will happen because parties are being influenced by professionals and the line of "putting the party first2 is being pushed in the press to destroy grassroots FF FG and any other party in favour of "professionals" i.e. corporate concerns. Glossy policy doccuments are being produced by Desmond et. al. and Politicians are swallowing it hook line and sinker because though cute they are not cute to new technology and "experts" who are really just slightly clued in economics technology and emergent technology buffs when the politicians are not up to speed on such developments. Any port in a storm.

Does anyone actually think that any of these proposals will be put into effect? Is it not akin to turkeys voting for Christmas?
For me this is one of the major issues of the election but it hasn't got a lot of airtime compared to other issues- what are FG proposing concretely for example?