Ruair Quinn and his ahem advisors

Tigerandahalf

Anyone watching on rte1. The 2 young lads are embarassing and smug.

I feel like I'm watching an episode of "The Office".

Anita Blow

Nice to see they were all having a laugh and drinking wine at the time they cut hundreds of DEIS posts.
Not sure the parents of those poor kids would be able to find such announcements as relaxing and fun.

Mickey H

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Anyone watching on rte1. The 2 young lads are embarassing and smug.

No, watching Dallas on TV3.

Tigerandahalf

It is laughable. The office indeed! Two boys are political advisors. They wouldnt know their right shoe from their left. We are paying the salaries of these twits.

starbelgrade

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Anyone watching on rte1. The 2 young lads are embarassing and smug.

All young people who are involved in politics are invariably embarrassing and smug.

I think it comes from a sense that by licking the arse of some fat, old politician, that - by association - you are somehow more worthy than everybody else.

Boombastic

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

It is laughable. The office indeed! Two boys are political advisors. They wouldnt know their right shoe from their left. We are paying the salaries of these twits.

How are they related to the bould Ruairi? Nephews?

Tails142

seven schools west of dingle.. scoff scoff scoff

I hope those two young lads get the boot tomorrow morning!

Like someone else said it was as if i was watching the US office, you couldn't write better satire.

AnonoBoy

starbelgrade wrote: »

All young people who are involved in politics are invariably embarrassing and smug.

That's not true.

What about.........................




























............... nevermind.

Professey Chin

starbelgrade wrote: »

All young people who are involved in politics are invariably embarrassing and smug.

I think it comes from a sense that by licking the arse of some fat, old politician, that - by association - you are somehow more worthy than everybody else.

And from joining Young Fine Gael/Labour/Gimpy gimp. Cults full of brainwashing smug

kneemos

They're letting the cat out of the bag.

Beardy wants to be a male model, whilst the other dude is just......unimpressive

M three

Big point that came up so far was that he cant make any changes to 80% of the education budget, as that much goes towards teachers pay. Far too high a figure. Whats the english equivalent?

The meeting where he was talking to the union and they were asked what 4 changes could they suggest and they just sat there saying nothing summed it all up. They dont give a sh*te about any sort of improvements, they just want as many teachers as possible, getting paid as much as possible, so the fatheads in the union can continue their cushy existence.

The teachers conferences and protests at same are like a bunch of babies squabbling in a playpen

It comes across as a bloody depressing place to work

hawkwind23

i am absolutely stunned watching this.
im stunned.
we need to get these leeches exposed and stripped of their power and pensions.
if any of us were as useless at our jobs we would be sacked with loss of all benefits.

M three

hawkwind23 wrote: »

i am absolutely stunned watching this.
im stunned.
we need to get these leeches exposed and stripped of their power and pensions.
if any of us were as useless at our jobs we would be sacked with loss of all benefits.

Are you stunned?
I take it you are talking about teachers, and their unions?

Pottler

Be nice to know what sort of a retainer they are getting. As with most consultants, pay does not relate to efficency, competency or intelligence or even results, it's just a gas number that is known as "sure thats the going rate". General rule with consultants is that you hire someone who knows nothing about your business to come in and look around vacantly, then pen an expensive report advising you to spend a shedload of money on shyte that bears no relationship with reality. Can't see political advisers being much different. What's the point of electing someone if they can't think for themselves but need "advisers" to tell them what to say and do? Might as well just elect the advisers so.

emo72

missed it. what was it called, will try to catch it on rteplayer.

MagicMarker

emo72 wrote: »

missed it. what was it called, will try to catch it on rteplayer.

National Lampoon's Dept of Education.

M three

Pottler wrote: »

Be nice to know what sort of a retainer they are getting. As with most consultants, pay does not relate to efficency, competency or intelligence or even results, it's just a gas number that is known as "sure thats the going rate". General rule with consultants is that you hire someone who knows nothing about your business to come in and look around vacantly, then pen an expensive report advising you to spend a shedload of money on shyte that bears no relationship with reality. Can't see political advisers being much different. What's the point of electing someone if they can't think for themselves but need "advisers" to tell them what to say and do? Might as well just elect the advisers so.

Phil hogan was a former political adviser. So that doesn't work either.

Wompa1

MagicMarker wrote: »

National Lampoon's Dept of Education.

Did Quinn Dance with a sandwich?

Sir Pompous Righteousness

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

And from joining Young Fine Gael/Labour/Gimpy gimp. Cults full of brainwashing smug

As a former member of Labour Youth I hereby quote the above for truth. Put it this way, I joined when I was 19 and left when I was 19. Those youth political gatherings are literally political brainwashing camps.

I went to a National Labour Youth conference once and it's comparable to North Koreans praising their glorious leader. We sang the Internationale openly and the Soviet National Anthem on the sly. We talked about achieving a glorious revolution and how to topple capitalism and Zionism. This was all to feed our impressionable young minds, to make us feel like being part of something bigger.

One of the reasons why armies recruit soldiers when their young, say between 17 and 20, is because they're more vulnerable, easily influenced and their concept of death isn't as solid. All their ideas about heroism and glory are still with them and are, for the most part, uncorrupted by the realities of adulthood.

Similarly, political movements target young people who are desperate to fit in and be part of something they believe is bigger than themselves. Quite often the people who join these youth movements previously felt feelings of inadequacy and/or social isolation. In reality, their vulnerability is used as a tool to mold them into foot soldiers for the party, to forward the party's agenda.

The smugness and righteousness of these people often comes from the brainwashing that makes them perceive their "cause" as being paramount to everyone else's and that anyone who is not involved and/or rejects their "cause" is inferior. Ironically, they are often led to believe that they are the only possessors of the "truth" and that everyone else is brainwashed. In short, the fulfillment that results from being part of something one might perceive as being greater than oneself can often lead to a superiority complex.

These "advisors" to Ruairi Quinn are good examples of the by-produces of this political indoctrination process. In a way, it's similar to religious indoctrination. All obedience to the party or else shame and rejection amongst your fellow peer. You become a self-righteous self-entitled being who's fate, you believe, is to forward the cause of the party by whatever means necessary and to achieve the ultimate goal of saving mankind from suffering and damnation. Don't think, just do. Follow the leader who'll pave out the way to glory.

This is why the Nazis (Godwin's law) set up the Hitler Youth, to politically indoctrinate the youth of Germany and to solidify their ideological and moral grip on future generations. Similarly today, political youth movements are there to increase the likelihood of survival of the main parties they are affiliated with in the future, e.g, LY with the Labour Party, YFG with Fine Gael, etc...

Smidge

I turned it off just after "Dingle haw haw haw" and just before I puked.
These people and their attitudes really show the divide.

Einhard

Anita Blow wrote: »

Nice to see they were all having a laugh and drinking wine at the time they cut hundreds of DEIS posts.
Not sure the parents of those poor kids would be able to find such announcements as relaxing and fun.

Ah FFS, what a ridiculous post. They were having a few cheap bottles of wine and some biccies before Christmas, like hundreds of thousands of other Irish workers, myself included. It wasn't an indication that they found such cutbacks relaxing or fun, as could be seen from the fact that the cutback were partially reversed. The idea that politicians or their afvisers shouldn't have a few Christmas drinks is nonsense.

hawkwind23 wrote: »

i am absolutely stunned watching this.
im stunned.
we need to get these leeches exposed and stripped of their power and pensions.
if any of us were as useless at our jobs we would be sacked with loss of all benefits.

Could you point out how exactly you think they are failing at their jobs? I watched the show myself, and while I wasn't overly impressed, I wasn't struck by any particular incompetence.

mishkalucy wrote: »

I turned it off just after "Dingle haw haw haw" and just before I puked.
These people and their attitudes really show the divide.

He had a point. The fact that there are seven schools on the Dingle peninsula is ludicrous and an example of gross ineffiecencies in government spending in Ireland. Try pointing that out however, and you're against rural communities, or hate farmers, or whatever idiotic statement that can be flung by people who are determined to ignore the fact that serious reforms and cutbacks need to be made, not just in education, bit right across the board.

Extinction

Have you ever actually looked at a map and compared the area of The Dingle peninsula to Dublin county?

Tigerandahalf

Ah in fairness the 2 boys were clueless. The young fella couldnt wipe his own nose. When he was interviewed and political advisor came up at the bottom of the screen I could only laugh. How Ruair could learn anything off him is beyond me.
The other lad with a bit of a beard was no better. He was delighted when his essay was approved by another advisor. I can only presume they are Labour party workers who have been a plum job as thanks for putting up the posters.
The older guy John Walsh has some credibilty and I could see why you would employ him as he is the former Education editor with the Indo. At least he knows what he is talking about.

JohnMearsheimer

I was a bit shocked at the younger of the 2 advisors, he came across like he didn't know his arse from his elbow. Ruari Quinn has been in politics a long time and it seems a bit strange that he has this guy that looks about 12 'advising' him. He made some ill judged comments during the documentary and didn't seem to have any sense of how he or his comments would be perceived by people watching him. if I were Ruairi Quinn I'd be annoyed that he didn't use more self awareness, cop on and discretion.

Had the 2 advisors any special experience with education policy? It didn't seem like they did.

Smidge

Einhard wrote: »

Ah FFS, what a ridiculous post. They were having a few cheap bottles of wine and some biccies before Christmas, like hundreds of thousands of other Irish workers, myself included. It wasn't an indication that they found such cutbacks relaxing or fun, as could be seen from the fact that the cutback were partially reversed. The idea that politicians or their afvisers shouldn't have a few Christmas drinks is nonsense.



Could you point out how exactly you think they are failing at their jobs? I watched the show myself, and while I wasn't overly impressed, I wasn't struck by any particular incompetence.



He had a point. The fact that there are seven schools on the Dingle peninsula is ludicrous and an example of gross ineffiecencies in government spending in Ireland. Try pointing that out however, and you're against rural communities, or hate farmers, or whatever idiotic statement that can be flung by people who are determined to ignore the fact that serious reforms and cutbacks need to be made, not just in education, bit right across the board.

You have missed my point. Did you watch the programme?
I watched some of it and what galled me was the attitude of the people shown in the programme.
From Ruari and his pre-interview rehearsal with his very well paid PR just so that he wouldn't be caught out fecking up live on air.
To yer man "Dingle".
It was HOW they spoke about people to whom they serve as "Public Servants".
It really was a case of "I wish these people would go away and stop bothering us"

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Ah in fairness the 2 boys were clueless. The young fella couldnt wipe his own nose. When he was interviewed and political advisor came up at the bottom of the screen I could only laugh. How Ruair could learn anything off him is beyond me.

They're hardly "young fellas". One of them (as far as I know) is over 30 and the other is in his mid to late 20s.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

For those who didn't witness the disaster, here's a preview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpxehghbe44

Wompa1

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

For those who didn't witness the disaster, here's a preview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpxehghbe44

Wow, personality overload. Somebody hire those guys for the Late Late Show!

Pride Fighter

M three wrote: »

Big point that came up so far was that he cant make any changes to 80% of the education budget, as that much goes towards teachers pay. Far too high a figure. Whats the english equivalent?

The meeting where he was talking to the union and they were asked what 4 changes could they suggest and they just sat there saying nothing summed it all up. They dont give a sh*te about any sort of improvements, they just want as many teachers as possible, getting paid as much as possible, so the fatheads in the union can continue their cushy existence.

The teachers conferences and protests at same are like a bunch of babies squabbling in a playpen

What show where you watching? The tears in the eyes of the teachers were real, they're hardly protesting to keep their cushy pay packets as you put it.

They are fighting for the wellbeing of our nations young. But I suppose you cannot see that due to your ridiculous ideology.

Go and watch a Ron Paul video and stay out of this thread.

Pottler

Pottler wrote: »

Be nice to know what sort of a retainer they are getting. As with most consultants, pay does not relate to efficency, competency or intelligence or even results, it's just a gas number that is known as "sure thats the going rate". General rule with consultants is that you hire someone who knows nothing about your business to come in and look around vacantly, then pen an expensive report advising you to spend a shedload of money on shyte that bears no relationship with reality. Can't see political advisers being much different. What's the point of electing someone if they can't think for themselves but need "advisers" to tell them what to say and do? Might as well just elect the advisers so.

They can't be expected to answer the phone calls from constituents and read the laws. To be honest a lot of what's passed in the Dail would be unintelligible to a majority of people so a friend of someone else in the party will be hired after an arts degree where they did a couple of law or economics modules to "advise" the TD on what's being voted on.

Einhard

mishkalucy wrote: »

[/B]

You have missed my point. Did you watch the programme?

I wouldn't be talking about it if I hadn't watched it.

I watched some of it and what galled me was the attitude of the people shown in
the programme.

What attitude? Seriously, I'm curious. You seem to have taken grave offence from a fairly innocuous programme. I certainly didn't see anything particularly irksome.

From Ruari and his pre-interview rehearsal with his very well paid PR just so
that he wouldn't be caught out fecking up live on air.

I had an interview a few weeks ago, and I rehearsed for it. I certainly don't see anything wrong with having an informal interview before going on air to make sure one's in charge of their facts and figures. I mean, we complain when ministers go on air without knowing what their talking about, and yet we complain when they take time to prepare properly. It seemssometimes that we just enjoy complaining.

To yer man "Dingle".

What about him? Think about it...cameras followed them around for over 6 months, and the main bone of contention for you is how some adviser referred to a sensationalist headline in a privincial newspaper. Were you looking to take offence?

And the point he was making was a valid one- in a time of huge cutbacks, the fact that some people are totally opposed to any closure of small schools when there are seven on the Dingle peninsula lone is ridiculous.

It was HOW they spoke about people to whom they serve as "Public Servants".

Ok give me an example where they spoke offensively about people? I think that open government should be encouraged as much as possible, and therefore the idea of inviting a camera crew in a department should be applauded. However, it's hardly going to happen much further when we have people here condemning people for the most trivial of issues, including *shock horror* having a few work drinks at Christmas. Oh the Humanity!

It really was a case of "I wish these people would go away and stop bothering
us"

They invited a camera crew into their offices. They wanted people to see how they worked. That's the opposite of wanting people to stay away. I think this thread is an example of the same old reflexive condemnation of politicians and all things political which has always plagued Irish discourse on the matter.

Einhard

Pride Fighter wrote: »

What show where you watching? The tears in the eyes of the teachers were real, they're hardly protesting to keep their cushy pay packets as you put it.

They are fighting for the wellbeing of our nations young. But I suppose you cannot see that due to your ridiculous ideology.

Go and watch a Ron Paul video and stay out of this thread.

Just because someone believes in a cause, doesn't mean that that cause is inherently correct. Ireland can no longer afford schools with 20 or 30 children, and no amount of tears will change that.

Tigerandahalf

The main issue for me is why Ruairi Quinn has 4 or 5 political advisors and how he could get any worthwhile advice from 2 lads with what seemed like had no knowledge of education or reality on the ground. The young lad printing off some poster from facebook had all the hallmarks of a lad given a comfy job through contacts and having no idea how lucky he was to have a job. To show that facebook poster in front of the whole country and this guy is down as a political advisor paid out of the public purse.

Tigerandahalf

And how nuch would it cost to build an extension in an amalgamated school? How much would it cost to bus the kids the extra distance. Should a 5 year old have to travel 20 miles to get a primary education. Not everyone can live in the suburbs. Why does Ruairi need 4 or 5 advisors when the country cant keep schools or hospital beds open? It is clear that much hasnt changed within gov circles.

Smidge

Einhard wrote: »

I wouldn't be talking about it if I hadn't watched it.



What attitude? Seriously, I'm curious. You seem to have taken grave offence from a fairly innocuous programme. I certainly didn't see anything particularly irksome.



I had an interview a few weeks ago, and I rehearsed for it. I certainly don't see anything wrong with having an informal interview before going on air to make sure one's in charge of their facts and figures. I mean, we complain when ministers go on air without knowing what their talking about, and yet we complain when they take time to prepare properly. It seemssometimes that we just enjoy complaining.



What about him? Think about it...cameras followed them around for over 6 months, and the main bone of contention for you is how some adviser referred to a sensationalist headline in a privincial newspaper. Were you looking to take offence?

And the point he was making was a valid one- in a time of huge cutbacks, the fact that some people are totally opposed to any closure of small schools when there are seven on the Dingle peninsula lone is ridiculous.



Ok give me an example where they spoke offensively about people? I think that open government should be encouraged as much as possible, and therefore the idea of inviting a camera crew in a department should be applauded. However, it's hardly going to happen much further when we have people here condemning people for the most trivial of issues, including *shock horror* having a few work drinks at Christmas. Oh the Humanity!



They invited a camera crew into their offices. They wanted people to see how they worked. That's the opposite of wanting people to stay away. I think this thread is an example of the same old reflexive condemnation of politicians and all things political which has always plagued Irish discourse on the matter.

I'm not going to bother multi-quoting to reply because we obviously have very different viewpoints on what we have taken from this programme.
I gave my opinion on what I watched, you gave yours.
That's pretty much that.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Pride Fighter wrote: »

What show where you watching? The tears in the eyes of the teachers were real, they're hardly protesting to keep their cushy pay packets as you put it.

They are fighting for the wellbeing of our nations young. But I suppose you cannot see that due to your ridiculous ideology.

Go and watch a Ron Paul video and stay out of this thread.

Isn't he as entitled to his view as anyone else. Teachers aren't the only ones in tears over the way things are going.

Einhard

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

The main issue for me is why Ruairi Quinn has 4 or 5 political advisors and how he could get any worthwhile advice from 2 lads with what seemed like had no knowledge of education or reality on the ground.

Seriously, how do you know these advisers are not up to task? if they're not, they should be fired immediately. But I saw nothing there that would indicate gross incompetence, or even illustrate that they aren't on top of their brief.

I'm a teacher, and since Quinn became minister, there have been moves to implement major reforms in education. I've been quietly impressed by him as a minister. I don't know if those advisers have an impact on the workings of the department, but I assume they do, and I think they therefore deserve credit. To state that they are incompetent on the basis of that programme is grossly unfair; to state they are incompetent on the basis of their age is, some would argue, simply ageist.

The young lad printing off some poster from facebook had all the hallmarks of a
lad given a comfy job through contacts and having no idea how lucky he was to
have a job. To show that facebook poster in front of the whole country and this
guy is down as a political advisor paid out of the public purse.

How on earth did you get that impression? That he had no idea how lucky he was? Were you expecting him to drop to his knees and praise the Lord every minute? He showed a fairly humorous Facebook poster...guess what? Millions of people have done the same thing or similar in work. First off they're condemned for having Christmas drinks, the next they're slammed for showing a poster? For God's sake, I'm all for criticising politicians, but this kind of condemnation is ludicrous, and really just stems from a contempt for the political class in general. I have a feeling that, whatever happened on that programem tonight, people would be attacking those involved.

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

And how nuch would it cost to build an extension in an amalgamated school? How much would it cost to bus the kids the extra distance. Should a 5 year old have to travel 20 miles to get a primary education. Not everyone can live in the suburbs. Why does Ruairi need 4 or 5 advisors when the country cant keep schools or hospital beds open? It is clear that much hasnt changed within gov circles.

I know of schools with less than ten children with two teachers, and support staff. These buildings cost money to equip, heat, insure, open, close, maintain etc. The teaching staff and ancillaries cost hundreds of thousands pa. They are unviable, and in many cases, they need to be closed. Having three schools within 3 miles, as is the case in certain areas of the country, is ludicrous, and obviously some form of amalgamation is required. The fact that some people fail to recognise this basic reality is one of the reasosn why this country is in the state it's in.

Einhard

mishkalucy wrote: »

I'm not going to bother multi-quoting to reply because we obviously have very different viewpoints on what we have taken from this programme.
I gave my opinion on what I watched, you gave yours.
That's pretty much that.

But we agree that I'm right, right?




















Joking!

Smidge

Einhard wrote: »

But we agree that I'm right, right?



Weeellll,
It is late so if it helps you with sleepy time.............


You are SO right and I bow to your ability to convert me.







:pac:





still a bunch of plonkers imvho

Piste

Pottler wrote: »

Can't see political advisers being much different. What's the point of electing someone if they can't think for themselves but need "advisers" to tell them what to say and do? Might as well just elect the advisers so.

Are you honestly suggesting the the Dept. of Education- arguably one of the most important departmenr in the country- should be left to one minister and have no advisors? Seriously?

Cavehill Red

Piste wrote: »

Are you honestly suggesting the the Dept. of Education- arguably one of the most important departmenr in the country- should be left to one minister and have no advisors? Seriously?

Let's cut to the chase here. These advisors - what qualifies them to advise the Education minister exactly? What's on their CVs? Because if they don't include running an educational institution, I don't see what qualifies them to be in their sinecures (other than the usual nepotistic jobs for the boys).
Incidentally, the minister has plenty of advisors already. They're called civil servants and they work for him in the department. Labour initiated this make-work scheme when they went in with FF under Dick Spring. The country can no longer afford to pay two or three party timeservers a fortune each per minister.
Time this crap was put an end to, and ministers went back to drawing on their department staff for expertise.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Let's cut to the chase here.

Okay, Barnaby Jones.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Piste wrote: »

Are you honestly suggesting the the Dept. of Education- arguably one of the most important departmenr in the country- should be left to one minister and have no advisors? Seriously?

Advisors? All they do is photocopying. And I don't think those guys have any qualifications that would help them advise Quinn on matters regarding educational policy any better than he can advise himself. Quinn himself has decades more political experience than those two guys and already occupied the position of Minister for Education in the 90s. Of course a minister shouldn't be left without advisors to make important decisions, but choosing those guys as his advisors is downright nonsense. What advice can they give him? They basically got their position because they were affiliated with the Labour Party, not because of their qualifications relevant to the field of education, which for them is zero seemingly. In my opinion, the documentary is a real insight into the mismanagement of the Department of Education and possibly nepotism/favouritism therein, which of course is unacceptable because, as you say, it is one of the most important departments in the country.

WumBuster

Id imagine they would have something like Politics & sociology degrees or something like that. They were hardly just picked off the street randomly with no qualifications and asked to be government advisors

Einhard

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Let's cut to the chase here. These advisors - what qualifies them to advise the Education minister exactly? What's on their CVs? Because if they don't include running an educational institution, I don't see what qualifies them to be in their sinecures (other than the usual nepotistic jobs for the boys).
Incidentally, the minister has plenty of advisors already. They're called civil servants and they work for him in the department. Labour initiated this make-work scheme when they went in with FF under Dick Spring. The country can no longer afford to pay two or three party timeservers a fortune each per minister.
Time this crap was put an end to, and ministers went back to drawing on their department staff for expertise.

I'd agree very much with most of what you say. If departmental advisers can't provide a requisite level of insight and expertise, then they shouldn't be in that position. I'm not entirely sure though, that only people with experience in a sector should be candidates for such positions. There is such a thing as a fresh perspective, and that might be lost under such a regime. For example, a business person with experience of managing large organisations might be a far better choice for head of the HSE than a departmental insider or medical professional, and the same might apply to lower echelons. I agree though, the jobs for the boys mentality should cease. The point I was making, is that the two advisers in the programme didn't seem incompetent- of course, the programme was somewhat shallow so we saw nothing really of their work. My point is, that so many of the criticisms here stem not so much from the content of the prgramme itself, but from a reflexive contempt for the political process in general. As I mentioned, this thread and the comments herein would exist regardless of what had happened on the programme.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

WumBuster wrote: »

Id imagine they would have something like Politics & sociology degrees or something like that. They were hardly just picked off the street randomly with no qualifications and asked to be government advisors

An advisor to the Minister for Education should have some sort of qualification in the field of education and probably have had years experience teaching/lecturing or similar ... or at least to me that makes more sense than someone who has degrees in politics or history. An advisor, suprisingly enough, is meant to advise the Minister on something he mightn't be too well versed in ... from Quinn's own track record there seems little these two boyos can advise him on when it comes to managing a ministerial portfolio.

Einhard

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Advisors? All they do is photocopying. And I don't think those guys have any qualifications that would help them advise Quinn on matters regarding educational policy any better than he can advise himself. Quinn himself was has decades more political experience than those two guys and already occupied the position of Minister for Education in the 90s. Of course a minister shouldn't be left without advisors to make important decisions, but choosing those guys as his advisors is downright nonsense. What advice can they give him? They basically got their position because they were affiliated with the Labour Party, not because of their qualifications relevant to the field of education, which for them is zero seemingly. In my opinion, the documentary is a real insight into the mismanagement of the Department of Education and possibly nepotism/favouritism therein, which of course is unacceptable because, as you say, it is one of the most important departments in the country.

I'm sorry, but do you have some information on the two men in question, or are you just making this up off the top off your head? It'a quite possible that what you say is true, but it's equally possible that that's not the case at all.

Also: just to note, Quinn was never Minister for Education.

Cavehill Red

Einhard wrote: »

I'd agree very much with most of what you say. If departmental advisers can't provide a requisite level of insight and expertise, then they shouldn't be in that position. I'm not entirely sure though, that only people with experience in a sector should be candidates for such positions. There is such a thing as a fresh perspective, and that might be lost under such a regime. For example, a business person with experience of managing large organisations might be a far better choice for head of the HSE than a departmental insider or medical professional, and the same might apply to lower echelons. I agree though, the jobs for the boys mentality should cease. The point I was making, is that the two advisers in the programme didn't seem incompetent- of course, the programme was somewhat shallow so we saw nothing really of their work. My point is, that so many of the criticisms here stem not so much from the content of the prgramme itself, but from a reflexive contempt for the political process in general. As I mentioned, this thread and the comments herein would exist regardless of what had happened on the programme.

Possibly. We'll never know. That's a counterfactual argument.
I think it is more than fair criticism to demand what the criteria was for hiring these two, what the appointment process was, and what their relevant previous experience was. On their wages, and you can be sure that they are multiples of the average industrial wage, one could have the pick of people with extensive real life experience such as people the age of these two could not possibly have obtained.
My guess, without knowing anything about them, is that they are Labour Party timeservers, in the fold from a young age, climbing the greasy pole, whose sole qualification to serve as advisor is that they have volunteered their services to campaign for the Labour Party in the past.
It's irrelevant whether they have degrees in politics or not. They're not politicians, and there are literally hundreds of politics grads out there with the same degrees.
The state functioned perfectly adequately without such advisors up until very recently, and the emergence of this class has hardly showered itself in glory. One thinks of Monica Leech's thousand quid a day to holiday with Cullen, when he already had a PRO in the department, for example.
It's a sinecure for party members, and it's a gravy train the country can't afford, doesn't need and the cuts should fall here first.
Let the minister seek his advice from the people who best know the runnings of the Department of Education - the senior civil servants within it.