Dept. of Finance says it "wouldn't have been appropriate" to publish the docs b4 GE11

hatrickpatrick

Sorry for all the abbreviations, posting limit:

Prime Time has just said the department felt "it wouldn't have been appropriate" to publish the recent advice documents before the election.

WHY?! Why the f*ck not?!?!?
Is it not the right of the Irish people to know how incompetent their representatives are before voting for them? :mad:

The culture of cover up in this country is pissing me the hell off at this stage. We need our own dedicated Wikileaks here.

gandalf

That is a disgraceful admission. We are their employers and that is precisely the information we needed to see before we made a decision on who gets to lead this country.

It was inappropriate of them not to publish this information.

Trotter

There will be no consequences. This is Ireland. If you avoid paying your tv licence you end up in court. If you're at the top of the tree you are untouchable.

Liam Byrne

Stinks to high heaven!

Of course it would have been appropriate, since it showed just how badly those who were trying to get us to vote for them fvcked it up.

Yet another case of bad judgement and potential for the population to sue these rats for negligence, but given that it's Ireland it won't happen. :mad:

SB-08

It wasn't the DOF that didn't think it was appropriate - they presented it to the Govt and it was FF who felt it would be better to leave it to after the election for obvious reasons. The rot of FF continues to shock.

On another note Garett Fitzgerald is more sharp at 85 than any FF'er appeared to be over the past 14 years. It's amazing how a man of his age is still showing up senior Ministers.

oppenheimer1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sorry for all the abbreviations, posting limit:

Prime Time has just said the department felt "it wouldn't have been appropriate" to publish the recent advice documents before the election.

WHY?! Why the f*ck not?!?!?
Is it not the right of the Irish people to know how incompetent their representatives are before voting for them? :mad:

The culture of cover up in this country is pissing me the hell off at this stage. We need our own dedicated Wikileaks here.

The department didn't want it published because they were afraid it might be seen that the department were participating in electioneering.

They wanted to maintain their political neutrality, so they waited until after the election to publish.

hatrickpatrick

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The department didn't want it published because they were afraid it might be seen that the department were participating in electioneering.

They wanted to maintain their political neutrality, so they waited until after the election to publish.

What about publishing it 5, 6 months ago?

steelcityblues

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The department didn't want it published because they were afraid it might be seen that the department were participating in electioneering.

They wanted to maintain their political neutrality, so they waited until after the election to publish.

A Department stuffed with FF appointees lest we forget!

Mr.Micro

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The department didn't want it published because they were afraid it might be seen that the department were participating in electioneering.

They wanted to maintain their political neutrality, so they waited until after the election to publish.

Absolutely not. Probably ordered by Lenny and Biffo. It had a duty to to publish as by not doing so it was favouring the Government party.

oppenheimer1

steelcityblues wrote: »

A Department stuffed with FF appointees lest we forget!

The government don't appoint the Civil service. As I said they are apolitical.

johno2

SB-08 wrote: »

On another note Garett Fitzgerald is more sharp at 85 than any FF'er appeared to be over the past 14 years. It's amazing how a man of his age is still showing up senior Ministers.

This. I'm not a huge fan of modern FG but Garrett was a legend in his time and always will be in my eyes.

johno

steelcityblues

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The government don't appoint the Civil service. As I said they are apolitical.

Well, we know who goes in there mostly!

oppenheimer1

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Absolutely not. Probably ordered by Lenny and Biffo. It had a duty to to publish as by not doing so it was favouring the Government party.

Pure conjecture. That said its unlikely a government will publish a report that is going to damage it, especially when it is in a critically weakened state in a crucial period in its economic cycle.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What about publishing it 5, 6 months ago?

It probably wasn't ready before the country entered election mode when the Greens signalled they were going to pull the plug. Releasing a report in such a situation would most certainly be seen as a political move by the department officials

oppenheimer1

steelcityblues wrote: »

Well, we know who goes in there mostly!

Who? Because you'd be well challenged to determine a senior civil servants politics.

Are you saying the civil service is made up of FF friends?

steelcityblues

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Who? Because you'd be well challenged to determine a senior civil servants politics.

Are you saying the civil service is made up of FF friends?

Given they kept this vital information on hold for fear of 'electioneering'? People are naturally gonna feel this!

There were stories in the past too of Haughey 'sorting out' civil service people who didn't tow the line. Nothing new!

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Pure conjecture. That said its unlikely a government will publish a report that is going to damage it, especially when it is in a critically weakened state in a crucial period in its economic cycle.

In English, please.....what is "its economic cycle" ?

P. Breathnach

steelcityblues wrote: »

A Department stuffed with FF appointees lest we forget!

That remark is bollocks. Except in very limited circumstances (temporary appointment of special advisers and the like) politicians do not appoint Civil Servants.

P. Breathnach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In English, please.....what is "its economic cycle" ?

It's fairly standard economics terminology: the tendency for economies to grow for a while, then stagnate or contract for a while (the "while" being measured in years).

For a longer answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle

Edit: I'll add that many people hold that government should try to smooth out the pattern by aiming for a budget surplus when the economy is growing, and running a deficit when the economy is stagnant or contracting. This action is said to be "counter-cyclical" or "anti-cyclical", and is commonly held to be a good thing. Running a deficit when the economy is expanding, or aiming for a surplus during recession is said to be "pro-cyclical" because it makes a boom even boomier, with the consequent bust being, er, bustier.

steelcityblues

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That remark is bollocks. Except in very limited circumstances (temporary appointment of special advisers and the like) politicians do not appoint Civil Servants.

That's the key to all of this!

P. Breathnach

steelcityblues wrote: »

That's the key to all of this!

So tell us then: how many special advisers did the outgoing government appoint to the DoF? What number constitutes "stuffing" the Department?

steelcityblues

From the Sunday Tribune (RIP) - Jan 2

"The total paybill for more than 40 special advisers hired by government ministers comes to almost €5m a year. The figures were revealed in the Dáil the week before the Christmas break.

But there's more:

In addition to these advisers, ministers have hired a further 40 personal assistants and secretaries, with average salaries of €50,000 a year. This brings the state-funded paybill to just under €7m a year for the 80 recruited special government advisers, personal assistants and secretaries.

They better be accountable, and party free on those salaries - period!

http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2011/jan/02/government-special-advisers-paid-more-than-british/

P. Breathnach

steelcityblues wrote: »

From the Sunday Tribune (RIP) - Jan 2

...

But there's more:

...

They better be accountable, and party free on those salaries - period!

http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2011/jan/02/government-special-advisers-paid-more-than-british/

That's 40 special advisers across the entire government. How many were in Finance? What's the threshold for "stuffed"?

hinault

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The government don't appoint the Civil service. As I said they are apathetic.

fixed

steelcityblues

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's 40 special advisers across the entire government. How many were in Finance? What's the threshold for "stuffed"?

Don't recall the government ever given us an exact number (Alan Ahearne, etc), but special advisors need to be scrapped anyway!

M three

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The government don't appoint the Civil service. As I said they are apolitical.

I recall a guy from the taoiseachs department posing as a regular joe soap phoning up a radio show during working hours to defend bertie not that long ago, he sounded really apolitical.

makes you wonder how much more of that stuff goes on that isnt spotted.

P. Breathnach

steelcityblues wrote: »

Don't recall the government ever given us an exact number (Alan Ahearne, etc), but special advisors need to be scrapped anyway!

I take it that you are backing away from your earlier claim that the DoF is stuffed with FF appointees.

steelcityblues

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I take it that you are backing away from your earlier claim that the DoF is stuffed with FF appointees.

Special advisors are well 'scouted' i'm sure, whatever about lower level.;)

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's fairly standard economics terminology: the tendency for economies to grow for a while, then stagnate or contract for a while (the "while" being measured in years).

For a longer answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle

Hmmm. I don't remember that concept being in anyone's manifesto, and I also object to the attempt to normalise the current state of the economy. What FF have done has nothing to do with cycles.

P. Breathnach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

... What FF have done has nothing to do with cycles.

I chose the phrasing "it makes a boom even boomier" for a reason. Do you not recognise where it comes from?

mikedragon32

Special Advisors and personal assitants/secretarial staff have no input to policy decisions.

The SAs are there to advise the minister politically. The personal secretaries are there to do work on his behalf such as replying to letters from constituents etc and dealing with his personal affairs. They are appointed by the minister (paid by the dept) but they go when he/she goes. In most instances the personal assistants and secretaries to ministers are people who've worked with the minister in the past, be it in constituency offices or elsewhere. The whole idea of these guys is that they're NOT party-free as SCB puts it.

It helps to ensure that the civil servants actually deal with the work of the department rather than the work of the TD and his/her party.

Given that there may be one or two advisers (depending on the minister) and a couple of assistants/secretaries in departments where there may be over 1000 civil servants, I'd hardly say that the Dept of Finance (or any other office) is full of political cronies.

Mr.Micro

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Pure conjecture. That said its unlikely a government will publish a report that is going to damage it, especially when it is in a critically weakened state in a crucial period in its economic cycle.

Not what you posted earlier

The department didn't want it published because they were afraid it might be seen that the department were participating in electioneering.

They wanted to maintain their political neutrality, so they waited until after the election to publish.

So you agree then it was not the DoF being neutral but a cynical move by the now vanquished and discredited FF Government to stop important data that the voters should have been aware of in a democracy? ( not a word that FF took too much heed of ).

Coillte_Bhoy

steelcityblues wrote: »

Special advisors are well 'scouted' i'm sure, whatever about lower level.;)

Anyway regarding the op, i dont think it would have made a bit of difference to the election outcome in any case.

dixiefly

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The government don't appoint the Civil service. As I said they are apolitical.

In theory yes but there are plenty of political appointees in many areas of the Civil Service, and after 14 years its not hard to guess what colour they are.

You only have to see where Cowen is still appointing senators to get an idea of the culture of FF.

Coillte_Bhoy

dixiefly wrote: »

In theory yes but there are plenty of political appointees in many areas of the Civil Service, and after 14 years its not hard to guess what colour they are.

You only have to see where Cowen is still appointing senators to get an idea of the culture of FF.

Which appointments are you referring to?

Appointing a senator is completely different and would be the case regardless of who is Taoiseach so stop trying to muddy the waters

CDfm

dixiefly wrote: »

In theory yes but there are plenty of political appointees in many areas of the Civil Service, and after 14 years its not hard to guess what colour they are.

Ahem - appointments to state Boards are made by Ministers but on the recommendation of the civil service.

Take the Central Bank Board appointments and bear in mind it is a Civil Service recommendation.

General Secretary - David Begg

David Begg became General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in 2001. For five years prior to that he was Chief Executive of Concern Worldwide, an international humanitarian organisation working in 27 countries and with offices in Dublin, London, Belfast, New York and Chicago. He is also a Director of the Central Bank (since 1995), a Governor of the Irish Times Trust, non Executive Director of Aer Lingus, a member of the National Economic and Social Council (NESC), and of the Advisory Board of Development Co-operation Ireland. He also sits on the Executive Committee of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC).

So the CS shortlists candidates.

A Minister is just 1 guy - with political & constituency and lots of things to attend to. Some of them fairly mundane.

The Civil Servants on the other hand are the experts.

Take David Begg on the Central Banks Board - the CB has been critised for lots of reasons - this guy is an independent board member who was part of the Social Partnership - negotiating with the DoF.

As a Board Member of the Central Bank his job was to ensure there was a correct regulatory structure regulating the Banks. Has he done that. Obviously not. It was a complete shambles.

The DoF also negotiate with the unions as the Civil Service Employer with him as a key negotiator.

"Benchmarking" ya sure we can afford it -I am wearing my Central Bank hat

The Minister for the most part is totally out of the loop.

What I am saying is that the appointments and crony's is not as clear as all that. The DoF are supposed to be the experts.



I gave the report a cusory glance and it read like - these guys are a shower of incompetants and senior management are inept and not able to run or structure the department.

The report reads like the Civil Servants & their managers are living in a paralell universe or another dimension.

They cheerfully and happily admit that they don't have the skills. They should be totally ashamed of this.

I just wonder if the new Minister of Finance will take these skillless and inept people and replace them with people who can actually do the job.


A new Minister of Finance , after reading that report, is hardly going to have much confidence in his department now is he ?

Liam Byrne

One has to wonder whether the loonnnnnnng-overdue Mahon report will now be published....I mean, if authorities and departments are arbitrarily delaying releasing facts in order to make FF look good less bad, just how widespread is that malaise ?

johngalway

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They wanted to maintain their political neutrality, so they waited until after the election to publish.

And how is not publishing it before an election not political?

If they were truly independent of political parties they would publish reports as and when they were ready.

CDfm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

One has to wonder whether the loonnnnnnng-overdue Mahon report will now be published....I mean, if authorities and departments are arbitrarily delaying releasing facts in order to make FF look good less bad, just how widespread is that malaise ?

I think it is another issue altogether.

Our Civil Service was inherited from the British and Ireland has undergone major changes since then.

Our Civil Service have not had any proper analysis by an academic since 1971 Brian Farrell or indeed any challenge to how the do things since Lemass & Whitakker in 1956.

Basil Chubb is so long ago as to be a fossil.

Cmon people - this ain't party political.

Our civil servants are supposed to be our experts and we have just had a damning report.

I am not impressed with any politician who is a party to this mess or who wont tackle the issue.

Enda said he will, but, will he.