A Question about TD's Roles.

superelliptic

I was looking through some articals online about the new Luas Red Line extension that they just tested the day before yesterday, and saw that Leo Varadkar, who is our current Minister for Transport, Tourism & Sport had been present. In his speech on the day, he mentioned that before the election, he had been the partys "Spokesperson on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources".

So my question is twofold:

1.How are TD's selected for the roles in which they end up?

2.How do TD's run departments that control industrys in which they (the TD's) have no formal training?

Denerick

superelliptic wrote: »

1.How are TD's selected for the roles in which they end up?

TDs are selected for ministerial roles on the basis of how much arse they kiss along the way. Politics is essentially a game of Russian roulette. You either sell your soul or you try and transform politics. The latter kind of idealist usually retires pretty quickly (Think of George Lee)

For example Michael Noonan is finance minister because he established himself as Enda Kenny's bulldog following Brutons attempted heave. If this were a true meritocracy, someone like Richard Bruton or Ruari Quinn would have been finance minister. If this were a technocracy then the position would have been open for applications from leading figures in the economic, political and social world.

In short, TDs are selected for the roles they end up with solely on the basis of their accumulated political capital with the people who make decisions. Merit rarely comes into play. For example George Osborne is eminently unqualified to be the UK Chancellor.

2.How do TD's run departments that control industrys in which they (the TD's) have no formal training?

Mostly through civil servants. Government ministers rarely change the departments they run in any meaningful way; as in, the day to day running of things. Policy is dictated by above and ministers merely implement the policy. The civil servant does the implementing. THe minister looks pretty and signs his name.

Haven't you see Yes, Minister or In the Thick of it?

stevenmu

Denerick wrote: »

Mostly through civil servants.

+1. Civil servants are responsible for all of the leg work and technical details and so on. Ministers set strategic goals and make choices from recommendations by civil servants based on the political policies of the government.

Since you mentioned Varadkar and Transport, a good example that's been in the news recently is the Metro North and the option of extending the Dart line to the airport. Civil servants would investigate these options and prepare reports and briefing materials for the Minister. The reports would contain projected costs, benefits, timescales, and possibly more detailed implementation plans. They may or may not contain recommendations based purely on the facts and figures contained within, but any recommendations made by civil servants should not take any political factors into account. So if a cost-benefit analysis showed that Metro North would provide the best value for money, or it was more in line with best practices, they would recommend that.

The minister would examine the reports and then make a decision taking into account the political policies of the government. So following the above examples they may choose to go with the Dart extension because an expensive underground system wouldn't be in line with current spending reduction policies.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

When you consider that Fine Gaels Gaelthacht spokesperson couldn't speak Irish, you'll have a fair idea of how qualified ministers are for their positions.

Seloth

All above got it spot on.

Ministers are meant to voice what the people want.
Civil Servants are meant to find a way to do this and advise on it and other matters.

Its an unfortunate common view that its Ministers who run departments when it truth its really the Secretary General's.

What I find is a common argument is whether Ministers or Secretary General's should have more power and pull where it seems people think either one should have more of a role than another.

I find it more academics think that the Sec General should but in the common public eye the Minister should...but then again quite often its the same common public eye who give out about ministers having such power and being clueless in the subject yet just after giving out saying they should have more power from those who have/may have been involved with the dept for quite a long time having both experiance from the field and many people who have study'd/worked in said field.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Good point.

finisklin

Comments are all bang on. I think the point about the misconception that the Minister runs the department is spot on. IMO, it is the civil servants that run the departments and the country. What about Kevin Cardiff (SG in Dept. of Finance) last year appearing before the Dail PAC indiacting that he was only answerable to the Minister for Finance and not the PAC!

Also Joan Burton's shafting by Gilmore was a but rich given that she had been Labour's longstanding Finance spokesperson. Yeah, it's not what experience you have but what poles you've greased.