Tying the credibility of a minister to the credibility of an entire government...

hatrickpatrick

...and the damage this causes to Irish politics.

Recently there have been mounting calls for Alan Shatter to either resign or be sacked. In the case of James Reilly, there were similar calls when his favouritism over primary care centres was revealed to the public. Harry Angstrom and My Name if URL were suggesting in the thread about the Garda whistleblower that if this incident had happened in the UK, Shatter would have been out the door long before this. Yet in Ireland, the government and the Taoiseach will back their ministers to the hilt, under practically any circumstances. Why is this?

My theory is that in Ireland, we and the opposition tend to tie the performance and credibility of individuals with that of the entire government. Any time a Minister DOES resign or there is talk of one resigning of being forced to resign, chatter starts up around "This government is falling apart" "The coalition is on very shaky ground" "General Election in 5, 4, 3..." etc etc etc. In my view, this is corrosive - it effectively forces a government to back chancers and defend the utterly indefensible until kingdom come, because if they don't, the stability of the entire government will be called into question by the media and the opposition. In other words, in order to look credible, a government in Ireland must never break ranks and oust one of their own, for whatever reason, because if it does, it reflects badly on the entire government and opens opportunities for them to be attacked from several different angles.

Does anyone else feel that this is becoming a serious problem? I strongly suspect that the only reason Shatter is being backed by this government is because they feel that the loss of any minister equals the loss of the government's reputation as a whole. We've seen this time and again, when ministers do something indefensible and the government closes ranks around them instead of saying "yeah in fairness, this guy f*cked up pretty bad, reckon it's time to give someone else a go".

Thoughts? Anyone reckon this theory holds water and if so, how can we tackle it somehow? How do we make it so as, as it should be, a government will be praised and rewarded for doing the right thing and getting rid of one of their own, when that individual has disgraced him or herself?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My theory is that in Ireland, we and the opposition tend to tie the performance and credibility of individuals with that of the entire government. Any time a Minister DOES resign or there is talk of one resigning of being forced to resign, chatter starts up around "This government is falling apart" "The coalition is on very shaky ground" "General Election in 5, 4, 3..." etc etc etc. In my view, this is corrosive - it effectively forces a government to back chancers and defend the utterly indefensible until kingdom come, because if they don't, the stability of the entire government will be called into question by the media and the opposition.

I think you're right. Much of it is down to the extreme adversarial approach to politics in this country - it's a bloodsport, and the only thing that matters is winning. Once an election result is known, the opposition see it as pretty much their sole function to bring the government down, and any excuse will do.

I don't know how you fix it, though.

renegademaster

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Does anyone else feel that this is becoming a serious problem? I strongly suspect that the only reason Shatter is being backed by this government is because they feel that the loss of any minister equals the loss of the government's reputation as a whole. We've seen this time and again, when ministers do something indefensible and the government closes ranks around them instead of saying "yeah in fairness, this guy f*cked up pretty bad, reckon it's time to give someone else a go".

Thoughts? Anyone reckon this theory holds water and if so, how can we tackle it somehow? How do we make it so as, as it should be, a government will be praised and rewarded for doing the right thing and getting rid of one of their own, when that individual has disgraced him or herself?

or it could be your typical outcome where the minister knows too much about too many people for anyone to challenge him, but if we marched until even the untouchable cannot continue in their jobs we will have won and shown the next crowd we will take no more $hit

renegademaster

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think you're right. Much of it is down to the extreme adversarial approach to politics in this country - it's a bloodsport, and the only thing that matters is winning. Once an election result is known, the opposition see it as pretty much their sole function to bring the government down, and any excuse will do.

I don't know how you fix it, though.

you're not alone

hatrickpatrick

renegademaster wrote: »

or it could be your typical outcome where the minister knows too much about too many people for anyone to challenge him, but if we marched until even the untouchable cannot continue in their jobs we will have won and shown the next crowd we will take no more $hit

But again you're talking of ousting the entire government, which (while arguably desirable >_>) is exactly the reason governments refuse to get rid of ministers who screw up. The second this happens, it's seized upon as a sign of weakness by the opposition and used to further subject the government to political assault, as opposed to saying "fair play, you're willing to admit when one of your own guys isn't doing a good enough job and take action to fix it".

renegademaster

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But again you're talking of ousting the entire government, which (while arguably desirable >_>) is exactly the reason governments refuse to get rid of ministers who screw up. The second this happens, it's seized upon as a sign of weakness by the opposition and used to further subject the government to political assault, as opposed to saying "fair play, you're willing to admit when one of your own guys isn't doing a good enough job and take action to fix it".

we could leave the government where they are but at leas flew our muscles a little to show they better quit the bull$hit imediately and if they don't we flex again and again until they do.

by continually doing nothing what does that say to them all??

jonniebgood1

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know how you fix it, though.

A responsible dictatorship...

???

Silentcorner

Whatever about the credibility of the current government, my problem is the complete disregard for the credibility of the entire system of governance. The credibility of the judiciary, the credibility of the public health system, the education system, in fact most arms of the state.

It is/should be a criminal act to abuse standards in high office, the parameters of that abuse can not be decided by the political establishment, what happens is Government Ministers/Politicians will just neck it out, in the full knowledge that another scandal is around the corner that will deflect from theirs, and by the time the next general elections come around the vast majority of voters will have forgotten those scandals (nobody could possibly remember all of them) or will have become completely conditioned to them, a new government is elected and off we go for another 5 years of abuse.

We have a high tolerance for abuse in this country, it is that character flaw in us that allows our establishment abuse it's power, it also has proven to be very damaging economically and socially, we need to protect ourselves from it, that begins at the highest level of government.

oscarBravo

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

A responsible dictatorship...

I'll vote for you.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll vote for you.

That won't be necessary

renegademaster

Silentcorner wrote: »

Whatever about the credibility of the current government, my problem is the complete disregard for the credibility of the entire system of governance. The credibility of the judiciary, the credibility of the public health system, the education system, in fact most arms of the state.

It is/should be a criminal act to abuse standards in high office, the parameters of that abuse can not be decided by the political establishment, what happens is Government Ministers/Politicians will just neck it out, in the full knowledge that another scandal is around the corner that will deflect from theirs, and by the time the next general elections come around the vast majority of voters will have forgotten those scandals (nobody could possibly remember all of them) or will have become completely conditioned to them, a new government is elected and off we go for another 5 years of abuse.

We have a high tolerance for abuse in this country, it is that character flaw in us that allows our establishment abuse it's power, it also has proven to be very damaging economically and socially, we need to protect ourselves from it, that begins at the highest level of government.

some do and that's why we're so eager to get out onto the streets but it's brutally obvious that most of the country aren't quite there yet unfortunately

it puts those already fed up enough to try do something about it in such a ****ty position of having to sit around watching things get progressively worse and the more that comes out the more people dig their heels in to do nothing

bobcoffee

I do like the direction and trying to look out side of the box with this OP.
However I do disagree with why governments/leaders back these people.
Our corruption is so bad that basically to be a top dog at all you have to get your beak wet.

So if a minister actually got forced out the way they should be (like in england).
Then there is a really high chance of that minister opening their mouth.
Which is what top ranking officials fear.

Its not like these guys just walked in and created the scenario's.
More like they continue them..

raymon

To the op : you say that you think that predicting the demise of the government is corrosive.

Yet any time someone predicts the fall of the government you thank the post.

For example here via a post you just thanked.

Banjo String wrote: »

I forsee more and more emerging from the woodwork now as more and more get disillusioned by the current setup.

I don't think this Govt will make it to summer.

I'm confused by this OP.

hatrickpatrick

raymon wrote: »

To the op : you say that you think that predicting the demise of the government is corrosive.

Yet any time someone predicts the fall of the government you thank the post.

For example here via a post you just thanked.





I'm confused by this OP.

First of all, in that specific instance I was liking the idea of a bunch of further whistleblowera emerging, not the part about the government falling.

Secondly, I'd love it if this government did fall, it needs a firm kick up the ass, but that's not because of the performance of any specific minister, and if they got rid of shatter (and callinan if possible) I'd actually have a lot of praise for them, for doing the right thing.

bobcoffee

but then its replaced by another tool and so on.
need some real laws to solve this issue or at least judges who will enforce them.

(tinfoil hat on) it is just really hard to see how far corruption goes down the rabbit hole.
really I think a one time, spill the beans and walk no matter what is said is needed.
then those who stay quite and ends up they were part of something get brought to court.
save tax payers a fortune and might give a chance for a real government to function.

hatrickpatrick

bobcoffee wrote: »

but then its replaced by another tool and so on.
need some real laws to solve this issue or at least judges who will enforce them.

(tinfoil hat on) it is just really hard to see how far corruption goes down the rabbit hole.
really I think a one time, spill the beans and walk no matter what is said is needed.
then those who stay quite and ends up they were part of something get brought to court.
save tax payers a fortune and might give a chance for a real government to function.

A Good Friday style amnesty? I'm in two minds about this, on one hand it would mean getting to the bottom of everything, on the other hand it would mean letting a bunch of people off the hook when they should be behind bars...

bobcoffee

I agree 100% but think of all the costs, the billions spent on bringing them to court.
Then the money spent of on housing them.
To me that is school, hospital, local amenities and so on.

hatrickpatrick

bobcoffee wrote: »

I agree 100% but think of all the costs, the billions spent on bringing them to court.
Then the money spent of on housing them.
To me that is school, hospital, local amenities and so on.

That's a good argument, but consider this: The purpose of punishment is deterrent, right? I mean for example, I've spoken many times on AH about my iPhone being stolen by a guy who turned out to have been arrested for the same offense before but let off by the judge. My issue with that has never been that he didn't suffer for his crime, I really couldn't give a f*ck about that (it won't get me back my phone with the videos I hadn't had in my last backup for instance), but that arguably if he'd been punished for it, he mightn't have done it again, and others would be too afraid to do it knowing they'd end up doing some time.

Now think about all the money we're going to lose indefinitely into the future if our culture of endemic corruption is passed from generation to generation. It's already cost us something in the region of €80bn! If we did in fact manage to convict a sizable number of the corrupt, yes it would be instantaneously expensive in terms of court, lawyers, housing etc - but the benefit for the future would be incalculable, since any future establishment figure who considers going down the path of corruption would look at what happened to this shower and think "Hang on, if I get caught... Totally not worth it."

I'd argue in fact that had the corrupt of the Haughey eras ever actually done serious time (as opposed to simply being told they're naughty by a toothless tribunal years later), some of the current and recent corruption might not have happened. Hell, if I was in power and I had any inclination to corruption, and I looked at those implicated by the Mahon tribunal languishing in the 'Joy, well that'd certainly make me think "Ehhhhh, no thanks. Not worth it by a long shot."

Of course, there's a debate to be had about which is more costly. I agree that in the short term, chasing down corruption is mind bogglingly expensive, but I'd argue that for example, it could save us from ever having to pay for a bank guarantee again, or for a dysfunctional health service management system, etc etc etc.

bobcoffee

well first point about the phone, actually chances are the guy would go through the system and end up doing worse stuff then robbing a phone.
It does happen fyi, criminal career doesn't start till ye get locked up (for some ofc).

Actually if we go back to Haughey years, done the whole clean slate, used the information to create new laws to make sure this cannot happen with out serious penalty, I believe we might have had a real celtic tiger (my opinion is we got computers and country could run at efficient rate, yes epic tinfoil hat moment).

I do believe if you get anywhere into top ranking positions (not just TD's) you have to get your beak wet.
The whole scratch me back and I'll scratch yours syndrome that plagues this country.
If there is some truth to that then that mean, politicians, police, courts and all that are just as bad as each other.
So doing what your saying to me is impossible, with only waiting for the old to die with the delusion that the young might change something as far too much corruption for any actual justice to happen.
If there is not going to be much justice except for one or 2 guys being a fall guy then the whole process would go to waste.

these guys are getting paid a prity penny, surely a contract that holds them to the full extent of the law could easily be signed.
They make a FORTUNE, who wouldn't sign it... the corrupt? :P