Non-TDs as Ministers

Zynks

With the news today that "the Constitutional Convention has voted in favour of allowing non-members of the Oireachtas to be appointed as government ministers", the idea proposed in the "ancient" OP is again relevant.

For historic reasons, I read the thread and found some good points and skeletons worthy of being revisited.

Zynks wrote: »

Can anyone confirm if there is any legislation that allows a non TD to take the role? If not, it may be time to hit the roads and demand an emergency change in the legislation, this is an national emergency after all....

Several billion euros later, we are still depending on politicians lacking the required competence about economics running the show, and being guided by unknown 'experts'...

Hagar wrote: »

Not a chance, he's part of the ruling dynasty passed on from father to son. He'll still be here at the next election and he will be voted back in by the faithful regardless of how he performs now. It's Ireland get real, we have a hidden monarchy.

Didn't happen, but the FF zombie apocalypse could be knocking on our doors soon if we are to believe the polls.

Zynks wrote: »

I am saying I would like a qualified person appointed...by the Taoiseach (for which position I would like to vote directly incidentally).

Nobody in the Dail was elected for their financial knowledge. Why should we then be restricted to one of them to run the DoF?

There is a better chance of a good financial head being picked in the "open market" than of a TD proving to be a good MoF.

And the same applies to all ministerial positions.

rugbyman wrote: »

.........
The gaffe over the 7 bn however, hard to overlook. While Brian has to shoulder the blame.some of his advisors need demotion.

I would not like to see him resign

I think the case of the missing €7Bn was completely forgotten, and absolutely nobody was affected by the blunder other than the taxpayer.

ejmaztec wrote: »

Assuming that neither Cowen, Lenihan, or anyone else in the government, know feck all about economics, I'd like to know who the "economists" are that are calling the shots. Any ideas?

The conclusion was that there were 2 high level economists in the DoF. By an ad circulating today, they may be now trying to bring the first ones in. Wow, that is what I call delayed reaction.

old boy wrote: »

hagar is correct, nothing changes, he will not resign, plus the opposition do not have the know how to force his or any others resignation, not alone do i detest f.f i actually despise them, but to me the opposition could have a carboard cut out for a leader and they would fare out no worse or no better than they are at the moment, this country is crying out for a leader, what have we, only grey clueless bemonths, i am in the autumn of my life and i have given up the hope that i will see this country with a leader, are all the years of people going to collage end in waste, young people put your knowlage to productive use, do not waste the oppertunitys that i and my equals worked and suffered to put in place go to waste, (and were unadvailable to us), elect a leader, please forgive my rant.

This made me sad...

ninty9er wrote: »

....Getting rid of soneone who is learning from their mistakes so someone else can restart the process is a folly with no other purpose than to appease the naysayers and ABFF crowd like Darragh29 and old boy. As a member of the party, there are ministers I have a belief in, and those I don't. Lenihan is one of the most competent people in cabinet. It would be pointless to replace him.
....
Again. No one person anywhere has this expertise.
....

Zynks wrote: »

ninty9er, I appreciate your honesty in clarifying where you stand regarding party loyalty. But I disagree with the concept that a MoF role should allow for much of a learning curve. The economy is complex, specially when external factors have so much influence in ours, so getting someone with economics background would reduce significantly the teething problems.

Mr. Lenihan may be a competent person as you mention, and even a very good politician. But those credentials mean nothing when the subject at hand is the economy of a country.

But I see your point that it would be pointless to replace him. Yes, if the choices are restricted to the member of the Dail (technically they don't have to be from FF, right?), then it seems we are stuck alright, and we will have to fund as many learning mistakes as it takes.

Boy, have we funded those mistakes...

jmayo wrote: »

.............
Weren't you one of those on boards telling us all at the time of the last election what a wonderful job they (your party) had done and that the only ones that could run our economy was FF ?
Are you now saying that the minister needs to loose a few billion to get the hang of things :rolleyes:

Are you now admitting FF did not have the expertise to run things ?
.........

nesf wrote: »

I would agree with you but we're stuck for the moment with the system we have so we're at the mercy of what the people elect and bluntly finely nuanced logic and analysis isn't something that they vote for. When I look at the rest of the front bench I don't see much to replace Lenihan with.

We probably could switch Lenihan for Noonan and the argument might still stand, except for Bruton. I still think that we are better off getting someone who really know what s/he is talking about rather than risk having no choice at all in the next Dail.

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I agree with the notion (and that's all it would ever be in Banana-Ire-land) that an MoF does not need to be from the ranks of the TDs.

Even moreso now, this country needs at least a finance team with competence in this role.

But, it's jobs for the boys time and to feck with the country.

We should find out if they still think so. I would very much like to see this change allowing non-politicians taking key ministerial positions, even if this late. There is still scope for further messes that we certainly don't need.

Scofflaw

Split off from ancient thread. Unfortunately, the amendments proposed as part of the Seanad abolition look likely to go very much against the grain of the Constitutional Convention's suggestions. I appreciate that those proposed amendments are fundamentally tidying post-abolition rather than representing new thinking, but they do close the door entirely on non-TDs as Ministers by removing the only other possibility, which was that 2 Ministers could be Senators (and thus appointees). Instead, the proposed amendments require all Ministers to be members of the Dáil.

cordially,
Scofflaw