Govt. spent €40k+ analysing why people rejected Oireachtas Inquiry Ref.

Sully

Some "breaking" news following figures published by the Depart of Public Expenditure & Reform today. Following the defeat of the Oireacthas Inquiry Referendum, the government decided to ask the research company RedC to find out exactly why the Irish people decided to reject this.

Now, while the opposition (maybe not Fianna Fail, who seem to be the more constructive in opposition) will a field day with this and claim its absolutely outrageous that the government immediately paid for a professional research into the reasons why the people decided to say "No Thanks" to the referendum. Our good friends in Sinn Fein will claim that its a disgrace and that all they needed to do was ask them as they are the only true party in touch with the working class and upper class (ya know - those fancy premier seating flying to the states for the party, the fancy restaurants and hotels).

For a party that is, apparently, so disconnected and out of touch - I have to say fair play for doing some research. Lets hope now that the results will pave the way for the second attempt at the referendum with the concerns of the people addressed.

Its about time a government decided to listen to the people and not just ask them to vote again and this time "do it right" like Fianna Fail have done so often.

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform spent €41,043.20 on RedC research into the Oireacthas Inquiry Referendum according to figures published by the Department this afternoon.

Source: http://www.politics.ie/news/government-spent-41-043-20-analysing-why-people-rejected-oireachtas-inquiry-referendum-153.html

MadsL

Don't see an issue with 40k being spent on this, that is actually good government.

Scofflaw

Same here - and I was opposed to the amendment. Government should make every effort to find out what the people actually want, surely, rather than just looking into their hearts?

cordially,
Scofflaw

bedrock#1

Would it not be more prudent to find out before they draft such things??

I mean referendums aren't cheap never mind the post rejection analysis....

Nijmegen

This is an area where the fine line between governing and politiking can become blurred.

On the one hand, it's good of government to know what the people want.

On the other hand, it suits politicians who were in favour of this amendment to get research as to why it didn't pass, and how they might modify it so as to pass at a later date.

I think in cases like this you give them the benefit of the doubt and move on.

expectationlost

doyou need to spend that much to show it was a sheer lack of effort, if you watched the committee where they discussed this, charlie flanagan ignored all the evidence put before him and blamed fianna fail, 40k well spent

Scofflaw

Nijmegen wrote:

This is an area where the fine line between governing and politiking can become blurred.

On the one hand, it's good of government to know what the people want.

On the other hand, it suits politicians who were in favour of this amendment to get research as to why it didn't pass, and how they might modify it so as to pass at a later date.

I think in cases like this you give them the benefit of the doubt and move on.

And it tells us they're likely to run it again. I do think, though, that the results ought to be freely available, given they're paid for by taxpayers' money.

expectationlost wrote:

doyou need to spend that much to show it was a sheer lack of effort, if you watched the committee where they discussed this, charlie flanagan ignored all the evidence put before him and blamed fianna fail, 40k well spent

The problem - for the government - is that that's just your particular view.

cordially,
Scofflaw

expectationlost

Scofflaw wrote: »

And it tells us they're likely to run it again. I do think, though, that the results ought to be freely available, given they're paid for by taxpayers' money.



The problem - for the government - is that that's just your particular view.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nope that the view of the evidence put before them too, watch it

Scofflaw

expectationlost wrote: »

nope that the view of the evidence put before them too, watch it

Unless that evidence consisted of a statistically significant survey of the reasons the public had rejected the referendum - which it didn't, obviously - then it's not really a substitute for a statistically significant survey of the reasons the public had rejected the referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

expectationlost

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unless that evidence consisted of a statistically significant survey of the reasons the public had rejected the referendum - which it didn't, obviously - then it's not really a substitute for a statistically significant survey of the reasons the public had rejected the referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

watch it

Sully

expectationlost wrote: »

watch it

Watch what?

K-9

expectationlost wrote: »

watch it

Sully wrote: »

Watch what?

Mod

He/she means the video, I had to re-read the posts.

expectationlost, can you put what, in your opinion, the video says, in a summary post.

Scofflaw

expectationlost wrote: »

watch it

Will the evidence put in front of the committee involve a post-referendum analysis?

cordially,
Scofflaw