Ruair Quinn and his ahem advisors

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

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 educational matters.

Why would someone with experience in teaching maths/english/whatever to children necessarily be better at providing advice on balancing a budget or managing employees? It would certainly be relevant to advising on the curriculum, but in reality the very top of the DoE has not very much to do with the actual intricacies of education. Same with the upper management of any organisation, the actual people don't necessarily have to have qualifications to do with the company's main operations.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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..

I think it's legitimate to seek information on their qualifications, and their capabilities, and then criticise them or not based on that information. I don;t think it's fair to criticse a person without having the pertinent information to hand.

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.

As someone said, one was in his early 30s. I don't think that's too young to be in such a position as was shown in this programme.

I agree with you that the younger man in particular was likely to have attained his position because of Labour connections, and that should be criticised if true. However, I don't think he came across particularly badly in this programmes, namely because it wasn't a very indepth production.

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.

And that system should be brought to an end. My contention though, was with the posters condemning the two in question because of their actions and words in this programme, which weren't at all objectionable, especially when one considers that they had been filmed for 6 months.

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

I don't agree with this. There are only two economists with docotrates in the Dept of Finance for example. I would hope that noonan and Howlin would have some outside people with the relevant expertise advising them, especially after the litany of failures in Finance over the past decade. I think that, if anything, senior civil servants are often far more conservative than politicians, and demanding that politicians depend only on departmental advise and insight risks them becoming hostage to that same conservative ideology. All positions should be advertised and allocated in an open and fair manner; however, I don't think we should deafen ministers to fresh thinking.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Because ultimately, where does the money go? Ultimately, it trickles down to classrooms/ lecture theaters all over the country, or at least that's it's intention. Who better to advise the Minister on the allocation of vital funding for educational resources (bar salaries of teachers of course, we all know the slippery slope that could lead to) than teachers/lecturers themselves who direct the classroom. It's the people on the ground who know where the funding is needed, not bureaucrats.

Would you think that the ground level employees of McDonald's, for instance, would be qualified to advise on running the whole operation? To make the odd suggestion about the day to day running, yes, but not on managing production budgets, salaries, dealing with suppliers etc.

I realise that a ground level McDonald's employee is totally different to a teacher, but I can't really see how ex-teachers would be particularly good at doing anything other than advising on the curriculum, or suggesting the odd new incentive (given that they'd be out of touch with the day to day workings of a school, and can't advise on what particular areas in one particular school are over or underfunded, or see the effects of new policy other than through anecdote).