Who ultimately decides government policy?

MOSSAD

Browsing through the Wikileaks cables from the Dublin Embassy, I was struck by the names and titles of senior civil servants who, it would appear decide policy in our country-from our foreign affairs outlook to decisions about how the country is run.
So I wonder, when a minister makes some policy announcement, who are these people who actually decide what that policy will be?
Is it Eamon Confrey Communications and Electric
Commerce Division Chief, Department of Communications, Marine
and Natural Resources, involved with the broadband rollout in Ireland, or Michael Keaveney, Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Third
Secretary for Disarmament and Non-proliferation? Or the quiet lad from my leaving cert class 20 years ago who sat the Junior Ex exam, passed and entered the civil service, never to be seen again?
More to the point, should these people be named and appear with a minister when these decisions which affect all of us are announced?

Victor

Each level will have some input. Politicians will bring their own preferences / prejudices, but don't have the time, nor knowledge, to do the detail.

The minister / cabinet / Oireachtas will have final say in the policy - but only if the read it. The lowest level of the civil / public service will tell you whether is is working in practice.

View

You really should watch "Yes, Minister" if you want to understand these things.

The politicians make the decisions. This naturally is done from a short-list of possible options. One of these is usually the correct option, one the populist option and one the compromise option.

The correct option is the economic right thing to do but is politically suicide - politicians tend to avoid these where possible understandably and will only choose them if they believe they have no other choice (calling in the IMF would be a good example). The populist option is the political right thing but is economic suicide - politicians love making these decisions as it helps get them elected but they tend to boomerang back on them a few years later (measures that fed our property mania fall into this category). The compromise option is what the civil service want the politicians to chose - one where the politician can pose for the papers after it but it does little economic damage or better yet might even make economic sense (regrettably these decision have been thin on the ground lately).

mikemac

The Civil Service is the permanent government

I'm wondering how people would feel if we were like the USA and when the new government comes in, heads of agencies get sacked and new people are put in.

For example Simon Coveney sacks the secretary of Dept of Agriculture or demands they resign, same thing. Then brings in someone new, could be an internal promotion or some external expert from another country

We get stability I suppose with what we have

MOSSAD

Thanks for that. It explains perhaps why there is so little initiative and why change is glacial. Would it really be so wrong for officials to push for change/improvement in some areas? Or is it almost impossible because of interdepartmental jealousy?
I'll give one example. The allocation of grid connections for windfarms in Ireland is pretty odd, to be honest. Someone's granny on the Kilmacud Road, with neither land nor planning permission for a wind energy project could be allocated one. So grid connections become a commodity to be auctioned off, as is happening all over the country. The country pays by not reaching it's renewable energy requirements, and income both earned and taxable is lost. Seems insane. Of course there is probably an unsavoury political slant to this, but that's another story.
Anyhow, I appreciate the replies.